82 replies to this topic

[Underdog76]

Would it not be possibly to make engines cheaper by limiting output (peak and cumulative) while offering ample capacity to do such affordably?

Achieving 1000 hp PU from a very specific 1.6L V6 turbo is much more expensive than getting it as a maximum from a 4-liter V8 turbo hybrid.

Might mandating a low maximum idling rpm (and torque expended thereof) offer a way to get into less expensive engines?

[New Britain]

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.

Of course the FIA's current workforce does not include auditors, but at other times it did not include engineers or stewards. Times change, and the regulations have changed. It seems pretty self-evident that the primary group responsible for assessing whether the regulations are being followed should be the group that in the first place wrote them and in the second place must enforce them.

 

Instead, all the FIA have required an entrant to do is to hire its own private accountant to see whether the cost numbers claimed by the entrant add up. Most kids could do that.

 

In order for the entrants' cost submissions to have any credibility, the auditor must possess sufficient technical knowledge to have some sense of how much it costs to design and fabricate the various parts of the car that are open to development. If say Ferrari have a new combustion chamber technology and they tell some chartered accountant that they paid Ferrari S.p.A. a million euros to develop it, is the accountant going to have any inkling that it actually cost Ferrari S.p.A. ten times that much to develop it? For a cost cap to work properly, the accountants must work together with engineers, and both must be completely independent of the entrant - which obviously means not being paid by the entrant.

 

Now that Ferrari are publicly owned, they probably pay their accountants 20 million a year all told; Daimler would pay their own even more. What accounting firm is going to tell so important a client that they 'suspect' the client's F1 team may be low-balling their cost estimates? Again; please see 2008 financial crisis for conflict-of-interest precedents.

[OO7]

Would it not be possibly to make engines cheaper by limiting output (peak and cumulative) while offering ample capacity to do such affordably?

Achieving 1000 hp PU from a very specific 1.6L V6 turbo is much more expensive than getting it as a maximum from a 4-liter V8 turbo hybrid.

Might mandating a low maximum idling rpm (and torque expended thereof) offer a way to get into less expensive engines?

Achieving 1000 hp from 1.6 litre turbo is a piece of cake and not expensive to do at all.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Teams should be able to spent what they want, but they also should be forced to publish their aerodynamic surfaces, suspension systems and drivetrain technology. There should be an open access platform where any (interested) competitor can login and download the data after a certain time. Maybe six months after a technology has been used in a race it would have to be available on that platform. From time to time, Liberty Media picks a random element and shows it to the fans, too.

 

With that measure, new teams and engine builders have access to current solutions to develop further without having to spend huge amounts of money at the start. The field spread should come down drastically.

[Pingguest]

Would it not be possibly to make engines cheaper by limiting output (peak and cumulative) while offering ample capacity to do such affordably?

 

I fail to see how an output limit could be enforced.

[ARTGP]

I fail to see how an output limit could be enforced.

Cars run a torque sensor in the drivetrain.

[Underdog76]

Cars run a torque sensor in the drivetrain.

Bicycles have this nowadays.
With spec drive shaft or half axles easy enough to do.

Something would need to be found to make a performance differentiator I suppose. 
A more efficient PU would need less fuel for a race, but not a huge performance difference to be had.
What about a 200 total for L/h peak in quali and total L per race? Qualify on pole with 110 L/h but then have to make it on 90 L for the race. Qualify at the back with 90 L/h and have 110 L to burn in the race? Too FE for most I'm sure but we're trying to get exciting racing on the cheap.
What if a 3rd pitstop would allow for 5 or 10 L extra of fuel? Only after the 3rd stop of a car or at the finish line we'll know they took the 5 L extra. If you don't take the 3rd stop, don't use the fuel or be DSQ.
 

[PayasYouRace]

Bicycles have this nowadays.
With spec drive shaft or half axles easy enough to do.

