[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[wnut]

I am not quite sure which thread should contain this, but some good thoughts on why people remember and enjoy racing, together with some ideas on what should be done.

Chariots of thunder!

http://www.pitpass.com/55438/Chariots-of-Thunder

"it's a fair bet this (fictional) crowd ambled home discussing the actual events of the afternoon, rather than the legal size of the axles, the minimum weight of a chariot or the questionable use of "advanced hay" as horse food to power past the opposition. Yes what actually transpired within the race would have been the major topic of excitement and discussion."

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

I am not quite sure which thread should contain this, but some good thoughts on why people remember and enjoy racing, together with some ideas on what should be done.

Chariots of thunder!

http://www.pitpass.com/55438/Chariots-of-Thunder

"it's a fair bet this (fictional) crowd ambled home discussing the actual events of the afternoon, rather than the legal size of the axles, the minimum weight of a chariot or the questionable use of "advanced hay" as horse food to power past the opposition. Yes what actually transpired within the race would have been the major topic of excitement and discussion."

Another day and another view of what F1 might be/could be/or what the author thinks it should be. Control is needed to limit the chaos as no one has any better idea than anyone else. By control I mean management control to actually put in place some rules that do some good. I still think that limiting the technology that can be used to manage the car at the track is the thing that will limit what the teams can bring to the track and thus simplify the whole deal. This could lead to a run what you brung class that was innovative and forward looking but by limiting the trackside car management will keep things under control. Included in that limitation is take all controls off the steering wheel and no radios and the driver all of a sudden becomes very important and not just a button pusher.

Everyone has an idea and that is mine for what it is worth. I know it is radical but it actually puts limits on engineering spend to a huge degree because the complicated data and engineering used at the tracks will no longer exist. It will also cause cars to be less predictable in race performance which can't be a bad thing, unpredictability is one of the things needed to upset the metronome like performance we see these days.

Chaos is self perpetuating and F1 has got that down to a fine art.

[wnut]

Casper, I was far more focused on the chariot racing analogy than the solutions that were proposed to the current state F1 finds itself in.

I think your idea to remove the telemetry is a good one, and they should also limit the number of people allowed to work on the cars during the race weekend. Tom Kristensen states in a podcast (http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ra...ensen-podcast/) I have just posted in "Is F1 attracting the best talent" thread that his LeMans car had 12 people working on it in 2000 and 147 in 2015.
Engineers, you have to love them!

Part of the problem I think is allowing them to increase the weight of the cars allowing more gadgets to be introduced KERS, they should have reduced the minimum weight when carbon fibre was introduced and the safety standards improved, you just plain can't wedge so much fat (extra gadgets and telemetry) into a lean racing car! You will just get beaten!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Chariots of thunder!

http://www.pitpass.com/55438/Chariots-of-Thunder

It's a difficult article to read. Not very well written ("Miss Physics" seriously? Who is the target audience? Five year old children?) I don't discount all of the ideas in the article. Some have merit. But it has a number of holes in it that you could drive a planet through. The article includes things like "My hope is..." and talk of world wide track reconstruction. Fanciful. Maybe Miss Physics needs to meet Mister Economics.

Originally Posted by wnut

Tom Kristensen states in a podcast (http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ra...ensen-podcast/) I have just posted in "Is F1 attracting the best talent" thread that his LeMans car had 12 people working on it in 2000 and 147 in 2015.
Engineers, you have to love them!

I haven't yet listened to that podcast. I expect it is good and I appreciate the comment around the increase in staff. It should be obvious that it is a reflection of available budget and the perceived need by Audi to remain competitive. I can only roll my eyes at your last statement. Clearly you feel the "Engineers" are the problem. You do understand that they don't hire themselves? Its not like they show up at the front door, demand both entry and a large salary and they are just let in to wreak havoc? Clearly these all powerful parasites must be exterminated!

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I haven't yet listened to that podcast. I expect it is good and I appreciate the comment around the increase in staff. It should be obvious that it is a reflection of available budget and the perceived need by Audi to remain competitive. I can only roll my eyes at your last statement. Clearly you feel the "Engineers" are the problem. You do understand that they don't hire themselves? Its not like they show up at the front door, demand both entry and a large salary and they are just let in to wreak havoc? Clearly these all powerful parasites must be exterminated!

