The madness of unneccessary F1 costs.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

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.

Specifying engine displacement, number of cylinders, bore size, bore centers, overall length, V angle, crank height and...........C of G height is open rules?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Specifying engine displacement, number of cylinders, bore size, bore centers, overall length, V angle, crank height and...........C of G height is open rules?

Exactly!
F1 is no longer an 'open' competition. In fact it is heavily regulated which is forcing development along prescribed lines with no opportunity to innovate.

[cerdic]

An excellent post from Gingers4Justice.

I have followed F1 since the late 70s and almost every regulation introduced since then has been "to cut costs". But all that has happened is an unbelievably vast increase in budgets! So that works then.....

I would love to see the rule book ripped up, some basic parameters set for building the cars, and the teams go off and show us how clever they can be!

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by cerdic

An excellent post from Gingers4Justice.

I have followed F1 since the late 70s and almost every regulation introduced since then has been "to cut costs". But all that has happened is an unbelievably vast increase in budgets! So that works then.....

I would love to see the rule book ripped up, some basic parameters set for building the cars, and the teams go off and show us how clever they can be!

I agree with you there and the only way to allow that to work effectively is to add a budget cap.

[GT6]

Originally Posted by cerdic

An excellent post from Gingers4Justice.

I have followed F1 since the late 70s and almost every regulation introduced since then has been "to cut costs". But all that has happened is an unbelievably vast increase in budgets! So that works then.....

I would love to see the rule book ripped up, some basic parameters set for building the cars, and the teams go off and show us how clever they can be!

Totally agree, let the engineers do there stuff sack all the lawyers and the budget caps would not be needed

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I agree with you there and the only way to allow that to work effectively is to add a budget cap.

I'm in the budget cap camp, but maybe if more open rules took away the predictable ROI, because some little could blind side a big team with something really innovative, the budgets for the big teams would drop naturally?

[Richard C]

As mentioned above, I am also a budget cap fan, but... Given the various opinions discussed in this (and other) threads and the problems with the teams trying to agree it is a huge task.

Some cost reduction options are just outright contrary to each other. Spec parts vs. budget cap and open rules? How do you resolve all of those differences?!?!

One positive with the current system is that while extremely costly, it does seem to result in cars generally being relatively close. Rule changes tend to cause short term gaps (Mercedes this season) and I agree that a budget cap with very open rules will result in some teams just absolutely getting their clocks cleaned (i.e. some cars lapping deep into the field maybe even multiple times in a race). That is very unattractive to some including those currently at the top. However it likely in the long run will not change the finishing order.

Richard

[Casper]

All they need is a few regulations that define motor size, induction method, some limits on aero, a control fuel and no active car control from the pits. You could write the regs for that in two pages. It won't happen though as more regulation means more control and people in general like having control of others. The diverse nature of F1 would return and I would be happy and that is what is important, the individual who watches the series has to feel good about watching it.

[Casper]

Does it strike anyone as faintly ridiculous in that no one is allowed to try and balance the competition and catch MB because the regulations forbid them to do so? How utterly stupid and these are supposedly intelligent men. No wonder the whole lot is going down the toilet.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Does it strike anyone as faintly ridiculous in that no one is allowed to try and balance the competition and catch MB because the regulations forbid them to do so? How utterly stupid and these are supposedly intelligent men. No wonder the whole lot is going down the toilet.

This would be a sloppy attitude in a "run what you brung" formula!
Just beyond my comprehension.

Also - fixed gear ratios! Really!

[wnut]

F1 is an exclusive gentleman's club, and the founding members have considerable infra structure and development expertise in low speed aerodynamics. The major cost base and development is focused in their area of expertise, they are well looked after by Bernie and form a voting block. Anyone that wants to join the club and be successful has to compete on their terms and in their area of expertise.
Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and a few other have done very well in the exclusive world that they have developed, and charge sponsors untold fortunes to share in their success, the oligopoly is not going to change anytime soon.
The only reason that hybrid PUs are in the Formula is because it allowed the manufacturers a billboard to promote dodgy technology and suited the economic interests of the F1 club's board.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I agree with you there and the only way to allow that to work effectively is to add a budget cap.

Which is in itself another restriction... only this time one that the teams can easily get around !

