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 28 Feb 2009, 11:10 (Ref:2406000)   #1
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
FIA : New teams, cheap cars and a "radical" proposal

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre.../f1_costs.aspx

The WMSC meeting is on 17th of March. Now, what will be discussed?
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier."
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 11:28 (Ref:2406009)   #2
Daniel Pinnegar
Racer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
United Kingdom
Southampton UK
Posts: 184
Daniel Pinnegar should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Hmm!! Lets just wait and see what the WMSC meeting comes to a conclusion about it!
Daniel Pinnegar is offline  
__________________
Murray Walker: There is some debate as to whether Roset is Formula 1 material."
Martin Brundle: "It's a pretty short debate Murray."
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 11:33 (Ref:2406011)   #3
Peter Mallett
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
 
Peter Mallett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
England
Here and there
Posts: 37,234
Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!Peter Mallett is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Indeed let's not discuss possibilities on a discussion forum.
Peter Mallett is offline  
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead.
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 11:35 (Ref:2406014)   #4
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!
I posted that link in the 'other' thread.

It's going to be the way ahead if F1 is to get through this downturn.We keep hearing the teams telling us that they'll be OK,but they would always say that wouldn't they.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 17:57 (Ref:2406083)   #5
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
I fear a further standardization of the series.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 18:14 (Ref:2406097)   #6
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
I fear a further standardization of the series.
Yep,there'll be some more of that!

But we could well do without the £800 wheelnuts and the multi-million dollar suspension components that are pretty much doing similar things on all of the cars.The gearboxes are much the same,as are the engines,but then you'd have to at least leave them something to stick a badge on.

What we've had recently anyway is a refinement of components rather than any innovation,so not much change really.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 19:49 (Ref:2406141)   #7
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
Marbot, I agree teams are spending awful lots of money on quite useless things. But a standardization is not the right answer, as it will make teams to spend even more money on useless parts! Currently the manufactures are spending a couple of millions on the development of the exhaust pipe, resulting in an increase of engine power by no more than 4 bhp per season. But that's only because manufactures can't spend that very same money on engine development any more. If manufactures can't spend their money in the best development area, they'll use it for the second best development area.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 20:34 (Ref:2406161)   #8
Rf1 Fan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 574
Rf1 Fan should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I think for make car more cheaper they will have to standardise some parts of the cars (suspension,"Shock absorbers ",breaks) like in WTCC.

Because the most expensive thing in Formula one by far is Research and devellopement.
Rf1 Fan is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Feb 2009, 21:20 (Ref:2406188)   #9
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
I think the opposition to spec parts is sometimes based on more paranoia than anything. The control tyre has prevented any major farces and the standard ECU has been one way to get rid of TC once and for all (when TC was banned and there was no standard ECU there were all sorts of wacky things like airflow sensors to calculate speed and similar methods of pure cheating).

Certain headline parts are areas for major road relevancy and are the locations of manufacturer gimmicks. The main one of these is engines.

Each manufacturer has their own preferred technologies : Honda like VVT, Mazda have rotary engines, etc. Engines also are a system where the outcome is quanitfyable (power and torque curves). What could be an idea there is allowing different methods (different engine configurations) but requiring a certain outcome (six races, 780hp at peak power, certain amount of torque) and outcomes in other areas could be measured and rewarded (fuel economy). The advantage of this system could mean road relevant technology development for manufacturer teams, whilst privateers would have the option of sticking a cheaper Cosworth or Judd unit under the bonnet and going racing with the same amount of power.

Then again, some bits are not road relevant. I don't forsee any situation in the near future that people will be doing the school run in cars with carbon fibre suspension. Would anyone really care or notice if carbon components were banned from certain areas and suspension wishbones were made out of steel?

What I propose there for independant teams is a new aspect to the technical regulations : the catalogue.

There could be a limit on the costs of individual parts. An engine can't cost more than €X, a complete suspension set has to cost no more than €Y and a complete car no more than €Z. Similar rules are being planned for the Moto2 regulations in motorcycle racing, and I guess this has similarities to the "claimer rules" in many areas of club level motorsport.
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier."
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 03:33 (Ref:2406384)   #10
Spawinte
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Ireland
Dundalk, Ireland
Posts: 46
Spawinte should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Ok, so you standardise certain parts to stop the endless refining but then the door is closed forever for any future revolutionary innovations in these areas. You keep doing this and you have a spec series. Unless of course the FIA open up new areas of competition like they said they would. But then they are already talking about standardising KERS and it hasn't even been raced yet.
Spawinte is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 03:45 (Ref:2406387)   #11
Armco Bender
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
 
