31 replies to this topic

[caccamolle]

Yes !

 

Regulations which were introduced to address various things including cost cutting, safety, spectators' entertainment etc are making F1 less and less interesting.

 

I am worried about those regulations that castrate the cars' performance and my point now is in response to rumors (started by Ferrari I guess) that next year because of limits on fuel we might see races where cars are run slow in order to save gas !!!

 

In general I am very skeptical about cost cutting anyway, in F1.  F1 has always been an "elite" type of motorsport and I accept that.  I don't particularly care about the Marussia or other crap teams who do nothing but actually create lots of risks for the other real F1 teams, and whine all day about costs.   You cannot afford it then get out, that is F1 !  In other sports I don't feel the same, but this is F1, it is about making the fastest quickest cars to go around tracks.  It is about pushing technology to the limit and yes, I guess, money does matter.

 

Already this year we have seen races compromised in good part due to tires problems.  Who likes F1 races being about managing tires ?  some may be do, not me, or at least I would not want that to be the priority of racing, which should generally be, go FAST.

 

We have seen in the past few years F1 being excessively driven by aerodynamics and tires (most recently) with engines being relatively less important (freeze!).  Something is wrong with that, at least so I feel.  Next year, finally, engines will once again be important, yet they manage to choke them with limits on fuel and then some, Whitmarsh, even have the balls to say that "F1 needs '14 engine equality" omg, this guy is crazy.

 

Anyways, quick thoughts here guys, your reactions ?

 

 

[Collective]

Heck, let's just have Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren with 5 cars each. Would be the OPs dream, as they are the only teams able to sustain themselves in the long run with the costs involved in being reasonably competitive these days.

Edited by Collective, 10 October 2013 - 14:46.

[fed up]

Yes !

 

Regulations which were introduced to address various things including cost cutting, safety, spectators' entertainment etc are making F1 less and less interesting.

 

I am worried about those regulations that castrate the cars' performance and my point now is in response to rumors (started by Ferrari I guess) that next year because of limits on fuel we might see races where cars are run slow in order to save gas !!!

 

In general I am very skeptical about cost cutting anyway, in F1.  F1 has always been an "elite" type of motorsport and I accept that.  I don't particularly care about the Marussia or other crap teams who do nothing but actually create lots of risks for the other real F1 teams, and whine all day about costs.   You cannot afford it then get out, that is F1 !  In other sports I don't feel the same, but this is F1, it is about making the fastest quickest cars to go around tracks.  It is about pushing technology to the limit and yes, I guess, money does matter.

 

Already this year we have seen races compromised in good part due to tires problems.  Who likes F1 races being about managing tires ?  some may be do, not me, or at least I would not want that to be the priority of racing, which should generally be, go FAST.

 

We have seen in the past few years F1 being excessively driven by aerodynamics and tires (most recently) with engines being relatively less important (freeze!).  Something is wrong with that, at least so I feel.  Next year, finally, engines will once again be important, yet they manage to choke them with limits on fuel and then some, Whitmarsh, even have the balls to say that "F1 needs '14 engine equality" omg, this guy is crazy.

 

Anyways, quick thoughts here guys, your reactions ?

 

My thoughts exactly

[Fastcake]

Yes !

 

Regulations which were introduced to address various things including cost cutting, safety, spectators' entertainment etc are making F1 less and less interesting.

 

I am worried about those regulations that castrate the cars' performance and my point now is in response to rumors (started by Ferrari I guess) that next year because of limits on fuel we might see races where cars are run slow in order to save gas !!!

 

In general I am very skeptical about cost cutting anyway, in F1.  F1 has always been an "elite" type of motorsport and I accept that.  I don't particularly care about the Marussia or other crap teams who do nothing but actually create lots of risks for the other real F1 teams, and whine all day about costs.   You cannot afford it then get out, that is F1 !  In other sports I don't feel the same, but this is F1, it is about making the fastest quickest cars to go around tracks.  It is about pushing technology to the limit and yes, I guess, money does matter.

 

Already this year we have seen races compromised in good part due to tires problems.  Who likes F1 races being about managing tires ?  some may be do, not me, or at least I would not want that to be the priority of racing, which should generally be, go FAST.

 

We have seen in the past few years F1 being excessively driven by aerodynamics and tires (most recently) with engines being relatively less important (freeze!).  Something is wrong with that, at least so I feel.  Next year, finally, engines will once again be important, yet they manage to choke them with limits on fuel and then some, Whitmarsh, even have the balls to say that "F1 needs '14 engine equality" omg, this guy is crazy.

 

Anyways, quick thoughts here guys, your reactions ?

 

Because we've never seen that before.

 

You've got to accept two things. One, there's a limit to how fast F1 cars can reasonably go. Two, even the top teams can no longer sustain the massive costs that we saw several years ago, so forget the idea that F1 will see teams spending as much as they want any time soon.

[bub]

I personally think if all the teams had to abide by a midfield team type budget F1 would be a lot better.

[Jackmancer]

I don't see why cost cutting should lead to lesser racing.

Here's some racing which is done at around 0.0006% of the cost of Formula 1.

[Nonesuch]

Whitmarsh, even have the balls to say that "F1 needs '14 engine equality" omg, this guy is crazy.

