71 replies to this topic

[Paolo]

From Autosport.com:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIA plans to resurrect Formula Two

By Simon Strang Wednesday, June 25th 2008, 12:44 GMT

The FIA has announced a shock decision to resurrect the Formula Two name from 2009 as an 'inexpensive' platform for aspiring driver talent as a stepping stone for Formula One.

In a statement following Wednesday's FIA World Council meeting in Paris, the sport's governing body has invited tenders for the new low-cost feeder series.

The statement read: "The FIA will invite tenders for a new feeder series for Formula One. This championship, called Formula Two, would be launched in 2009 and used as an inexpensive platform to develop emerging driver talent for Formula One. It is hoped this can be achieved within a budget of around €200,000 a car per season."

How the FIA hopes to achieve running costs of around €200,000 per car per season remains to be seen. The target figure is significantly lower than it costs to compete in the current traditional ladder series - GP2 Series and F3.

It is not clear if the intention is to run the series as a support race for F1, or even if it is being introduced as a replacement on the bill for GP2, which costs around €1.5m per season to run a car. Or indeed, whether it would co-exist alongside the second-string category that replaced F3000 in 2004.

One current GP2 team boss told autosport.com: "Our cars actually cost €190,000, and that's without the engines. If it's a junior formula, like Formula Ford or something, then fine, but you cannot run anything substantial for that kind of money. For example, a Formula BMW costs just under €300,000 to run per car in Europe, and that's with zero margin.

"I can't think what cars they expect to run for €200,000, because there are people spending that kind of money in karting in Europe."

The use of the name F2 could be seen as a clear provocation against Bernie Ecclestone, showing that the FIA is willing to set-up their own championships and are ready to go up against a series that is backed by the commercial rights holder, and is partly financed by CVC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now, it is true that 200K Euro is very little for current standards.
Yet I personally think that current standards are madness.

I can see an easy way of having an interesting and cheap F2.

1) A constructor chosen by FIA, say Dallara, produces a standard survival cell in carbon fiber or whatever. Doesn't need to be light: just safe.
2) Teams apply their own steel spaceframe (spec material) to aforementioned survival cell and build suspensions etc.
3) Bodywork in flat, straight sided aluminium panels, each with a minimum area requirement.
4) Brakes, gearbox, shocks and tyres are the same for everyone, FIA contract again.
5) Tires are very, very hard and skinny. Critical slip angle over 10°. Maximum adherence coefficient around 1.1
6) Engine is a production unit with an output around 300 HP; preparation equivalent to Group N or lower, mostly to enhance reliability. RPM limiter. Could be a spec unit or not.
7) Minimum weight 650 Kg; No ballast, no materials other than steel and aluminium. Minimum CG heigth requirement.
8) Free aero (yet remember the flat bodywork rule: no real wings...); weight and tyres will level performance gains in this area and cars will look different
9) A point system rewarding wins as it should be; say 10-6-4 or even more. Points for pole, fastest lap, most laps led.
10) Locked differential
11) Limited testing

Please, add your ideas or shatter my dreams at will.

[rhm]

For that kind of money they're looking at more of an arrive-and-drive spec series. No teams, no expensive mechanics, no development or even individual setup. Think Formula Palmer-Audi.

[imaginesix]

I can think of three ways to acheive that cost target;
- Eliminate teams and have all the cars race prepped by the same people à la Bondurant or equivalent race school.
- Subsidize the costs to the teams.
- Make the series largely irrelevant in the motorsports world.

[Paolo]

I would hate to see ANOTHER spec series.
If in 1970 it was possible to run F2s on a budget that today would not suffice for F. Ford, probably what we need is a series with 1970 technology. Of course, with more safety, hence the standard survival cell.
Another improvement I can see, now that rhm mentioned mechanics is: no more than 2 of them for each car can have access to the paddock.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think they're meaning 200k for a rolling chassis, not a turn-key season.

[Kpy]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I think they're meaning 200k for a rolling chassis, not a turn-key season.

The Fia statement says

"The FIA will invite tenders for a new feeder series for Formula One,"

"This championship, called Formula Two, would be launched in 2009 and used as an inexpensive platform to develop emerging driver talent for Formula One. It is hoped this can be achieved within a budget of around €200,000 a car per season."

