192 replies to this topic

[Gilles4Ever]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113705

 

The ideas that are up for discussion during Thursday's meeting are:

2015
Tyre blanket ban
Fuel system simplification
Brake duct simplification
Front wing simplification
Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life
Increase in curfew
Ban on front and rear interconnected suspension

2016
Standard front impact structure
Standard rear impact structure
Standard final drive system
Standard steering rack

2017
FIA standard active suspension
Move to 18-inch wheel rims

[boldhakka]

Those seem quite incremental, to say the least. And the approach itself is misguided in that it's moving towards a spec series. 

[babbel]

2017

Move to 18-inch wheel rims

 

yeah that will help! F1 is turning into a big laughingstock (without fans)

[Zoetrope]

 

Front wing simplification

What does that mean? Decreased aero dependency?

[jimbox01]

2018

all chassis supplied by Dallara

[ConsiderAndGo]

What a load of utter horse s***!!

[MikeV1987]

18" wheels? gross

[Seanspeed]

What does that mean? Decreased aero dependency?

Probably just what it says - simplification of the front wing. Probably a limit on the no. of elements, no hanging little winglets and just a general stricter boundary in what designers can play with.

Whether it means a noticeable reduction in aero dependency depends on just how simple they plan to go.

Edited by Seanspeed, 30 April 2014 - 12:07.

[SHODAN]

That sounds utterly dreadful. Which means we'll probably see at least half of those ideas implemented...

[e34]

Wow, a spec formula!!

 

If Alonso hangs on long enough, he may end up getting what he longed for last year: driving a car like the others'. 

[Clatter]

All rather uninspiring. It seems that F1 is losing it's soul.

[Lights]

Standard front and rear impact structures? I might get that wrong but wouldn't that force the bodywork of all cars to look the same?

 

With the rules going in this direction, we should appreciate some of the creative solutions that teams come up with these years, even if some of them might look ugly. 

[tifosi]

So it's finally come to this.  Spec racing.  Just call it GP2+.

[Atreiu]

Well, short of a budget cap, what viable options really exist in the first place?

 

Yeps.

[krapmeister]

2017
Move to 18-inch wheel rims

Pffft... everyone knows that if you ain't rolling on 22's, you on roller skates.

Edited by krapmeister, 30 April 2014 - 12:25.

[Seanspeed]

So it's finally come to this.  Spec racing.  Just call it GP2+.

It wont be anything close to spec racing. Still will have individual front wings, noses, sidepods, engine covers, diffusers, floors and of course powerplants.

[redreni]

Each of those individual proposals merits consideration, but nobody should pretend that this will reduce teams' overall spending. And there seem to be a lot of spec items proposed. You can have too many spec items.

[ollebompa]

How about, 2015: Banning spec parts.

Don't they realise that the reason why frontwings and suspention got so complex is because they are one of the few areas where development is allowed?

Teams will just move on and pour all their money on something else.

Edited by ollebompa, 30 April 2014 - 12:33.

[Atreiu]

How do the spending caps work in NFL and NBA? Could their principles be successfully applied in F1?

[Treads]

Before everyone s**ts themselves moaning about these proposals without saying much specific, let's analyse line-by-line:

 

2015
Tyre blanket ban - fine by me, no move to spec formula
Fuel system simplification - fine by me, not a performance differentiator
Brake duct simplification - fine by me, currently tiny little but very costly details

Front wing simplification - fine by me, current ones are getting already ridiculous
Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life - fine by me, nothing to do with a spec formula
Increase in curfew - fine by me, nothing to do with a spec formula
Ban on front and rear interconnected suspension - this is a tricky one, it might shake up the field and will certainly save money, BUT it will make the aero even more complicated to get right

2016
Standard front impact structure - this is a tricky one, the weight and shape of this is a big performance differentiator
Standard rear impact structure - fine by me, AFAIK this is not a performance differentiator
Standard final drive system - what do they mean? drive shafts? or diffs? or more? can some explain this? 
Standard steering rack - fine by me, not a performance differentiator

2017
FIA standard active suspension - if it's standard I am very against it
Move to 18-inch wheel rims - fine by me, I don't care what size the wheels are and this is the modern method, and IF they are moving to active suspension it won't cost more to have to redesign there suspension just to cater for the bigger rims, BUT I don't see how it will save costs

 

These ones in red are the ones I have potential question marks or issues with and which I would like to discuss. 

Edited by Treads, 30 April 2014 - 12:40.

[Treads]

Standard front and rear impact structures? I might get that wrong but wouldn't that force the bodywork of all cars to look the same?

 

With the rules going in this direction, we should appreciate some of the creative solutions that teams come up with these years, even if some of them might look ugly. 

 

The side impact structures are already common and the cars all look very different. The limiting factor there is not the impact structure but the cooling, course. 