 

He is not crazy, what he says makes perfect sense.The key word here is permanent: "Formula 1 must be ready to make compromises to ensure that one manufacturer is not permanently disadvantaged if its 2014 engine does not perform, says McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh."

 

Why permanent? Because of the engine-freeze rules. If Mercedes comes up with an engine that's not as good as the Renault, do you really think they'll wait another 8-10 years or however long it'll take this time, before they can change it again? Of course not. They'd be out of the sport before Bernie could say 'no wait'.

 

I don't like the freeze and ever more standardized F1 cars any more than you probably do, but within the current limitations, what Whitmarsh says is right.

[Tron]

Solution is simply.

 

Get rid of all the eletronic telemetry requiring an Apple network to run it in each garage, return the cars to the simply ground effect designs of late 70's to early-early 80's, and bang, closer racing where the engine and driver count, and gamillions less spent...

With that, mid season testing can peacefully return to develope the engine and mechanics, as well allow young drivers to get miles under their belts that will also bring in serious sponsors.

 

Bernie? Hello? You here??? Todt? You? 

[DampMongoose]

Solution is simply.

 

Get rid of all the eletronic telemetry requiring an Apple network to run it in each garage, return the cars to the simply ground effect designs of late 70's to early-early 80's, and bang, closer racing where the engine and driver count, and gamillions less spent...

With that, mid season testing can peacefully return to develope the engine and mechanics, as well allow young drivers to get miles under their belts that will also bring in serious sponsors.

Tron I'll finish that sentence for you:

 

With that, mid season testing can peacefully return to develop the engine and mechanics, as well allow young drivers to get miles under their belts that will also bring in serious sponsors... which will ensure the teams with the biggest budgets will test all the time and end up with far better cars than the midfield and certianly gain even further ground on the teams at the back of the grid.  The big sponsors will be brought back but they will want to be on the better cars of course, so the midfield and backmarkers get the scraps further ensuring the budget differences to the big teams.  When the dust settles from the above changes you arrive back in something simlar to the early 2000's where one team dominates and it all ends up very boring again!

 

Other than that it's a sound plan!

[caccamolle]

He is not crazy, what he says makes perfect sense.The key word here is permanent: "Formula 1 must be ready to make compromises to ensure that one manufacturer is not permanently disadvantaged if its 2014 engine does not perform, says McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh."

 

Why permanent? Because of the engine-freeze rules. If Mercedes comes up with an engine that's not as good as the Renault, do you really think they'll wait another 8-10 years or however long it'll take this time, before they can change it again? Of course not. They'd be out of the sport before Bernie could say 'no wait'.

 

I don't like the freeze and ever more standardized F1 cars any more than you probably do, but within the current limitations, what Whitmarsh says is right.

ok.  I guess you are talking about the freeze of the new engines, correct ?

[Tron]

Tron I'll finish that sentence for you:

 

With that, mid season testing can peacefully return to develop the engine and mechanics, as well allow young drivers to get miles under their belts that will also bring in serious sponsors... which will ensure the teams with the biggest budgets will test all the time and end up with far better cars than the midfield and certianly gain even further ground on the teams at the back of the grid.  The big sponsors will be brought back but they will want to be on the better cars of course, so the midfield and backmarkers get the scraps further ensuring the budget differences to the big teams.  When the dust settles from the above changes you arrive back in something simlar to the early 2000's where one team dominates and it all ends up very boring again!

 

Other than that it's a sound plan!

 

;) Yes... and no...

 

While I agree with you in what happened in early 2000, there's also the fact that Ferrari then was just doing it better than everyone else, like Redbull is now with the present rules.

 

That aside, mid season testing is what built F1, and allowed teams bolted in together in sheds like Team Lotus, McLaren and many more to become what they are.

Presently the smaller teams have less hope than what they would have had 10 years ago.

Edited by Tron, 11 October 2013 - 12:06.

[SenorSjon]

Other teams have now less chance of closing a gap than they had in the '00. Engine power is almost no factor, so it all rides on aero. You could compensate your aero with power.

 

 

Because we've never seen that before.

 

You've got to accept two things. One, there's a limit to how fast F1 cars can reasonably go. Two, even the top teams can no longer sustain the massive costs that we saw several years ago, so forget the idea that F1 will see teams spending as much as they want any time soon.

 

F1 is only going slower. A '04 lower end car is faster than the RedBull now (and it looks al lot nicer too).

[redreni]

I wasn't aware there was going to be a development freeze of the new engines? If so, it's hard to see why the manufacturers would be bothered about the performance of their product - if they design something that performs worse than the others, the others will simply be de-tuned to reduce power or worsen efficiency until the performance gap is eliminated.

 

My understanding was that engine efficiency - getting more power and driveability from your engine than your rivals can given the limited energy available from the fuel - was supposed to be a key performance differentiator. This is because economy and efficiency are attributes with which all the major car manufacturers want to be associated. That's what people increasingly look for when buying a road car, given the price of fuel. I am opposed to the current engine development freeze and would be equally opposed to any freeze for the new engines. These manufacturers are supposed to be in F1 to compete against each other, not to operate as a cartel. In any other sport, refusing to compete against your opponents in this manner would be called fixing.

