[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Akrapovic]

The DP01 was a customer car that wasn't developed properly, or ready to be rolled out to the teams. Customer cars should not undergo development programs after they've been sold to teams - they should be ready to go before that, and the DP01 was absolutely nowhere near ready to be raced. It was sold on being a tough car, more reliable, and the onboard starter meant less yellow flags. In reality, the chassis was made of wet tissue paper and cracked on bumpy circuits and it took over a year to get the onboard starter motor working because the car was badly packaged and there was no room for the size of motor required to turn over a V8 engine. Panoz pretended it was fine and put a tiny motor in that broke every time it was used.

The Lola may have been long in the tooth, but it worked. Some of the chassis had done 50 race weekends and still were solid and required minimal patching by Lola. That car was absolutely incredible. Of course, the DP01 was slightly faster and safer, but it should be - it was 5 years newer. But it was also more expensive and problematic than old abused chassis that came before it. ChampCar should have went with the Lola or Swift proposals that were put forward, but didn't. Lola had a particularly good modular design, whilst Swift had some interesting ideas about rear aero that eventually ended up on the Super Formula cars.

Everyone paid a lot of money to upgrade to a car that didn't do what they claimed it would do, and they only got a single years use out of it before Champ Car collapsed.

Over-expensive, breaks a lot and didn't work? Maybe the DP-01 is a brilliant metaphor for a modern F1 car after all Although these current concepts look absolutely nothing like them lol. If anything they're closer to A1GP.

[S griffin]

The DP01 had it’s swansong in the 08 Long Beach and I think a lot of drivers missed when they went to the IRL Dallara

[bjohnsonsmith]

I think there were some aspects about the DP-01 that weren't developed properly, like the starter motor but overall it was a good car.

I disagree that customer cars should not undergo development programs after they've been sold to teams. Nothing is perfect straight out of the box and as a season progresses, there will be unforeseen issues that will arise, which won't necessarily be apparent during testing. IndyCar's Universal aero-kit is a good example.

Not wanting to go any further off topic, this link does a comparison between the Dallara DW12, the Panoz DP-01, the Dallara IR05 and the Lola B03-00.

http://beatersbanter.blogspot.com/20...-face-off.html

[Akrapovic]

Nothing is perfect straight out of the box, but the chassis all (literally every single chassis) developed major cracks in the first test, and again after repairs. None of the fuel cells worked - they couldn't be filled properly because the tank didn't breathe correctly, and they leaked. And the starter motor was never fixed - a major selling point of that concept never worked. One of the big losers in the collapse of the CCWS was the company brought in to repair all the fuel tanks - they never got paid for their work on 50+ tanks.

It also never addressed the safety concerns properly. They changed the driver position to stop back injuries but made it worse. Justin Wilson fractured bones in his back in a low-speed accident at Long Beach and the car was due another review to sort that as well - which included a cockpit opening lengthening which never happened.

Not saying it wasn't any better than the Dallara it eventually got replaced with due to the "merger", and I'm not saying the IRL Dallara was "good", but the DP01 certainly was not a good car when it was used. It might have become a good car, but it wasn't around long enough for that. Like most things Panoz, it needed more development before it was given to the teams, but that was a problem because the old Lolas were getting a bit too old to use at that point.

I'd like to think F1 can aim a bit better than the DP01. I don't see the resemblance of these new cars to it myself. I do think they look kinda like hyper versions of the A1GP car, with the swept back style on wings (think the A1GP rear wing endplates).

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Nothing is perfect straight out of the box, but the chassis all (literally every single chassis) developed major cracks in the first test, and again after repairs. None of the fuel cells worked - they couldn't be filled properly because the tank didn't breathe correctly, and they leaked. And the starter motor was never fixed - a major selling point of that concept never worked. One of the big losers in the collapse of the CCWS was the company brought in to repair all the fuel tanks - they never got paid for their work on 50+ tanks.

It also never addressed the safety concerns properly. They changed the driver position to stop back injuries but made it worse. Justin Wilson fractured bones in his back in a low-speed accident at Long Beach and the car was due another review to sort that as well - which included a cockpit opening lengthening which never happened.

Not saying it wasn't any better than the Dallara it eventually got replaced with due to the "merger", and I'm not saying the IRL Dallara was "good", but the DP01 certainly was not a good car when it was used. It might have become a good car, but it wasn't around long enough for that. Like most things Panoz, it needed more development before it was given to the teams, but that was a problem because the old Lolas were getting a bit too old to use at that point.

I'd like to think F1 can aim a bit better than the DP01. I don't see the resemblance of these new cars to it myself. I do think they look kinda like hyper versions of the A1GP car, with the swept back style on wings (think the A1GP rear wing endplates).

That's what I said initially, it wasn't around long enough and only raced for a year. Some of the issues were endemic of Champ Car.

The new concept certainly has some A1GP in there and a bit FE thrown in for good measure.

