Imminent F1 shakeup?

[Cam]

The Mclaren of 2009 is an even better example. It literally went from qualifying 16-18 in the hands of Hamilton to winning races in the space of 2 updates. Lewis qualified 16th in Silverstone and nearly won a couple races later.

Indeed.

An upgraded floor and front wing helped lift the performance of the MP4-24 by around 0.7 seconds per lap at the Nurburgring, and hopes have been lifted about its pace for the rest of the season. We have completely changed the aerodynamic philosophy, the aero flow around the car, and although I am not an aerodynamicist I can see in the data that the guys now are finding performance.

"Things can only get better for us, I think," said Hamilton on his website. "The updates we've introduced have made a huge difference and we've now got a massive downforce improvement and the car is a pleasure to drive.

I think KERS played a part too didn't it? Anyways, certainly shows how aero gains could be made and that it was open to all.

[WaikeCU]

I think KERS played a part too didn't it? Anyways, certainly shows how aero gains could be made and that it was open to all.

Certainly was. Back in 2009 KERS system was introduced. Mclaren that season had by far the most powerful KERS system of the field. So straight line speed and acceleration was one of the best traits of the 2009 Mclaren.

[SectorOne]

You just can´t go from Caterham DF levels to RB levels in one season, that´s why nobody has done it.

I disagree.
I present to you the Brawn GP BGP 001. An aero innovation that sent a Honda to RB levels in one season. The only team to turn up at race one with the DD and they smashed all comers. The regulations were such though, that any aero dominate innovation could be challenged by any team who chose to do so.

You misunderstand the point. IN one season as in while you´re in the season.
The Brawn car was quick before the season started.

Name a car that has had the worst downforce levels in the beginning of the season only to be a front runner at the end of the season.
RB5 was a front runner from the start, again, doesn´t adress the statement.

Once you build a philosophy you are more or less locked. There´s nothing you can do on the Caterham to propel it to Red Bull levels of downforce, you need to design a completely new car for that.

Edit: (I also think Williams and Toyota had their DD in race one?)

Mercedes doesn't just have an advantage this year, I believe, because they stopped competing 2 years ago

No they did not. If you map out the success you can see that they slowly but surely clawed themselves up to the top over the years. Each car better then the previous one.

They did however start earlier on their 14 project, but to say they stopped competing is not true.

[Andres125sx]

Have you ever raced? 90º turns followed by straights are the lamest thing ever. Even complete rookies can dominate it. People, even those uninformed, notice this. There is a reason NASCAR is barely watched outside US...

(Let me reassure you that 90º turns + straights are even more lame than ovals, who actually present some challenge)

[...]

For the record, you do know why the format chosen for Formula E is city centers + 90º turns, don't you? Save fuel, I mean, energy. 90º turns don't demand too much in terms of reducing speed and then recovering it. Plus the short straights inside a city means low top speed, which is the most critical point for any EV.

Yes I´ve raced, but don´t see the point...

And your statement is false, reducing speed and then recoverting it is the most demanding energy wise. Fast turns like those from Silverstone or Suzuka would be the best energy wise as you don´t need to accelerate, but keep the momentum between turns

Anycase you´re criticizing first seasson of an electric formula like if that would be the final goal... No, it´s the first. Yes, top speed is the most critical point for any EV... today, but it´s first seasson, that´s the reason they perform like F3, not like F1. Huge margin to improve in next seassons, but this is just the first one

I have talked with no sponsors, but I'm sure audiences numbers talk a lot to them.

Sure, and they say F1 is falling down for some years now

Plus, think of the children. How many of those city races you will have nowadays until some PC group or some eco group manages to kill it? We live in difficult times...

Sorry but that´s BS.

Regarding evolution, remember the future is not always bright. Especially at the times we live, what is considered to be evolution is simply a carbon copy of our worst nightmares (big brother, police state, decline of morals, financial crisis being chronic and so on...). Vintage is something of a mock today, but I'm sure it will be the mainstream motorsport if this scenario becomes the future.

Your nightmares include cars with no vibrations at all, no maintainace, no oil changes, no engine failures and no smoke at the cities?

You have some weird nightmares...

