Licensing F1 technology with fixed lead times

[Hugh Jarce]

I know this could probably have been tagged on to numerous recent threads, but I think it may be worth a 'shout' on its own.

I was talking to a mate over the weekend who works in R&D for a multinational drugs company - very big name products and very big bucks.

All technology in their sector is submitted for patent or license and that buys them 'x' number of years grace to market/use the innovation before it can be used by competitors. So, if you come up with a ground breaking idea, you get the benefit of it for a time, and then its a free for all.

So, in F1 why not allow teams to do all the development and testing work they like, but ALL the details of new technology HAVE to be submitted to a 'water-tight' (and it would need to be) licensing authority who hold it under lock and key.

Then, after a given period of time, one season, or 'x' number of races, the technology patent is FULLY revealed for all to use.

This still gives the innovators an advantage for a fixed time which means if they keep innovating they should stay ahead (and probably keep winning). But, it would help other teams no end in preventing the gap increasing, and in keeping down spiralling costs.

I don't think we should penalise great ideas, but why not control their impact to some degree.

It was just a thought - it doesn't seem to have given too much of a headache for paracetamol etc.

[ASCII Man]

It's a bit radical, but still realistic unlike the 9-point plan...
I think it would work fine if every team agrees to it...
(especially Ferrari...)

[Red]

That's not needed anyway. Any inovation is usually spotted much sooner and promptly replicated. I mean something new, like "chimney radiators", "periscope exhausts", "double keel", etc. The drawback of the proposed idea, is that a new idea has to be submitted and that might be a case of copyright laws. For example, all the other teams might not know the details, but they get the basic idea. With such an organization, the other teams might be forced NOT to use that idea for a limited time and that certainly will increase the advantage...

[ASCII Man]

Oh, haven't looked at it that way...

[JonesF1]

Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
All technology in their sector is submitted for patent or license and that buys them 'x' number of years grace to market/use the innovation before it can be used by competitors. So, if you come up with a ground breaking idea, you get the benefit of it for a time, and then its a free for all.

Typical patent laws. There arent many if any patents on "great innovations" in F1. Its all fair game, like the flexible wings, double brakes, or twin-keel wing...you get the point.

So, in F1 why not allow teams to do all the development and testing work they like, but ALL the details of new technology HAVE to be submitted to a 'water-tight' (and it would need to be) licensing authority who hold it under lock and key.

Because by hook or by crook the other teams already know. I believe Ron Dennis once said that other teams would argue against McLarens ideas when some of his engineers didnt even know about them.

Then, after a given period of time, one season, or 'x' number of races, the technology patent is FULLY revealed for all to use.

This still gives the innovators an advantage for a fixed time which means if they keep innovating they should stay ahead (and probably keep winning). But, it would help other teams no end in preventing the gap increasing, and in keeping down spiralling costs.

Teams catch up by doing the usual 1-3% performance increase and occasionaly doing something slightly innovative. Big innovations just get pounded, whether theyre controversial or not other teams would rather get rid of your advantage rather then copy it.

I don't think we should penalise great ideas, but why not control their impact to some degree.

I dont like it either. As for controlling it, whos going to do that, the incompetents at FIA?

It was just a thought - it doesn't seem to have given too much of a headache for paracetamol etc.

It was a good thought, I just dont think it could work in this era. Maybe 20 years ago...

[Hugh Jarce]

But if the teams are all so on top of each others technology, why is Ferrari so far ahead?

It clearly ain't about copying the odd bit of visible technology, something very smart is happening under the Ferrari hood, or with everything is working well to the max.

If you knew what was going on in a Ferrari, you could replicate it, but for the last two seasons no-one has.

So, lets see the technology at the end of each season, for the last season's car!

[ASCII Man]

Ferrari isn't that far ahead, they just have a well oiled team and a good/reliable car

[Glen]

A similar, but more radical, idea that I have seen posted around suggests that all the teams should be forced to be completely open about their designs straight away. On the spot - let us all have a look. That, I think, is a much better solution.

It would still take a while to interpret what is seen and figure out how it worked - so you'd still get an advantage of weeks, if not months, but then the advantage would be eaten up by the copycats. Added to which the copyists may well do the same thing in a better way. Very F1.

This would have the long-term benefit of reducing the premium on technological innovation and increasing the attention paid to pure racing (racing, to me, being an amalgum of driving skill and solid engineering/set-up/planning).

I reckon this is a very sound idea. It has plus points in several areas: It will ultimately reduce costs, since extravagant projects would be less likely to be approved (the benefit of any successful wild-design would last for much less time); It will make F1 much more open and enable the fans to appreciate the significance of design; It would also produce, almost certainly, frequent "shufflings of the deck" as other teams catch-on much more quickly to new ideas.

So that's IT then - mandatory publication of car designs. Submit full designs to the FIA (and all changes) and let the FIA publish them on the day of the first race.

[Hugh Jarce]

I was just being a bit more generous for all the dosh and thought invested!

[ASCII Man]

Oooohhh, even Minardi could make a F2002 then??

Sounds sweet...

[Glen]

Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
I was just being a bit more generous for all the dosh and thought invested!

