F1 will burst like subprime bubble

[noname]

@noname

I disagree here. I think that even F1 cars should have something of a practical nature. It makes me somehow differently connected to the sport. Not meaning everything, but parts of it.

I do not think there is any disagreement between us. I would like F1, and motorsports in general, to be a melting pot where innovations would be born. the problem is, in my opinion, in F1 innovations are prohibited. you can not play with new materials, fuels, electronics, engine lay-outs and conceptions, tires and many other things. shortly - engineers were pushed into the corner where the gains were possible mainly due aero upgrades. one can not blame them for lack of useful inventions as those were banned.

if we made engineers free they will give us technologies we would be able to use everyday, in the road cars also. internet was not born as a mean of global communication for everyone and teflon was not meant to be in every kitchen, just to name two examples.

regards

[Pup]

The theory behind limiting technology and limiting the areas in which a team can sink their R&D budget is that the teams would simply not spend due to the decreasing rate of return for such improvements. I think it would be obvious by now that this theory is false; and that team budgets are determined as much or more by how much they have available to spend, rather than by what they need to compete.

Up until this season, we had a period in which wealthier teams could invest in programs that required large sums of money and returned relatively small results - something a smaller team can neither afford nor justify. So the pecking order remained relatively stable. Changing the aero regulations this year had the direct affect of shuffling the grid. Better solutions were found that didn't require massive investments in wind tunnel testing or CFD hours. Of course, we can't just change the rules up each year, as that in itself imposes huge costs on every team.

But easing the reg restrictions should have a similar result. Less dramatic, perhaps; but also less costly. More importantly, no cost would be mandated, meaning that a poorer team could get by with their existing package if needed; or develop some clever kit over time, spreading the cost to fit their budget. I think Williams' KERS technology would have fit the latter category nicely.

I also agree with the comments being made about road relevance. By no means would I ever say that road relevancy is necessary; but it certainly makes things more interesting, and provides manufacturers a more direct link to their customers. Or, to bring it back to what I was saying earlier this week, its a way of adding value to the series.

Tires are a good example of this. Unlike many, I liked the one-set rule a few years back. It had problems, but I think they could have been solved by allowing a team to make a single tire change during the race, not concurrent with refueling. For me, there was a sense that the tire companies had accepted a pretty difficult challenge and were really developing something over the season; and that what they were learning in the process might well be applied someday to a tire I could buy. I came away with a higher opinion of both companies, and a greater interest in the sport. But now? What is there about the current tire situation that interests me in the slightest? The mandatory option/prime requirement seems no more than an annoying gimmick, and if anything, I have a far lower opinion of Bridgestone than before, since they seem to be providing F1 with the minimum possible.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 is running a constructor contest in addition to the driver contest. So it makes sense to look at the sporting rules for the constructor contest and ask yourself it they make sense. In the real world a constructor who meets the spec, meets the time schedule and stays inside the allocated budget or resource allocation would be considered to do a good job. You cannot eliminate any of those elements and do a successfull job in an engineering enterprise.

In F1 so far budget or resources have been practically unlimited for a few top engineers in top teams who manage to deliver higher performance. This has been possible because at least four or five teams had practically unlimited funds to support such a competition. With the exception of Red Bull all those teams were owned and sponsored by international automobile manufacturers. Due to the automotive crisis this picture will change. Even F1 will probably only have one or two teams which can run a practically unlimited budget strategy. Any chance that we should see an unpredictable sporting contest in the engineering field is thus greatly reduced. This cannot be good to F1. In reality the resource restriction agreement is supposed to adress the situation.

In the past technical restrictions have been implemented for various reasons. Including:

• throttling performance for safety reasons
• achieve certain appearance aspects
• provide advertising space
• achieve higher sustainability
• gain an advantage for a competitor by lobbying
• suppress costs by creating diminishing returns

My view is that the last to reasons for restrictions are not sensible and not sporting. So an influential team should not be able to prohibit a competitors new technology by secret veto or other manipulations. The last point should be unnecessary in the future. The resource or budget restrictions should replace those design restrictions.

Hopefully a good set of competition aspects including a cap on resources will give a more interesting and more sporting constructor contest. It could contribute to more interest in F1 and a positive development of the fan base. It would also add value to the teams and the series and make teams potentially more profitable.

