68 replies to this topic

[ardbeg]

I think this year in particular has shown that the real innovations are never revealed for us. Why is Mercedes dominant? PU? Why is it more efficient? ERS? Why is it more efficient? Aero? Why is it more efficient? We don't know and we have no way of knowing because all these amazing innovations that we imagine are being kept secret.

I understand you people who like the innovative part of F1, I used to like it as well, but that was the regulations allowed for "wow". I do not believe it is possible to create regulations that will bring back real innovations, the stroke of genius that could take a team like Caterham to the podium. Too much is already invented and it is too easy to make a car that is too fast. An less strict regulation would also most likely lead to even bigger difference in performance since regardless of how many geniuses you have employed, you would still need a lot of dollars for prototyping and construction. The teams with resources could simply explore many areas in parallel and in shorter time.

Seeing the teams spend huge amounts of money inventing something that is less efficient than something already invented, that does not give me a hard-on.

[polesetter1]

Seeing the teams spend huge amounts of money inventing something that is less efficient than something already invented, that does not give me a hard-on.

What specificly are you talking about?

[Nathan]

"And so you make it still more difficult for teams like Force India, Lotus (4th in 2012, 4th in 2013!) to keep up with non-performing teams that you shower with bucks (like Ferrari) and keep, say, 650 million bucks every year all for yourself - just to show them the door.

 

OK......."

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but it has little to do with the problem teams spend way too much to do what they are doing, and this can be partially linked to the technology needed to be created.  Lopez said it best in Brazil on Friday.  Even if the money was distributed evenly the same problem will still exist, the sport is too expensive and wanting a dozen teams to build pure prototypes with extreme technology isn't viable.

Edited by Nathan, 20 November 2014 - 22:44.

[ClubmanGT]

I care more about a decent grid, a few underdogs and a perennial back-row brigade than I do about eco-friendly rubbish and $60m powerplants that no one can afford to run. 

[ardbeg]

What specificly are you talking about?

Traction & Launch control for instance. When was the last time we saw someone burn rubber at the start? 1987? Banning the electronics made no difference for us but it made it expensive for the teams to come up with a almost-as-good-as the relatively cheap electronic versions. Problem is that when you leave room in the regulations, that room is being used. They banned launch control, but they left it open for the teams to make a launch control anyway.

Aerodynamics. There are many cheaper and more efficient ways to create down force than what they are doing right now. 
Suspension. Again electronics would handle the active suspension better and cheaper than what their current systems are doing.

But let's turn it around - what have they invented in the last... say three years?

[scheivlak]

"And so you make it still more difficult for teams like Force India, Lotus (4th in 2012, 4th in 2013!) to keep up with non-performing teams that you shower with bucks (like Ferrari) and keep, say, 650 million bucks every year all for yourself - just to show them the door.

 

OK......."

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but it has little to do with the problem teams spend way too much to do what they are doing, and this can be partially linked to the technology needed to be created.  Lopez said it best in Brazil on Friday.  Even if the money was distributed evenly the same problem will still exist, the sport is too expensive and wanting a dozen teams to build pure prototypes with extreme technology isn't viable.

So what teams spend way too much? I would say Ferrari in the first place. Or McLaren. And certainly not, say, Force India.

Maybe Lotus have spent too much the last few years but IMHO in that case they spent the money they really should have got. That a team that finishes 4th in two consecutive years in the WCC is handicapped so brutally compared to direct rivals as Ferrari and Williams is simply a shame.

 

LIke Bob Fernley said, a sport that generates 1.7 billion a year should provide the opportunity for at least 11 teams - read the (again!) excellent article from Dieter Rencken at this site http://plus.autospor...6952.1412066436

[scheivlak]

Traction & Launch control for instance. When was the last time we saw someone burn rubber at the start? 1987? Banning the electronics made no difference for us but it made it expensive for the teams to come up with a almost-as-good-as the relatively cheap electronic versions. Problem is that when you leave room in the regulations, that room is being used. They banned launch control, but they left it open for the teams to make a launch control anyway.