Front impact structure would have a bigger impact, I would guess. This is controversial one for me. 

I don't see that the rear impact structure would have any significant visual or aero impact. 

Edited by Treads, 30 April 2014 - 12:42.

[Fastcake]

Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life

This is a good idea, and something that we have been calling to implement for years. Of course, this will probably be the proposal that doesn't get chosen.

[chipmcdonald]

Not only is that spec, it's expensive.  The teams will still throw money at whatever is left over, except they'll have more chance of getting it wrong.

 

A spec front wing makes sense, if everything else is left as is.  What they're doing with this is eliminating development, wherever it can be.  Doing it slowly, NWO style, and there will still be people saying "it's not much different!", "back in 19xx it was just like this", blah blah blah.

 

No it wasn't. This sucks.

 

Doesn't fool me.  Spec.

[alframsey]

This is completely ridiculous! They want a move towards a spec series it seems? If so then watch the fans leave along with the money they are trying to save, complete bullshit and I doubt I'd ever watch this kind of formula. 18" wheel rims

[blackmme]

2015
Tyre blanket ban: OK
Fuel system simplification: OK
Brake duct simplification: OK
Front wing simplification: OK
Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life: OK
Increase in curfew: OK
Ban on front and rear interconnected suspension: That's not going to please Merc

2016
Standard front impact structure: Hmmm including the nose itself I wonder?
Standard rear impact structure: Ok
Standard final drive system: Hmm
Standard steering rack: Ok

2017
FIA standard active suspension: Nope don't like that unless the control software will be open (I'm guessing it won't), what will the advantage be? You might as well just mandate a standard FIA spring/shock combo.  No benefit to road cars as competition is hardly going to be improving it!
Move to 18-inch wheel rims: Hellooooooo Michelin

 

Regards Mike

[Treads]

Each of those individual proposals merits consideration, but nobody should pretend that this will reduce teams' overall spending. And there seem to be a lot of spec items proposed. You can have too many spec items.

 

The big teams aren't going to cut their spending because certain costs are lower, this is self-evident. 

But doesn't that misunderstand the point? It will reduce the costs of the smaller teams who CAN save money without losing [edit: relative] performance. 

Edited by Treads, 30 April 2014 - 12:48.

[Treads]

Open question: Is there a problem having spec items which aren't performance differentiators? 

[Andy Davies]

There's another article going on about how the sport will lose fans unless it controls costs - http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113701

 

Graeham Lowdon, Sporting Director of Marussia is quoted as saying the reason for needing cost controls is:

 

"We know from the commercial rights holder that there has been a dip in audience figures and those sorts of things are extremely important signals.

We have to ensure that the sport is attractive to the fans."

 

Of course they are ignoring the elephant in the room, and the problem is the commercial rights holder is extracting too much cash from F1 to make it viable, I'm sure part of the audience drop is down to the races being shown on subscription pay TV and less people are willing to pay for them, then there's the fact that the teams really don't get very much of the money F1 generates.

[Treads]

 

There's another article going on about how the sport will lose fans unless it controls costs - http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113701

 

Graeham Lowdon, Sporting Director of Marussia is quoted as saying the reason for needing cost controls is:

 

"We know from the commercial rights holder that there has been a dip in audience figures and those sorts of things are extremely important signals.

We have to ensure that the sport is attractive to the fans."

 

Of course they are ignoring the elephant in the room, and the problem is the commercial rights holder is extracting too much cash from F1 to make it viable, I'm sure part of the audience drop is down to the races being shown on subscription pay TV and less people are willing to pay for them, then there's the fact that the teams really don't get very much of the money F1 generates.

 

 

Distribution of revenues is a totally different topic than discussing cost control. I think you should take it to a different thread. 

If we start discussing both here this thread becomes too broad.

[SPBHM]

Standard 
Standard 
Standard 
Standard 

standard

[SenorSjon]

If they use spec motorhomes they have cash to spare.

[Treads]

What a load of utter horse s***!!

 

Which of these proposals, specifically, do you have a problem with? 

 

So it's finally come to this.  Spec racing.  Just call it GP2+.

 

Which of these proposals, specifically, do you have a problem with? 

[tifosiMac]

"We know from the commercial rights holder that there has been a dip in audience figures and those sorts of things are extremely important signals.

We have to ensure that the sport is attractive to the fans."

 

Of course they are ignoring the elephant in the room, and the problem is the commercial rights holder is extracting too much cash from F1 to make it viable, I'm sure part of the audience drop is down to the races being shown on subscription pay TV and less people are willing to pay for them, then there's the fact that the teams really don't get very much of the money F1 generates.

 

Its amazing people like you and I Andy are capable of realising the major flaws yet those running the asylum are totally incapable. They think mixing up the rules is why fans are turning away yet ignore the 'elephant in the room' as you put it. Less focus of peeing around with the rules and more focus on marketing the sport and making it affordable to attract people who may want to watch it! 