It's unfortunate that we still believe that we're living in 1974... or even 1954... when as a human race we knew a lot less than we know now. In days past, engineers used trial and error to figure out what worked or not on a contemporary racing car and the iterative process took a long time. That's not the case today.

F1 can remain an engineering challenge... it just needs to be done in a different way. The challenge needs to be in a different area - one where our understanding is less developed, less mature... and it might help if that area was socially useful... and underwritten by organizations with deep pockets who stand to gain significantly from the R+D.

Let me give you an example. The biggest drawback of electric vehicles today is battery life and charging. Despite the vast amounts of research into this area, progress towards a solution remains slow. So, package that challenge in a way that you can focus the F1 engineers to spend every waking hour on it. The auto companies will be lining up to have a part of the action and this will underwrite every team's power train bill.

... meanwhile, have each team use a spec. chassis - as R+D in chassis development serves no purpose - and that will slash their running costs.

This will also lead to less demand on Bernie for TV money funding for teams... which will reduce the amount of money he needs to charge promoters/TV companies for the GP... which will in turn reduce what viewers and spectators need to pay.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Let me give you an example. The biggest drawback of electric vehicles today is battery life and charging. Despite the vast amounts of research into this area, progress towards a solution remains slow. So, package that challenge in a way that you can focus the F1 engineers to spend every waking hour on it. The auto companies will be lining up to have a part of the action and this will underwrite every team's power train bill.

would car (and gas) companies line up to take part in an electric series? they havent exactly lead the charge in the past but perhaps their thinking has finally come around.

in fairness to the teams, they might not be the biggest hurdle in introducing a budget cap...it could very well be the sponsors (ie the car and gas companies) that are at the heart of the problem and another reason to lament the loss of the privateers even.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

would car (and gas) companies line up to take part in an electric series? they havent exactly lead the charge in the past but perhaps their thinking has finally come around.

in fairness to the teams, they might not be the biggest hurdle in introducing a budget cap...it could very well be the sponsors (ie the car and gas companies) that are at the heart of the problem and another reason to lament the loss of the privateers even.

There is a potential solution on the horizon for electric racers and that is wireless charging as the cars are going round the track. Wireless charging is already being trialled in some parking spaces in London with some cab firms. Apparently the company working on this believe that it is perfectly possible to create a 'charging lane' that cars run in on certain parts of the track to boost charge wirelessly - in effect a wireless scalextric.

Clearly the infrastructure costs are high and actually this barrier can be applied to the whole electric car industry as no one is wanting to invest in a national charging infrastructure until there is sufficient demand, and there will never be a demand until there is infrastructure in place..the classic chicken and egg.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

There is a potential solution on the horizon for electric racers and that is wireless charging as the cars are going round the track. Wireless charging is already being trialled in some parking spaces in London with some cab firms. Apparently the company working on this believe that it is perfectly possible to create a 'charging lane' that cars run in on certain parts of the track to boost charge wirelessly - in effect a wireless scalextric.

The result of beams of electricity sent through the air will result in every Londoner with frazzled hair, standing upright. London may very well wind up like a city of Don King lookalikes.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

There is a potential solution on the horizon for electric racers and that is wireless charging as the cars are going round the track. Wireless charging is already being trialled in some parking spaces in London with some cab firms. Apparently the company working on this believe that it is perfectly possible to create a 'charging lane' that cars run in on certain parts of the track to boost charge wirelessly - in effect a wireless scalextric.

Clearly the infrastructure costs are high and actually this barrier can be applied to the whole electric car industry as no one is wanting to invest in a national charging infrastructure until there is sufficient demand, and there will never be a demand until there is infrastructure in place..the classic chicken and egg.

Ya inductive charging is very interesting stuff. There was talk at one point of introducing it on stretches of motorway etc... but yes, concepts like that ought to be where these people should be directed to apply their engineering prowess rather than generating down force from 15 wing flaps and a barge board.

[chillibowl]

lol, not a problem for me as i have already lost all my hair!

[Paradise City]

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

The result of beams of electricity sent through the air will result in every Londoner with frazzled hair, standing upright. London may very well wind up like a city of Don King lookalikes.

If / when you get wireless power distribution right, without the hair problem, then the internal combustion engine is dead and buried along with batteries in cars!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

There definitely was some electricity flowing in that image/movie scene!

