59 replies to this topic

[yoyogetfunky]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/107007

"Porsche says F1's lack of road relevance pushed it to LMP1 instead"

The interesting bit for me:


"Also, there is a lot of publicity around politics and tyres, but not so much about the engines and chassis.""

Kind of what BMW said a few years ago. Do the current engine freeze regulations chase away manufacturers? And the politics? It seems so. Is this a case of shooting yourself in the foot?

[Jackmancer]

I think the pricetag is what scared away Porsche. And Le Mans it's easier to win.

[EthanM]

the whole VAG Group negotiated and pretty much forced i4 engines dangling the we will produce engines for you carrot then said nah thanks. They are just looking after their own interests, if they had the money and could justify spending it they would. They don't and cycle through marketingspeak.

[Ravenak]

Such a great middle finger to Ecclestone and the FIA.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think they'll shrug and rightly assume Porsche would be amongst the last manufacturers to enter F1.

[Clatter]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/107007

"Porsche says F1's lack of road relevance pushed it to LMP1 instead"

The interesting bit for me:


"Also, there is a lot of publicity around politics and tyres, but not so much about the engines and chassis.""

Kind of what BMW said a few years ago. Do the current engine freeze regulations chase away manufacturers? And the politics? It seems so. Is this a case of shooting yourself in the foot?

That was one of the comments Honda made as well.

[Wingcommander]

In a way Porsche have a point. F1 is just a marketing excercise and from technology point of view not very relevant for a car manufacturer. The engine freeze has definitely kept other manufacturers away from the sport. The new regulations help a little, but they are quite restrictive on the engine side.

Edited by Wingcommander, 23 April 2013 - 13:57.

[Wingcommander]

They are just looking after their own interests, if they had the money and could justify spending it they would. They don't and cycle through marketingspeak.

They have the money, they just dont see F1 bringing value for the investment.

[SpaMaster]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/107007

"Porsche says F1's lack of road relevance pushed it to LMP1 instead"

The interesting bit for me:


"Also, there is a lot of publicity around politics and tyres, but not so much about the engines and chassis.""

Kind of what BMW said a few years ago. Do the current engine freeze regulations chase away manufacturers? And the politics? It seems so. Is this a case of shooting yourself in the foot?

I call BS on that one. Not so much about the chassis? F1 is all about chassis, first and foremost. To the detriment of engine, some would say. If Porsche feels there is too much politics in F1, I agree with that. Sometimes it is not worth getting into.

If it wants importance on chassis, Porsche is most welcome to become a constructor.

BMW left because they were losing in F1. That's all.

Edited by SpaMaster, 23 April 2013 - 15:05.

[Seanspeed]

How road-relevant are LMP cars?

I would think their main worry is that they could spend hundreds of millions in F1 with little guarantee of success.

In WEC, on the other hand, they can be pretty assured they'll be fighting at the top at a fraction of the cost.

Edited by Seanspeed, 23 April 2013 - 15:08.

[BoschKurve]

Funny how even with the in-season testing ban and the engine freeze, the budgets still go higher in F1.

Maybe when the FIA decides to do something about the aero which is the real driving force behind the costs in F1, the sport might be more enticing for more teams to be come in.

I don't blame Porsche for staying away, there's little to no ROI to be had from F1 for a manufacturer. Lack of engine development is a guaranteed way to reduce F1 into irrelevance.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The budgets have dropped a lot from where they were in the mid 00s.

[yoyogetfunky]

That was one of the comments Honda made as well.

Yeah, I wasnt sure about it but I did remember such a quote too.

The budgets have dropped a lot from where they were in the mid 00s.

Maybe as a whole, but didnt Mario Illien say last year he was suprised that in 2000 he could build 100 engines on the same budget teams these days spend on 16 throughout a season? And its going up next year even further.

But the other aspect of Porsche complaint, politics, has suprised me as well. I thought teams loved the exposure of yet another drama, but in fact it turns away companies like Porsche. F1 has some thinking to do, about the future, and about their strategy to entice and bring back big names like Porsche imo.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The whole problem with this thread is the thought that Porsche were ever seriously going to do F1. Look at it another way, the headline basically says "Porsche really likes sportscar racing". That's not news.

