FIA Thread

[Zynerji]

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

But why spend money developing an advantage if it is immediately given away? It strikes at the very core of competitive motorsport in a prototype series - which is what F1 is. Why would a company spend money to benefit their competitors?

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The whole thing feels like a solution looking for a problem. This isn't the problem that the solution is intended for, sorry.

Don't forget, there is a HUGE increase in purse in a setup like this. If P1 in WCC won 1.5 billion, I'm sure people will spend to compete!

They already "give away" updates. Once a car hits the track, you already understand the amount of pictures, 3d models, analysis and conversation goes on around every change. My concept simply removes the media speculation with facts, and the need for each team to do this reverse engineering.

No one can point to a concept that was a huge differentiator that was copied in a week. The most recent that I can think is the center loaded front wing design from Alfa Romeo a few years ago. It still took half a season to see copies!

[diffuser]

Game theory says different. All PU makers currently use TJI. Each one spent hundreds of millions to develop in isolation, and ended up at the same place. So, a billion dollar spend to have a "spec" engine tech.

Costs go down as teams share research to reduce the redundancy, and the reverse engineering.

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

After thinking on it, I think the idea has merit. There are going to be bugs to work out in it. I can't see how you work out the kinks on a big stage like F1.

[Zynerji]

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

After thinking on it, I think the idea has merit. There are going to be bugs to work out in it. I can't see how you work out the kinks on a big stage like F1.

This is where the blockchain idea really shows its value.

[Just_a_fan]

The simplest position is to just have the FIA design the car and say "this is F1, who wants to play?".

That's effectively what your scheme is doing it just adds a load of middlemen adding cost for no gain.

Your idea is effectively a spec series where someone is making a killing from providing a long winded way of developing the spec.

[diffuser]

The simplest position is to just have the FIA design the car and say "this is F1, who wants to play?".

That's effectively what your scheme is doing it just adds a load of middlemen adding cost for no gain.

Your idea is effectively a spec series where someone is making a killing from providing a long winded way of developing the spec.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that instead of the teams spending millions to reverse engineer stuff from pictures. Just make the data available (after a certain amount of time) and keep building on it while selling that data to third parties at a later date to fund the teams. Kind of what they do in Linux , if you use the codes you have to share what you changed and how you used it. He's saying that teams are doing this now but spending millions to learn from each other. Obviously what's critical here is
1- The amount of time before you have to share data (to quickly and it takes away the advantage from the learning, too long and the other teams have already learned on their own.
2- Can you actually Monetise the data , he says yes but I have no clue.


There is a history here again with Linuxes where they get investment from the likes or HPE, Amazon, google, etc to drive development and to drive it in a direction.


UEFI was soemthing developed my many companies and is open.

[Just_a_fan]

The simplest position is to just have the FIA design the car and say "this is F1, who wants to play?".

That's effectively what your scheme is doing it just adds a load of middlemen adding cost for no gain.

Your idea is effectively a spec series where someone is making a killing from providing a long winded way of developing the spec.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that instead of the teams spending millions to reverse engineer stuff from pictures. Just make the data available (after a certain amount of time) and keep building on it while selling that data to third parties at a later date to fund the teams. Kind of what they do in Linux , if you use the codes you have to share what you changed and how you used it. He's saying that teams are doing this now but spending millions to learn from each other. Obviously what's critical here is
1- The amount of time before you have to share data (to quickly and it takes away the advantage from the learning, too long and the other teams have already learned on their own.
2- Can you actually Monetise the data , he says yes but I have no clue.


There is a history here again with Linuxes where they get investment from the likes or HPE, Amazon, google, etc to drive development and to drive it in a direction.


UEFI was soemthing developed my many companies and is open.

If you factor in a period of grace for the originating team before it goes in to the common pool, you'll still have teams trying to reverse engineer it to get the item before it becomes common property. That immediately kills off the point of the idea.

If you don't have a period of grace for the originating team, then there is no reason for a team to try to come up with something that improves their performance because it will immediately shared with their competitors and so they gain little, if any, advantage. You kill innovation stone dead.

It is just a non-starter for entirely obvious reasons. It might work well in environments where sharing and cross-pollination is in the common good e.g. open source software, but it's no good at all in a fiercely competitive sporting environment.

I don't understand how anyone fails to see this obvious flaw. It is, after all, obvious!

[johnny comelately]

The simplest position is to just have the FIA design the car and say "this is F1, who wants to play?".

That's effectively what your scheme is doing it just adds a load of middlemen adding cost for no gain.

Your idea is effectively a spec series where someone is making a killing from providing a long winded way of developing the spec.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that instead of the teams spending millions to reverse engineer stuff from pictures. Just make the data available (after a certain amount of time) and keep building on it while selling that data to third parties at a later date to fund the teams. Kind of what they do in Linux , if you use the codes you have to share what you changed and how you used it. He's saying that teams are doing this now but spending millions to learn from each other. Obviously what's critical here is
1- The amount of time before you have to share data (to quickly and it takes away the advantage from the learning, too long and the other teams have already learned on their own.
2- Can you actually Monetise the data , he says yes but I have no clue.