Aerodynamics. There are many cheaper and more efficient ways to create down force than what they are doing right now. 
Suspension. Again electronics would handle the active suspension better and cheaper than what their current systems are doing.

But let's turn it around - what have they invented in the last... say three years?

You're contradicting yourself in a massive way....

 

You ask essentially for more strict rules (maybe you don't think so but think just for moment what you want) and whinge at the same time that teams will always find a way around it.

 

TC3000 was completely right: there are a lot of innovations that are immediately closed down. The reason? F1 is in a classic 'double bind': we want both more freedom and cost reduction.

That will never happen together. It's as simple as that.

 

What F1 has done is opening up a whole new field of innovation with a hybrid formula. And of course that costs an awful lot more. It is the only way F1 can survive in the longer term, because it´s the only way F1 remains somehow relevant. To the industry, but also to a new audience.

But it is only sustainable if a) the distribution of money radically changes so any decently operating team can be competitive and b) the whole F1 scene has the guts to promote the new formula as their choice, and the best and perhaps only way forward. 

 

It's pretty clear why F1 is in such a sorry state right now. 

Top of the "to do" list right now is: get rid of Bernie ASAP, send him to some far away an island with his buddies Blatter and Berlusconi.

Edited by scheivlak, 21 November 2014 - 00:26.

[BullHead]

Yes. sheivlak is right. Finding excuses as to why F1 is costing too much is ignoring the massive (but small white haired) elephant in the room. F1 should be about new boundary pushing relevant technology, which of course costs shedloads - but that is right for F1, it makes it what it is, the pinnacle. The reason why it's too hard for other teams to break in and stay is not because of this, it's because of the financial politics.

[ardbeg]

You're contradicting yourself in a massive way....

 

You ask essentially for more strict rules (maybe you don't think so but think just for moment what you want) and whinge at the same time that teams will always find a way around it.

 

TC3000 was completely right: there are a lot of innovations that are immediately closed down. The reason? F1 is in a classic 'double bind': we want both more freedom and cost reduction.

That will never happen together. It's as simple as that.

 

What F1 has done is opening up a whole new field of innovation with a hybrid formula. And of course that costs an awful lot more. It is the only way F1 can survive in the longer term, because it´s the only way F1 remains somehow relevant. To the industry, but also to a new audience.

But it is only sustainable if a) the distribution of money radically changes so any decently operating team can be competitive and b) the whole F1 scene has the guts to promote the new formula as their choice, and the best and perhaps only way forward. 

 

It's pretty clear why F1 is in such a sorry state right now. 

Top of the "to do" list right now is: get rid of Bernie ASAP, send him to some far away an island with his buddies Blatter and Berlusconi.

No, I am not contradicting myself. In my opinion the strict rules are limiting the possibility to be innovative, but they do not keep them from trying to reinvent things that has been banned. For instance launch control. I mean that the rules are currently so tight that "prototype" hardly applies anymore. Take the PU's for instance, the rules specifies in very much detail how they should be created. If the rules in some areas was even stricter, the teams would basically just need to implement instead of researching. The stricter the rules are, the closer we are to "spec". The stricter the rules are without actually being "spec", the more it cost to gain 1/10s per lap and at some point it makes no sense to spend that money and instead gamble on luck and pit stop strategies.

 

The rules are in fact becoming stricter all the time, it is inevitable since it is impossible to "unlearn". If the teams have discovered that a certain solution creates a positive and that certain solution are banned, then they will try to find another way to create a similar solution and regain the positive that was taken away from them.

 

[pingu666]

in the case of the PU, im sure they could of done them for much less, but they would be much more unrefined

[gruntguru]

There will always be fans who don't give a stuff about the technology, those who are keenly interested (like myself) and a whole range in between. There are plenty of spec series around. No need to add F1 to the list.