[Tourer]

Toto pushing the 3rd car idea again: I want more cars to put my young drivers in

I have to say that I'm not a fan, it simply increases the potential for domination, widens the gap between "haves" and "have nots" and makes race outcomes even more predictable.

There was talk some years ago of independent teams running "customer" cars - if there was really a need for more cars and an economic model to support it, then that to me would be a better outcome with more possible real competitors vying for the podium.

[S griffin]

Yeah, more teams would be better

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Toto pushing the 3rd car idea again: I want more cars to put my young drivers in

I have to say that I'm not a fan, it simply increases the potential for domination, widens the gap between "haves" and "have nots" and makes race outcomes even more predictable.

There was talk some years ago of independent teams running "customer" cars - if there was really a need for more cars and an economic model to support it, then that to me would be a better outcome with more possible real competitors vying for the podium.

Williams aren't in the best financial shape, so what if they were to go bust? That's two places gone from a 20 car grid. Having a third car for Mercedes and for say RBR, would make up that deficit.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Williams aren't in the best financial shape, so what if they were to go bust? That's two places gone from a 20 car grid. Having a third car for Mercedes and for say RBR, would make up that deficit.

Yeah, nobody is denying it would add to the grid, but it'd make the situation much worse. All it would do is put another 2 cars in front of Force India, Haas and Renault. So Mercedes/RBR/Ferrari hoover up more points and positions, and everyone else gets less. How long do you think Renault will fund the team if they're struggling for points? How long before other teams fall into Williams position of no income because 12th place doesn't pay much and sponsors don't get visibility?

It's also less sustainable as the entire series collapse with just one team leaving. If Mercedes has 3 cars, then what happens the board kills the team? You lose not only a good quarter/third of the engines, but you lose 3 cars instead of 2. So now you need someone with even bigger pockets to replace them.

Allowing the big teams to have 3 cars serves as a very short-term band-aid that has a big negative effect on the rest of the grid, and on the sustainability of the series. It doesn't bother addressing the problem of why the grid is low on numbers in the first place.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Yeah, nobody is denying it would add to the grid, but it'd make the situation much worse. All it would do is put another 2 cars in front of Force India, Haas and Renault. So Mercedes/RBR/Ferrari hoover up more points and positions, and everyone else gets less. How long do you think Renault will fund the team if they're struggling for points? How long before other teams fall into Williams position of no income because 12th place doesn't pay much and sponsors don't get visibility?

It's also less sustainable as the entire series collapse with just one team leaving. If Mercedes has 3 cars, then what happens the board kills the team? You lose not only a good quarter/third of the engines, but you lose 3 cars instead of 2. So now you need someone with even bigger pockets to replace them.

Allowing the big teams to have 3 cars serves as a very short-term band-aid that has a big negative effect on the rest of the grid, and on the sustainability of the series. It doesn't bother addressing the problem of why the grid is low on numbers in the first place.

I'm not advocating it and can see the potential pitfalls that you mention, I was just throwing it out there.

[chillibowl]

How much does an extra supply of engines cost? How much does each supply go up due to an increase in production?

Who benefits financially?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

How much does an extra supply of engines cost? How much does each supply go up due to an increase in production?

Who benefits financially?

~$20m a year for a supply of engines. At 3 units a year, that's about ~$7m per unit.

Mr Wollf thinks the engines are very reasonably priced and the smaller teams should stop moaning because with a decrease would be the cheapest in the history of the sport. Which doesn't sound even slightly true and suggests Mercedes are making a fair bit off of them, which reduces the costs of running the F1 team.

[Peter Mallett]

And they are reasonably priced. If you want over complicated systems that dont do anything bettet than a normally aspirated V10 for example. Er......

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

How much does an extra supply of engines cost? How much does each supply go up due to an increase in production?

Who benefits financially?

To supply 2 engines for 2018 Indy weekend to a "casual" customer costs
$125 000, so let's assume the regular guys pay $60 000 for an engine.

Toto's $7Million budget would buy you 116 units!

Great price! Just a bad joke!

It is high time that F1 told Toto and his mates to take their hybrids and stuff them up where they fit best. Why should F1 be held hostage to and pay for a car manufacturer's marketing exercise?

Best solution is tell the manufacturers what the maximum cost of a unit can be and the engines have to be put into FIA stock like the GP2 units and the engines can then be purchased from and allocated by the FIA from the stock. Any number you like.

Let the independent teams choose whatever engine they wish to run at any time.

[VIVA GT]

Just a random thought here about three car teams. If the plan was to be that the 'works' teams ran three cars, with the third car being for a young driver, why not only have the two main cars scoring constructors points? That way it won't force the other teams further down the championship.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Just a random thought here about three car teams. If the plan was to be that the 'works' teams ran three cars, with the third car being for a young driver, why not only have the two main cars scoring constructors points? That way it won't force the other teams further down the championship.

