[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bella

i don't know really, that's a direct quote from gary anderson as it appears on autosport and he doesn't elaborate.

it would be interesting to know some examples, but what you see failing in the junior series (especially in the first year after a new car is introduced or there's a significant change in some key components) is a good guide.

I think I found the answer.

Do you support cost containments as a principle?

I don’t know how you’d do it. What I would do is I would control components on the car as to how often you can change them, because the problem at the moment is that it’s open season and you can throw things at the car all day long. The problem with the current approach is it doesn’t give you enough time to research all options correctly. You’re trying to find solutions. So, you’re firing bits onto the car blindly and a huge percentage of them end up in the skip at the back of the garage because they don’t work.

If you had some control over when and how much you could change in the car – it could be three, four races, or whatever you like – then I think: (A) you would have more time for more definitive, valuable research that (B) would develop better components to put on the cars. They go in the car and it work first time out. So I think you could control cost a lot more with that approach.

The big teams will always have more money than the small teams, but unfortunately that’s the way life is. The air outside is still the same whether you’re a pilgrim, in a small house or in a mansion. You can’t say that Formula 1 can be run for $40 million as they try to do. That’s madness.

Take a look at a team like Ferrari: they spend upwards of $200-odd million and you expect them to cut back to $40 million? They would find solutions out there to make that work. For example, Ferrari see it similar – was that Fernando Alonso goes in and uses that, is that really a Ferrari cost or is that a fee effect? They spend all the money and…

Do you think cost controls would stifle design creativity or encourage it further?

I have heard from a lots of people complaining that the regulations are too tight. Not that long ago, you could go to a wind tunnel and find 1% more downforce. Now you go there and you might get 0.1% more downforce. That’s actually harder to do, and it takes better thinking.

If you are going to put controls in place, limit being able to change things every race of the season. But also, give them the freedom – if they need to get out of a major hole – to have one race where you change anything you want. So, there’s ways of doing it. You still get that challenge but to make sure that you’re not wasting money. Cut the waste, but keep the challenge.
http://richardsf1.com/2014/09/10/exc...gary-anderson/

"Spending has to be controlled. I would control the bits you can change on a car. It won't stop teams developing but it would mean a lot less waste. At the moment teams are developing components to get on the car and when they don't work they get put in the bin.

"It's only because they're allowed to do it that quickly. If you said: 'OK, after every four or five or six races you can have an update on certain bits on the car,' then you would control that. Teams would have more time to research, there would be less wastage.

"Take rear wings. We have probably a different rear wing for most circuits. That's stupid. For me you go to Melbourne for the first race of the season, that rear wing – like the gearbox – would have to last five races. You will save bucket loads of money.

"And look at the wheels and tyres. In the pits, most teams will have 11 sets of slick tyres, all mounted, a couple of sets of intermediates, a couple of sets of wets, all mounted. That's 15 sets of wheels, tyres and tyre blankets all sitting outside a garage on a Thursday afternoon.

"The most you can use in one individual qualifying session is three sets of soft and three sets of hard. So that's six, plus a set or two of intermediates and wets. So at the most that 10, eight if you can get away with it. Those things add up. Over a season, a team could make a saving in the region of £10m, just through wastage and over extravagance."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blo...anderson-lotus

And find a column from Gary Anderson here: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/18464273

[miatanut]

The key piece of that article is this:

Originally Posted by Gary Anderson

Most teams are building huge amounts of new parts, and bringing updates to virtually every race.
But, on average, only about 50% of these work, so the rest are put in the bin. That's a huge waste of money.

That stuff is why I say F1 is the most wasteful human endeavor outside of war.

Tons (literally) of stuff that was developed for a single circuit, much of which turned out to be not as good as what they already had, and then thrown in the bin during the weekend.

If somebody could develop a series for weekend racers adopting F1 spec and using F1 team castoffs, those guys could have a hell of a lot of fun for peanuts.

Originally Posted by Gary Anderson

How would you stop that? Establish a rule that says the teams have to fix the specifications of their cars for six races at a time.
So a team turns up in Australia at the start of the season - and that is exactly the car they race until Monaco. No updates, no modifications, nothing. Just set-up changes.

