FOTA/FIA agreement

[WhiteBlue]

interesting words from Williams:

"The single biggest cost for an independent team or manufacturer is the engine, so we have to do something about it. When we froze the engine for five years it was a massive mistake, a massive mistake. We froze a very expensive engine, and the thinking at the time was that it was not a performance differentiator and therefore you could freeze it. Subsequently it turned out that maybe it was a performance differentiator, or it has become a performance differentiator, and therefore you cannot have a frozen engine.

"All but one of the manufacturers has said that opening up an engine for a development war is not feasible, because they have not got the money or appetite to do it. So what are you going to do? If you cannot race for competition for the engine then you have to have an engine that is not a performance differentiator.

"What is the point in having an engine that is not a performance differentiator that costs an unfeasibly large amount of money? What is the point? It will be like spending 100 million Euros a year on tyres when we all have the same tyres. What is the point? Williams' view is we don't know what the right solution is, but clearly you have got to start with the engine."

I don't know what the solution is to that problem but the more I think about it the more I come to the view that both the cost and the energy issue in engines may be cured by power and customer price capping.

Those companies willing to compete on fuel efficiency of the engine can do it but they will not b e able to force their customers to participate in the cost. And there will only be moderate gains because power will be the same for all, just gross weight including fuel will be different.

what I would like to see is a formula that is so close that a champion talent in a mid field car can beat a mediocre or aged driver in a top car.

[safeaschuck]

Hey Ogami,
Not trying to put anyone down, I know I don't know enough about aero, just thought I'd use the quickest way to describe the effect I was getting at.

I take it from your post the teams would not spend much time looking at what their 'wake' would do to a following car?
In fact you might be just the person to answer a couple of fundamental questions I've not the brain or experience to answer for myself...

Do you think it would be feasable to test either the actual car in race trim in a tunnel OR a certified likeness of it on computer to see if it fell within set limits for max downforce/min. drag?
Could you do it at say 200mph to avoid people tacking advantage of deflection in wing elements and the like?

I appreciate it would not be the exact level of downforce that they generate on track but as long as they all conform to the same regs that would be enough to keep people from crying foul, most of the time, hopefully.

[safeaschuck]

Hey, good shout conceptual, and who they refereced there. Would they have the grip to deploy Kers off the grid? If not the first corner would get messy eh?

Also does anyone know if a Kers (flywheel type) could double as the alternator? perhaps with windings in the casing and a magnetised coating on the exterior of the flywheel? at 60,000rpm it shoulden't need much should it?

Kind of like he said, I'm just here to see if what I goes around in my head has any right to be discussed in the real world...

[Ogami musashi]

Hey Ogami,
Not trying to put anyone down, I know I don't know enough about aero, just thought I'd use the quickest way to describe the effect I was getting at.

I take it from your post the teams would not spend much time looking at what their 'wake' would do to a following car?
In fact you might be just the person to answer a couple of fundamental questions I've not the brain or experience to answer for myself...

Do you think it would be feasable to test either the actual car in race trim in a tunnel OR a certified likeness of it on computer to see if it fell within set limits for max downforce/min. drag?
Could you do it at say 200mph to avoid people tacking advantage of deflection in wing elements and the like?

I appreciate it would not be the exact level of downforce that they generate on track but as long as they all conform to the same regs that would be enough to keep people from crying foul, most of the time, hopefully.

You don't need to go to a windtunnel for that. You simply put load sensors on the cars.
That's already done.

The problem is that you need a standard design to be sure the loads occurs near the sensors are.

And in anyway, you can't put a definite, discrete limit on downforce. Aerodynamics are time variable, you need tolerance threshold and that threshold needs to be wide.

When a car turns, large variations in downforce are seen (either in positive or negative direction), when it brakes too.

There're transient loads etc..

So what you can do is put a limit that should not be overshot in steady in a set of conditions but you know that teams have a world of possibilities to make the car run in other conditions to go through that limit.

The same happened in the 80's with minimum ride height of skirts.

[donskar]

I don't always agree with conceptual , but I do this time:

We currently have the closest pole-to-caboose gap that I have ever seen in F1. Why you would change ANYTHING when the racing is that close is a mystery to me.


Maybe because a certain team isnt winning, maybe because a certain team is...

