Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2021 engine formula: political wrangling, technical details, aesthetics...


  • Please log in to reply
4897 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (498 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (448 votes [89.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 89.96%

  2. Nay (50 votes [10.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.04%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (255 votes [51.20%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 51.20%

  2. Nay (243 votes [48.80%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 48.80%

Removing MGU-H, more tactical use of MGU-K

  1. Yay (366 votes [73.49%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.49%

  2. Nay (132 votes [26.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.51%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#3701 RA2

RA2
  • Member

  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 March 2019 - 13:48

Also they should mandate flow straightners at the diffuser end 

 

Honeycomb-Grid-Disk-Air-Flow-Light-Diffu



Advertisement

#3702 RA2

RA2
  • Member

  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 March 2019 - 13:52

Spec/standard will kill this sport. If you want F1 to remain F1 you better oppose anything spec/standard, we do not need another Indycar in any form. Bargeboards are getting ridiculous because with current formula that is the area that is left free by reg and make difference in performance. With undorbody aero it will be more about whole car plus they can always restrict the number of bits and elements on the upper side of the body. Calling for spec/standard quickly like that is just lacking though

 

I like restricted areas of development, but it makes the sport more expensive. Teams chase very small gains in critical areas in a development restricted formula



#3703 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 701 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 13 March 2019 - 19:37

Ever since the reign of Mac Mosley, it has been tried to reduce the result of investments. This would allow teams to cut budgets, but does it? I believe it does not. As return is effectively set - i.e. winning the race and the championship later on - a bigger investment is needed.

#3704 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,613 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 March 2019 - 20:08

Spec/standard will kill this sport. If you want F1 to remain F1 you better oppose anything spec/standard, we do not need another Indycar in any form. Bargeboards are getting ridiculous because with current formula that is the area that is left free by reg and make difference in performance. With undorbody aero it will be more about whole car plus they can always restrict the number of bits and elements on the upper side of the body. Calling for spec/standard quickly like that is just lacking thought.

 

Obviously a statement from someone who has never watched Indycar. There's never enough Indycar.

 

Actually in seriousness, I find the previous statement "you better oppose anything spec/standard" to be particularly offensive. It might be what you want from F1, but its not up to you to dictate what the rest of us F1 fans want from the sport. Personally I'd rather see Formula 1 become more accessible by reducing the insane costs spent on duplicating technology for no real gain.



#3705 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 13 March 2019 - 20:26

Indycar is great, better racing by far on the dedicated road courses, some of the street courses and ovals aren't the best venues.  F1 could learn a lot from them if they didn't have their hyper-ego problem.



#3706 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,738 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 March 2019 - 20:32

Indycar is great, better racing by far on the dedicated road courses, some of the street courses and ovals aren't the best venues.  F1 could learn a lot from them if they didn't have their hyper-ego problem.

 

Amen to that.....



#3707 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 March 2019 - 21:51

Don't like the idea. Any team who makes the wrong choice will not have anyway to recover. It was the same problem when they locked the engines down in 2014. All that does is ruin the racing and potentially gives one team an easy run to the title.

 

Ah, but that assumes that there would be a wrong choice. Maybe it would just be a wrong choice for their current car design and so they could recover if they could chance the characteristics of their car to better suite the compound that they had chosen. Who knows?



#3708 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,565 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 March 2019 - 22:08

Ah, but that assumes that there would be a wrong choice. Maybe it would just be a wrong choice for their current car design and so they could recover if they could chance the characteristics of their car to better suite the compound that they had chosen. Who knows?

 


Theres always a wrong choice. It's one of the reasons they rarely deviate on tyre tactics, because when they do try something different it usually doesn't work out.

#3709 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 3,176 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 15 March 2019 - 08:42

We might get to know more about the 2021 regulations towards the end of this month as there's a meeting on March 26th.

 

https://www.motorspo...ment-march-todt



#3710 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 March 2019 - 12:31

Theres always a wrong choice. It's one of the reasons they rarely deviate on tyre tactics, because when they do try something different it usually doesn't work out.

 

Yes, but I was talking about making choices based purely on a teams own limited data. They would not have the luxury of choosing different compounds for different tracks, for example, they would have to choose one compound to be used at all tracks. So I doubt that teams would end up following the same formula as each other - they would know that whatever choice they are making is a total compromise (becauase it might work well some places, but will most definitely be bad at others).



