What if F1 had Standard Chassis

[duke_toaster]

Having a whole spec chassis is just not F1. However I don't mind a number of standard parts. The standard ECU is necessary to prevent TC coming back, and the control tyre is a good idea for several reasons. Bringing in spec and open telemetry is certainly a good idea (mainly for fan interest reasons and cheat spotting than any other). I can see that there are arguments for bringing in standard aero parts, although I'm yet to be entirely convinced. Certainly the rules need to be tightened up significantly.

I'd rather that the second tier wasn't a spec series (or the even worse status quo, a cornucopia of spec series that are weighing down junior motorsport), but that is a matter for another thread.

EDIT : No time for a party ... but 4,500th post

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Marbot

And to hell with the planet!

Time to replace the fairy cake.

Anyway.

Spec. series are dull. It isn't just about the cars, it isn't just about the drivers, it isn't just about the engines, it should be a wonderful combination of all three (and other things) that makes it complex and interesting.

Simple cars appeal to simple people.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It isn't just about the cars, it isn't just about the drivers, it isn't just about the engines, it should be a wonderful combination of all three (and other things) that makes it complex and interesting.

I would agree with that entirely were it not for the fact that "complex and interesting" are kept in check by "expensive and irrelevant".

Originally Posted by Adam43

Simple cars appeal to simple people.

We are only talking about a standard chassis here aren't we?

[Adam43]

Yes.

I'm also not against "irrelevant" in racing. Although not in posts.

[I Rosputnik]

Wow, the F1 board moves fast.

Anyway, seeing as I didn't say my opinion in the first post, I think the idea sounds nice and would be a good way of saving costs, but I think it wouldn't work in a series like F1.

[Teretonga]

I would say no.
F1 is about technical stuff so a standard engine, gearbox and chassis is a non starter.
This is the ultimate in motor car racing technology.
However the subsequent tightening of regulation over the years as a means of capturing rampant technology has failed us.
What we now have is huge amounts of engineering resource poured into restricted areas trying to find microseconds of advantage.

The current engine freeze stopped some of thast resource being poured into engines although one wonders with the refuelling ban in place if a team came up with an engine that used 20% less fuel for a same level of performance its users would have a huge advantage and the technology may be directly relevant to road applications.

Aero is one of the few areas left to explore and in terms of significant development advantage it is the most obvious area to gain or lose a speed advantage.
Yet the development of appendages (wings) is the least applicable technology to motor cars outside of a singleseater racing environment.
In that sense it is the area most relevant to a ban on development and the easiest way to limit some of that development is to put in place some standardistation of wing and underbody/diffuser system.

If the open regulation was redirected to fuel flow technology, hybrid systems and mechanical grip we may see development resources redirected to more relevant areas

Thats why I am against the standard chassis idea and in favour of a standard design and supply of wing/underbody.diffuser elements.
Take away the ability to direct resource to aero and it will be directed to more profitable areas probvided the regualtory environment allows teams and their engineers to do that.

[pannenmann]

Originally Posted by Marbot

747's don't have to justify their existence quite so much as F1 does.

That's part of the problem isn't it? Quite illogical when you think about it: F1 provides entertainment and fun for millions of people spread over months. Whereas the starting 747 provides fun only for its passengers flying to some remote exotic island for no longer than 2 weeks. Looking at it in a neutral way, it's the holidays that should be banned / made more expensive as F1 certainly provides greater spare time value than the 747. Plus you can have a nice holiday somewhere in your country. But of course its easier to blame things that don't affect your own interests, that's why most people (which aren't racing fans but probably flying into their holiday) rather accuse motor sports instead of a bigger problem caused by them. Not eating meat anymore would also improve quite a lot, not even starting with buying useless new products even though the old existing one just works fine. But the meachnism is just the same as people being against fur but wearing leather. Or the SUV driver looking down at the dirty CO2 polluting Porsche car.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There seems to be some difficulty with that at the moment. On both political and technical levels.

Let me clarify. It's cars going fast on a track.

[HughGJohnson]

From the what would make you stop watching thread:

Originally Posted by HughGJohnson

I actually couldn't think of anything, until I saw this thread:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123913

spec cars=

The thought alone makes me .

[garcon]

Just to be clear, Hugh... is that a no?

[bjohnsonsmith]

F1 is pretty much like a spec series as it is. A standard engine design and specification, that all teams must comply with; no variations like Flat 12s, V 10s, etc. An aero package that's virtually identical to all the other teams and one make of tyre, all sounds very homogenous.

[tristancliffe]

Being nearly a spec series is VERY different from being a dull spec series.

I'll stop watching when it becomes one.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

Being nearly a spec series is VERY different from being a dull spec series.

I'll stop watching when it becomes one.

F1 could do well to look at some of the 'dull spec series' as the racing there is often a lot more entertaining. If F1 can do better with an open formula, then it should. If it can't, then it should grab the gargantuan cash savings and go spec. This 'worst of both' situation we have at the moment seems imbecilic.

[Adam43]

We all best go and watch those entertaining spec. series and ignore F1. After you...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by davyboy

F1 could do well to look at some of the 'dull spec series' as the racing there is often a lot more entertaining. If F1 can do better with an open formula, then it should. If it can't, then it should grab the gargantuan cash savings and go spec. This 'worst of both' situation we have at the moment seems imbecilic.

No fault in this logic, as BJ says it is pretty well comppletely a spec series.
You would think the aero could be spec and save everyone a heap of time money and aggravation and improve the show ........

