Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 15 Mar 2012, 11:30 (Ref:3041437)   #101
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
It's not like the FIA didn't try to help matters in this area. But the message, as usual, must have fallen on deaf ears.

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._Framework.pdf
In the report linked above it clearly stated, that Formula 1 has potential to be road relevant. However, I thought you have always been denying that relevance.

Interestingly, the author of the report also proposed the allow continuously variable transmissions from 2011.

Last edited by Pingguest; 15 Mar 2012 at 11:38.
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 11:41 (Ref:3041443)   #102
ECW Dan Selby
Veteran
 
ECW Dan Selby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
England
Essex, England
Posts: 4,067
ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!
Taken from that above document:

"Improving the show: A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for
robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. When travelling in high turbulence levels such as
those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front
and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor (within a set range, at a set
rate, and with appropriate hysteresis, determined from time to time by the FIA) to
compensate for the degradation in performance. In free stream the car is to return to a
baseline ride height. The purpose is to allow for full compensation for downforce losses due
to being in the wake of another car."

That's very interesting. Were they proposing automatic active ride-height instead of the DRS?!

Selby
ECW Dan Selby is offline  
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins...
Think you can do better? Let's see it!
Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths.
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 13:48 (Ref:3041514)   #103
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
That is a non-argument. Facts do not tell us any norms. If Formula 1 serious about cost reduction, they should allow customer cars. The rising costs of manufacturing just two cars indicate the clear necessity of that.
Perhaps it's the rising cost of manufacturing two cars that is the real problem, and allowing customer cars will be just like sticking a band-aid on a broken leg?

What the hell! It is the real problem!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
In the report linked above it clearly stated, that Formula 1 has potential to be road relevant. However, I thought you have always been denying that relevance.

Interestingly, the author of the report also proposed the allow continuously variable transmissions from 2011.
I think that it's difficult for something like an F1 car to be road car relevant. That's not to say that it shouldn't be more road car relevant.

The report suggests numerous things that may or may not have been considered appropriate for F1. Obviously the adoption of CVT proved to be inappropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby View Post
Taken from that above document:

"Improving the show: A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for
robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. When travelling in high turbulence levels such as
those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front
and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor (within a set range, at a set
rate, and with appropriate hysteresis, determined from time to time by the FIA) to
compensate for the degradation in performance. In free stream the car is to return to a
baseline ride height. The purpose is to allow for full compensation for downforce losses due
to being in the wake of another car."

That's very interesting. Were they proposing automatic active ride-height instead of the DRS?!

Selby
It would seem that they were. It would also seem like they have forgotten all about it!
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 13:55 (Ref:3041520)   #104
ECW Dan Selby
Veteran
 
ECW Dan Selby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
England
Essex, England
Posts: 4,067
ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!
That would have been a cool way of doing things. ie. perhaps not as openly artificial as the DRS, while still maintaining the 'cool' factor!

Selby
ECW Dan Selby is offline  
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins...
Think you can do better? Let's see it!
Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths.
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 14:07 (Ref:3041529)   #105
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby View Post
That would have been a cool way of doing things. ie. perhaps not as openly artificial as the DRS, while still maintaining the 'cool' factor!

Selby
Again, maybe it's just a very expensive band-aid that's trying to cure an infinitely more expensive problem?
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 15:27 (Ref:3041562)   #106
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
Perhaps it's the rising cost of manufacturing two cars that is the real problem, and allowing customer cars will be just like sticking a band-aid on a broken leg?

What the hell! It is the real problem!
That problem needs to be addressed indeed. However, it is an illusion that Formula 1 can become 'cheap' again.

Quote:
I think that it's difficult for something like an F1 car to be road car relevant. That's not to say that it shouldn't be more road car relevant.

