[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Casper]

Aero - BIG SPEND

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Aero - BIG SPEND

If you have a wind tunnel it is all in house expenditure, it pays the rent and salaries of your people, confers a significant performance advantage if you get it right, and difficult voodoo for a sponsor to evaluate against costs.
Hence they control the costs and it is a nice little earner for the teams.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

The data situation in F1 is a very large part of the technology but I would suggest a comparatively small portion of the cost. And it is in fact probably the area in which transfer of technology via drivability improvements can contribute to progress.
With the increasing miniaturisation of technology you would probably have to impound watches etc to police it anyway. Probably tougher than the accounting process.
Maybe some limits on sensors could help but I think that may be a dead end.
I suppose I am thinking more how can cost capping work rather than reasons that it won't.

In other words Tony, you think that something as ambivalent as accounting toward a cost cap is controllable, while electronics that have to actually be physically present on the cars during a race are not controllable?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

If you have a wind tunnel it is all in house expenditure, it pays the rent and salaries of your people, confers a significant performance advantage if you get it right, and difficult voodoo for a sponsor to evaluate against costs.
Hence they control the costs and it is a nice little earner for the teams.

It pays the rent and salaries of those who need to be involved, true enough and if the aero was not such a significant part of the operation then those individuals would not be there. The aero component of F1 is so far out proportion to any other part of the operation it is almost outrageous. It has no application beyond F1 and seems to encourage the type of racing that everyone wants gone.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

It pays the rent and salaries of those who need to be involved, true enough and if the aero was not such a significant part of the operation then those individuals would not be there. The aero component of F1 is so far out proportion to any other part of the operation it is almost outrageous. It has no application beyond F1 and seems to encourage the type of racing that everyone wants gone.

I agree with everything above Casper, but racing aerodynamics are really where the big teams expertise and competitive advantage lies, and also what they get to charge the sponsors for.
Low speed aerodynamics (as apposed to anything over 200mph) is what their businesses are based on.
The question is, what incentive can you give the large teams with a controlling interest in F1 to let go of the aero side of their businesses?

[Casper]

If you guys don't get rid of the aero we will so start telling us how you want to reduce it to the point it has no effect on the following car. That should be enough incentive. In turn we will open up the regs in other areas and if you invent or introduce something we won't ban it.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Casper

It has no application beyond F1 and seems to encourage the type of racing that everyone wants gone.

Living in the bubble of motor racing, one would have tended to agree. However, the reality is actually quite different!

Williams Technology has recently entered into a new partnership to supply supermarkets with aerofoils to be fitted (and retro-fitted) to their chiller and freezer displays to reduce the overspill of cold air escaping into the shopping aisles. The technology has derived entirely from their aeronautical work in the wind-tunnel, and the use of the new aerofoils is estimated to reduce the supermarkets energy consumption substantially, which is good for the world's ecology as well as the supermarkets bottom line.

I am sure that other applications have resulted from the work done by Williams and others, especially McLaren.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Living in the bubble of motor racing, one would have tended to agree. However, the reality is actually quite different!

Williams Technology has recently entered into a new partnership to supply supermarkets with aerofoils to be fitted (and retro-fitted) to their chiller and freezer displays to reduce the overspill of cold air escaping into the shopping aisles. The technology has derived entirely from their aeronautical work in the wind-tunnel, and the use of the new aerofoils is estimated to reduce the supermarkets energy consumption substantially, which is good for the world's ecology as well as the supermarkets bottom line.

I am sure that other applications have resulted from the work done by Williams and others, especially McLaren.

One example for how much spent? It has absolutely no spin off in the automotive world at all, in fact it is the exact opposite to what the manufacturers seek to do making cars more slippery and fuel efficient.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Casper

One example for how much spent? It has absolutely no spin off in the automotive world at all, in fact it is the exact opposite to what the manufacturers seek to do making cars more slippery and fuel efficient.