#3711 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,565 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 March 2019 - 12:50

Yes, but I was talking about making choices based purely on a teams own limited data. They would not have the luxury of choosing different compounds for different tracks, for example, they would have to choose one compound to be used at all tracks. So I doubt that teams would end up following the same formula as each other - they would know that whatever choice they are making is a total compromise (becauase it might work well some places, but will most definitely be bad at others).

 


I'm not totally against the idea, but just don't agree with having to commit at the start for a whole season. I'd be happy if the teams had a free choice from the tyres for each weekend, rather than Pirelli choosing them.

#3712 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 March 2019 - 13:11

I'm not totally against the idea, but just don't agree with having to commit at the start for a whole season. I'd be happy if the teams had a free choice from the tyres for each weekend, rather than Pirelli choosing them.

 

It was not a truly serious suggestion - I was pointing out a method that could make big savings, if that it what people want. I do believe, though, that it does have the potential to make the racing (and the championships) less predictable.



#3713 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 15 March 2019 - 15:12

If they are truly serious about saving big money they should decide the championship right now on paper - Mercedes 1st, Ferrari 2nd, Red Bull 3rd, etc.  Then they wouldn't have to spend all that money on the cars or drivers and they wouldn't have to hold those silly parade/races.    ;)



#3714 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 March 2019 - 17:05

If they are truly serious about saving big money they should decide the championship right now on paper - Mercedes 1st, Ferrari 2nd, Red Bull 3rd, etc.  Then they wouldn't have to spend all that money on the cars or drivers and they wouldn't have to hold those silly parade/races.    ;)

 

I doubt the likes of Sky would pay them the levels that they are just to read out a few lines from a piece of paper. They still have to provide a few hours to show every couple of weeks.



#3715 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 15 March 2019 - 17:29

Sky must save a ton of money on their crappy commentators so maybe they still would.     ;)


Edited by nonobaddog, 15 March 2019 - 18:13.


#3716 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 16 March 2019 - 20:42

So there will be another season of ugly, sad sounding cars racing each other in a championship which was already decided before it started.

 

Well, at least cars are safer and greener, right? Hope you guys are having fun.



#3717 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,373 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 17 March 2019 - 00:30

So there will be another season of ugly, sad sounding cars racing each other in a championship which was already decided before it started.

Well, at least cars are safer and greener, right? Hope you guys are having fun.

If you want a championship that’s wide open, fiercely competitive and far from decided before it’s started then come watch Formula E ;)

#3718 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 March 2019 - 00:56

So there will be another season of ugly, sad sounding cars racing each other in a championship which was already decided before it started.

 

Well, at least cars are safer and greener, right? Hope you guys are having fun.

 

Cheer up - just look at those shiny tyres we have now.



#3719 DILLIGAF

DILLIGAF
  • Member

  • 4,459 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 24 March 2019 - 08:24

"Wolff says his team will accept a cost cap, if it is workable: "Mercedes certainly is interested in having a cost cap implemented, at the right levels, so it makes sense for everybody.

"Get the big teams on board in a way that is implementable. And the small teams to kind of at least cap us, and make sure that we're not running away with even higher costs every year."

 

https://www.motorspo...-wolff/4357072/


Edited by DILLIGAF, 24 March 2019 - 08:24.


Advertisement

#3720 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,738 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 March 2019 - 10:44

If you want a championship that’s wide open, fiercely competitive and far from decided before it’s started then come watch Formula E ;)

 

I must admit that not everything within Formula "Star-Fleet" appeals to me, including the X-Bomber style cars.

But now the car-swap is gone it it getting better.

And if it comes to watching close racing on street racing kind of tracks: an FE events outdoes everything that Monaco has offered the past years.

Let's face it, Less power differences with FE between the cars and still we get to see battles for position with a  chance to succeed then the power difference between Ricciardo and Vettel last year at Monaco and still Vettel couldn't get by....


Edited by Henri Greuter, 24 March 2019 - 10:44.


#3721 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 March 2019 - 11:21

 

"Wolff says his team will accept a cost cap, if it is workable: "Mercedes certainly is interested in having a cost cap implemented, at the right levels, so it makes sense for everybody.

"Get the big teams on board in a way that is implementable. And the small teams to kind of at least cap us, and make sure that we're not running away with even higher costs every year."

 

https://www.motorspo...-wolff/4357072/

 

 

Mercedes have two choices if a cost cap is imposed - accept it or quit. They don't need the approval of Mercedes and they don't need to accept any terms they might want. I guess Toto has a third choice - quit Mercedes if they comply with a cost cap rule.



