Imminent F1 shakeup?

[Cam]

ok - let's say the FIA does a u-turn and we go back to the V8's. I for one will not be sad - but who will be? Will Honda pull out? Can they pull out even with contracts in place? What are the possible ramifications to sponsors - some of whom have planned for years of 'green' marketing etc? I realise this is all 'pie-in-the-sky' stuff, but I'd be interested to see what people think will be the fallout if it does revert.

[beelsebob]

I'm pretty confident Mercedes would pull out, both as a team, and as an engine manufacturer. That would have disastrous consequences for the sport.

[CHT]

ok - let's say the FIA does a u-turn and we go back to the V8's. I for one will not be sad - but who will be? Will Honda pull out? Can they pull out even with contracts in place? What are the possible ramifications to sponsors - some of whom have planned for years of 'green' marketing etc? I realise this is all 'pie-in-the-sky' stuff, but I'd be interested to see what people think will be the fallout if it does revert.

Firstly F1 is not a "green" sports and it will never be. Company who wishes to promote their green image could perhaps sponsor Formula E instead.

If they revert back to V8, they could still drive the green campaign by making the V8 more fuel efficient. No difference to the current V6 except without the turbo.

[beelsebob]

ok - let's say the FIA does a u-turn and we go back to the V8's. I for one will not be sad - but who will be? Will Honda pull out? Can they pull out even with contracts in place? What are the possible ramifications to sponsors - some of whom have planned for years of 'green' marketing etc? I realise this is all 'pie-in-the-sky' stuff, but I'd be interested to see what people think will be the fallout if it does revert.

Firstly F1 is not a "green" sports and it will never be. Company who wishes to promote their green image could perhaps sponsor Formula E instead.

If they revert back to V8, they could still drive the green campaign by making the V8 more fuel efficient. No difference to the current V6 except without the turbo.

If they made the old V8 more fuel efficient, you lot would scream blue murder, because the result would be a corresponding drop in power, and hence much slower cars than we have today.

[CHT]

Thats where the ERS will come in.

[SpainFAN]

So, why not rethink the engine freeze then? That would make the teams happy and they can begin to work on working out the kinks out of their current PU... What I don't like to hear is Ferrari saying that the aero efficiencies should be limited... they need to seriously reconsider that stance. Why limit the aero development on the top auto sport? That would make RBR and the rest of the non manufacturing teams useless IMHO, they would not bring in any development to the sport.

[autogyro]

Aero has been the main reason for the unsustainable high cost position F1 is in at present.
If down force had been halved when suggested by Max Mosley and the budgets also cut at that time, the development would have gone into power unit development and Ferrari and Renault would have no complaints today.
Instead the teams preferred to pay huge amounts for 'model aeroplane' technology that has never been relevant to surface vehicle development.
F1 has well and truely shot itself in the foot.

[bhall]

Gratuitous aerodynamic development didn't really take off until the V8s were homologated, which then elevated the importance of downforce such that it became the biggest performance differentiator in the sport. However, I don't necessarily think it increased costs as much as it replaced costs formerly associated with engine development.


Estimates from the March 2007 issue of F1 Racing based on spending in 2006

Regardless, I think aerodynamic restrictions have zero impact on the cost to compete in F1. The only change is that a neverending quest for downforce morphs into a neverending quest for aerodynamic efficiency.

Moral of the story: the only way to reduce costs is through complete standardization. Without it, design elements that can be exploited will be exploited. With it, on the other hand, F1 is dead. And not just mostly dead; dead dead.



So what's the answer?

[Andres125sx]

I kind of agree that F1 is Bernie. Without him....

Glorifying people has never been good, he made F1 what it is today, but now he´s 83 years old, at some point everybody have to let new people with new ideas como into the game. IMHO we reached that point some years back

9) Cheaper downforce and limit on max downforce

That´s an idea I´ve been wondering for a long time, and I´ve finally concluded it´s a must

Same way max engine size is limited, max downforce must be limited too. It´s the only way to:

1- make F1 a competition about cars again, currently they´re more of planes than cars
2- limit the investment, if you´re limited to an amount of downforce points, you can evolve the aerodynamics to reducer drag, but that´s not the same than trying to find new downforce point everywhere (wings, floor, difussers...)
3- If you put a reasonable limit, overtaking will be possible again, what would improve the competition by a good factor and that will increase the audience again
4- Teams will be closer to each other, improving the competition even more


I can´t see any drawback, but lots of improvements

[iotar__]

Predictable Ferrari panic after their big update "failure". They can't hack it in any type of F1 formula - engine or aero, tests or no tests - what makes them think they can be competitive in Le Mans? I thought they had the same type of not loud enough, hybrid, fuel saving engines there.