 

Thinking about performance-frozen engines and spec tyres and limited fuel allowances, which are the three examples of cost-cutting which the OP raises, only the engine development freeze actually saved money, but only for the midfield and backmarker teams. None of these things saved a single penny for the top teams, it just forced them to divert spending from engine design and development to other areas of expenditure, including permitted reliability tweaks to the engines, but mostly to aero work and driver salaries. They still spent their budgets.

 

The only way to reduce costs is to have an enforceable regulation that limits the total amount of money the teams can spend on their cars. And even this would have an inflationary effect on driver salaries, because if teams had money to spend on finding laptime but were prevented from spending it on the car, they would all start trying desperatelty hard to lure the fastest drivers away from other teams in order to get laptime that way. The so-called cost cutting measures we have in F1, like the engine freeze and the testing ban, are like trying to reduce the size of a partially inflated balloon by squeezing it at various selected points - you just create bulges elsewhere and the overall size of the balloon doesn't change. You stop the teams running track tests, they spend the money on more time in the wind-tunnell. You restrict wind-tunnel time, they spend more on CFD. All you're doing is forcing the teams to pursue development avenues that are more and more costly per tenth of laptime gained.

 

So in conclusion, unless we're going to have a credible overall cost-capped F1, which is unviable for a number reasons, I agree with the OP that it's better to just say "spend what you want". As long as teams like Force India and Sauber can still get engines without bankrupting themselves, it's all good. We just have to accept the inevitability of another financial crisis and another exodus of manufacturers, and hope there are enough Ross Brawns and Peter Saubers left who are willing to dip into their own pockets to keep the sport going.

 

And as for the OP's main bugbear, small capacity, low power engines - that's entirely down to the engine manufacturers. They are making the engines in their road cars smaller, lighter and more efficient, so for some really rather odd reason that I wouldn't even want to speculate on, they think they ought to do the same thing with their racing engines. If anybody can get through to them that a Grand Prix and a school run are nothing alike, that would be a great help to motorsport generally...

Edited by redreni, 11 October 2013 - 12:53.

[HoldenRT]

Yes !

 

Regulations which were introduced to address various things including cost cutting, safety, spectators' entertainment etc are making F1 less and less interesting.

 

I am worried about those regulations that castrate the cars' performance and my point now is in response to rumors (started by Ferrari I guess) that next year because of limits on fuel we might see races where cars are run slow in order to save gas !!!

 

In general I am very skeptical about cost cutting anyway, in F1.  F1 has always been an "elite" type of motorsport and I accept that.  I don't particularly care about the Marussia or other crap teams who do nothing but actually create lots of risks for the other real F1 teams, and whine all day about costs.   You cannot afford it then get out, that is F1 !  In other sports I don't feel the same, but this is F1, it is about making the fastest quickest cars to go around tracks.  It is about pushing technology to the limit and yes, I guess, money does matter.

 

Already this year we have seen races compromised in good part due to tires problems.  Who likes F1 races being about managing tires ?  some may be do, not me, or at least I would not want that to be the priority of racing, which should generally be, go FAST.

 

We have seen in the past few years F1 being excessively driven by aerodynamics and tires (most recently) with engines being relatively less important (freeze!).  Something is wrong with that, at least so I feel.  Next year, finally, engines will once again be important, yet they manage to choke them with limits on fuel and then some, Whitmarsh, even have the balls to say that "F1 needs '14 engine equality" omg, this guy is crazy.

 

Anyways, quick thoughts here guys, your reactions ?

 

It's been like this for 8 years, but with each phase it just gets worse and worse.

[Tron]

Other teams have now less chance of closing a gap than they had in the '00. Engine power is almost no factor, so it all rides on aero. You could compensate your aero with power.

 

 

 

F1 is only going slower. A '04 lower end car is faster than the RedBull now (and it looks al lot nicer too).

 

The 2000 and 2001 were also beasts, and also better looking than the shavers on wheels of these days.

[fed up]

He is not crazy, what he says makes perfect sense.The key word here is permanent: "Formula 1 must be ready to make compromises to ensure that one manufacturer is not permanently disadvantaged if its 2014 engine does not perform, says McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh."

 

Why permanent? Because of the engine-freeze rules. If Mercedes comes up with an engine that's not as good as the Renault, do you really think they'll wait another 8-10 years or however long it'll take this time, before they can change it again? Of course not. They'd be out of the sport before Bernie could say 'no wait'.

 

I don't like the freeze and ever more standardized F1 cars any more than you probably do, but within the current limitations, what Whitmarsh says is right.

 

This is the same excuse Renault have used to develop their engine so that not only is it a lighter and more fuel efficient engine, it is also as powerful as the Merc.

 

Equality doesn't exist. Life is not fair. If one team, given the development phase, have not done as good a job as another why make rules to equalise power? Will there be rules to equalise hot blowing, cold blowing, cutting cylinders and all that? Why not just have a spec engine and call it what you want? why have manufacturers in the sport if they can't show their expertise where in counts, powarrr!

 

It was a rediculous statement to make imo.

[SenorSjon]

In general, most lap records stand from '04. In '05 you had concrete tires that needed to be nursed a whole race and in 2006 the V10 was no longer there.

