[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[wolfhound]

If a cost cap comes in and is effective I suspect the big teams will have legacy benefits that will gradually eroded leading to a much closer field.

I have noticed in recent times there have been no leaks about the discussions or any threats of teams pulling out of F1. That would tend to indicate that the talks are making progress. (I am referring primarily to the future Teams, Liberty, FIA talks about F1 structures).

I suspect we will know more when the new rules are published. It is also notable that when the FIA looked for tenders for standard gearboxes and brakes there was no comment from the the teams.

[wnut]

To me the best form of cost cap would be a hard cost cap on the PUs, a low cost say $30 000 a unit, and the issuing of said PUs by the FIA from a pool.

All the current cost of PUs does is transfer a great deal of wealth from independent teams to the manufacturers. ($45million per team per year)

From the point of view of passing the legislation it is a pity that RBR are now teamed up with Honda, they no longer have an interest in capping the cost of PUs as a semi-works team.

The standardization of gearbox internals is also a good move from a cost control POV, would be better just to spec a common gearbox.

I do not believe that the manufacturers will ever agree to a cost cap and auditing of such a cap, and further do not believe that it would be possible to perform a meaningful of transfer costs from the various departments in an organization like Mercedes. The costs are basically what they say they are.

[S griffin]

I think PUs too is the best place to cost cap. I don't see them worth investing all that on them. It would be nice to see more teams get better deals from the top manufacturers, although I can understand why it isn't always possible.

Standard gearboxes may or may not work. Obviously the best teams would still find their way around the regulations. Merc will probably still be on top for a while

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

This very well may be an effort to delay "years". For sure... there is no guarantee that the radical (for F1) cost capped proposal will come to be. It still can fall apart. But I have a different view on that article. As written the article has a strong story to tell without seeing it as a way to kill or delay (by years) the 2021 proposal.

The article simply talks about how the larger teams want to implement the agreement as late as possible and the small teams as soon as possible. With the disagreement being over months and not years.

Keeping the 2021 technical specs up in the air as long as possible hurts the smaller teams the most (which the article calls out). So the small teams... want the agreement signed earlier (June 2019). The large teams... want the agreement signed later (October - December 2019).

With the technical regulations up in the air, the small teams can't afford to do extensive design work if in the end... there are last minute tweaks that could invalidate earlier work. Money down the drain. Not what cash strapped teams can risk doing.

The large teams are likely driving the technical regulations, so there could be some repeat of the Mercedes situation in which a large player pushes the regulations in a direction they are already prepared to excel in. The large teams likely claim they are taking the time to "make sure we all get the regulations correct". There may be a bit of truth to that, but I expect they already know what they plan to support and just are looking to steal a march on the small teams.

Also, while I believe the cost caps are a phased implementation and maybe not tied to the signature date (or maybe it is!), the more the well funded teams can use un-capped funds today to study and design for a future 2021 cost capped car, the better for them and the worse for the current under funded teams.

Richard

Good point here Richard, I must admit that it looked like they were trying to put the changes off for years rather than just months. Cockpit protection style!

The one I would particularly like to pick up on is this bit:

"The article simply talks about how the larger teams want to implement the agreement as late as possible and the small teams as soon as possible. With the disagreement being over months and not years."

From what I understand from the press, this agreement has to be in place by the end of May, and any extension will require the agreement of all the teams, that seems unlikely.
So how will it be swung?

[wnut]

A good rule to introduce would be to limit allowable boost pressures, you have fuel flow regulation and max turbo rpm, so you may as well limit maximum boost, time for blow off valves.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by wnut

A good rule to introduce would be to limit allowable boost pressures, you have fuel flow regulation and max turbo rpm, so you may as well limit maximum boost, time for blow off valves.

I can understand what you're trying to achieve here (power equalisation) but if one of the manufacturers can get their engines to run reliably with higher boost pressures (so more air) on the same fuel flow, this is good for fuel efficiency so worthwhile research in my opinion.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I can understand what you're trying to achieve here (power equalisation) but if one of the manufacturers can get their engines to run reliably with higher boost pressures (so more air) on the same fuel flow, this is good for fuel efficiency so worthwhile research in my opinion.

I agree with your logic here Viva, however the manufacturer concerned sank billions of dollars into the achievement when the rest of the series was adhering to a "gentleman's" budget cap.
The advantage the said manufacturer is enjoying from the rules they helped write is ruining the series.

I believe that the advantage being enjoyed is the result of ultra lean burn technology and some trick whereby they can run ultra high boost (compared to everyone else) and they enjoy a huge performance advantage.

Questions still have to be asked about the mandated standard mapping that must be run by their customers too.

[chunterer]

Anyone seen the piece by Brundle.

Ouch, possibly his most scathing yet very accurate verdict on the dire situation that F1 (and us fans) face.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24...future-visions.

[ApexTurtle]

I was somewhat with him until he started to wax lyrical about the 'good old times' like so many old dudes do. Yaaaawn.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I was somewhat with him until he started to wax lyrical about the 'good old times' like so many old dudes do. Yaaaawn.

Herein lies the problem. It's boring because young people appear to have no grasp of what this sport is supposed to be about. As evidenced by the above disparaging remark. I note the remark has no actual response other than childishness.

Fact is, whether you like it or not Brundle, Needell etc. know what racing is about and their thoughts and opinions are far more important than some anonymous keyboard warrior.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I never knew he ran a car dealership.

