How to fix F1?

[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 C]

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 C]

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.

[Adam43]

The problem is that you’re just too clever. People don’t understand you. I suspect Einstein had this problem.

To an overtake you have to be proportionally more quicker. Especially at key parts. Obviously.

Often been said that increasing braking zones especially would help as this is where the overtaking actually happens (generally). Banning carbon brakes is suggested as a solution here, but it’s more the downforce that is aiding this.

How much would you slow the cars down for your radical suggestion. To mid 2000 levels, mid 1990 levels (hope not little overtaking in F1 then). 1950s?

Or alternatively how much would you increase the size of the tracks.

[RWill2073]

I threw this out in the customer car thread, but it probably belongs here instead.

Why not change the philosophy behind how lapped cars are handled? Why require them to get out of the leaders way? Make it the leaders responsibility to find a way past, and the slower car can hold the racing line. That could hold up the leaders through corners and allow the the second place car a chance to close in, like sportscar racing.

And on sportscar racing suggestions, let teams like racing point or haas or whoever run completely customer cars, alongside f2 cars in a separate class in the same race. That class does not compete in the constructors championship, but would get grid size up around 30, which creates more traffic and goes back to above paragraph. Also allows teams like mercedes or ferrari to give young talents a drive in the big show in a car that is competing for something, and can allow for older guys past their prime but still competitive to remain in the series while not clogging up drives for new talent, such as raikkonen and a few others.

Also, the push to pass system is way more interesting than drs. That would be great switch to make.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The problem is that you’re just too clever. People don’t understand you. I suspect Einstein had this problem.

To an overtake you have to be proportionally more quicker. Especially at key parts. Obviously.

Often been said that increasing braking zones especially would help as this is where the overtaking actually happens (generally). Banning carbon brakes is suggested as a solution here, but it’s more the downforce that is aiding this.

How much would you slow the cars down for your radical suggestion. To mid 2000 levels, mid 1990 levels (hope not little overtaking in F1 then). 1950s?

Or alternatively how much would you increase the size of the tracks.

Adam, thanks for the rap, I never thought I was that intelligent and as for the details there are those in F1 who have more chance of working that out than I. You don't like the idea I take it from your tongue in the cheek response? To overtake the primary need is time, if you have slightly superior performance you can still overtake given enough time. Your example of iron brakes is an excellent example of creating more time through longer braking zones, thanks for illustrating the point. What is so bad about going slower that freaks out F1 fans to the point that won't consider it as a way of improving racing but they continue to complain about the boredom of follow the leader at the same time.

By proposing that aero on today's cars has ruined racing and needs reducing to rely on more mechanical grip is in fact a proposal to slow the cars down because the only reason they are as fast as they are is all down to aero.

[S griffin]

F1 doesn't need to be that fast to be spectacular. MotoGP isn't as fast as F1, yet the spectacle is great, because the riders are on the edge pretty much all the time and therefore it looks fast without being fast

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Casper

Adam, thanks for the rap, I never thought I was that intelligent and as for the details there are those in F1 who have more chance of working that out than I. You don't like the idea I take it from your tongue in the cheek response?

The idea of slowing the cars down for better racing is good. I even ran with it (a small way).

[chillibowl]

if lowering the speeds is the answer, then how best to implement this?

if the last major rule change (which keeps getting delayed) is any indication, then large scale changes, particularly those involving massive reductions in downforce, are difficult to get agreement on and/or fail in the long run as teams shift their focus on other parts of the car to find that lost downforce.

this is going to be a controversial point, like it or not, but to date, the most successful methods to encourage the pace differential we need to encourage overtaking has been DRS' ability to allow for closer racing and the different compounds a car may be running compared to their rival.

this Pirelli's contract exists outside the normal F1 decision making process, so FOM has significant room to request whatever tires they want (provided they are safe of course) so this would be a expeditious way to effect change.

given that there has been a trend for less testing and now less Free Practice time, there may be an opportunity to prevent teams from being as dialed in with the hope that this leads to greater differences in pace and alternative strategies.

moving to harder compounds would have the knock on effect of decreasing lap times and shorter lasting tires, thus increasing the number of stops required, would also mean more cars always out of position.

not sure how to prevent teams from all converging towards the same solution though.

dont pre announce the compound range until they show up for the weekend, remove the colour codes so teams wont immediately know what the other teams are doing ?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The idea of slowing the cars down for better racing is good. I even ran with it (a small way).

