|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
16 May 2019, 16:30 (Ref:3904165) | #3551 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,979
|
Quote:
Say Mr. Mallett are you for or against direct injection and the turbulent jet injection currently used (that allows for ultra-lean mixtures and high efficiency, by having a separate richer pre-combustion mixture)? These technologies greatly increase thermal efficiency, whether it's NA or turbo. Returning to port injection would arguably be a retrograde step... Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 16 May 2019 at 16:35. |
||
|
16 May 2019, 16:34 (Ref:3904166) | #3552 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
So you are saying these components get used more than one race? Doubtful. Yes they last longer but only if you use them as long term items. To maintain efficiency they will be replaced every race. So you're paying a premium why? Because they are far more efficient than steel brakes.
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
16 May 2019, 16:37 (Ref:3904167) | #3553 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,979
|
Quote:
I guess the 3 power unit per season rules are supposed to save the teams from themselves, compared to when they used to use 3 new engines per driver per weekend. But does it really save any money --- hmmm.... |
||
|
16 May 2019, 16:37 (Ref:3904168) | #3554 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
Lol.
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
16 May 2019, 16:40 (Ref:3904169) | #3555 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
Quote:
Personally I prefer a big V8, 10 or 12; but among our family cars is a Fiesta ST which is one of those turbocharged thingies that puts out about 200bhp from something the size of a teacup so I'm not against them at all. |
|||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
16 May 2019, 16:41 (Ref:3904170) | #3556 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,979
|
||
|
16 May 2019, 16:45 (Ref:3904171) | #3557 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
Indeed but they can afford it because they aren't cost capped.
Can you imagine the scene, only two cars on the grid for Abu Dhabi because the others have too much season at the end of their money. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
16 May 2019, 16:52 (Ref:3904174) | #3558 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,793
|
Quote:
Merc spends 450mil a year while a small team spends 150 million a year...now while we can see the difference on track of that difference of 300 million in terms of speed, reliability, handling...i dont think anyone has ever suggested that the team with the lower budget is cutting corners to the extent that they are compromising safety. if we already know the small team can do it safely for less money why would this change if all teams had to compete at the same budget as that small team? anyways, doesnt the FIA and FOM already share in the liability. rather haven't they have been named as defendants in more than one trial relating to the passing of a competitor. by virtue of organizing and running the event they share responsibility already no? that the organizer accepts the responsibility for the health of its athletes is fairly common in all major sports and is currently a source of much discussions by the NFL and their players union about how they will pay for all the concussions. as for cost overruns...allowance can be made under a soft cap scenario (used by other sports sometimes called a luxury tax) whereby overspending is taxed and with that tax money being redistributed in some fashion among those that live under the cap. point is there are mechanisms here to deal with such things already and the way the budget cap talks are going it sounds like it will involve a better fairer distribution of funds to ensure the competitors have sufficient money to make it to the end of the season and in a safe fashion. can any of it be properly implemented...well thats a far more difficult question to answer! |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
16 May 2019, 18:14 (Ref:3904187) | #3559 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,946
|
Lots of good comments and I will try to not repeat what others have already said.
Oh... can we rename this thread... How to fix F1? Quote:
A better example would be if you were running a reality TV show about home remodeling. You pick three identical apartments, give the designers the same amount of money, let them have at it. In the end a panel of judges votes on who does the best job. Receipts must be kept during the remodel. You will be able to rank them first to last. Cost capped F1 is pretty much the same thing. The goal is to not make a specific product and hope it comes in under budget, but to see who makes the best product within a fixed budget. Quote:
So the cost cap clearly sets the budget, but clearly that means you have to spend less money. I guess by definition that means spending less money than they would normally. It DOES mean lesser solutions. Or at least lesser somewhere, but not safety (as the car would not pass safety tests and inspections). It is likely to result in less than currently stellar reliability that we see today. All of which... gasp... might bring a level of unpredictability to the sport and in a less contrived way (i.e. DRS and tires that are engineered to perform badly). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
||||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
17 May 2019, 06:55 (Ref:3904289) | #3560 | |||||||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
Quote:
Actually your analogy ignores the business requirements that a team faces. Your winning house may look good but if the other one, less expensive, does the job then that should be the winner since it saves money for the shareholders. I'm not suggesting you are wrong per se but you ignore the reality of business which is to get the lowest cost result. I think it is wrong and value driven solutions would be preferable but reality is all based on cost. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Normally aspirated or tubocharged engines (for ease stick with turbocharged); lighter chassis, and the cars must fit into an overall box. Whatever you do inside that box is free but open wheels of a specific size are mandatory. |
|||||||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
17 May 2019, 07:40 (Ref:3904296) | #3561 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,819
|
That last paragraph is a bit simplistic Peter. For instance, safety regulations for the monocoque will mean a convergence of "body" design, just as road cars are beginning to look similar. I'm sure there are other areas where commonality will occur too.
