Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hyper Low Budget F1 Racing - Technical Regs?


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 Rocha46

Rocha46
  • Member

  • 126 posts
  • Joined: March 20

Posted 23 March 2020 - 13:22

It seems likely the days of freakish high spending in F1 are done. I don't think with the oncoming economic fallout of the pandemic and changing market will allow F1 to be what it once was if we get through. Maybe I am wrong, in some ways I hope I am, but I thought it'd be interesting to run an idea anyway.

Would it be possible to run  two car F1 team on a super low budget (relatively speaking) and what form would the technical regulations have to take to allow such an undertaking. Once upon a time F1 teams could literally be started in someone's garage, so it's not really out-of-the-question.

Now I'd like to lay down a few rules:

1. It must encompass the spirit of multi-make racing. Spec component musts be kept to an absolute minimum and justified adequately.
2. Safety cells must remain at current standard. Maybe this could be the sole 'spec component' due to it being a safety components unless it can be made cheaply. Thoughts would be appreciated.

3. Funding wise would need to be sub £10m a year. Bought in components are fine.

There are a number of other issues but I thought it might be best to talk about something different than our impending doom.
 
The big issue would be aero costs. Engine wise it seems pretty obvious to me. Any regs that allows a Cossy v8 to be anywhere near competitive would be fine. 

 



Advertisement

#2 PedroDiCasttro

PedroDiCasttro
  • Member

  • 1,710 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 23 March 2020 - 13:26

The use of conventional internal combustion engines are a must if you want to reduce costs that drastically.



#3 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 2,707 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 23 March 2020 - 14:19

A V12 or V10 would be cheap to produce also. As long as you keep all hybrid stuff away.

A full time entry for F2 requires in extend of 1,5 million dollars per annum per car.
So I think 10 million is, albeit being quite a radical aim, somewhat optimistic for F1. Also with all parts that still need to be developed and such, a 50 million dollar entry for two F1 cars is doable and somewhat has been done before at the hands of HRT, Manor and Caterham. Who together, allegedly, had an average budget of 60 million dollars.

Edited by Beri, 23 March 2020 - 14:24.


#4 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 23 March 2020 - 14:26

Naturally aspirated engines. 

Common safety cell.

Free aerodynamic development (but only allowed to use CFD and limited CFD time, no scale model windtunnel test allowed).  Supercomputer time is cheap compared to windtunnel testing, but there is some loss of accuracy, but they'll live. It's better than nothing


Edited by ARTGP, 23 March 2020 - 14:27.


#5 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 9,505 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 15:00

Surely what F1 is will always be defined by the budgets available. If the amount of money available means that the budget has to fall to $50, then F1 will run with second-hand lawnmower engines. The alternative is to just say "oh, we only have $50, so we can't run anymore". But there will always be a desire for people to race. So I think second-hand lawnmower engines will be adopted - or whatever fits with the budget.



#6 Rocha46

Rocha46
  • Member

  • 126 posts
  • Joined: March 20

Posted 23 March 2020 - 15:19

A V12 or V10 would be cheap to produce also. As long as you keep all hybrid stuff away.

A full time entry for F2 requires in extend of 1,5 million dollars per annum per car.
So I think 10 million is, albeit being quite a radical aim, somewhat optimistic for F1. Also with all parts that still need to be developed and such, a 50 million dollar entry for two F1 cars is doable and somewhat has been done before at the hands of HRT, Manor and Caterham. Who together, allegedly, had an average budget of 60 million dollars.

 

Ad F2 car will lap as quick as an old F1 car. A quick upgrade of aero and engine, at minimal cost, would no doubt bring performance gains that would certainly make it worthy of F1 status would it not? Why not build regulations that would accommodate such an approach? Engine wise it'd be a piece of p*ss. A GP2 motor was V8 but rev limited to 10k so easily crank out some extra speed there no problem.

 


Edited by Rocha46, 23 March 2020 - 15:24.


#7 Rocha46

Rocha46
  • Member

  • 126 posts
  • Joined: March 20

Posted 23 March 2020 - 15:20

Surely what F1 is will always be defined by the budgets available. If the amount of money available means that the budget has to fall to $50, then F1 will run with second-hand lawnmower engines. The alternative is to just say "oh, we only have $50, so we can't run anymore". But there will always be a desire for people to race. So I think second-hand lawnmower engines will be adopted - or whatever fits with the budget.