Richard

Richard, you seem to think that engineers are a protected species in F1. My experience with the profession in racing says they will spend money unnecessarily and in some strange ways just to justify their existence. I find it difficult to explain what happens and I have had some very robust discussions trying to limit what they think is needed. Limit what can be used to manage the car at the track and it will automatically limit the technology designed and fitted to the car. Money will instantly be saved and a wondrous thing will occur, a budget cap is applied automatically.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

Richard, you seem to think that engineers are a protected species in F1.

No I think they are being unfairly singled out and painted with a wide brush.

Originally Posted by Casper

My experience with the profession in racing says they will spend money unnecessarily and in some strange ways just to justify their existence. I find it difficult to explain what happens and I have had some very robust discussions trying to limit what they think is needed.

I have zero doubt that money is wasted be it in racing or any other endeavor. Ultimately it is an organizational problem if "waste" can't be controlled. I assume the engineering team is not running the accounting department, or approving the budget. Someone else is deciding it's OK to spend that money. I have yet to find ANY department within an organization that doesn't want more money to do their job.

Originally Posted by Casper

Limit what can be used to manage the car at the track and it will automatically limit the technology designed and fitted to the car. Money will instantly be saved and a wondrous thing will occur, a budget cap is applied automatically.

This I can agree with. I mean it still has all of the problems that a budget cap has (and I like the idea of budget caps), but I will say you and wnut are missing a huge point.

You are limiting resources and making the organization smaller, but you are not addressing the "waste" that you are complaining about that causes the problems. I don't even agree that wasteful spending is the problem.

I have faith that the larger teams (be it F1, WEC, whatever) know what they are doing. They have smart people in various positions and generally know where and why they are spending money. I am sure that internal budget planning is quite serious business. They are spending money on engineers because they feel it gives them a competitive advantage (I am not sure who you count as "engineers", but I am counting anyone on the technical side, be it design, construction, trackside, etc.). They are deciding that the headcount works for them. To my point above, engineers don't just show up and demand jobs.

I will be honest, I know the comments are not directed at me, but I can't help but to take them a bit personally. I am an engineer by training, but work in the software business. You can have "engineer gone wild" organizations, but that is organizational (lack of proper oversight) issues, not a core part of how engineers think or who they are. I think this issue is just more complex than you and wnut think and that you are placing blame in the wrong place.

Richard

[Pingguest]

Thickening the rule book almost never resulted in a cost reduction or an unpredictability that was sustainable. In fact, the very opposite is achieved every time. The stricter the rules, the more regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and the more cars tend to converge. And the more cars tend to converge, the smaller performance differences will be. This makes overtaking virtually impossible and forces teams to work into the smallest details, something that has proven to be very expensive.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Thickening the rule book almost never resulted in a cost reduction or an unpredictability that was sustainable. In fact, the very opposite is achieved every time. The stricter the rules, the more regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and the more cars tend to converge. And the more cars tend to converge, the smaller performance differences will be. This makes overtaking virtually impossible and forces teams to work into the smallest details, something that has proven to be very expensive.

Totally agree. We've seen teams spend a lot of money on F-Ducts, double diffusers, only to have them banned.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Totally agree. We've seen teams spend a lot of money on F-Ducts, double diffusers, only to have them banned.

What happened during the eighties speaks for itself. In the early-eighties, the smaller privateers used the small, reliable, economical, very drivable, relatively cheap but under-powered Ford Cosworth DFV. That engine enabled them to use huge venturi tunnels as a compensation for the powerful but expensive, thirsty, heavy and nearly undrivable turbo-engines used by the big manufacturers. It lead to a very nice balance with cars finding their sweet spots at different stages of the race and different parts of the track. No wonder why the 1982 season saw unpredictable races with very exciting races and no less than eleven winners in fifteen races!
This changed when flat bottoms became mandatory in 1983. As a consequence, all teams were effectively forced to seek for turbo-engines. Where in early-eighties no less than five teams had a proper chance of winning the world championship, Formula One faced a prolonged domination by Honda powered teams in late-eighties.