#3722 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,738 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 March 2019 - 11:38

Mercedes have two choices if a cost cap is imposed - accept it or quit. They don't need the approval of Mercedes and they don't need to accept any terms they might want. I guess Toto has a third choice - quit Mercedes if they comply with a cost cap rule.

 

 

In the case of budget caps, I alwasy wonder if that is including the driver fees yes or no....

A few teams would be happy to be able to spend on the entire team what Mercedes and/or Ferrari spend on their #1 drivers alone .....



#3723 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 March 2019 - 12:26

In the case of budget caps, I alwasy wonder if that is including the driver fees yes or no....
A few teams would be happy to be able to spend on the entire team what Mercedes and/or Ferrari spend on their #1 drivers alone .....

Last I read, the costs of the drivers and the other 3 most expense people are exempt from the cap.

Makes sense as the drivers are the stars and just like any other major sport they should be compensated at market value.

Edited by F1Lurker, 24 March 2019 - 12:27.


#3724 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,613 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 March 2019 - 12:51

In the case of budget caps, I alwasy wonder if that is including the driver fees yes or no....

A few teams would be happy to be able to spend on the entire team what Mercedes and/or Ferrari spend on their #1 drivers alone .....

 

If driver fees are included, it would have to include those that pay for the drive as well as those who get paid.



#3725 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,202 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 24 March 2019 - 12:52

From the organizers side there is avid talk of and push for cost cap that just cannot be implemented fairly but hardly talk about equal and more distribution of rights money that alone shifts things closer to the much longed parity. Of course that's inconvenient for them because investors get less money in their pockets and lose reins on top teams. Deception and hypocrisy going on. Also as a result public and media rarely raise money distribution as a subject, we are being fooled.



#3726 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,816 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 March 2019 - 20:09

If driver fees are included, it would have to include those that pay for the drive as well as those who get paid.

 

That should be pretty simple.  Drivers don't pay for their drives themselves, they only bring sponsors that would not sponsor the team unless they have that particular driver.  The sponsors pay the team and the team pays the driver.



#3727 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,816 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 March 2019 - 20:14

From the organizers side there is avid talk of and push for cost cap that just cannot be implemented fairly but hardly talk about equal and more distribution of rights money that alone shifts things closer to the much longed parity. Of course that's inconvenient for them because investors get less money in their pockets and lose reins on top teams. Deception and hypocrisy going on. Also as a result public and media rarely raise money distribution as a subject, we are being fooled.

 

Its quite interesting.  The have nots like Renault, McLaren and Williams are increasing the pressure insisting that they will reconsider F1 if the price cap isn't significant, ie low enough for them to be competitive.  On the other hand we have the haves, ie Ferrari, Mercedes and RBR claiming they are completely on board with budget caps as long as its done the right way (which I read as being their way).

 

I think the main issue will be B-teams and how hand-me-down components will be classified.  The majority of teams are involved in this process with Renault, McLaren and Williams being the ones not.  I don't think its a coincidence that this is the only significant issue left to be discussed.  I suspect ultimately the budget cap will be arranged to retain the advantage for B-teams and their suppliers as its the only way the cap could be politically feasible.



#3728 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 9,440 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 March 2019 - 20:19

If driver fees are included, it would have to include those that pay for the drive as well as those who get paid.

 

All drivers get paid a salary by the team. Pay drivers effectively get a cut of the money they are bringing with them.



#3729 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 March 2019 - 20:31

Drive for $1, sponsors pay $20M for add work.  :p

 

There are no signs of driver salary cap happening anyway.



#3730 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 March 2019 - 21:52

In today's F1 the car is much more important than the drivers.



#3731 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,826 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 25 March 2019 - 01:19

From the organizers side there is avid talk of and push for cost cap that just cannot be implemented fairly but hardly talk about equal and more distribution of rights money that alone shifts things closer to the much longed parity. Of course that's inconvenient for them because investors get less money in their pockets and lose reins on top teams. Deception and hypocrisy going on. Also as a result public and media rarely raise money distribution as a subject, we are being fooled.

 

There hasn't been anything we've heard about recently.  At one of the meetings early last season FOM said they would indeed implement a revenue redistribution.  They were pretty general about the parameters but basically enough to sustain an operation with some sponsorship and a cost cap.  The cost cap is going to be the more difficult thing to sort out.  It's reported that anyone that produces an engine they lease to other teams will get an extra US$10 mil.  Ferrari is reported to get US$40 mil just for being them plus the engine money.