[Astro1]

I think that regardless how cheap and inexpensive, restricted, regulated or unregulated they make F1, it's not going far with Bernie sucking up the dough.

But to answer the question of is F1 going to burst? Not for another 3 years. In 2012, it might. If Bernie has his way in breaking the power of FOTA by getting rid of the power manufacturers and driving the likes of Ferrari and McLaren out, then it might.

For me, F1 won't be the same. I've always watched F1, because I liked the technology aspect of it. Sure it's interesting to watch engineers find ways around restrictions, but that's not what F1 was to me really.

I wanted to see technology develop. The thing is, that is not what Bernie is in it for. His goal is to use F1 to pay CVC Capital.

We can argue about semantics and opinions on where F1 should go all we want but it's not really going one way or another. F1 will go downhill because driving out the manufactures is not my idea of solving things, which is exactly what's been happening. Bernie is making the sport cheap, and not Grand Prix racing.

I wrote a piece about it on my site if you're interested.

The other big factor for me, is that I like watching manufacturers battle it out with each other, but there have been way too many political decisions coming out of the governing body that IMO are slowly killing the sport.

I don't buy it that BMW, Toyota, Bridgestone, Honda ALL left because they had no money. They certainly had MORE than the teams about to enter.

Is Campos even going to race? What about Manor? and USF1? Lotus are borrowing FI's model and still there are doubts about them as well.

I just don't know. I'm all for teams participating, but as Ferrari said, these are not F1 caliber.

[autogyro]

Not F1 caliber?
I suggest you explain exactly what F1 is then.

[pgj]

I like the idea of F1 having some relevance to general motoring too. The biggest obstacle is that F1 is a prototype series. By its nature it is more likely to innovate for its own ends of being successful in F1 than it is to develop innovations for general motoring.

[WhiteBlue]

If the rules are tweaked in such a way that performance can come mainly from increased fuel efficiency you automatically get road relevance. It just takes a new thinking.

ll you have to do is regulate the torque over RPM curve and you can unfreeze the engines. After each year all the new tech is published and you have to find something new to be more competitive.

Same with downforce. Specify a set amount and all competitive advantage will come from reducing drag and turbulence. Allow flexible wings with suitable load tests.

[Pup]

The standard line in the FIA for some time now has been that if you have big budgets, it will lead to dominance by the haves vs the have nots, which in turn means that teams with smaller budgets are not viable.

I don't dismiss that line of reasoning entirely; indeed, it has to a certain extent been shown true. My argument, however, is that there is a more organic way of dealing with the problem as opposed to just taking it head-on. The problem with the head-on approach, as we've been talking about, is that the solutions to the problem have a great deal of collateral damage in stifling the very things that make the sport what it is.

Again, this past season has provided ample evidence that when everyone starts from scratch, budgets play a far smaller role in determining who finds the best solution. For me, this is a very clear signpost pointing to where the sport should look for a long term solution to the budget problem. Is there a way to allow the big teams to spend what they wish, while still providing the opportunity for a clever small team to kick their collective butts?

Easing the restrictions is one possible way, since it provides a wider area for the engineers to play. I've suggested in the past another possible solution, which is to open the cars up at the end of each season, so that any new tech or cleverness can be copied freely among the teams. I'm sure that there are multiple other solutions as well.

[Conceptual]

If the rules are tweaked in such a way that performance can come mainly from increased fuel efficiency you automatically get road relevance. It just takes a new thinking.

ll you have to do is regulate the torque over RPM curve and you can unfreeze the engines. After each year all the new tech is published and you have to find something new to be more competitive.

Same with downforce. Specify a set amount and all competitive advantage will come from reducing drag and turbulence. Allow flexible wings with suitable load tests.

Funny, I recall saying the same thing about a year ago, and you, as well as others, trampled all over me for saying that the teams should share info at the end of each season.

The easiest way to cap costs is to ensure co-operation. If Ferrari knew that every aspect of their car would become general knowledge at the end of the season, they may not invest $45M Euros into that last .01s/lap aero tweak.

