Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

With cost cap in place, time to free up tech rules?


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#51 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 30 December 2022 - 06:22

I think quite a bit has been done to facilitate overtaking.  What about making turns following straights wider at entry and exits?

Yeah. Let's start with Monaco shall we!



Advertisement

#52 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 30 December 2022 - 12:20

Yeah. Let's start with Monaco shall we!

I am sure we F1 can afford a couple of exemptions. F1 is in the driving seat, they pick and choose where to hold events. Pretty sure there won't be shortage of hosting countries agreeing to widening tracks to facilitate more overtaking. FIA have chipped in towards this goal via regulations. Let the organizers chip in too.



#53 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 3,554 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 June 2023 - 17:53

Old thread, but I think better in here than off topic in Merc thread.

 

I have been thinking about the cost cap, I think its allowed teams to recruit some top tier staff from the top teams, which is a good thing, that side of it is working well.

 

My suggestion would be to open up technical rules, but also make the cost cap only apply to salaries.  As I expect we have situations now where teams have ideas ready to go, but because they dont know if they will work and the cost cap they cant try them out which kind of locks in the best car.

 

The best car has this problem the least as they likely have the highest % of success between sim, and ideas to actual pace in the car, whilst for other teams its a harder decision.  So as such I think a cost cap on parts is hindering teams catching up and making progress. (the ones who want to make progress rather than happy to just take part, so mostly AM, alpine, mclaren, merc and ferrari).


Edited by chrcol, 05 June 2023 - 18:04.


#54 Primo

Primo
  • Member

  • 2,582 posts
  • Joined: March 22

Posted 05 June 2023 - 18:06

I'd really like to see a "the cost is the limit", but not for F1. 



#55 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 June 2023 - 18:53

One of the difficulties is that the teams are businesses and some of them do more than just race in F1. So a cost cap has to identify and separate the F1 side from the rest. Otherwise, I'd like to see regulations that only relate to safety and practicality leave the teams to decide whatever they want to spend their money on, up to the cost-cap limit.



#56 tempname11

tempname11
  • Member

  • 153 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 06 June 2023 - 05:06

This will almost certainly greatly increase field spread. Allowing more technical freedom will mean teams will diverge more in their thinking, design, and manufacturing. And copying successful teams' designs will become harder, as you can't just mix and match parts from different car concepts - something we see even now, in the heavily constrained ruleset. But it will be times 100.

And everyone will be moaning about, say, how the diesels dominate too much, and also how that exciting no-wing car did not work and their team essentially is now waiting for next year.

And then we will get BoP and everyone will be sorry they even thought of this idea :)

Edited by tempname11, 06 June 2023 - 05:07.


#57 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,769 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 06 June 2023 - 05:11

Old thread, but I think better in here than off topic in Merc thread.

 

I have been thinking about the cost cap, I think its allowed teams to recruit some top tier staff from the top teams, which is a good thing, that side of it is working well.

 

My suggestion would be to open up technical rules, but also make the cost cap only apply to salaries.  As I expect we have situations now where teams have ideas ready to go, but because they dont know if they will work and the cost cap they cant try them out which kind of locks in the best car.

 

The best car has this problem the least as they likely have the highest % of success between sim, and ideas to actual pace in the car, whilst for other teams its a harder decision.  So as such I think a cost cap on parts is hindering teams catching up and making progress. (the ones who want to make progress rather than happy to just take part, so mostly AM, alpine, mclaren, merc and ferrari).

 

If you had a cost cap on only the salary costs of the team itself, how would you deal with teams that set up separate companies that supply them with consultation services - such as aerodynamic design? A team could hive off its aerodynamicists (I believe that Newey is technically not an employee of RBR but rather his company is a sub-contractor) into a separate company, then have that group of aero people produce the aero parts and sell them to the team.

I think you will find that a substantial % of the cost of parts is salary anyhow. The raw materials (carbon-fibre cloth and resin) do not cost much. The expensive element is the person-hours required to design and fabricate the parts.