Something would need to be found to make a performance differentiator I suppose. 
A more efficient PU would need less fuel for a race, but not a huge performance difference to be had.
What about a 200 total for L/h peak in quali and total L per race? Qualify on pole with 110 L/h but then have to make it on 90 L for the race. Qualify at the back with 90 L/h and have 110 L to burn in the race? Too FE for most I'm sure but we're trying to get exciting racing on the cheap.
What if a 3rd pitstop would allow for 5 or 10 L extra of fuel? Only after the 3rd stop of a car or at the finish line we'll know they took the 5 L extra. If you don't take the 3rd stop, don't use the fuel or be DSQ.
 

 

Few people like having such complex rules in racing. Just keep it simple.

[Fatgadget]

Achieving 1000 hp from 1.6 litre turbo is a piece of cake and not expensive to do at all.

How long would such an engine last?

[Nemo1965]

My five cents.

 

1. The OP states as first rule: Spec component musts be kept to an absolute minimum and justified adequately. But Spec components would absolutely mean lower costs. How can you prevent that teams throw millions at aerodynamics, apart from a budget-cap? Perhaps an idea would be that only teams with the 'General Spec' would be eligible for most of the price-money or commercial pay-outs?

 

2. The Cosworth-era of F1 was that good (apart from that it, chassiswise, dangerous), because there were basically a lot of teams running spec-engines. But that is hard too police. A very simple solution would be turbo-engines with a pop-off valve designed for a certain output. The best engines would still be the best engines, but you can level the playing field pretty well that way. Or perhaps govern the HP-output digitally?

Edited by Nemo1965, 27 March 2020 - 10:19.

[Rocha46]

My five cents.

 

1. The OP states as first rule: Spec component musts be kept to an absolute minimum and justified adequately. But Spec components would absolutely mean lower costs. How can you prevent that teams throw millions at aerodynamics, apart from a budget-cap? Perhaps an idea would be that only teams with the 'General Spec' would be eligible for most of the price-money or commercial pay-outs?

 

2. The Cosworth-era of F1 was that good (apart from that it, chassiswise, dangerous), because there were basically a lot of teams running spec-engines. But that is hard too police. A very simple solution would be turbo-engines with a pop-off valve designed for a certain output. The best engines would still be the best engines, but you can level the playing field pretty well that way. Or perhaps govern the HP-output digitally?

 

Spec components dilute the principle of motor racing and spec racing tends to then get controlled by pay drivers which I don't think is particularly desirable. Spec racing isn't professional racing it's amateur.

Also, the challenge is writing technical regs that have an inherent design to limit costs without diluting the core principles of full blooded racing.

Edited by Rocha46, 27 March 2020 - 10:34.

[Henri Greuter]

I fail to see how an output limit could be enforced.

To ensure it I think you need a tight control on both components that are entereing a combustion chamber. An air restrictor to limit the maximum amount of air into  the cylinders but at the same time: fuel flow restrictions in order to restrict the amount of fuel entering the combustion chamber in a given period of time.

And for good measure: limit the amount of fuel that can be taken aboard.

And if I have overlooked something: then add tht on the cars/engines as well

[PayasYouRace]

Spec components dilute the principle of motor racing and spec racing tends to then get controlled by pay drivers which I don't think is particularly desirable. Spec racing isn't professional racing it's amateur.

Also, the challenge is writing technical regs that have an inherent design to limit costs without diluting the core principles of full blooded racing.

 

I think that's a luxury you may have to go without considering the worldwide emergency situation.

[Rocha46]

I think that's a luxury you may have to go without considering the worldwide emergency situation.

not quite my tempo

Edited by Rocha46, 27 March 2020 - 10:50.

[kumo7]

Spec suspensions indeed cheaper than current PU. 

[Sterzo]

Spec components dilute the principle of motor racing and spec racing tends to then get controlled by pay drivers which I don't think is particularly desirable. Spec racing isn't professional racing it's amateur.

Also, the challenge is writing technical regs that have an inherent design to limit costs without diluting the core principles of full blooded racing.

A string of unsupported assertions here.

 

"Spec components dilute the principle of motor racing". - What principle, set by whom and when? 