Very true, but if F1 was lawnmower engines then we'd be all be living int he world of The Road by then and that'd be that.



#8 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 9,505 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 16:28

Very true, but if F1 was lawnmower engines then we'd be all be living int he world of The Road by then and that'd be that.

 

Yep. My point was, though, that F1 rules and regulations would always be adjusted to ensure that it was affordable. It would not continue to insist on certain criteria if that meant that very few teams could afford it.


Edited by pdac, 23 March 2020 - 16:28.


#9 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 15,280 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 23 March 2020 - 16:35

Bunch up the races in Europe and only fly away once to save cash. So season begins in Spain in May and there is no summer break, but instead a longer winter break.

#10 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 22,192 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 18:08

It might be an opportunity to rationalise the calendar for the future, but some races can't be moved and bunched. Montreal and Austin don't work at the same time of year, for instance.

 

In the past F1 has had to adopt a lower formula as a basis on a few occasions. There was the move to 1.5 litre engines in 1961 on the basis of keeping speeds under control. There was the running of the world championship for F2 cars in 1952 and 1953 because of the lack of entrants. Perhaps most relevantly, post WW2 when Formula 1 was first defined it consisted of the 4.5 litre pre-war GP cars and the 1.5 litre supercharged Voiturettes.

 

If this enforced break does actually extend far beyond this summer and into 2021, then we might face a situation where F1 would have to be made up of whatever is available to hand, but I think that's an overly pessimistic view. But the thing to remember is that F1 is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive term. Whatever is at the top of the ladder is F1.



#11 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,642 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:01

It could be done but it would bring on the pains big-time amongst both the F1 establishment and the fan-base (who are extremely conservative).  So:-

 

No manufacturer-owned teams - privateers ONLY

Production engines - say 5 litre n/a or 2 litre turbo

Spec transmission, brakes.

Spec tub (almost certainly from Dallara!)

Bodywork free

Spec tyres hard enough to run a whole race incl FP & Q 

No car to pit telemetry and no team radio (only race control radio)

Maximum of 20 personnel per team at races incl drivers.

Two day race meetings

Open pit-lane - no screens or car covers

Driver pay cap of $500k (sorry Lewis)



#12 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:11

I still don't understand why F1 has banned TMDs, blown diffusers, and fan cars.  If we are looking for closed loop efficiency, then why are not allowing the exhaust gases to contribute the aerodynamics?   Those are relatively cheap ways to get massive amounts of stable downforce. Instead we have these multi million dollar kirigami bargeboards.....


Edited by ARTGP, 23 March 2020 - 19:12.


#13 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,642 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:16

You've kinda missed the point of 'Hyper Low Budget F1', haven't you?



#14 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 22,192 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:21

I still don't understand why F1 has banned TMDs, blown diffusers, and fan cars.  If we are looking for closed loop efficiency, then why are not allowing the exhaust gases to contribute the aerodynamics?   Those are relatively cheap ways to get massive amounts of stable downforce. Instead we have these multi million dollar kirigami bargeboards.....

 

They were banned because they were another avenue for the teams to spend millions of pounds on research and development. Well fan cars weren't banned as much as Bernie volunteered to withdraw the tech to prevent said expensive arms race.

 

Those things are only cheap if they're spec, as with anything else in top level prototype racing.

 

Oh and TMDs weren't really about aero, but about keeping the tyre's contact patch consistent.



#15 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:22

You've kinda missed the point of 'Hyper Low Budget F1', haven't you?

 

Engine exhaust are a byproduct of an engine. Any diffuser (from the most simple, to the most complex) benefits from being blown by the exhaust. If it's already on the car, why would you not use it? This means they need to spend less money trying to get a high level of performance through bargeboards or repacking the entire powertrain to make a coke bottle for example.

 

If you have a TMD, you will do far less searching in the windtunnel.

 

If you have a cheap fan, it again allows high performance, without needing to do an exhaustive exploration in a windtunnel. 