Does it really matter where the spin-offs are used, and why should motor racing be treated differently from other technology areas where that expertise had found it's way into other industries? An example of this would surely be the advance in computers that was derived from the various space programmes that were running last century.

The technological knowledge gained in motor racing often finds it's way into other disciplines, and vice-versa. This is why the teams often employ engineers and designers from the aerospace industry, and team members also leave the sport to work in aerospace and other areas such as the nautical industry.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Does it really matter where the spin-offs are used, and why should motor racing be treated differently from other technology areas where that expertise had found it's way into other industries? An example of this would surely be the advance in computers that was derived from the various space programmes that were running last century.

The technological knowledge gained in motor racing often finds it's way into other disciplines, and vice-versa. This is why the teams often employ engineers and designers from the aerospace industry, and team members also leave the sport to work in aerospace and other areas such as the nautical industry.

I think there is a lot of myth and plain BS about how much spin off actually occurs from F1. In fact I would go so far as to say it is nearly all BS. I think the myth is persisted with to justify the ludicrous amount of money spent on a small niche of a niche sport.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

I think there is a lot of myth and plain BS about how much spin off actually occurs from F1. In fact I would go so far as to say it is nearly all BS. I think the myth is persisted with to justify the ludicrous amount of money spent on a small niche of a niche sport.

It benefits the car industry, the myth that is.

[Pingguest]

Last year, Mercedes-Benz said their road cars already benefit from the current technology and knowledge gained from it. However, I do believe a lot of potential in terms of relevance still remains unused.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Last year, Mercedes-Benz said their road cars already benefit from the current technology and knowledge gained from it. However, I do believe a lot of potential in terms of relevance still remains unused.

I can't think of any. in fact in some parts it lags road cars by many years, road wheels and tyres sizes being one example and they haven'r out headlights on F1 cars yet

[Paradise City]

My take on road relevancy is that there is likely cross-over. It's a sport that is uniquely punishing to machinery and data can be accrued from that. My guess is though that such data could be obtained using other means and the boardrooms don't take nuts-and-bolts road relevancy that seriously. I think it's interesting too that we are all struggling to name contemporary examples of road relevancy and we're supposed to be dedicated fans. The average joe won't be able to name anything that's for sure. So I don't know if nuts and bolts road relevancy has any primary marketing value. It's the kind of 'fun fact' that comes in a Discovery Channel doc or a Top Gear segment and is promptly forgotten.

Road relevancy kinda remains what it was. The same ethos that won and Sunday will deliver you a car on Monday. You get to appear regular in all the sports pages and lifestyle magazines..etcetc. That in itself has strong marketing power. But it's expensive and constantly needs to be justified.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

My take on road relevancy is that there is likely cross-over. It's a sport that is uniquely punishing to machinery and data can be accrued from that. My guess is though that such data could be obtained using other means and the boardrooms don't take nuts-and-bolts road relevancy that seriously. I think it's interesting too that we are all struggling to name contemporary examples of road relevancy and we're supposed to be dedicated fans. The average joe won't be able to name anything that's for sure. So I don't know if nuts and bolts road relevancy has any primary marketing value. It's the kind of 'fun fact' that comes in a Discovery Channel doc or a Top Gear segment and is promptly forgotten.

Road relevancy kinda remains what it was. The same ethos that won and Sunday will deliver you a car on Monday. You get to appear regular in all the sports pages and lifestyle magazines..etcetc. That in itself has strong marketing power. But it's expensive and constantly needs to be justified.

The fact that endurance racing is still more relevant than Formula One, makes Audi to stay in LMP1 so far. Fuel stratified injection is a great example from the last decade. It perfectly shows motor sport could be relevant for the automotive industry. And this moment kinetic energy recovery systems, fuel, semi-automatic gearboxes and carbon fibre are examples of technologies developed and/or improved in motor sports, that are introduced or about to be introduced in road cars.
As I said before, I believe more potential remains to be unlocked. Probably against my passion and nostalgia, a part of that is making Formula One components to last a bit longer, so that the used solutions are actually creditable.

