95 replies to this topic

[MasterOfCoin]

F1 going spec is a certain recipe for disaster. THE only interesting point about the series today is the development race. Spec series can be fun for a little while but at the end of the day they don’t capture the imagination the same way as F1 does.

An Indycar “Europe” run by the hapless FIA will fail in record time. Nobody wants to watch sad, underpowered spec cars on sterilized FIA tracks.

^^This.....One of my fears is a Spec vintage series.....Then teams suddenly realize, i can do this in Indycar for far less money, pull out and the series dies..... 

[Pingguest]

This.  The tighter they make the regs, the more resources teams have to throw at eking out that extra half a tenth and the bigger the advantage teams with the deepest pockets will have.  It's been shown time and time again but still they try to tighten things even more.  It's quite bizarre how little they appear to understand about what makes F1 so expensive

Yes, it is a sad thing. When the Cosworth DFV was introduced, it widely seen as highly-sophisticated. However, throughout the coming years Ferrari outspend Cosworth, making its engine obsolete. Until Lotus come up with ground effects and relatively cheap engine become the one to have again.

[Ben1445]

I think Formula E teams have converged to a pretty much single gear, single motor option now. Nissan were running a twin motor set up last year but they've been banned for this season for a varety of reasons (chiefly could be that 1 team redesigning to single motor was better for the overall costs than 11 teams redesigning to twin). As I understand it, a lot of Formula E performance gains lies in choosing the most efficient components you can and keeping the system operating under optimum conditions for as much of the race as possible.

I still think FE's blend of spec and open is one to be admired. Spec aero, chassis and battery eliminates the high costs of developing those components and the bits that are developable have the obligation of being sold to privateers for a capped price a s condition of entry. It's also a homologated unit from the season start to finish, so no giving customer teams a lower spec powertrain than the factory team. 

 

I wouldn't mid F1 introducing more spec elements for the parts that are already really tightly regulated on shape and function. What's the point in every team reproducing them to great expense? Or even writing in areas of obligatory cost capped supply. I mean really... do we really need 10 very slightly different monocoques which all meet the same safety regulations?  Or could they say that customer teams have the right to buy one from a bigger manufacturer/constructor for a capped price? 

 

That sort of thing I don't think I would have a problem with. If anything it would be a little closer to the early days in a customer sense, buying something from a bigger team and applying your resource to an elements that they perhaps overlooked to find an advantage there. 

[Sterzo]

This.  The tighter they make the regs, the more resources teams have to throw at eking out that extra half a tenth and the bigger the advantage teams with the deepest pockets will have.  It's been shown time and time again but still they try to tighten things even more.  It's quite bizarre how little they appear to understand about what makes F1 so expensive

It's conceivable this is true, but sounds extremely unlikely, and when you say "It's been shown time and time again" I'd be interested in some evidence.

 

The principle that technical restrictions help contain costs has played a part in pretty much every formula since the dawn of motor racing, so if it's wrong we should really let someone know.

[djparky]

This is the mistake that all fans make. For us, the development race is important. However, the majority of F1's audience is not made up of people like us. It's made up of people who just really want to see the names they know go racing - be that names like "Ferrari" or "Lewis Hamilton". They couldn't give a hoot about the technology inside the cars. Some might be interested in how fast they go, but not how that's achieved. So if it was all spec, it would make little difference to F1's overall audience.

Well said...I watch motor sport but I'm not remotely interested in the technical side of it- I want to see good racing with good looking and sounding cars. I think the technology is interesting to some of the fan base, but it is of most interest to the participants.

As ever F1 needs to work out whether it wants to be an expensive tech arms race which the few can afford or something lower tech where more people can genuinely participate rather than the current model where noone outside of the top 3 teams can ever get close- and never will under the current model

[djparky]

^^This.....One of my fears is a Spec vintage series.....Then teams suddenly realize, i can do this in Indycar for far less money, pull out and the series dies.....