"spec racing tends to then get controlled by pay drivers" - evidence? Not in Indycar.

"pay drivers" - another vague term which gets bandied about without a definition, as though they're a bad thing.

"Spec racing isn't professional racing it's amateur." - nonsense, see Indycar again.

 

All these terms need defining or they make little sense: "the principle of motor racing, spec racing, pay drivers, professional, amateur."

 

 

[Pingguest]

Cars run a torque sensor in the drivetrain.

 

Are those sensors precise enough, even when one drivers over a bump?

[Rocha46]

A string of unsupported assertions here.

 

"Spec components dilute the principle of motor racing". - What principle, set by whom and when? 

"spec racing tends to then get controlled by pay drivers" - evidence? Not in Indycar.

"pay drivers" - another vague term which gets bandied about without a definition, as though they're a bad thing.

"Spec racing isn't professional racing it's amateur." - nonsense, see Indycar again.

 

All these terms need defining or they make little sense: "the principle of motor racing, spec racing, pay drivers, professional, amateur."

The most popular and important race series are multi-manufacturer. Pretty much all FIA World Championships are based on this concept as they are with bikes. This is a basic accepted principle of the elite level championships -  WRC, F1, karting etc...

Indycar survives on its past legacy so not particularly relevant and I don't care for it all that much.

Spec-racing is fundamentally an amateur concept because it negates the possibility of a manufacturer hiring a driver, the professional element. I do consider IndyCar as semi amateur, certainly from a team''s perspective. 

Anyway these are my principles, my thread. Don't like em start a new thread titled "how to suck the life out of motorsport"

[PayasYouRace]

The most popular and important race series are multi-manufacturer. Pretty much all FIA World Championships are based on this concept as they are with bikes. This is a basic accepted principle of the elite level championships -  WRC, F1, karting etc...

Indycar survives on its past legacy so not particularly relevant and I don't care for it all that much.

Spec-racing is fundamentally an amateur concept because it negates the possibility of a manufacturer hiring a driver, the professional element. I do consider IndyCar as semi amateur, certainly from a team''s perspective. 

Anyway these are my principles, my thread. Don't like em start a new thread titled "how to suck the life out of motorsport"

 

Drivers can also be professional if they are hired by proper race teams such as Penske, who don't really build anything substantial on their cars. Just because they're not manufacturers doesn't make them semi-amateur, or indeed, anything other than professional in any sense of the word.

 

The problem is, your principles are more likely to such the life out of motorsport, especially when motorsport is currently in recovery mode.

 

(Mod hat on) Also, you may have started the thread, but that means accepting all sides of the topic you wanted to discuss.

[pdac]

Someone really needs to define what a 'spec' part is.

 

Is it something that is built by a single manufacturer to an exact design and has no possibility of being 'configured' when in use?

 

Or is is something that can, in theory, be whatever you want it to be and built by anyone you want, as long as it conforms to a technical regulation that is so sewn up tight that there is only one possible solution produced by a single manufacturer?

 

Or is it something different - in which case, what do you mean by 'spec' and 'non-spec'?

[Pingguest]

Someone really needs to define what a 'spec' part is.

 

Is it something that is built by a single manufacturer to an exact design and has no possibility of being 'configured' when in use?

 

Or is is something that can, in theory, be whatever you want it to be and built by anyone you want, as long as it conforms to a technical regulation that is so sewn up tight that there is only one possible solution produced by a single manufacturer?

 

Or is it something different - in which case, what do you mean by 'spec' and 'non-spec'?

 

At least originally, "spec" means something built by a single manufacturer. One could think of Formula One's tires. Another possibility is to have a part being "prescribed": the teams themselves or a supplier will manufacture a certain part, but the regulations do not allow any variation.  

[boomn]

The most popular and important race series are multi-manufacturer. Pretty much all FIA World Championships are based on this concept as they are with bikes. This is a basic accepted principle of the elite level championships -  WRC, F1, karting etc...

Indycar survives on its past legacy so not particularly relevant and I don't care for it all that much.

