[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Simple answer. Pure fueled engines without all the gubbins and weight of electric recovery, steel brakes etc.

Indycar changed from steel brakes to carbon ceramic brakes as the carbon ceramic brakes are actually cheaper because they last longer: multiple race meetings from a set of rotors...

Say Mr. Mallett are you for or against direct injection and the turbulent jet injection currently used (that allows for ultra-lean mixtures and high efficiency, by having a separate richer pre-combustion mixture)? These technologies greatly increase thermal efficiency, whether it's NA or turbo. Returning to port injection would arguably be a retrograde step...

[Peter Mallett]

So you are saying these components get used more than one race? Doubtful. Yes they last longer but only if you use them as long term items. To maintain efficiency they will be replaced every race. So you're paying a premium why? Because they are far more efficient than steel brakes.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So you are saying these components get used more than one race? Doubtful.

F1 teams can't be helped if they refuse to operate as economically as an Indycar team.

I guess the 3 power unit per season rules are supposed to save the teams from themselves, compared to when they used to use 3 new engines per driver per weekend. But does it really save any money --- hmmm....

[Peter Mallett]

Lol.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Say Mr. Mallett are you for or against direct injection and the turbulent jet injection currently used (that allows for ultra-lean mixtures and high efficiency, by having a separate richer pre-combustion mixture)? These technologies greatly increase thermal efficiency, whether it's NA or turbo. Returning to port injection would arguably be a retrograde step...

Sorry missed this.

Personally I prefer a big V8, 10 or 12; but among our family cars is a Fiesta ST which is one of those turbocharged thingies that puts out about 200bhp from something the size of a teacup so I'm not against them at all.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Lol.

You must admit the notion of F1 teams having to scrounge around trying to cobble together the best combination of their well-used power unit bits toward the end of the season is pretty amusing!

[Peter Mallett]

Indeed but they can afford it because they aren't cost capped.

Can you imagine the scene, only two cars on the grid for Abu Dhabi because the others have too much season at the end of their money.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ok, so we have a cost cap. What does it do? The whole Concord Agreement is a contract between the Teams and the Organizers. Perhaps if I use the analogy of a complex construction contract you will see my argument....

i understand the analogy but im not sure it changes anything to what is already going on?

Merc spends 450mil a year while a small team spends 150 million a year...now while we can see the difference on track of that difference of 300 million in terms of speed, reliability, handling...i dont think anyone has ever suggested that the team with the lower budget is cutting corners to the extent that they are compromising safety.

if we already know the small team can do it safely for less money why would this change if all teams had to compete at the same budget as that small team?

anyways, doesnt the FIA and FOM already share in the liability. rather haven't they have been named as defendants in more than one trial relating to the passing of a competitor. by virtue of organizing and running the event they share responsibility already no?

that the organizer accepts the responsibility for the health of its athletes is fairly common in all major sports and is currently a source of much discussions by the NFL and their players union about how they will pay for all the concussions.

as for cost overruns...allowance can be made under a soft cap scenario (used by other sports sometimes called a luxury tax) whereby overspending is taxed and with that tax money being redistributed in some fashion among those that live under the cap.

point is there are mechanisms here to deal with such things already and the way the budget cap talks are going it sounds like it will involve a better fairer distribution of funds to ensure the competitors have sufficient money to make it to the end of the season and in a safe fashion.

can any of it be properly implemented...well thats a far more difficult question to answer!

[Richard C]

Lots of good comments and I will try to not repeat what others have already said.

Oh... can we rename this thread... How to fix F1?

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

You have a contract for a scope of work, in this case a massive bridge. You've agreed a lump sum for the scope of work of say $500m.

Your analogy starts out from the wrong position. It assumes at the end that the bridge will meet a given spec. That is completely wrong. F1 expects a VERY minimal spec and that is the safety requirements. Which clearly can be achieved for little money (when looking at the scope of the total capped budget)

A better example would be if you were running a reality TV show about home remodeling. You pick three identical apartments, give the designers the same amount of money, let them have at it. In the end a panel of judges votes on who does the best job. Receipts must be kept during the remodel. You will be able to rank them first to last. Cost capped F1 is pretty much the same thing.

The goal is to not make a specific product and hope it comes in under budget, but to see who makes the best product within a fixed budget.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

As a result, the teams will be seeking shortcuts in order to stay afloat. And those short cuts will inevitably involve safety in terms of the structure of the car, engine longevity and all other things where a manufacturer can control expenditure or they will be banging on the door seeking additional funds and there will be no racing anywhere.