[SSbaby]

You mean, become a silhouette formula?

Good way to stifle development and lose interest in the ultimate motorsport category. I thought Formula Ford was good for that type of thing?

I've seen the damage that 'socialism' (I am apolitical as a rule) has done to V8Supercars to the point where it has done irreversible damage to the sport... after decades of ascending popularity.

Just my 2 pesos.

[cptkablamo]

Or what about they get rid of all these restrictions, let team's innovate and if you lose - innovate yourself...have whatever engine you like, aero layout etc...rules include...four tyres, be safe.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

You mean, become a silhouette formula?

Good way to stifle development and lose interest in the ultimate motorsport category. I thought Formula Ford was good for that type of thing?

I've seen the damage that 'socialism' (I am apolitical as a rule) has done to V8Supercars to the point where it has done irreversible damage to the sport... after decades of ascending popularity.

Just my 2 pesos.

The comparison of F1 with spec aero to FF and V8 supercars is not accurate.

FF uses only Ford engines and Hewland gearboxes every modification is regulated and policed the chassis are open and there is an interesting mix of manufacturers.
V8 Supercars are only Holden or Ford and all the chassis components are standard with only small variations between chassis builders - aero is standard on each make.

If V8 supercars and FF were not "one make series" and open to all manufacturers and more modern technology both series imo would attract much better funding and be far more successful.
The only difference between F1 today and Spec wings would be the wings themselves!

Besides the racing in V8 Supercars is pretty well non existant!
Qualifying followed by a crapshoot in the pits and random safety cars.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by wnut

The comparison of F1 with spec aero to FF and V8 supercars is not accurate.

FF uses only Ford engines and Hewland gearboxes every modification is regulated and policed the chassis are open and there is an interesting mix of manufacturers.
V8 Supercars are only Holden or Ford and all the chassis components are standard with only small variations between chassis builders - aero is standard on each make.

If V8 supercars and FF were not "one make series" and open to all manufacturers and more modern technology both series imo would attract much better funding and be far more successful.
The only difference between F1 today and Spec wings would be the wings themselves!

Besides the racing in V8 Supercars is pretty well non existant!
Qualifying followed by a crapshoot in the pits and random safety cars.

You are forgetting one basic fact!

F1 is a development formula, NOT a parity formula.

Let be the status quo.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Good way to stifle development and lose interest in the ultimate motorsport category. I thought Formula Ford was good for that type of thing?

Where's the chassis, engine, electronics and tyre development in Formula One ? In fact most of the aero envelope is already spec... hence the reason they all look the same. The 'development' is confined to a few small areas of socially useless aero that few understand and virtually nobody can see. Either open up the regulations to allow development in tyres, chassis, engines, electronics etc... and promote broad innovation, or close them down to a spec. formula.

[RTH]

One-make Formula 1, well I would stop watching it.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Where's the chassis, engine, electronics and tyre development in Formula One ? In fact most of the aero envelope is already spec... hence the reason they all look the same. The 'development' is confined to a few small areas of socially useless aero that few understand and virtually nobody can see. Either open up the regulations to allow development in tyres, chassis, engines, electronics etc... and promote broad innovation, or close them down to a spec. formula.

I'm not sure I follow your questioning but my first thought is "are you joking?".

There is lot's of engine development (Renault vs Mercedes, power/engine weight, centre of gravity) as there is in electronics (traction control, fuel economy etc... - and let's not mention KERS).

Tyre development continues unabated thanks to the supplier(s).

Although the chassis might look similar (to you) there is no way you could possibly assume a wing from the RBR chassis will instantly work on a Ferrari and vice-versa. Aero development doesn't just involve one part. It's integral to the whole car.

F1 is about pushing the envelope. Despite the restrictions in tyres, wings, engine size, power and the advent of the GFC which has reduced spending on racecraft, today's F1 cars are quicker than ever... thanks to the teams that continue to push the envelope.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

I'm not sure I follow your questioning but my first thought is "are you joking?".

There is lot's of engine development (Renault vs Mercedes, power/engine weight, centre of gravity) as there is in electronics (traction control, fuel economy etc... - and let's not mention KERS).

How much engine development has been done this year. Aren't the engines homologated with changes only allowed under consent from the FIA ?

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Tyre development continues unabated thanks to the supplier(s).

The tyres are spec. from a single supplier. There's no competition between the teams on tyre development.

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Although the chassis might look similar (to you) there is no way you could possibly assume a wing from the RBR chassis will instantly work on a Ferrari and vice-versa. Aero development doesn't just involve one part. It's integral to the whole car.

In a greyed line up, would you be able to correctly identify which car belongs to which team ? Even the most ardent enthusiast would find that difficult.

Yes of course a car's fluid dynamics are an integral package. My point was that large parts of the car's aero are already spec. meaning that the development 'zones' are highly restricted.

[ASCII Man]

Just because there's only limited changes being allowed doesn't mean there is absolutely no development.
Why else would engine suppliers ask for engine equalizations so they could implement upgrades if they haven't been developing their engines?

Plus Bridgestone does analyze and develop their tyres, not at the same rate as during the tyre wars, but still.

Originally Posted by davyboy

In a greyed line up, would you be able to correctly identify which car belongs to which team ? Even the most ardent enthusiast would find that difficult.

Yes, I would, and I'm not that much of an enthusiast.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Yes, I would, and I'm not that much of an enthusiast.

I think that's fairly obvious