Richard

[JacobP]

I personally don't see any problems with the fact that a significantly cheaper GP2 car may be as fast as some F1 cars. Of course, an open-wheel car that's as fast as any F1 car can be built for the fraction of the cost of the actual F1 car. The speed of the F1 cars is limited not by the technology but by the regulations. The fuel flow rate and fuel capacity rule alone places a considerable impact on the performance of cars. The engines don't even hit the rev limiters any more to save fuel. The second reason is mass production. The GP2 Dallara chassis may have cost a few millions of euros to develop, but because it's produced in large numbers, the volume helps to keep the chassis costs low.

Anyways, I think this discussion brings us back to the same old discussion about whether F1 teams should be allowed to use customer chassis. F1 has become so much technology driven that it's very hard for small or new teams to be competitive at all. The experience of HRT, Virgin/Marussia, and Caterham shows that any fresh new player has to be crazy to enter the F1 competition. After five years of desperate struggles, only Marussia managed to finish a race in top 10, once. Moreover, the high costs of chassis development force the poor teams to rely heavily on pay drivers. If buying a finished chassis could help the new teams save the money, perhaps we could see a lot more drivers brought in from junior series based on their skill rather than sponsors. The customer chassis could also allow the geography of F1 teams to spread out a bit. It could be entirely possible to see a team based in Asia or USA compete successfully with a customer chassis.

The only issue that needs to be addressed is how can teams like Williams or Sauber continue competing if their competition can have a Ferrari or McLaren chassis for a fraction of the cost of developing a full chassis.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by JacobP

Anyways, I think this discussion brings us back to the same old discussion about whether F1 teams should be allowed to use customer chassis. F1 has become so much technology driven that it's very hard for small or new teams to be competitive at all. The experience of HRT, Virgin/Marussia, and Caterham shows that any fresh new player has to be crazy to enter the F1 competition. After five years of desperate struggles, only Marussia managed to finish a race in top 10, once. Moreover, the high costs of chassis development force the poor teams to rely heavily on pay drivers. If buying a finished chassis could help the new teams save the money, perhaps we could see a lot more drivers brought in from junior series based on their skill rather than sponsors. The customer chassis could also allow the geography of F1 teams to spread out a bit. It could be entirely possible to see a team based in Asia or USA compete successfully with a customer chassis.

The only issue that needs to be addressed is how can teams like Williams or Sauber continue competing if their competition can have a Ferrari or McLaren chassis for a fraction of the cost of developing a full chassis.

I can see a certain amount of merit in allowing customer chassis for start up teams. Auggestion would be they could use a customer car for 2 years and maybe a customer monocoque for a further year or so and maybe other components but not a complete car.

The reason for this would be to allow teams from other series to come in without the major cost of setting up the full infrastructure required to build a car. However it would have to be restricted to prevent a team coming for 2 years and then fold. A few months later a new team would form made up of the same people with another 'new' team there by not required to build their own car.

Something like this in principal should allow new teams to come in without all the associated costs. Purchaced cars would not qualify constructers points. For the second stage new teams when using bought in monocques might get half points.

[Moneyseeker]

There is a certain irony that Williams are so opposed to customer cars, as they entered F1 originally with a customer Brabham car.....

Touring, GT and WRC have all been led by customer cars, indeed it has been a crucial business model as the sale of cars has often effectively funded the works teams. In this enviroment factory and customer teams have competed side by side and learnt from each other.

You could do away with the constructors championship and make it a teams championship instead, unpopular I know, but who outside of the motorsport bubble even knows who wins the WCC?

But if you allowed customer chassis as a starting point that perhaps customer teams could develop themselves, that would be a fascinating opportunity to see if a small team could apply an innovation to a works car that made it quicker...

[Paradise City]

TC manufacturers go in out of the sport regularly and when even a non-works car wins, it's fruitful for the showroom. I'm not sure that's quite the same dynamic as F1.

That said, I've no problem with letting teams work away with customer chassis, as long as you debar them from the constructors championship and you make sure that the constructors championship is paved with gold, so you can reap a good reward from building your own car.

The sport has to go in with it's eyes open on this. Are we ready to see a substantial drop in variety of the cars on the grid?

[Moneyseeker]

A factor not mentioned is the impact that Honda coming into F1 will have. We can be sure that they will pour money into McLaren over and above the cost of the engine programme.

If this is the case, it will force Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes to spend even more and cost cutting will be out of the window...