Exactly! It makes it much less worthwhile to invest silly bucks in somethig that will only give you the edge for three races. Radical, radical reduction in budgets followed by extra investment in operational concerns such as set-up and racecraft.

It's all square at the start of the season, but the others may well catch up. F1 is still a showcase for technolgy, but now we all get to see.

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh
Ferrari isn't that far ahead, they just have a well oiled team and a good/reliable car

And maybe a reasonably good N°1 driver too, but i have serious doubts about that...

[Lee Janotta]

Hmm... I'm afraid something like that would only make the manufacturer's series a certainty.

I _like_ innovation... But it's when there's such a _huge_ disparity between the fastest and slowest teams that you know something's wrong.

Sorry, but Ferrari _do_ have an enormous advantage. No amount of preparation or driving talent could possibly account for the F2002's ability to leave all opposition 3 second back by the end of the first lap!

They've got a strong and perfectly balanced Rory Byrne chassis, an aero package perfected by thousands of hours of development and testing, a bulletproof top flight engine, and most importantly, complete partnership with one of the world's largest tire manufacturers.

A lot of it's really due to failings in the rules, especially in the tires, with the tire war and the grooves that make it harder to develop a good tire.

I'm really starting to believe we need a 15,000RPM rev limit too. Engines are blowing up with alarming frequency in the quest to match the power levels of the Ferrari and BMW engines. Having that many mechanical DNFs is good for the sport, and it isn't good for the manufacturers.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have Minardi. They can barely afford to maintain their operation due to the huge costs of developing their own cars. To not allow them to buy and enter year-old cars from the big teams is just stupid.

[ASCII Man]

Hell yeah, give them a F2002!


Sweet..

[Glen]

They seem to have done rather nicely with their not reasonably good No 1 driver.

[ASCII Man]

Yes they seem to be doing just that, Glen, yes indeed...

[Glen]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
No amount of preparation or driving talent could possibly account for the F2002's ability to leave all opposition 3 second back by the end of the first lap!

They've got a strong and perfectly balanced Rory Byrne chassis, an aero package perfected by thousands of hours of development and testing, a bulletproof top flight engine, and most importantly, complete partnership with one of the world's largest tire manufacturers.

That's what I'm saying - the difference is obviously not entirely down to preparation and driving talent. And that's what most people would like the difference to be.

The thousands of hours of aero testing would be much less worthwhile if you had to present your designs in detail for publication. Can't think of a reason that this shouldn't extend to the engine too - accurate engineering drawings or CAD files. For that matter all engine/transmission mapping data.

[Lee Janotta]

Well, you've still got manufacturing processes to worry about in that scenario. Minardi might not be able to get the same grade billet for their gears that Ferrari does, for instance, so all the diagrams might be useless as they'd still have to design sturdier gears, which means a larger gearbox, which means a bulge in the bodywork, which means a new rear wing...

But beyond that, I have to worry that if a team has to give away their innovations right away, they'll simply pack up and go someplace else. There are series which have tried this approach, and all have failed miserably as a result.

[Glen]

Which series?

[Lee Janotta]

Well, I admit I can't remember which ones... They didn't last very long, which is my contention.

[Total-F1]

Let me get this straight - you want to LET teams like Ferrari KEEP their advantage for a fixed amount of time instead of free competition between the teams to update the cars as and when?

WHY!?

[Hugh Jarce]

Well - at the minute other teams don't seem to be updating to any level that is closing the gap, even though they can do this when they want!

So, let the technology out of the bag, but let the innovators have benefit for a fixed period.

In the end a Minardi would go faster at a cheaper develoment cost - that's my take!

[Red]

Who decides for how long? On what basis? What makes you think that the teams that do invest in R&D would agree with it? The only way that I can see it work, is to sell it. Let the technology out of bag but for a price and the duration of the "limited time" comes naturally. You want it tomorrow, pay 25 millions. In 3 months it will be worth 1 million, etc.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Red
Who decides for how long? On what basis? What makes you think that the teams that do invest in R&D would agree with it? The only way that I can see it work, is to sell it. Let the technology out of bag but for a price and the duration of the "limited time" comes naturally. You want it tomorrow, pay 25 millions. In 3 months it will be worth 1 million, etc.

Generally, I like this idea, but who will set the prices?
I mean, why would Ferrari put a price that someone could actually afford when they are way ahead of everyone else? And if they say 'OK, you can have it for $12300000000000' where is the benefit?

[Hugh Jarce]

I hear what you are saying in the last few threads, but that is only because the system works differently at the mo.

This is how it works in the world elsewhere (thread starter). If you developed a new drug to prevent hair loss you would have to spend millions to get ahead (ho ho) of your competitors. But 'bingo' you come up with a lotion. You register your innovation and you then get a few years unrivalled time to 'make hay'.

Even if your rivals work out what you have done they cannot use the technology until the license is up (unless they can come up with a novel similar solution - which happens!) But then, they can copy all they like!

By that time, if you are the 'lead' team you have had the benefit of the advantage and hopefully to develop the technology even more.

I don't see why it should not be the same in F1. Under such a system Minardi could be running a complete F2002 in say 2004. And, for the smaller teams it does save big bucks.

And regarding the question as to whether the lead teams would buy this - why not, they are largely manufacturers and this is how the world outside F1 operates anyway.