Basically you have racing severely limited to almost child-like levels to suit a forced formula. The future are planes, trains and boring diesels. Doesn't mean I wanna watch that. Separate future from evolution and evolution from purpose.

Expect drivers in this series to be major rookies with money to spare. Maybe that's the plan? A nice way of funding, plus everything is spec... All it needs are city council's support and pockets, no need for sponsors. Anyone could drive in that formula with those terms.

Yes, anyone could drive in that formula with those terms.... same as F1 at its first seassons where anyone could buy a car and participate.... Actually it was possible even in the 70´s, not that far (Emilio de Villota, María´s father did it and that´s just an example)

Again, you´re criticizing first seasson ever like if that would be the goal, when it´s just first seasson so they first need to ensure viability

Then, next seassons they will allow develpment, but this is just first seasson

Come to think of it, even whiny western women who "needs girl power".

I guess there is a financial background for "motorsports" like these after all. Nothing holds more money than politics. Can you imagine the financial/political interest in "OMG GIRLS RACING"?

Of course, racing itself would be sh*t.

It´s called marketing, or the need for funds, same as F1 with drivers like Petrov, or tracks like India, Abu Dabhi...


It´s curious, but you criticize current situation of F1, but also criticize FE for the reasons that made F1 so popular in past decades, no need for big sponsors, anyone could participate...

[WaikeCU]

The biggest problem with F1 is that they want to cut cost. I don't think F1 teams do make profits based on their spendings and their earnings. Out of all sports, NFL has been a true example of how sport can be exciting and still be profitable for big and small teams.

I hardly believe that 8 teams with 3 cars each would be realizable, because the additional costs to put another car on the grid for each team would be disastrous. However this system could be interesting if the NFL system is implemented in F1. Think of 2 drivers that are sort of the image of the team, the main drivers, while the 3rd car would be driven by a rookie who gets drafted by the team at the end of the season.

Drafting goes by the same principle like in the NFL. The team with the worst records gets to draft first and has the opportunity to benefit. The draft continues until the team, who sealed the Constructors Title, picks its third driver. The Main drivers can only be transferred to other teams or be released by the team itself, because eventually there's the chance that a 3rd car driver gets the promotion to main driver. 3rd drivers can get transferred to another team, but then the team that acquires the driver have to promote him/her to main driver.

Similar to the salary cap in the NFL, I think a budget cap needs to be introduced. Here each team gets a budget which is determined by the FIA. With this budget they need to allocate their resources with also the salaries of their drivers. Add to that the revenue earnings which will shared across the teams evenly.

So basically everyone gets a fair chance to benefit from this system. What do you guys think of this approach to the sport?

[FoxHound]

I get you hate Renault and Red Bull, hell, we all do. But enough. You're wrong.

Lamentable, that you have to further descend to those depths to defend your position.

The FIA mandate is clear, any part can be changed if it complies to the oft spoken 3 criteria. The fundamental principle of the freeze has not changed at all since 2008/9.
If a part is unreliable, and is proved to be unreliable, it can be changed to a proven reliable part.
If this part performs to a higher standard, and increases performance it will be at the FIA's discretion whether it be passed as fit.

The very story you quoted from, you conveniently omitted(how peculiar) another section which is what I have been banging on about trying to get you to understand....

But if there is one manufacturer lagging behind, then what happens?

The question then arises, could a powerful lobby, for example comprising Renault powered teams, persuade the FIA to let them make performance steps DURING this season in the interests of the sport, if they were behind?
There are precedents for this. In 2008/9 Renault and Honda both applied for such a dispensation.
Honda pulled out of F1, but Renault got its dispensation and was allowed to make some performance changes.

Oh my Cam, did you not read the story to the end? Oh the irony of it.

I think it's possible both of your conclusions are correct. Engine manufacturers have made performance upgrades under the guise of reliability in the past and also have similar opportunities to exploit theses rules again this year.

Please demonstrate where, this year, hardware changes leading to performance gains have been made to PU. The FIA would love to know too.

