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 25 Aug 2021, 23:51 (Ref:4070421)   #2101
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,025
Casper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
I think I have the answer to fixing F1 and that is to ban F1 engineers and and allow the fans to design the cars. The only problem with that idea is what fan has the best idea, I reckon I am right and the rest are wrong. I will leave the room now and thanks for reading.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2021, 09:16 (Ref:4071925)   #2102
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,087
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Pitpass seems to have very little faith in the FIA's cost cap strategy.

https://www.pitpass.com/70477/Cash-on-Delivery
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2021, 12:23 (Ref:4071956)   #2103
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,025
Casper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
Pitpass seems to have very little faith in the FIA's cost cap strategy.

https://www.pitpass.com/70477/Cash-on-Delivery
That makes two of us because I reckon it is an utterly stupid idea that can't be policed and laughed the first time I heard about it. The teams break rules and bend them in a professional sense and as part of their job, what chance has a bunch of accountants got of controlling professional crooks who can only get better at it with practise????
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2021, 15:13 (Ref:4071992)   #2104
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
NC, USA
Posts: 4,592
Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
Pitpass seems to have very little faith in the FIA's cost cap strategy.

https://www.pitpass.com/70477/Cash-on-Delivery
I believe the goal of the cost caps is to not be perfect, but good enough. There will always be room for games and people gaming the system.

But, that article is confusing to me. It mostly seems to be using power unit development as an example of how you can get around the cost caps. When, I believe broadly speaking power unit development is excluded from the cost caps. I am relatively sure that power unit costs to teams is an existing regulatory item. There are F1 teams and then there are power unit suppliers. Teams like Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault (and soon Red Bull) do both. But I believe from a cost cap perspective, the power unit budget is more tied to the per year limits that can be charged to customer teams. Which I think is around $15 M

Here is another way to look at it. If a Mercedes customer spends $15 M per season to use Mercedes power unit, do we expect Mercedes to do ALL Mercedes power unit R&D, etc. AND also provide power units to the Mercedes team all within that $15 M? If Honda was still in the sport and was providing engines, but not running an F1 team. How do they fit into the cost caps? They don't. Honda (and frankly anyone) can spend as much as they want in power unit R&D, etc. What matters is how much they charge the teams. I think from an accounting perspective, the new financial regulations track the costs related to the racing team. There will be line items for power unit costs for each team with those costs being capped (again, I think it's the $15 M value).

If that article is making a point (with it's specific example), then they are making a case that Mercedes F1 team is going to try to call out an amount that is less (much less?) for the power unit line items than what might be reasonably expected. In this case, lets say they "buy" their power units from the larger "Mercedes" for $1 M per season. With that meaning they have freed up $14 M for other things. While at the same time they are charging the customer teams some other value that is closer to $15 M. Do we expect that to slide through and not get called out?

I tend to think that those who complain about the new financial regulations (including maybe the author of that article) probably have never even read the regulations.

Richard

Last edited by Richard Casto; 4 Sep 2021 at 15:23.
Richard Casto is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2021, 17:49 (Ref:4072013)   #2105
Adam43
14th
1% Club
 
Adam43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
European Union
New Orleans
Posts: 38,351
Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
I believe the goal of the cost caps is to not be perfect, but good enough.
I remember someone saying this around here some time ago. Possibly you I liked it then and like it now. The intention of the cost cap is to equalize the resources of the teams. It isn't perfect and it may never be, but even an imperfect cost cap equalizes the resources more than not having one.

Trying to think of an analogy. What about this? A speed limit on a road doesn't stop everyone going over that limit, but that doesn't mean you don't have one.

I'm sure you could pick that apart, as people will always try to find fault in analogies rather than trying to understand what they are trying to get at. A bit like the cost cap.

I thought that pitpass article was poorly written and thought out. It is the obvious masquerading as insight. Could have just been an armchair forum post rather than a journalists editorial.
Adam43 is offline  
__________________
Vettel is my favorite.
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2021, 22:50 (Ref:4072048)   #2106
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
NC, USA
Posts: 4,592
Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard Casto is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43 View Post
I remember someone saying this around here some time ago. Possibly you I liked it then and like it now.
It probably was me as I know I have posted that comment before.

You can find articles online in which the FIA talks about these general issues of it not being perfect. They know it isn't perfect. They know it will require adjustments. And they have been upfront about that. It will be dynamic and adjust as needed to fill in any gaps that they didn't initially think about. This is from the FIA Financial Regulations...