Doesn't sound like just a rolling chassis.

[Ross Stonefeld]

200,000 a car sounds like a rolling chassis to me.

When you see an ad for a car in a dealership it doesn't include fuel, road tax, insurance, etc.

Given the FIA tends to regulate chassis rules not commercial rules I imagine this is aimed at the commodity cost not the competition cost.

[LMP900]

Yet another half-baked idea from the FIA, like the F1 engine freeze. How can a E200k-budget one-make series be a credible feeder series for F1? Even GP2, with a budget seven times that, isn't a credible feeder series for F1. I can only think it's a typo, and their actual target is E2,000,000. The best idea in my opinion, which I've been pushing for years, is for F2 to be a more powerful F3, sharing most of the same hardware (so the development costs can be amortised over a larger number of units) but with more power, more elaborate electronics, and better tyres. The new F3, continuing to use the same basic engine architecture as now, would have around 280bhp, where F2 could have say 340bhp. F3 would be a national series, where F2 could be continental or global, like the old F2 series. The crucial thing though is that it must be a free-chassis series, and retain F3's ethos in that respect. It's a fallacy that one-make series offer better value for money (in terms of miles per Euro), or even lower costs, than free-chassis series: they certainly do offer bigger profits for the monopoly suppliers though....

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Kpy
The Fia statement says

"The FIA will invite tenders for a new feeder series for Formula One,"

"This championship, called Formula Two, would be launched in 2009 and used as an inexpensive platform to develop emerging driver talent for Formula One. It is hoped this can be achieved within a budget of around €200,000 a car per season."

Doesn't sound like just a rolling chassis.

Maybe the 200k Euro cost per driver per year is the cost to the FIA. So a championship with 20 contenders would cost 4 million to administer.

I don't know why anyone would care what it costs the FIA, but at least that puts the figure in the ballpark within the terms used to announce it.

[phantom II]

Panoz has a bunch of CHAMP cars for sale.

[J. Edlund]

The budget of €200,000 is most likely the cost of running a car during a season and it shouldn't be impossible to meet.

A production derived engine together with a spec chassi and gearbox could probably be used for the whole season without more than regular service if the car isn't damaged in an accident. A 300 hp production derived engine for instance can probably last longer than a season between not too costly rebuilds while the tub can be used much longer (there is no need to replace the tub out of performance reasons as the new tub will be identical to the old one). The engine could probably be made availible, with backing from a major manufacturer, for as little as a few k euros (base engine without ECU). With a suitable power level, tires, weight and downforce the car should be reasonably fast and there is no need to spend money on development if only FIA approved parts are allowed. There is also no need to put caps of downforce or tires (these are only needed to reduce speeds, and the car can be designed for a desired speed to begin with). The tires can simply be designed for a good grip, long life and low cost and the underbody of the car can use ground effects just like champ cars did. There is no extra charge for wide tires, a wide car and ground effects, quite the opposite, these features allow the manufacturer to build a fast car without going to great lengths to optimise all parts of the car.

The FIA could simply give all companies willing to bid on a supply contract desired lap times at a few typical tracks and other required specfications then simply let the companies to propose a car design where the FIA select the cheapest/most promising design.

All parts could be sold through FIA to make sure the supply of parts is equal to all. Perhaps it even could be possible for FIA to sell parts to the teams at the races reducing the amount of spare parts the teams need to take with them (as most parts would remain unused anyway).

If the teams are allowed to make any parts themself that affect the performance of the cars costs will go out of control, so the best way to put a cap on the costs is to only allow FIA approved parts. I would even propose that the design should allow a limited set up freedom to minimize the amount of testing required. In other words, it's the driver than makes the difference, not how many engineers you can afford to hire.

[Canuck]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
In other words, it's the driver than makes the difference, not how many engineers you can afford to hire.

I thought IROC went bust?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
The budget of €200,000 is most likely the cost of running a car during a season and it shouldn't be impossible to meet.

I don't see how. Overhead is going to eat up a good part of it.

Assuming a one-man crew, how much is the crew chief/mechanic/team manager going to be paid?

How much does it cost to haul a racecar and trailer around Europe for a summer? (In the USA you can figure at least a buck a mile, and that is with the equipment fully amortized.)