Taffin confirmed that Renault has brought new V6 power units to this race for two of its teams – Red Bull and Toro Rosso. Although all F1 power units were homologated in February and since then performance developments have not allowed, fixes for reliability are permitted and the new Renault units feature a new shaft in the Motor Generator Unit K, which harvests energy from the brakes as well as a new oil system for the turbo and stronger exhaust.

So we know, Renault have made hardware changes this year. Obliterating your stance.
Not only that, but it is deemed a "new" engine.
You want a layman to provide evidence that it boosts performance? How is that even remotely possible?
Prove that it does not. See how that works?

Even Adrian Newey concurs with me...

But there’s a lot of development to be had.

You being a Red Bull and Vettel fan should at least hold some credence to his words right?
No Cam, you are emphatically wrong....and your man Newey agrees with me.

[FoxHound]

So to come full circle, it makes no sense to me that only now you have voiced your protestations against the formula, when it has been like it for years.
Would it have something to do with one team not winning anymore perhaps, Cam?

All this talk of "frozen in" advantages has completely bypassed the Red Bull advantage when testing was banned.
They had the complete and perfect structure to fully benefit from their CFD, Simulators and expensively assembled aero staff.
Once that testing ban was implemented, I put it to you that Red bull benefited from a frozen advantage it's rivals are still trying to implement.

[Cam]

The very story you quoted from, you conveniently omitted(how peculiar) another section which is what I have been banging on about trying to get you to understand....

Seeing as I linked the entire article - accusations of 'omitting' seem unfounded.

Taffin confirmed that Renault has brought new V6 power units to this race for two of its teams – Red Bull and Toro Rosso. Although all F1 power units were homologated in February and since then performance developments have not allowed, fixes for reliability are permitted and the new Renault units feature a new shaft in the Motor Generator Unit K, which harvests energy from the brakes as well as a new oil system for the turbo and stronger exhaust.

Who here, or anywhere for that matter, has denied that parts that can replaced under the rules? All teams can replace parts. What is in question here is any parts that form part of the Engine PU 'freeze'.

If there is a reliability issue, the manufacturer writes to the FIA highlighting the problem and specifying the fix it would like to carry out. It has to prove that this fix does not enhance the performance. The FIA considers it and if satisfied, writes to the other manufacturers requesting their permission for the change. The other manufacturers have five days to reply.

So, a question for you FoxHound. Seeing as Red Bull, as you say, have replaced the shaft, new oil system and exhaust, which of the following is then true?

a: Red Bull have changed those parts inline with regulations. They sought and achieved approval from the FIA to do so. As such the FIA deemed the changes to 'not improve performance'.

b: Red Bull have changed those parts outside of the regulations. They improve performance and once the FIA investigate, will impose severe sanctions on Red Bull.

c: Red Bull have lobbied the FIA and successfully convinced the FIA that their deficient was 'not in the interests of the sport, and therefore were allowed those changes, which increased performance.

d: Red Bull changed those parts, were free to do so, as they were not part of the engine PU 'freeze'.

Which is it? Please demonstrate why.

[jz11]

I think we all can agree on one thing - FoxHound is absolutely relentless!

[Cam]

Name a car that has had the worst downforce levels in the beginning of the season only to be a front runner at the end of the season.

MP4-24? Probably not the worst, but certainly not great. I guess I can't really give you an example of a team coming form dead last to clear first in one season, but that was not the point I was trying to illustrate. Any team could develop aero then - no team can develop Engine PU now. The difference between now and then? Development was allowed on the key performance differentiator - now it is not. You disagree?

No they did not. If you map out the success you can see that they slowly but surely clawed themselves up to the top over the years. Each car better then the previous one. They did however start earlier on their 14 project, but to say they stopped competing is not true.

I guess it comes down to a bit of semantics and trying to distill published news articles. I can't prove Mercedes pulled the majority of development on the 2012 & 2013 cars, only they know for sure and they'll never state categorically one way or the other. But what we did get was a sense of what they were doing and it has been acknowledged as a legitimate tactic to succeed in F1 (stop developing early in a season, to concentrate on the next season) - I've suggested they took this one step further.

I have also stated I applaud Mercedes for doing so. There's nothing in the rules to prevent any team from doing exactly the same thing. My only criticism is that when teams do this, leaving the dominant team to keep dominating, is seems hypocritical to single out the domination as a negative. Am I incorrect in thinking this?

