Does racing need fixing?

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by Kempi

...

Also, the Autosport poll is likely biased because the majority of the readers were (wild guess on my side) socialized with F1 in the 90s and therefore have rose tinted glasses.

I think that is also a pretty biased view. The fact is that in the 90s F1 there were just so many remarkable events, both positive and negative, that it makes it a rather interesting (one of the most) eras in F1. Certainly far more than the blow up 80s or today's gimmicky era.

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

... the role of the automobile in society (which seems to be on the decline). ...
Richard

Exactly. Cars today are associated with the school-run, the daily traffic jam and the weekend shopping. The day when cars were generally associated with some kind of feeling of individual freedom and even rebellion are well and truly over. Which is part of the reason why motorsports have moved from being about 'the machine' or 'the driver skill' to be about 'the spectacle'.

[RWill2073]

You need manufacturer involvement, but can't hinder them too much or they'll leave. Can't make it too expensive, or they can't justify the budgets. Can't force them to supply customer cars to beat the factory cars or incur the cost of making them. Customer teams need to be able to compete, and not spend too much money, somehow. And all to the same set of rules. Seems impossible.

How about letting manufacturers have the better engines and unrestricted budgets, but limit their downforce and aero possibilities. Allow customers to develop more downforce, more creativity in that area, while having to deal with lesser engines. Allows the creativeness of the best engineers shine through, while allowing the factories to develop engine technologies that they can sell as road relevant. Set up two different rulesets. Make teams choose between factory entrant or privateer and pick which ruleset they will follow. Should open up more variation of performances and allow for more passing and some randomness if a trick aero piece hooks up a privateer car, propelling it to the front, but likely less reliable than the factory cars.

[S griffin]

Manufacturers are needed in the sport, but shouldn’t be punished for success. Costs need to be kept under control and lower teams should have some chance. Just keep the rules the way they are, same for everyone, without trying to fix it. We need more teams for sure though

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Manufacturers are needed in the sport, but shouldn’t be punished for success. Costs need to be kept under control and lower teams should have some chance. Just keep the rules the way they are, same for everyone, without trying to fix it. We need more teams for sure though

The simple solution would seem to be to make the manufacturers supply engines identical to their own to their customers, done now.
Then to supply the engines at a fixed cost, this prevents the customer teams from having to pay the extortionate fees that the manufacturers levy for their engines, and forces the manufacturers to limit their PU spending and what they seem to think that the series has to adopt to promote their products.
The supply to a number of teams continues and any manufacturer supplying less engines should be forced to contribute a sum equal to a customer engine supply deal to the FIA.

Cost control.

[littleman]

There was a time when the F1 World Championship was ruled, administered and governed absolutely by the FIA.

They set the rules and regulations for their championship and all entrants had to comply accordingly. When and why have they effectively handed over THEIR championships to the global car manufacturers?

It must be clear to all, that today Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are running F1 and quite obviously to their own agenda's. Presumably then, any manufacturer with enough clout can dictate the rules of F1, build a car that just happens to suit those rules particularly well and then surprise,surprise start winning World Championships! Isn't this exactly what Mercedes have done since 2014 ?

Unless the FIA take back REAL control of their Championship manufacturers can come and go as they please, winning World Titles to a rule book designed by themselves for themselves!

[littleman]

By the way, Audi (VAG Group) applied exactly the same tactics during the period when they totally dominated at Le Mans and the WEC. They had the ACO in their pocket.

They wanted to demonstrate their fabulous diesel technology to the World and ensured the rule book got written accordingly.

[chillibowl]

for sure the manus will have power and influence...and rightly so.

but their size and strength, to me anyways, suggests they dont need (nor do they deserve) any extra advantages in enforcing their will.

get rid of the special payments and Ferrari's veto and i think they will have made a great first step in fixing F1.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by wnut

The simple solution would seem to be to make the manufacturers supply engines identical to their own to their customers, done now.
Then to supply the engines at a fixed cost, this prevents the customer teams from having to pay the extortionate fees that the manufacturers levy for their engines, and forces the manufacturers to limit their PU spending and what they seem to think that the series has to adopt to promote their products.
The supply to a number of teams continues and any manufacturer supplying less engines should be forced to contribute a sum equal to a customer engine supply deal to the FIA.

Cost control.

But this may not be a satisfying solution to a factory who don't want to be beat by a privateer in their engine or eat the cost of supplying the engines cheaper than they would otherwise charge.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

But this may not be a satisfying solution to a factory who don't want to be beat by a privateer in their engine or eat the cost of supplying the engines cheaper than they would otherwise charge.

It may not be what the manufacturers want, but they want to join the FIA's championship for promotional purposes, so they must compete on the FIA's terms.

