Imminent F1 shakeup?

[astracrazy]

Tighter regulations produce tighter racing as there is no silver bullet to offer big performance gains. It's also cheaper to race like this. This year is a mix because the technical changes were very big and testing is limited. Over time, teams will get closer and closer in terms of performance.

Limiting aero options, energy allowed, immediate power, amount of recovered energy and engine configuration brings the performance of the cars closer together. Limits in track testing, computing time and wind tunnel increases the time it takes for all the teams to converge towards a similar performance level.

I don't think i agree with you there. I don't think it makes any difference, the pattern is still the same. If you have loose regs or tight regs teams are always more spread out at the start of the cycle and closer together towards the end. Everyone starts off with there own ideas then moves towards the more successful ways of doing things as seasons go on.

You also don't limit that silver bullet. It can come from any where. DDD, fduct, passive drs, ebd, coander exhaust etc etc. were all results of tighter regulations making designers/engineers think outside the box and come up with creative ideas - you will never stop that.

[xpensive]

...
the 10 liters that the F1 car saves doesn't matters, but if it in anyway helps make all the worlds cars to be 10% more efficient then it would be earth-shattering

And shifting the focus to massive mining of rare earth minerals for the batteries, totally dominated by China.

I fail to see the benefit.

[alexx_88]

@autogyro: I've said in one of my previous replies that I am fan of pushing the limits: technical and drivers'. So exactly the opposite of your impression. However, that doesn't stop me from noticing what is happening.

@astracrazy: Yes, but if you limit the directions in which those ideas might go, you end up limiting the amount of clever, technical solutions that can produce big performance gains. The more specs and limits you define, the more expensive performance gets. Basically, the same amount of money, in a tightly regulated formula, will bring you a smaller performance benefit than in a non-regulated one. Just compare qualifying results from the 2000s to now. In 2013, Japan GP, the entire field in separated in Q1 by 2.6s. In 2004, by 10-15 seconds.

Personally, I am more of a fan of the technical challenges, but the cold truth is that we are in a very small minority. Most people watch F1 and purchase merchandise because they want to see tens of overtakes and close racing. Couple that with the fact that pushing technical limits all around is more expensive and you have today's solution: "they'll fix the sound and, given the freeze, in 1 year's time we'll have 7 winners in 7 races again".

[astracrazy]

@astracrazy: Yes, but if you limit the directions in which those ideas might go, you end up limiting the amount of clever, technical solutions that can produce big performance gains. The more specs and limits you define, the more expensive performance gets. Basically, the same amount of money, in a tightly regulated formula, will bring you a smaller performance benefit than in a non-regulated one. Just compare qualifying results from the 2000s to now. In 2013, Japan GP, the entire field in separated in Q1 by 2.6s. In 2004, by 10-15 seconds.

I think you need to check first because that's not a good example, that session was effected heavily by rain so only a few got dry laps. You surely don't believe that was the field spread in 2004

Looking into 2004 as your example the average seems to be around 3 secs spread for quali. To compare with last year you need to compare q3 pole vs q1 slowest (because the format is different and we need to compare drivers going flat out). Roughly in 2013 it was 4.5 secs....more with tighter regs

I tend to think the more regulated you make it, the more clever ideas people come up with because they have to

[Pierce89]

@bhall - yep, I realise that they stated it was a choice between engines - but ultimately they still choose the V6 when any other engine or solution was possible. Heck a full electric system was possible, but it came down to $. It's this which is confusing everyone and hurting the sport, IMO. As an example, here's some highlights of the simply amazing statements that has contributed to the mess, IMO, they're in.

The choice of having a V6 turbo from 2014 is the right one," the Ferrari boss said. "I'm pleased to note that common sense prevailed. It shows we are working together without pointless counter-proposals or diktat, if it leads to the best outcome for the sport.

“The decision of V6 is important because turbo-six is good for the future, not only for Ferrari but also for Mercedes and others.

I speak on behalf of Italian sports people and fans, I don't like this Formula 1 and in my opinion it's delivered a product that has absolutely no sense.

No sense? Agreed, no sense but lots of dollars. They agreed on it. This was not a decision for the betterment of F1 - this was a commercial decision in an attempt to sell more cars. That is fine, but let's not delude why the decision was made. So now there is no sense to the V6's?

I hope the people who run the sport look again at the rules because the way Formula 1 is now, it has much less appeal and that's a shame as it is an extraordinary world."

“We are the only team with the right of veto,” he said. “More political weight than that is impossible!

Wow. They have a hand in running the sport, can basically change anything and didn't. They still can, but don't.

Then we have Ferrari and Todt contradicting each other:

My position has been clear for a few months now," he said. "To have drivers who save fuel and tyres, this is not Formula 1.

You need to explain to people that the drivers are driving flat out from the first to the last lap.

To be clear, this isn't attack on either Montezemolo or Todt, but a highlight of how they're all contributing to muddy the waters. This is what we, as fans, are hearing and seeing. We only can eat the cake they bake.

It's this area that needs the biggest shake up really IMO.

You leave out context. When LDM was saying he was happy about the V6, that's against the option of a 4 cylinder. Ferrari have always made it clear their preference is multi cylinder NA motors, but that they would accept the turbo hybrid stuff, if everyone else believed we needed it. I'm not saying LDM is an honest dude, I'm just saying he isn't quite the double talking BS artist you guys make him out to be. LDM is no different than Ron Dennis or any other team principal. They're all strictly about doing what is best for their team.