#3732 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,487 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 25 March 2019 - 02:22

There hasn't been anything we've heard about recently.  At one of the meetings early last season FOM said they would indeed implement a revenue redistribution.  They were pretty general about the parameters but basically enough to sustain an operation with some sponsorship and a cost cap.  The cost cap is going to be the more difficult thing to sort out.  It's reported that anyone that produces an engine they lease to other teams will get an extra US$10 mil.  Ferrari is reported to get US$40 mil just for being them plus the engine money.

 

Ross Brawn said only this month - 

 
"There is too much disparity between the top two or three teams and the rest of the grid, you have a group of teams that could finish last and still earn more than the team that have won the world championship. We have to recognize the importance and history of Ferrari and the unique place they have in the sport but we also have to find a balance between that recognition and an equitable position for the rest. We know that if we have a more equitable distribution of revenue, we will have a better F1."
 
He also said "You are never going to attract new teams when you have such unfair distribution. Ferrari recognize that. They will fight tooth and nail for the best they can, but logic will have a fair part in trying to find a solution."
 
Of course at the end of the day it isn't Ross who is negotiating the next round of commercial deals but I think he knows the man who is well enough that his comments are in line with FOM thinking.

Edited by RacingGreen, 25 March 2019 - 02:26.


#3733 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,869 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 25 March 2019 - 03:28

Indycar is great, better racing by far on the dedicated road courses, some of the street courses and ovals aren't the best venues.  F1 could learn a lot from them if they didn't have their hyper-ego problem.

Sure. But going spec should never be one of those lessons on the curriculum. :down:

 

Why is it Indy afficianados want to shove how its run on F1 but never the other way around?


Edited by Fatgadget, 25 March 2019 - 03:38.


#3734 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 25 March 2019 - 03:46

 

Ross Brawn said only this month - 

 
"There is too much disparity between the top two or three teams and the rest of the grid, you have a group of teams that could finish last and still earn more than the team that have won the world championship. We have to recognize the importance and history of Ferrari and the unique place they have in the sport but we also have to find a balance between that recognition and an equitable position for the rest. We know that if we have a more equitable distribution of revenue, we will have a better F1."
 
He also said "You are never going to attract new teams when you have such unfair distribution. Ferrari recognize that. They will fight tooth and nail for the best they can, but logic will have a fair part in trying to find a solution."
 
Of course at the end of the day it isn't Ross who is negotiating the next round of commercial deals but I think he knows the man who is well enough that his comments are in line with FOM thinking.

 

 

Ross worked for Ferrari, which is quite interesting when I think of what he says. 

 

Never the less, I think PU restriction works the most effective, as PU in its totality is the most expensive bits. It is also a bit invisible from the layman's eye.

Aero bits is interesting as well as it remains visible, but I would say to reduce the spending on the aero simulation, and make the designer work more with their idea and on track testing.

 

I might not be right, but what I want to say is that as chassis building is significant of the sport, make it more sportive and less machine simulation dependent.

Point system can be awarded on the chassis performance, sort of, for example, fastest sector three point, or least tire degradation points, and so forth... 


Edited by kumo7, 25 March 2019 - 03:47.


#3735 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,869 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 25 March 2019 - 03:53

In today's F1 the car is much more important than the drivers.

When was that never the case?

..Did the late great Senna say he would drive the then dominant Williams for nish or was that a myth?



#3736 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,487 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 25 March 2019 - 04:08

Ross worked for Ferrari, which is quite interesting when I think of what he says. 

 

Never the less, I think PU restriction works the most effective, as PU in its totality is the most expensive bits. It is also a bit invisible from the layman's eye.

Aero bits is interesting as well as it remains visible, but I would say to reduce the spending on the aero simulation, and make the designer work more with their idea and on track testing.

 

I might not be right, but what I want to say is that as chassis building is significant of the sport, make it more sportive and less machine simulation dependent.

Point system can be awarded on the chassis performance, sort of, for example, fastest sector three point, or least tire degradation points, and so forth... 

 

While I'd be happy seeing some more on track testing surely the cost of building more and more new parts and testing them all physically rather than using a simulation would drive costs up rather than down. 

In order to survive as a sport at all, and that includes making a return on investment for the teams and sports owners, F1 needs to find a sustainable international business model. Indycar appears to have found a sustainable national business model that includes a spec chassis and simplified PU's. While I'm basically against standard anything perhaps there are lessons to be learnt restricting development in certain areas.

