FOTA/FIA agreement

[Ciro Pabón]

I still remember when Formula One was standardized. It wasn't that bad. Everybody could slap a Cosworth DFV and a Hewland gearbox to a tub and be done with it. People worried more about racing that about racing cars.

Then the Renault RS01 came and two years later, after a painful development that earned that car the nickname of the yellow teapot, because of its many failures, it proved to be so superior that BMW, TAG and Honda developed their own engines. I don't know if that engine the famous Renault VT6 (I think) was made by the devil. Formula One has never recovered from that or from the ground effect.

Heck, I would go all the way for standard or heavily restricted (in price!) engines AND gearboxes. That could be a change we can believe in...

Just in the remote case someone is interested in value engineering, there you go: Value Methodology Standard

[DaveKillens]

From what I have read, this appears to be a very political move by Max, he's trying to assemble a common consensus, no matter who objects.
Reference the cover letter and agenda, http://www.f1technical.net/news/10864

And next, the Joint FIA and FOTA Statement ..........

Joint FIA and FOTA Statement 21/10/2008
Today’s meeting in Geneva has produced significant cost savings for 2009 and 2010.
FOTA are working urgently on further proposals for 2010 and thereafter.

That's it, the entire freaking press release.

[mx_tifoso]

From what I have read, this appears to be a very political move by Max, he's trying to assemble a common consensus, no matter who objects.

IMO, he is trying to push as many of his envisioned regulations as possible before he leaves the FIA presidency in 2009. That way the future of F1 is all said and done before he even leaves office. Brilliant man really.

[DaveKillens]

Oh yes, brilliant, but his moral compass is broken. I think he intends to stay on much longer, because these changes he is trying to force will take many years to accomplish.

I recall those days when Cosworth kit cars were everywhere. And there was good racing. And there was also a much larger number of teams too.... today we have just ten, and two of them may not be around two or three years from now. In many respects, I agree with Max's position. I just do not like how he is trying to use logical business arguments to shore up his personal power base.

[jon-mullen]

I think the primary focus should be on getting more teams on the grid and more overtaking, then cutting costs. Exciting racing can pay for itself. I agree with this, though:

I don't mind that much the standard undertray (well in addition it brings a huge favorable factor in the wake signature problem), i don't mind the stanadrd brakes (they already use third party brakes anyway..) but the standard suspensions and gearboxes are just opposed to the engineering standard.

We can't sit around and talk about the tiny differences in handling, grip, straight line speed and power if they standardize the suspension and gearboxes. This sport is supposed to be competitive, so let the teams struggle to gain advantages. It makes it that much more rewarding to get the Constructor's Trophy then.

[MattF1]

It makes it that much more rewarding to get the Constructor's Trophy then.

But they won't be constructors, just assembelers.

[johny]

F1 is heading towards a silhouette formula, what max wants is having spec cars with different wings so people can say they're different cars.

[donskar]

I still remember when Formula One was standardized. It wasn't that bad. Everybody could slap a Cosworth DFV and a Hewland gearbox to a tub and be done with it. People worried more about racing that about racing cars.

Then the Renault RS01 came and two years later, after a painful development that earned that car the nickname of the yellow teapot, because of its many failures, it proved to be so superior that BMW, TAG and Honda developed their own engines. I don't know if that engine the famous Renault VT6 (I think) was made by the devil. Formula One has never recovered from that or from the ground effect.

Heck, I would go all the way for standard or heavily restricted (in price!) engines AND gearboxes. That could be a change we can believe in...

Just in the remote case someone is interested in value engineering, there you go: Value Methodology Standard

Whoa! Ciro, I think you are stretching a term here. Anyone who wanted to could use the DFV and Hewland LG, but the teams were not forced to. That is a huge difference. I do agree that it was a great era. But it DID allow for plenty of variety and technical adventures. Remember BRM, Ferrari, Maserati, Serenissima, and others (was that the time of Subaru, Yamaha, Motori Moderni and other oddballs?)

Reduce costs AND have great racing? Sure. I could foresee great racing with cars using stock block engines - power, color, noise, spectacle, huge crowds, a variety of tracks, international field of top drivers and teams, lots of sponsors AND manufacturers. We could call it . . . Can-Am. Or F5000.

[mike]

i think the FIA have a huge commitment issue
on 1 side they want road relevent technology on f1 cars so that more manufacturers can be involved in the sport, eg introduction of KERS
on the other hand they want to standardise it to reduce cost

all i want to say is that road relevent technology is a cost reduction for the automotive industry, since the technology on the F1 cars can be directly link to the technology of road cars, if they standardise KERS that simply means that automotive industry shouldnt use KERS because it is not a option for our future in reducing our relience on fossil fuel and that KERS is simply on the cars to show off to the world that F1 is the "pinicle of technology"