Lodging, meals, entry fees?

How much are we budgeting for crash damage?

How many tires, brake pads, rotors, and clutch discs are we going to need?

How many springs, dampers, and gearsets?

And not to be a total dick about it, but if the driver hopes to advance anywhere (which is the idea of all this, I presume) or if the team expects to offest any of the expenses with sponsorship we are going to need some kind of budget for driver PR and team marketing.

That is the thing about junior-series formula car racing: There is a bare minimum level of funding required no matter what kind of cars are involved, and it is fairly hefty. You are well beyond the realm of so-called "affordable racing" before you even buy the race car.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by LMP900
It's a fallacy that one-make series offer better value for money (in terms of miles per Euro), or even lower costs, than free-chassis series: they certainly do offer bigger profits for the monopoly suppliers though....

That is so adorable. This is why companies are run by the marketing, finance and IT people while the engineers sit in their cubicles.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by McGuire


That is so adorable. This is why companies are run by the marketing, finance and IT people while the engineers sit in their cubicles....

........trying to think of practical ways to get the boss off the hook after he's made some half-baked claim. They'll have a tough time with this one...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Surely they're thinking 200k for the chassis. That's about the only thing you can control the cost on. What people spend using it is down to how much they can find.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by LMP900

........trying to think of practical ways to get the boss off the hook after he's made some half-baked claim. They'll have a tough time with this one...

Dream on. You can't design and build a competitive open-comp formula car for €200,000. That is beyond naive.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by McGuire


Dream on. You can't design and build a competitive open-comp formula car for €200,000. That is beyond naive.

I know that better than most, having designed a few. Read my first post - I said the target cost was ludicrously low. The key point however is that, if it's intended to be a proper feeder series for F1 (rather than a GP2-style sham), it must be an open-chassis formula, with free, F3-style (or freer), technical regs, and allow a good amount of test miles. That way, the drivers have to learn to evaluate different technical solutions: it makes no sense for a series feeding into the notoriously development-hungry F1 to be stagnant, technologically, for 3 years. But I'll bet that's what the FIA has in mind, in the vague, and vain, hope that that will keep the cost down.

As usual, they say they're going bear hunting but aim the gun at a turkey.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think the ladder needs to be staggered. I don't mind that GP2 is 'fixed' as long as F3 is open. Let them learn in F3, let them show what they've learned in GP2/F2; it should be a final exam showing how quickly you can put all your knowledge to the test.

Personally I think the proliferation of all these one make entry level series, which killed off Formula Ford, will make an entire generation of brainless drivers. But if they're all brainless, I guess it won't matter.

Even F3 is starting to get silly. You can't do anything in the Euroseries. For training purposes I reckon Brit F3 is ideal even if the competition isn't as high as it used to be.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by McGuire


I don't see how. Overhead is going to eat up a good part of it.

Assuming a one-man crew, how much is the crew chief/mechanic/team manager going to be paid?

How much does it cost to haul a racecar and trailer around Europe for a summer? (In the USA you can figure at least a buck a mile, and that is with the equipment fully amortized.)

Lodging, meals, entry fees?

How much are we budgeting for crash damage?

How many tires, brake pads, rotors, and clutch discs are we going to need?

How many springs, dampers, and gearsets?

And not to be a total dick about it, but if the driver hopes to advance anywhere (which is the idea of all this, I presume) or if the team expects to offest any of the expenses with sponsorship we are going to need some kind of budget for driver PR and team marketing.

That is the thing about junior-series formula car racing: There is a bare minimum level of funding required no matter what kind of cars are involved, and it is fairly hefty. You are well beyond the realm of so-called "affordable racing" before you even buy the race car.

I would assume that a typical two car team would require two trailers which you probably can find used for €50k each. With european diesel costs of almost €1.5 per liter and a diesel consumption of at least 20-30 liters per 100 km transportation costs are going to be quite high. Lodging can he handled by the trailers, but meals would of course be required. For a two car team I would assume that at least a few mechanics are required, but all of them doesen't need to be full time employees.

As I said earlier the car will be required to offer a limitied amount of setups; for instance the use of only one or a few gearsets. The clutch have to be designed to handle a season (shouldn't be too difficult given that rallycross teams use their clutches a whole season). Tires will have to last long, so few changes are required. Brake rotors and pads must probably be used for more than one event. The whole car needs to be designed with the running costs in mind.