 

If the goal is to get a high level of performance, while being cheap. Then you can't have complicated bargeboards, diffusers, and control arms.  If you take those away, cheap ways to get the performance back include pointing the exhaust at the diffuser, allowing the use of a suction fan.


Edited by ARTGP, 23 March 2020 - 19:24.


#16 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 22,192 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:31

Engine exhaust are a byproduct of an engine. Any diffuser (from the most simple, to the most complex) benefits from being blown by the exhaust. If it's already on the car, why would you not use it? This means they need to spend less money trying to get a high level of performance through bargeboards or repacking the entire powertrain to make a coke bottle for example.

 

If you have a TMD, you will do far less searching in the windtunnel.

 

If you have a cheap fan, it again allows high performance, without needing to do an exhaustive exploration in a windtunnel. 

 

If the goal is to get a high level of performance, while being cheap. Then you can't have complicated bargeboards, diffusers, and control arms.  If you take those away, cheap ways to get the performance back include pointing the exhaust at the diffuser, allowing the use of a suction fan.

 

No, you'll just spend hours in the wind tunnel exploring how to direct your exhausts. Or hours and hours on fan ducting, and fan blade profiles, and possibly variable pitch fan blades which alter their angle of attack to  be optimised to the engine speed.

 

Meanwhile, your TMD will be spending hours on the suspension rig (remember, it isn't an aero device) to tune it correctly, and find the best spring rates, and the best position on the car.

 

None of this stuff would be cheap. It would just make F1 even less affordable.



#17 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 9,505 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:43

They were banned because they were another avenue for the teams to spend millions of pounds on research and development. Well fan cars weren't banned as much as Bernie volunteered to withdraw the tech to prevent said expensive arms race.

 

Those things are only cheap if they're spec, as with anything else in top level prototype racing.

 

Oh and TMDs weren't really about aero, but about keeping the tyre's contact patch consistent.

 

I think New Britain mentioned this is a different thread, but if you have a strict budget cap, then you can allow these sorts of things because, even though everyone might want to spend as much as they can on R&D, they are limited. So, in that environment, it's exactly the kind of things that you don't want to ban.



#18 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 23 March 2020 - 19:46

No, you'll just spend hours in the wind tunnel exploring how to direct your exhausts. Or hours and hours on fan ducting, and fan blade profiles, and possibly variable pitch fan blades which alter their angle of attack to  be optimised to the engine speed.

 

Meanwhile, your TMD will be spending hours on the suspension rig (remember, it isn't an aero device) to tune it correctly, and find the best spring rates, and the best position on the car.

 

None of this stuff would be cheap. It would just make F1 even less affordable.

 

 

When you argue it this way, you can argue that paper clips would also be unaffordable because they would spend thousands of hours on materials research, alloying, and engineers making it stronger and lighter...

 

The point is, if you put a 10 million euro cost cap, teams will show up with even the crudest applications of fans and blown exhaust first, before they show up with intricate kirigami bargeboards and size zero engines.  The performance they are getting faffing about with carbon aero pieces is far less than what you would get if the same amount of money was spent on using the exhaust gases and suction fans. 


Edited by ARTGP, 23 March 2020 - 19:51.


#19 Luca Pacchiarini

Luca Pacchiarini
  • Member

  • 779 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 23 March 2020 - 20:00

An innovative material called wood

Advertisement

#20 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 22,192 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 20:03

When you argue it this way, you can argue that paper clips would also be unaffordable because they would spend thousands of hours on materials research, alloying, and engineers making it stronger and lighter...

 

The point is, if you put a 10 million euro cost cap, teams will show up with even the crudest applications of fans and blown exhaust first, before they show up with intricate kirigami bargeboards and size zero engines.  The performance they are getting faffing about with carbon aero pieces is far less than what you would get if the same amount of money was spent on using the exhaust gases and suction fans. 

 

You were asking why they were banned. Budget controls are only coming into F1 now. But either way, this stuff is still expensive.



#21 boomn

boomn
  • Member

  • 503 posts
  • Joined: June 15

Posted 23 March 2020 - 20:08

Body shape regulations similar to the 2021 2022 regulations (i.e. supposed to remove all the detailed extra aero bits) but now also mandate single-plane wings could help

 

Anything to help them look more like a 1970 F1 car!