[e34]

This is the same excuse Renault have used to develop their engine so that not only is it a lighter and more fuel efficient engine, it is also as powerful as the Merc.

 

Equality doesn't exist. Life is not fair. If one team, given the development phase, have not done as good a job as another why make rules to equalise power? Will there be rules to equalise hot blowing, cold blowing, cutting cylinders and all that? Why not just have a spec engine and call it what you want? why have manufacturers in the sport if they can't show their expertise where in counts, powarrr!

 

It was a rediculous statement to make imo.

See what happened with Honda after the previous engine development freezing; they went away and have come back now, with a new engine. 

 

What you say is right, save for the fact that one mistake now would mean seven or more years of punishment. And a very big advantage for teams that do not make their engines, because they can afford to choose the best engine available, while Ferrari will never use a Mercedes engine, or viceversa. 

[DampMongoose]

;) Yes... and no...

 

While I agree with you in what happened in early 2000, there's also the fact that Ferrari then was just doing it better than everyone else, like Redbull is now with the present rules.

 

That aside, mid season testing is what built F1, and allowed teams bolted in together in sheds like Team Lotus, McLaren and many more to become what they are.

Presently the smaller teams have less hope than what they would have had 10 years ago.

 

But Ferrari were doing it better because they had a virtually unlimited budget assisted by Marlboro, their own test track and the resources to find the exact specification required for their bespoke Bridgestones.  A combination that ultimately comes down to £££.

 

I'd also say that what built F1 for the 'garagistes' was far more to do with availability of the Cosworth DFV rather than mid season testing.  That was the turning point, because any team could buy a competitive March chassis, a DFV with Hewland box and go out and win the WDC. 

[Shambolic]

Cost cutting seems to have become a smokescreen for "We like this bit we've developed, and don't want to lose the advantage we gained from it, or have someone design something else that beats it." The constant claims of "Oh noes, we don't have the moneys" from top teams whenever any significant rule change is proposed carry little weight when said teams continue spending 6x more than the backmarkers.

 

So my view is genuine cost cutting, the cutting of costs by dint of actually enforcing the spending of less money, could be the saviour of F1. Whereas the current ethos of cost cutting, whereby teams can still piss hundreds of millions up a wall but have ever more regulated component design, is killing the sport.

[Tron]

But Ferrari were doing it better because they had a virtually unlimited budget assisted by Marlboro, their own test track and the resources to find the exact specification required for their bespoke Bridgestones.  A combination that ultimately comes down to £££.

 

I'd also say that what built F1 for the 'garagistes' was far more to do with availability of the Cosworth DFV rather than mid season testing.  That was the turning point, because any team could buy a competitive March chassis, a DFV with Hewland box and go out and win the WDC. 

 

Yes, this sport needs money, but also hardwork developing skills to make that money work. Ferrari had their own track, true. However McLaren's and Williams's budgets, or should we call it, West-Mercedes, Rothmans-Renualt, were par on with Ferrari's, and they also did stupid amounts of testing to the level of Ferrari on rented tracks, of which, the costs still add up for Ferrari as they had to maintain their track. And it's the same with the other camps doing testing for the Michillin tyres... And lets not forget Toyota's stupid budget... So it wasn't really about money, rather converting their hard work into results...

 

Also, for teams to be in F1 for so long, it would have been logical for them to build their own private non-grand stand track, so, their problem for slipping up on that one...

As well with the smaller, considering they're mainly based in the UK, silly them in not coming together investing in their own little private track... Sure it's expensive, but nothing sponsorships and PR handshakes wouldn't have helped them with.

 

Eddie Jordan forever moaned about testing disadvanges, yet his team also had access to tracks nearby the factory, the mechanics would have still been paid the same as a regular day at the office, just should have punted the sponsors, petrol and tyre suppliers to aid the testing.

The reality is this, Jordan didn't have the skill to fully take advantage of continous testing, they would have done a 200 laps a day, and their data's needs actually stop at lap 70 (example), and instead of pushing to develope those skills in house to make use of another 130 laps, he cried victim hoping to cut the legs of the big teams to catch up with them quicker, instead of growing his own.

 

So the testing, is no previdge excuse for Ferrari's dominance. They took full advantage of it, sweated it around the track, and got the results.

 

And yes, but they still had to test those Cosworths btw. The car wasn't built overnight and raced the next day, and that with the chassis is true, good point, but for the 60's, as in the 70's it was a whole other ball game when aero's came into play.

Edited by Tron, 11 October 2013 - 14:30.

[SenorSjon]

But Ferrari were doing it better because they had a virtually unlimited budget assisted by Marlboro, their own test track and the resources to find the exact specification required for their bespoke Bridgestones.  A combination that ultimately comes down to £££.

 

I'd also say that what built F1 for the 'garagistes' was far more to do with availability of the Cosworth DFV rather than mid season testing.  That was the turning point, because any team could buy a competitive March chassis, a DFV with Hewland box and go out and win the WDC. 

 

Teams have to build their own chassis for quite a while now. Allthough sometimes, a few cars resembled each other a bit too much.

 

Ligier <> Benetton 1995 and Torro Rosso <> Red Bull till the enforcing of the own chassis rule spring to mind.

[Tron]

Teams have to build their own chassis for quite a while now. Allthough sometimes, a few cars resembled each other a bit too much.