As for your suggestion that there should be a different points distribution so that different cars are rewarded for being better in certain areas couldn't you achieve that just by running the series on tracks which offer greater variety - ie short slow twisty circuit with high tyre wear, fast long circuit with little run off likely to have cross winds and cold track conditions etc. etc. That would allow teams with limited resources to produce a car that operates really well in a small window and achieve the same results without needing to alter the points structure.



#3737 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 25 March 2019 - 04:47

Sure. But going spec should never be one of those lessons on the curriculum. :down:

 

Why is it Indy afficianados want to shove how its run on F1 but never the other way around?

 

I don't think Indycar aficionados want to shove how it is run on anybody.  Have you seen that?  or just being overly defensive.

 

However Indycar racing is great and very competitive and getting better while F1 is boringly predictable.  It is that competitiveness that is a good goal for any racing series without pushing anything about how it is run or how one good series achieves that goal.



#3738 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,665 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 25 March 2019 - 05:19

Why is it Indy afficianados want to shove how its run on F1 but never the other way around?

 

Top Indycar/CART engineers like Frank Dernie and Adrian Newey already made their mark on F1, bringing along their Indycar expertise and putting it to great use.   ;)

 

Source 1:

https://www.motorspo...best-driver-win

08-26-Rahal-Newey-1985-Indy500.jpg

adrian-newey-truesports-march--1.jpg

 

Source 2:

 

 

But going spec should never be one of those lessons on the curriculum.  :down:

 

 

To save costs however (which is sensible, right?), Indycar no longer allows development of different chassis.

 

How else do you propose to cut costs and close up the field in F1 then!?


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 25 March 2019 - 05:31.


#3739 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 13,579 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 25 March 2019 - 09:17

I think we're all going to be arguing about how unfair, unpoliceable and ineffective this budget cap is for the next 30 years...



Advertisement

#3740 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 25 March 2019 - 09:22

While I'd be happy seeing some more on track testing surely the cost of building more and more new parts and testing them all physically rather than using a simulation would drive costs up rather than down. 

In order to survive as a sport at all, and that includes making a return on investment for the teams and sports owners, F1 needs to find a sustainable international business model. Indycar appears to have found a sustainable national business model that includes a spec chassis and simplified PU's. While I'm basically against standard anything perhaps there are lessons to be learnt restricting development in certain areas.

As for your suggestion that there should be a different points distribution so that different cars are rewarded for being better in certain areas couldn't you achieve that just by running the series on tracks which offer greater variety - ie short slow twisty circuit with high tyre wear, fast long circuit with little run off likely to have cross winds and cold track conditions etc. etc. That would allow teams with limited resources to produce a car that operates really well in a small window and achieve the same results without needing to alter the points structure.

 

I can see your point that the chassis building will up its costs, but only partly.

PU, in one go eat up some tens of millions!



#3741 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 25 March 2019 - 11:36

I think that with a budget cap some teams with spend less that the allowance, some will spend exactly the allowance and some will use "tricks" to spend maybe $20m more—it's only so far that creative accounting can take you.

However, with a $150m budget cap, even the "cheating" teams will have a maximum spend of around $170m—a huge improvement by today's standards.

Also, the longer a budget cap is implemented the better the FIA should be at policing it.

#3742 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,869 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 25 March 2019 - 12:40

Top Indycar/CART engineers like Frank Dernie and Adrian Newey already made their mark on F1, bringing along their Indycar expertise and putting it to great use.   ;)

 

Source 1:

https://www.motorspo...best-driver-win

08-26-Rahal-Newey-1985-Indy500.jpg

adrian-newey-truesports-march--1.jpg

 

Source 2:

 

 

 

To save costs however (which is sensible, right?), Indycar no longer allows development of different chassis.

 

How else do you propose to cut costs and close up the field in F1 then!?

Just accept it. F1 has always been an expensive sport.



#3743 F1 Mike

F1 Mike
  • Member

  • 653 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 25 March 2019 - 12:54

In the 90s teams used to come in, make an arse of it & run out of money all the time. To me it feels like F1 has never been so financially healthy.
The quality of teams has never been as good as it is today, yet still everyone is crying about money.
There will always be a team or two at the back. Not everyone can be a winner.

All this level playing field talk is just nonsense but if there is some form of budget cap it means the spending can't go higher & higher which can only be a good thing.

#3744 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,869 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 25 March 2019 - 12:57

I don't think Indycar aficionados want to shove how it is run on anybody.  Have you seen that?  or just being overly defensive.

 

However Indycar racing is great and very competitive and getting better while F1 is boringly predictable.  It is that competitiveness that is a good goal for any racing series without pushing anything about how it is run or how one good series achieves that goal.