Edited by boomn, 23 March 2020 - 20:09.


#22 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 3,776 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 20:19

A question, for those more tech savvy than myself. Would there be any advantage/disadvantage to returning to aluminum for tubs (safety cell) and/or fibre-glass for aero?



#23 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 22,192 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 20:22

A question, for those more tech savvy than myself. Would there be any advantage/disadvantage to returning to aluminum for tubs (safety cell) and/or fibre-glass for aero?

 

Aluminium tubs would be like going back to open-face helmets and racing in t-shirts. It's just not strong enough. Wouldn't be acceptable for safety reasons.

 

Glass fibre isn't too different from carbon fibre. It's cheaper but it's not as strong so it wouldn't be very useful.



#24 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 3,776 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2020 - 20:29

Aluminium tubs would be like going back to open-face helmets and racing in t-shirts. It's just not strong enough. Wouldn't be acceptable for safety reasons.

 

Glass fibre isn't too different from carbon fibre. It's cheaper but it's not as strong so it wouldn't be very useful.

 

Ok, thanks.



#25 thequadge

thequadge
  • Member

  • 500 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 23 March 2020 - 22:40

Common V6 Turbo, with no Hybrid.

Common 7 speed sequential gear box. 

Max team size of 100 people. 

Wind Tunnel restrictions limited to a shared tunnel between all teams, 100 hrs per team per season.

CFD restrictions - 500 hrs of runs per year.

Aerodynamic parts limited to 1 upgrade per year.

Other parts 1 upgrade exception for reliability.

No tyre warmers.



#26 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 30,738 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 23 March 2020 - 22:44

Aluminium tubs would be like going back to open-face helmets and racing in t-shirts. It's just not strong enough. Wouldn't be acceptable for safety reasons.
 
Glass fibre isn't too different from carbon fibre. It's cheaper but it's not as strong so it wouldn't be very useful.

 

And what about steel tube frame like they build stock cars out of?  ;)



#27 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 23 March 2020 - 22:46

Common V6 Turbo, with no Hybrid.

Common 7 speed sequential gear box. 

Max team size of 100 people. 

Wind Tunnel restrictions limited to a shared tunnel between all teams, 100 hrs per team per season.

CFD restrictions - 500 hrs of runs per year.

Aerodynamic parts limited to 1 upgrade per year.

Other parts 1 upgrade exception for reliability.

No tyre warmers.

 

 

If I had to guess, we would just end up with Mercedes Team UK, Mercedes Team Germany, and so on. Circumventing the rules about team size by entering multiple teams  :lol:



#28 thequadge

thequadge
  • Member

  • 500 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 23 March 2020 - 22:50

If I had to guess, we would just end up with Mercedes Team UK, Mercedes Team Germany, and so on. Circumventing the rules about team size by entering multiple teams  :lol:

 

Just add a rule that no shareholder could have shares in more than one company. Might get tricky legally but possible.



#29 boomn

boomn
  • Member

  • 503 posts
  • Joined: June 15

Posted 23 March 2020 - 23:25

And what about steel tube frame like they build stock cars out of?   ;)

True.  However the car bodies have a lot more crush room around the driver than a formula car, and the huge seats and leg protection areas they use in NASCAR are like a survival cell within said tube chassis



#30 Underdog76

Underdog76
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: March 20

Posted 24 March 2020 - 02:23

What about less tight tolerances on an ICE? It should simply work, like a road car's. No extra mechanics to keep it lubed and at temperature.

One per season. Weight penalty when you need to replace key parts, let alone by new version to ensure durability or performance.

 

Relatively high minimum weight and center of mass the engine. Pick your own size, spec turbo and exhaust. Torque limited but decently high max fuel flow rate and low total fuel per race.

Spec hybrid system on the front axle only, 250 hp or so. Simple software to control it based off actual rear wheel torque and wheel speed. No room for funny business.



#31 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 24 March 2020 - 02:41

Set Max numbers of the entire team member at 90, including drivers. This should also list numbers of freelances and external advisers.

A team member consists of all disciplines with which a team can go racing. FIA should define and police it.

List up the restricted materials that a team could purchase from supplier such as brake disks and so on, give quality restriction to such materials, no exotic material should be allowed.

