106 replies to this topic

[WhiteBlue]

But that did not lead to a cost reduction.

 

It surely did. Traditionally customer engines had been about $ 10m per season. As a part of the crisis package agreed by FOTA the price went down to under six if I remember right. At the same time resource restrictions kicked in and expenditure fell sharply for two years until it became clear that the big teams - particularly Red Bull and Ferrari would break the pact.

[chipmcdonald]

Look. if they just made it open ended up to 215 mph, you'd have built in diminishing returns on both aero and engine.   You could increase hp only to the point of which you could get it down, then aero efficiency would regulate itself to the point of diminishing returns, then they would have to look at things like economy - running less weight in fuel with the same performance curve. 

 

.. and it would still be open to the "bolt from the blue", which is much more F1-like than just regulating everything to accomplish the same thing: a speed limit.  Let them spend as much as they want to get a car *to* top speed, and let's see what happens.  Much more interesting.

[chipmcdonald]

lolz

 

top speed isn't even the biggest issue, cornering speeds is. drivers will faint at certain speeds.

 

gonna put a different speed limit on every corner?

 

 

No.  Not necessary.  The present cars could have 2,000 bhp, and they would not go through a corner any faster.  0-215 mph would increase in a straight line, and that is not a safety issue.

[Atreiu]

No.  Not necessary.  The present cars could have 2,000 bhp, and they would not go through a corner any faster.  0-215 mph would increase in a straight line, and that is not a safety issue.

 

They could use max downforce at every track with that much power, so they'd be faster and some places.

 

 

Maybe we should abandon the thought of equalizing and simply propose some sort of regulation which is simple and strict. Let the manufacturers sort which formats they want to use.

 

Minimum weight, 500kg, maximum capacity of fuel tank, 50l. Sort it out.

 

Couldn't it work?

[Henri Greuter]

No.  Not necessary.  The present cars could have 2,000 bhp, and they would not go through a corner any faster.  0-215 mph would increase in a straight line, and that is not a safety issue.

 

Wrong.

 

If the present cars had 2000 bhp they would have added even more flaps and anything else within the rules to create even more adhesion during the corners because then they have so much power that even with all that top speed reducing junk they still will reach your magic 215 with ease so to make use of that 2000 hp somehow, do it in the corners and make thedifference in top speeds in straight lines and corners even smaller.

Scalextric scenery as long as nothing on the cars breaks in the corners or in the braking zones..

 

on your comments about what is or isn't a safety issue:  Only on Tilke tracks, Canada for example will be an entirely different matter.....

 

 

Henri

[chipmcdonald]

They could use max downforce at every track with that much power, so they'd be faster and some places.

 

 

Maybe we should abandon the thought of equalizing and simply propose some sort of regulation which is simple and strict. Let the manufacturers sort which formats they want to use.

 

 

 In the context of this thread - engines - that's a different issue.   Regardless, the solution is very simple: 5G limit in corners.   Again there is no reason to implement a long list of bureaucratic engineering nonsense to accomplish in the end exactly the same thing.

 

They would still be faster - which is fine by me.   You implement a spec front wing, everything behind it has to be designed to it, and the car has to be balanced to it.   130R too fast?   Here's a small front wing.

 

I would much rather the problem be "we've got to make them run a smaller wing" or "they have to run 10 mm higher at Suzuka" than a bunch of technical regulations *that seek to accomplish the very same result*.

 

 

 
 

[chipmcdonald]

Maybe we should abandon the thought of equalizing and simply propose some sort of regulation which is simple and strict. Let the manufacturers sort which formats they want to use.

 

Minimum weight, 500kg, maximum capacity of fuel tank, 50l. Sort it out.

 

Couldn't it work?

 

 

The manufacturers will/would never agree to anything that wasn't a complete rubbish compromise - and it would take a year of negotiating.

 

That is the root of the problem: kowtowing to the whimsy of a bunch of different organizations, as if there can be a sensible solution that makes everyone happy.  After a ridiculous arbitration round, you get something that yields dildo noses, DRS and goofy engines.   Never mind that the fan base dwindles.

 

It has to be something arbitrary from the FANS point of view.  The FANS make the existence of F1 possible, period.  Everything should follow that, if a manufacturer can't compete under that premise then fine.   But this bizzarro world idea of putting the cart in front of the horse, debating how the cart should be built, and then hoping the emaciated equine can somehow push the expensively engineered cart forward does not make any sense.  That's not how it works.  

 

F1 is filled with personas who are hyper rich and powerful, and are accustomed to the idea that they "make things happen" and how much money they have dictates how.   That is true in the business world, but *you can't run a race under the same principles*.