Well maybe we can agree that the proposed rules are NOT being changed to help Ferrari????

Regardless, there is a need at the summit of motor racing, and that is for a pinnacle Formula. Someone is going to fill it, but it may not be F1.

All I know is that my interest will follow the technology, regardless of what series it is.

YES. My interest in F1 is now beginning to wane. (I fell asleep during the last round . . .) I'm hoping IndyCar stays a LITTLE more "pure" than F1. That might be a replacement. If F1's leadership continues to flounder, I can see a manufacturer or two looking for a different venue in which to do their marketing.

How will BMW (for example) use an F1 victory in its advertising? "BMW power wins"? No, that's no good - "Generic engine powers BMW to victory"? ERRRR, no.

"BMW suspension technology outcorners the opposition"? No, standard suspension.

"BMW outbrakes the competition"? Not really - generic brakes.

"BMW fast shifting transmission beats the pack"? Probably not, if trannies are also generic.

In short, IF all these changes save money (debatable, because change often = more cost), how much marketing value will also be lost?

[Conceptual]

If the FOTA were smart, they would make their rules, give them to the FIA, and if rejected, leave and make their own series... 50% North American tracks, and 50% European tracks.

And I would instantly follow.

[safeaschuck]

Yep, damn straight.
Can you imangine that lot being in charge of their own destiny though? I'd give it half a season before most of them started considering breaking away from their own series and a couple of seasons before it all disintegrated.
Irreconcilable differences.

On the sensor thing Ogami, woudn't that rely on a element of self policing? I just thought a basic test, the same for all, with the minumum chance of subtle discrepancies creeping, and an overall PASS or FAIL would be the only way to get the teams to agree that it was fair.
I mean, dont they just hang weights off of wings at the moment to test deflection? Ít's stone age policing of a space age sport, but one thing, it is simple to understand and gives a clear cut result.
As a follower of the sport I need to understand how the FIA arrived at a decision to penalise those breaking the rules and that the testing process was fair so I thought a one off top limit, remove the cars from the teams for the duration of the test and it should be conducted in a way so that no interferance can occur to the car in it's race finishing trim i.e. yoink it out of parc ferme.

[Conceptual]

It shouldn't be hard to mandate sensors for the SECU that measure downforce levels during the race.

The problem is that if you limit the downforce in this manner, certain chassis will always need more than others, making the chassis itself a performance diferentiator.

Although that may be a good thing, I'm not sure if it would be cost effective for the teams however...

[flynfrog]

conceptual you are going about this all wrong. Trying to make up rules to limit F1 is like trying to plug holes in a colander with your finger if you plug one the other make up for it. More rules make it harder and harder to find ways around them thus driving costs up. I say open up the rules. Lower the front wings (cars can pass again) Open up the engine rules allow KERS but make it stand on its own. Get rid of the Two race per engine rule get rid of the rev limit get rid of displacement rules add in fuel flow regulators? Give teams a box the cars must fit it. I like the plank Idea to limit underbody but open up the wing rules again another box rule you can do whatever as long as it fits in a box of X size

bring creativity back to F1

[panchito401]

I don't know how many of you are from across the pond, but maybe the FIA could implement a salary cap similar to American Football. Every team has an allotment of money to spend per season on personnel and thats it. Baseball also has a similar salary cap, but you are allowed to go over it as long as you pay a rather large (I think %50) penalty. Which many of the top clubs do, by the way.

In, F1 this would instantly set everyone on a level playing field as long as they invested the maximum. Smaller teams would gain value just for having a license to participate I would think. Manufacturer teams would also have a firm budget to show to their CEO's. This would really allow a team to get a return on their engineering/driving talent in the form of advertising, and would probably open new doors in development with the smaller teams having more wiggle room with their projects.

I don't think we'll be seeing this anytime soon... I don't know how you would be able to enforce it. Any ideas?

-f

[Conceptual]

conceptual you are going about this all wrong. Trying to make up rules to limit F1 is like trying to plug holes in a colander with your finger if you plug one the other make up for it. More rules make it harder and harder to find ways around them thus driving costs up. I say open up the rules. Lower the front wings (cars can pass again) Open up the engine rules allow KERS but make it stand on its own. Get rid of the Two race per engine rule get rid of the rev limit get rid of displacement rules add in fuel flow regulators? Give teams a box the cars must fit it. I like the plank Idea to limit underbody but open up the wing rules again another box rule you can do whatever as long as it fits in a box of X size

bring creativity back to F1

Im not going about it at all! I was answering a post on page 4 or 5 with that response.