The report suggests numerous things that may or may not have been considered appropriate for F1. Obviously the adoption of CVT proved to be inappropriate.
Yeah, as you said: the proposal to re-legalize continuously variable transmissions has fallen on deaf ears.
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 15:43 (Ref:3041568)   #107
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
That problem needs to be addressed indeed. However, it is an illusion that Formula 1 can become 'cheap' again.
No one's asking for 'cheap', just sensible. £40 million to put two cars on a track every other weekend, should not be considered 'cheap'. £100 million should be considered 'outrageous' and 'wasteful'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
Yeah, as you said: the proposal to re-legalize continuously variable transmissions has fallen on deaf ears.
Yes, but whose 'deaf ears' were they?
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 15:50 (Ref:3041575)   #108
ECW Dan Selby
Veteran
 
ECW Dan Selby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
England
Essex, England
Posts: 4,067
ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!ECW Dan Selby has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
Again, maybe it's just a very expensive band-aid that's trying to cure an infinitely more expensive problem?
But to the FIA, none of this spending is really a problem, is it?

But nah, in real terms, I completely agree.

Selby
ECW Dan Selby is offline  
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins...
Think you can do better? Let's see it!
Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths.
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 15:54 (Ref:3041582)   #109
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
No one's asking for 'cheap', just sensible. £40 million to put two cars on a track every other weekend, should not be considered 'cheap'. £100 million should be considered 'outrageous' and 'wasteful'.
I think all those number are quite arbitrary. £40 million for two completely irrelevant cars is less acceptable than £100 million for two relevant cars.

Quote:
Yes, but whose 'deaf ears' were they?
Formula 1 general, including one of its die-hard fans.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....69&postcount=4
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 16:22 (Ref:3041604)   #110
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby View Post
But to the FIA, none of this spending is really a problem, is it?

But nah, in real terms, I completely agree.

Selby
Well, yes it is a problem for the FIA, because it's their world championship. I would imagine that they would like it be be a series where any manufacturer or privateer could think about entering it without having to think about the costs first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
I think all those number are quite arbitrary. £40 million for two completely irrelevant cars is less acceptable than £100 million for two relevant cars.
You could spend £20 million on two relevant cars. No. You could spend £10 million on two relevant cars that had more thought put into them than they did cash.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
Formula 1 general, including one of its die-hard fans.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....69&postcount=4
Well, Williams CVT car now sits in a DAF museum somewhere in Holland, I believe. As the video says, it's quite possible that the transmission may have put the Williams car several seconds ahead of anything else that was likely to hit the track that season. Which is all very nice for Williams, but maybe not so good for F1 in general. It should also be remembered that CVT is quite a simple engineering feat that has not really changed much at all since its first appearance in a road car. Modern Scooters and mopeds, plus many small cars use this type of transmission.

Here's a video of David Coulthard testing the CVT. You decide if it's a good thing for F1 or not. It's difficult not to think of a moped or scooter when listening to the car going along the track. The impression of speed seems to have taken a back seat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto

Last edited by Marbot; 15 Mar 2012 at 16:29.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 16:36 (Ref:3041610)   #111
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
You could spend £20 million on two relevant cars. No. You could spend £10 million on two relevant cars that had more thought put into them than they did cash.
If a (relative) large amount of the resources are spend to relevant technology and it is accepted that only teams themselves should run their organisations, one could not complain about the budget sizes. However, if the sport is still considered too expensive then, the FIA should definitely reconsider the prohibition of customer parts.

Quote:
Well, Williams CVT car now sits in a DAF museum somewhere in Holland, I believe. As the video says, it's quite possible that the transmission may have put the Williams car several seconds ahead of anything else that was likely to hit the track that season. Which is all very nice for Williams, but maybe not so good for F1 in general. It should also be remembered that CVT is quite a simple engineering feat that has not really changed much at all since its first appearance in a road car. Modern Scooters and mopeds, plus many small cars use this type of transmission.

Here's a video of David Coulthard testing the CVT. You decide if it's a good thing for F1 or not. It's difficult not to think of a moped or scooter when listening to the car going along the track. The impression of speed seems to have taken a back seat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto
My stance was made quite clear in the post linked below, I hope.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....76&postcount=2
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 15 Mar 2012, 17:20 (Ref:3041637)   #112
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
If a (relative) large amount of the resources are spend to relevant technology and it is accepted that only teams themselves should run their organisations, one could not complain about the budget sizes. However, if the sport is still considered too expensive then, the FIA should definitely reconsider the prohibition of customer parts.
I feel that some sort of budget cap is the only real solution to halt needless spending. Either that or we just ban Adrian Newey, because he's the main reason why other teams have to spend so much on just trying to keep up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
My stance was made quite clear in the post linked below, I hope.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....76&postcount=2
Yes, we agree that some technologies are just not the right thing for F1. Even if they are useful in other road relevant applications.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 17 Mar 2012, 08:05 (Ref:3042603)   #113
Teretonga
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
They certainly have the right to protest against customer cars, and have done so on numerous occasions.