I think this can be proven to be false. Especially with respect to teams funding development by skimping on required safety. I don't think it happens today, so why would it happen in the future. Ask any group inside a team if they could use more money. The answer will always be "yes". So why are they not stealing it from the safety budget today?

So the cost cap clearly sets the budget, but clearly that means you have to spend less money. I guess by definition that means spending less money than they would normally. It DOES mean lesser solutions. Or at least lesser somewhere, but not safety (as the car would not pass safety tests and inspections). It is likely to result in less than currently stellar reliability that we see today. All of which... gasp... might bring a level of unpredictability to the sport and in a less contrived way (i.e. DRS and tires that are engineered to perform badly).

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So, IMO we don't need cost caps, we need to make the whole thing cheaper to enter and that means returning to realistic technology.

Please explain how creating tighter technical regulations (such as simpler power units) will reduce overall budgets. It may shift spending around, but it's unlikely to shrink them. I may put it in my signature line as I say it enough... "Budgets are based upon the perceived prestige of the series and your ability to source funding, not by the complexity of the technical regulations." I would say the only exception to this rule is if the regulations are EXTREMELY tight so as that nearly any budget to improve things is very deep into the realm of diminishing returns. NASCAR has relatively tight technical regulations and a desire by the rule makers to keep it "low tech". Budgets for those teams were only as limited by how much funding they could get and they always found ways to spend the money.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Indeed but they can afford it because they aren't cost capped.

Can you imagine the scene, only two cars on the grid for Abu Dhabi because the others have too much season at the end of their money.

So teams run under budgets today. I expect there is some flexibility and potential for the budget to grow if needed, but broadly speaking the team operates on a value that is known at the start of the season. So why are teams not running out of money and not being able to attend the last races today? Maybe because they actually operate against their budget and plan ahead? That includes development over the span of the season as well as some contingency funding set aside for emergency purposes.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

as for cost overruns...allowance can be made under a soft cap scenario (used by other sports sometimes called a luxury tax) whereby overspending is taxed and with that tax money being redistributed in some fashion among those that live under the cap.

Yes! There are solutions for unexpected expenditures, etc. It could be done in a number of ways. Soft caps is just one of them.

Richard

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Your analogy starts out from the wrong position. It assumes at the end that the bridge will meet a given spec. That is completely wrong. F1 expects a VERY minimal spec and that is the safety requirements. Which clearly can be achieved for little money (when looking at the scope of the total capped budget)

A better example would be if you were running a reality TV show about home remodeling. You pick three identical apartments, give the designers the same amount of money, let them have at it. In the end a panel of judges votes on who does the best job. Receipts must be kept during the remodel. You will be able to rank them first to last. Cost capped F1 is pretty much the same thing.

The goal is to not make a specific product and hope it comes in under budget, but to see who makes the best product within a fixed budget.

Actually your analogy ignores the business requirements that a team faces. Your winning house may look good but if the other one, less expensive, does the job then that should be the winner since it saves money for the shareholders. I'm not suggesting you are wrong per se but you ignore the reality of business which is to get the lowest cost result. I think it is wrong and value driven solutions would be preferable but reality is all based on cost.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think this can be proven to be false. Especially with respect to teams funding development by skimping on required safety. I don't think it happens today, so why would it happen in the future. Ask any group inside a team if they could use more money. The answer will always be "yes". So why are they not stealing it from the safety budget today?

AFAIK they don't have a safety budget imposed on them so they aren't stealing anything.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So the cost cap clearly sets the budget, but clearly that means you have to spend less money. I guess by definition that means spending less money than they would normally. It DOES mean lesser solutions. Or at least lesser somewhere, but not safety (as the car would not pass safety tests and inspections). It is likely to result in less than currently stellar reliability that we see today. All of which... gasp... might bring a level of unpredictability to the sport and in a less contrived way (i.e. DRS and tires that are engineered to perform badly).

Sorry that really is a naive approach. Again the reality of business is cost driven. Who would have thought that VW, Mercedes and other respected businesses would fudge emission tests? Never gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Please explain how creating tighter technical regulations (such as simpler power units) will reduce overall budgets. It may shift spending around, but it's unlikely to shrink them. I may put it in my signature line as I say it enough... "Budgets are based upon the perceived prestige of the series and your ability to source funding, not by the complexity of the technical regulations." I would say the only exception to this rule is if the regulations are EXTREMELY tight so as that nearly any budget to improve things is very deep into the realm of diminishing returns. NASCAR has relatively tight technical regulations and a desire by the rule makers to keep it "low tech". Budgets for those teams were only as limited by how much funding they could get and they always found ways to spend the money.