Quote:
1.7 The Cost Cap Administration shall periodically review these Financial Regulations. These Financial Regulations may be amended and/or supplemented by the FIA World Motor Sport Council from time to time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43 View Post
The intention of the cost cap is to equalize the resources of the teams. It isn't perfect and it may never be, but even an imperfect cost cap equalizes the resources more than not having one.

Trying to think of an analogy. What about this? A speed limit on a road doesn't stop everyone going over that limit, but that doesn't mean you don't have one.

I'm sure you could pick that apart, as people will always try to find fault in analogies rather than trying to understand what they are trying to get at. A bit like the cost cap.

I thought that pitpass article was poorly written and thought out. It is the obvious masquerading as insight. Could have just been an armchair forum post rather than a journalists editorial.
Lets look at the difference between cheating on the technical/sporting regulations and the financial regulations.

On the technical side, lets look at the supposed infractions by Ferrari in which the speculation was that they were working around how fuel flow was measured. Effectively gaming the homologated flow sensors. While creative and bold, it could potentially only exist as verbal conversations with those who do the work and the only "on paper" evidence would be the code for the ECU which could be obfuscated (ie. vaguely written) so as to claim innocence. There are no standard (or legally required) ways to document everything that can happen as you build a solution that is about cheating. So it is easy to hide the evidence because you never had to document anything internally that might come back to bite you.

Lets look at the financial side. Financial accounting is a mature endeavor. Double entry books is over 100 years old and GAAP Accounting Standards is over 80 years old. The games (and process of detection) has been going on long before there was something called F1.

Of course you can still play games. But it requires much more overt action such as creating false or misleading paper trails. While the sporting and technical regulations are about FIA, the financial side will go beyond the FIA. Especially for any large publicly traded company. This means that there are legal ramifications (outside of FIA/F1) with respect to playing financial games. The risk of being overly creative is not just to their standing within F1. Someone might actually go to jail.

Frankly I suspect it may be much easier for teams to game and "cheat" at technical and sporting regulations and get away with it, than it will be to cheat on the financial side and get away with it. Teams can play games with technical solutions, but the cars are sometimes wired up to generate data. While the teams may know their own data, the FIA knows/sees the data for ALL of the teams. That can allow a team to stand out in ways that just just don't understand because they only have their data. The same applies on the financial side. Except there is likely to be more data on the financial side. More data means more chances to slip up somehow and expose whatever you don't want to expose.

In the end. Small games will be played and won by the teams on the financial side. However, I just don't see the FIA looking to "Nickle and Dime" the teams to death (just like they do on the technical regulations). They are not looking to hammer teams with small infractions. They are looking for the large infractions that adjust the balance of power in ways that is beyond the goal of the regulations. If it happens on the technical side, they ban the technology or clarify the regulations to stop technical solutions (be them legal or not). They will do the same on the financial side.

Teams who are exploring the envelope with respect to the sporting or technical regulations are generally playing in an artificial sandbox. And generally speaking their punishments exist within that sandbox (some exceptions exist such as the 2007 "Spygate" scandal). Playing games with finances puts them outside of the F1 sandbox and in the real world which opens them up to real world penalties.

Overall, I think the teams understand that it is just not worth the risk to try any significant financial gamesmanship (which would require them to hide the evidence) as it would put them risk for problems bigger than just F1.

Richard
Richard Casto is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 5 Sep 2021, 07:42 (Ref:4072108)   #2107
Mike Harte
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Mike Harte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
United Kingdom
W. Yorkshire
Posts: 4,270
Mike Harte is going for a new world record!Mike Harte is going for a new world record!Mike Harte is going for a new world record!Mike Harte is going for a new world record!Mike Harte is going for a new world record!Mike Harte is going for a new world record!Mike Harte is going for a new world record!
I assume that similar to company audits, the financial cap will be monitored by the teams' accountants and their report will be forwarded to the FIA. My concern is that, as has been found in over the past few years, the accountants might turn a blind eye to what they actually find and paint an inaccurate picture of the true position.

Enron in the USA and Carrillion in the UK come to mind.
Mike Harte is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Sep 2021, 15:58 (Ref:4072362)   #2108
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,369
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
aero in Professional open wheelers might define it a bit more. It has forced open wheel racing and F1 in particular down an unsustainable expensive path and along the way and it was the wedge that forced out the privateers initially as they could not compete against the factory teams. Some would label me as an Idealist and you would be right and the heyday of my dreams will never return.