Are we to assume that Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, etc, are knocking out these cars on some sort of production line? I'd just really like to know which teams can buy cars and which teams can build and sell them, because we're making a huge assumption here that it's always going to be the usual suspects who build the best cars.

If you can buy a 'production' car, would it be OK for everyone to have last seasons championship winning car? Would it be OK for Ferrari to buy it, just in case their own car turns out to be crap, again?

And at what point do you say to yourself: 'We're not going to build our own car this season, because I can feel it in my waters that we can get our hands on something much faster (famous last words).'

How do you distribute the 'customer' cars? Names out of a hat? That would be good. Highest bidder? That's a big can of worms!
The arguments I'm seeing against customer cars aren't real.
If you can get a car thats faster/better/cheaper than you can build one then you buy one.
If you think you can build a better mousetrap you build one unless its so expensive pragmatism sets in.
We don't have to assume anyone is going to put them into production....
Dallara might build a monocoque section that meets regulations and several teams buy that as their base and build around it.... STR may use RBR monocoques as a basis or last years RBR and up date it....

Force India and Marussia may use last years McLaren as their base car and upgrade it, an MP4 'B' model. Caterham may partner with 'Enstone Lotus' and share cars....

It just means the current rules regarding having to produce your own car from scratch are dumped, so we go back to what it was for nearly 40 years before Bernie decided to make it more 'professional'.

I am all for that.
Teretonga is offline  
Quote
Old 17 Mar 2012, 10:09 (Ref:3042655)   #114
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
I feel that some sort of budget cap is the only real solution to halt needless spending. Either that or we just ban Adrian Newey, because he's the main reason why other teams have to spend so much on just trying to keep up.
I still need to see prove that a budget cap, resource restriction agreement or any other measure directly limiting the spendable financial resources is enforceable. Further more, I do not believe the spending of resources is the root cause of the rising costs.

Quote:
Yes, we agree that some technologies are just not the right thing for F1. Even if they are useful in other road relevant applications.
At first, Formula 1 needs to learn themselves. What is Formula 1 all about and what is and should be considered as important? What are the foreseeable consequences of any piece of legislation and are those desirable? I do not believe the main issues are thoroughly devised.
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 17 Mar 2012, 10:10 (Ref:3042656)   #115
nicanary
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Northern Ireland
Newtownards Co.Down
Posts: 867
nicanary has a real shot at the podium!nicanary has a real shot at the podium!nicanary has a real shot at the podium!nicanary has a real shot at the podium!
Re comments of Teretonga - I'm all for that as well.

If a car can pass the scrutineers, then it's good enough to race.What's wrong with a 35-car entry? That's what qualifying is all about, assuming the entrants can find enough drivers with the correct licences.

If the back-markers can find enough sponsorship, then good for them.The reins have been too tight for too long.
nicanary is offline  
Quote
Old 17 Mar 2012, 10:43 (Ref:3042672)   #116
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teretonga View Post
The arguments I'm seeing against customer cars aren't real.
If you can get a car thats faster/better/cheaper than you can build one then you buy one.
If you think you can build a better mousetrap you build one unless its so expensive pragmatism sets in.
We don't have to assume anyone is going to put them into production....
Dallara might build a monocoque section that meets regulations and several teams buy that as their base and build around it.... STR may use RBR monocoques as a basis or last years RBR and up date it....

Force India and Marussia may use last years McLaren as their base car and upgrade it, an MP4 'B' model. Caterham may partner with 'Enstone Lotus' and share cars....

It just means the current rules regarding having to produce your own car from scratch are dumped, so we go back to what it was for nearly 40 years before Bernie decided to make it more 'professional'.