The teams already know this, for the amount of money Williams flushes down the toilet to be 3 seconds off the pace they could run 5 cars in Indy Car and still have $50m left over

[pdac]

Well said...I watch motor sport but I'm not remotely interested in the technical side of it- I want to see good racing with good looking and sounding cars. I think the technology is interesting to some of the fan base, but it is of most interest to the participants.

As ever F1 needs to work out whether it wants to be an expensive tech arms race which the few can afford or something lower tech where more people can genuinely participate rather than the current model where noone outside of the top 3 teams can ever get close- and never will under the current model

 

Actually, I disagree. F1 is now firmly rooted in the cash burning model. It cannot ever go back to the affordable. What F1 has to do is to ensure that those billions keep rolling. This to me means the focus will be on the marketing and it'll be what the market wants that will dictate how the rest of it works. And when I say market, I'm not talking about a bunch of fans that live and breath F1 24/7, it's the people who have money to burn and are looking for somewhere to spend it - be they individuals or corporations.

[Sterzo]

Actually, I disagree. F1 is now firmly rooted in the cash burning model. It cannot ever go back to the affordable.

If that is true, it's on the way out.

 

But my Mum used to say, never say "can't."

[sopa]

F1 would be 'forced' to become affordable once critical amount of sponsors and/or manufacturers leave. Or at least significantly reduce their involvement.

[Clatter]

F1 would be 'forced' to become affordable once critical amount of sponsors and/or manufacturers leave. Or at least significantly reduce their involvement.

 

The problem is how many teams will they allow to go to the wall before they actually stop talking and make the hard decisions?

[PayasYouRace]

F1 would be 'forced' to become affordable once critical amount of sponsors and/or manufacturers leave. Or at least significantly reduce their involvement.

 

What's a critical amount? One could argue that's already happened.

[Mishvili]

Close racing is not exciting racing if all cars are essentially identical in all aspects of performance and therefore cannot overtake. Just makes races processions based on starting positions.

Also, if the development race did not feed ultimately into road car technology, why are the big manufacturers involved, and so insistent on the sort of technology that should be harnessed in the future?

Edited by Mishvili, 20 October 2019 - 16:52.

[Vielleicht]

Close racing is not exciting racing if all cars are essentially identical in all aspects of performance and therefore cannot overtake. Just makes races processions based on starting positions.

Only if everyone had exaclty the same version of, well, a car built to the current Formula 1 regulations.

 

A field of practically identical cars which behave very well in dirty air and work well in a slipstream, for example, may yield a different outcome.

[sopa]

What's a critical amount? One could argue that's already happened.

 

When there aren't enough cars left to sustain the grid, I assume. So far F1 has managed to keep at least 10 teams afloat.

[pingu666]

Only if everyone had exaclty the same version of, well, a car built to the current Formula 1 regulations.

 

A field of practically identical cars which behave very well in dirty air and work well in a slipstream, for example, may yield a different outcome.

 

it can work both ways, sometimes if identical they cant gain enough advantage to overtake, or have a interesting fight. while differences like alms lmp1 vs lmp2 era gave interesting fights due to big differences in performance (but close lap times).

 

but dull spec racing is worse, because damnit why have spec cars that cant race well, vs dull non spec atleast its slightly more interesting as you have different designs

[pdac]

You just need spec cars that are almost impossible to drive. Then the drivers skills will be what is tested. I think that's what people are thinking is really needed.

[Sterzo]

Close racing is not exciting racing if all cars are essentially identical in all aspects of performance and therefore cannot overtake. Just makes races processions based on starting positions.

There are endless one-make formulae which provide more overtaking than F1: F2, F3 and just about F everything, before we even include GT and touring cars. We may not want one-make F1 for other reasons, but to suggest it wouldn't be exciting denies what we can see all around us.

 

 

Also, if the development race did not feed ultimately into road car technology, why are the big manufacturers involved, and so insistent on the sort of technology that should be harnessed in the future?

Same reason they've always been involved: marketing. It's better for the image to be seen as embracing the future.

[Ben1445]

You just need spec cars that are almost impossible to drive. Then the drivers skills will be what is tested. I think that's what people are thinking is really needed.