Armco Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
New Zealand
International Sheep Ambassador
Posts: 4,212
Armco Bender is going for a new world record!Armco Bender is going for a new world record!Armco Bender is going for a new world record!Armco Bender is going for a new world record!Armco Bender is going for a new world record!Armco Bender is going for a new world record!Armco Bender is going for a new world record!
Buy out A1GP,the're going broke,all problems solved and everyones happy and gets a Ferrari engine.
Armco Bender is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 09:20 (Ref:2406467)   #12
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawinte View Post
Ok, so you standardise certain parts to stop the endless refining but then the door is closed forever for any future revolutionary innovations in these areas. You keep doing this and you have a spec series. Unless of course the FIA open up new areas of competition like they said they would. But then they are already talking about standardising KERS and it hasn't even been raced yet.
I agree that a standard KERS system would be silly (a minimum weight and/or size for KERS, or in deed outright weight distribution could be reasonable as that's what half of the development is out), although eventually requiring them to last six races to make them more road relevant would be sensible. That could mean mechanical rather than electrical systems.

KERS could make F1 more interesting for technical reasons this year, along with the aerodynamics haircut.

The FIA should open up engines for more development, possibly on a system like I propose regarding restricting outcomes, not methods. Those two clutch gearboxes could be allowed (the outcome that could be limited there could be cost), and KERS is on a similar system now.

However, my opinion that things like suspension ought to be heavily reined in by making the systems out of steel only and requiring the teams to use customer shocks and similar. Brakes discs could be done by requiring they are made out of ceramic materials rather than carbon, and a maximum cost for sale. Would anyone notice or care if certain parts of the bodywork were GRP rather than carbon fibre?
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier."
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 09:49 (Ref:2406489)   #13
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 duke_toaster View Post
I think the opposition to spec parts is sometimes based on more paranoia than anything. The control tyre has prevented any major farces and the standard ECU has been one way to get rid of TC once and for all (when TC was banned and there was no standard ECU there were all sorts of wacky things like airflow sensors to calculate speed and similar methods of pure cheating).
The 2005 United States Grand Prix was used by the FIA to justify the control tyre. But actually the tyre war had nothing to do with the farce: Michelin simply didn't know about the new tarmac and hence they made a mistake in the production proces. Bridgestone knew about the new tarmac because it ownes IRL's sole tyre manufacture, Firestone. And they had troubles too in 2005. In that very same year NASCAR's had its own farce too, despite having a long tradition with control tyres.

In my opinion the standard ECU wasn't introduced to eliminate traction control but to gain an extra instrument to equalize the performances if found necessary. In the WTCC traction control is banned but without a standard ECU, despite that the WTCC-cars are based on road cars normally fitted with this driver aid.

Quote:
Each manufacturer has their own preferred technologies : Honda like VVT, Mazda have rotary engines, etc. Engines also are a system where the outcome is quanitfyable (power and torque curves). What could be an idea there is allowing different methods (different engine configurations) but requiring a certain outcome (six races, 780hp at peak power, certain amount of torque) and outcomes in other areas could be measured and rewarded (fuel economy). The advantage of this system could mean road relevant technology development for manufacturer teams, whilst privateers would have the option of sticking a cheaper Cosworth or Judd unit under the bonnet and going racing with the same amount of power.
Reduce the fuel economy to no more than 20 liter per 100 kilometres. Engine manufactures will start to focus more on improving fuel consumption than on specific power output, and this has considerable relevance to production engines. Engine rpm will be reduced in order to improve specific fuel consumption, engine noise will improve as frequency is lowered and engine life and durability will also improve with reduced rpm. A reduction in engine rpm by limiting peak fuel flow will encourage the use of gasoline direct injection in racing engines. Engine manufacturers would clearly like to use GDI in Formula 1 but the high engine speeds make it extremely difficult to apply this technology.

If fuel economy is to be reduced to 20 litres per 100 kilomtres, teams could decide the ue of production-based engine. In fact, a Ferrari F430 consumes about 25 litres of gasoline per 100 kilometres.

Quote:
Then again, some bits are not road relevant. I don't forsee any situation in the near future that people will be doing the school run in cars with carbon fibre suspension. Would anyone really care or notice if carbon components were banned from certain areas and suspension wishbones were made out of steel?
Back in 1905 nobody could forsee common man to have a car. No knows what would have happened from then if they banned cars from racing because 'nobody would really care'.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 10:09 (Ref:2406504)   #14
Slip Digby
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
United Kingdom
Slum-on-Sea
Posts: 3
Slip Digby should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I think they'll decide to send 10 cars one way round the tracks and the other 10 the other way...at the same time. Wouldn't that be fun?

Slip
Slip Digby is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 11:42 (Ref:2406566)   #15
Sodemo
Veteran
 
Sodemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
United Kingdom
Solihull, West Mids, UK
Posts: 11,147
Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!
I think it will be a standard chassis, to which manufacturer's can fit their own engines to. Everything standard bar the engine.

