Parr says only eight teams next year, three car teams.

[Aesto]

Well then I challenge you to do your own research, create your own chart, and paint a prettier picture. As a former biochemist, I am quite comfortable discussing my data, and listening to criticism. I can do without the trash talk. I'll admit that I am not an expert in statistic, but at least I am making some attempt to define the situation, rather than just talking a bunch of $h!T. This is F1 Technical after all.; am I to be the only one to undertake a technical analysis of the competition itself? I am open to collaboration.

I refer you to the thread "Statistical Analysis of F1 Competition"

This chart uses the same data, but shows the standard deviation from the linear regressions

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzuAgI ... sp=sharing

I replicated your findings. The R-Square for the #1 team for the years 1974-2013 is 0.1173. As a biochemist, you should know that that is not good at all. Plus, as I've suspected above, if you restrict the sample to the years 1985-2013, the coefficient of the time variable actually becomes negative. This means that for these years, dominance has actually gone down.

On the other hand, if you extend the sample all the way to 1958-2013 (there was no WCC before), the R-Square value is 0.0308. That is downright terrible. Your sample selection biased the results in favor of the point you were making (and as I mentioned, even then it is very weak).


To the uninitiated: Regression via ordinary least squares fits a line to the data by minimizing the distance between said line and each data point. The distance between the line and a point is called a residual. You want this (or to be more precise, the sum of squared residuals) to be as small as possible. As a diagnostic tool to determine if the regression result are actually valid and the model fits the data, you use an indicator called R-Square. It's the relation of Explained Sum of Squares to the Total Sum of Squares. It is one of the simplest diagnostic tools and not the only thing that's important, but for such a ridiculously simple type of regression such as this one it's more than sufficient. It's bounded between 0 and 1. 1 is perfect, zero means that your model explains nothing. So a value of 0.0308 means the model is virtually useless. Even in the social sciences good models have an R-Square of at least 0.4-0.6. In the physical sciences this is far higher.

[Moxie]

I didn't use much statistics in my field. I did more nuts and bolts bench work; Western blots, Elisa assays and the sort. I certainly appreciate your math based criticism, of my work over the seat of the pants, "looks like a mess" kind of criticism. As for the size of my sample, it really was unintentionally chosen by someone else. In another thread someone posted some statistics of their own that went back to 1974. My work began as a result of that discussion.

[vdemeter]

So Adam Parr is pretty well informed! There is rumor about Force India, Lotus depends on PDVSA, and Sauber is always on the brink... just pick one.

[FW17]

Once again.

Max Mosly's 2 tier F1 does not sound so bad now does it?

just look who we have left;

Mclaren opposed it - would have had no effect on their performance
Ferrari opposed it - would have had no effect on their performance
Renault opposed it - no longer have a team
Red Bull opposed it - would have had no effect on their 4 world championships
Williams did not oppose
Force India were mad to oppose
Sauber opposed it and were ditched later that year
Toyota opposed it and ditched f1 later that year

The great FOTA which banded together to oppose the proposal is no more

[FoxHound]

Personally, I'd habe 3 cars over a 2 tier system.

[astracrazy]

So Adam Parr is pretty well informed! There is rumor about Force India, Lotus depends on PDVSA, and Sauber is always on the brink... just pick one.

I think FI are ok. The whole engine payment thing, if that's where it comes from, was a non story in reality

Lotus and Sauber i can see one going too

Personally, I'd habe 3 cars over a 2 tier system.

I'd rather have enough teams to have a 2 tier than be so low on teams that we need 3 cars. If we have to have 3 cars then f1 is on the ropes. The trouble that no one seems to see, as well as some of the big teams, is that if we loose all these smaller teams, including lotus or sauber, then a big team now will become a team at the back in the future. And so the cycle starts for them.

F1 can't continue how it is now and accept 3 cars is ok.

[FW17]

If we have to have 3 cars then f1 is on the ropes. The trouble that no one seems to see, as well as some of the big teams,

It is like being at a funeral and not speaking of the deceased.