Largely spec/not much difference between cars? Really difficult to drive? How about not a lot of aero or mechanical grip yet lots of power and torque? Driver skill really being put to the test? Little to no run off? Resulting in close, exciting and varied racing? Sounds great. Sounds a lot like Formula E  
 
Honestly though. When Lotterer says FE cars are the most difficult things to drive even compared to F1/LMP1 and the variability of winners is high....whilst F1 people are moaning about Leclerc being able to do 130R one handed and one or two teams can easily dominate the championship.... 
 
Maybe hard to drive, largely spec cars is a good direction to be taking.

Edited by Ben1445, 20 October 2019 - 20:42.

[PayasYouRace]

Close racing is not exciting racing if all cars are essentially identical in all aspects of performance and therefore cannot overtake. Just makes races processions based on starting positions.

If only a set of regulations was drawn up with the idea that cars can overtake and don’t need huge performance advantages to mount an overtake? Actually that’s been the main aim of the 2021 regulations from day one, and has been advertised as such.

[PayasYouRace]

When there aren't enough cars left to sustain the grid, I assume. So far F1 has managed to keep at least 10 teams afloat.

Well we haven’t had a full grid since early 1995. Doesn’t that tell us something?

 

On the other hand last time I checked the FIA drew the line at 14 cars for a race to have Grand Prix status. Should we let F1 dwindle to 7 teams before action is taken?

[Clatter]

Well we haven’t had a full grid since early 1995. Doesn’t that tell us something?

 

On the other hand last time I checked the FIA drew the line at 14 cars for a race to have Grand Prix status. Should we let F1 dwindle to 7 teams before action is taken?

 

It was 16 cars in the 1997 Concorde Agreement. Has that been lowered since?

[PayasYouRace]

It was 16 cars in the 1997 Concorde Agreement. Has that been lowered since?

It could well be. I haven’t seen that FIA reg since about 1997.

 

Edit: Turns our we’re both wrong. It’s 12. See article 5.7 of the sporting regulations.

 

https://www.fia.com/.../download/26183

 

As an aside it should be noted that next season breaks article 5.4 which states that 21 events is the maximum for the championship.

[Clatter]

It could well be. I haven’t seen that FIA reg since about 1997.

 

I'd be surprised if the circuits would accept lower, but it would be nice if someone could get their hands on a later copy of the agreement.

[PayasYouRace]

I'd be surprised if the circuits would accept lower, but it would be nice if someone could get their hands on a later copy of the agreement.

Don’t need to. It’s in the sporting regs. I edited it into my previous post.

[Clatter]

It could well be. I haven’t seen that FIA reg since about 1997.

 

Edit: Turns our we’re both wrong. It’s 12. See article 5.7 of the sporting regulations.

 

https://www.fia.com/.../download/26183

 

As an aside it should be noted that next season breaks article 5.4 which states that 21 events is the maximum for the championship.

 

Not sure what to think about that rule. It actually refers only to an event, so could be if some unforeseen circumstance resulted in less cars than expected. Certainly if I were a circuit owner, paying a large fee to host a race, I don't think I would be happy with such a small field. I still think there will a separate clause in the concorde agreement guaranteeing a certain number of entrants under normal circumstances.

[pdac]

Not sure what to think about that rule. It actually refers only to an event, so could be if some unforeseen circumstance resulted in less cars than expected. Certainly if I were a circuit owner, paying a large fee to host a race, I don't think I would be happy with such a small field. I still think there will a separate clause in the concorde agreement guaranteeing a certain number of entrants under normal circumstances.

 

Might it be possible that,although 12 is mentioned here, the contracts for individual circuits might include a higher number.

[ArrowsLivery]

Ok, but at the same time the biggest question I hear by far from friends/colleagues/whoever who do not watch racing is "But isn't it all about who has the best car and not who is the best driver? I don't see the fun in that."

I'd usually try and justify that it's a team sport, that the driver is part of that team and that which team can build the best car and race it is the competition but it's usually a pointless endeavour and they're never going to watch it anyway. Because their understanding of a sport is one in which equal equipment is correct and only physical human performance is the thing which determines who wins and who does not.