[FoxHound]

So, a question for you FoxHound. Seeing as Red Bull, as you say, have replaced the shaft, new oil system and exhaust, which of the following is then true?

a: Red Bull have changed those parts inline with regulations. They sought and achieved approval from the FIA to do so. As such the FIA deemed the changes to 'not improve performance'.

b: Red Bull have changed those parts outside of the regulations. They improve performance and once the FIA investigate, will impose severe sanctions on Red Bull.

c: Red Bull have lobbied the FIA and successfully convinced the FIA that their deficient was 'not in the interests of the sport, and therefore were allowed those changes, which increased performance.

d: Red Bull changed those parts, were free to do so, as they were not part of the engine PU 'freeze'.

Which is it? Please demonstrate why.

Er, none of the above. Red Bull changed not a thing.
Renault did.
Furthermore, it's not as I say, but how Taffin of Renault says.

And let's not speculate the reasons as to why they changed, only they did.
Nobody outside of the FIA, Renault, Ferrari or Mercedes can answer what the updates give Renault. So that question will have to wait until the information is forthcoming.

But lets just say that with Renaults history of making a performance gains using the reliability clause, and Newey clearly stating there are "developments to be had", and Taffin stating they have changed parts.... well, whats not to like?

[Cam]

Er, none of the above. Red Bull changed not a thing. Renault did.
And let's not speculate the reasons as to why they changed, only they did.

Again, a simple question asked, a simple answer not provided, only more misdirection.

FoxHound, the whole premise of why anyone changes parts, forms the total part of the discussion (whether performance increases to the Engine PU can be made, inside of the 'freeze', to close gaps to the leaders).

You've made a statement that Renault have changed parts, yet declined to clarify under what pretext those changes were made.

Not sure whether you're trolling or simply don't want know the answer.

[FoxHound]

Name a car that has had the worst downforce levels in the beginning of the season only to be a front runner at the end of the season.

Development was allowed on the key performance differentiator - now it is not. You disagree?

Aero was the differentiator. Not open development.

[FoxHound]

Er, none of the above. Red Bull changed not a thing. Renault did.
And let's not speculate the reasons as to why they changed, only they did.

Again, a simple question asked, a simple answer not provided, only more misdirection.

FoxHound, the whole premise of why anyone changes parts, forms the total part of the discussion (whether performance increases to the Engine PU can be made, inside of the 'freeze', to close gaps to the leaders).

You've made a statement that Renault have changed parts, yet declined to clarify under what pretext those changes were made.

Not sure whether you're trolling or simply don't want know the answer.

There is no misdirection...Just error strewn comparisons. Do Red Bull make engines, Cam? No...so that is factually wrong.

Further to your request of which pretext Renault made the changes, are you being obtuse or are you really that naive to think I'm privy to the FIA and Renault databases which hold the information?
So of course not, I do not know the answer. Nor do you, and nor does anyone outside of those involved in the matter.

[FoxHound]

I guess it comes down to a bit of semantics and trying to distill published news articles. I can't prove Mercedes pulled the majority of development on the 2012 & 2013 cars, only they know for sure and they'll never state categorically one way or the other. But what we did get was a sense of what they were doing and it has been acknowledged as a legitimate tactic to succeed in F1 (stop developing early in a season, to concentrate on the next season) - I've suggested they took this one step further.I have also stated I applaud Mercedes for doing so. There's nothing in the rules to prevent any team from doing exactly the same thing. My only criticism is that when teams do this, leaving the dominant team to keep dominating, is seems hypocritical to single out the domination as a negative. Am I incorrect in thinking this?

That makes no sense at all....Merc pull the plug on development, then have there best year in 2013?
You can't prove it because it's a fallacy.

Also, a point I have made before...in each of the last 5 years a team with the aero advantage at the start of a season goes on to win both titles.
Why can this not be extended to engine advantages before you cry foul?

Seems to me you are happy for aero to dominate in your shakeup, but once engines start calling the shots...you launch a tirade at the FIA.
Note, I too would like to launch a tirade at the FIA...but not on your basis that only now have things gone pear shaped.