[Mrluke]

They have a point really, I think talk about the Mercedes FRIC suspension is the only thing I can think of that could possibly be shown as chassis related. All of the media is filled with tyres and aero.

If porsche were to enter, nobody is going to say they won because porsche designed the best chassis or the best engine it will be because they used the tyres the best or their aero was more efficient. The downside is that porsche doesn't get as much benefit from their investment as if everybody thought their engines / chassis were awesome and made them win.

[BoschKurve]

Maybe as a whole, but didnt Mario Illien say last year he was suprised that in 2000 he could build 100 engines on the same budget teams these days spend on 16 throughout a season? And its going up next year even further.

But the other aspect of Porsche complaint, politics, has suprised me as well. I thought teams loved the exposure of yet another drama, but in fact it turns away companies like Porsche. F1 has some thinking to do, about the future, and about their strategy to entice and bring back big names like Porsche imo.

F1 has no idea what they are doing regarding the specs and costs involved. There's too many voices involved, and giving the teams a say in anything is probably one of the worst ideas ever. The ACO has it right. You either play by their rules are go home. I'm not surprised about the complaint regarding the politics. F1 is filled with a bunch of drama queens who go on crying for the entire season, and then continue through the off-season. Truth is F1 is never going to get those big names back unless they change the formula to be less restrictive. As long as the formula skirts the edge of being a spec race, there's not much reason for big names to come in. Maybe had they allowed teams to develop the turbo engines however they saw fit, and run as much boost as they like, it would have been an attractive proposition for big names to come back. The aero-driven F1 has no relevance to the average consumer road cars.

[Timstr11]

Given that aerodynamics rule F1 and that F1 aerodynamics are so specific with the knowledge concentrated at the leading F1 teams, I understand Porsche's standpoint. It will take them a lot of money AND time to win, with little benefit for the road car projects.

[Doug Nye]

Porsche would have considered re-entering Formula 1 for all of a minute or two. Their sports car racing background and mindset is immeasurably greater, and back in the sports car field who would they need to beat? F1 would be immeasurably more demanding in competitive terms.

DCN

[yoyogetfunky]

Indeed. Was it never an idea to let FIA build and hand out spec wings and some parts of the bodywork to get rid of all that Aero downforce race we have now? It would free up money for engine and other tech developments.

[BoschKurve]

Indeed. Was it never an idea to let FIA build and hand out spec wings and some parts of the bodywork to get rid of all that Aero downforce race we have now? It would free up money for engine and other tech developments.

Even going back to the front wing construction that existed in the late 80s/early 90s would be a tremendous improvement in my opinion. These front wings are so absurd now, and the width is absolutely outrageous. They should always have been limited to no wider than the insides of the front wheels.

The teams all know the aero development is what chews up the costs, yet they are insistent on keeping it.

[yoyogetfunky]

Even going back to the front wing construction that existed in the late 80s/early 90s would be a tremendous improvement in my opinion. These front wings are so absurd now, and the width is absolutely outrageous. They should always have been limited to no wider than the insides of the front wheels.

The teams all know the aero development is what chews up the costs, yet they are insistent on keeping it.

Excellent idea! This could free up more room and money for engine tech.

I guess youre right, though, as long as Newey is in the tech working group advising on the 2014 rules, its not gonna happen.

[Fastcake]

Indeed. Was it never an idea to let FIA build and hand out spec wings and some parts of the bodywork to get rid of all that Aero downforce race we have now? It would free up money for engine and other tech developments.

You really want spec cars, with the only development going on the powertrains?

[BoschKurve]

You really want spec cars, with the only development going on the powertrains?

I think they need to severely restrict a lot of the aero work allowed at the present moment.

The truth is all the aero garbage has nothing to do with road cars. It's too extreme.

[SpaMaster]

I hear a lot of people talking about cutting the aero importance. But when the 2009 Overtaking Working Group regulations were introduced to clamp down aero effects and the multi-diffuser against those regulations were developed by some teams, there wasn't such strong opposition to that as FIA went ahead permitted it. People certainly did not stand up for it. Now they are talking against it as if it is a new revelation. When there was a chance to do something, nobody bothered, now they want to complain because they are upset about something else.