Being the last team is a death blow. Williams survived this year because of the switch to Merc, situation will be very unpleasant had they stuck with Renault and lost PM's money.

3 cars or 4 cars are not the way of F1, it has always been 2 car teams.

Every time there is a bad guy around and as usual it is Ferrari and now joined by Red Bull

[bhall II]

I think Mosley's proposal is indicative of the kind of dumbass thinking that got Formula One into this mess to begin with, because it's an idea that looks all nice and shiny and perfect on the surface, but a cursory look into its implications reveals serious flaws.

The inevitable outcome of any solution that relies on a budget cap in any form is a system that cannot ever, ever, ever, ever be policed. It's impossible to reliably track the expenditures of multinational corporations; yet, the egos around F1 think they can do anything, so this idea keeps coming up over and over again.

As much as I feel for Caterham, and especially Marussia, it was woefully naive for their owners to expect the kind of cost control measures that were promised at the end of the Mosley era. They're just not feasible. Richard Branson recognized that reality quick, fast, and in a hurry, and he got Virgin the hell out of this mess before it started.

[FW17]

A letter written to Todt by Caterham, Marussia, Sauber and Force India, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, laid bare just how expensive F1 was.

It provided an example of what a midfield team was now spending - excluding driver salaries, building leases, hospitality, marketing and media.

Bigger teams are spending more, in some cases much more, while F1's minnows Caterham and Marussia have been trying to get by on much less.

The breakdown for an average team went as follows:

- Hybrid power system $28 million
- Gearbox and hydraulics $5 million
- Fuel and lubricants $1.5 million
- Tyres $1.8 million
- Electronics $1.95 million
- IT $3 million
- Salaries $20 million
- Travel and trackside facilities $12 million
- Chassis production/manufacturing $20 million
- Windtunnel/CFD facilities $18.5 million
- Utilities and factory maintenance $2 million
- HR and professional services $1.5 million
- Freight $5 million
TOTAL $120.25 million

[GitanesBlondes]

Biggest cost this year?

Those silly engines.

These engines were the dumbest thing that F1 ever pursued.

[WaikeCU]

Biggest cost this year?

Those silly engines.

These engines were the dumbest thing that F1 ever pursued.

It's probably a chain reaction I think. New engine + new gearbox = new chassis probably.

[astracrazy]

As much as I feel for Caterham, and especially Marussia, it was woefully naive for their owners to expect the kind of cost control measures that were promised at the end of the Mosley era. They're just not feasible. Richard Branson recognized that reality quick, fast, and in a hurry, and he got Virgin the hell out of this mess before it started.

No, it's wasn't naive by Caterham, Marussia or even HRT and maybe USF1 at all. They entered it under that promise made by the FIA. It was naive by the FIA to ever think it would happen. None of those teams listed would have joined if there was no cost cap mentioned. But f1 needed teams i guess....

Branson ye as soon as the billionaire realised he may have to put his hand in his pocket he left. He didn't exactly "invest" in the first place so didn't have much to loose.

[ParkerArt]

Biggest cost this year?

Those silly engines.

These engines were the dumbest thing that F1 ever pursued.

Mercedes and Renault were out of F1 without those silly engines. Spec Ferrari might sound great with howling 1000hp V12s but you can just watch 458 Challenge cars if you want to see screaming red-orange cars be driven around by rich people.

[turbof1]

The engine formula had to be changed, but that being said: the complexity is what makes it expensive. It isn't even relevant: how many cars for instance will recuperate energy from the turbo and store it? A normal city car will not get close to that, perhaps a bit of hybrid energy from the brakes.

Imo a turbo engine with sole emphasis on fuel consumption would have been enough. In return you get less weight and less changes to the chassis to make everything fit, plus no hybrid systems have to be developed or bought. Insto presto cost reduction.

Imo, the WEC solution would have been ideal. Allow hybrid power, but don't force the engine manufacturer to use it.

[FW17]

By any chance should a v8 cosworth cost $10 million a year? should have been half or a third of that.