Luca di Montezemolo on the future of F1

[bhall]

Just because a particular solution doesn't originate in F1 doesn't mean F1 cannot, or does not, play a role in the development of that solution. With more open regulations or greater scope for innovation, the teams can adopt more true cutting-edge technologies, beat the hell out of them around the racetrack, and eventually those solutions are refined into marketable products because of it. At the very least, F1 lends viability to everything it touches.

This is very difficult to accomplish, however, when everyday, mainstream cars are likely to be more advanced than what we see at grands prix these days. I see cars with direct-injection engines, CVTs, dual-clutch transmissions, magnetorheological suspensions, etc., all the time, just never on an F1 circuit, but it wasn't always like that.

I think it's ridiculous that teams spend millions and millions of dollars to "refine" 20-year-old technology when F1 was built upon an entirely different philosophy.

[Red Schneider]

This is very difficult to accomplish, however, when everyday, mainstream cars are likely to be more advanced than what we see at grands prix these days. I see cars with direct-injection engines, CVTs, dual-clutch transmissions, magnetorheological suspensions, etc., all the time, just never on an F1 circuit, but it wasn't always like that.

I think it's ridiculous that teams spend millions and millions of dollars to "refine" 20-year-old technology when F1 was built upon an entirely different philosophy.

I haven't really been following this discussion, but your post reminds me that there are clearly contrasting forces at work here. The entire thrust around passenger vehicles - especially performance vehicles - is to make the machine do more of the driving, and have the driver do less. It's the "look Ma, I am giving the illusion of being a skilled driver" effect, perhaps best exemplified by the MP4-12C. Partly because of safety concerns, and partly because of a desire to please the aforementioned wannabe driver customers, the element of driver skill is slowly but surely being taken out of the equation.

This is obviously in direct contrast with Formula One. This would appear to be one of the clear bifurcations between F1 and the the often hyperventilating desire for road relevance.

[xpensive]

...
Gonna have to call BS on this, or at the very least I wholeheartedly disagree.
...

Perhaps you have F1 confused with Nascar, eh?

Of course F1 pioneered CFRP and paddle-shift gearboxes for the "automotive" world, my mistress' Citroen has the latter now. Besides, comparing the amount of money within the industry and F1 is simply not relevant, the speed of development are worlds apart. How long would it have taken for GM or Daimler to develop a high-power CVT the way Williams did?

As for radial tyres, it just took a certain european manufacturer to enter F1 to see that happen in no-time, remember?

[Jersey Tom]

I think it's ridiculous that teams spend millions and millions of dollars to "refine" 20-year-old technology when F1 was built upon an entirely different philosophy.

I just don't see that F1 was built on a different philosophy. I don't see that at any point in time, F1 (or racing in general) has been a breeding ground for consumer tech.. or that this was ever the goal. I see it as always having been the top level of open wheel racing. No more, no less. And that historically, the flow of development is almost always from consumer to racing, not the other way around.

Goes back to my previous point that it's sport - the goal is competition for the sake of competition and entertainment. It's spending millions of dollars a year purely for entertainment, just like any other sport. That it's applying or refining old technology is somewhat irrelevant in my mind.

I've seen the consumer/OE side of things, and I've seen the racing bubble. Two completely different worlds. Not to mention the requirements between the two couldn't be more distant. Cost, manufacturing, supply chain logistics, NVH, longevity, operating in extremes of hot and cold, etc etc in one... whereas race is pretty much straight up performance with minimal concern for the rest.

[bhall]

I just don't see that F1 was built on a different philosophy. I don't see that at any point in time, F1 (or racing in general) has been a breeding ground for consumer tech.. or that this was ever the goal. I see it as always having been the top level of open wheel racing. No more, no less. And that historically, the flow of development is almost always from consumer to racing, not the other way around.

[...]

I'm pretty sure you missed the point.

F1 was built upon moving things forward in order for those who push things forward to be the best in F1. If something "road relevant" came out of that, fine. If not, that was fine, too. As I've said, innovation is incidental. As such, the direction of the "flow of development" never really mattered; it was all about pushing boundaries to win. The problem now is that there's no "flow of development."

Still waters, as they say, don't run deep, and F1 is stuck in a puddle. This might be A-OK for a racing series where carbureted engines, four-speed gearboxes and live axles are still in vogue, but for a series that's seen active aerodynamics, active suspensions, fully-automatic and adaptive gearboxes, exotic metallurgy and the like, stagnation is tantamount to walking backwards.

Where's the fun in winning by virtue of tire management? I liked the game a whole lot better when tire management was, "--- the tires. I've got a better idea."

[Jersey Tom]

Well that I certainly agree with then. I've been an advocate for some time of things being less stagnant in F1... e.g. with some opened up rules... but at the same time needs to be accessible from a financial standpoint. Regulated costs? Works in some other sports series / leagues.

[xpensive]

...
Regulated costs? Works in some other sports series / leagues.

Perhaps if your budget is limited to the payroll of a dozen tall black men, but when it comes to control the spending of a design engineering/workshop facility with 400+ employees and fifty sub-contractors it becomes a little more complicated.