If it were up to me, it would be a 300L/weekend formula. Bring what you want, but you only get 300L of fuel. Then reduce that number by 25L per year, until you reach 100L. Maybe reduce the Min weight by 10kg/year as well...

If you want to race, you best bring the fastest and most efficient car you can build.

That would be cool, especially if they went Hydrodynamic propulsion...

[Conceptual]

I don't know how many of you are from across the pond, but maybe the FIA could implement a salary cap similar to American Football. Every team has an allotment of money to spend per season on personnel and thats it. Baseball also has a similar salary cap, but you are allowed to go over it as long as you pay a rather large (I think %50) penalty. Which many of the top clubs do, by the way.

In, F1 this would instantly set everyone on a level playing field as long as they invested the maximum. Smaller teams would gain value just for having a license to participate I would think. Manufacturer teams would also have a firm budget to show to their CEO's. This would really allow a team to get a return on their engineering/driving talent in the form of advertising, and would probably open new doors in development with the smaller teams having more wiggle room with their projects.

I don't think we'll be seeing this anytime soon... I don't know how you would be able to enforce it. Any ideas?

-f

You could force all teams to use MS Groove, and track every dollar spent!

[flynfrog]

I don't know how many of you are from across the pond, but maybe the FIA could implement a salary cap similar to American Football. Every team has an allotment of money to spend per season on personnel and thats it. Baseball also has a similar salary cap, but you are allowed to go over it as long as you pay a rather large (I think %50) penalty. Which many of the top clubs do, by the way.

In, F1 this would instantly set everyone on a level playing field as long as they invested the maximum. Smaller teams would gain value just for having a license to participate I would think. Manufacturer teams would also have a firm budget to show to their CEO's. This would really allow a team to get a return on their engineering/driving talent in the form of advertising, and would probably open new doors in development with the smaller teams having more wiggle room with their projects.

I don't think we'll be seeing this anytime soon... I don't know how you would be able to enforce it. Any ideas?

-f

You could force all teams to use MS Groove, and track every dollar spent!

$ spent has nothing to do with racing it make 0 sense to control cost in racing
teams will donate money to researchers money then buy the idea for $1


Fast cost money how fast do you want to spend

[panchito401]

Conceptual> HA! yeah, but I bet the cars would crash every fifth time you started them!

flynfrog> Money spent has everything to do with every major sport I've ever run across. I'm just saying that salary or wage limits work over here pretty well and makes parity between the teams without ruining the qualities that keep them distinct.

I don't think thats so bad at all. I think its great for competition. The cars will still be fast, and will have to be unique instead of this stupid homologated bullshit they're working on. I'm not saying limit them to 50 million USD a year in a --- car. I'm thinking more like 300 or more maybe, but thats not for me to decide. Plus, those limits are adjusted every year as needed - and also come with floors that mandate the teams must spend at least $X.

I think it would be pretty cool to see what areas teams would focus more development in and how they would adapt to different courses. I bet you wouldn't see 5 million dollar motorhomes and such!

Hey, its just an idea to keep smaller teams competitive while not taking away the qualities that makes F1 so great. At least it would prevent teams from having the same Engine, Brakes, ECU, Suspension, Gearbox and Undertray - Maybe we should clone the drivers as well.

-f

[mx_tifoso]

I'm just saying that salary or wage limits work over here pretty well and makes parity between the teams without ruining the qualities that keep them distinct.

its just an idea to keep smaller teams competitive while not taking away the qualities that makes F1 so great.

Hows does it work so well if the top clubs are still spending over the proposed limit? Since their enormous budgets can still afford the 50% penalty. I can see the same thing going on anywhere, and that's not exactly a good result, since the smaller teams with modest budgets are/would be forced to stick to the budget limit.

And I agree with 'flynfrog', more rules simply complicates the matter and introduces more changes, which in effect increases cost. Evolution over revolution, keep the changes consistent but progressive.