Heve to agree to disagree. If a power unit costs 20m euros you can buyt ten V8s for the same price. Surely a reliable V8 and we know reliability is vastly improved on previous years, will be a better proposition and as it costs less to procure these it means more teams would be encouraged to enter.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So teams run under budgets today. I expect there is some flexibility and potential for the budget to grow if needed, but broadly speaking the team operates on a value that is known at the start of the season. So why are teams not running out of money and not being able to attend the last races today? Maybe because they actually operate against their budget and plan ahead? That includes development over the span of the season as well as some contingency funding set aside for emergency purposes.
Richard

Ok as I said I disagree with the philosophy. I want to see more accessible rules whereby you can spend what you like but the componentry isn't so sophisticated you need twenty engineers per driver.

Normally aspirated or tubocharged engines (for ease stick with turbocharged); lighter chassis, and the cars must fit into an overall box. Whatever you do inside that box is free but open wheels of a specific size are mandatory.

[midgetman]

That last paragraph is a bit simplistic Peter. For instance, safety regulations for the monocoque will mean a convergence of "body" design, just as road cars are beginning to look similar. I'm sure there are other areas where commonality will occur too.

Otherwise I agree, this is an engineering formula and the engineers should be allowed freedom of thought. Great minds are constrained at the moment and we're seeing no giant leaps like ground effect, turbocharging or even slick tyres. I cannot believe that the current F1 car is the ultimate in design expression, there will be something new in the minds of clever people if only they were allowed to let it loose.

Personally I think the "budget cap" will sort itself out. Main boards will soon start to question the £££ being spent on F1, the whole edifice will come tumbling down to be replaced by a leaner F1 evolving from within.

I hear it from all levels of the sport "it's not fair, X is winning because he has more money than me." Sadly, it's always been so. Motor racing is a deep pocket sport. However, opportunity has never been better because thanks to commercial links at least you can use someone else's money now instead of your own!

I yearn for the days when clever engineering could beat big money, to me THAT'S what F1 is all about. And I think that's what would bring the punters flocking back; young or old, everyone loves an underdog winning.

EDIT: Sorry if I went OT. I couldn't remember if I was on Future Rule Changes, How to Fix F1 or whatever!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by midgetman

That last paragraph is a bit simplistic Peter. For instance, safety regulations for the monocoque will mean a convergence of "body" design, just as road cars are beginning to look similar. I'm sure there are other areas where commonality will occur too.

Agreed but I tried to keep it brief. Remember 1979 to 1982 when the cars all resembled copies of the Lotus 79? Some of the prettiest F1 cars ever IMO but then turbos came along and the dynamics changed things. But Ferrari were forced to revise their engines so that they could compete with the garagistes.

Originally Posted by midgetman

Otherwise I agree, this is an engineering formula and the engineers should be allowed freedom of thought. Great minds are constrained at the moment and we're seeing no giant leaps like ground effect, turbocharging or even slick tyres. I cannot believe that the current F1 car is the ultimate in design expression, there will be something new in the minds of clever people if only they were allowed to let it loose.

Personally I think the "budget cap" will sort itself out. Main boards will soon start to question the £££ being spent on F1, the whole edifice will come tumbling down to be replaced by a leaner F1 evolving from within.

I hear it from all levels of the sport "it's not fair, X is winning because he has more money than me." Sadly, it's always been so. Motor racing is a deep pocket sport. However, opportunity has never been better because thanks to commercial links at least you can use someone else's money now instead of your own!

I yearn for the days when clever engineering could beat big money, to me THAT'S what F1 is all about. And I think that's what would bring the punters flocking back; young or old, everyone loves an underdog winning.

EDIT: Sorry if I went OT. I couldn't remember if I was on Future Rule Changes, How to Fix F1 or whatever!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Ditto but they all meld into one anyway.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Indeed but they can afford it because they aren't cost capped.

Can you imagine the scene, only two cars on the grid for Abu Dhabi because the others have too much season at the end of their money.

Peter, that comment has brightened my extremely dull Friday, thank you

[Richard C]

Peter,

We fundamentally disagree. My complaint in this back and forth is that I feel you are not countering where I try to pick apart your proposal and point out holes in your logic, but just restate your ideas.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Actually your analogy ignores the business requirements that a team faces. Your winning house may look good but if the other one, less expensive, does the job then that should be the winner since it saves money for the shareholders. I'm not suggesting you are wrong per se but you ignore the reality of business which is to get the lowest cost result. I think it is wrong and value driven solutions would be preferable but reality is all based on cost.

You can't change the rules of the game to fit your world view. Even today, the "business" of F1 is not about saving money for shareholders. It's about showing value.

