How to fix F1?

[john ruston]

Only problem is two of three are not used very often snd CoTA could have problems with dosh,
Abu Dhabi must be the worst although it cost the most!
Threading through the hotels and arena didn’t help!

[Kato]

Maybe we should go back to the source. How to fix F1? Listen to Bernie. It has got us this far after all.

[S griffin]

Bernie stayed on too long though. He seemed to be more concerned with making a mint by the end than anything else

[Richard Casto]

Originally Posted by Kato

Maybe we should go back to the source. How to fix F1? Listen to Bernie. It has got us this far after all.

He did. But he also dug the hole the sport is in as well. F1 needs to stay far away from BE.

Richard

[Taxi645]

New cars delayed till 2023?


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...paign=widget-1

F1 is strongly denying it.

I think the only scenario where this would be desirable is when it's combined with strongly simplified power units.

[S griffin]

I hope not. Those cars are supposed to provide better racing and I would hate for everybody to wait even longer to get the racing we need

[Richard Casto]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

New cars delayed till 2023?


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...paign=widget-1

F1 is strongly denying it.

I think the only scenario where this would be desirable is when it's combined with strongly simplified power units.

I was just thinking the other day that this might happen. And I agree it would be a bad move. I also agree that the only positive reason to delay would be to sync up with a new power unit spec. But I doubt that would happen because

1. I don't think they are close on figuring that out.
2. It's likely that a new power unit specification would also trigger changes to the chassis specification/design (likely different dimensionally in both size and weight, likely different fuel capacity needs, different cooling needs, etc. lots of knock on effects on the chassis and aero design)
3. I expect teams are already very deep into 2022 designs. So a pause (to add new PSU) would mean much (not all) of that was money down the drain.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

3. I expect teams are already very deep into 2022 designs. So a pause (to add new PSU) would mean much (not all) of that was money down the drain.

Richard

Although true, this is also very relative. All money F1 teams spend is down the drain all the time. It's not as if they are building useful things like bridges that are then demolishes. They are continuously building stuff which use is very specific and shortlived. They pay their personal and they produce stuff. You don't have to pay them twice if they have to start over. Your pool of engineers will stay the same size.

I say this because this argument is often used (falsely) by teams if something doesn't suit their agenda.

[Richard Casto]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Although true, this is also very relative. All money F1 teams spend is down the drain all the time. It's not as if they are building useful things like bridges that are then demolishes. They are continuously building stuff which use is very specific and shortlived. They pay their personal and they produce stuff. You don't have to pay them twice if they have to start over. Your pool of engineers will stay the same size.

I say this because this argument is often used (falsely) by teams if something doesn't suit their agenda.

Yeah, I understand. I think it can somewhat fall into the "sunk cost fallacy". But I tend to have heartburn on some of the logic with "sunk cost fallacy". I know its real, but how it is applied to some situations, I question it's logic.

It's like I walk into McDonalds and buy a Big Mac. They give me my Big Mac and I think think... "You know, I really think I want a Quarter Pounder instead." Sunk cost fallacy says... Well, you already bought it. The cash is gone. If you don't want the Big Mac, cut your losses, just dump it into the trash and buy a Quarter Pounder instead. Of course, my pockets are not infinitely deep to keep buying burger after burger while I remain hungry. I should just stop being fickle, eat the Big Mac and get on with my day and buy the Quarter Pounder tomorrow!

I think that even if they did hit pause button (and even rework the technical regulations) that whatever they came up with would be close to the 2022 regulations. And some of the R&D into the 2022 cars would carry forward. But again, teams don't have infinitely deep pockets to just retool frequently. That is why they want stable technical regulations. If you view the money already spent as an investment, then it would be good to let them get something out of it.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

2. It's likely that a new power unit specification would also trigger changes to the chassis specification/design (likely different dimensionally in both size and weight, likely different fuel capacity needs, different cooling needs, etc. lots of knock on effects on the chassis and aero design) Richard

Without doubt the PU is the biggest problem F1 has and they are truly between a rock and a hard place. To make a change still using an IC core in the system with a life span into the early 2030's places them at risk of being totally out of step with societal changes as the major nations ban or heavily restrict the use of IC engines. I would think that they will continue to use what they have now to avoid washing millions of dollars down the nearest drain in development that eventually and not to far into the future is going to be seen as ant social at the very least.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Yeah, I understand. I think it can somewhat fall into the "sunk cost fallacy". But I tend to have heartburn on some of the logic with "sunk cost fallacy". I know its real, but how it is applied to some situations, I question it's logic.

It's like I walk into McDonalds and buy a Big Mac. They give me my Big Mac and I think think... "You know, I really think I want a Quarter Pounder instead." Sunk cost fallacy says... Well, you already bought it. The cash is gone. If you don't want the Big Mac, cut your losses, just dump it into the trash and buy a Quarter Pounder instead. Of course, my pockets are not infinitely deep to keep buying burger after burger while I remain hungry. I should just stop being fickle, eat the Big Mac and get on with my day and buy the Quarter Pounder tomorrow!

I think that even if they did hit pause button (and even rework the technical regulations) that whatever they came up with would be close to the 2022 regulations. And some of the R&D into the 2022 cars would carry forward. But again, teams don't have infinitely deep pockets to just retool frequently. That is why they want stable technical regulations. If you view the money already spent as an investment, then it would be good to let them get something out of it.

Richard

I wonder, how are engine development costs accounted for within the new budget limits?


And how does that influence the dynamic between engine supplying teams and engine buying teams?

[chillibowl]

as far as i know, the price for engines sold to customers will be fixed (15m per season although im not sure if that is for both cars or per car price) and is outside the 175 budget cap.

as for the cost of developing those engines...im not sure. i would assume they are outside the budget cap as well and spending will be curtailed/discouraged by reducing/eliminating the number of upgrades allowed.

as for how this dynamic will play out?

im sure, that like always, one team will benefit massively leaving the others to try to burn the temple to the ground!

[Richard Casto]

I think you are correct chilibowl. I think that the concept of a "Power Unit Supplier" is separate from the concept of a participant in the series as a team. So Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault are all both PSU suppliers and F1 teams.

I wonder if those teams even have some type of supplier chargeback for their own power unit. For example... If Williams has to pay for their Mercedes power unit (and that come out of their capped budget). Might Mercedes ALSO have to pay for their Mercedes power unit? Both at the fixed power unit price?

Or as you say... maybe ALL of that is outside of the cost caps including that regular teams PSU line item in their budget is not part of the cost cap? If I have time, I may dig into this later today.

Richard

[Richard Casto]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Or as you say... maybe ALL of that is outside of the cost caps including that regular teams PSU line item in their budget is not part of the cost cap? If I have time, I may dig into this later today.

Sorry for quoting myself. So as I read the Sporting and Financial regulations. The cost of power units are excluded from the budget cap. But they are also set to fixed values (somewhere inside the sporting regulations). So Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault can spend as much as they want on R&D of power units. Those who use them, but don't manufacture them use them for fixed cost amounts. All of that is outside of the F1 teams capped budget.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Casper

I forgot to include in my last post the biggest thing to encourage overtaking is slower lap speeds as that lengthens the time needed to overtake in any given part of the track. Either that or lengthen the tracks to effectively do the same thing, it sort of compensates but not as good as slowing the cars down. As speeds have risen and lap times fallen time to do anything has been compressed vastly and each year it becomes more so. By increasing performance each year they are driving the competitive on track action into the ground and F1 is worse off for that.

It seems no one gets this so it never gets discussed. I have mentioned this before and very few actually understand why going faster actually destroys good racing in F1.