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Herein lies the problem. It's boring because young people appear to have no grasp of what this sport is supposed to be about. As evidenced by the above disparaging remark. I note the remark has no actual response other than childishness.

Fact is, whether you like it or not Brundle, Needell etc. know what racing is about and their thoughts and opinions are far more important than some anonymous keyboard warrior.

Calm down mister, think of your heart rate! I am flattered you seem to imply I'm young though, so that's a compliment I will take on board from this.

On a more constructive note, I find your point about what the sport is supposed to be about intruiging. Who does know that? And why are their opinions more important? The point about age is also interesting, because it seems you are somewhat confused about who runs F1. Where are these supposed young people who have so much influence that they make the sport boring? They're not in the upper management, neither of F1 or the teams. They're not the ones watching either, F1's viewership skews very much to the older side. Old gray haired dudes are the ones making decisions and that's been the same for decades. Maybe that is something that needs changing.

[Peter Mallett]

Yup. In fact him and Robin, his brother, were sponsored by the family garage in the BTCC (or BSCC as was).

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I was somewhat with him until he started to wax lyrical about the 'good old times' like so many old dudes do. Yaaaawn.

In case that you didn't read the whole article, I show below a paragraph from it which appears to contradict your reading of said article:

Let's look for some positives, as we proper fans always do. But firstly, let's not pretend it was way better years or decades ago, a quick check of most results sheets underlines that.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Calm down mister, think of your heart rate! I am flattered you seem to imply I'm young though, so that's a compliment I will take on board from this.

Think of it as a comment about your mental age.

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

In case that you didn't read the whole article, I show below a paragraph from it which appears to contradict your reading of said article:

I think that he rather just contradicts himself there. A little bit further he goes on to talk about the 'unpredictability' of yesteryear.

It's very to shout from the sidelines but Brundle here offers nothing but that. Just look at this sentence:

But I want the fastest 26 drivers in the world in angry F1 cars, nose to tail, run by sustainable teams at viable and varying circuits.

Sure, great. We all want that. But how? Brundles doesn't offer anything at all. At least Stefan Johansen gave that a try.

[Peter Mallett]

Seems there are many who agree with Brundle.

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=h...5&widget=Tweet

[ApexTurtle]

Some random people on twitter are indeed more important to our discussion than the resident posters, I'm sure.

[Peter Mallett]

I was referencing the journalists who specialize in Formula 1.

[ApexTurtle]

Then I will ask again, and this is probably the final time, what do those people know about what F1 'should' be? What qualifies them as having an opinion worth sharing?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

It's boring because young people appear to have no grasp of what this sport is supposed to be about.

I find this a strange point. What leads you to think that young people have no grasp - is it because the general opinion of more youthful fans (or who would like to be fans) have a different opinion on what F1 should be to your own?

1,133 posts (currently) in a thread titled 'How to fix F1' would suggest that their is a significant proportion of individuals who think it needs fixing - ergo what F1 is today is not what most feel it should be.

I'm fairly confident that all of those who would like to see F1 change include people from all age brackets.

Or is it more a case of - those who think F1 today is what the sport should be about tend to be more mature?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I find this a strange point. What leads you to think that young people have no grasp - is it because the general opinion of more youthful fans (or who would like to be fans) have a different opinion on what F1 should be to your own?

1,133 posts (currently) in a thread titled 'How to fix F1' would suggest that their is a significant proportion of individuals who think it needs fixing - ergo what F1 is today is not what most feel it should be.

I'm fairly confident that all of those who would like to see F1 change include people from all age brackets.

Or is it more a case of - those who think F1 today is what the sport should be about tend to be more mature?

No. If someone expresses an opinion then that's fine. But to dismiss something with words such as "yawn" etc. is purile. Happy to debate a subject anytime.

But overall the current technology race is being decried by the majority on a regular basis yet that same majority clearly won't recognise the problem. Budget caps will never work since you can't stop people developing solutions to problems.

Ergo the best way to increase competition is to ditch these daft hybrids, make the cars lighter and more driveable, get rid of DRS and stupid "floors" and give everyone the same wings with ground effect.

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But overall the current technology race is being decried by the majority on a regular basis yet that same majority clearly won't recognise the problem.

Or maybe *shock horror* they don't think F1 has the same problems you do. Perhaps it's worth the time to broaden your horizons a bit.

[midgetman]

No, no, no, no, no to more standardisation. This is the pinnacle of motor sport engineering not Formula Renault Eurocup.

What the Brundle article shows is he hasn't got a bloody clue what to do, either. If he wants a "train of 26 drivers" then he needs a late 20th century Formal Ford revival, not an engineering formula for the most aerodynamically efficient cars on the planet. That was very much a Boris Johnson article, full of "what's wrong" and light on "what to do."

Me? I don't have any ideas either but then I'm not paid £1000s for my clueless comments.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Or maybe *shock horror* they don't think F1 has the same problems you do. Perhaps it's worth the time to broaden your horizons a bit.

No surprise that people disagree with me. I'm used to it. However I have a very broad spectrum of experience in motor sport so I'm as qualified as anyone to put my ideas forward. As I said the majority bemoan where we are yet appear to think the status quo works. So I suggest we close this thread since to disagree with the majority is just not correct.

Max: I agree standardization would be a backward step but it is IMO the only way to stop the moneyed teams from spending umpteen millions on that last .05BHP!