True, but the smaller teams may well end up behind the 3rd cars on track, meaning less exposure to viewers etc, meaning less value to potential sponsors, then the smaller teams would be further down pit lane, so would feel more "out of it" for sponsor guests and of course even if the young drivers in the 3rd cars aren't scoring points, they can still make mistakes, knock small team cars off track, block those small team cars if they need to etc.

It also doesn't solve the problem of the bigger (3 car) teams having even more power to threaten leaving if they don't get their way on regs etc - if two of them took that approach, the potential loss of 6 cars from the grid would go a long way on helping them win the argument.

It also means that young guns are in good machinery but presumably not permitted by the team to race or risk their point-scoring team mates, whereas if they were in a small team car, they could have their odd special moment and really show what they could do. In the 3 car scenario, they may not get much real chance to shine.

[Akrapovic]

It would solve the problem of little teams losing points, but not really anything else. With 3 cars on track, the bigger teams will gather more data and the gap will widen. You also have the nice thing of having to explain to the fans every race that the car that finished 12th is actually 8th, and the car on third on the podium doesn't score points at all, so the fourth place car gets third place points, but not a podium etc.

It's better than just 3 points scoring cars for sure, but it doesn't really fix anything. The problem is it's still super expensive to run a team now, and this just puts the costs up for the front runners more.

[MissClarrpz]

I think each team and each engine manufacturer should get a wild card at a round with the car not scoring points. Realistically you won't have more than 2 'invisible' cars at once and fans should easily be like "hey I don't remember Russell, he must be a wildcard". Plus teams can have extra cars at home (if they want) with whatever livery (in theory). Silverstone might get a lot of extra cars but that's not a bad thing

Also say not in first 2/3 or last 2/3 races and maybe not Monaco because pit space. That leaves 15-17 races for 14 extra cars (no TAG Heuer is not an independent engine).

[loon]

why don't Mercedes, Ferrari and Red bull enter 8 cars each then you have a full grid of competitive cars

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

~$20m a year for a supply of engines. At 3 units a year, that's about ~$7m per unit.

Mr Wollf thinks the engines are very reasonably priced and the smaller teams should stop moaning because with a decrease would be the cheapest in the history of the sport. Which doesn't sound even slightly true and suggests Mercedes are making a fair bit off of them, which reduces the costs of running the F1 team.

i reject the premise of his argument (plus i think he is just talking about RBR and not any of their actual customers because Williams and FI are certainly not spending 200mil a year of their chassis).

"The engine development costs big money, and the engine departments of all the current suppliers are loss-making entities which shouldn't be the case, so we're trying to contain that," Wolff told Autosport.

R&D is of course an expense but the company he works for has other methods to monetize those engines and/or recoup their investment...requiring other F1 teams to subside the R&D costs of a multi billion multi nation corporation is not why F1 (or sport) exists imo.

and obviously they have their prize money to offset their costs...if they think the prize money is not enough then either advocate a for a fairer split or advocate for cheaper engines as to not make it a loss-making entity.



anyways, if running a 3rd car can be done in a cost effective way (and in theory a more cost effective forumla would hopefully mean a closer more competitive grid) and in a fashion where all the teams can participate...then im all for a bigger grid.

personally i dont want to see non points earning entries on the grid and would like to see the rules around liveries relaxed so teams can show some more variety across their 3 car squad.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Just a random thought here about three car teams. If the plan was to be that the 'works' teams ran three cars, with the third car being for a young driver, why not only have the two main cars scoring constructors points? That way it won't force the other teams further down the championship.

The problem with having cars in the race not part of the championship is that they can influence things by having collisions, blocking cars, being part of strategy etc.

[S griffin]

Let’s just open it up to more teams. I remember Liberty saying that was one of their aims when they took over

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Rather than adding things let's think about removing some. Let the teams start on whatever tyre they wish and get rid of the rule that two compounds are mandatory. Get rid of the stupid 'ex-driver stewards'. Remove the rule that says it's ok to run sombody off the track on corner exit. Stop letting lapped cars through on safety cars. Remove the stupid VSC and replace it with the much better FCY as seen in WEC.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Casper

The problem with having cars in the race not part of the championship is that they can influence things by having collisions, blocking cars, being part of strategy etc.

But so can back markers (who could be out of the points anyway).
(I'm not just being critical because you've questioned my suggestion, I'm just saying...)

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Just a random thought here about three car teams. If the plan was to be that the 'works' teams ran three cars, with the third car being for a young driver, why not only have the two main cars scoring constructors points? That way it won't force the other teams further down the championship.

Indeed that was how it worked in the world rally championship. A works team could only nominate two entries to score manufacturer points, usually the experienced drivers.

Unlike in rallying (where it's a great idea), three cars per team is a terrible idea in F1 however.

Mercedes are welcome to run four cars. Red Bull run four cars and it works well. Honda used to run four cars too. Mercedes are welcome to buy another team.

Three cars per team -- no way IMO. The team orders will become DTM-like and unbearable.

Looking forward to the 18" wheels -- they look spot on! The 13" wheels look goofy by comparison.