[mike]

i think the FIA have a huge commitment issue
on 1 side they want road relevent technology on f1 cars so that more manufacturers can be involved in the sport, eg introduction of KERS
on the other hand they want to standardise it to reduce cost

all i want to say is that road relevent technology is a cost reduction for the automotive industry, since the technology on the F1 cars can be directly link to the technology of road cars, if they standardise KERS that simply means that automotive industry shouldnt use KERS because it is not a option for our future in reducing our relience on fossil fuel and that KERS is simply on the cars to show off to the world that F1 is the "pinicle of technology"

[safeaschuck]

Its a rubbish idea becuase it shows no imagination and does nothing about the overspending on aero.
This is never going to happen but I'd love to see a downforce limit.
I know it's difficult and probably prohibitivly expensive to police but when have those two factors ever stopped an F1 team considering an idea.
I know the template boards (go/no go gauges) the FIA use to measure the wing sizes these days are very fancy looking but there a little behind the times.
Whether they ask teams to sumbmit fully modeled car exteriors for CFD anlaysis or take cars from parc ferme away after every race for a run in a controlled wind tunnel, a downforce limit of, say 2/3rd's of todays level to begin with, probably falling as teams bedded in to the idea would give the tyres and powertrain a chance to shine again against the ridiculously overly influential aero of these cars.
They can have pretty much free reign on wing layout and aero balance of the car as long as the overall downforce remains within limits.
Surely this would save teams WAY more than engine restrictions, ah, but it would cost the FIA money:( poor broke b'stards.

Kers is a great idea, the best technology to ever be popularised by any sport surely???

While I'm at it if they insist on encouraging such a riduculously narrow powerband they should either bite the bullet and move to a C.V.T (Kers may force this anyway) or restrict to a maximum of 4 ratios to get a bit of grunt.
I don't like the idea of having to choose a C.V.T. for my road car in 10 years time but I already spent half my journey shifting whenever i use a 6 speeder and things are getting worse. I don't care if every cheap city runabout has a paddle shift in future, it's simply too much to do if you've got to shift through 8 gears while holding a cup of tea lighting a fag and tuning the radio:)

[Ogami musashi]

Its a rubbish idea becuase it shows no imagination and does nothing about the overspending on aero.
This is never going to happen but I'd love to see a downforce limit.
I know it's difficult and probably prohibitivly expensive to police but when have those two factors ever stopped an F1 team considering an idea.
I know the template boards (go/no go gauges) the FIA use to measure the wing sizes these days are very fancy looking but there a little behind the times.
Whether they ask teams to sumbmit fully modeled car exteriors for CFD anlaysis or take cars from parc ferme away after every race for a run in a controlled wind tunnel, a downforce limit of, say 2/3rd's of todays level to begin with, probably falling as teams bedded in to the idea would give the tyres and powertrain a chance to shine again against the ridiculously overly influential aero of these cars.
They can have pretty much free reign on wing layout and aero balance of the car as long as the overall downforce remains within limits.
Surely this would save teams WAY more than engine restrictions, ah, but it would cost the FIA money:( poor broke b'stards.

That's an idea (to limit downforce), but i think for the purpose you want would not work.

The fact teams are using aeros all the way if of course regulations on tyres and engines but mostly the fact that aerodynamics are by far the cheapest way to gain advantage.

So limiting downforce would still put the emphasis on aero efficiency, which is not new. Today's cars still have less downforce than in 2004 but far better aero efficiency (topping at 4 pounds of downforce for 1 pound of drag in monaco configuration).

If you limit downforce, which i think would be a good idea on the basis of safety and/or set up balance, you'll immediately trigger the downforce to drag ratio mania.

Now limiting downforce by decreasing levels to a fraction of today is not necessarily a good idea i think. Downforce is certainly a tricky thing that brings some desadvantages but still have good impacts on some important topic like high speed cornering.
It allows the continuity of driving style by increasing with speed.
Removing a part of it removes the high speed driving technics used today.

Now i do agree re balancing cars grip would be cool. I think next year is a good thing with around 20 to 30% less downforce.

The good actual thing is that OWG put emphasis on wings rather than GE. I think if there's a usefull purpose of aerodynamics it is the body and wings efficiency.
If you put a standard undertray like planned, you'll have some kind of limit just like you have this kind of limit alreay for next year where the scope of gain is put only on the wing since the diffuser and body are heavily restricted.

Re-balancing engine, aeros and tyres would be the solution for me.
To achieve safety crietrias your idea of limiting maximum downforce is a good idea with emphasis put on efficiency and low speed aerodynamics.

On a linked topic, i think downforce is definitely needed as far as overtaking is concerned.
While 60's cars were advantaged in wake, the actual ones are disadvantaged, too much at the moment, but downforce statisfy (in the current wake signature context) but that put the requirement of the following driver to be actually quicker than the one he wants to overtake which is good imho (and in the OWG opinion).

As paradoxaly as it seems, having a certain amount of downforce is also necessary to clean the wake behind it.