Or perhaps just a standard tub, and the teams can produce their own wings?

In any case, I just hope they widen the cars and make the rear slicks wider too.
Sodemo is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 11:52 (Ref:2406576)   #16
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
A standard "bathtub" could be a sensible decision, reducing crash tests. However, bearing in mind McLaren got hectored for not crash testing a gearbox casing (!) would that remove all of the crash testing though?

The thought of a single chassis option to race against manufacturer built cars could be interested, although Frank Williams could get a little bit unhappy.

Interesting that the reverse of that (privateer engine option) died quietly ...
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier."
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 12:06 (Ref:2406581)   #17
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 Sodemo View Post
I think it will be a standard chassis, to which manufacturer's can fit their own engines to. Everything standard bar the engine.

Or perhaps just a standard tub, and the teams can produce their own wings?

In any case, I just hope they widen the cars and make the rear slicks wider too.
The tub is the very basics of the car. If the tub is to be standardized, there's no argument left against a spec series. A better way to reduce costs is to allow a customer chassis and keep the rules the same for at least three consecutive seasons. In that case, teams could decide to use the same tub for a couple of years.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 12:32 (Ref:2406591)   #18
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 only new innovation we have is KERS,which is seriously hampered (except in Williams's case) by its battery technology.But what we must realise is that KERS is actually 'old hat' now,and manufacturers such as Honda are moving onto more efficient fuels and engines to power their cars.Engines which,quite frankly,no self respecting 'petrol-head' would tolerate.

F1 cannot be all things to all men.It should do what it should do best,entertain the public.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 12:42 (Ref:2406595)   #19
Sodemo
Veteran
 
Sodemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
United Kingdom
Solihull, West Mids, UK
Posts: 11,147
Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
The tub is the very basics of the car. If the tub is to be standardized, there's no argument left against a spec series. A better way to reduce costs is to allow a customer chassis and keep the rules the same for at least three consecutive seasons. In that case, teams could decide to use the same tub for a couple of years.
Yes, I agree, however the ability to make small changes such as provide their own engine covers, nose sections and wings might be enough to appease the "purists" and the manufacturers that there is still some development, albeit very restricted.
Sodemo is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 13:14 (Ref:2406611)   #20
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 Sodemo View Post
Yes, I agree, however the ability to make small changes such as provide their own engine covers, nose sections and wings might be enough to appease the "purists" [...]
I consider myself as one of those "purists".
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Mar 2009, 16:12 (Ref:2406714)   #21
nic.v814
Racer
 
nic.v814's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
New Zealand
Perth
Posts: 419
nic.v814 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Im glad they are finally making these changes they should have been done 10 years or more ago.

Anyway i think customer cars and engines are the way to go to cut costs
nic.v814 is offline  
__________________
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;and I'm not sure about the universe."
'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Quote
Old 2 Mar 2009, 21:37 (Ref:2407629)   #22
Devilsadvocate
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 75
Devilsadvocate should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
My understanding (and that could be entirely wrong) is that this meeting is to "ratify" (or not) the FOTA proposals to be made public on 5 March.
Devilsadvocate is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Mar 2009, 20:54 (Ref:2408402)   #23
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
I saw on an other source (I think it was SPEED, but I can't find it on their site) that this could mean that there being a slightly different set of rules for privateer teams ...
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier."
Quote
Old 3 Mar 2009, 21:25 (Ref:2408435)   #24
Crazy_Pigal
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2002
United Kingdom
West Sussex
Posts: 54
Crazy_Pigal should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I see they're trying out 2010 tyres already, I was dissappointed to see that they're the same size as this years, come on FIA bite the bullet & give us some decent width on the rears!
Crazy_Pigal is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Mar 2009, 23:38 (Ref:2408525)   #25
Sodemo
Veteran
 
Sodemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
United Kingdom
Solihull, West Mids, UK
Posts: 11,147
Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Pigal View Post
I see they're trying out 2010 tyres already, I was dissappointed to see that they're the same size as this years, come on FIA bite the bullet & give us some decent width on the rears!
Yep, widen the rears by 2-3 inches, then widen the cars and I will be "happy".
Sodemo 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
"rate a GP" proposal koper Formula One 13 30 Mar 2008 20:30
any cheap "race ready" stockhatch's for sale? bigsi137 Rallying & Rallycross 12 7 Mar 2008 21:07
Monaco "package" deals - any cheap ones? Sodemo Trackside 2 15 Jan 2008 23:56
"cheap & exciting" racing - possible? cybersdorf Touring Car Racing 25 2 Nov 2004 16:47
FIA: "We want to slow the cars down" (again) Sodemo Formula One 45 12 Apr 2004 20:43


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16.


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.