PU tuned from a road going super cars. Could be hybrid, define the methods and material changes of tuning. It should be something that a team can do by themselves.

Technical rule to define car components as is, but ban purchasing parts, nor allow a single technology company drafting more than one team.

Allow only limited numbers of PC for CFD. Computing Hardware Software, Network technology regulation be written once a year.

Cap the budgets of technology.

Zero wind tunnel. More on track testing, but limited to 30 days per year.

More media income to teams, more branding exercises, more updated digital marketing and income. 

 

well, more?

 

Suppliers can make themselves famous by selling the products to a team.

Car company can be race relevant, and the F1 road relevant.

Computer companies such as Apple and HP will also show up in F1, sponsor teams.

Media will be spending more attentions to F1...


Edited by kumo7, 24 March 2020 - 02:45.


#32 Underdog76

Underdog76
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: March 20

Posted 24 March 2020 - 03:58

The Koenigsegg Gemera is a compelling car to take cues from.

2-litre 3-cylinder turbo
flex fuel
600 hp 
70 kg

extra motor on the crank shaft (Gemera also has primary dual motor drive axle with more electric power)

Independent hydraulic valves.

No gears to shift, just a direct drive with torque converter.

Hybrid system 

From a standing start and basically under 40 kph or so, the F1 car would pull away on hybrid power as the ICE and TC bring in some revs.
Not a lot of parts to break. Plenty powerful for a 700 kg car.

It would sound "weird" but hey, cost.
Even increasing it to a 6-cyl 4-liter would not make it a very heavy engine. Double the low rpm torque, more power than ever needed, pistons freewheeling at high speed. Great reliability.

In an F1 application, the battery would not need to be very large still. Just ensure great regen to boost overall thermal efficiency.



#33 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 4,329 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 24 March 2020 - 07:52

What of the old LMP1 rule about having only developing two aero kits to be homologated during the season rather than continuous aerodynamic development? Did it meaningfully reduce P1 aero budgets or increase costs in unintended ways?

#34 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 March 2020 - 15:10

If Formula One decides to radically change its regulations overnight, I fail to see how the smaller teams will survive. Those kind of changes will require massive write-downs, making team insolvent. This will eventually discourage investors to step in.

 

Having said that, I can see one major cut. That one being aero development. Due to its open-wheel and open cockpit characteristics, Formula One's aerodynamics will never be relevant outside open-wheel motorsport. The current breed of Formula One cars generate a ridiculous amount of downforce, which has a detrimental effect on the racing and forces teams to spend money on something that has no value. I therefore propose a Formula One essentially without downforce. This could be achieve by simple piece of legislation that prohibits ]any device designed to augment aerodynamically the downthrust on the vehicle. To ban the diffuser, the regulations could mandate the stepped flat bottom to the very rear of the undertray.

 

This would allow the FIA to free the regulations in other areas and thereby enabling teams to use different, possibly cheaper solutions. One could think of production-based engines, which are effectively banned nowadays. Mario Ilien criticized the current power units by saying he could produce a 1,000 bhp engine with just two or three million United States dollar a year. The regulations should allow him to prove his right! However, without downforce one might not need a 1,000 bhp engine any way.



#35 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,558 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 March 2020 - 16:29

If I had to guess, we would just end up with Mercedes Team UK, Mercedes Team Germany, and so on. Circumventing the rules about team size by entering multiple teams  :lol:

Easily prevented. In the 2021 Financial Regs there are provisions to prevent cross-subsidies between teams with the same "Legal Group Structure". A similar restriction could be applied to sponsors. 



#36 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 March 2020 - 16:47

Easily prevented. In the 2021 Financial Regs there are provisions to prevent cross-subsidies between teams with the same "Legal Group Structure". 

 

That is a shame, because allowing customer and 'open source' parts would allow teams to reduce costs drastically.



#37 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,558 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 March 2020 - 17:07

That is a shame, because allowing customer and 'open source' parts would allow teams to reduce costs drastically.

It doesn't say that a team may not sell parts to another. It says that the Legal Group Structure of a team may not subsidise a team. These rules were devised specifically to prevent violations of the cost cap, but they could be adapted to issues of technology sharing. It would depend on whether one thinks technology sharing is a good thing because it reduces costs (on the shared parts, at least) or is a bad thing because it stifles innovation and makes the cars too much alike.



