How to de-spec racing without costs getting out of control

[johntt]

As we have all seen spec series have become more and more prevalent in single seater racing as a way of controlling the costs involved.

While this makes for good, close racing it means that it lacks any technical interest and it does little to devlop the skills of mechanics and car designers.

Do anyone know where the next Adrian Newey or Gordan Murray is going to hone his/her skills?

I have an idea of how to de-spec single seater racing without sending the cost through the roof: open up the various series to competition with regard to chassis, tyres (and in some cases engines) BUT have a budget cap for each team in a manner similar to what has been proposed for F1 to keep the costs in check.

For championships like Renault World Series / Formula Renault / Formula BMW you would keep a spec engine but open everything else. For Gp2 everything could be open.

[Alex Laidlaw]

The problem is budget costing requires teams to be honest about what they spend (they won't) and requires every last detail to be publicly released about where money is being spent, and therefore presumably it would give a good indication to where any new developments would be in each team.

[Al Weyman]

In Modprods when we first set it up we had a buying/selling plate which worked that you had to sell your car to a fellow competitor however in reality it did'nt work and never could because all it would mean is the competitor would not sell the car and just leave the championship. Nice idea on paper but had to be eventually dropped because of impracticalities.

[zac510]

F3 doesn't seem in too bad shape..
Two of the incomes are spectators and advertising. What if you remove them, what's left for income? Driver's dads?

[dtype38]

Interesting twist on an old issue johntt. The only solution I can think of would be for one or more of the big one-make series organisers/manufacturers to set up some sort of competition for each progression of their control vehicle. Sort of like having junior designers putting up specs and designs for cars/parts to be used in the next season of a control series. Then the winning design would be what all the teams have to use. That keeps the playing field level for the drivers while encouraging innovative design.... maybe?

[badgerwatch]

why not have a simple spec chassis/engine but allow areas of the chassis to be developed freely,e.g. areo, certain allowance for engine modifications, this way the cars will have different characteristics and be able to provide more of a challenge to engineers, etc.

that way basic costing can be controlled as the teams will all spend the same on the car, the only problem you would have is finding a way to cap the development, as teams will always find a way to hide spending

[johntt]

re. the budget capping and teams hiding expenditure; the proposals for F1 included a some sort of legal/accounting agreement as to the amount they would spend so therefore breaking said agreement would mean the team being prosecuted for fraud in a civil court. There were also certain exemptions from the budget cap such as personnel salaries.

[silente]

There is an interesting article about this topic on RaceCar Engineering Site.

An experienced engineer suggest his way to de-spec motorsport in order to re-give to racecar design its importance and to put competition about design and the capacity to find new and better solutions again to the top of manufacturer missions.

Every category should have freedom about constructor choosing, but constructors has to sell products with a fixed maximum price.

In this way, Europe could find the way to fight against the always growing power of east countries.

I agree this point of view, which also suggest to eliminate a lot of un-useful categories.
But would all the business interests permit to do so?

On the other and this could be the only way to give to motorsport also an industrial interest again...

The article is very interesting.

[zac510]

What about privateers?

[silente]

Theey qould compete in the series they like more, buying the car they think better, and saving money to make their onwn adjustment on that..

The only thing would be that, having a lower number of series, every serie would be richer of drivers and this could make competition closer, giving the possibility to who is really strong to go ahead..

[johntt]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...otorsport.html

Good article. Mandating a fixed maximum price for a chassis would keep costs well under control and enable competition.

On point i would make would be that chassis production be limited to specialist makers like Lola, Mygale et al.

[duke_toaster]

My view is that tight rules coupled with a maximum sale price (for completed chassis, engine, spares, everything) would work well.

There are too many single seater series between F3 level and F1. Ideally the FIA would have a set of rules that cuts costs and allows more innovation in F1 (a power cap on the engines and a fuel limit, with bonuses awarded for best fuel economy in the points) - and then those cars could be detuned to become Formula Two, and F3 having some gradual evolution.

[silente]

I think all these things are good ideas.

The next step, in my opinion, is to change the power control on the engines building it on the fuel consumption: Every car (in every series) have a maximum amount of fuel it can use for a fixed number of laps and then the constructors have to do research to build engines with power but also with a low fuel consumption.

Do you think it is possible to send to Fia a paper with all this ideas and a lot of signs from those who want these changes?

[zac510]

Originally Posted by silente

The next step, in my opinion, is to change the power control on the engines building it on the fuel consumption: Every car (in every series) have a maximum amount of fuel it can use for a fixed number of laps and then the constructors have to do research to build engines with power but also with a low fuel consumption.

You said 'do research' .. Doesn't that mean 'spend thousands of pounds' in your language too? ie, they'll just spend loads on development to make it more fuel efficient. It's exactly the same as it is now.

[Bluescy]

Sorry to bring back an old thread but I thought I would add some suggestions. My two general comments may sound contradictory and perhaps they are but oh well.

The first thought is that as you add more technical limitations you often end up raising the cost of competition because you eliminate the cheap ways to get power or downforce etc. When the envelope is rather open we can explore rather radical ideas to go faster. When the limits of the envelope are dictated we then need to spend lots of money to probe every limit of that envelope. F1 is certainly doing that. For all the technology in those cars, with updated tires a car similar in technology to a 1994 Champ Car would likely be just as quick. That isn't to discredit the F1 designers but look at all the very tricky aerodynamic work they have to do just to get downforce. The 1994 Champ Car rules allowed a lot more latitude in underbody aero and thus the cars could efficiently generate the downforce.

The same could be said of the F1 stepped noses. It was decided that wing size would be limited. In an effort to deal with the limited wing size the noses were stepped up so the designers could get just that last bit of air that otherwise would pass over the nose. The silly thing is how many other largely spec series have copied that nose layout even though it only exists due to some of the F1 specific rules. Cart and IRL didn't have the same limitations and thus retained more traditional noses.

My other suggestion would be to look at the most humble of formula classes, the Formula Vee. FV has been a very stable and cost effective class for a long time. Part of what has made the class successful is the box of parts sort of rules. The designers actually have a lot of latitude but are restricted to a given engine, suspension parts, gearbox and brake parts. These parts do a good job of limiting what can be done with the class. The cars almost all use zero roll rate rear ends. That is not only do they not have an anti-roll bar but when you lift the back of the car the suspension arms swing almost like a seesaw. Because of the zero roll rate rear end the torsional resistance requirements of the chassis are much lower than in other classes. This actually makes it easier for a good home builder to compete with the pros.

Because a number of the car's core components have remained stable over the years a 1984 Vee can still be competitive today. Crash damage is another place where Vees do well. The suspension arms are designed for road use. They are strong by race car standards but also cheap to replace. You don't have to worry about breaking $2000 worth of suspension any time you contact anything.

Vee is not without flaws. Though many of the drivers are fiercely loyal to the class, it doesn't sell well to new comers. Many new racers care as much about flashy and fast cars as they do about good racing. The mandated parts on the Vee mean it's slow and ugly. The car has around 45hp and thus isn't impressively quick. The trailing arm front suspension and narrow VW tires are rather ugly looking. The competition is great and the conservation of momentum taught by a Vee makes it a great learning class but ultimately the cars are a hard sell to many new drivers. It's lacking the "proper" suspension of a F Ford and wings. All race cars have wings .

So the question is could a new set of parts be found that would give the low cost, stable and reliable base for a class while still letting independent companies build the car. Are there street cars that could provide the needed parts out of the bone yard? Could we find parts which were better looking but still cost effective (the entire Vee front suspension including chassis section can cost less than a set of FF uprights)?