To make things clear, I am certainly not proposing a Formula Libre. But instead of constant rule thickening that involves the banning, homologating and standardizing technology, Formula One should look at regulating performance parameters. However, this is a subject about which I will start a new thread shortly.

[Richard C]

I hate posting anymore as it seem like I am just being negative and contrary to what others are saying. And I don't feel that negative, or want to appear to be confrontational

But I will keep posting...

I think there are correlations between rules freedom (open, closed) and cost. But I also think its difficult to nail down. One minute you think you have it figured out and the next it is moving in a direction you don't want.

I am not convinced that something like "lack of passing" (I take that as "passing for position") is determined by rule freedom and solution convergence. Tight rules will result in quick solution convergence. Open rules will still result in solution convergence, but at a slower pace. I actually believe that "passing for position" is less likely in the time period in which there is large differences between solutions. The field will be all over the place with large chunks not being on the same lap at the leader.

I also firmly believe that if you are talking about controlling costs, that you hit that head on vs. trying to tweak other factors (rule complexity) in the hope that a desired effect is achieved. So I am a proponent for cost and resource caps. Without artificial caps, the budget (and amount of money spent) will be purely dependent upon the economics of how much money you can obtain and likely is not driven much by things like technical regulations.

What I think the real problem in F1 in general is the general predictability of the entire thing. It has become a math problem with a number of stable variables. Look at a number of other sports such as American Football, Soccer, etc. Each of these has a large amount of "human element" within a given team. Each person is an exquisite random performance machine. Each one is able to perform to a specific level +/- a good amount of day to day variability. Add it all up across a number of participants on the field and it results in enough unpredictability to keep it interesting.

With F1, you generally have a small set of drivers who (plus or minus) are the cream of the crop. So you have a much smaller group and therefore a much smaller chance of random events, or unexpected performance. The cars are very well prepared, highly reliable and not likely to break over the course of a relatively short sprint race. So their performance is generally fixed and known in advance. The random factor for a given race is very low. It is only when other factors show up like weather (unpredictable), lack of reliability (unpredictable), team strategy (human factor), poor pit stops (human factor), etc. that you can occasionally see something unusual occur such as a mid field team making it to the podium. Dynasties (Mercedes today, RBR recently and Ferrari in the past) become long lasting and hard to break.

Other racing series that seem to do well have a lot less predictability. In something like WEC, you have much longer races that allow unreliability to creep in. You have multi-class racing that brings in a certain amount of extra difficulty for the drivers (an injection of unpredictability). Add all of that on top of the other stuff I list above. It makes the races less predictable and for the viewer, more enjoyable.

Then you have the inequities in F1. Teams who run at different funding levels and frankly have zero chance of winning. This is another reason things are predictable. But inequities can be resolved and that creates a more level field so that performance gaps between teams are smaller and dynasties are shorter in duration. Look at US Football (NFL) for example. Revenue sharing results in more diversity with respect to year to year winners and losers.

We can talk about open rules, more or less technical freedom, etc. But in my opinion, at the end of the day, the problems with F1 are structural and deep. Between the commercial rights holder and the top teams, there is a strong desire to keep the status quo, or at least something that looks very close to the status quo. The entire money side would need to be totally restructured to make any type of revolutionary improvement to the system. Things like removing the token system and lowering costs of customer engines are good and all, but they are just small tweaks.

Sadly... I feel like nothing new is really being said here. It's one big echo chamber with the same ideas (some of which are contrary to what I say above) bouncing around with really no ability from us to make any type of change. We will likely be having the same discussions next week, next month and next year. Has anyone seen the movie Groundhog Day?

Richard

[Pingguest]

A key question is: how do drivers pass, if their lap times are almost the same?