 

Ligier <> Benetton 1995 and Torro Rosso <> Red Bull till the enforcing of the own chassis rule spring to mind.

 

Didn't Beneton sell their chassis to Liqier like Ferrari did at one point to Sauber?

[Massa]

Yes, and before 95 season, Schumacher was testing for Benneton AND Ligier.

 

It's like Vettel testing for Red Bull and Toro Rosso, crazy

Edited by Massa, 11 October 2013 - 14:43.

[Fastcake]

Other teams have now less chance of closing a gap than they had in the '00. Engine power is almost no factor, so it all rides on aero. You could compensate your aero with power.

 

 

 

F1 is only going slower. A '04 lower end car is faster than the RedBull now (and it looks al lot nicer too).

 

That was my point. The '04 cars are essentially the top limit, start going much faster and the drivers won't be able to cope, and even the larger run-off zones would be insufficient. Engine power wasn't enough to overcome a poor car in the 2000s either. In earlier decades yes, but by then if your aerodynamics weren't up to scratch you'd still be at the back, no matter if you had a few more horsepower.

 

And there's no way those cars looked better. The really good looking cars went away once the bodies started sprouting hideous aerodynamic appendages.

 

 

I wasn't aware there was going to be a development freeze of the new engines? If so, it's hard to see why the manufacturers would be bothered about the performance of their product - if they design something that performs worse than the others, the others will simply be de-tuned to reduce power or worsen efficiency until the performance gap is eliminated.

 

My understanding was that engine efficiency - getting more power and driveability from your engine than your rivals can given the limited energy available from the fuel - was supposed to be a key performance differentiator. This is because economy and efficiency are attributes with which all the major car manufacturers want to be associated. That's what people increasingly look for when buying a road car, given the price of fuel. I am opposed to the current engine development freeze and would be equally opposed to any freeze for the new engines. These manufacturers are supposed to be in F1 to compete against each other, not to operate as a cartel. In any other sport, refusing to compete against your opponents in this manner would be called fixing.

 

Thinking about performance-frozen engines and spec tyres and limited fuel allowances, which are the three examples of cost-cutting which the OP raises, only the engine development freeze actually saved money, but only for the midfield and backmarker teams. None of these things saved a single penny for the top teams, it just forced them to divert spending from engine design and development to other areas of expenditure, including permitted reliability tweaks to the engines, but mostly to aero work and driver salaries. They still spent their budgets.

 

The only way to reduce costs is to have an enforceable regulation that limits the total amount of money the teams can spend on their cars. And even this would have an inflationary effect on driver salaries, because if teams had money to spend on finding laptime but were prevented from spending it on the car, they would all start trying desperatelty hard to lure the fastest drivers away from other teams in order to get laptime that way. The so-called cost cutting measures we have in F1, like the engine freeze and the testing ban, are like trying to reduce the size of a partially inflated balloon by squeezing it at various selected points - you just create bulges elsewhere and the overall size of the balloon doesn't change. You stop the teams running track tests, they spend the money on more time in the wind-tunnell. You restrict wind-tunnel time, they spend more on CFD. All you're doing is forcing the teams to pursue development avenues that are more and more costly per tenth of laptime gained.

 

So in conclusion, unless we're going to have a credible overall cost-capped F1, which is unviable for a number reasons, I agree with the OP that it's better to just say "spend what you want". As long as teams like Force India and Sauber can still get engines without bankrupting themselves, it's all good. We just have to accept the inevitability of another financial crisis and another exodus of manufacturers, and hope there are enough Ross Brawns and Peter Saubers left who are willing to dip into their own pockets to keep the sport going.

 

And as for the OP's main bugbear, small capacity, low power engines - that's entirely down to the engine manufacturers. They are making the engines in their road cars smaller, lighter and more efficient, so for some really rather odd reason that I wouldn't even want to speculate on, they think they ought to do the same thing with their racing engines. If anybody can get through to them that a Grand Prix and a school run are nothing alike, that would be a great help to motorsport generally...

 

 

The engine freeze is designed to be gradual. At first open development, then restrictions in the following years until bringing in an engine freeze. Chances are, this was the only way they could get the new engine regulations past the teams, as there is very little desire to start an engine spending war again.

 

Budgets have come down. The last figures estimated the top teams spending in the $200m range, rather than the $400m odd Toyota were hitting. Still expensive, but more sustainable and a little more within the range of the rest of the grid. And you simply cannot say let 'em spend and so be it. There aren't many manufacturers left, and neither Mercedes nor Renault have the desire to spend masses of money on one sport. Without any engines we'll probably have to send off a tender to Cosworth for one spec design for the grid, and who wants that?

 

You mention you hope someone steps into the gap, but that's a long shot at present. Much of the grid are struggling to attract any significant sponsors at all, if there primary backers pull out because they can no longer compete, where is the money coming from to take their place? I doubt people like Mallya or the Venezuelans will want to keep putting money into teams that can't even occasionally beat the frontrunners.

 

The point about smaller engines is really down to personal preference. Really, I don't see why F1 has to stick to big old-fashioned engines when there are more efficient designs and hybrid designs out there.