[Leprechau]

Answering the thread question, I don't know if people care or not, but in this particular forum, very few people understands about it, that's the only thing I can say about it

 

I do care quite a lot but my impression is that, with F1, most people are just driver's fans. In sportscar racing the level is higher   

[RealRacing]

Forgot about this: we now have Formula E. Why don't make THAT the platform for testing environmentally friendly solutions; after all, it was already born with that inclination. That way, F1 can be "released" from being road relevant (i.e. in these times, environmentally conscious at least) and become a pure racing spectacle, be it as a relatively free tech competition or more as a spec series.

[MikeV1987]

I love the technical side and how each team have to build their own car, it's what attracted me to F1 in the first place, if it changed then it wouldn't be as special to me anymore, although I would probably still be a fan.

[Nathan]

"So what teams spend way too much? I would say Ferrari in the first place. Or McLaren. And certainly not, say, Force India.

Maybe Lotus have spent too much the last few years but IMHO in that case they spent the money they really should have got. That a team that finishes 4th in two consecutive years in the WCC is handicapped so brutally compared to direct rivals as Ferrari and Williams is simply a shame.

 

LIke Bob Fernley said, a sport that generates 1.7 billion a year should provide the opportunity for at least 11 teams - read the (again!) excellent article from Dieter Rencken at this site"

 

 

 

I think the teams that are financially struggling or sunk are the ones that spend an appropriate amount racing F1. Really, why should a chassis constructor spend $300 million? Lopez perfectly explained this point.

 

You want to talk about how FOM money is distributed is fair, but is not at all my concern regarding the topic of this thread - how much technology should F1 have.  I think technology/rates of development needs to be capped at a certain financial point, and that point is determined by the viability to operate as a 'mid-field'  team.  And that opinion doesn't matter if FOM money was distributed as it is now, or as fairly as it can be.

 

Off topic, I think teams need to go bust. I think that is 100% healthy.  How else do you ensure you really have the best of the best? It became clear the three new teams were incapable of moving up the grid. They just created a second tier of racing.  In regards to teams like Williams and Sauber I don't have much issue with special funds going to historic teams to ensure their viability in favour of a billionaires side project used to market his companies.  These teams are pure and I think we need to protect them from the manufacture$ and billionaire$.  Ferrari can be debated as FIAT is rarely flush with money.  Red Bull has done more for the sport and it's fans than Kingfisher and Genii, probably combined.  Why shouldn't it be rewarded and encouraged to stick around? They saved two teams, dear Minardi and FoMoCo.  I wonder what Mateschitz thinks when he hears Lopez and Mallya talk about how much money they have had to spend to prop up their teams! Aye, aye, aye.

 

I just hope Bernie has good owners lined up when Genii and India call time because there are valuable and historic establishments around Enstone and Silverstone.

 

Pay up or sink is how F1 has always been.  How much should you need to pay up?

Edited by Nathan, 21 November 2014 - 15:26.

[Nathan]

Mike, would you care if certain components like gearbox, differential, hydraulics and electronics developed by the larger teams are purchased by the smaller teams to be integrated into their inhouse chassis design?

[FerrariV12]

Mike, would you care if certain components like gearbox, differential, hydraulics and electronics developed by the larger teams are purchased by the smaller teams to be integrated into their inhouse chassis design?

 

(question not addressed to me but anyway  )

 

Doesn't that already happen to a certain extent, e.g. Caterham using Red Bull transmission (or they did last I was aware of anyway anyway).

 

FWIW I'd have nothing against a partial relaxation on the Appendix 6 "listed parts" rule, I'm against spec-anything but surely with some parts of the car, while not mandating spec components, they could allow teams to buy in components and not mandate they build their own.

 

To be honest the only thing keeping me against entire customer cars (which I'm fine with in principle) is the prospect of a DTM (3/4 manufacturers covering the entire field, proxy team orders etc.) or CART/IRL/F3 (everyone navigating towards one chassis which becomes de-facto spec) situation, but mandating only certain key parts be unique and allowing a kit-car approach from there for those who want to take it would be no problem for me.

[ardbeg]

Gordon Murray and I hold very similar views.
http://plus.autospor...h-is-a-turnoff/

[August]

I don't really like such tight regulations where things like small winglets are what separate teams. I'd prefer more open rules, like in the WEC with many different engine configurations.