Humm. Homologation. I've proposed this before. He's more drastic than I am. My proposal was a high downforce setup and a low downforce setup and you are stuck with those components until mid-season, and then everybody get a second shot, like he says. You don't want to lock a team into a mistake all season long. He's dividing it into three sections, with two "wildcards". Less cost control, but I like it. It would still be a major step toward cost control from what we have now, with a lot of aero components developed for a single circuit.

[bella]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The key piece of that article is this:

That stuff is why I say F1 is the most wasteful human endeavor outside of war.

Tons (literally) of stuff that was developed for a single circuit, much of which turned out to be not as good as what they already had, and then thrown in the bin during the weekend.

If somebody could develop a series for weekend racers adopting F1 spec and using F1 team castoffs, those guys could have a hell of a lot of fun for peanuts.

i think this is why it's bad that testing is limited. a lot of that scattergun approach could be limited with increased track time, rather than having to manufacture EVERYTHING and bring it all to free practice. i'm really not here for anything that keeps cars off the track and in some sort of virtual environment away from the eyes of the spectators, fans and sponsors.

i believe there's lots of reliability related stuff that goes in the skip too (seriously, again with the comment about the skint teams running multiple things beyond their expected life), but can't really quantify that.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bella

i think this is why it's bad that testing is limited. a lot of that scattergun approach could be limited with increased track time, rather than having to manufacture EVERYTHING and bring it all to free practice. i'm really not here for anything that keeps cars off the track and in some sort of virtual environment away from the eyes of the spectators, fans and sponsors.

I agree. Another unintended consequence of rules that were intended to reduce costs but ended up increasing them.

Originally Posted by bella

i believe there's lots of reliability related stuff that goes in the skip too (seriously, again with the comment about the skint teams running multiple things beyond their expected life), but can't really quantify that.

Was there an article anywhere that said the little teams were running things past their expected life or was that just speculation?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bella

i think this is why it's bad that testing is limited. a lot of that scattergun approach could be limited with increased track time, rather than having to manufacture EVERYTHING and bring it all to free practice. i'm really not here for anything that keeps cars off the track and in some sort of virtual environment away from the eyes of the spectators, fans and sponsors.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I agree. Another unintended consequence of rules that were intended to reduce costs but ended up increasing them.

Gary Anderson calls the trial of various bodywork pieces which are binned after five laps because they do not work a waste. The limiting of testing may have a positive effect that respect, as teams cannot endlessly try new pieces of bodywork.

If homologation and the limiting of the numbers of various components per season - e.g. engines, gearboxes and tyres - are indeed an effective for cost containment, I think should most of the car should be homologated for the entire season and major components such as the drivetrain should last the entire season.

[Richard C]

I like much of what Mr. Anderson is saying. It is all good ideas.

[old man]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

You have a number of bike manufacturers, and more are coming in soon although the two big ones dominate.
Bike manufacturers generally build everything at this level (MotoGP) but in F1 some of our manufacturers don't. Specialist chassis constructors are actually needed.

The ability of manufacturers to build good cars is generally not that great and most successful manufacturers have aligned themselves with specialist manufacturers.

F1 does need them. In fact motor car racing needs them, so be careful that you are not throwing away something that you actually need in the longer term.
Short term thinking doesn't help much. You need to look at the longer term effect. Bernie hasn't done that very much.

That's why F1 has been in the mess we see.

Mmmmmmm, not sure I actually follow what you mean here Teretonga?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Regarding engine rules, looks like it's hotting up again.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116886

[mikuni]

edit: Oops, posted before reading the link above..

Horner's comments in a practice session interview with BBC actually had a little merit.

He was basically putting forward the idea of a modification of the existing PU, still based on the 1.6l turbos, but twin turbo to increase power and sound, along with a simplified kers system that will be less costly for the teams to develop. The horse has bolted on the costs to a certain degree, but this latest suggestion is far less absurd than his recent previous suggestion of going back to the V8's.

[bella]

i'm not sure i understand the point in developing anything new. doesn't that just generate *more* costs, the r&d has to be paid for somehow...

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bella

i'm not sure i understand the point in developing anything new. doesn't that just generate *more* costs, the r&d has to be paid for somehow...

It makes no sense whatsoever,more Horner gibberish ....

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm,

I think his point was, if you ditch the ERS, go back to KERS and instead have twin turbos, the power units would be much cheaper but still as powerful.