[DampMongoose]

Yes, this sport needs money, but also hardwork developing skills to make that money work. Ferrari had their own track, true. However McLaren's and Williams's budgets, or should we call it, West-Mercedes, Rothmans-Renualt, were par on with Ferrari's, and they also did stupid amounts of testing to the level of Ferrari on rented tracks, of which, the costs still add up for Ferrari as they had to maintain their track. And it's the same with the other camps doing testing for the Michillin tyres... And lets not forget Toyota's stupid budget... So it wasn't really about money, rather converting their hard work into results...

 

Also, for teams to be in F1 for so long, it would have been logical for them to build their own private non-grand stand track, so, their problem for slipping up on that one...

As well with the smaller, considering they're mainly based in the UK, silly them in not coming together investing in their own little private track... Sure it's expensive, but nothing sponsorships and PR handshakes wouldn't have helped them with.

 

Eddie Jordan forever moaned about testing disadvanges, yet his team also had access to tracks nearby the factory, the mechanics would have still been paid the same as a regular day at the office, just should have punted the sponsors, petrol and tyre suppliers to aid the testing.

The reality is this, Jordan didn't have the skill to fully take advantage of continous testing, they would have done a 200 laps a day, and their data's needs actually stop at lap 70 (example), and instead of pushing to develope those skills in house to make use of another 130 laps, he cried victim hoping to cut the legs of the big teams to catch up with them quicker, instead of growing his own.

 

So the testing, is no previdge excuse for Ferrari's dominance. They took full advantage of it, sweated it around the track, and got the results.

 

And yes, but they still had to test those Cosworths btw. The car wasn't built overnight and raced the next day, and that with the chassis is true, good point, but for the 60's, as in the 70's it was a whole other ball game when aero's came into play.

 

I certainly wouldn't suggest the Michelin runners had as much say about the tyres as Ferrari had with their Bridgestones.  Too many cooks to say that! 

 

Ferrari's test track is not finaced solely by the F1 team, so the other teams at the time were not in the same position. Actually the reality is Jordan have never had a sponsorship budget even approaching the big teams and thus couldn't afford to test at the level you suggest even if their factory was next door to Silverstone they couldn't have spent endless time lapping there, you conveniently forget that there is other work the mechanics are meant to be doing, so if you pay them for the day testing who pays for the people to do their normal duties when they are there?  Ferrari certainly did take full advantage obviously, but the dice was loaded heavily in their favour with their resources.

 

As for building a car and racing it the next day, the engine and gearbox combination was suitable enough for March to build their 721G from scratch from an F2 chassis in nine days and score various points finishes in 1972. By the time the customer teams were permitted to buy a DFV it had already been developed to a championship winning level through it's orginal association with Lotus ( testing and development bankrolled by Ford) and generally the teams in the 70's didn't actually test a great deal when they weren't at races.  Most innovations were tested in the practice/qualifying sessions at the races themselves.  From the mechanics perspective the Aero devices they were testing at meetings led to some big problems particularly for Lotus where they were using untested parts that could easily have killed Hill and Rindt at Montjuic and Oliver at Rouen.

[DampMongoose]

Teams have to build their own chassis for quite a while now. Allthough sometimes, a few cars resembled each other a bit too much.

 

Ligier <> Benetton 1995 and Torro Rosso <> Red Bull till the enforcing of the own chassis rule spring to mind.

 

I know, I was responding to a point Tron made that you seem to have missed???

[redreni]

That was my point. The '04 cars are essentially the top limit, start going much faster and the drivers won't be able to cope, and even the larger run-off zones would be insufficient. Engine power wasn't enough to overcome a poor car in the 2000s either. In earlier decades yes, but by then if your aerodynamics weren't up to scratch you'd still be at the back, no matter if you had a few more horsepower.

 

And there's no way those cars looked better. The really good looking cars went away once the bodies started sprouting hideous aerodynamic appendages.

 

 

 

 

The engine freeze is designed to be gradual. At first open development, then restrictions in the following years until bringing in an engine freeze. Chances are, this was the only way they could get the new engine regulations past the teams, as there is very little desire to start an engine spending war again.

 

Budgets have come down. The last figures estimated the top teams spending in the $200m range, rather than the $400m odd Toyota were hitting. Still expensive, but more sustainable and a little more within the range of the rest of the grid. And you simply cannot say let 'em spend and so be it. There aren't many manufacturers left, and neither Mercedes nor Renault have the desire to spend masses of money on one sport. Without any engines we'll probably have to send off a tender to Cosworth for one spec design for the grid, and who wants that?

 

You mention you hope someone steps into the gap, but that's a long shot at present. Much of the grid are struggling to attract any significant sponsors at all, if there primary backers pull out because they can no longer compete, where is the money coming from to take their place? I doubt people like Mallya or the Venezuelans will want to keep putting money into teams that can't even occasionally beat the frontrunners.

 

The point about smaller engines is really down to personal preference. Really, I don't see why F1 has to stick to big old-fashioned engines when there are more efficient designs and hybrid designs out there.

 

I agree the engine thing is about preference, but I happen to think more and more grip and less and less power lessens the challenge for drivers. If we could keep laptimes about the same but have less downforce and more power, so the cars would be slower in the corners and faster on the straights, that would improve the racing by extending the braking phase. The thinking of the manufacturers appears to be as simple as "we're doing this in road cars, so we have to do it in race cars too" and this rests in my view on the false assumption that there is significant scope for direct cross-over between road car and race car technologies. Using a practical road vehicle for transportation and racing a formula 1 car are absolutely nothing alike.