I am all for that.
You made your point very well, Teretonga!
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 17 Mar 2012, 16:10 (Ref:3042965)   #117
chillibowl
Veteran
 
chillibowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
winnipeg, canada
Posts: 9,718
chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!
i sort of feel this is covering old ground, but if this is about being pragmatic why not just let Mclaren (or any of the top teams/builders) run as many cars as they want?

surely thats more preferable then letting less able companies run old cars.

personally i am against that as well as my preference leans more towards only allowing true sporting organizations in. no one should be here for short term gains but rather here to build up an organization capable of challenging for wins. customer cars wont move us toward that imo.

i'll acknowledged that ideal is almost impossible now with current spending limits but a soft cap on spending, combined with contractually enforceable penalties , fines, and taxes is not only auditable but common in many other sports. granted more difficult for F1 but far from impossible. in short i would much prefer to see more movement in this direction before allowing customer cars.

but after a great quali session and some unexpected results i find it myself thinking why change anything?
chillibowl is online now  
__________________
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
Quote
Old 17 Mar 2012, 19:48 (Ref:3043096)   #118
wolfhound
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Ireland
Posts: 3,547
wolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teretonga View Post
Caterham may partner with 'Enstone Lotus' and share cars....
Lotus and Caterham are such good mates that they would build cars for each other. Last met in the high court.
wolfhound is offline  
Quote
Old 17 Mar 2012, 20:04 (Ref:3043107)   #119
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teretonga View Post
The arguments I'm seeing against customer cars aren't real.
If you can get a car thats faster/better/cheaper than you can build one then you buy one.
If you think you can build a better mousetrap you build one unless its so expensive pragmatism sets in.
We don't have to assume anyone is going to put them into production....
Dallara might build a monocoque section that meets regulations and several teams buy that as their base and build around it.... STR may use RBR monocoques as a basis or last years RBR and up date it....

Force India and Marussia may use last years McLaren as their base car and upgrade it, an MP4 'B' model. Caterham may partner with 'Enstone Lotus' and share cars....

It just means the current rules regarding having to produce your own car from scratch are dumped, so we go back to what it was for nearly 40 years before Bernie decided to make it more 'professional'.

I am all for that.
What it was 40 years ago, has nothing to do with todays regulations. You build your own car, and you race it. To suggest that todays teams use other chassis rather than less resources, is not really addressing the issue of teams not being able to make their 'own' cars and race them. Where is the innovation going to come from if you are forced to run something that someone else already has?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
I still need to see prove that a budget cap, resource restriction agreement or any other measure directly limiting the spendable financial resources is enforceable. Further more, I do not believe the spending of resources is the root cause of the rising costs.
The RRA has been limiting resources for some time now. I fail to see your point about teams spending more is not increasing costs!!!???? Particularly when all we read in the press just lately is stuff about teams wanting to limit costs even more.

Just one recent example.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97624

There are many others, including the one from Bernie about budget caps.

No examples of the teams wanting to spend more money can be found.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
What is Formula 1 all about and what is and should be considered as important? What are the foreseeable consequences of any piece of legislation and are those desirable?
Who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl View Post
i sort of feel this is covering old ground, but if this is about being pragmatic why not just let Mclaren (or any of the top teams/builders) run as many cars as they want?

surely thats more preferable then letting less able companies run old cars.

personally i am against that as well as my preference leans more towards only allowing true sporting organizations in. no one should be here for short term gains but rather here to build up an organization capable of challenging for wins. customer cars wont move us toward that imo.

i'll acknowledged that ideal is almost impossible now with current spending limits but a soft cap on spending, combined with contractually enforceable penalties , fines, and taxes is not only auditable but common in many other sports. granted more difficult for F1 but far from impossible. in short i would much prefer to see more movement in this direction before allowing customer cars.

but after a great quali session and some unexpected results i find it myself thinking why change anything?
Only a true budget cap will allow teams to compete on an equal footing, particularly if you also want to allow more freedom within the regulations. To suggest that a budget cap cannot be policed is showing a very poor understanding of how budgets can be policed.

Any idiot can make for £100 what a good engineer can make for £1. I'd like to see that...again.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Mar 2012, 05:00 (Ref:3043686)   #120
Teretonga
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
What it was 40 years ago, has nothing to do with todays regulations. You build your own car, and you race it. To suggest that todays teams use other chassis rather than less resources, is not really addressing the issue of teams not being able to make their 'own' cars and race them. Where is the innovation going to come from if you are forced to run something that someone else already has....

