|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
28 Feb 2009, 11:10 (Ref:2406000) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
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? |
||
__________________
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." |
28 Feb 2009, 11:28 (Ref:2406009) | #2 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 184
|
Hmm!! Lets just wait and see what the WMSC meeting comes to a conclusion about it!
|
||
__________________
Murray Walker: There is some debate as to whether Roset is Formula 1 material." Martin Brundle: "It's a pretty short debate Murray." |
28 Feb 2009, 11:33 (Ref:2406011) | #3 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,463
|
Indeed let's not discuss possibilities on a discussion forum.
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
28 Feb 2009, 11:35 (Ref:2406014) | #4 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
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. |
|
|
28 Feb 2009, 17:57 (Ref:2406083) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
I fear a further standardization of the series.
|
||
|
28 Feb 2009, 18:14 (Ref:2406097) | #6 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
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. |
|
|
28 Feb 2009, 19:49 (Ref:2406141) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
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.
|
||
|
28 Feb 2009, 20:34 (Ref:2406161) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 574
|
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. |
|
|
28 Feb 2009, 21:20 (Ref:2406188) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
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. |
||
__________________
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." |
1 Mar 2009, 03:33 (Ref:2406384) | #10 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 46
|
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.
|
||
|
1 Mar 2009, 03:45 (Ref:2406387) | #11 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Buy out A1GP,the're going broke,all problems solved and everyones happy and gets a Ferrari engine.
|
||
|
1 Mar 2009, 09:20 (Ref:2406467) | #12 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
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? |
|||
__________________
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." |
1 Mar 2009, 09:49 (Ref:2406489) | #13 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
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:
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:
|
|||||
|
1 Mar 2009, 10:09 (Ref:2406504) | #14 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
|
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 |
||
|
1 Mar 2009, 11:42 (Ref:2406566) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,258
|
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. |
||
|
1 Mar 2009, 11:52 (Ref:2406576) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
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 ... |
||
__________________
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." |
1 Mar 2009, 12:06 (Ref:2406581) | #17 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
1 Mar 2009, 12:32 (Ref:2406591) | #18 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
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. |
|
|
1 Mar 2009, 12:42 (Ref:2406595) | #19 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,258
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
1 Mar 2009, 13:14 (Ref:2406611) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
|||
|
1 Mar 2009, 16:12 (Ref:2406714) | #21 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 419
|
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 |
||
__________________
"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. |
2 Mar 2009, 21:37 (Ref:2407629) | #22 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 75
|
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.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2009, 20:54 (Ref:2408402) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
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 ...
|
||
__________________
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." |
3 Mar 2009, 21:25 (Ref:2408435) | #24 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 54
|
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!
|
||
|
3 Mar 2009, 23:38 (Ref:2408525) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,258
|
Yep, widen the rears by 2-3 inches, then widen the cars and I will be "happy".
|
||
|
|
|
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 |