I'm not saying that I want a spec-F1, I'm just saying that there would probably be an audience willing to watch it if they spent the time trying to find them.

I can see why people who don’t watch racing might think that way, but in actuality seeing who has built the fastest car is the most interesting part of the series. Spec series like IndyCar or GP2 just don’t hold the same significance, despite usually offering better racing.

[Ben1445]

I think what tends to happen, with F1 being the most well known motorsport, is that they assume that all of motorsport is about who had the best car and therefore decide that none of it is worth watching.

Of course, building the best car can be a hugely interesting part of the story, I don’t deny that. I just reject it being a fundamentally more interesting element than which driver is the fastest/most adept at racing. Otherwise there might be no such thing as the World Drivers Championship and the World Constructors Championship would be the one everyone cares about.

What motorsport often tries to do is have a blend of the two, regulating entrants to leave room for the best constructors to have an advantage but all remaining close enough for driver talent to make a real difference. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it doesn’t (and in recent F1 it really hasn’t been imo). But anyway, for the most part that compromise seems to serve the sport just about fine.

Edited by Ben1445, 21 October 2019 - 06:41.

[shure]

It's conceivable this is true, but sounds extremely unlikely, and when you say "It's been shown time and time again" I'd be interested in some evidence.

 

The principle that technical restrictions help contain costs has played a part in pretty much every formula since the dawn of motor racing, so if it's wrong we should really let someone know.

Ron Dennis and Marko have both stated that the restrictions put in place to reduce costs have actually had the opposite effect as teams have thrown more and more resources at eking out the tiniest of gains.  I think I recall someone at Ferrari saying the same thing but can't be sure.  Stefan Johanssen also said the same thing in his blueprint for a better F1 recently.  These people are well placed to judge these things.  The tighter you make the restrictions, the less chance you have of a team coming up with a revolutionary idea as thinking outside the box is discouraged and the more sophisticated - and therefore expensive - the approach needs to be to get the maximum out of the regs.  Only the teams that can afford the most expensive and sophisticated computing power and other resources stand a chance of getting ahead.  It's really not that illogical when you think about it.  

 

In lower formulae restrictions will help reduce costs as no team is going to throw tens of millions at tweaking the aero of an F3 car - the return isn't worth it.  But F1 is a different ballgame altogether.

[Clatter]

Might it be possible that,although 12 is mentioned here, the contracts for individual circuits might include a higher number.

I think it does. 16 is the number in the 97 concorde agreement, and also gives the rules for making up the numbers. I doubt that has changed in later versions.

[RA2]

It is not possible for F1 to have difficult to drive cars with any regulations as the team engineers the cars to be driven at the edge for any regulation in the most consistent manner.

 

Poorly engineered cars will lead to difficult and unpredictable cars, but F1 has an army of engineers and an unlimited budget.

 

No matter what the formula is, 200 hp or 2000 hp, with springs or no springs, with aero or no aero, cars will still be engineered to a limit that drivers will be on track just as they are now and not suddenly formula drift

[sopa]

I thought F1 needed to have at least 20 cars, and if it went below that F1 would have to "do something about it". But of course we have temporarily had races with 18 cars (in 2005 and also in late 2014). So I assume F1 can tolerate a smaller amount of entries temporarily due to unforeseen circumstances. Hence 14 or 12 cars for an individual event can make sense if some team go bankrupt during the season, get disqualified or don't qualify. However, for the entry list for the season in general I think there has to be a higher number requested. This is also why there have at times been mumblings about 3rd cars if something happens to an existing team.

[Clatter]

I thought F1 needed to have at least 20 cars, and if it went below that F1 would have to "do something about it". But of course we have temporarily had races with 18 cars (in 2005 and also in late 2014). So I assume F1 can tolerate a smaller amount of entries temporarily due to unforeseen circumstances. Hence 14 or 12 cars for an individual event can make sense if some team go bankrupt during the season, get disqualified or don't qualify. However, for the entry list for the season in general I think there has to be a higher number requested. This is also why there have at times been mumblings about 3rd cars if something happens to an existing team.