But, as ever, you take an idea from others, disagree enormously at first, then mull it over, and a year later come back and state it again as if it was your idea in the first place.

Typical, and the reason that I rarely even visit these forums anymore...

[CHT]

Not F1 caliber?
I suggest you explain exactly what F1 is then.

I guess what he is trying to say is that these new team can only exist if FIA restrict the development pace of top teams, which is against the spirit of what F1 should be.

[ISLAMATRON]

Not F1 caliber?
I suggest you explain exactly what F1 is then.

I guess what he is trying to say is that these new team can only exist if FIA restrict the development pace of top teams, which is against the spirit of what F1 should be.

It is not the FIA restricting the development pace of the teams but rather FOTA itself please read...

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 4328.shtml

[ISLAMATRON]

Easing the restrictions is one possible way, since it provides a wider area for the engineers to play. I've suggested in the past another possible solution, which is to open the cars up at the end of each season, so that any new tech or cleverness can be copied freely among the teams. I'm sure that there are multiple other solutions as well.

Yes but easing the technical restrictions will lead to much bigger spending, so the only sane solution is easing the technical restrictions but within the framework of a budget cap, which is what Mad Max's entire plan called for. Instead we are left with FOTA's BS attempt at cost cutting and with absolutely no lifting of the technical restrictions.

None of us are argueing against the lifting of the technical restrictions, but it must be done while costs are held under control. If not the teams who pour in a huge amount of money but remain mired at the back(manufacterer teams such as Honda, Toyota & BMW) of the grid would rather just quit than continue to fund the team. And then that leaves the customer teams(Super Aguri, Williams) out in the cold with no engines. This was the reason why the V-8's were standerdized as much as they were, to allow the customer teams to rather easily switch from one manufacterer to another if need be. Where would Williams be next year if Cosworth were not brought back in? Merc lumps are spoken for, Honda, BMW & Toyota are out of F1, so they would only have Renault & Ferrari to choose from, and may be at the control of RBR as to which one they can run.

And if you dont think budgets didnt play as big a role as usual this year please consider the difference between the 2 RBR teams who essentially had the same car.

[Michiba]

Easing the restrictions is one possible way, since it provides a wider area for the engineers to play. I've suggested in the past another possible solution, which is to open the cars up at the end of each season, so that any new tech or cleverness can be copied freely among the teams. I'm sure that there are multiple other solutions as well.

Yes but easing the technical restrictions will lead to much bigger spending, so the only sane solution is easing the technical restrictions but within the framework of a budget cap, which is what Mad Max's entire plan called for. Instead we are left with FOTA's BS attempt at cost cutting and with absolutely no lifting of the technical restrictions.

None of us are argueing against the lifting of the technical restrictions, but it must be done while costs are held under control. If not the teams who pour in a huge amount of money but remain mired at the back(manufacterer teams such as Honda, Toyota & BMW) of the grid would rather just quit than continue to fund the team. And then that leaves the customer teams(Super Aguri, Williams) out in the cold with no engines. This was the reason why the V-8's were standerdized as much as they were, to allow the customer teams to rather easily switch from one manufacterer to another if need be. Where would Williams be next year if Cosworth were not brought back in? Merc lumps are spoken for, Honda, BMW & Toyota are out of F1, so they would only have Renault & Ferrari to choose from, and may be at the control of RBR as to which one they can run.

And if you dont think budgets didnt play as big a role as usual this year please consider the difference between the 2 RBR teams who essentially had the same car.

are you sure about the comment about the engines? I thought the main reason was as a cost cutting exercise, as teams were spending half their budgets on engine development.

And super aguri was left out in the cold because they ran out of money.

and with reference to the red bull teams, how do you explain vettel winning in a TR? I think the difference in the performance there could be largely attributed to the drivers of each car, and that STR would get upgrades later than RBR.

That's 1 blatant lie and 2 half truths by my count.

[Conceptual]

Easing the restrictions is one possible way, since it provides a wider area for the engineers to play. I've suggested in the past another possible solution, which is to open the cars up at the end of each season, so that any new tech or cleverness can be copied freely among the teams. I'm sure that there are multiple other solutions as well.