 

For example ERS is great in a racing car - there are abundant sources of waste energy from the huge, very regular brake efforts and constant, abundant supply of exhaust gasses from an engine that is regularly running in its peak rev range and full throttle. Furthermore the heavy batteries, flywheels or supercapacitors needed to store the harvested energy are effectively weightless because, even though you have to carry hundreds of kilos of kit around with you, any competitor who chooses not to do so will have to be ballasted up to comply with the same weight limit as you. None of this has anything to do with the real world - if you make a longish journey in a road car on a motorway in light traffic, you might easily go half an hour without touching the brake at all, but if you're carrying a KERS unit you still have to burn extra fuel to propel the extra mass even though it's not doing anything, because in the real world, heavy equipment isn't weightless.

 

I agree F1 budgets have gone down but I don't see the relevance to my point. There is no evidence the cost cutting measures have anything to do with the fall in budgets. Teams usually spend as much money as they can raise, sometimes a bit more, very seldom less. If there is a global financial crisis budgets go down. Budgets are now creeping up again as the economy recovers. This has nothing to do with measures that stop teams spending money on particular things, because all the money that is available to a team still gets spent in one way or another.

 

You argue that you cannot say "let them spend and so be it" but that's what is in fact happening now. There is no credible agreement or regulatory framework in place to limit spending. You say teams don't want to spend "masses of money" - by my definition of that term, they already are. There is of course a finite limit to how much they're going to want to spend, and unless somebody stops them, that's the amount they're going to spend.

 

I can sympathise with the manufacturers' desire to avoid a spending war, but I feel the proper way for them to avoid one would be to enter into a voluntary agreement with each other to stick to a certain spending limit, then to compete within that spending limit to see who can build the best engine. They prefer to limit spending by fixing the outcome of the competition between them and that's wrong.

 

As for who steps in when the manufacturers pull out, I think you're right to worry. But the teams agreed with Max Mosley that they would bring their costs down to early 1990s levels and the deal collapsed because nobody could trust the other teams not to overspend. The only way to prevent overspending if there is a spending limit involves forensic auditing and that is totally unacceptable to the teams. There is no realistic prospect of effective cost controls on the horizon, and in my view many of the useless and oftern counterproductive measures that have been tried instead of potentially effective ones should be done away with. The testing ban, for example, has done no favours to the sport whatsoever.

[Fastcake]

I agree the engine thing is about preference, but I happen to think more and more grip and less and less power lessens the challenge for drivers. If we could keep laptimes about the same but have less downforce and more power, so the cars would be slower in the corners and faster on the straights, that would improve the racing by extending the braking phase. The thinking of the manufacturers appears to be as simple as "we're doing this in road cars, so we have to do it in race cars too" and this rests in my view on the false assumption that there is significant scope for direct cross-over between road car and race car technologies. Using a practical road vehicle for transportation and racing a formula 1 car are absolutely nothing alike.
 
For example ERS is great in a racing car - there are abundant sources of waste energy from the huge, very regular brake efforts and constant, abundant supply of exhaust gasses from an engine that is regularly running in its peak rev range and full throttle. Furthermore the heavy batteries, flywheels or supercapacitors needed to store the harvested energy are effectively weightless because, even though you have to carry hundreds of kilos of kit around with you, any competitor who chooses not to do so will have to be ballasted up to comply with the same weight limit as you. None of this has anything to do with the real world - if you make a longish journey in a road car on a motorway in light traffic, you might easily go half an hour without touching the brake at all, but if you're carrying a KERS unit you still have to burn extra fuel to propel the extra mass even though it's not doing anything, because in the real world, heavy equipment isn't weightless.
 
I agree F1 budgets have gone down but I don't see the relevance to my point. There is no evidence the cost cutting measures have anything to do with the fall in budgets. Teams usually spend as much money as they can raise, sometimes a bit more, very seldom less. If there is a global financial crisis budgets go down. Budgets are now creeping up again as the economy recovers. This has nothing to do with measures that stop teams spending money on particular things, because all the money that is available to a team still gets spent in one way or another.
 
You argue that you cannot say "let them spend and so be it" but that's what is in fact happening now. There is no credible agreement or regulatory framework in place to limit spending. You say teams don't want to spend "masses of money" - by my definition of that term, they already are. There is of course a finite limit to how much they're going to want to spend, and unless somebody stops them, that's the amount they're going to spend.
 
I can sympathise with the manufacturers' desire to avoid a spending war, but I feel the proper way for them to avoid one would be to enter into a voluntary agreement with each other to stick to a certain spending limit, then to compete within that spending limit to see who can build the best engine. They prefer to limit spending by fixing the outcome of the competition between them and that's wrong.
 
As for who steps in when the manufacturers pull out, I think you're right to worry. But the teams agreed with Max Mosley that they would bring their costs down to early 1990s levels and the deal collapsed because nobody could trust the other teams not to overspend. The only way to prevent overspending if there is a spending limit involves forensic auditing and that is totally unacceptable to the teams. There is no realistic prospect of effective cost controls on the horizon, and in my view many of the useless and oftern counterproductive measures that have been tried instead of potentially effective ones should be done away with. The testing ban, for example, has done no favours to the sport whatsoever.

