13 replies to this topic

[aguri]

Talk of the need to condense the field and reduce costs has lead many commentators and forum posters to suggest that the FIA mandate each team build their car around a common safety cell or tub. 

 

Not only would this reduced costs for all teams (across all 3 series), but it would also pave the way for other open wheel series like GP2 and Super Formula to run cars that more closely mirror the driving experience of an F1 car. Considering the massively restricted testing opportunities for young drivers in this day and age, being able to race in what would effectively be a simplified, detuned F1 car, could prove vitally important for preparing the next crop of drivers. 

 

Another factor to be considered is the role that a spec safety cell might play in preparing top teams in GP2 to make the step up into F1. The engineering understanding gained from running a similar car would undoubtedly smooth the transition somewhat, especially when it comes to set-up for races. 

 

Is an FIA safety cell the way forward?

[johnmhinds]

GP2 and Super Formula teams don't build their cars, so the shape of the safety cell has zero impact on their ability to move up to being F1 constructors.

Sounds like all it would do it raise the costs of the Dallara spec cars in the lower formulas with no real benefits to anyone.

And I'm not sure how the FIA is going to construct safety cells cheaper than the F1 teams anyway? Whoever they farm out that contract to is going to want some profit off them surely, which would make them just as expensive as the ones the teams make themselves, if not more.

Edited by johnmhinds, 13 November 2014 - 03:38.

[aguri]

Whilst they don't build the car, they still need to do maintenance, and importantly their engineers need to know how to set the car up. If they were working with the same safety cell in both series (along with the same tyres/similar car dimensions etc), it makes it far easier for the engineers to make the transition. 

 

In terms of cost for lower series, it is not a change you would make overnight but rather a change that would happen next time those series are looking to move towards new car. And in that situation it doesn't really make a difference cost wise since it would be built into the design of the new car. 

 

In terms of cost for F1 teams, laying the carbon is often the smallest cost in the whole production process. Design is where the real cost is, and this solution would take away the need for F1 teams to design the tub.

[Clatter]

Whilst they don't build the car, they still need to do maintenance, and importantly their engineers need to know how to set the car up. If they were working with the same safety cell in both series (along with the same tyres/similar car dimensions etc), it makes it far easier for the engineers to make the transition. 

 

In terms of cost for lower series, it is not a change you would make overnight but rather a change that would happen next time those series are looking to move towards new car. And in that situation it doesn't really make a difference cost wise since it would be built into the design of the new car. 

 

In terms of cost for F1 teams, laying the carbon is often the smallest cost in the whole production process. Design is where the real cost is, and this solution would take away the need for F1 teams to design the tub.

How much does the tub change from year to year? I suspect the design is relatively static with only minor changes required. It's aero where the big bucks are spent.

[BRG]

And I'm not sure how the FIA is going to construct safety cells cheaper than the F1 teams anyway? 

Economies of scale.  Far cheaper to make 100 or so identical units rather than teams making just 2 or 3 for themselves. 

[Clatter]

Economies of scale.  Far cheaper to make 100 or so identical units rather than teams making just 2 or 3 for themselves. 

Considering the teams do only build a few a year the savings would be minimal as far as F1 is concerned.

[SenorSjon]

But they crashtest all of them, while a mandated cell would only have 1 crashtest. I suggested the same thing a while back. It also saves on the rule pissing contest every now and then.

[johnmhinds]

Most of the safety cell design is mandated by the FIA, so I don't think there would be much money to be saved by having someone else build them. There are no huge R&D costs in the safety cell like there are with the wings.

[BRG]

Considering the teams do only build a few a year the savings would be minimal as far as F1 is concerned.

Just the opposite.  The teams need to have all the skills and resources to make these, but they only use them a handful of times a year.  Or they outsource them, which still expensive if it is only a few units.  Instead, one FIA supplier doing the lot could probably cut costs in half.

[Clatter]

Just the opposite.  The teams need to have all the skills and resources to make these, but they only use them a handful of times a year.  Or they outsource them, which still expensive if it is only a few units.  Instead, one FIA supplier doing the lot could probably cut costs in half.

Wouldn't these be the same people who build the aero elements?

[maverick69]

An F1 tub, per se, is arguably the easiest and cheapest thing to design and produce for the car. This is because the FIA regs in that area pretty much dictate that all tubs end up the same. So, many tub designs run for a few years or more - even for the "big" teams..... although most will see an angle grinder or a dremel at some point.

 

So. Despite its physical size and importance to the whole system - I don't think it's going to make a huge amount of difference on the amount that teams spend.

 

However. A "pooled" car (say from Dallara) with a common PU and drivetrain, common suspension pickups and other ancillaries, but no aero package may be very attractive. With some subtle rule changes it would also sit just on the right side of a "customer car".

 

But of course: That's far too sensible....... and inflammatory for the self declared purists.......

Edited by maverick69, 13 November 2014 - 13:06.

[johnmhinds]

Having a single tyre supplier hasn't lowered costs of the tyres.

Giving companies monopolies on components only leads to them escalating the costs.

[aguri]

How much does the tub change from year to year? I suspect the design is relatively static with only minor changes required. It's aero where the big bucks are spent.

 

I think most years they wouldn't need to change at all really. Of course large changes to the cars like a new engine formula etc might necessitate the need for a new cell design. I think it is reasonable that the design of the Cells or Tubs only change every 3-4 season. 

[aguri]

An F1 tub, per se, is arguably the easiest and cheapest thing to design and produce for the car. This is because the FIA regs in that area pretty much dictate that all tubs end up the same. So, many tub designs run for a few years or more - even for the "big" teams..... although most will see an angle grinder or a dremel at some point.

 

So. Despite its physical size and importance to the whole system - I don't think it's going to make a huge amount of difference on the amount that teams spend.

 

However. A "pooled" car (say from Dallara) with a common PU and drivetrain, common suspension pickups and other ancillaries, but no aero package may be very attractive. With some subtle rule changes it would also sit just on the right side of a "customer car".

 

But of course: That's far too sensible....... and inflammatory for the self declared purists.......

 

The 'pooled' car idea has been mooted before. I think the crucial part of it would be ensuring the the PU, rear end, suspension etc is competitive enough with the works teams so that if the privateers were able to put together a good aero package they would be a chance of winning races.

 

I really don't think that is as unachievable a goal as people think. If there was to be a more equal revenue distribution, the combined pooling of resources from 4-5 privateer teams would surely provide enough funds to match Ferrari, Merc, Honda and Renault development wise.

 

We have had this situation before in the late 60's to early 80's where for many year privateer teams running a Cosworth DFV dominated the sport. IMO that is where formula one needs to head.