The goal of both my analogy and an F1 team is to win the game/championship. If we view it from a team business perspective (which must be done), then they can remain profitable and show value for the shareholders. Note that the cost cap system does not limit revenue and profit. Not to mention there are a number of exceptions on spending, such as hospitality. So sponsorship, or any other sources of revenue can be large and growing. No different than today.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

AFAIK they don't have a safety budget imposed on them so they aren't stealing anything.

Of course they have a safety budget. Those that design and build the cars don't take up a collection to fund things like design and construction of mandated crash structures. Those items come out of the budget today. Do they have a line item in the budget? I expect some do as some exist for nothing but safety purposes (i.e. the side impact crush structures), others may live within other components such as the cockpit/safety cell.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

sorry that really is a naive approach. Again the reality of business is cost driven. Who would have thought that VW, Mercedes and other respected businesses would fudge emission tests? Never gonna happen.

See comments above. Business and the world is more complicated than being solely "cost" based. By your measure the best business is no business as the cost would be zero.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Heve to agree to disagree. If a power unit costs 20m euros you can buyt ten V8s for the same price. Surely a reliable V8 and we know reliability is vastly improved on previous years, will be a better proposition and as it costs less to procure these it means more teams would be encouraged to enter.

I broadly agree with you regarding the power units as it comes as a fixed cost for teams with no real options for them to reduce that cost. And I believe they are trying to tweak the technical regulations to make them cheaper to produce, but the viability of that approach is for another discussion. Especially as it mostly lives outside of the cost capped system.

But my point was not about fixed cost items. It is about variable cost items in which teams decide how much they want to spend. So you missed my point. Even today, with large budgets, teams have to make decisions as to where they spend their money. Teams with less funding just spend less. Look at Williams vs Mercedes today. Williams is clearly spending less. It is a "lesser" solution (per my original post/point). Imagine a field full of lesser solutions similar to Williams today. On the surface that sounds bad given how down they are compared to Mercedes, but if that level of spending and performance was the norm...would we notice?

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ok as I said I disagree with the philosophy. I want to see more accessible rules whereby you can spend what you like but the componentry isn't so sophisticated you need twenty engineers per driver.

Normally aspirated or tubocharged engines (for ease stick with turbocharged); lighter chassis, and the cars must fit into an overall box. Whatever you do inside that box is free but open wheels of a specific size are mandatory.

This doesn't explain why spending will not be reallocated elsewhere. Some technology is outright banned today, so the money is spent where it can be spent.

Reread what you typed above. You want them to spend what they want, but as to not need twenty engineers per driver. What if the teams have the money for twenty engineers per driver and feels that many gives them an edge? Why wouldn't they have twenty engineers per driver?

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

We fundamentally disagree.

Actually, let me restate that. I suspect we fundamentally agree on what we want, but disagree on how we think the world works.

I want....

* Open rules so that technology can run wild and amaze us.
* The best drivers racing hammer and tongs with fans watching slack jawed
* I want the cars to be beautiful, objects of desire and on posters hung upon the walls of today's youth.
* I want things to be like the best parts of our memory of years past.

I want all of those and more. However, years of experience as an informed fan and living in the world of business and technology tells me... Those are conflicting goals and unrealistic for a slew of reasons, most of which are driven by basic economics.

Richard

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Peter,

We fundamentally disagree. My complaint in this back and forth is that I feel you are not countering where I try to pick apart your proposal and point out holes in your logic, but just restate your ideas.


You can't change the rules of the game to fit your world view. Even today, the "business" of F1 is not about saving money for shareholders. It's about showing value.

The goal of both my analogy and an F1 team is to win the game/championship. If we view it from a team business perspective (which must be done), then they can remain profitable and show value for the shareholders. Note that the cost cap system does not limit revenue and profit. Not to mention there are a number of exceptions on spending, such as hospitality. So sponsorship, or any other sources of revenue can be large and growing. No different than today.

Ok I accept that bit but then it isn't a cost cap. Either you are permitted to earn/spend a certain amount or you aren't.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Of course they have a safety budget. Those that design and build the cars don't take up a collection to fund things like design and construction of mandated crash structures. Those items come out of the budget today. Do they have a line item in the budget? I expect some do as some exist for nothing but safety purposes (i.e. the side impact crush structures), others may live within other components such as the cockpit/safety cell.

Again yes but it is a self imposed budget not based upon someone's idea of permitted expenditure so not a "cost cap" as it were.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

See comments above. Business and the world is more complicated than being solely "cost" based. By your measure the best business is no business as the cost would be zero.