97 concorde says 16, I think that will still be the number today.

[pdac]

97 concorde says 16, I think that will still be the number today.

 

You've stated this several times now. But, honestly, it's just an assumption. You say "why would it have changed"? Equally, though, some people could say "why would it not have changed"?

 

I'm sure I remember, when Bernie was responding to talk about the demise of the 'new' teams and the possibility of more joining them, that he was hinting that there wasn't any contractual problems for him if the grid dropped to 14 or less.

Edited by pdac, 21 October 2019 - 12:44.

[tyker]

Well we haven’t had a full grid since early 1995. Doesn’t that tell us something?

 

On the other hand last time I checked the FIA drew the line at 14 cars for a race to have Grand Prix status. Should we let F1 dwindle to 7 teams before action is taken?

If that happens is there not a provision for some teams to run 3 cars?

[PayasYouRace]

97 concorde says 16, I think that will still be the number today.

I’m not sure I’d trust your 20 year old recollection of a confidential document over this year’s published regulations. I’ll stick with 12 until I see an extant document that overrides it.

[F1Lurker]

Personally I don't think that there is much danger in F1 becoming a spec series. The competitors don't want that. However, there is always a question as to, "what is the right balance between open versus restrictive regulations?" (on one side completely open and on the other fully spec).

 

I think 2021 should be treated as an (more or less) experimental year. Let's have the rules as intended by Ross and the FIA. Then we can observe the results. More overtaking? More exciting races? More competition? If those objectives are not achieved then F1 seriously needs to go back to the drawing board. However, if those objectives are achieved then the ideal state of F1 would be confirmed as something that can be accomplished. From this, and with compensatory measures, aero regulations can be opened up more and more (especially with a properly functioning budget cap). For example I can see cars retaining a ground effect philosophy while opening up top aero surfaces and compensating for the effects of increased turbulence with active aero—something completely automatic to maintain downforce levels when following closely.

 

So to reiterate in summary, the main thing for 2021 is to see whether the new regulations can bring F1 the racing and competition that has been promised.

Edited by F1Lurker, 21 October 2019 - 14:19.

[Clatter]

I’m not sure I’d trust your 20 year old recollection of a confidential document over this year’s published regulations. I’ll stick with 12 until I see an extant document that overrides it.

 

Its not recollection. The 97 version is available to download. http://www.formula1-...rde_racefax.pdf I agree i'm making an assumption its still the same, but its because I find it difficult to believe the hosts would be happy with a smaller field. 16 would be bad enough, but there is certainly no way I would ever buy a ticket if there were only 12 competitors.

Edited by Clatter, 21 October 2019 - 14:29.

[Cornholio]

One thing I thought about recently - the car being the larger part of the percentage compared to the driver is definitely nothing new, it's as old as F1 and Grand Prix racing in general itself, and was thinking I almost spent as much time as a child reading about the legendary cars of the sport and their creators* as I did legendary drivers.

 

*But then that made me realise, I guess in the past when a car and/or engine was primarily the work of one lead designer, supported by a small-ish team of engineers, there was still a human story behind it, the genius of for example a Chapman, Murray, Duckworth or Forghieri etc. vs. the genius of (insert legendary driver here). Cars would often reflect the personalities of their creators, whether through creative out of the box thinking, practical solid engineering that got the job done when the circumstances called for it, pushing the limit on weight, creative aero, etc. etc.

 

Newey is probably the last of a breed in that regard, but increasingly modern F1 cars and engines are the product of large teams with numbers in the hundreds, simulations and iterative processes, TDs being more department heads than creators, I can maybe see how that side of the sport (which again, has always been there) is a bit less intriguing in modern times.Obviously modern F1 teams are stacked with incredibly talented engineers but we don't really have the superstar designer/TD thing anymore.