#58 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 3,554 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 June 2023 - 10:50

If you had a cost cap on only the salary costs of the team itself, how would you deal with teams that set up separate companies that supply them with consultation services - such as aerodynamic design? A team could hive off its aerodynamicists (I believe that Newey is technically not an employee of RBR but rather his company is a sub-contractor) into a separate company, then have that group of aero people produce the aero parts and sell them to the team.

I think you will find that a substantial % of the cost of parts is salary anyhow. The raw materials (carbon-fibre cloth and resin) do not cost much. The expensive element is the person-hours required to design and fabricate the parts.

 

Well I said it in simplistic terms. but would include consultation, contractors etc inside that cap.

 

The exclusion would specifically be manufacturing of parts only.



#59 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 3,554 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 June 2023 - 10:51

This will almost certainly greatly increase field spread. Allowing more technical freedom will mean teams will diverge more in their thinking, design, and manufacturing. And copying successful teams' designs will become harder, as you can't just mix and match parts from different car concepts - something we see even now, in the heavily constrained ruleset. But it will be times 100.

And everyone will be moaning about, say, how the diesels dominate too much, and also how that exciting no-wing car did not work and their team essentially is now waiting for next year.

And then we will get BoP and everyone will be sorry they even thought of this idea :)

 

The opposite?

 

If you cant afford the parts logically its harder to copy another car right?



Advertisement

#60 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,769 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 06 June 2023 - 11:12

Well I said it in simplistic terms. but would include consultation, contractors etc inside that cap.

 

The exclusion would specifically be manufacturing of parts only.

 

So you are saying only the in-house manufacture of parts?

How would you treat the manufacture of parts that some teams make for themselves but others purchase from suppliers?

How would you treat new or experimental parts - would you want the design costs in the cap but the manufacture of them outside the cap?



#61 tempname11

tempname11
  • Member

  • 153 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 06 June 2023 - 13:59

The opposite?

If you cant afford the parts logically its harder to copy another car right?


What I wrote, was under the assumption of cost caps staying in place, as the OP suggests. I other words, I meant that if the cost caps stayed the same, but rules were loosened up, it would make it more difficult to copy another car. Because your current car may be wildly different, and you can't copy the whole thing.

#62 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 06 June 2023 - 14:01

And then we will get BoP and everyone will be sorry they even thought of this idea :)

If F1 touches any sort of BoP-style formula, I'm instantly out.  That's not real competition anymore. 

 

I dont think it'll happen, but I do generally agree that loosening tech rules, as much as that'd be nice in an ideal world - would absolutely just spread the cars out more and make catching up harder.  I once advocated for this sort of thing under a cost cap, but yea, I think that's a mistake now.  Maybe interesting for certain enthusiasts, but most people just want to see a competitive field more than anything and I totally get that. 


Edited by Seanspeed, 06 June 2023 - 14:03.


#63 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 June 2023 - 14:22

If F1 touches any sort of BoP-style formula, I'm instantly out.  That's not real competition anymore. 

 

I dont think it'll happen, but I do generally agree that loosening tech rules, as much as that'd be nice in an ideal world - would absolutely just spread the cars out more and make catching up harder.  I once advocated for this sort of thing under a cost cap, but yea, I think that's a mistake now.  Maybe interesting for certain enthusiasts, but most people just want to see a competitive field more than anything and I totally get that. 

 

A competitive field is achieved by making spec cars. If you want a field full of equal-ish cars, then spec is the way to go. If you think F1 is a car design competition, then you accept that there will be big differences between the performance of the competitors.



#64 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 29,413 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 06 June 2023 - 20:07

If F1 touches any sort of BoP-style formula, I'm instantly out.  That's not real competition anymore. 

 

The sliding scale aero resources is already a basic attempt at BOP. The teams and the FIA are trying to maintain the illusion that it isn't. 


Edited by ARTGP, 06 June 2023 - 20:16.