#38 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 March 2020 - 17:20

It doesn't say that a team may not sell parts to another. It says that the Legal Group Structure of a team may not subsidise a team. These rules were devised specifically to prevent violations of the cost cap, but they could be adapted to issues of technology sharing. It would depend on whether one thinks technology sharing is a good thing because it reduces costs (on the shared parts, at least) or is a bad thing because it stifles innovation and makes the cars too much alike.

 

The latter cannot be an issue with the coming 'GP1'-regulations! :rotfl:

 

However, your statement shows how problematic the new financial regulations will be. In case a team sells parts to another - assuming such is allowed by the sporting regulations - a debate about a 'fair' price is foreseeable. 


Edited by Pingguest, 24 March 2020 - 17:20.


#39 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 24 March 2020 - 17:33

Easily prevented. In the 2021 Financial Regs there are provisions to prevent cross-subsidies between teams with the same "Legal Group Structure". A similar restriction could be applied to sponsors.


No way that F1 cuts off a source of funding to put a team on the grid

If that is true, then either Red Bull or Toro Rosso will get kicked off the grid...and not to name names but Max will be pretty peeved if Red Bull team has to pull out so that Toro Rosso can survive. Lol.

Advertisement

#40 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,642 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 24 March 2020 - 17:59

Glass fibre isn't too different from carbon fibre. It's cheaper but it's not as strong so it wouldn't be very useful.

Actually, glass fibre bodywork and aluminium wings would be both cheaper AND safer - no more c/f shards all over the place.  They worked perfectly well in racing before c/f came along.



#41 PedroDiCasttro

PedroDiCasttro
  • Member

  • 1,710 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 24 March 2020 - 18:25

The Koenigsegg Gemera is a compelling car to take cues from.
 

It would sound "weird" but hey, cost.
 

How the hell would that kind of powertrain compare to a good old NA V8 engine when it comes to cost?

 

It's not time for any hybrid components, if you're really concerned about costs you need a conventional engine. Today you can easily get 800hp from a 2.4 NA V8 engine.



#42 Underdog76

Underdog76
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: March 20

Posted 24 March 2020 - 18:49

How the hell would that kind of powertrain compare to a good old NA V8 engine when it comes to cost?

 

It's not time for any hybrid components, if you're really concerned about costs you need a conventional engine. Today you can easily get 800hp from a 2.4 NA V8 engine.

I suppose it comes down tot where you place the slider between cost and tech/environmental relevance.

Would a V8 be cheaper than a V6 or inline 6?

It seems to me forcing maximum power from a set of limitation makes engines expensive and fragile. So to go for production engines or something less stress due to torque restrictions would make sense. 

At the same time, if F1 becomes "F2 minus 1", will it not be too vulnerable to competing series? A bit more money  or smarter allocations thereof might produce a rivaling championship that's more compelling to both teams and drivers.
Imagine F1 goes back in time and Formula E stops sandbagging. That would be extremely awkward.



#43 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 22,192 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 March 2020 - 19:00

Environmental concerns aren't going to disappear when this is all over, so going back to the old V8s isn't going to happen.



#44 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 30,738 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 March 2020 - 19:07

Actually, glass fibre bodywork and aluminium wings would be both cheaper AND safer - no more c/f shards all over the place.  They worked perfectly well in racing before c/f came along.

 

Yeah I think it's worth making the distinction between carbon fibre for the tub/safety cell (pretty much mandatory) and using it for the bodywork and aerodynamic pieces.



#45 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 March 2020 - 20:09

Environmental concerns aren't going to disappear when this is all over, so going back to the old V8s isn't going to happen.

 

And the 2,400cc V8s were far from cheap, at least before they became 'frozen' and heavily subsidized. 



#46 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,558 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 March 2020 - 20:21

The latter cannot be an issue with the coming 'GP1'-regulations! :rotfl:

 

However, your statement shows how problematic the new financial regulations will be. In case a team sells parts to another - assuming such is allowed by the sporting regulations - a debate about a 'fair' price is foreseeable. 

Depends on how the regs are applied.