Everything that is wrong with F1 started when aero was introduced...
If I understand correctly, it was actually the privateer Williams team who was the first F1 team to obtain their own wind tunnel, in the late 1970's. It seems the privateer garigistes with engineers like Dernie were more flexible and forward looking the continental manufacturer teams. Dernie was already using computer based optimisation algorithms for suspension in the early 1970's -- at a time when access to industrial computers (or any computers) was quite limited.

As you know, many of the other famous F1 innovations like a monocoque chassis and engine as a stressed member came from British privateers like Lotus and not from continental manufacturer teams like Ferrari or Renault too.

Williams and Lotus were also the first to bring active suspension, and Williams even trialled a CVT!

Conversely, in the pre-downforce era, Grand Prix racing was very much dominated by super wealthy manufacturer teams in the 1930's and 1950's. With even the works Alfa Romeos being unable to match the spending of the Nazi-backed Auto Union and Mercedes-Benz teams in the 1930's European championships. So I am not sure it is as simple as aerodynamics making privateers uncompetitive.

Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 6 Sep 2021 at 16:05.
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Sep 2021, 16:27 (Ref:4072370)   #2109
Anyopenroad
Veteran
 
Anyopenroad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
England
London
Posts: 1,315
Anyopenroad has a real shot at the podium!Anyopenroad has a real shot at the podium!Anyopenroad has a real shot at the podium!Anyopenroad has a real shot at the podium!Anyopenroad has a real shot at the podium!
I have always wondered if what did for the garagistas was the reliance on computers to refine and design. This negated the maverick genius that underpinned teams like Lotus both because the same end result could be achieved by brute force computing power (a bit like the first chess computers won by testing every possible move) and because the result could then be refined to the nth degree more easily. The essential difference between teams then became the amount of computing power they were able to deploy, which includes very high-precision computer-controlled parts manufacture.
Anyopenroad is offline  
__________________
I like taking pictures of cars going round tracks, through forests and up hills.
Quote
Old 6 Sep 2021, 16:53 (Ref:4072377)   #2110
bjohnsonsmith
Race Official
20KPINAL
 
bjohnsonsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
United States
London, England
Posts: 21,388
bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!bjohnsonsmith is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks View Post
If I understand correctly, it was actually the privateer Williams team who was the first F1 team to obtain their own wind tunnel, in the late 1970's. It seems the privateer garigistes with engineers like Dernie were more flexible and forward looking the continental manufacturer teams. Dernie was already using computer based optimisation algorithms for suspension in the early 1970's -- at a time when access to industrial computers (or any computers) was quite limited.

As you know, many of the other famous F1 innovations like a monocoque chassis and engine as a stressed member came from British privateers like Lotus and not from continental manufacturer teams like Ferrari or Renault too.

Williams and Lotus were also the first to bring active suspension, and Williams even trialled a CVT!

Conversely, in the pre-downforce era, Grand Prix racing was very much dominated by super wealthy manufacturer teams in the 1930's and 1950's. With even the works Alfa Romeos being unable to match the spending of the Nazi-backed Auto Union and Mercedes-Benz teams in the 1930's European championships. So I am not sure it is as simple as aerodynamics making privateers uncompetitive.

According to this article on wind tunnels, Brabham were the first F1 team to own their own wind tunnel during Bernie Ecclestone/Gordon Murray era.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/wind_tunnel.html
bjohnsonsmith is online now  
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying."
Colin Chapman.
Quote
Old 7 Sep 2021, 01:24 (Ref:4072417)   #2111
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,025
Casper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks View Post
If I understand correctly, it was actually the privateer Williams team who was the first F1 team to obtain their own wind tunnel, in the late 1970's. It seems the privateer garigistes with engineers like Dernie were more flexible and forward looking the continental manufacturer teams. Dernie was already using computer based optimisation algorithms for suspension in the early 1970's -- at a time when access to industrial computers (or any computers) was quite limited.

As you know, many of the other famous F1 innovations like a monocoque chassis and engine as a stressed member came from British privateers like Lotus and not from continental manufacturer teams like Ferrari or Renault too.

Williams and Lotus were also the first to bring active suspension, and Williams even trialled a CVT!

Conversely, in the pre-downforce era, Grand Prix racing was very much dominated by super wealthy manufacturer teams in the 1930's and 1950's. With even the works Alfa Romeos being unable to match the spending of the Nazi-backed Auto Union and Mercedes-Benz teams in the 1930's European championships. So I am not sure it is as simple as aerodynamics making privateers uncompetitive.
All true except it does not change history. In the days of transition between mechanical grip to aero true innovative thinking from independent and less wealthy teams were taking the sport down different paths which was all well and good but aero was a huge banquet of thinking and gains for engineers so they took to it like a duck to water. The result is what we have today, no privateer could even remotely get into F1 today due to the expense and vast technical knowledge needed.