[dans79]

What do people expect, the only thing that's going to keep manufactures in F1 is open drive train development. I go as far as to say it's not even about the technology, but that they can sell the general public pr speak that says what they do in F1 benefits them in some way.

[BoschKurve]

I hear a lot of people talking about cutting the aero importance. But when the 2009 Overtaking Working Group regulations were introduced to clamp down aero effects and the multi-diffuser against those regulations were developed by some teams, there wasn't such strong opposition to that as FIA went ahead permitted it. People certainly did not stand up for it. Now they are talking against it as if it is a new revelation. When there was a chance to do something, nobody bothered, now they want to complain because they are upset about something else.

I wasn't here in 2009, but I certainly would have been complaining about it then. The double diffuser debacle was a way to get Brawn that gifted championship to help Brawn flip it off on Daimler. The high reliance on aero plus these ridiculous car lengths is a joke.

[SpaMaster]

I wasn't here in 2009, but I certainly would have been complaining about it then. The double diffuser debacle was a way to get Brawn that gifted championship to help Brawn flip it off on Daimler. The high reliance on aero plus these ridiculous car lengths is a joke.

That's why I did not pinpoint you in particular. If you were dead against those diffusers, good for you, I was the same. But I can say is we did not say such stinging opposition to the diffusers back then. Not like the endless criticism we have on Pirellis these years. I can totally understand why people criticize the Pirellis. But I always thought that diffuser-saga was a much bigger problem, and I agree that was FIA being crooked to get a different team instead of Ferrari or McLaren the championship.

Aero never got clamped after that..

[Ross Stonefeld]

It wasn't a conspiracy it was a bad rule.

[Cool Beans]

I think they need to severely restrict a lot of the aero work allowed at the present moment.

The truth is all the aero garbage has nothing to do with road cars. It's too extreme.

One solution to driving down aerodynamics cost would be to homologamolimotimise aero packages for a set amount of races, say 10 races per aero package. But then teams would just move those resources into other departments.

[SpaMaster]

It wasn't a conspiracy it was a bad rule.

FIA has the power to outlaw any grey area if it is against what the rule was meant to be under its own discretion. That was the product of 3-4 years of hard work to reduce the aero effect. Brawn who worked with Byrne during his Ferrari years exactly knew what the rules were meant for. If ever there was no double what the intention of rules were, it was that and FIA has acted on those grounds on much smaller issues. Fans who argue for that have no business arguing for aero clamp down in F1.

Edited by SpaMaster, 23 April 2013 - 19:49.

[Ross Stonefeld]

So we have to believe in the conspiracy to think there needs to be less aero in F1?

[scheivlak]

It wasn't a conspiracy it was a bad rule.

That was already exploited in testing by Williams and Toyota before Brawn entered the stage.

[pdac]

I call BS on that one. Not so much about the chassis? F1 is all about chassis, first and foremost. To the detriment of engine, some would say. If Porsche feels there is too much politics in F1, I agree with that. Sometimes it is not worth getting into.

If it wants importance on chassis, Porsche is most welcome to become a constructor.

BMW left because they were losing in F1. That's all.

To be fair, the wording was:

"Also, there is a lot of publicity around politics and tyres, but not so much about the engines and chassis."

So they didn't say there was a lot of politics and it was not about the chassis, they suggested the talk was more about the politics than the chassis.

[SpaMaster]

No, I don't care whether it was conspiracy or incompetency. Either way, the rule should have been properly implemented and FIA had the power to overrule any developments based on grey area. It has been done so on many other occasions. Irrespective of all these things, the diffuser development did not get an overwhelming opposition from the fans. If they ever thought aero needed to be clamped, they should have voiced against it.

Edited by SpaMaster, 23 April 2013 - 20:37.

[Fastcake]

I think they need to severely restrict a lot of the aero work allowed at the present moment.

The truth is all the aero garbage has nothing to do with road cars. It's too extreme.

No, what you want is development spread between aerodynamics, engine development and the rest of the car, with sensible restrictions in place to prevent runaway spending. Many people aren't happy with current situation of limited engine spending, but equally I don't want to see that being rectified by restricting another area of the car.