........Only a true budget cap will allow teams to compete on an equal footing, particularly if you also want to allow more freedom within the regulations. To suggest that a budget cap cannot be policed is showing a very poor understanding of how budgets can be policed.

Any idiot can make for £100 what a good engineer can make for £1. I'd like to see that...again.
Actually what was run 15 years ago does affect our situation today.
Bernie turned F1 into a closed shop for the Concorde agreement in the process making the major players very rich. Thats why they went for it. The value of the 'franchises' went astronomical.

At the same time that gave f1 a financial momentum that enabled them to spend vast amounts on research that max tried vainly to limit by ever tighter regulations.
That in turn meant an increasing amount of spending for ever diminishing returns that became microscopically incremental. Effectively the only way to make progress was to spend vast amounts on aero trying to find ways to beat your neighbours. if you found something everyone else had to spend vast amounts to understand it, match it and better it.

So the whole system has become a race for incremental gains in ever decreasing circles. Real innovation is limited by the regulations, not by customer cars.

Allowing customer cars didn't stop rear engines, monocoque development, wing development, side radiators, wider wheel and tyre development, 6 wheel experimentation, 4WD experimentation, the development of skirts and underbody wings, Brabham fan cars, carbon fibre monocoques, turbo experimentation, water cooled brakes, pnuematic valve development etc.

In fact real development and innovation has stalled since customer cars were banned (but not because they were banned).

Allowing customer cars will not make any difference to original innovation and development. That is a function of the regulations governing experimentation, testing and new ideas.

To answer some other ideas:
Creating larger teams instead of customer cars just creates imbalances in team structures. It's practical to run two equal/nearly equal cars but not three or four. Inevitably you would end up with a first tier and a second tier within the team so thats really no different than allowing a second tier team to run customer cars.
They would simply be independently structured.

If you allowed customer cars it would be easier to regulate the basic costs of team structures and operational spending than it is at present. That arrangement would allow limits to be openly allocated to operational spending and open testing that would create relative transparency for all the teams. Engine leases could also be limited to a degree. So a RRA would be easier police in operational aspects.
The only costs that would add to a teams costs would be developmental costs. Limiting developmental costs and creating an enviroment for worthwhile innovation is a function of regulation on design and development, not centred around the customer car argument.

The customer teams would compete with the leading teams on everything except development and may act in partnership with the lead teams depending on the way the regulations framed testing and experimentation.
Teretonga is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Mar 2012, 15:35 (Ref:3043951)   #121
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
If you force teams like Caterham to use customer cars because building something that is equal to a Ferrari, McLaren or a Red Bull only requires more money to be spent. Then you are stopping teams like Caterham from coming up with anything original, because first and foremost they must be competitive, and they may only be able to be competitive by using something that is tried and tested and has already had a small fortune spent on it. Then you rely solely on the better funded teams to come up with something original, which will probably not happen because they have ensured that the regulations always play to their strength (loads of cash). F1 should not be about rich teams giving the less well off teams their 'hand-me-downs'. It should be about all of the teams having an equal opportunity to come up with something original, within a simple set of regulations.