Spec-racing is fundamentally an amateur concept because it negates the possibility of a manufacturer hiring a driver, the professional element. I do consider IndyCar as semi amateur, certainly from a team''s perspective. 

Anyway these are my principles, my thread. Don't like em start a new thread titled "how to suck the life out of motorsport"

Comparing the quality of their recent on-track products, I would say that F1 is the one surviving more on past legacy and the hype of its name.  IndyCar is the one that was nearly in the grave but has seen a large resurgence over the past 5 years on the back of quality wheel-to-wheel racing.  And on the back of a group of professional drivers who make it obvious how much they stand above the pay drivers in their midst

 

FWIW Indycar does actually have a lot of manufacturer involvement from Chevy and Honda.  They provide more support for their teams than just engines

 

/end defensive rant 

Edited by boomn, 27 March 2020 - 19:55.

[Fatgadget]

Are those sensors precise enough, even when one drivers over a bump?

First generation Bike ones certainly aren't!

I guess with maturity  in A1 and lots of data..Yeah.

[Sterzo]

Spec-racing is fundamentally an amateur concept because it negates the possibility of a manufacturer hiring a driver, the professional element. I do consider IndyCar as semi amateur, certainly from a team''s perspective. 

Anyway these are my principles, my thread. Don't like em start a new thread titled "how to suck the life out of motorsport"

I understand you have your own preferences.  I also acknowledge you're doing something I couldn't manage, arguing a case in a second language. But the arguments you put forward don't stack up, and if you make statements with no reasoning behind them, they will be picked apart.

 

You say "Spec-racing is fundamentally an amateur concept..."  You do know, do you, that "specification" is a synonym for "formula."  It's only a matter of chance that Formula 1 wasn't called Specification 1. If it had been, people would be telling me they didn't like formula racing. Part of the car has always been specified. It's only a matter of how much.

[Nemo1965]

An idea I once had and since then was floated by others: what if, aerodynamically specifically, F1 teams can put on the car anything they damn please... but that before they use it in a race, they have to publish every design in full detail on the FIA's website, say on the Sunday of the race they use the component? That way big teams will still have the advantage smaller teams have, they can still use their knowledge and expertise... but they also will be wise enough to throw millions of dollars at a new concept for a winglet of 5 inches long, if they know the advantage will only last one race... 

 

It would also put an end to is the Ferrari-engine or the Red Bull-front wing legal or not? If it is published and other teams can use the same system, it is legal. 

Edited by Nemo1965, 29 March 2020 - 19:07.

[NotAPineapple]

The most popular and important race series are multi-manufacturer. Pretty much all FIA World Championships are based on this concept as they are with bikes. This is a basic accepted principle of the elite level championships -  WRC, F1, karting etc...

Indycar survives on its past legacy so not particularly relevant and I don't care for it all that much.

Spec-racing is fundamentally an amateur concept because it negates the possibility of a manufacturer hiring a driver, the professional element. I do consider IndyCar as semi amateur, certainly from a team''s perspective. 

Anyway these are my principles, my thread. Don't like em start a new thread titled "how to suck the life out of motorsport"

 

Every profesional race series except F1, LMP1 and Nascar are spec. Even tintop racing has each make of cars homogologated to a spec which cannot be deviated from by the teams. Every open wheel series in the world except F1 is spec.

[PlatenGlass]

I'd probably start by having spec engines. I've always wondered why the engine isn't seen as "part of the car" like the chassis when arguably it's the main bit. (The two main inventions required for the car to exist were arguably the wheel and the engine - the rest is just scaffolding to hold them together.) And you know how people sometimes say that teams should be allowed a customer chassis but shouldn't get constructor points - but with engines it's fine for some reason.

 

But anyway, this is a thing and Red Bull got themselves in a mess over engines because they fell out with Renault and no-one else would give them engines and they said it was really unfair etc. Well since the engine isn't "part of the car", you're rewarding teams for buying the best engine (except for teams that do actually make their own engines but whatever), so you might as well do away with the engine side of the competition and give every team the same cheapo engine.