Oh dear. Believe me I'm involved in a very large business and I can tell you it all comes down to lowest cost.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I broadly agree with you regarding the power units as it comes as a fixed cost for teams with no real options for them to reduce that cost. And I believe they are trying to tweak the technical regulations to make them cheaper to produce, but the viability of that approach is for another discussion. Especially as it mostly lives outside of the cost capped system.

Yes agreed yet again! But the sad thing is the cost is set by the manufacturers who are quite possibly turning a massive profit on each unit they sell. I'm all for profit because it makes the world work but frankly the eye watering costs of a PU just beggar belief.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

But my point was not about fixed cost items. It is about variable cost items in which teams decide how much they want to spend. So you missed my point. Even today, with large budgets, teams have to make decisions as to where they spend their money. Teams with less funding just spend less. Look at Williams vs Mercedes today. Williams is clearly spending less. It is a "lesser" solution (per my original post/point). Imagine a field full of lesser solutions similar to Williams today. On the surface that sounds bad given how down they are compared to Mercedes, but if that level of spending and performance was the norm...would we notice?

I like your thinking and of course we wouldn't notice. However the reason for Williams being where it is may not be simply cost. That said going back to my point re the PUs it may be that they have reallocated personnel from chassis dynamics.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

This doesn't explain why spending will not be reallocated elsewhere. Some technology is outright banned today, so the money is spent where it can be spent.

Reread what you typed above. You want them to spend what they want, but as to not need twenty engineers per driver. What if the teams have the money for twenty engineers per driver and feels that many gives them an edge? Why wouldn't they have twenty engineers per driver?

Richard

Nothing wrong with having as many people as you want in a team but my point was that the necessity for twenty people per driver is driven by the need for technology.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Actually, let me restate that. I suspect we fundamentally agree on what we want, but disagree on how we think the world works.

I want....

* Open rules so that technology can run wild and amaze us.
* The best drivers racing hammer and tongs with fans watching slack jawed
* I want the cars to be beautiful, objects of desire and on posters hung upon the walls of today's youth.
* I want things to be like the best parts of our memory of years past.

I want all of those and more. However, years of experience as an informed fan and living in the world of business and technology tells me... Those are conflicting goals and unrealistic for a slew of reasons, most of which are driven by basic economics.

Richard

Ok using your list:

I do not want technology to amaze me. It's bland and boring. I want drivers having to work hard and thus amaze me.

Slack jawed fans? Hmmm. But I agree.

Again we agree about the cars and if you pick up my point in reply to Midgetman I want the same.

FWIW I'm currently involved in a multi billion euro operation and believe me technology only comes in to play if it can be got cheaply or paid for by someone else. Shareholders can be bloody difficult.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

FWIW I'm currently involved in a multi billion euro operation and believe me technology only comes in to play if it can be got cheaply or paid for by someone else. Shareholders can be bloody difficult.

Regarding business bonafides, I am not doubting your experience. I am saying the business world is complex and no single perspective captures it in its entirety.

My personal experience is no doubt different than yours. I have spent nearly two decades going from startup in which I was in the first 100 employees to public company. Selling software to Fortune 100 companies across multiple verticals in a crowded market. Today, I am elsewhere. Now I am part of a Fortune 50.

In both... Sometimes it was only about cost, sometimes it was about technology/solution. We have won and lost in both scenarios. Regardless, cost always matters (especially if in a commodity or replacement market), but success is more than just cost.

Thanks for the civil discussion! Cheers!

Richard

[Peter Mallett]

Yes, good fun. You are of course in technology already so I can see the balance would be different between "traditional" methods and something that improves the business.

Anyway, I'll think about moving these posts to the "how to improve" thread over the weekend.

[Greem]

Ah well, it was a good idea while it lasted:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...d-off/4395308/

[wolfhound]

It looks like ground effect is on its way back to F1.


https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...ffect-for-2021


Hope it helps with overtaking.

[S griffin]

It should do and the mock of the cars looks good too which helps

[Tourer]

It may well assist with overtaking or at the very least allow cars to run closer together, providing the possibility of overtaking or at least injecting some uncertainty into a result whereas now, once a driver is clear of the DRS time zone, it's for the most part seen as a done deal.

I think that it's good that reducing the weight of the cars is on the agenda as well - they really have become far too heavy IMHO and whilst the weight of the power units doesn't help (& they're here to stay unfortunately) the cars should really be lighter, dartier, edgier than they are now.

[Richard C]

They are looking to change strategy regarding tire specs..

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/p...1/4497513/amp/

Richard

[S griffin]

Seems we are going back to basics. As long as they don’t bring back refuelling as is being proposed

[bjohnsonsmith]

According to that article, they are preparing to switch to 18" wheels.