I stand by what I said, every on track racing problem F1 suffers from today stems form aero being introduced into the sport no matter who did it. This was compounded by F1 trying to restrict the innovative thinking that began back then has also done the sport no favours. When was the last time some of the restrictive regulation was removed to allow thinking engineers to introduce advantage for their team? No wonder Adrian Newey gets on his bike occasionely and expresses his frustration around this aspect of the sport. The reason F1 flourished was the fact that advances were made and shown off to the world. It is all very contradictory and I would be the first to admit that and that is another major problem.

A good question would be why does F1 restrict true innovation when that was initially what it was all about? Everyone says costs but if an engineer dreams up something and the boss can't afford it then the idea won't happen. Take the aero away and give the teams a clean slate and some room to think without boundaries, the huge cost of aero development could be channelled into new areas. I know dream time stuff and I am shouting into the wind.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Sep 2021, 15:30 (Ref:4072512)   #2112
chillibowl
Veteran
 
chillibowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
winnipeg, canada
Posts: 8,824
chillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
more and unrestricted innovation will only costs more money and will change the sport in ways none can predict other than to say what we end up getting will be as different from today as what horse and carriage racing was to the automobile used in the first car race.

in fairness, you dont seem to like the direction money or innovation has currently brought us to so i am a bit confused as to why you would think the future evolution of racing via unrestricted innovation will be more to your liking and/or more reminiscent to your past ideal ?

again no disrespect, but these goals seem to be contradictory no?
chillibowl is online now  
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there
I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place
Quote
Old 7 Sep 2021, 16:04 (Ref:4072520)   #2113
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,025
Casper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl View Post
more and unrestricted innovation will only costs more money and will change the sport in ways none can predict other than to say what we end up getting will be as different from today as what horse and carriage racing was to the automobile used in the first car race.

in fairness, you dont seem to like the direction money or innovation has currently brought us to so i am a bit confused as to why you would think the future evolution of racing via unrestricted innovation will be more to your liking and/or more reminiscent to your past ideal ?

again no disrespect, but these goals seem to be contradictory no?
I admit it is a contradiction but aero takes a huge amount of money and does not in the end give us better racing only faster racing. It is a irrefutable fact that most fans despise what aero has done to the sport and led to DRS as a band aid solution.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Sep 2021, 16:24 (Ref:4072524)   #2114
chillibowl
Veteran
 
chillibowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
winnipeg, canada
Posts: 8,824
chillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
fair enough...what is life without a little contradiction?

overall i do agree about the relationship between aero and money. although i am more in the camp of reduce spending while limiting much (but not all) innovation. overall i think the current approach of just picking one sandbox at a time to play in has been, all be it a little too slowly at times, actually has been working.

obviously we will see how the teams claw back any reductions in downforce next year, but i hope the further decrease in 'primary' budget is enough to slow the development cycle to a point where we get back to different development cycles thus hopefully increasing the relative ebbs and flows of performance differences between the teams.

for me a big lesson from this past season and a half is the almost freeze on development while also restricting the amount of money spent.

for lack of a better term, this 'covid era' philosophy should be continued imo.
chillibowl is online now  
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there
I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place
Quote
Old 7 Sep 2021, 17:31 (Ref:4072529)   #2115
bathurst77
Veteran
 
bathurst77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Australia
NSW
Posts: 880
bathurst77 should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridbathurst77 should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
must have no more than 6 wheels, total car size no more than x by y by z mm. Must be propelled by 1 or more engines powering at least 2 wheels. Steering, gear change brakes and throttle must be entirely controlled by the on board driver. Show us what you got - free for all.

But with a total annual cost cap for entire team.
R&D, car build, running costs, all salaries down to the bloke who deals with the bombs that haunt Lewis.
Books open to official audit without notice.

Last edited by bathurst77; 7 Sep 2021 at 17:37.
bathurst77 is offline  
__________________
Bathurst 1977, best day of my childhood
Worst thing ever to happen to Ford Aust Motorsport.
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
DP's Fix gttouring Sportscar & GT Racing 31 31 Mar 2003 13:52
Is this a fix? Peter S Formula One 28 25 Mar 2003 14:17
Williams trying to "fix car" 2 weeks before Melbourne? Sodemo Formula One 8 28 Feb 2003 10:12
If you want to fix it mtpanorama Road Car Forum 3 17 May 2001 02:09
How to fix F1 Crash Test Formula One 2 24 Jun 2000 23:23


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.