I disagree. F1 to me is about being cleverer than your competitor.Coming up with a demon tweek be it ground effect ,J-damper,F-duct Active suspension and all that. Clever software solution even. Check out this fascinating article to see what I mean. https://www.autospor...-make-f1-closer



#3745 Pete_f1

Pete_f1
  • Member

  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 March 2019 - 13:19

Ferrari, Merc, Red Bull: We don't like this we are leaving.

Everyone else: These new rules dont go far enough!

#3746 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 March 2019 - 14:08

Ferrari, Merc, Red Bull: We don't like this we are leaving.

Everyone else: These new rules dont go far enough!

 

What about McLaren and Williams with their "let's give them a bonus too, because we like them"? 



#3747 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 25 March 2019 - 14:10

F1 to me is about being cleverer than your competitor.Coming up with a demon tweek be it ground effect ,J-damper,F-duct Active suspension and all that. Clever software solution even.

 

That is true of not just F1 but every racing series I know of, whether it is cars, boats, motorcycles, airplanes or lawnmowers.  They all do that within the envelope of the regulations for their series.
 
A few years ago Indycars generated more downforce than F1 cars but since then the Indycar series has regulated substantially LESS downforce while F1 has regulated substantially MORE downforce.
(Certainly some of this is due to the different racing environments.  Reliance on very high downforce on an oval is just plain dangerous when another car can take away your downforce by moving his line in front of yours in a corner.)  
The lower downforce in Indycar has resulted in better, closer racing and as a bonus, for me at least, it puts more of the cars performance in the hands of the driver.


#3748 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 9,440 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 March 2019 - 15:15

In the 90s teams used to come in, make an arse of it & run out of money all the time. To me it feels like F1 has never been so financially healthy.
The quality of teams has never been as good as it is today, yet still everyone is crying about money.
There will always be a team or two at the back. Not everyone can be a winner.

All this level playing field talk is just nonsense but if there is some form of budget cap it means the spending can't go higher & higher which can only be a good thing.


It’s gotten much worse because of the rapid disappearance of external sponsors since the financial crash, without a corresponding drop in costs. Many companies are no longer willing to sponsor an F1 team, or in fact sponsor anything at all. There are new ways of marketing nowadays, and many brands would rather be the centre of attention than a small part in someone else’s show. Those sponsors that do still exist are paying a lot less - certainly not enough to cover more than a small portion of the costs. The backmarkers may be less awful than the 90s, but that is a result more of increased professionalism than financial stability.

F1 prize money has been unfair even before Bernie centralised it, but historically those teams who got none or very little could still find a budget elsewhere. Now you just cannot exist without it. And you can forget about anyone challenging the big three. Where would the extra $100m-200m you need come from?

We need a level playing field or we will no longer have a sport. The financial issues are the single biggest problem F1 has to solve.

#3749 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,134 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 March 2019 - 16:07

It’s gotten much worse because of the rapid disappearance of external sponsors since the financial crash, without a corresponding drop in costs. Many companies are no longer willing to sponsor an F1 team, or in fact sponsor anything at all. There are new ways of marketing nowadays, and many brands would rather be the centre of attention than a small part in someone else’s show. Those sponsors that do still exist are paying a lot less - certainly not enough to cover more than a small portion of the costs. The backmarkers may be less awful than the 90s, but that is a result more of increased professionalism than financial stability.

F1 prize money has been unfair even before Bernie centralised it, but historically those teams who got none or very little could still find a budget elsewhere. Now you just cannot exist without it. And you can forget about anyone challenging the big three. Where would the extra $100m-200m you need come from?

We need a level playing field or we will no longer have a sport. The financial issues are the single biggest problem F1 has to solve.

 

On the other hand, in the same way marketing has changed and sponsorship is disappearing, maybe F1 is an outdated concept (building prototype racing cars for no purpose apart from to enter them into a racing series that is not as exciting as other racing series) and should just be left to die. In the past it was thought that the development in F1 produced meaningful work that could be useful elsewhere (meaning outside of racing cars around a track). Was it true then? Is it still true?



#3750 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 March 2019 - 17:06

Indycar is great, better racing by far on the dedicated road courses, some of the street courses and ovals aren't the best venues.  F1 could learn a lot from them if they didn't have their hyper-ego problem.

 

I think the problem is more down to the speed difference between the cars. When you're braking 20 meters later and accelerating faster out the corners it's harder to overtake unless you have a huge tyre difference or a long straight.