Otherwise I agree, this is an engineering formula and the engineers should be allowed freedom of thought. Great minds are constrained at the moment and we're seeing no giant leaps like ground effect, turbocharging or even slick tyres. I cannot believe that the current F1 car is the ultimate in design expression, there will be something new in the minds of clever people if only they were allowed to let it loose. Personally I think the "budget cap" will sort itself out. Main boards will soon start to question the £££ being spent on F1, the whole edifice will come tumbling down to be replaced by a leaner F1 evolving from within. I hear it from all levels of the sport "it's not fair, X is winning because he has more money than me." Sadly, it's always been so. Motor racing is a deep pocket sport. However, opportunity has never been better because thanks to commercial links at least you can use someone else's money now instead of your own! I yearn for the days when clever engineering could beat big money, to me THAT'S what F1 is all about. And I think that's what would bring the punters flocking back; young or old, everyone loves an underdog winning. EDIT: Sorry if I went OT. I couldn't remember if I was on Future Rule Changes, How to Fix F1 or whatever! Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk |
||
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! |
17 May 2019, 07:47 (Ref:3904300) | #3562 | ||||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
17 May 2019, 08:15 (Ref:3904312) | #3563 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,671
|
Peter, that comment has brightened my extremely dull Friday, thank you
|
||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
17 May 2019, 10:42 (Ref:3904324) | #3564 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,946
|
Peter,
We fundamentally disagree. My complaint in this back and forth is that I feel you are not countering where I try to pick apart your proposal and point out holes in your logic, but just restate your ideas. Quote:
The goal of both my analogy and an F1 team is to win the game/championship. If we view it from a team business perspective (which must be done), then they can remain profitable and show value for the shareholders. Note that the cost cap system does not limit revenue and profit. Not to mention there are a number of exceptions on spending, such as hospitality. So sponsorship, or any other sources of revenue can be large and growing. No different than today. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But my point was not about fixed cost items. It is about variable cost items in which teams decide how much they want to spend. So you missed my point. Even today, with large budgets, teams have to make decisions as to where they spend their money. Teams with less funding just spend less. Look at Williams vs Mercedes today. Williams is clearly spending less. It is a "lesser" solution (per my original post/point). Imagine a field full of lesser solutions similar to Williams today. On the surface that sounds bad given how down they are compared to Mercedes, but if that level of spending and performance was the norm...would we notice? Quote:
Reread what you typed above. You want them to spend what they want, but as to not need twenty engineers per driver. What if the teams have the money for twenty engineers per driver and feels that many gives them an edge? Why wouldn't they have twenty engineers per driver? Richard |
||||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
17 May 2019, 11:05 (Ref:3904328) | #3565 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,946
|
Actually, let me restate that. I suspect we fundamentally agree on what we want, but disagree on how we think the world works.
I want.... * Open rules so that technology can run wild and amaze us. * The best drivers racing hammer and tongs with fans watching slack jawed * I want the cars to be beautiful, objects of desire and on posters hung upon the walls of today's youth. * I want things to be like the best parts of our memory of years past. I want all of those and more. However, years of experience as an informed fan and living in the world of business and technology tells me... Those are conflicting goals and unrealistic for a slew of reasons, most of which are driven by basic economics. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
17 May 2019, 11:20 (Ref:3904332) | #3566 | |||||||||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do not want technology to amaze me. It's bland and boring. I want drivers having to work hard and thus amaze me. Slack jawed fans? Hmmm. But I agree. Again we agree about the cars and if you pick up my point in reply to Midgetman I want the same. FWIW I'm currently involved in a multi billion euro operation and believe me technology only comes in to play if it can be got cheaply or paid for by someone else. Shareholders can be bloody difficult. |
|||||||||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
17 May 2019, 11:44 (Ref:3904335) | #3567 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,946
|
Quote:
My personal experience is no doubt different than yours. I have spent nearly two decades going from startup in which I was in the first 100 employees to public company. Selling software to Fortune 100 companies across multiple verticals in a crowded market. Today, I am elsewhere. Now I am part of a Fortune 50. In both... Sometimes it was only about cost, sometimes it was about technology/solution. We have won and lost in both scenarios. Regardless, cost always matters (especially if in a commodity or replacement market), but success is more than just cost. Thanks for the civil discussion! Cheers! Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
17 May 2019, 11:48 (Ref:3904336) | #3568 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,427
|
Yes, good fun. You are of course in technology already so I can see the balance would be different between "traditional" methods and something that improves the business.
Anyway, I'll think about moving these posts to the "how to improve" thread over the weekend. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
24 May 2019, 19:25 (Ref:3905553) | #3569 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,156
|
||
|
17 Jul 2019, 08:33 (Ref:3918111) | #3570 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,554
|
It looks like ground effect is on its way back to F1.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...ffect-for-2021 Hope it helps with overtaking. |
|
|
17 Jul 2019, 13:34 (Ref:3918176) | #3571 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,493
|
It should do and the mock of the cars looks good too which helps
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
17 Jul 2019, 22:53 (Ref:3918248) | #3572 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,451
|
It may well assist with overtaking or at the very least allow cars to run closer together, providing the possibility of overtaking or at least injecting some uncertainty into a result whereas now, once a driver is clear of the DRS time zone, it's for the most part seen as a done deal.
I think that it's good that reducing the weight of the cars is on the agenda as well - they really have become far too heavy IMHO and whilst the weight of the power units doesn't help (& they're here to stay unfortunately) the cars should really be lighter, dartier, edgier than they are now. |
||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
19 Jul 2019, 17:57 (Ref:3918510) | #3573 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,946
|
They are looking to change strategy regarding tire specs..
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/p...1/4497513/amp/ Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
19 Jul 2019, 18:31 (Ref:3918515) | #3574 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,493
|
Seems we are going back to basics. As long as they don’t bring back refuelling as is being proposed
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
19 Jul 2019, 18:45 (Ref:3918516) | #3575 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,389
|
According to that article, they are preparing to switch to 18" wheels.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |