The madness of unneccessary F1 costs.

[csirl]

Some food for thought.

Looked at the qualifying times for the Spanish GP – comparing F1 with GP2.

The GP2 pole sitter, Richelmi, would have qualified 18th on the F1 grid. If there were combined qualification for the F1 race, Bianchi and the 2 x Caterhams would have no chance of qualification.

Looking at the GP2 qualification. There are 4 GP2 drivers faster than Chilton. 11 faster than Bianchi and 13 faster than both Caterhams.

So, essentially we have F1 cars which are not capable of qualifying in the top half of the GP2 field and conversely, GP2 cars which are competitive with a good proportion of the F1 field.

Someone said on this forum a while back that one of the reasons there were loads of cars in the early 90s was that you could enter something akin to a modified F3000 car (former name of GP2), so the cost barrier was very low.

I have no doubt that Caterham and Marussia spent many multiples of the cost of the GP2 car on their F1 chasis. This shows the madness of F1. Spending a lot more money to get an inferior car.

Highlights the following:

1. It is possible for a mass produced off the shelf car to be competitive in F1 – the GP2 Dallara proves this point.

2. A few modifications to a GP2 car e.g. F1 spec engine, would probably push is further up the field.

3. We’d have much better, closer racing, with more teams with some rule modifications which eliminate the need to spend so much money. Even if you didn’t permit mass produced cars, I’m sure the Dallara was cheaper and easier to build than the Caterham and Marussia.

4. Makes a mockery of those in F1 who say that you need to spend loads of money to get a car good enough to compete in F1.

I know people will go on about the rules being different etc. imposing more expense on F1 teams. But, we need to wake up here. Are these rules necessary? GP2 isnt exactly an alien form of motorsport when compared to F1.

I think there needs to be a root and branch review of the F1 rules to see what rules really contribute to it being the pinnacle of motorsport and which are restrictive and imposing unnecessary costs on teams.

[Richard C]

The comments about the lack of a gap between F1 and GP2 is a real concern. So yes you can build a car that is close to current F1 lap times for much less than F1 budget... But not by using the F1 specs. So I don't really agreed with talk of trying to start with a GP2 chassis and push it into F1. I don't follow GP2 at all. So I'm am ignorant as to the specs. But I assume they are different enough that once you try to convert a GP2 car to F1 spec (aero, powertrain, etc) that it will result in.... A very poor performing F1 car.

But! I agree that if you where to sync the rule sets and used a similar spec for the chassis in GP2 that if would make it easier for a new constructor to move from GP2 to F1. Oh, but wait, GP2 is a spec chassis series correct? I assume part of why it is cheaper to run GP2 is because everyone is not building their own cars.

Let them build there own cars to a shared spec and it might result in something that is not as fast as F1 but much closer in cost? Which might ruin the entire concept?

Richard

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by csirl

4. Makes a mockery of those in F1 who say that you need to spend loads of money to get a car good enough to compete in F1.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

No. The fact that Gp2 are faster than the new F1 teams who operate on smaller budgets than anyone else in the F1 field actually proves that you do need a mega budget to build a good enough car under F1 regs in order to be competitive in F1.

I agree with some of your other points though.

They are different cars built to different regulations. A WTCC or BTCC car would cost a fortune to put together, but would be slower than a cheaper "off the shelf" Porsche Supercup car for example.

[Richard C]

My post above with a bit rushed as I was getting out the door for work, so I didn't quite really make my point very well.

I think the comparison is difficult (Apples to Oranges) because GP2 uses a spec chassis, engine, etc. I don't know what the process was for deciding on the new spec chassis for GP2, but I assume it was generally...

* Build to a specific price point (teams likely only expect to pay a certain amount for a GP2 rolling chassis)
* Spec powertrain
* Spec tires
* General rough dimensions (width, lengths, weight, etc.)
* General target performance level (lap time range)
* General style (open cockpit, front and rear wings, etc.)

None of this is remotely close to F1 from a constructors point of view. F1 is about a given rule book that you build to and the ultimate performance just pops out the other end (with some being quick and some being slow).

GP2 is the reverse. Start with a solution and work backwards. Without significant restrictions (aero for example) it shouldn't have been hard to meet a reasonable lap time target at a low cost. The likely hardest part was that Dallara needed to make the car profitable for them, but easy for teams to maintain and allow for a decent range of setup options (i.e. don't design a car with a very narrow setup window).

However, GP2 has elements that some want to use in F1. Cost capped (GP2 likely built to a specific price point as mentioned above) and/or standardized parts (maybe not a standard chassis, but components).

I am a fan of the idea of a cost cap, but am very much opposed to standardized parts, particularly large components (such as front wings) that have performance impacts. Room for creative and impactful design needs to exist in F1. If you do utilize some level of standardized parts, it should be in areas that have little impact to performance (wheel nut is a good example) but are also expensive to implement on a per team basis (wheel nut is NOT a good example). I have a hard time coming up with a large list of items that fit both of my criteria (I am sure a few might exist).

Richard

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by csirl

Someone said on this forum a while back that one of the reasons there were loads of cars in the early 90s was that you could enter something akin to a modified F3000 car (former name of GP2), so the cost barrier was very low.

I think that was the entering F2 cars in the late '60's when the 3 liter formula made things more expensive.

The main thing about the early '90's was that is was just at the very beginning of the process of narrowing down areas for development under the theory it would reduce cost, when it has turned out it did the opposite.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I think that was the entering F2 cars in the late '60's when the 3 liter formula made things more expensive.

The main thing about the early '90's was that is was just at the very beginning of the process of narrowing down areas for development under the theory it would reduce cost, when it has turned out it did the opposite.

That's right miatanut. The fields in 1966-67 were paper thin...

But by the late 80's -1991 you could build a carbon fibre monocoque car, stick in a derivative of the 22+ year old Cosworth DFV (a 3.5 DFR/Z) and race competitively (ie. get a podium or close to it!) to score an occasional point (only down to 6th place!) and do it all for much less than $20 million. If you could only afford one car that was OK too.

When Bernie decided it was all reminding him of his car dealer days he created an environment to get rid of the new emerging garagiste's and have as many manufacturers involved as possible..... then Max sold him the 100+ year rights and that led to where we are today...

That multiplied the costs because they invested heavily in wind tunnels etc and spent millions in incremental development as regulators did what they could to slow them down.

[Adam43]

To save time just use copy and paste from last time.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

To save time just use copy and paste from last time.

I hadn't seen that particular content from Teretonga before.

Teretonga: Always good stuff!

If F1 could get out of the rut it is in, I think most fans would be amazed at how good the racing could be.

[Adam43]

It wasn't directed at Teretonga, more a general comment.

[csirl]

The GP2 base chasis i.e. the tub, is built to F1 standards. The ban on using an off the shelf chasis is one of the big cost problems. It makes no sense that practically every other part of an F1 car can be bought off the shelf i.e. engine, gearbox, electronics, suspension, yet the tub cannot.
So every F1 team has to independently set up a chasis production line and destroy chasis's in the various destruction safety tests in order to produce the small number they need for the season.

A cheaper way of doing F1 would be to allow teams to buy the standard Dallara tub and along with all the other off the shelf parts. The only thing they'd have to provide themselves is the aero package i.e the various bolt on body parts that cover everything - obviously the Dallara GP2 car is not up to F1 standards and maybe couldnt accommodate some F1 feature e.g. DRS.

As far as I'm aware, there is no rule against purchasing an off the shelf aero package? It's only the chasis?

It would be possible for Dallara or any number of specialist companies to develop base compliant F1 aero packages that can be bolted onto any tub. Aero development costs could be spread across a number of teams who are customers of a theoretic aero package company.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by csirl

The GP2 base chasis i.e. the tub, is built to F1 standards. The ban on using an off the shelf chasis is one of the big cost problems. It makes no sense that practically every other part of an F1 car can be bought off the shelf i.e. engine, gearbox, electronics, suspension, yet the tub cannot.
So every F1 team has to independently set up a chasis production line and destroy chasis's in the various destruction safety tests in order to produce the small number they need for the season.

A cheaper way of doing F1 would be to allow teams to buy the standard Dallara tub and along with all the other off the shelf parts. The only thing they'd have to provide themselves is the aero package i.e the various bolt on body parts that cover everything - obviously the Dallara GP2 car is not up to F1 standards and maybe couldnt accommodate some F1 feature e.g. DRS.

As far as I'm aware, there is no rule against purchasing an off the shelf aero package? It's only the chasis?

It would be possible for Dallara or any number of specialist companies to develop base compliant F1 aero packages that can be bolted onto any tub. Aero development costs could be spread across a number of teams who are customers of a theoretic aero package company.

F1 chassis are generally not destroyed in the pre season crash tests the only part that normally would sustain damage are the various impact absorbing structures on the car. If they pass the test as far as I know they can be used again. The most expensive part of the car is usually not the actual manufacture of the components but the R&D cost of developing them.
It is an essential part of the current F1 that everybody owns the design of their own car so it follows that have to build some of its major components. They can however get others to actually manufacture those components.
Even if teams could buy in off the shelf chassis this in itself would not represent a major saving because the big cost is aero in most cases. Again it is not manufacture cost for the aero parts but the development costs.
Do you know how much electricity a wind tunnel uses? They are very heavy users of electricity and then teams run them for as many hours as they can afford. They also need a constant supply of new parts to be tested etc. etc. All of this is a major cost.

[Peat]

Speaking of unnecessary costs, the subtle changes to front and rear wing regs for this cost the teams significantly in terms of £££ and man hours. Ridiculous considering how similar they look to last years.

[wolfhound]

That's why I believe a cost cap is essential to making F1 affordable.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

That's why I believe a cost cap is essential to making F1 affordable.

Just spec the right bits! There is no reason the front wing could not be constant chord, spec profile and single element.

Other than that is where the competitive edge and investment of the six major players in F1 comes from!


P.S. Could the insistence that they the F1 teams manufacture their own tubs be in the vain belief they may manufacture tubs for lesser formulae to offset the cost?

[davyboy]

Aside from the fact that they're significantly cheaper and faster than part of the F1 grid, GP2 cars look better, sound better and offer more exciting/unpredictable racing.

The simplest, fastest and most obvious way to reduce costs and improve F1 is to have them use GP2 cars

[wnut]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Aside from the fact that they're significantly cheaper and faster than part of the F1 grid, GP2 cars look better, sound better and offer more exciting/unpredictable racing.

The simplest, fastest and most obvious way to reduce costs and improve F1 is to have them use GP2 cars

No arguments from this section of the peanut gallery!

[Paradise City]

I'm not particularly fazed by the speed argument. That the top GP2 cars can touch the F1 slowcoaches amuses me, it doesn't faze me and isn't an argument for a cost cap. It's a tech regulatory issue really. Maybe they need reign in the GP2 cars but to be perfectly honest, whilst it has caused ripples of grumbling, it's not this big scandal or anything.

The question is whether a cost cap might prevent a couple of teams from exploding like one of those beached whales and one fine day we might wind up with 12 cars on the grid and lots of red faces. There's a few of these teams that are looking very sick.

However if the teams insist on spending themselves into oblivion, on their own heads be it.

I'm personally open to off the shelf chassis but such outfits should be excluded from the constructors championship and there should be a very clear incentive for teams to built their own chassis. Innovation is an important dimension for F1.

[JamesH]

Gp2 race is just over half the distance of the F1 race at Monaco.

GP2 car tank size is 40 US gal (151 L; 33 imp gal).
F1 tank size is, er, dunno.; It's not in the specs, but since they have 100kgs of fuel of lower density that 1kg/litre, they are probably about the same size.

So the F1 cars are doing double the distance on the same amount of fuel at the same or slightly higher speed.

So to make the comparison fair, that needs to be taken in to account. So, how quick would a GP2 car be if it had to adhere to the same fuel consumption rules as an F1 car.

The answer, not very fast at all.

Alternatively, if F1 cars had the same fuel rules as a GP2 car, how much faster would they be.

The answer is, lots.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Gp2 race is just over half the distance of the F1 race at Monaco.

GP2 car tank size is 40 US gal (151 L; 33 imp gal).
F1 tank size is, er, dunno.; It's not in the specs, but since they have 100kgs of fuel of lower density that 1kg/litre, they are probably about the same size.

So the F1 cars are doing double the distance on the same amount of fuel at the same or slightly higher speed.

So to make the comparison fair, that needs to be taken in to account. So, how quick would a GP2 car be if it had to adhere to the same fuel consumption rules as an F1 car.

The answer, not very fast at all.

Alternatively, if F1 cars had the same fuel rules as a GP2 car, how much faster would they be.

The answer is, lots.

the GP2s with F1 power units would be slower, the F1s with GP2 engines would be faster than they are now.

And I really don't care, I want to see them race like gokarts!

F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing, and it has got horribly lost in smoke and mirrors!

The GP2 cars would be superior racing cars in every way!

[davyboy]

Designing and building F1 cars is a socially useless waste of money. Now that it's an 'engine formula' better they issue them all with spec. chassis and maybe there's a chance that the teams in trouble survive. Rename the constructors championship the power makers championship and maybe you'd get a few more auto manufacturers involved.

[Casper]

After many threads discussing caps and regulations and boring racing etc can someone tell me what the massive amount of regulation has done for F1 besides stifle innovation and interesting racing. It can be said confidently that it certainly has not contained costs and has had a very negative effect on the whole spectrum of F1 activity. I cannot see where it has made any positive major contribution to any part of F1.

If my summary is correct then adding more regulation can't be good can it? Regulations in themselves have a proven track record over the last decade of doing nothing more than channelling the engineering R&D into narrow paths because the areas where the teams used to apply R&D (the whole car) are now restricted no go areas. Due to limits on R&D the teams now throw way more money at the areas they are allowed to simply because they need to find an edge somewhere and that edge gets more elusive as they refine those areas. It is like a sprinter, he or she gets to a performance level and to go any further takes a long dedicated amount of work. F1 is there in certain areas but because they can the teams will continue to wring the last bits where they can.

[Gingers4Justice]

I think part of the reason why F1 is so expensive is that it's so restricted. Rather than teams and manufacturers concentrating on developing their own answers to the question, everyone is racing almost exactly the same thing, so they have to spend millions of dollars/euros/pounds and spend countless human hours on developing tiny parts to gain the slightest of margins on their rivals. The new boys are treading water behind the teams that can afford or are willing to do this. The rules are so restricted that all the cars effectively have the same development path, meaning the ideal F1 car is actually out there and attainable, if you have the money to pull in all the best designers and engineers.

If you look at the WEC, where the current LMP1 care are arguably even more technically challenging, the are several different answers to the same question. A 2 litre, turbocharge V4 with ERS-K and ERS-H, a NA 3.7 Litre V8 with a super-capacitor, a 3.6 Litre V6 Turbodiesel with a flywheel hybrid system... but despite these cars having to run at spectacular speeds for 24 Hours, I'd bet the development costs of these power units were a lot less than the F1 versions.

The truth is the rule book is so restrictive that there is no room for innovation. There are some incredibly talented, young people at the lower teams who might be able to pull something surprising out of the bag if they were just allowed a bit more freedom.

I hated the World Engine concept for a number of reasons, but wouldn't it be nice if a manufacturer could develop an engine which actually COULD be used in more than one series. I just hated the idea of this being a certain type of engine. Wouldn't it be a great story if Red Bull ditched Renault for the Porsche V4...or if Ferrari gave the Indy 500 a go with their F1 engine in the back of an IndyCar...etc, etc.

We were told this year would be exciting because one of the manufacturers would get it seriously wrong. Well they haven't. They've all had to design the same engine, and guess what, will millions of pounds invested with the cleverest people, they're all pretty reliable and pretty close, all things considered. If they actually had the chance to balls up an engineering decision by choosing the wrong displacement, energy recovery system, or number of cylinders then the engine manufacturer with the most money could also have got it the most wrong.

Tear up the rule book. Let manufacturers spread their investment accross more than one series, and at least give the back markers half a chance of doing something outside the box and bagging a result for their sponsors.

[Paradise City]

F1 should be like Ready, Steady, Cook on wheels. Put a limit of 5 grand and get the designers to 'cook up' a car on that budget.


...build a race worthy car and all within a timeframe of 30 days.

[davyboy]

5 grand would become 500 grand and the title would be ready steady cook the books !

[wolfhound]

If you want single seaters that are identical to one another then there are a large number of different series you can watch including
GP2, Renault world series, Indycar, GP3, Indy lights & Formula Renault.
There has also been in the recent past
A1 GP, Superleague, F2 and the masters series for ex GP drivers.
I have probably missed some but F3 has an open rule book so is not included.
The only other major single seater series with an open rule book is..... F1.
The open rules are a major part of F1's DNA. I know there are restrictions but all the other series mentioned (excluding F3) all use identical chassis from one manufacturer and the rules generally only allow minor tweeks to the cars.

The one major issue in F1 at the moment is the spending of the major teams in relation to the smaller teams and the way the FOM money is distributed between the various teams. The other issue is the amount of money going out of the sport and how the commercial rights holder charges extoritinate TV and circuit fees.