The cars will have to handle light contact with other cars without being damaged. Crash damage needs to be cheap and simple to fix.

With a budget of €200,000 there isn't room for any car development, so an open competition series would be completly out of the question.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by LMP900

I know that better than most, having designed a few. Read my first post - I said the target cost was ludicrously low.

You can make it 400k or 600k and the result is the same.

[Catalina Park]

I have discovered the answer....
http://aigrf.blogspot.com/

[LMP900]

Originally posted by Catalina Park
I have discovered the answer....
http://aigrf.blogspot.com/

This I like - it's an open-chassis formula. If the FIA were to adopt this, they'd switch it to monotype chassis, give the contract to Briatore, the cars would be heavy, unreliable and very expensive, and they'd have two races - the first downhill and the second uphill.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Harsh, but fair.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by Catalina Park
I have discovered the answer....
http://aigrf.blogspot.com/

that

is

genius.

[One]

Originally posted by LMP900
Yet another half-baked idea from the FIA, like the F1 engine freeze. How can a E200k-budget one-make series be a credible feeder series for F1? Even GP2, with a budget seven times that, isn't a credible feeder series for F1. I can only think it's a typo, and their actual target is E2,000,000. The best idea in my opinion, which I've been pushing for years, is for F2 to be a more powerful F3, sharing most of the same hardware (so the development costs can be amortised over a larger number of units) but with more power, more elaborate electronics, and better tyres. The new F3, continuing to use the same basic engine architecture as now, would have around 280bhp, where F2 could have say 340bhp. F3 would be a national series, where F2 could be continental or global, like the old F2 series. The crucial thing though is that it must be a free-chassis series, and retain F3's ethos in that respect. It's a fallacy that one-make series offer better value for money (in terms of miles per Euro), or even lower costs, than free-chassis series: they certainly do offer bigger profits for the monopoly suppliers though....

Seeing that racing cart often being named as closest to formula One in terms of driving skill I think your idea is appealing. Why not give more power, like 450 BHP on slightly longer F3 chassis?

[Paolo]

I see nobody seems to like my "back to 70's technology" idea.
Yet, in these years it was possible to see Connew and Lec, and four guys and a telephone could famously start a racecar business.
Still in the 80's, realities like Toleman and Osella could exist, something that now would be unthinkable.
I think taking away carbon fiber would do a lot to cut down costs; and the flat panel aluminium body I proposed would really help in this respect.
I perfectly understand these cars would be slow compared to an F3, but can anyone enlighten me on why they would not be a lot cheaper?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Paolo
I see nobody seems to like my "back to 70's technology" idea.
Yet, in these years it was possible to see Connew and Lec, and four guys and a telephone could famously start a racecar business.
Still in the 80's, realities like Toleman and Osella could exist, something that now would be unthinkable.
I think taking away carbon fiber would do a lot to cut down costs; and the flat panel aluminium body I proposed would really help in this respect.
I perfectly understand these cars would be slow compared to an F3, but can anyone enlighten me on why they would not be a lot cheaper?

I really like your formula but since due to the flat panels it wouldn't look like a "normal" or "modern" race car (rather like a lot of my ideas) it probably doesn't have a snowball's chance.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Paolo
I perfectly understand these cars would be slow compared to an F3, but can anyone enlighten me on why they would not be a lot cheaper?

Because budgets start with people, not cars. In most cases, cars are something that can be amortized over several years and they are not the driving concern in most racing budgets.

[Paolo]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


Because budgets start with people, not cars. In most cases, cars are something that can be amortized over several years and they are not the driving concern in most racing budgets.

Yes, what you say makes sense. So a cheap series should see limited team personnel (as it was in the 70's....).
While this can easily enforced in the paddock, it becomes harder to limit development and construction personnel, unless there is a spec series.
Yet I would like to think of a way to see an affordable non-spec. Maybe a budget cap?

[pgj]

This is just another half baked FIA idea that has only been thought halfway through. Will a 200k series really prepare a driver for F1? As stated above, there are already low cost series that do the job. Isn't it just reinventing the wheeel?