For me he lost the point when he said the manufacturer should swallow the difference between the build cost and the selling cost, which would be chesper, to the privateer/customer teams. Apart from making no economic sense, it would also mean that Red Bull would benefit as a customer team.

[JeremySmith]

But Peter should all of this not have been discussed prior to designing and building these new power units ? the teams never seem to have one voice about anything..

Where is the FIA in all of this? Todt rules with a baguette, Mosley used an iron fist...

The engine manufactures must have known how much these things would end up costing way ahead of time..

There is no one at the helm, F1 is rudderless right now..

BE never wanted them in the first place....

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

BE never wanted them in the first place....

That's the root of the problem. Somebody dared to go against his will, so he's been trashing the new power units ever since.

Meanwhile, they are doing comparable lap times on 30% less fuel in one year, and people enjoying the on-track action provided by the new rules.

It just goes to show how powerful BE is. He can talk the whole sport down, despite objective evidence it is better than in the recent past.

[Paradise City]

Horner's idea requires a dramatic overhaul of those V6's. It's disingenuous for him to suggest that it's a mere 'modification'. Mercedes could be a bit more flexible in lifting the restrictions mind you.

[Razor]

Here's a better idea. Bring back the 3.0L V10 (either natural or twin turbo) connected to a KERS/ERS system with a control fuel tank size and refuelling (either E85, E100 or possibly hydrogen)

Anyone else want a screaming V10 or a Prius drone V6?

[TRuss]

Or Mercedes could allow the possibility of having to actually compete against somebody other than themselves and agree to allow some in season development in '15. In my opinion the freeze was always stupid. What's the point of a new formula for the manufacturers to develop new road going technologies if they aren't allowed to develop the new technologies?

I am curious on Honda's stance. Do they have any say? If so. Whose side are they on. We have four manufacturers now and Honda's vote determines the majority needed to change the regs for '16. Again, not sure if their input is allowed. I haven't heard mention of their desires once.

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by TRuss

Or Mercedes could allow the possibility of having to actually compete against somebody other than themselves and agree to allow some in season development in '15. In my opinion the freeze was always stupid. What's the point of a new formula for the manufacturers to develop new road going technologies if they aren't allowed to develop the new technologies?

I am curious on Honda's stance. Do they have any say? If so. Whose side are they on. We have four manufacturers now and Honda's vote determines the majority needed to change the regs for '16. Again, not sure if their input is allowed. I haven't heard mention of their desires once.

I dare say Honda will keep their mouths shut for now as they can keep developing their engine as much as they like until it is homologated.

[Sodemo]

I must admit I'm confused as to how they police that...? So Honda come in a full year after everyone else, will they not have 12 months of more R&D on the current engine suppliers also? What if they turn up with a 800BHP monster and the Renault is still "stuck" at 680BHP or some such?

[VIVA GT]

I thought that I read somewhere last year when it was announced that Honda were coming in that they had to homologate their engine at the same time as everyone else? Despite the fact that they would be starting a year later.
(I do accept however that I could be wrong, I am a married man, and my wife is often telling me so...)

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I thought that I read somewhere last year when it was announced that Honda were coming in that they had to homologate their engine at the same time as everyone else? Despite the fact that they would be starting a year later.
(I do accept however that I could be wrong, I am a married man, and my wife is often telling me so...)

Hmm, ok, so what if say Audi entered in 2016? What would happen then to the engine "freeze". Doesn't really make a lot of sense if you want to attract new entrants.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Hmm, ok, so what if say Audi entered in 2016? What would happen then to the engine "freeze". Doesn't really make a lot of sense if you want to attract new entrants.

Yes, you're right (and I did admit that I could be wrong), but conversely it's not fair to the existing manufacturers for Honda (for example) to come in next year with a totally new engine designed with the benefit of seeing what worked and what didn't work this year, and blow everyone into the weeds.
Hopefully someone who really knows will pop along soon and explain all...

[Pingguest]

The Sporting Regulations are based on engines homologated in February 2014. A new engine may be homologated later, but only if the FIA 'satisfied'. Although Honda may officially have had an additional year for development, they clearly lack experience with their new engine in race conditions.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I think we all know mow double points won't happen next year but I'm pleased to see there won't be standing re-starts, that really was a crass idea.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116953

[Paradise City]

They rejected changes to that stupid garbage where they give slow coaches their lap back during yellow flags a few weeks ago. I'm too annoyed to find the link.