If the FIA institutes equal PU's (which they say they have as of this season 2018) the next logical step is to control the cost of the PU's which would easily be accomplished by setting the cost of the supplied units, it would also be useful in keeping the cost of future proposals sensible.
Currently the manufacturers ask for ridiculous levels of complication and then effectively tax the sport to supply them! This is where the costs can be contained if the manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping the costs down to an acceptable level because they will have to carry the cost.

To me, this makes sense.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by wnut

It may not be what the manufacturers want, but they want to join the FIA's championship for promotional purposes, so they must compete on the FIA's terms.

If the FIA institutes equal PU's (which they say they have as of this season 2018) the next logical step is to control the cost of the PU's which would easily be accomplished by setting the cost of the supplied units, it would also be useful in keeping the cost of future proposals sensible.
Currently the manufacturers ask for ridiculous levels of complication and then effectively tax the sport to supply them! This is where the costs can be contained if the manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping the costs down to an acceptable level because they will have to carry the cost.

To me, this makes sense.

But I just go back to, why try to entice manufacturers while dictating to them that they will supply their engines to other teams, at a cost that is not palatable to them, rather than letting them play by an engine development, limited aero freedom rulebook, while allowing privateers with off-the-shelf type engines greater freedom in the aero department, actually creating two paths to competing?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

But I just go back to, why try to entice manufacturers while dictating to them that they will supply their engines to other teams, at a cost that is not palatable to them, rather than letting them play by an engine development, limited aero freedom rulebook, while allowing privateers with off-the-shelf type engines greater freedom in the aero department, actually creating two paths to competing?

Forcing the manufacturers to compete on an equal footing should result in a proper competition, and force the manufacturers to curtail cost.
Creating two separate competitions will just result in a whole bunch of politicking about the regulations and a skewed playing field, the manufacturers would also still be able to syphon the cash out of the rest of the field to supply the engines, and would still be able to limit the performance of the engines they supply.
Status Quo would remain.

[Purist]

RW, you're forgetting something else.

Won't those privateers just be stuck in the position Red Bull was? That is, you can have great aero, and it may work for qualifying, and if you can stay out front in the race. However, how do you actually pass anyone with a noticeable straight-line deficit? Heck, when you had the differences in power levels that were seen in the '80s, the front-running turbo cars could just blow by the less powerful cars going past the pits at Monaco.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by littleman

There was a time when the F1 World Championship was ruled, administered and governed absolutely by the FIA.

They set the rules and regulations for their championship and all entrants had to comply accordingly. When and why have they effectively handed over THEIR championships to the global car manufacturers?

It must be clear to all, that today Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are running F1 and quite obviously to their own agenda's. Presumably then, any manufacturer with enough clout can dictate the rules of F1, build a car that just happens to suit those rules particularly well and then surprise,surprise start winning World Championships! Isn't this exactly what Mercedes have done since 2014 ?

Unless the FIA take back REAL control of their Championship manufacturers can come and go as they please, winning World Titles to a rule book designed by themselves for themselves!

So far as I can recall, that's part of the Concorde Agreement between the entrants, the FIA and the Commercial Rights Holder.

One of Bernie's little strokes of genius - get them on board, then play divide and conquer. He was terribly good at that.

Liberty have a hell of a job to do to break that open.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Purist

RW, you're forgetting something else.

Won't those privateers just be stuck in the position Red Bull was? That is, you can have great aero, and it may work for qualifying, and if you can stay out front in the race. However, how do you actually pass anyone with a noticeable straight-line deficit? Heck, when you had the differences in power levels that were seen in the '80s, the front-running turbo cars could just blow by the less powerful cars going past the pits at Monaco.

I wouldn't think so. Red bull was playing to the same rulebook as the manufacturer teams. My idea is that they would be playing to a totally separate rulebook as far as what is allowed. They would have a huge advantage in cornering speed because the manufacturers wouldn't be allowed as much development or freedom in aero. The gaps coming out of the corners would be different than they are now, making the racing different.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

I wouldn't think so. Red bull was playing to the same rulebook as the manufacturer teams. My idea is that they would be playing to a totally separate rulebook as far as what is allowed. They would have a huge advantage in cornering speed because the manufacturers wouldn't be allowed as much development or freedom in aero. The gaps coming out of the corners would be different than they are now, making the racing different.