[WhiteBlue]

Limiting downforce or engine power is childs play with modern sensor technology. Remember how suddenly no problem was ever discussed with fixing revs at 19.000 when they had agreed to it?

so this isn't the reason for introducing standardized engines. this has been the stick to beat the manufacturer teams down on price for customer engines which is a big priority right now in order to save what is left of the privateers on the grid. KERS as a performance differentiator is another compromise FiA had to make in order to reach one of its prime objective of an affordable sport.

the ideal situation in my view is that anufacturers spend all they want but it will not allow them to push privateers out of business. for this to happen engine have to be either price fixed or standardized on a competitive supplier spec. it now looks like they will go down the road of price fixing which will allow for the development of more efficient and more affordable engines in the future. great solution in my view.

the manufacturers have screwed the FiA twice on this already, so I hope there are iron clad guarantees that the next engine will indeed come with long life and a price tag of 5 mil/a.

Gerhard Berger has said 3 days ago that the Force India / MacLaren deal has been done. That can only mean that the new 10 year customer car rules are now agreed by the PTB (FiA, FOM FOTA) and only need rubber stamping officially by a concord soon to come. so Toro Rosso can continue to use RBT chassis and Ferrari engines. I can imagine that one day they may switch over to BMW because I believe the BMW will have the legs on Ferrari in terms of efficiency in 2012.

[WhiteBlue]

That's an idea (to limit downforce), but i think for the purpose you want would not work..... Downforce is certainly a tricky thing that brings some desadvantages but still have good impacts on some important topic like high speed cornering....

There is no doubt that downforce is needed for a competitive pinacle of motor sport formula. The question is how much?

In my view the sensible limits are exceded when a corner like Eau Rouge which used to be a test for the brave 11 years ago can be taken flat out. High speed cornering on that level just increases the risks and the costs for safety measures at the circuits without contributing to the over all attraction of the sport. It can be much more entertaining to watch drivers go through such corners as fast as they can without full throttle. There is no skill in putting the pedal to the metal with downforce gluing the car to the track but there is great talent required to balance a race car on the edge of adhesion in a roller coaster like Eau Rouge.

So in this context from an entertaining and safety perspective I welcome the downforce cut they did for 2009. Will it be enough and will it be on a level appropriate for the increased grip? We will have to see.

So limiting downforce would still put the emphasis on aero efficiency, which is not new. Today's cars still have less downforce than in 2004 but far better aero efficiency (topping at 4 pounds of downforce for 1 pound of drag in monaco configuration).

If you limit downforce, which i think would be a good idea on the basis of safety and/or set up balance, you'll immediately trigger the downforce to drag ratio mania.

That is exactly what I hope will happen. With fixed downforce any competitive advantage will come from drag reduction which translates directly into fuel efficiency.

[Ogami musashi]

There is no doubt that downforce is needed for a competitive pinacle of motor sport formula. The question is how much?

In my view the sensible limits are exceded when a corner like Eau Rouge which used to be a test for the brave 11 years ago can be taken flat out. High speed cornering on that level just increases the risks and the costs for safety measures at the circuits without contributing to the over all attraction of the sport. It can be much more entertaining to watch drivers go through such corners as fast as they can without full throttle.

I think your example is not very good. Eau rouge is taken about 20km/h slower now than the previous years for a simple reason, this is a power limited corner.
Should the cars be able to go faster they'll still have the downforce needed since it increases with speed.

The challenge of going through eau rouge, at least in the modern days of F1 has always been a steering challenge, since the challenge of the corner is the change of direction.

There is no skill in putting the pedal to the metal with downforce gluing the car to the track but there is great talent required to balance a race car on the edge of adhesion in a roller coaster like Eau Rouge.

I think you don't appreciate what is high speed driving. F1 has never been (in its modern incarnation that is from the 90's) about driving on the edge of adherence.

It is important to know that driving technics are totally different from a Kart to a low speed single seater till F1.
You never drive a F1 on the limit, always under it, your goal is to go as close as possible to that limit via fine refinements.

That fact brings the result that, for a given speed, reducing the grip aviable will always put less technicity in cornering performance.

That's why in F1 the goal and quotes from drivers has been "to go for grip" for a long rather than "carrying speed".

the aim in F1 cornering is to always find the best grip while in lower grip and speed series the goal is to maintain the grip to carry speed into a corner.
In thoses series you can have small slides, in F1 not.

Whatever level you want, as long as the F1 cars will corner as high speed (meaning that they'll have a lot of grip) the driving technique will always be fine tuning of the grip.

Sliding is dangerous and the cars are not done for that either.

Where i would agree with you, is cases where all corners would provide for a lot of spare grip, but that's not the case at all.

So in this context from an entertaining and safety perspective I welcome the downforce cut they did for 2009. Will it be enough and will it be on a level appropriate for the increased grip? We will have to see.

The ratio of downforce over speed is more appropriate. See example above, in 2004 the levels of downforce were higher than now, but eau rouge was more difficult to take.


My bet would be to put natural limitation on maximum downforce gains possible via regulations that limit the possibilities, that would switch then on the aero efficiency and downforce at low speed.

From a driving point of view i prefer having a lot of grip at high speed, that's funnier and requires to be more technical and precise.

But well, nascar style huge slides are cool too, but that works because they have banked turns.