F1 will burst like subprime bubble

[WhiteBlue]

Funny, I recall saying the same thing about a year ago, and you, as well as others, trampled all over me for saying that the teams should share info at the end of each season. ...

But, as ever, you take an idea from others, disagree enormously at first, then mull it over, and a year later come back and state it again as if it was your idea in the first place.

I reject that assertion as far as I'm personally concerned. Please substantiate your accusation by a quotation.

Btw, the idea of publishing new tech after a period isn't new either. It was one of the FIA proposals in the engine freeze debate 2007.

[WhiteBlue]

Re: Vettel and STR having better budgets in 2008 than 2009 I would support that.

STR under Berger was being run as a team with ambition to get to the top. Driver selection, budgeting and decisions like engine supply were all being done for maximising performance. Currently STR is again mainly run by that fool Marko who cannot be relied upon to find his behind with his hands in the dark.

There may still be some resource increases at STR but those are due to the change in manufacturing and design of the 2010 car. They will not be allowed to buy this from RB technologies this year and had to add resources over a period of 18 months to get it done in house.

[Michiba]

are you sure about the comment about the engines? I thought the main reason was as a cost cutting exercise, as teams were spending half their budgets on engine development.

And super aguri was left out in the cold because they ran out of money.

and with reference to the red bull teams, how do you explain vettel winning in a TR? I think the difference in the performance there could be largely attributed to the drivers of each car, and that STR would get upgrades later than RBR.

That's 1 blatant lie and 2 half truths by my count.

http://www.newsonf1.com/2004/news/july/jul01.htm

4. Engine (2006)

2.4 litre V8 (90º) with maximum bore diameter, fixed cylinder spacing, minimum crankshaft centre line height, minimum weight and minimum height of centre of gravity. Direct fuel injection, variable geometry inlet systems, variable geometry exhaust systems, variable valve timing and variable valve lift systems all prohibited. Only one spark plug, one coil and one injector per cylinder. Exotic materials banned.

Explanation: a 20% reduction in capacity will produce a corresponding drop in power. Constraints on design and the use of materials will significantly slow the rate of power increase and reduce the scope for using engine design to improve chassis characteristics. Keeping existing cylinder sizes retains many current engine components while keeping engine revs close to current levels.

What does standard engine mounting points have to do with cost cutting? Standard crank height? Yes some of the V-8 engine rules had to do with cost cutting, like the min weight and the min CG, but some were aimed at allowing the independent teams to easily switch from power plant providers.

Yes SAR folded because of financial problems(sponsors not paying) but had they survived the 2008 season(getting their FOM money) they would not have had an engine supplier was my point.

Vettle won in the TR thru a combination of exceptional circumstances, but STR's 2008 dominence over RBR can be easily attributed to the superior Ferrari engine compared to the Renault lump which was allowed upgrading over the winter.

all the relevent FIA news archives on the topic can be found here:
http://www.newsonf1.com/f1regs/f1regulationsann.htm

Fair points. But I don't see anything about standard mounting points, but then again, I'm not privy to all the engine regs.

And it's an interesting point you've brought up regarding the RBR and STRs
In both cases, 2008 and 2009, RBR were the better funded team.
However, in 2008, their funds couldn't overcome a technical limitation (ie their engine), yet in 2009 you're saying the difference in funds equates to all the difference in performance.

[CHT]

Not F1 caliber?
I suggest you explain exactly what F1 is then.

I guess what he is trying to say is that these new team can only exist if FIA restrict the development pace of top teams, which is against the spirit of what F1 should be.

It is not the FIA restricting the development pace of the teams but rather FOTA itself please read...

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 4328.shtml

There is no reason why FOTA wont do that when they are not allowed to develop their engine and that all engines must have almost similar power output. And btw, was that article (Aug09) highlighting FOTA's effort in trying to please FIA's budget cut plan?

[ISLAMATRON]

Fair points. But I don't see anything about standard mounting points, but then again, I'm not privy to all the engine regs.

2) Additional constraints will be placed on engines in 2006 :

The cylinder bore will be fixed
The cylinder spacing and engine length will be fixed
The crankshaft centre line height will be fixed
The engine mounting points front and rear will be fixed

http://www.newsonf1.com/2004/news/sep/sep01.htm

[ISLAMATRON]

There is no reason why FOTA wont do that when they are not allowed to develop their engine and that all engines must have almost similar power output. And btw, was that article (Aug09) highlighting FOTA's effort in trying to please FIA's budget cut plan?

It is not the FIA demanding that the teams have similar power output... it is the individual teams(well the ones down on power) that are making such demands, The FIA has said it will no longer allow teams to upgrade their engines in order to normalize power accross the grid, instead, if the teams agree(which i doubt they will), they can restrict the more powerful engines. It makes sense when one considers that 2009 lap times are approaching 2004 lap times which prompted the move to smaller engines in the first place. Anyone of sane mind understands that speeds must be kept under control to some degree to help maintain spectator & driver safety.

The article was after FOTA had already signed onto the 2010 year using the 2009 rules. It is details of the cost cutting plan they have agreed upon, instead of accepting the FIA budget cap rules.

[CHT]

There is no reason why FOTA wont do that when they are not allowed to develop their engine and that all engines must have almost similar power output. And btw, was that article (Aug09) highlighting FOTA's effort in trying to please FIA's budget cut plan?

It is not the FIA demanding that the teams have similar power output... it is the individual teams(well the ones down on power) that are making such demands, The FIA has said it will no longer allow teams to upgrade their engines in order to normalize power accross the grid, instead, if the teams agree(which i doubt they will), they can restrict the more powerful engines. It makes sense when one considers that 2009 lap times are approaching 2004 lap times which prompted the move to smaller engines in the first place. Anyone of sane mind understands that speeds must be kept under control to some degree to help maintain spectator & driver safety.