They wait if changes benefit them, when they don't - it's crisis time. Yes, there is a crisis in F1 but Ferrari has no interest in solving it. They should be figuring out why their engine program is so inferior instead, I'd say talking and working on wrong areas is their biggest problem - replacing Massa was supposed to give them WCC. Same for RB and its cries - they also waited for Red Bull/Renault failure to realise it's a problem, crisis=we're not winning. Why should Newey not enjoying himself means anything anyway? When flapping wings, engine farts, special financial treatment, biggest brute force budget ruled F1 - it was a healthy sport for him I guess.

Biggest crisis in F1 apart from obvious: budgets/finances/competitiveness/refereeing/pathological management/only selected teams influencing technical regulations etc. is that only three teams can really compete. The biggest issue is how to level the advantage engine manufacturer teams have. One of the teams in that position remarkably Ferrari and the other RB, I can't wait how this emergency meeting solves this problem with their help.

[bhall]

[...]

Seems MrE was against it from the start and others tunes have changed.

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04072011 ... od-f1.html

The original proposal called for a 4-cylinder engine at the behest of the FIA. Ferrari was adamantly against it.

“I can't get used to it,” [Montezemolo] bemoaned, speaking to German publication Auto Motor und Sport and characteristically making no bones about his vehement opposition to the changes. “It's not for a sport in which we once had twelve-cylinder engines. Four cylinders is not F1. We are not going to build four-cylinder engines for our road cars just because we now need them for F1, [and] for the top class of racing it sounds a bit pathetic.

Even Mercedes and Renault had some initial misgivings.

Mercedes' Norbert Haug agrees that smaller engines are likely for reasons of consumption and emissions, but warns that high technology needs to remain a crucial focus.

"If you fly from Europe to Japan on a 747, you would use more fuel than an entire F1 season. We need to see the whole picture," he insisted.

To stem the subsequent threat of a breakaway series...

"We renew with [the commercial rights holders] CVC, or we theoretically – as the basketball teams did in the US with great success – create our own company, like the NBA. Just to run the races, the TV rights and so on," [Montezemolo] said. "And third, to find a different partner."

...the V6 was introduced as a late compromise.

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo says the decision to go to turbocharged V6 engines for Formula 1's next generation regulations package rather than the previously proposed four-cylinder units has firmed up the company's commitment to the sport.

[SiLo]

A lot of this sounds like Ferrari throwing their toys out of the pram because once again they haven't developed the fastest car. The easiest way to fix this bitching to me is to open up the engine regulations again, at least for one year. They all seemed fine when the engines were the same and it was down to aerodynamics.

[j2004p]

So, why not rethink the engine freeze then? That would make the teams happy and they can begin to work on working out the kinks out of their current PU... What I don't like to hear is Ferrari saying that the aero efficiencies should be limited... they need to seriously reconsider that stance. Why limit the aero development on the top auto sport? That would make RBR and the rest of the non manufacturing teams useless IMHO, they would not bring in any development to the sport.

I'd suggest that the massive shift towards aero was initially brought about by the narrow track era cars and grooved tyres.

[beelsebob]

No, the massive shift towards Aero was brought about for a simple reason - it was the easiest way to gain lap time.

[SpainFAN]

Yup, aero efficiencies as a lot easier to gain an advantage, hold true for all things that move through a fluid.
Just wondering... what alternatives are really out there for F1 to follow?

Why not make some factors equal to all teams, and them have them build around that criteria to drive development that would thus trickle down to the automotive industry... is it not one of the driving factors of the the sport?
Some ideas would be to set in place como ground to all teams (simple ideas):
Tires (all ready there)
Fuel (set flow restriction, single provider, set capacity for a car)
Set weight
???


One of the issues with PU restrictions is that the cycle of innovation is really limited to a complete season, and one team could hit/miss like the great work Merc has done this season and the rest would react the way they are now. Basically is like running a marathon knowing you will loose, so why continue running in the first place?
Sure, there are cost involved that some teams would not be able to endure, but such is the sport of F1 and all motor sport but as is, it is going down a path of exasperation for the teams left to endure and battle for second or third on the construction championship.

What would you motivation factor be if you where told you must keep a specific path knowing you are prone to fail... "0"