Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Formula 1 constructor rules should be eased


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:27

"Formula 1 constructor rules should be eased"

I have said this many times myself. Why can`t caterham buy the last years Red bull car?

Makes no sense.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105575

Advertisement

#2 ewanarm

ewanarm
  • New Member

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:36

Even more of a hot topic when Martin Whitmarsh expresses these concerns that up to seven teams are in 'survival mode!'

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21463651


#3 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 February 2013 - 19:44

Makes no sense.

Not to us normal rational folk, no. But it makes sense to Bernie who wants to see his nice, neat model of F1, with no awkward duplications of car between different teams (apart from Red Bull of course). And Bernie outvotes us 1- 100,000,000

#4 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 15 February 2013 - 21:25

Since the cars are nearly identical ( as even Adrian Newey says) and visually dominated by the sponsor livery who cares about the parts anyway?

#5 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 February 2013 - 22:28

First thing to jump out at me on the list was the safetyrelated parts eg

- Survival cell as defined in Article 1.14 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Front and side impact structures used to meet the requirements of Articles 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Roll over structures - roll structures as regulated by Article 15.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations


Surely such components having a strong influence on safety and little impact on performance are ideal suited to collaboration and technolgy sharing?

#6 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 February 2013 - 16:06

Having tried to read FIA's technical regulations for F1 chassis, and failed miserably, I suspect there must be some official 3D-template which makes all cars clones?

Same thing with the engines, might as well outsource the engines to one subcontractor, while the three manufacturers can add their valve-covers?

#7 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 25 February 2013 - 21:35

I think, however, that manufacturers like Ferrari would like to use their own engines? I beleive their entire philosophy depends upon in-house development. The knowledge gained in F1 is a short and relevant trip to their road going cars. There is a conscious connection from the buying public as well.

#8 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:03

Without Ferrari the sport would probably have gone to single make engines (DFV) long time ago. Current engine freeze is a compromise to suit them.

The new turbos were going to be inline-four, but then Ferrari insisted on V6 because that's what they want to sell.

#9 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:19

First thing to jump out at me on the list was the safetyrelated parts eg

- Survival cell as defined in Article 1.14 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Front and side impact structures used to meet the requirements of Articles 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Roll over structures - roll structures as regulated by Article 15.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations


Surely such components having a strong influence on safety and little impact on performance are ideal suited to collaboration and technolgy sharing?


That's a somewhat significant part on the aero performance because it includes almost the whole nose and front end of the sidepods. It's also a part you are not allowed to change during season.

#10 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 20:31

I believe they are allowed to chance the tub. But it needs to go through a crash test everytime.

#11 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 01:55

I believe they are allowed to chance the tub. But it needs to go through a crash test everytime.


Yes, apparently since 2012 that has been possible again. Before that, for a few years at least, you had your crash tests in the winter and that was that. For example when McLaren came up with the f-duct, other teams couldn't copy it efficiently, because it was in the homologated part.


#12 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:46

"Formula 1 constructor rules should be eased"

I have said this many times myself. Why can`t caterham buy the last years Red bull car?

Makes no sense.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105575

Why Caterham should be in F1 in the first place, if perhaps somebody more suited (better-off financially) could be awarded their membership card instead, and compete on equal level with top four by building their own car?

#13 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 April 2013 - 23:58

Why Caterham should be in F1 in the first place, if perhaps somebody more suited (better-off financially) could be awarded their membership card instead, and compete on equal level with top four by building their own car?


There is nobody. These small teams can be bought. It's not much of an investment if you plan to blow money like the top teams do. HRT's "card" was available after 2012.