[chillibowl]

with the midfield teams we saw a lot of passing this year with the STR's making up in the corners what they lost out to others on the straights vs the same time two Mercs following each one cannot pass the other unless one makes a mistake.

of course not ideal that the best stuff happens in the midfield but the one common element of the midfield teams have is lack of money...so for me im still inclined to fall on the size of budgets being the bigger issue over restrictive rules.

although restrictive rules probably favour those with the most money so perhaps it actually is the same problem.

[Pingguest]

It worth mentioning that Formula One is in the midst of the sharpest decline in overtaking in the last thirty-five years.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I'm not doubting your data, but can I ask, is that genuine overtakes on the track, or does it include changes of position as a result of pitstops?

[S griffin]

Judging by the fact it's gone down in the refuelling I would say no

[wnut]

Good summary of the tyres and aero problems here:

http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/somet...e-tyres-137582

"But the drivers are about the only significant group not getting an input into this. I mean, they’re only sat behind the wheel with the best sense of all of what lets them follow closely and what doesn’t…
“At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what we [as drivers] say because it can’t happen” said Lewis indeed in that Interlagos press conference. “The big bosses make the decisions and whether or not they make the right ones for many years, who knows.” Seb agreed: “Unfortunately the sport is very political with different interests from different people"

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

I'm not doubting your data, but can I ask, is that genuine overtakes on the track, or does it include changes of position as a result of pitstops?

No, it only includes on-track passing.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It worth mentioning that Formula One is in the midst of the sharpest decline in overtaking in the last thirty-five years.

That chart brings up more questions than it answers. Firstly, I am curious of the source (not doubting, but but am curious if more granular detail is available). I also am curious as to opinions as to both why the huge increase in 2010 and on why the decline after that peak. For example 2010 had a significant amount of change happening (a number of new teams, no refueling) and in the end was a relatively tight championship. Was the passing for position spread out within the field or grouped somewhere (i.e. mid and backfield with no real impacts on race results)? Then 2011 and beyond we have increasing dominance of teams like RBR and then Mercedes as well as teams exiting the sport. How does that play into the decline? Have the teams been settling into place since 2010 and converging on similar solutions with all cars having "roughly" the same strengths and weaknesses and those that have an advantage maintaining consistent performance gaps race after race, year after year?

Richard

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

That chart brings up more questions than it answers. Firstly, I am curious of the source (not doubting, but but am curious if more granular detail is available). I also am curious as to opinions as to both why the huge increase in 2010 and on why the decline after that peak. For example 2010 had a significant amount of change happening (a number of new teams, no refueling) and in the end was a relatively tight championship. Was the passing for position spread out within the field or grouped somewhere (i.e. mid and backfield with no real impacts on race results)? Then 2011 and beyond we have increasing dominance of teams like RBR and then Mercedes as well as teams exiting the sport. How does that play into the decline? Have the teams been settling into place since 2010 and converging on similar solutions with all cars having "roughly" the same strengths and weaknesses and those that have an advantage maintaining consistent performance gaps race after race, year after year?

Richard

To answer your questions:

http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

To answer your questions:

http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/

Thanks for the link. You apparently can't see details unless you join (free). I may join later and take a peek. It sounds like its a combo of using published timing/scoring info from years past plus trying to add in what can be seen on videos. Its likely about the best that can found publicly plus they freely admit it has significant limitations due to various reason. The data is likely quite dirty given the collection methods. Quote from that page...

The final criteria involves subjective judgements and consequently figures can never be regarded as ‘definitive’. Gaps in the available data, such as moves missed by TV cameras or obscured on lap charts by pit stops or retirements, mean that the data do not lend themselves to detailed analysis at the micro level, but are indicative of general trends.

I suspect (not sure until I dig deeper) that it may be difficult to answer the questions I am asking given the issues they mention above. I believe that today, you can harvest existing per lap data to at least tell positions on a per lap basis (as they cross the S/F timing loop) but that would not tell you anything about passes (and repasses) during a lap that did not result in a position change at the end of the lap. I think trying to fill in the mid lap gaps via video analysis is laudable, but eminently flawed in the end. Also, sadly, while I am pretty sure recent timing and scoring data is available (recent being maybe a season or two), I expect the old stuff is gone (?) It would be nice if someone has (I don't think the FIA does this) archived the raw and unmodified published timing/scoring information for each race going back into history.