Originally posted by imaginesix

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time
- T. S. Eliot

[LMP900]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/69114

If this isn't a joke, it's worse than I envisaged. This is basically Palmer Audi with more horsepower, and if you've worked with drivers from PA you'll choke on the idea that anything similar could be a credible "feeder series" for F1. This is actually worse than PA, because it hasn't reduced the cost, it's just transferred it from the entrant to a sponsoring manufacturer. My feeling is that the FIA is panicky about the relative success of A1GP compared to the lacklustre GP2.

[Ross Stonefeld]

How are you defining success to give A1 a + and GP a - ?

[Greg Locock]

Worldwide TV exposure maybe. I don't think I've ever seen GP2 on TV in Oz, whereas A1GP is shown in some form every couple of weeks.

[rhm]

RE: New Formula 2 being an international Formula Palmer Audi - just call me mystic meg!

RE: A1GP vs. GP2, GP2 is the definitive feeder series for F1 of that there is no doubt. However, something being a good feeder series is irrelevant if you're not in motorsport yourself. Of course a series can be good entertainment for viewers and a good feeder series, but GP2 is completely subservient to F1 and as such gets very little exposure. It races on Fridays and Saturdays and it's pretty clear that if it wasn't an F1 support race there would be nobody at the track to see it as per WSR. Compare to A1GP where it is the main event and by touring the less well served for international motorsport nations and the countries in Europe where it's guaranteed a good crowd (Britain, Netherlands), it works as an event in it's own right. That's why I hate it when A1GP people try to label it as a good feeder series - a feeder series is the last thing you want to be if you're not part of the FIA's favoured motorsports ladder.

Anyway, it's pretty transparent that this F2 idea is just a way for Max to get back at Bernie for not supporting him (or at least keeping his trap shut) over Orgygate - it doesn't need to make much sense in that context.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Worldwide TV exposure maybe. I don't think I've ever seen GP2 on TV in Oz, whereas A1GP is shown in some form every couple of weeks.

Yeah but in Europe GP2 is part of the F1 weekend and is usually shown on the same network as the F1, and often live. A1GP is a bit random and hidden.

[LMP900]

Ross - it's to do with expectations of the FIA. A1GP was expected to crash and burn - it hasn't. GP2 was expected to be the credible series for F1 aspirants, and therefore to attract the media - it isn't and it hasn't. That's (IMO) caused the FIA to panic. BTW I'm not eulogising A1GP - far from it.

rhm - GP2 isn't the definitive feeder series for F1. If you speak to anyone with the power to get drivers into F1 they will tell you that currently the F3 Euroseries is where the talent is earmarked. GP2 is a keep-net for that talent, alongside many very mediocre drivers. Good drivers have been capable of making the jump from F3 to F1 with no problem, but the timing isn't often right for the teams. Interestingly, the F3 Euroseries organisers show way more independence than the FIA would like, so I'm sure the FIA would love to slap them down.

If GP2 were succeeding as the tier below F1, why would the FIA be thinking about a replacement?

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by LMP900
--URL::480571f15ec34f56f22a6b31f1f67107-- http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/69114

If this isn't a joke, it's worse than I envisaged. This is basically Palmer Audi with more horsepower, and if you've worked with drivers from PA you'll choke on the idea that anything similar could be a credible "feeder series" for F1. This is actually worse than PA, because it hasn't reduced the cost, it's just transferred it from the entrant to a sponsoring manufacturer. My feeling is that the FIA is panicky about the relative success of A1GP compared to the lacklustre GP2.

So I was right on all 3 counts.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by LMP900
Ross - it's to do with expectations of the FIA. A1GP was expected to crash and burn - it hasn't. GP2 was expected to be the credible series for F1 aspirants, and therefore to attract the media - it isn't and it hasn't.

As far as the entrants are concerned, it is the credible series. Personally I think the World Series calendar is better, in that you get a full Thursday of testing, but the car looks awful and the race weekends are confusing in their gimmicks. I still don't understand how the grid is set. I don't know if GP2 teaches you anything you haven't learned by then, but it seems to be a decent final exam to see if they're going to crack in the face of decent opposition.

rhm - GP2 isn't the definitive feeder series for F1. If you speak to anyone with the power to get drivers into F1 they will tell you that currently the F3 Euroseries is where the talent is earmarked.