#65 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 8,762 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 06 June 2023 - 22:37

Yes please. Just do it.

#66 YamahaV10

YamahaV10
  • Member

  • 2,363 posts
  • Joined: June 21

Posted 07 June 2023 - 06:31

McLaren chief Zak Brown thinks so. I agree with him, so long as what we see on track still look like F1 cars. A six-wheel F1 car is taking it a bit too far for me

 

https://www.motorspo...brown/10412480/

 

No. The cost cap is hard to police as it is. If you opened up the rules, it would push teams to bend the cost cap even more 



#67 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 June 2023 - 13:09

Old thread, but I think better in here than off topic in Merc thread.

I have been thinking about the cost cap, I think its allowed teams to recruit some top tier staff from the top teams, which is a good thing, that side of it is working well.

My suggestion would be to open up technical rules, but also make the cost cap only apply to salaries. As I expect we have situations now where teams have ideas ready to go, but because they dont know if they will work and the cost cap they cant try them out which kind of locks in the best car.

The best car has this problem the least as they likely have the highest % of success between sim, and ideas to actual pace in the car, whilst for other teams its a harder decision. So as such I think a cost cap on parts is hindering teams catching up and making progress. (the ones who want to make progress rather than happy to just take part, so mostly AM, alpine, mclaren, merc and ferrari).


I disagree. I think the cost cap is good. Almost every change to the regs has had one team or another get them right and dominate for a period. Having more money to spend is only of benefit to the richer teams, and wouldn't guarantee they would catch up, and just as likely result in the top team increasing their advantage even more, as they would have a better platform to build upon. I'd rather see the cost cap increased, but get rid of the top 3 employees salaries being outside the cap, and all salaries would have to come from the budget.

#68 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 08 June 2023 - 17:25

All these cost caps are just pure nonsense in my view. F1 is a battlefield of technology, drivers, money, ingenuity... everything! Why don't we have something similar in athletics such that countries with more facilities and best coaches are penalized so as to even the "competition" up a little. To make it more "interesting"?



#69 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 08 June 2023 - 19:29

McLaren chief Zak Brown thinks so. I agree with him, so long as what we see on track still look like F1 cars. A six-wheel F1 car is taking it a bit too far for me

 

https://www.motorspo...brown/10412480/

 

...and what exactly do f1 cars look like?

 

Do they for example have front engines like they all did in the 1950's, covered wheels like a Monza spec 1954 W196, and while you are thinking about those F1 cars, did you like the sleek cigar shaped body or the high mounted aerofoils of 1968? Personally, having watched Ronnie Peterson slide the six wheeled P34 through Woodcote in 1977, I really liked the old six wheeler (even though some idiot had ruined Woodcote with a chicane and placed an ugly mess of "catch fencing"  in my way). It was IMO a much better looking car than the bland crop of identikit cars devoid of all personality we currently have to put up with.

 

My point, in case you have missed it is that F1's look changes over time, as it comes through function not legislated form, or rather it should be. That's what F1 is about.

 

Oh, and I still hate the look of the halo too. Sure it saves lives, but at the cost of murdering F1's soul. Take the risk out of F1 and it's no longer F1 whatever the cars look like.

 

and..I hate the sound of current engines too. My wives sewing machine sounds more impressive. 

 

Having said that, if the cost cap works, why not let the engineers free to do their thing and the teams spend the money on whatever they prioritise will make them faster? Testing, computer design hours, extra wind tunnels time, extra staff, they can even pay someone to make them non-spec tyres for all I care. In fact, I'd care more about F1 more if they did because this is definitely NOT the golden age of F1 that the PR gaslighting media machine would have us believe it is however much DRS overtaking there is.



#70 YamahaV10

YamahaV10
  • Member

  • 2,363 posts
  • Joined: June 21

Posted 08 June 2023 - 20:28

All these cost caps are just pure nonsense in my view. F1 is a battlefield of technology, drivers, money, ingenuity... everything! Why don't we have something similar in athletics such that countries with more facilities and best coaches are penalized so as to even the "competition" up a little. To make it more "interesting"?