Last edited by Marbot; 18 Mar 2012 at 15:53.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Mar 2012, 16:46 (Ref:3043996)   #122
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
If you force teams like Caterham to use customer cars because building something that is equal to a Ferrari, McLaren or a Red Bull only requires more money to be spent. Then you are stopping teams like Caterham from coming up with anything original, because first and foremost they must be competitive, and they may only be able to be competitive by using something that is tried and tested and has already had a small fortune spent on it. Then you rely solely on the better funded teams to come up with something original, which will probably not happen because they have ensured that the regulations always play to their strength (loads of cash). F1 should not be about rich teams giving the less well off teams their 'hand-me-downs'. It should be about all of the teams having an equal opportunity to come up with something original, within a simple set of regulations.
With the current regulations providing an absolute point of perfection and prohibiting customer chassis teams are forced to spend an awful lot of money to become successful. Without allowing customer chassis and major performance differences - something you have always been opposing - cost reductions may only be possible with constant rule thickening, which will inevitably end in a totally standardized series. In that case Formula 1's days are counted.
It also worth to be mentioned, that all arguments against customer chassis could be used against customer power-trains - gearboxes, engines and kinetic energy recovery systems -, which are currently allowed.
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 18 Mar 2012, 18:55 (Ref:3044087)   #123
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
With the current regulations providing an absolute point of perfection and prohibiting customer chassis teams are forced to spend an awful lot of money to become successful. Without allowing customer chassis and major performance differences - something you have always been opposing - cost reductions may only be possible with constant rule thickening, which will inevitably end in a totally standardized series. In that case Formula 1's days are counted.
It also worth to be mentioned, that all arguments against customer chassis could be used against customer power-trains - gearboxes, engines and kinetic energy recovery systems -, which are currently allowed.
The main reason for current power plant part-standardization is so that if one engine manufacturer leaves (let's say Cosworth) then the teams that used Cosworth engines (let's say HRT and Marussia) don't have to build an entirely new chassis in order for another engine to power it. That is why the bolt patterns for the new V6 engines are identical for each manufacturers engine.

Brawn were extremely fortunate that the architecture of the V8 engines was very similar across all of the teams in order that they could take part in the 2009 season. Otherwise things could have been very different, and maybe more than just one team could have been affected by Honda leaving.

Currently there are just four engine manufacturers in F1. Neither of them want the rules to be so open that it will be more than likely that one will get things right and all of the others get it wrong. If you wanted a one engined series, then that would be the way to do it. That also applies to the chassis too. If you open up the rules, and one team gets it right while the others get it wrong, then that's a sure way to lose chassis makers that can't afford, like the wealthier teams can, to put wrongs right.

It's a well known fact that the current engine suppliers specifically asked that the engine regulations were tight enough, so as to not allow one engine supplier to be superior to the others. They can't afford to get it wrong and spend even more money trying to get it right. The chances are that they would just cut their losses and leave the sport. It's a big urban myth that the engine suppliers think that going head to head with different designs is a good thing for the sport.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Mar 2012, 06:43 (Ref:3044409)   #124
Teretonga
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
If you force teams like Caterham to use customer cars because building something that is equal to a Ferrari, McLaren or a Red Bull only requires more money to be spent. Then you are stopping teams like Caterham from coming up with anything original, because first and foremost they must be competitive, and they may only be able to be competitive by using something that is tried and tested and has already had a small fortune spent on it. Then you rely solely on the better funded teams to come up with something original, which will probably not happen because they have ensured that the regulations always play to their strength (loads of cash). F1 should not be about rich teams giving the less well off teams their 'hand-me-downs'. It should be about all of the teams having an equal opportunity to come up with something original, within a simple set of regulations.
But this is exactly the situation you have right now!
Because aero is so important the teams that have their own aero facilities have an advantage and the cost of building wind tunnels is significant. Originality is creative not fully dependent on financial input.
The arguments above about not be able to build in innovation is true now.

They are a function of regulation not making customer chassis available. Ther eis no reason why a major team cannot enter a relationship with a second tier team that provided support and use of facilities, cooperation and collaboration. Oh Dear! That is happening now!

Some team will always have more money, usually the more successful or better backed teams. You cannot legislate a Caterham level team to have more expensive engineering than a Ferrari....
Teretonga is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Mar 2012, 14:15 (Ref:3044661)   #125
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
The need for customer cars would indicate that something is wrong somewhere, and this may explain Bernie's sudden change of heart from being one of the need to have customer cars to one of the need for a budget cap.

I think that maybe the idea of customer cars was quickly dismissed. By Williams, Force India, STR? Remember that these are not the new teams that Bernie was talking about by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98005

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97969

Last edited by Marbot; 19 Mar 2012 at 14:23.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Customer cars cds_uk Formula One 21 2 Nov 2007 10:27
Bernie will be the one to solve customer car row Champions Formula One 4 16 Apr 2007 20:21
Customer Cars Alan Raine Formula One 18 24 Aug 2006 14:20
Customer cars way to go? pink69 Formula One 23 13 Jun 2002 19:41
could we be seeing privateer's running customer cars from top teams in the future? OVERSTEER Formula One 25 17 May 2002 23:52


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.