 

People have been saying to cut down downforce and increase power for a decade, but frankly that's just not happening. Even when there's new rules to limit downforce, the teams start to claw it back again, and there is no appetite for a major change like ground effects. You're also thinking about ERS wrongly. The concept, in real life as well, is not to have an new unit tacked onto existing engines, but to create an entirely new engine/ERS. With engines in the real world becoming smaller and increasingly turbocharged, working ERS into them should not add much dead weight over existing engines, and the advantages should be worth more. That's the idea at least.

 

I think you're severely underestimating the benefits of the testing ban. For a start, the expense of renting a circuit, transporting cars and equipment, paying for staff to stay away for days at a time, has all disappeared. Teams no longer need a separate test team - although the number of races plus limited testing next year has led to some stating the need for two teams - saving on salaries and the "lost work" back at the factory. I'm sure some will argue the costs have just been spent on computers, but windtunnel usage and CFD work are restricted as well, and staffing levels have still fallen compared to pre-09 levels. Then you've got restrictions like number of engines/gearboxes, which quite obviously reduces costs for teams by cutting the number of engines they have to buy. It also has the benefit of increasing competition as backmarkers are no longer forced to run a limited number of engines to save costs.

 

On the testing ban, you also have to look at what the teams have been saying. There's very, very little appetite for increasing testing anymore than the few days a year in 2014. Indeed, many figures from the midfield have spoken against even that, although the opportunity to sell spots to paydrivers will probably change their minds. When even Montezemolo has shut up about wanting unlimited tests, you've got to accept that reducing testing has been a positive for the sport.

 

[redreni]

People have been saying to cut down downforce and increase power for a decade, but frankly that's just not happening. Even when there's new rules to limit downforce, the teams start to claw it back again, and there is no appetite for a major change like ground effects. You're also thinking about ERS wrongly. The concept, in real life as well, is not to have an new unit tacked onto existing engines, but to create an entirely new engine/ERS. With engines in the real world becoming smaller and increasingly turbocharged, working ERS into them should not add much dead weight over existing engines, and the advantages should be worth more. That's the idea at least.
 
I think you're severely underestimating the benefits of the testing ban. For a start, the expense of renting a circuit, transporting cars and equipment, paying for staff to stay away for days at a time, has all disappeared. Teams no longer need a separate test team - although the number of races plus limited testing next year has led to some stating the need for two teams - saving on salaries and the "lost work" back at the factory. I'm sure some will argue the costs have just been spent on computers, but windtunnel usage and CFD work are restricted as well, and staffing levels have still fallen compared to pre-09 levels. Then you've got restrictions like number of engines/gearboxes, which quite obviously reduces costs for teams by cutting the number of engines they have to buy. It also has the benefit of increasing competition as backmarkers are no longer forced to run a limited number of engines to save costs.
 
On the testing ban, you also have to look at what the teams have been saying. There's very, very little appetite for increasing testing anymore than the few days a year in 2014. Indeed, many figures from the midfield have spoken against even that, although the opportunity to sell spots to paydrivers will probably change their minds. When even Montezemolo has shut up about wanting unlimited tests, you've got to accept that reducing testing has been a positive for the sport.

No I don‘t accept that any of the cost-cutting measures have been good for the sport, including the testing restrictions.

Teams that can‘t afford to test aren‘t going to test even if it‘s permissible so there‘s no cost saving there. It‘s understandable that they don‘t want the teams that can afford to test to do so, but all a ban achieves is to reduce the effectiveness of the richer teams‘ additional spending. By that I mean that if the top teams can‘t test they spend their money another way. You can try to address that by limiting the obvious alternative forms of spending such as windtunnel modelling and CFD, but the teams will never run out of ways to spend their budget. All you acheive by banning stuff is prevent the richer teams from spending their extra budget (the part of their budget that exceeds what the smaller teams have) in the most cost-effective way, so in spending $120m more than Marussia, Red Bull might only gain an extra 3 seconds per lap from that extra spending rather than 4 or 5 seconds, because they‘re forced to spend the money on less cost effective ways of of finding laptime than they wanted to.

It seems we have a fundamental disagreement over whether stopping teams spending money on specific things reduces their total spend. I accept there have been new restrictions brought in since 2009, and I accept that spending has fallen, but I am arguing that there‘s not a scintilla of evidence that these things are related. Budgets and spending have reduced in exactly the way one would have expected in the difficult financial climate. Teams spend as much as they can afford to. In a recession, they can‘t afford to spend as much. It‘s got nothing to do with the cost-cutting regulations.

[R Soul]

Testing has been banned but the number of races has gone up. There may be 22 of them next year. And a lot of those races are far away from Europe where all the teams are based. I don't know what the numbers are (testing vs an increase from 16 to 22 GPs), but I would imagine it's far easier for a midfield/backmarker team to endure 16 races with a little bit of testing than it is to endure 22 races with no testing.

[pingu666]

I'd hate to commit to a freeze in a years time, that could put you in a bad spot, so you frontload as much of your budget as you can and hope your not the one with a bad engine.