[chipmcdonald]

Open question: Is there a problem having spec items which aren't performance differentiators? 

 

 

They could have spec survival cells, have one manufacturer and it would save an enormous amount.  The manufacturer could then sell it to other series - GP2, etc., saving more money and possibly lives as well.

 

 

But they already have "spec" parts: the wheels/tires.  The dimensions.  All they're doing is using legalese to make a spec series happen so somebody can say "yeah, but it's not a spec series because (etc.)".  Typical 21st century know-nothing bs.

 

If people keep watching, fine.  Personally I think they'll lose the outlier fans in a hurry (I know in my circle they already have), and it's certainly not growing the sport for the future. 

 

Oh well.

[Retrofly]

How does moving to 18" wheels effect spending?

[ollebompa]

Open question: Is there a problem having spec items which aren't performance differentiators?

Counter argument would be, if it is not a preformance differentiator are the teams really spending much on it to being with?

[eronrules]

yep ... as usual ... a lot of doom-mongering without fully understanding the implication or details of any of these changes (which are not even discussed yet by TWG)

 

Much bickering ... So armchair expertise ... Very knee jerk reaction ... wow !!

[GAZF1nut]

yep ... as usual ... a lot of doom-mongering without fully understanding the implication or details of any of these changes (which are not even discussed yet by TWG)

 

Much bickering ... So armchair expertise ... Very knee jerk reaction ... wow !!

Couldn't agree more.

[boldhakka]

They're trying to solve a problem that cannot be solved as long as the teams' goals and motivations for being in F1 are heterogenous. Some teams are in it for marketing their engines, others for marketing super-cars, and even others simply to race next year. 

Edited by boldhakka, 30 April 2014 - 13:21.

[blackmme]

How does moving to 18" wheels effect spending?

Same size rims as prototype sports cars?

 

Regards Mike

[ensign14]

1. All sponsorship is paid to the FIA.

2. The FIA gives every team an equal share of the sponsorship.

3. Any team that spends one red cent more than that amount has its directors castrated.

 

Job's a good 'un.

[eronrules]

1. All sponsorship is paid to the FIA.

2. The FIA gives every team an equal share of the sponsorship.

3. Any team that spends one red cent more than that amount has its directors castrated.

 

Job's a good 'un.

only problem is, FIA only owns the naming right ... not the sport, it suckles of Bernies titties to survive.

[Cyanide]

[JeePee]

2016

Standard steering rack

 

[pizzalover]

A simple rule change would vastly reduce costs. Just implement a "two part mould" bodywork rule.

 

This would also reduce the rules regarding aerodynamics to one page.

 

Job done. That was easy wasn't it? 

[KWSN - DSM]

They are once again 'fixing' without addressing the issue.

 

Stop making F1 a spec series, open the franchise and distribute the money fairly. All the teams can compete at Usd 80 million, the bigger ones can spend billions if they want, but the smaller do not have to turn the key on the factory and close down.

 

That is all they need to do.

 

[LeMans86]

Instead of limiting design options for the FW etc., wouldn't it be better to just limit the amount of iterations you can put on the car? Like they can only update their FW 5 times a year (and that includes bringing FWs for testing, so that it's not possible to just bring new FW's every race to only test them in FP1; if the update doesn't work, too bad, that's 1 of 5 lost).
Rules would have to be quite extensive though to specify what is considered as a new FW (for example, simply taking elements (like the cascades) off of the wing should be allowed imo).

Edited by LeMans86, 30 April 2014 - 13:51.

[Clatter]

Instead of limiting design options for the FW etc., wouldn't it be better to just limit the amount of iterations you can put on the car? Like they can only update their FW 5 times a year (and that includes bringing FWs for testing, so that it's not possible to just bring new FW's every race to only test them in FP1; if the update doesn't work, too bad, that's 1 of 5 lost).
Rules would have to be quite extensive though to specify what is considered as a new FW (for example, simply taking elements off of the wing should be allowed imo).

Trouble with that sort of rule is if a team gets theirs right from the start then your making it extremely difficult for the rest to ever catch up. 

[discover23]

Couldn't agree more.

+1

[Seanspeed]

Counter argument would be, if it is not a preformance differentiator are the teams really spending much on it to being with?

Its not a matter of 'is it a performance differentiator or not?'. Of course these things are. But they perhaps feel that certain areas are less impactful to road relevance and aren't *enough* of a performance differentiator to matter as much. I'm sure people will say, "Oh well, aero isn't road relevant" and that's very true, but aero is still the main thing that makes F1 cars look different from each other. So would you rather have standard suspension and crash structures or standard aero? I'm guessing that's basically how this line of reasoning went.