Adam, I find very few agree with the concept so thanks for the support. Tyres are a weak point which is caused by the huge aero loads they are being subjected to and the move to bigger wheels has on the surface a chance to at least partially remedy the problem but we won't know that until they are introduced. One only has to look at that awesome photograph of the Mercedes mid corner to understand the problems Pirelli has to deal with. Sorry, I don't have a link or a copy of it. As for fixing F1....everyone has a plan including Liberty but the fix is not in yet and I doubt it even exists because the series has stumbled along from what was primarily a driving championship to a what has now become primarily an engineering exercise to se who can spend the most money.

[S griffin]

If aero had been kept to a minimum we wouldn't have even needed DRS and the two compound per race rule. I just hate this whole 'spicing up the show.' It's a sport, and if you can make the spectacle better it would be so much better. Just remember F1 is the pinnacle of the sport and we should appreciate that these are the best drivers in the world and we should enjoy it from that perspective too

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

Adam, I find very few agree with the concept so thanks for the support. Tyres are a weak point which is caused by the huge aero loads they are being subjected to and the move to bigger wheels has on the surface a chance to at least partially remedy the problem but we won't know that until they are introduced. One only has to look at that awesome photograph of the Mercedes mid corner to understand the problems Pirelli has to deal with. Sorry, I don't have a link or a copy of it. As for fixing F1....everyone has a plan including Liberty but the fix is not in yet and I doubt it even exists because the series has stumbled along from what was primarily a driving championship to a what has now become primarily an engineering exercise to se who can spend the most money.

Is this the photograph?

[wnut]

The racing got dramatically worse as soon as the front wing width was allowed to exceed the distance between the insides of the front wheel rims.
This wing is used to prepare and condition the airflow over the whole car and is the first surface affected by wake turbulence behind another car.

Just eliminate the front wing completely, then the whole aero package has to be designed to work in the turbulent air generated by the front wheels and would not be so badly affected by the wake turbulence of the leading car.

[Kato]

Originally Posted by wnut

The racing got dramatically worse as soon as the front wing width was allowed to exceed the distance between the insides of the front wheel rims.
This wing is used to prepare and condition the airflow over the whole car and is the first surface affected by wake turbulence behind another car.

Just eliminate the front wing completely, then the whole aero package has to be designed to work in the turbulent air generated by the front wheels and would not be so badly affected by the wake turbulence of the leading car.

Excellent idea, behold below the car of 2024.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Kato

Excellent idea, behold below the car of 2024.

Good, manual gearboxes as well.

Been to the Goodwood revival?
Google will do ...

Better racing than current F1.

(MotoGP bikes don't look like 50s bikes, yet aero is banned there.

[Kato]

While we are at it, as well as brining back the cars - bring back the drivers. Clone them, who really was or I should say is, the greatest of all time? Well let's find out! I know ethically dubious, blame Dolly The Sheep, but absolutely entertainment solid gold. Sit back and watch the punters through their money at you.

[Kato]

Originally Posted by wnut

Good, manual gearboxes as well.

Been to the Goodwood revival?
Google will do ...

Better racing than current F1.

Wrong side of the world unfortunately, would love to go once we are all over the pandemic. Which we probably all are.

[Kato]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is this the photograph?

I am probably wrong but to me the forces involved - mechanical grip on the left rear is phenomenal. Great photo.

[wnut]

https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formul...s27800x532.jpg


1981 Williams FW07B

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Kato

I am probably wrong but to me the forces involved - mechanical grip on the left rear is phenomenal. Great photo.

That is a stunning picture.

The forces are massive, however without the aero loading you could not generate that much grip and it would solve a host of problems
.

[wnut]

http://hyde1841.blogspot.com/2017/03...ams-fw07b.html

[NaBUru38]

By the way; i'd prefer Formula 1 to go back to 6-speed gearboxes. The first reason is that it allows the engine to rev up and down more clearly. THe second reason is that I struggle to play Codemasters game in manual mode...

[bjohnsonsmith]

A lot of cars ran without front wings during the ground effect era, as the bulk of the car's downforce was generated by the underwing. The front wing was used for trimming the airflow, rather than generating downforce. However, not all cars ran without the front wing, as can be seen in this photo from the infamous San Marino GP of '82. Didier Pironi is running with front wing and Gilles Vileneuve without.