 

These engines will also be designed to last so there won't be any pushing the limits and no need for annoying engine grid penalties.

[Rocha46]

Every profesional race series except F1, LMP1 and Nascar are spec. Even tintop racing has each make of cars homogologated to a spec which cannot be deviated from by the teams. Every open wheel series in the world except F1 is spec.

 

WRC, World Karting, MotoGP, World Superbikes. All the major championships are multi-manufacturer.

Single-spec racing is amateur racing. It's a lesser form of racing. No one grows up wanting to be the champions of the R6 cup or whatever

Homologation doesn't mean 'spec' by the way. 'Spec' is single supplier of a component or part that every team has to use. That's the paddock lingo anyhow. . 

Edited by Rocha46, 30 March 2020 - 17:05.

[HeadFirst]

WRC, World Karting, MotoGP, World Superbikes. All the major championships are multi-manufacturer.

Single-spec racing is amateur racing. It's a lesser form of racing. No one grows up wanting to be the champions of the R6 cup or whatever

Homologation doesn't mean 'spec' by the way. 'Spec' is single supplier of a component or part that every team has to use. That's the paddock lingo anyhow. . 

 

That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Personally, I'd put Indycar ahead of any of those named.

[PayasYouRace]

WRC, World Karting, MotoGP, World Superbikes. All the major championships are multi-manufacturer.

Single-spec racing is amateur racing. It's a lesser form of racing. No one grows up wanting to be the champions of the R6 cup or whatever

Homologation doesn't mean 'spec' by the way. 'Spec' is single supplier of a component or part that every team has to use. That's the paddock lingo anyhow. . 

 

World Karting 

 

Nobody is going to have world karting champion on their ultimate career goals list. That's for drivers who couldn't make it into cars. But there are going to be many drivers who want to be Indy 500 champion, and that's semi-spec.

 

Also, there's nothing amateur about high level feeder series like F2, which is spec.

[Fatgadget]

World Karting 

 

Nobody is going to have world karting champion on their ultimate career goals list. That's for drivers who couldn't make it into cars. But there are going to be many drivers who want to be Indy 500 champion, and that's semi-spec.

 

Also, there's nothing amateur about high level feeder series like F2, which is spec.

The late Martin Hines says Hi!
 

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

To be just a very little realistic, my proposal is gonna consider some elements of 2021 rules but I am gonna be very restrictive:

 

Overall Spec:

1. Floor (Very important area because of Ground effect and diffuser)

2. Bargeboard area

3. Crash structure (Powerunit/Gearbox manufacturers need to figure out how to accommodate with the spec crash structure)

4. Except Powerunit and Gearbox, the rest of the mechanical/non mechanical components (Like suspension, steering, dampers, wheels, brake ducts, cameras, mirrors and ...)

 

Manufacturer based Spec:

1. Manufacturers should supply their customers with the exact Powerunit and Gearbox (If a team wanted to produce their own Gearbox, no problem!)

2. Manufacturers that supply PU, also should supply the exact engine cover and sidepod to their customers.

 

Areas that teams can develop throughout the season:

1. Front wing

2. Rear wing

 

Limitations:

1. The surface of the car should be slick with no element coming out of the surface.

2. There should be performance and weight cap for all the Powerunit/Gearbox manufacturers (Fuel and lubricant included)

3. Teams should use CFD instead of Wind Tunnel.

 

There are lots of areas that I haven't covered because I am not a rule maker, anyway!

 

Good Luck! 

[New Britain]

Every profesional race series except F1, LMP1 and Nascar are spec. Even tintop racing has each make of cars homogologated to a spec which cannot be deviated from by the teams. Every open wheel series in the world except F1 is spec.

'NASCAR' (which operates several different series, each with its own technical rules) is heavily spec, which is why in a typical year races are won by at least ten different drivers. There is intense dissatisfaction among fans of stock car racing that the teams are so constrained in how they are allowed to modify their cars.