There is a history here again with Linuxes where they get investment from the likes or HPE, Amazon, google, etc to drive development and to drive it in a direction.


UEFI was soemthing developed my many companies and is open.

If you factor in a period of grace for the originating team before it goes in to the common pool, you'll still have teams trying to reverse engineer it to get the item before it becomes common property. That immediately kills off the point of the idea.

If you don't have a period of grace for the originating team, then there is no reason for a team to try to come up with something that improves their performance because it will immediately shared with their competitors and so they gain little, if any, advantage. You kill innovation stone dead.

It is just a non-starter for entirely obvious reasons. It might work well in environments where sharing and cross-pollination is in the common good e.g. open source software, but it's no good at all in a fiercely competitive sporting environment.

I don't understand how anyone fails to see this obvious flaw. It is, after all, obvious!

Same principle as patents.
Whose original intent was to get ideas out and available for the progress of society.

[Just_a_fan]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that instead of the teams spending millions to reverse engineer stuff from pictures. Just make the data available (after a certain amount of time) and keep building on it while selling that data to third parties at a later date to fund the teams. Kind of what they do in Linux , if you use the codes you have to share what you changed and how you used it. He's saying that teams are doing this now but spending millions to learn from each other. Obviously what's critical here is
1- The amount of time before you have to share data (to quickly and it takes away the advantage from the learning, too long and the other teams have already learned on their own.
2- Can you actually Monetise the data , he says yes but I have no clue.


There is a history here again with Linuxes where they get investment from the likes or HPE, Amazon, google, etc to drive development and to drive it in a direction.


UEFI was soemthing developed my many companies and is open.

If you factor in a period of grace for the originating team before it goes in to the common pool, you'll still have teams trying to reverse engineer it to get the item before it becomes common property. That immediately kills off the point of the idea.

If you don't have a period of grace for the originating team, then there is no reason for a team to try to come up with something that improves their performance because it will immediately shared with their competitors and so they gain little, if any, advantage. You kill innovation stone dead.

It is just a non-starter for entirely obvious reasons. It might work well in environments where sharing and cross-pollination is in the common good e.g. open source software, but it's no good at all in a fiercely competitive sporting environment.

I don't understand how anyone fails to see this obvious flaw. It is, after all, obvious!

Same principle as patents.
Whose first motive was to get ideas out and available for the progress of society.

But this idea is exactly contrary to patents. A patent protects an idea and allows a patent holder a monopoly for a period of time - usually several years. The idea put forth here is more akin to open source. I.e. not like a patent at all.

[johnny comelately]

If you factor in a period of grace for the originating team before it goes in to the common pool, you'll still have teams trying to reverse engineer it to get the item before it becomes common property. That immediately kills off the point of the idea.

If you don't have a period of grace for the originating team, then there is no reason for a team to try to come up with something that improves their performance because it will immediately shared with their competitors and so they gain little, if any, advantage. You kill innovation stone dead.

It is just a non-starter for entirely obvious reasons. It might work well in environments where sharing and cross-pollination is in the common good e.g. open source software, but it's no good at all in a fiercely competitive sporting environment.

I don't understand how anyone fails to see this obvious flaw. It is, after all, obvious!

Same principle as patents.
Whose first motive was to get ideas out and available for the progress of society.

But this idea is exactly contrary to patents. A patent protects an idea and allows a patent holder a monopoly for a period of time - usually several years. The idea put forth here is more akin to open source. I.e. not like a patent at all.

"...If you factor in a period of grace for the originating team..."
?

[Just_a_fan]

Same principle as patents.
Whose first motive was to get ideas out and available for the progress of society.

But this idea is exactly contrary to patents. A patent protects an idea and allows a patent holder a monopoly for a period of time - usually several years. The idea put forth here is more akin to open source. I.e. not like a patent at all.

"...If you factor in a period of grace for the originating team..."
?

Ah, yes, I see what you meant now.

But as I mentioned, that wouldn't help the original aim of trying to reduce money wasted on reverse engineering etc., as the teams would still do that to get around the period of grace that the originating team would enjoy.

[Big Tea]

If you factor in a period of grace for the originating team before it goes in to the common pool, you'll still have teams trying to reverse engineer it to get the item before it becomes common property. That immediately kills off the point of the idea.

If you don't have a period of grace for the originating team, then there is no reason for a team to try to come up with something that improves their performance because it will immediately shared with their competitors and so they gain little, if any, advantage. You kill innovation stone dead.

It is just a non-starter for entirely obvious reasons. It might work well in environments where sharing and cross-pollination is in the common good e.g. open source software, but it's no good at all in a fiercely competitive sporting environment.