It’s highly likely that if you create two sets of rules that they will get the balance wrong and one will end up being naturally better than the other. So one group will cry foul. Either you screw the privateers (as is today) and this new solution solves nothing, or the manufacturers are screwed and they will successfully privately lobby for adjustments that return them to parity at best or dominance at worse. Even if they are returned to even parity initially, I expect whoever has the most money (manufacturers) will optimize to their regulations faster, meaning they will move from beyond parity and into dominance. I believe this might be the situation in US IMSA racing and how they are trying to ensure regulated/cost controlled LMP2 cars have parity with the manufacturers who have the money to develop their solutions (my understanding is that it is not working). So the FIA would constantly be chasing/adjusting the BoP in F1 and it would be a mess.

In short, IMHO, we need one set of rules and no BoP in F1. I say tackle the problem budget and revenue sharing disparity.

Richard

[NaBUru38]

10 years ago, F1 races at Interlagos were exciting. Now they aren't. So the problem is the car.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It’s highly likely that if you create two sets of rules that they will get the balance wrong and one will end up being naturally better than the other. So one group will cry foul. Either you screw the privateers (as is today) and this new solution solves nothing, or the manufacturers are screwed and they will successfully privately lobby for adjustments that return them to parity at best or dominance at worse. Even if they are returned to even parity initially, I expect whoever has the most money (manufacturers) will optimize to their regulations faster, meaning they will move from beyond parity and into dominance. I believe this might be the situation in US IMSA racing and how they are trying to ensure regulated/cost controlled LMP2 cars have parity with the manufacturers who have the money to develop their solutions (my understanding is that it is not working). So the FIA would constantly be chasing/adjusting the BoP in F1 and it would be a mess.

In short, IMHO, we need one set of rules and no BoP in F1. I say tackle the problem budget and revenue sharing disparity.

Richard

I guess my thought to that is, there is currently a rulebook, and no expectation of parity, but of a build what you can in that rulebook and develop it as needed. There would be no need for bop or adjustments because there would be no expectation of equality, just of a set of parameters, each with the same expected lap times achieved ideally, or some measurement like that, develop on the engine side if you're in the manufacturer set of rules, and develop the aero side if you're a privateer. Whoever comes out on top, so be it. Maybe a manufacturer would switch to supplying privateers the following year if they felt disadvantaged. Then the engine is sort of capped on development, while each team could develop the aero as much as they want or could afford. As for manufacturers optimizing faster, maybe, but a lack of aero may always hinder them compared to private teams on some tracks.

F1 is supposed to the be pinnacle of motorsport. I'm sure they could find the right balance of parameters for each ruleset and allow the brightest minds to find solutions to different sets of problems and put on a good show.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

There would be no need for bop or adjustments because there would be no expectation of equality, just of a set of parameters, each with the same expected lap times achieved ideally, or some measurement like that, develop on the engine side if you're in the manufacturer set of rules, and develop the aero side if you're a privateer. Whoever comes out on top, so be it.

My confusion is you say there is no BoP or expectation of parity, but in the same sentence you say these two sets of rules are built with a target lap time in mind? To me, that is trying to create parity via parallel rules.

My point is nobody can fully predict the final performance of the rules. So the likelihood of parity is unlikely without ongoing rule tweaking. If no parity is expected then F1 becomes multiclass racing?

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My confusion is you say there is no BoP or expectation of parity, but in the same sentence you say these two sets of rules are built with a target lap time in mind? To me, that is trying to create parity via parallel rules.

My point is nobody can fully predict the final performance of the rules. So the likelihood of parity is unlikely without ongoing rule tweaking. If no parity is expected then F1 becomes multiclass racing?

Richard

There's a subtle difference I think.

BoP, you essentially have no rules. You have performance windows and each car is adjusted individually to fit these windows.

What RWill is talking about is essentially the same as the WEC Equivalence of Technology (EoT) system where you have several rule sets, and in theory, any one of these rule sets is as fast as the other. So if McLaren used rule set A, Williams used rule set B and Ferrari used rule set C, if they all built good cars, they'd be as good as each other. But if Williams built a bad car, then it wouldn't be equalised and it'd still be slow.

BoP equalises cars and has no real technical regulations. EoT provides multiple rule sets that are as good as each other but doesn't equalise cars.

Now quite how this would work in F1 I don't know. In WEC it was introduced to allow different hybrid and fuel types to compete against each other. It kinda is class racing, but it isn't really (EoT is LMP1 only for example).

[Richard C]

I hear what you are saying regarding EoT vs BoP. As much as I loved and supported the short era of Porsche vs Audi vs Toyota in prototype racing, I see little difference between EoT and BoP when it comes to the problems it causes... if there is supposed to be a level of technical competition involved. And with EoT you had manufacturers competing with each other, so they had a roughly equal funding playing field. In a manufacturers vs privateer scenario there will remain inequalities that will ensure that the manufacturers will come out on top. Be it funding and/or strength at the political games. Even then, there was plenty of drama about accusations that the EoT stuff was designed to support one tech over the other.