The article was after FOTA had already signed onto the 2010 year using the 2009 rules. It is details of the cost cutting plan they have agreed upon, instead of accepting the FIA budget cap rules.

Any reason why you are not thinking that the cost cutting measure was part of the deal which was struck between FIA and FOTA, and if it is not for FIA, there will be not such deal?

Didnt renault given the go ahead to "upgrade" their engine power prior to the 2009 season so that they wont be left behind?

[WhiteBlue]

According to AMuS's Michael Schmidt a deal has been cut between the FIA and FOTA about the equalization of engines. They are not only looking at power output but also at other relevant features like fuel consumption. This will become increasingly important in 2010. Apparently the agreement is that all relevant parameters will have to be kept in a variance of 2% of each other. No further details were given how that should work.

[xpensive]

As it happens WB, I agree with you that the focus should be on optimizing fuel-consumption, why I think equalization of that would be rather foolish. I would like to see not only a limit on rpm, but torque as well, then you can open up the engine-freeze for fuel-consumption developments, which perhaps should give manufacturers incentive enough to stay as engine-suppliers.

[WhiteBlue]

As it happens WB, I agree with you that the focus should be on optimizing fuel-consumption, why I think equalization of that would be rather foolish. I would like to see not only a limit on rpm, but torque as well, then you can open up the engine-freeze for fuel-consumption developments, which perhaps should give manufacturers incentive enough to stay as engine-suppliers.

+1

That means you regulate engine power. But in order to keep costs in check you have turn the score board back to zero in regular intervalls and publish the tweaks. You don't want to go back to the times when Merc and Ferrari were spending 200 mil on engine development only just to give their race teams a leg up on the competition.

The incentive for engine manufacturers should be a gain in road relevant technologies and that is where the cost for such development should be accounted for. In order to keep F1 an interesting engineering contest the competitive advantages from power train innovations should be very short lived.

Since we are brainstorming about sensible ways to prevent a crisis I just want to throw in that KERS could also be made much cheaper if they ration the batteries like engines and lift all restrictions. Perhaps you can have four batteries per season for your KERS and if you exceed that you must pay a sporting price like for engines and gear boxes.

[Chaparral]

As it happens WB, I agree with you that the focus should be on optimizing fuel-consumption, why I think equalization of that would be rather foolish. I would like to see not only a limit on rpm, but torque as well, then you can open up the engine-freeze for fuel-consumption developments, which perhaps should give manufacturers incentive enough to stay as engine-suppliers.

Wrong X - the reason manufacturers are leaving has a lot to do with (in the words of Nigel Roebuck) "It is certainly a fact that BMW, along with other manufacturers, had little enthusiasm for the 'frozen' engine rules for how in do you demonstrate any quantifiable superiority over your rivals? And if you don't have that possibility, how do you justify the expense of being in F1?"

He's correct - who wants a spec series which is F1 - theres an article from Gordon Kirby stating the same for IRL (Motor Sport Oct 2009) the teams dont want a spec series when the new regs kick off n 2012 - open it up to give them at least 900 bhp cars that actually require driving - novel concept (no) - seems pretty straight forward to me but what would I know Ive only been watching this stuff for 45 years through thick and thin

[xpensive]

I guess you mean you think I'm wrong, just like I think you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, Chap?


Anyway, technical superiority can be displayed in different ways, fuel consumption is a most road-car relevant one. I think.

[WhiteBlue]

Manufacturers leave for various reasons. In the case of BMW there were two main factors.

• F1 was abandoning hybrid and was not in sync with their product philosophy of 'efficient dynamics' any more.
• Justification in the current climate of redundancies was impossible.
  
  The rest is rubbish. BMW did win pretty soon after their decision to go solo and their return to form in the last races shows that they could have had a good season if the DDD decision had not gone against them

I think the manufacturers can return as fast as they have left if the conditions in F1 meet their marketing requirements.

[Chaparral]

I guess you mean you think I'm wrong, just like I think you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, Chap?


Anyway, technical superiority can be displayed in different ways, fuel consumption is a most road-car relevant one. I think.

In a word - yes your wrong in my very humble opinion and I say that biting my tongue - you want fuel economy go check out the Darwin to Adelaide economy run or some such - buy a Toyota Prius whatever - what does racing have to do with road car relevancy - very little overall but I expect that from a engineer like yourself - but then I have not met a boffin who understands that although Adrien Newey comes close as he's a racing guy - you want racing - open up the rules to all configurations engine wise give them ground effects and back off on the aero - just let them go for it - my god engineers in this era must be asleep at the wheel with boredom (spending huge amounts of money) just trying to eek out a 10th of a second per lap - thats b/s and you know it

[Chaparral]

Manufacturers leave for various reasons. In the case of BMW there were two main factors.

• F1 was abandoning hybrid and was not in sync with their product philosophy of 'efficient dynamics' any more.
• Justification in the current climate of redundancies was impossible.
  
  The rest is rubbish. BMW did win pretty soon after their decision to go solo and their return to form in the last races shows that they could have had a good season if the DDD decision had not gone against them

I think the manufacturers can return as fast as they have left if the conditions in F1 meet their marketing requirements.

Well thats last statement goes a long way to the reasons BMW left

"It is certainly a fact that BMW, along with other manufacturers, had little enthusiasm for the 'frozen' engine rules for how in do you demonstrate any quantifiable superiority over your rivals? And if you don't have that possibility, how do you justify the expense of being in F1?"

would you agree??