 

Personally I still enjoy the fact that it is a combination of car and driver, I'd find a spec F1 less interesting regardless of how much on-track action improved, but I do feel the sport (and wishes of the fanbase as a whole) is slowly but steadily heading in that direction

[PayasYouRace]

Its not recollection. The 97 version is available to download. http://www.formula1-...rde_racefax.pdf I agree i'm making an assumption its still the same, but its because I find it difficult to believe the hosts would be happy with a smaller field. 16 would be bad enough, but there is certainly no way I would ever buy a ticket if there were only 12 competitors.

 

Thanks for putting that up. But as I said, it’s very much out of date.

 

Though if we take a steps back, it’s just nitpicking when the real question is how much does F1 have to shrink before someone will take drastic measures. The new regulations seem very drastic for some but they don’t appear to be laying the path for new entrants either.

[Clatter]

Thanks for putting that up. But as I said, it’s very much out of date.

 

Though if we take a steps back, it’s just nitpicking when the real question is how much does F1 have to shrink before someone will take drastic measures. The new regulations seem very drastic for some but they don’t appear to be laying the path for new entrants either.

 

If we assume the rule (or something close to it) from that agreement is still valid, then the problem is the sport thinking in terms of cars, not teams. The rule already allows for 3 car teams, so 6 teams would still give 18 cars. It would feel like a very empty championship with so few teams though, coupled with the thought that one of a team of 3 would likely get priority.

[ArrowsLivery]

Thanks for putting that up. But as I said, it’s very much out of date.

Though if we take a steps back, it’s just nitpicking when the real question is how much does F1 have to shrink before someone will take drastic measures. The new regulations seem very drastic for some but they don’t appear to be laying the path for new entrants either.

I don’t think there’s much of a push for new entrants. All that would lead to is less prize money for the current teams, and more headaches for FOM management.

[Marklar]

IIRC the contracts of the race promoters guarantees at least 16 cars on the grid, that certainly overrides it.

Think there was also some agreement a few years ago that the teams that get bonus payments (Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, and if one of them declines then Mercedes) would be asked to field a third car if the field drops below 20 cars, but I dont know if that would be still the case.

[Fatgadget]

There are endless one-make formulae which provide more overtaking than F1: F2, F3 and just about F everything, before we even include GT and touring cars. We may not want one-make F1 for other reasons, but to suggest it wouldn't be exciting denies what we can see all around us.

 

 

Same reason they've always been involved: marketing. It's better for the image to be seen as embracing the future.

The haves will always have the advantage over the have nots. Be it better engineers more luxuries more creature comforts..The list is endless. I remember years ago the dawn of Formula Ford.You can't get more spec than that right? Wrong!  Some Bright spark came up with blueprinting!  

[hogstar]

F1 is and should always be somewhat elitist. Despite its audience, it is not a mass market sport. Either you 'get it', or you don't. 

 

While things should always be reviewed, it shouldn't try and sell its soul to get viewers onboard. (Like the abysmal idea of Reverse Grids which is for the lowest common denominator)

 

The only idea I think that would add to the current situation is for teams to run a third car twice a year, decided at the start of the season. This would be dropped if new teams came onboard, but otherwise I would leave it more or less as it is. 

[chrisj]

F1 is and should always be somewhat elitist. Despite its audience, it is not a mass market sport. Either you 'get it', or you don't. 

 

While things should always be reviewed, it shouldn't try and sell its soul to get viewers onboard. (Like the abysmal idea of Reverse Grids which is for the lowest common denominator)

 

The only idea I think that would add to the current situation is for teams to run a third car twice a year, decided at the start of the season. This would be dropped if new teams came onboard, but otherwise I would leave it more or less as it is. 

 

I don't agree that Formula 1 should be elitist. In the past, races would attract massive crowds of all ages. The only elitism came from the fact it was difficult and dangerous to participate (and expensive). It was when F1 disappeared up its own self-important rear and decided it was better to limit access, chase money, not fanbases, make b to b more important than mass marketing, etc. that it started to shrink. People still like cars and watching competition, maybe not at the level they used to, but the teams would rather engineer all of what most fans like out of the sport.