No, I don't care whether it was conspiracy or incompetency. Either way, the rule should have been properly implemented and FIA had the power to overrule any developments based on grey area. It has done so on many other occasions. Irrespective of all these things, the diffuser development did not get an overwhelming opposition from the fans. If they ever thought aero needed to be clamped, they should have voiced against it.

The rules were properly implemented. Double diffusers were found to be within them.

[scheivlak]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/107007

Do the current engine freeze regulations chase away manufacturers?

I don't think you can call the 2014 regulations an engine freeze

[SpaMaster]

The rules were properly implemented. Double diffusers were found to be within them.

Okay, fine. I just don't want to hear any complaints on Red Bull flexi-wings, ride-height handle bar, off-throttle blowing, etc. And most certainly not on the paramount need to clamp aero.

Edited by SpaMaster, 23 April 2013 - 20:31.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Eh? I don't like all those tricks either.

[yoyogetfunky]

You really want spec cars, with the only development going on the powertrains?

You really want a spec drivetrain, wich is it is now, and a half spec aero plan, wich it also is now cause everyone copies eachother, with the largest part of the money poured into the latter?

I don't think you can call the 2014 regulations an engine freeze ;)

Haha, currently no, thats true, but between the first test and homologation is a space of a few months right? And even then, the FIA will find a way to equal the output.

[Atreiu]

It would make more sense to have spec cars/chassis/parts countered by near unlimited development for the powertrains.

Cars that can achieve greater autonomy and performance using less and less fuel while assimilating new energy sources and green technology is a current common goal for the industry. Not the development of EBDs, winglets and carbon composite flexing wings which will make you gain 20 or 30 seconds combined in every 300km travelled at race speeds. Good luck tyring to implement drag reducing systems in cars which never average above 50 km/h in the city commute.

By allowing powertrain development and innovation, manufacturers could become tempted to join and put their full R&D at work. And it would not threaten the smaller teams as all they would need is off the shelf cars and an engine supplier. No more thousands of hours in wind tunnels and simulatores for marginal gains. And marketing departments could reinvent this line:

"We do not test drive. We race and win. The all new Mercedes hybrid turbo-RS powertrain. F1 proven."

Edited by Atreiu, 23 April 2013 - 22:01.

[DrProzac]

Formula 1 was never really about road relevance and I hope it will never be.

[Atreiu]

You can tell that to purists, not a board of directors about to decide what to do with a billion dollars over the next 5 years.
Unless they all leave and only garagistes remain.

[Fastcake]

Okay, fine. I just don't want to hear any complaints on Red Bull flexi-wings, ride-height handle bar, off-throttle blowing, etc. And most certainly not on the paramount need to clamp aero.

That would only be applicable if every situation was the same. They're not, but that's a different topic.

You really want a spec drivetrain, wich is it is now, and a half spec aero plan, wich it also is now cause everyone copies eachother, with the largest part of the money poured into the latter?

Read my next post...

No, what you want is development spread between aerodynamics, engine development and the rest of the car, with sensible restrictions in place to prevent runaway spending. Many people aren't happy with current situation of limited engine spending, but equally I don't want to see that being rectified by restricting another area of the car.

Haha, currently no, thats true, but between the first test and homologation is a space of a few months right? And even then, the FIA will find a way to equal the output.

I'm not up to date on the current plans, but originally there was meant to be some engine development, at least between seasons.

[yoyogetfunky]

That would only be applicable if every situation was the same. They're not, but that's a different topic.



Read my next post...





I'm not up to date on the current plans, but originally there was meant to be some engine development, at least between seasons.

Excuse my ignorance. I believe curbing the aero development will give a few advantages

- No more chase for aero tech heads
- The teams that dot have them arent eternally on the back foot
- The huge amount of money going into design, test, cfd, windtunnel, production of these parts will drastically lower to a much more manageable amount
- That money can be used to other development, like drivetrains.