How are things working now between manufacturers (Toyota) and privateers (non hybrid) incurrent prototype racing? I haven’t been following it closely since Porsche left, but it seems the desired equivalency doesn’t exist. When do equivalency formulas that don’t involve something like BoP actually work? Especially when disparity in funding is a differentiator between the two camps.

Note, I am not arguing for status quo either. The current system is quite screwed up.

Richard

[Oldtony]

It would be an intriguing exercise to come up with an EoT rule set for F1 and a way for the formula to maintain it's (somewhat unproven) claim to be the pinnacle of motorsport.

I am always fascinated by the frequently made claims that the fans are not interested in the technical side of the sport. They are interested, but it seems there is almost a conspiracy to keep that factor in the back rooms and inner circle.
Given than tech people are not given to being drama queens there is often a fascinating story to be told that is brushed off as not being able to be understood by the fans. It is an unexplored are of promotion that is allowing the doomsayers to talk about boring races when drives like Dan at Monaco, Schumacher in Spain, Fangio at the Nurburgring etc. show how truly talented pilots can drive around a problem.

I know teams are reluctant to give out data that the opposition can use but I'm sure that more access to what is happening in the MUGK or MUGH
could gain us a greater following in the youth group we are not appealing to at present

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

There's a subtle difference I think.

BoP, you essentially have no rules. You have performance windows and each car is adjusted individually to fit these windows.

What RWill is talking about is essentially the same as the WEC Equivalence of Technology (EoT) system where you have several rule sets, and in theory, any one of these rule sets is as fast as the other. So if McLaren used rule set A, Williams used rule set B and Ferrari used rule set C, if they all built good cars, they'd be as good as each other. But if Williams built a bad car, then it wouldn't be equalised and it'd still be slow.

BoP equalises cars and has no real technical regulations. EoT provides multiple rule sets that are as good as each other but doesn't equalise cars.

Now quite how this would work in F1 I don't know. In WEC it was introduced to allow different hybrid and fuel types to compete against each other. It kinda is class racing, but it isn't really (EoT is LMP1 only for example).

Thank you. This helped. But one more thing to add, in wec, the factories basically had free reign to develop aero as well as engine, correct? Or the same parameters as the privateers? My thought is that limiting their aero development further than privateers, and even having different starting points, would help to make sure the factories don't just run away with things.

As far as it becoming "class racing", I see no difference between that ajd the current state. McLaren and Renault know they're not competing for championships or wins, but for best of the rest. That is a "class" in a way. There are 6 cars in the top class, maybe 10 innthe next class, and 4 bringing up the rear. It's hugely celebrated for sauber to reach the points, which is very much second/third class citizen type stuff.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

How are things working now between manufacturers (Toyota) and privateers (non hybrid) incurrent prototype racing? I haven’t been following it closely since Porsche left, but it seems the desired equivalency doesn’t exist. When do equivalency formulas that don’t involve something like BoP actually work? Especially when disparity in funding is a differentiator between the two camps.

The short answer is nobody knows so far. The data from Spa isn't good enough to draw a conclusion from yet (for lots of boring off-topic reasons). So we'll find out after Le Mans.

I personally am not sure it is a good idea for F1.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Thank you. This helped. But one more thing to add, in wec, the factories basically had free reign to develop aero as well as engine, correct? Or the same parameters as the privateers? My thought is that limiting their aero development further than privateers, and even having different starting points, would help to make sure the factories don't just run away with things.

They all have free reign in that they can develop to the same rules (although there was a discussion of giving the private teams more breaks, but I don't think that occurred), but not as free as F1. Teams may only have two aero kits - high downforce and low downforce. The LD one is optimised for Le Mans, whilst the HD is for the rest of the season (although some run a LD car at Spa as well). You can make adjustments to the kit, but nothing major - anything significant requires approval.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The short answer is nobody knows so far. The data from Spa isn't good enough to draw a conclusion from yet (for lots of boring off-topic reasons). So we'll find out after Le Mans.

I personally am not sure it is a good idea for F1.



They all have free reign in that they can develop to the same rules (although there was a discussion of giving the private teams more breaks, but I don't think that occurred), but not as free as F1. Teams may only have two aero kits - high downforce and low downforce. The LD one is optimised for Le Mans, whilst the HD is for the rest of the season (although some run a LD car at Spa as well). You can make adjustments to the kit, but nothing major - anything significant requires approval.

That's right, two aero kits allowed. But there you have privateers and factories on equal footing in that regard, while manufacturers can develop more sophisticated power units. Giving privateers something like freedom to develop aero kits to their hearts content, ajd even starting with design elements meant to make private cars more slippery, could even things out without bop breaks.