Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21 Oct 2002, 13:05 (Ref:409185)   #1
Hugh Jarce
Veteran
 
Hugh Jarce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location:
A finely tuned body
Posts: 1,623
Hugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Licensing F1 technology with fixed lead times

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.
Hugh Jarce is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 13:16 (Ref:409194)   #2
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
ASCII Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Belgium
Leuven
Posts: 7,899
ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!
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...)

Last edited by ASCII Man; 21 Oct 2002 at 13:18.
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 13:22 (Ref:409201)   #3
Red
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location:
Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 5,845
Red should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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...

Last edited by Red; 21 Oct 2002 at 13:23.
Red is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 13:24 (Ref:409202)   #4
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
ASCII Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Belgium
Leuven
Posts: 7,899
ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!
Oh, haven't looked at it that way...
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 13:38 (Ref:409216)   #5
JonesF1
Racer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location:
Myrtle Beach, SC USA
Posts: 459
JonesF1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Re: Licensing F1 technology with fixed lead times

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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...
JonesF1 is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 15:07 (Ref:409273)   #6
Hugh Jarce
Veteran
 
Hugh Jarce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location:
A finely tuned body
Posts: 1,623
Hugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
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!
Hugh Jarce is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 17:04 (Ref:409346)   #7
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
ASCII Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Belgium
Leuven
Posts: 7,899
ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!
Ferrari isn't that far ahead, they just have a well oiled team and a good/reliable car
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 21:31 (Ref:409606)   #8
Glen
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
Glen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridGlen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridGlen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
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.
Glen is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 21:43 (Ref:409621)   #9
Hugh Jarce
Veteran
 
Hugh Jarce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location:
A finely tuned body
Posts: 1,623
Hugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHugh Jarce should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
I was just being a bit more generous for all the dosh and thought invested!
Hugh Jarce is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 21:49 (Ref:409628)   #10
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
ASCII Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Belgium
Leuven
Posts: 7,899
ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!
Oooohhh, even Minardi could make a F2002 then??

Sounds sweet...
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 21:54 (Ref:409636)   #11
Glen
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
Glen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridGlen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridGlen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
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.

Last edited by Glen; 21 Oct 2002 at 21:56.
Glen is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 22:00 (Ref:409644)   #12
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
ASCII Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Belgium
Leuven
Posts: 7,899
ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally posted by jtjh
Ferrari isn't that far ahead, they just have a well oiled team and a good/reliable car
And maybe a reasonably good N1 driver too, but i have serious doubts about that...
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 22:05 (Ref:409655)   #13
Lee Janotta
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location:
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,936
Lee Janotta should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Lee Janotta is offline  
__________________
"Put a ****ing wheel on there! Let me go out again!"
-Gilles Villeneuve, Zandvoort, 1979
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 22:08 (Ref:409658)   #14
ASCII Man
Veteran
 
ASCII Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Belgium
Leuven
Posts: 7,899
ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!ASCII Man has a real shot at the podium!
Hell yeah, give them a F2002!


Sweet..
ASCII Man is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Oct 2002, 22:09 (Ref:409659)   #15
Glen
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
Glen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridGlen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridGlen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
They seem to have done rather nicely with their not reasonably good No 1 driver.
Glen is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking back at lead times. Super Tourer Formula One 12 30 Jan 2005 02:01
Forming up grids in the assembly area and races run to fixed times BugEyed Marshals Forum 40 27 Jan 2004 19:34
Licensing a Hillclimb Venue for Karts? Stuart Hill Kart Racing 18 13 Sep 2003 00:01
Licensing speedy king Kart Racing 26 5 Sep 2003 16:39


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 15:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.