And yes, the engines are gonna be homologated even before the 2014 season starts, so anyone with a disadvantage, is screwed:

http://www.jamesalle...change-in-2014/

"Getting it right will be vital to competitiveness next year; the manufactures have agreed to homologate the engines on March 1st 2014, so they have until then to develop them. If one manufacturer has a clear advantage over others, they will be able to enjoy that for a while"

In such an environment, ist perhaps not strange that big names like Porsche, BMW think: lets stay out.

[EthanM]

- No more chase for aero tech heads
- The teams that dot have them arent eternally on the back foot
- The huge amount of money going into design, test, cfd, windtunnel, production of these parts will drastically lower to a much more manageable amount

doesn't make any difference. You give an F1 team a billion dollars to spend, they will spend it. What do you care if they spend it on an aero guy an engine guy or whatever. It's not like if they spend that billion get 20 or 50 extra horsepower off their new engine formula the world will be a better place whereas if they spend it on aero puppies die.

[Fastcake]

Excuse my ignorance. I believe curbing the aero development will give a few advantages

- No more chase for aero tech heads
- The teams that dot have them arent eternally on the back foot
- The huge amount of money going into design, test, cfd, windtunnel, production of these parts will drastically lower to a much more manageable amount
- That money can be used to other development, like drivetrains.

Which comes at a price of ending decades of Formula One teams able to design and construct their own cars. It will mean teams would be sorely reliable on their engine suppliers to improve their form, rather than being able to design better cars to beat their rivals, and technical development is something I do watch F1 for. Also, much of the money will simply be transferred to the engine manufacturers, now that they would have to cover the costs of their increased development.

And yes, the engines are gonna be homologated even before the 2014 season starts, so anyone with a disadvantage, is screwed:

http://www.jamesalle...change-in-2014/

"Getting it right will be vital to competitiveness next year; the manufactures have agreed to homologate the engines on March 1st 2014, so they have until then to develop them. If one manufacturer has a clear advantage over others, they will be able to enjoy that for a while"

In such an environment, ist perhaps not strange that big names like Porsche, BMW think: lets stay out.

Well, whatever the rules end up being, there will continue to be "reliability" updates, and the FIA aren't going to let a large portion of the grid suffer from a vastly inferior or unreliable engine.

[Atreiu]

Which comes at a price of ending decades of Formula One teams able to design and construct their own cars. It will mean teams would be sorely reliable on their engine suppliers to improve their form, rather than being able to design better cars to beat their rivals, and technical development is something I do watch F1 for. Also, much of the money will simply be transferred to the engine manufacturers, now that they would have to cover the costs of their increased development.



Well, whatever the rules end up being, there will continue to be "reliability" updates, and the FIA aren't going to let a large portion of the grid suffer from a vastly inferior or unreliable engine.

OTOH, look at how incredibly turbo engines were developped from Renault's first try until they were banned. And from 1989 to 1995 the 3.5 engines were some amazing works as well with V8, V10 and V12 architectures winning titles. And from then on engine development was slowly being curbed and restricted until decades of development were first nulified and then frozen, except for the adoption of KERS. F1 survived it.
It could also survive the curtailing of chassis development. Not by giving everyone a spec car a la Indy, but by simply enabling customer chassis. I understand why it is not allowed, but I really think banning customer chassis is a huge missed opportunity.

[john_smith]

what porsche is alluding to is not about the allocation of spending. what they're saying is there is not enough innovation in F1 in the areas that matter to them - chassis and drivetrain, and that makes it unattractive.

innovation doesn't happen by the regulations mandating the use of a certain technology. it happens by clever engineers coming up with novel solutions to existing and new problems. ground effects were innovative. renault's (albeit unsuccessful) use of 110 degree engines was innovative. moving from 80 bhp to 160 bhp of KERS isn't innovation. mandating the use of turbos with an engine freeze isn't innovation.

F1's current approach of forced and mandated "innovative technology" but freezing development is flawed, unsustainable, and unattractive.

[KnucklesAgain]

Funny thread title, "does not want to return". To return, they would have to have been in F1 before, and they never really were (TAG notwithstanding).

[scheivlak]

Funny thread title, "does not want to return". To return, they would have to have been in F1 before, and they never really were (TAG notwithstanding).

They really were in 1961/1962!