It's where it's noticed yeah, but I've been underwhelmed by F3 since day one. Especially the Euroseries. There's very little track time, though in grid terms it is an exceptionally strong series.

If GP2 were succeeding as the tier below F1, why would the FIA be thinking about a replacement?

Unfortunately 'racing' has very little to do with this development, it seems.

[Beedeeai]

Unfortunately 'racing' has very little to do with this development, it seems.

And, if so, this will come out for all to see in due course.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld

It's where it's noticed yeah, but I've been underwhelmed by F3 since day one. Especially the Euroseries. There's very little track time, though in grid terms it is an exceptionally strong series.

I totally agree with you, in the last two decades or so anyway - it was pretty exciting when Senna etc were involved. Unfortunately, the FIA have allowed the tech regs to ossify, so that the cars have too little power, too much downforce, an archaic transmission layout, etc. It's a long way from perfect (particularly the Euroseries version), but it's still the formula that is taken seriously by the F1 boys. The fact that the racing's crap doesn't bother them too much - it's the same in F1 after all.

Where will F2 fit in? Will GP2 continue - presumably it will, because they've just introduced new cars. So, in performance terms, F2 will be below GP2 and above F3. It just inserts another rung into the FIA ladder, making it even more expensive for a driver to climb. A lot of highly talented talented drivers run out of money after F3 (one season in British F3 and one in F3ES, which is a typical trajectory), so scrapping GP2 and displacing F3ES with a European "super F3" series called F2 would actually help the best talent to emerge by reducing the total cost.

The basic problem is that the FIA fat cats don't give a monkey's about motor racing below F1, and I can't see that changing. Why should it? - no-one who does care has the money or political clout to impress Mosley et al.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Why don't they update F3 regs to make F2?

I'm sure you could take the Dallara chassis and upgrade the aero (small tunnels?) and take off the air restrictor and some better tires and have a decent laptime.

Given the way modern single seaters are constructed you could easily design a base tub that can be used in several configurations, like N-Technology are playing with. They managed to get F3 laptimes out of what is a (at the moment) piddly little series.

[cheapracer]

In my opinion, the only Inter series that would have clout is what they almost did before - F1 sedans.



http://www.youtube.c...ad.php?t=558399

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[Paolo]

Hardly a propedeutic series... a F1 without downforce.
Patrese was not exactly inexperienced, and he deemed it "scary".

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by Paolo
Hardly a propedeutic series... a F1 without downforce.
Patrese was not exactly inexperienced, and he deemed it "scary".

Umm, I don't recall anywhere mentioning what aero spec they should run, front splitter/dam and rear boot spoiler would be a prerequisite I would have thought - something Aussie V8 Supercar-ish.

That Alfa seems to have a very narrow track too.

[rhm]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/70669

Not only will the new F2 be like Formula Palmer Audi - IT WILL BE FPA!

OK, they are going to run a proper carbon fibre chassis (I believe the current FPA cars are a spaceframe chassis with glass fibre bodywork), but it will feature the same 1.8 litre turbo Audi engine. The cars will be run by Palmer's existing operation and he will also promote the series. It's quite a coup for the man who was widely derided for setting up a spec formula under his own name many years ago. It's not only become a viable venture (although not as part of the 'ladder' as he originally intended but as a way for 'gentlemen' racers to go racing at a much lower cost), but now is part of the FIA system.

[zac510]

Nobody over 30 years of age wants to race an open wheeler unless it's F1 or historic. This will series will be no different.

I'm still trying to work out why and how the FIA appears to be so involved in the commercial and marketing aspects of this series. Isn't their job just to govern the rule book?

[desmo]

What's the point of using a "proper" CFRP chassis rather than a fiberglass skinned steel spaceframe in any spec series? I'm not seeing the point.

[rhm]

Originally posted by desmo
What's the point of using a "proper" CFRP chassis rather than a fiberglass skinned steel spaceframe in any spec series? I'm not seeing the point.

Safety.

[desmo]

So CFRP construction is inherently safer than a skinned steel spaceframe? I'd have thought it was all down to the particular design rather than the materials employed, particularly as weight should essentially be a non-issue in a spec series and you can presumably design in whatever deformable structures/crush zones are deemed sufficient in either material.