I have toyed with the idea of starting a website that does much of what they are doing, but in a reproducible way that lists the source code for both data sourcing and analysis so that others can do their own analysis as well as validate any results I might show. I just don't know if I have the time to devote to it.

Richard

[chillibowl]

what year was it, 2012 Chinese gp?, where Kimi's tires hit the cliff?

in a matter of one or two laps he dropped from 2nd to 12th....that counts as 10 on track overtakes but magnified as this would happen to one or two drivers in each race during the early Pirelli years.

dont want to rehash the Pirelli debate here but isnt it fair to say that the overtake numbers from the early Pirelli years were artificially high as teams got to grips with the then new tire characteristics.

so if we could look at this in isolation of the effect that tires have had, i wonder if the other rule changes (aero rules, new PU etc) have had a positive effect? sort of a 'real overtake' statistic if you will.

just not sure how anything can be measured in isolation of the tires though.

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

That chart brings up more questions than it answers. Firstly, I am curious of the source (not doubting, but but am curious if more granular detail is available). I also am curious as to opinions as to both why the huge increase in 2010 and on why the decline after that peak.

DRS?

[Richard C]

Both good points (tires, DRS). Ideally, assuming the number of overtakes was accurate (and even more ideally, it wasn't just a number per lap, but tied to a given car, lap and position on track) AND you had any other numbers of other data elements (tires, weather, timing for other cars, etc.), you could do all kinds of other interesting statistical analysis. Hopefully interesting facts will start to show up as likely correlations. But the problem with a single metric (overtakes per year) is that it just leaves you frustrated as you really can't do anything with it. Is it significant? If so, why? Is it down to chance?

Oddly enough, I think that the FIA, FOM or maybe even the larger teams likely has this data and could do this analysis if they wanted (and maybe they have). It would be interesting to see the results vs. anecdotal evidence. Not that I am saying it isn't likely that some things we have mentioned are not part of "why", but it would just be nice to see the conclusions via repeatable statistical analysis.

I particularly like chilibowl's comments around the teams getting a handle on the new tires performance and that means... less variability/randomness, so a greater likelihood of fewer and fewer passes one season after the other. If nothing else changed there is probably some asymptote we would approach with respect to number of average passes per race.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

One of the fascinating things about F1, and motor racing in general, is that through stabilty, teams and engineers are able to get a full understanding of how parts of the car, whether it be the tyres or wings or aero bits, work best.

However, having said that, that is the theory, and yet we often see that some teams are able to fully utilise that understanding whilst other teams either just "stand still" in relation to progressing in their development of the car, and in fact we also see some teams, even with all that knowledge, going backwards.

It all depends on how those teams/designers/engineers utilise that knowledge.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

One of the fascinating things about F1, and motor racing in general, is that through stabilty, teams and engineers are able to get a full understanding of how parts of the car, whether it be the tyres or wings or aero bits, work best.

However, having said that, that is the theory, and yet we often see that some teams are able to fully utilise that understanding whilst other teams either just "stand still" in relation to progressing in their development of the car, and in fact we also see some teams, even with all that knowledge, going backwards.

It all depends on how those teams/designers/engineers utilise that knowledge.

Mike you should enjoy this Motorsport magazine interview with Alistair Caldwell, an ex McLaren team manager. Some interesting observations about how many people in the team are vital to its success, and the importance of drivers, not overly in Caldwell's opinion.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1...dwell-podcast/


He reminisces that in 1974

McLaren ran and built the following cars, all in house

F1 - Team 1 for Fittipaldi and Hulme
F1 - Team 2 for Hailwood
Indy - Won the 500 Rutherford
Can Am (??? Claim)
F5000 - Won the Championship with Gethin
F2 - Won several races

Total staff 34 including 2 tea ladies and an accountant.

McLaren currently more than 1000 people to "not build 2 F1 cars".

"What do they do?" Caldwell

Don't know the complete accuracy of the story, but it certainly conveys a point.