Monisha Kaltenborn calls it as she sees it.

[Phil]

Even then, me personally (as a businessman) I'd still pay 20million quid for a package of "F1 car suited to 2014 regulations, along with upgrade packages to be delivered as the year goes on" - and how do you police that?

Good point, I don't really know. I guess part of the challenge is to think of ways how the rules could be changed in order to make it policable? Under current rules, I agree, it wouldn't be possible. On the other hand, even if you could set up a fake company that would create your car and sell it to yourself as a "off the shelve package" for a fraction of the price, there must be some inherent disadvantages using this method. You might end up with the most expensive car on the grid this way, but without input from your on-site staff, your drivers, surely you might not be better off than a team creating it in-house 'legal' way?

I'm clearly guessing here as much as the next guy, but I just somehow refuse to think that a majority of the teams are in favour of implementing rules that are in no way policable? I'm sure there must be endless discussions centered around this topic on how you could implement such a rule - and what cost are under the policed 'umbrella'?

@Phil
I can see your point and I understand your example about the karting sport involving suspiciously low costs for materials. However, in F1 the most expensive part is research and development, not materials. A more accurate example would involve the imaginary company conducting x hours of research and development whilst only invoicing a fraction of that. On paper small team A and big team B would have the same hours and costs for R&D with very different results due to big team B getting 5-10 times the hours they have paid for. The only hunch would be that big team B's R&D is a lot more productive (i.e. better results for the same money). Good luck trying to build a case on outsourced services appearing too productive.

Good point.... good point.

[raymondu999]

You might end up with the most expensive car on the grid this way, but without input from your on-site staff, your drivers, surely you might not be better off than a team creating it in-house 'legal' way?

I constantly see Adrian Newey talking to Sebastian Vettel/Mark Webber, and the drivers are contracted to Red Bull Racing while Newey is contracted to Red Bull Technology.

[xpensive]

All this is nonsense to my humble mind, as long as there is a gain, money will be spent, simply remove the gain.

[tim|away]

All this is nonsense to my humble mind, as long as there is a gain, money will be spent, simply remove the gain.

I assume you are suggesting that as long as cars can be made faster by spending more resources on research, teams will spend as much money as they can - which I completely agree with. Can you make a proposal how you would "simply remove the gain"?

[xpensive]

All of the gain cannot, and of course should not, be annihilated, only those with outrageous cost vs gain relationships,
such as turning Formula One into a game between aerodynamiscists turning the cars aircrafts or something beyond.

[tim|away]

All of the gain cannot, and of course should not, be annihilated, only those with outrageous cost vs gain relationships,
such as turning Formula One into a game between aerodynamiscists turning the cars aircrafts or something beyond.

What is your solution to the problem of diminishing returns?

[xpensive]

As aerodynamic gains comes from speeding up air under the car, a flat bottom as long as there is car to measure.

This should have been done already in 1983, but for some reason the FIA foolishly stopped at the wheel centerlines.

[Moxie]

All of the gain cannot, and of course should not, be annihilated, only those with outrageous cost vs gain relationships,
such as turning Formula One into a game between aerodynamiscists turning the cars aircrafts or something beyond.

What is your solution to the problem of diminishing returns?

Perhaps my last reply was posted a bit early. The conversation has finally come to the forces that I was describing in that reply. Financial incentive. The financial structure of F1 in its current state gives a great deal of incentive for the top teams of to spend a lot of money. However, there is little financial incentive for the bottom teams to stay in the game. I am not suggesting turning F1 into an exercise of socialism. However, if F1 wants to field a grid of 12 teams, then there must be more incentive to spend the crazy money it costs to play the game. This is basic risk vs reward. F1 really must give the bottom teams a better chance at reaping some financial reward.

Or as mentioned the reward at the top level could be reduced so that the incentive for the top teams to spend so much money is no longer there.



To get specific about the diminishing returns, each team figures this out for themselves. Do they risk their stack of chips on the poker hand or not? This is always the question. Of course rich players can bet on hands that carry more risk...but even the most seasoned player is not likely to wager 500M if there is only 5M in the pot.

[humble sabot]

...there's already no chance something that costs, say a piece of carbon that costs 100'000, could be billed for '1'000', as the policing government would then say "this is not realistic". They could maybe sell it off for half the price to make it less obvious...

But the problem we're talking about is simulation and development. Most of this is iterative and there's no call to mark down every single CFD run, or how many stations were running FEA on a part. And this work is distributable too.

[FoxHound]

But the problem we're talking about is simulation and development. Most of this is iterative and there's no call to mark down every single CFD run, or how many stations were running FEA on a part. And this work is distributable too.

Succinct and to the point. Spot on in your assessment and a resounding plus 1.

[Pierce89]

All this is nonsense to my humble mind, as long as there is a gain, money will be spent, simply remove the gain.

I assume you are suggesting that as long as cars can be made faster by spending more resources on research, teams will spend as much money as they can - which I completely agree with. Can you make a proposal how you would "simply remove the gain"?

Yes limit downforce by limiting the the wheel rate and ride height. Too much DF and you're dragging your belly everywhere. Pushes virtually all aero research to drag reduction which could actually be helpful to the outer world


Edit: I honestly think I might have solved the aero issue. Came up with little nugget a while back and thought it over. I don't see an issue.

[GitanesBlondes]

Frankly, allowing aero development to run unchecked as has been for quite some time only further cements the gap between the have's and have not's. It costs tons of money to attempt to refine aerodynamics as we have seen, and if you do not have the money to spend, there is little way a team can make a lot of progress since there is no other way to develop the car.