I don't understand how anyone fails to see this obvious flaw. It is, after all, obvious!

Same principle as patents.
Whose first motive was to get ideas out and available for the progress of society.

But this idea is exactly contrary to patents. A patent protects an idea and allows a patent holder a monopoly for a period of time - usually several years. The idea put forth here is more akin to open source. I.e. not like a patent at all.

The original idea of a patent was 'yes, only you can make it for X time, but you have to give up ALL the details so that when that time is up, anyone can make it without losing any 'tec' '. So if following this line not only the item but the development and 'science' (for want of a better word) if in the public domain. It would be very difficult to keep a rolling head start if as well as seeing the 'item' the work behind it is published.

I can see it would be a good idea for the world in general, but the originating team would be a dead end as everyone would be in the same position. I do not think teams would be prepared to to put the development costs in without the carry over benefits.

[Just_a_fan]

Same principle as patents.
Whose first motive was to get ideas out and available for the progress of society.

But this idea is exactly contrary to patents. A patent protects an idea and allows a patent holder a monopoly for a period of time - usually several years. The idea put forth here is more akin to open source. I.e. not like a patent at all.

The original idea of a patent was 'yes, only you can make it for X time, but you have to give up ALL the details so that when that time is up, anyone can make it without losing any 'tec' '. So if following this line not only the item but the development and 'science' (for want of a better word) if in the public domain. It would be very difficult to keep a rolling head start if as well as seeing the 'item' the work behind it is published.

I can see it would be a good idea for the world in general, but the originating team would be a dead end as everyone would be in the same position. I do not think teams would be prepared to to put the development costs in without the carry over benefits.

Exactly. Why do the hard work to just give the thing to your competitors? No team would do that. None.

It's a great idea in a collaborative situation such as open source software, but a non-starter in any competitive environment.

[diffuser]

The FIA informs that the conclusion of the analysis of the 2021 financial submissions of the Formula 1 teams and the subsequent release of Certificates of Compliance to the Financial Regulations will not take place on Wednesday, 5 October. The analysis of financial submissions is a long and complex process that is ongoing and will be concluded to enable the release of the Certificates on Monday, 10 October.

They do not want to embarass Honda infront Japan fans ?

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-statement- ... ulations-0

[mzivtins]

The FIA informs that the conclusion of the analysis of the 2021 financial submissions of the Formula 1 teams and the subsequent release of Certificates of Compliance to the Financial Regulations will not take place on Wednesday, 5 October. The analysis of financial submissions is a long and complex process that is ongoing and will be concluded to enable the release of the Certificates on Monday, 10 October.

They do not want to embarass Honda infront Japan fans ?

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-statement- ... ulations-0

It isn't really acceptable to say something so pathetic as "The analysis of financial submissions is a long and complex process that is ongoing"

That is just insulting to anyone with a mild intelligence. We appreciate the analysis IS complex, but that is why you have the right people to do that, which they do have.

So I fully agree, this just sounds like facts and data being treated as the problem due to reputational impact. Essentially holding back data and truth because it might hurt a brands social image... pathetic nonsense.

You go over the cost cap by £1 then you went over, thats it, what is the problem with that information!?!? Im starting to grow resentful over F1, to me motor racing was always the purest form of sport, because the stop watch and data never lie, but in F1, neither matters when it should matter the most.

[Just_a_fan]

The FIA informs that the conclusion of the analysis of the 2021 financial submissions of the Formula 1 teams and the subsequent release of Certificates of Compliance to the Financial Regulations will not take place on Wednesday, 5 October. The analysis of financial submissions is a long and complex process that is ongoing and will be concluded to enable the release of the Certificates on Monday, 10 October.

They do not want to embarass Honda infront Japan fans ?

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-statement- ... ulations-0

It isn't really acceptable to say something so pathetic as "The analysis of financial submissions is a long and complex process that is ongoing"

That is just insulting to anyone with a mild intelligence. We appreciate the analysis IS complex, but that is why you have the right people to do that, which they do have.

So I fully agree, this just sounds like facts and data being treated as the problem due to reputational impact. Essentially holding back data and truth because it might hurt a brands social image... pathetic nonsense.

You go over the cost cap by £1 then you went over, thats it, what is the problem with that information!?!? Im starting to grow resentful over F1, to me motor racing was always the purest form of sport, because the stop watch and data never lie, but in F1, neither matters when it should matter the most.

Assuming that Red Bull are one of the teams affected, and assuming that the announcement will say they've been naughty to some degree and that a "punishment" of some form is being applied, the FIA will try to avoid embarrassing Honda in Japan. The Japanese are very sensitive to such things - even though Honda themselves, as PU manufacturers, aren't directly covered by the cap - and the FIA won't want to tread on any toes.

A.k.a. face saving.