I have been in favour of a cost cap for years (and was perturbed when Mosley then cottoned on to the idea - for the totally different motive that he wanted to curb the influence of the big manufacturers so that he could have more control - because it was painful to find oneself agreeing with him about anything). With the concept of a cost cap, one always presumed that it would be assessed and enforced by the FIA themselves. I mean, aren't they supposed to be the regulators?

 

I was therefore astounded to see that the 2021 Financial Regs specify that each team will have its expenses scrutinised and confirmed by its own retained outside auditors. Hello? Did we not learn something from the Financial Crisis, when debt obligations' official ratings were issued by the private firms being paid by the individual companies issuing the debt?

 

I am surprised that this bit of the Financial Regulations' fine print has not received (AFAIK) any attention in the specialist media. I wish I had been allowed, back in the day, to mark my own exams, but the school did not seem to follow that policy. This idea of letting a private outside auditor, who is going to know as much about the development costs of combustion chamber technology as I know about how to fly to the moon, certify that a rich team absolutely, positively, did not spend more than it says it did is incredibly stupid - or utterly disingenuous.


Edited by New Britain, 24 March 2020 - 20:32.


#47 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,558 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 March 2020 - 20:30

No way that F1 cuts off a source of funding to put a team on the grid

If that is true, then either Red Bull or Toro Rosso will get kicked off the grid...and not to name names but Max will be pretty peeved if Red Bull team has to pull out so that Toro Rosso can survive. Lol.

Maybe not, but here we're discussing the idea of a super-cheap 'Formula One'. If there were an effective cost cap or parts sharing among all teams, so that numerous entrants would be attracted and could afford to participate, losing one (or two) entrants wouldn't much matter. In this case, Red Bull seems to have too much influence as it is.

 

I thought the point being addressed was the sickening prospect of F1 turning even more into a DTM-type series in which only two or at most three rich companies control everything, dictate who within their group is allowed to win a given race, and take active steps to make sure that the B-team must never outdo the A-team.



#48 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 March 2020 - 20:56

Depends on how the regs are applied.

I have been in favour of a cost cap for years (and was perturbed when Mosley then cottoned on to the idea - for the totally different motive that he wanted to curb the influence of the big manufacturers so that he could have more control - because it was painful to find oneself agreeing with him about anything). With the concept of a cost cap, one always presumed that it would be assessed and enforced by the FIA themselves. I mean, aren't they supposed to be the regulators?

 

I was therefore astounded to see that the 2021 Financial Regs specify that each team will have its expenses scrutinised and confirmed by its own retained outside auditors. Hello? Did we not learn something from the Financial Crisis, when debt obligations' official ratings were issued by the private firms being paid by the individual companies issuing the debt?

 

I am surprised that this bit of the Financial Regulations' fine print has not received (AFAIK) any attention in the specialist media. I wish I had been allowed, back in the day, to mark my own exams, but the school did not seem to follow that policy. This idea of letting a private outside auditor, who is going to know as much about the development costs of combustion chamber technology as I know about how to fly to the moon, certify that a rich team absolutely, positively, did not spend more than it says it did is incredibly stupid - or utterly disingenuous.

 

The FIA cannot assess the teams' reports, as they are the organisators and legislators and no certified accountants. The tax authorities are not the first designated to asses a company's report either.



#49 PedroDiCasttro

PedroDiCasttro
  • Member

  • 1,710 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 24 March 2020 - 21:00

And the 2,400cc V8s were far from cheap, at least before they became 'frozen' and heavily subsidized. 

Yes, they weren't cheap, but were still far cheaper than any hybrid engine they can come up with today.

 

Besides, we're not discussing in this thread what's the most sensible, sustainable or whatever tech out there, but the cheapest, as the title implies. If you want a hyper low budget car, you also need the cheapest engine you can get.



#50 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 March 2020 - 21:22

Yes, they weren't cheap, but were still far cheaper than any hybrid engine they can come up with today.

 

Besides, we're not discussing in this thread what's the most sensible, sustainable or whatever tech out there, but the cheapest, as the title implies. If you want a hyper low budget car, you also need the cheapest engine you can get.

 

To clear things up: 2,400cc V8s were mentioned. And yet, we lack the necessary numbers to make any comparison.