[xpensive]

I believe there is bound to be a shakeup, perhaps not imminent though. But when the racing is boring, I still have not seen one full race this year, the cost for the small teams are threatening four of them to pull out, something must happen.

[monsi]

I know many will hate this, but I would not be averse to a gimmick, provided it was a real racing gimmick. Alongside something modest to create overtaking surges and risk of DNFs like increasing the fuel flow by 10-15% without changing the fundamental concept, I might offer a lottery between drivers and teams as to who drives what. One driver per team to drive their own car, the other to drive one drawn by lots. Double draw - first to determine who stays with their team car. The second stage to draw between cars.

You can throw the brickbats now.

[mrluke]

Basically, the same amount of money, in a tightly regulated formula, will bring you a smaller performance benefit than in a non-regulated one.

And there we have it, smaller budget teams are never going to climb to the top of the pile in a tightly regulated formula. It remains a spending competition.

[alexx_88]

@astracrazy: My averaging of the 2004 season works out to 5.6 seconds. And that's over a 20-car field. For 2013 it's 4.1 seconds over the entire 22-car field.

@mrluke: They will never be able to climb to the top consistently if they don't increase their spending, no matter how tight of loose the regulations are. Money hires better engineers, allows you to build more parts to test, better CFD software and the list can go on. If you want the poor guys at the top, then you need to have them already close together (within 1-2s) and then throw in luck: sprinklers going off randomly on the track, tires that fall apart...oh, wait and you have the start of 2012 all over again.

Yes, even with money, some teams may fall out of place (look at Ferrari), but, overall, in no sane F1 would a Caterham or Marussia be able to fight for the win consistently.

[mertol]

5.6 vs 4.1 so they ruin F1 for 1.5 secs...

[Cam]

You leave out context. When LDM was saying he was happy about the V6, that's against the option of a 4 cylinder. Ferrari have always made it clear their preference is multi cylinder NA motors, but that they would accept the turbo hybrid stuff, if everyone else believed we needed it. I'm not saying LDM is an honest dude, I'm just saying he isn't quite the double talking BS artist you guys make him out to be. LDM is no different than Ron Dennis or any other team principal. They're all strictly about doing what is best for their team.

If you had read all my posts, you would have seen where I stated, IMO, that the teams (and in particular Ferrari) did have a choice - they could have said no and Ferrari could have vetoed. They didn't - which is fine, I have no issue with that, but you can't then whinge about it later and continue to whinge when you have the power to do something about it.

Every team has power - they can simply not enter next year. By entering, you agree with the terms. So all teams could said "ok, you've forced v6's on us, we're off, happy racing with you're one or two teams".

I also agree that they're decisions are based on what's "best for their team" - problem is that it changes year to year, month to month in relation to who's performing better. That's not good for the sport and it's really not good for the fans who are trying to grasp what's going on in F1 - because it's already difficult enough for long term informed fans, let alone casual observers (who they're trying to attract).

[MOWOG]

it's really not good for the fans who are trying to grasp what's going on in F1 - because it's already difficult enough for long term informed fans, let alone casual observers (who they're trying to attract).

Two highly accurate and cogent points. =D>

[Cold Fussion]

Even then, unless we move to completely green energy production we are no better off.

So if they improve the emissions but not erradicate them completely, they´re not good

There are tons of biased articles stating electricity pollutes as much as petrol.... but they "curiously" ignore that´s only when comparing electricity from coal plants. Reality is electriciy comes from different plants, coal (most polluting), nuclear (no emissions but harmful wastes), hydroelectric (no emissions), windmills (no emissions), solar plants (no emissions)... so actually electricity pollutes just a fraction of ICEs today, and the difference is higher each year

That may be true for some countries, but take for Instance Australia, 70% of the power produced is via coal, so replacing all the cars on the road currently with electric vehicles is of very little benefit. On a side note, I don't like how hydro power is described as 'clean' energy, because it comes with the cost of massive environmental destruction, hopefully one day we wont need to build them and can get 'clean' power else where.

[astracrazy]

@astracrazy: My averaging of the 2004 season works out to 5.6 seconds. And that's over a 20-car field. For 2013 it's 4.1 seconds over the entire 22-car field.

Based on the amount of different variables involved (excluding reg changes) that's not much. Not enough to say that tighter regs = tighter field

tbh we can sit here all day and go back and forth and pick out things to support our own arguments from each season - because there is so much different in 2013 than 2004. Theres too many variables involved

[autogyro]

I disagree with the idea that tighter regulations increase technical development.
IMO it stiffles and kills it.
Take a look at the history of F1, it used to be the conservative money based car makers of Germany and Italy against the garagistas in Great Britain and the Common wealth with much lower budgets.
Of course occasionally the big money teams came up with new ideas but it was mainly the underfunded teams who thought outside the box and gained results with totally new ideas.
This all ended when the FIA banned ground effects but allowed almost uncontrolled development of down force aero.
Slowly the vice tightened as other regulations on power units and the mechanical parts of the car became spec issues.
F1 is no longer the pinnacle of vehicle engineering and is now just an entertainment side show.