Yes but easing the technical restrictions will lead to much bigger spending, so the only sane solution is easing the technical restrictions but within the framework of a budget cap, which is what Mad Max's entire plan called for. Instead we are left with FOTA's BS attempt at cost cutting and with absolutely no lifting of the technical restrictions.

None of us are argueing against the lifting of the technical restrictions, but it must be done while costs are held under control. If not the teams who pour in a huge amount of money but remain mired at the back(manufacterer teams such as Honda, Toyota & BMW) of the grid would rather just quit than continue to fund the team. And then that leaves the customer teams(Super Aguri, Williams) out in the cold with no engines. This was the reason why the V-8's were standerdized as much as they were, to allow the customer teams to rather easily switch from one manufacterer to another if need be. Where would Williams be next year if Cosworth were not brought back in? Merc lumps are spoken for, Honda, BMW & Toyota are out of F1, so they would only have Renault & Ferrari to choose from, and may be at the control of RBR as to which one they can run.

And if you dont think budgets didnt play as big a role as usual this year please consider the difference between the 2 RBR teams who essentially had the same car.

are you sure about the comment about the engines? I thought the main reason was as a cost cutting exercise, as teams were spending half their budgets on engine development.

And super aguri was left out in the cold because they ran out of money.

and with reference to the red bull teams, how do you explain vettel winning in a TR? I think the difference in the performance there could be largely attributed to the drivers of each car, and that STR would get upgrades later than RBR.

That's 1 blatant lie and 2 half truths by my count.

The main reason for the switch to V8's was to upset the apple cart and to try and level the playing field, like the 2009 aero regs did. As much as the "official" reason being for cost cutting, changing the regs to a highly restricted, "universal" engine with "reliability upgrade" loopholes, I believe that it has been proven that the cost has not gone down significantly. If the FIA would have homologated the 2005 engines, and rev limited them to 15k RPM, the teams would have saved an aweful lot more.

Vettel won in Monza 2008 due to a great setup, good timing, and RAIN. If you rewatch the race (as I have, several times) he was consistant, but the safety-car start, and his spray wake was more of a performance differentiator than his car or his talent.

As for lies and half truths, all I see here is opinion. Albeit, opinion stated as fact, but still opinion. It seems that you don't have any facts to change his opinion, so now it is your opinion that he is lying and telling half-truths...

Sometimes, I am amazed that this is still considered a technical forum...

[ISLAMATRON]

are you sure about the comment about the engines? I thought the main reason was as a cost cutting exercise, as teams were spending half their budgets on engine development.

And super aguri was left out in the cold because they ran out of money.

and with reference to the red bull teams, how do you explain vettel winning in a TR? I think the difference in the performance there could be largely attributed to the drivers of each car, and that STR would get upgrades later than RBR.

That's 1 blatant lie and 2 half truths by my count.

http://www.newsonf1.com/2004/news/july/jul01.htm

4. Engine (2006)

2.4 litre V8 (90º) with maximum bore diameter, fixed cylinder spacing, minimum crankshaft centre line height, minimum weight and minimum height of centre of gravity. Direct fuel injection, variable geometry inlet systems, variable geometry exhaust systems, variable valve timing and variable valve lift systems all prohibited. Only one spark plug, one coil and one injector per cylinder. Exotic materials banned.

Explanation: a 20% reduction in capacity will produce a corresponding drop in power. Constraints on design and the use of materials will significantly slow the rate of power increase and reduce the scope for using engine design to improve chassis characteristics. Keeping existing cylinder sizes retains many current engine components while keeping engine revs close to current levels.

What does standard engine mounting points have to do with cost cutting? Standard crank height? Yes some of the V-8 engine rules had to do with cost cutting, like the min weight and the min CG, but some were aimed at allowing the independent teams to easily switch from power plant providers.

Yes SAR folded because of financial problems(sponsors not paying) but had they survived the 2008 season(getting their FOM money) they would not have had an engine supplier was my point.

Vettle won in the TR thru a combination of exceptional circumstances, but STR's 2008 dominence over RBR can be easily attributed to the superior Ferrari engine compared to the Renault lump which was allowed upgrading over the winter.

all the relevent FIA news archives on the topic can be found here:
http://www.newsonf1.com/f1regs/f1regulationsann.htm