 

If F1 stayed on the same path that it was on, (one team winning the WCC 8 years in a row and spending 600 million+) there probably wouldn't have been interest from Lawrence Stroll to buy Force India. Renault/Alpine probably would have called it quits. Haas probably wouldn't have bothered hanging on for 2021. Honda did quit and then decided to come back. 

 

There was nothing sustainable about it. 



#71 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,769 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 08 June 2023 - 21:03

All these cost caps are just pure nonsense in my view. F1 is a battlefield of technology, drivers, money, ingenuity... everything! Why don't we have something similar in athletics such that countries with more facilities and best coaches are penalized so as to even the "competition" up a little. To make it more "interesting"?

 

Because it is meant to be a competition about talent, teamwork, and effort - not a competition about who has the most money!



#72 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 08 June 2023 - 22:05

The sliding scale aero resources is already a basic attempt at BOP. The teams and the FIA are trying to maintain the illusion that it isn't. 

It's really nothing of the sort.  Varying resources are not at all the same thing as the FIA basically neutering certain cars based on practice performance.  

 

F1 is still genuine competition.  Anything with BoP is just a joke.  Especially with how much it's gamed.  



#73 MasterOfCoin

MasterOfCoin
  • Member

  • 4,991 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 09 June 2023 - 01:38

Because it is meant to be a competition about talent, teamwork, and effort - not a competition about who has the most money!

Toyota and Ferrari says hold my beer..... :rotfl:



#74 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 6,994 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 09 June 2023 - 09:01

Don't agree. If you get it wrong, you're screwed.

 

More so, than now?



#75 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 6,994 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 09 June 2023 - 09:03

McLaren chief Zak Brown thinks so. I agree with him, so long as what we see on track still look like F1 cars. A six-wheel F1 car is taking it a bit too far for me

 

https://www.motorspo...brown/10412480/

 

Yes. be LESS restrictive but you still need some regulations!



#76 H0R

H0R
  • Member

  • 4,084 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 November 2023 - 16:34

Because it is meant to be a competition about talent, teamwork, and effort - not a competition about who has the most money!

Then again there are only two ways to win a championship nowadays. Either you spend limitless money - or you have Adrian Newey. I am not at all optimistic that we will see another team than Red Bull winning it in the foreseeable future. 



#77 Rumblestrip

Rumblestrip
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: December 20

Posted 06 November 2023 - 17:30

Maybe something for another thread, but with the cost cap in place I'd like to see in-season testing resumed (assuming gaps can be made between the multitude of races, or even...gasp....fewer races). The big teams have the best simulation tools. On-track testing levels the field somewhat and also allows teams to understand their updates and general setups.



#78 cjm321190

cjm321190
  • Member

  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 06 November 2023 - 18:00

Maybe something for another thread, but with the cost cap in place I'd like to see in-season testing resumed (assuming gaps can be made between the multitude of races, or even...gasp....fewer races). The big teams have the best simulation tools. On-track testing levels the field somewhat and also allows teams to understand their updates and general setups.


Maybe the bottom 5 teams get an extra days testing to close the gap pre season. Or we actually use a second car they always have one ready to go in boxes.

#79 cjm321190

cjm321190
  • Member

  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 06 November 2023 - 18:03

If F1 stayed on the same path that it was on, (one team winning the WCC 8 years in a row and spending 600 million+) there probably wouldn't have been interest from Lawrence Stroll to buy Force India. Renault/Alpine probably would have called it quits. Haas probably wouldn't have bothered hanging on for 2021. Honda did quit and then decided to come back.

There was nothing sustainable about it.

teams like Merc and Ferrari like it as they can just out spend the rivals. Now they have to commit to a concept rather than having 2-3 and binning the worst. This is why Merc are in trouble. Maybe they don't have the best engineers when they have to commit to an idea similar Ferrari.