[Mike E]

'Formula 1 bosses have agreed to bring back refuelling in 2017 as part of a range of measures aimed at making the sport more exciting.
There will also be higher revving and louder engines and changes aimed at making cars "five to six seconds a lap faster", governing body the FIA said.
For 2016, bosses have approved a plan to allow teams free choice of the four available tyre compounds for each race.
The changes still need to be approved by two further legislative stages.
The changes were agreed on Thursday at a meeting of the F1 strategy group, which comprises FIA president Jean Todt, commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone and the Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India teams. The engine manufacturers were also represented at the meeting.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32751118

[S griffin]

Bring back refuelling? To make races more exciting? Do me a favour! Back to more passing in the pitlane and more risk to the mechanics in the pitlane. Someone bang their heads together

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Bring back refuelling? To make races more exciting? Do me a favour! Back to more passing in the pitlane and more risk to the mechanics in the pitlane. Someone bang their heads together

You hit the nail on the head but it might give the commentators something to talk about.

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Bring back refuelling? To make races more exciting? Do me a favour! Back to more passing in the pitlane and more risk to the mechanics in the pitlane. Someone bang their heads together

Of all the stupid and unjustifiable changes they could have chosen,this one takes the biscuit.It is a practice that was dropped for good reason.

Louder engines?Get some new hearing aids fellows.

Nothing said about dumping DRS.

I do wonder whether the inmates are running the asylum and what will they do when it becomes sparsely populated and falls into ruin?

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Mike E

'Formula 1 bosses have agreed to bring back refuelling in 2017 as part of a range of measures aimed at making the sport more exciting.
There will also be higher revving and louder engines and changes aimed at making cars "five to six seconds a lap faster", governing body the FIA said.
For 2016, bosses have approved a plan to allow teams free choice of the four available tyre compounds for each race.
The changes still need to be approved by two further legislative stages.
The changes were agreed on Thursday at a meeting of the F1 strategy group, which comprises FIA president Jean Todt, commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone and the Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India teams. The engine manufacturers were also represented at the meeting.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32751118

Yeah - I've just seen this on Sky F1's Show. I agree that I think it would be a bad idea. Apart from the cost factor(aren't we meant to be saving money in F1?) - there's the safety concerns. There is also going back to old days of sprint racing relying on fuel loads - and well remember those days? Can't pass someone on the track - no problem - just pass them in the pits - genius! No! I don't think so.

It's only proposal though - so - let us hope it doesn't come about.

[wolfhound]

From my reading of the new rules there is no cost savings to be seen anywhere in them. If fact all that I can see are cost increases for anybody building an F1 car.
The changes as I understand are.
More powerful engines via greater fuel flow.
Wider tyres.
New wider wings
More aggressive looking cars.
The cars are to make more noise.
They willl also be allowed to rev higher.
A greater choice of tyres.
In race refuling

Will these rule changes make the cars more spectacular I doubt it, as wider wings and tyres give them more grip to harness the greater power.
They will be faster is that a major advantage if they are not more spectaular as in more difficult for drivers to control?

All that I see these rule changes doing is increasing costs putting furter pressure on the independant teams.

To make matters worse for the independants a new team can come in, buy a customer chassis from Mercedes or whoever is the top team and blow them into the weeds. The budget of a customer team will probably be about 1/3 of a current midfield team.
That means for a non CBT team the only way to survive in F1 is to become a customer team. You now have about 200 excess employees who will loose their jobs. Multiply that by the number of midfield teams becoming customers and it is a lot of jobs gone.

[Richard C]

Customer cars + No cost savings + A lot of change that will require costly redesign of existing solutions.

I wonder if it is all a combined strategy. Small teams can't afford the existing cost, plus the new costs so they are forced to support customer cars.

Richard

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Customer cars + No cost savings + A lot of change that will require costly redesign of existing solutions.

I wonder if it is all a combined strategy. Small teams can't afford the existing cost, plus the new costs so they are forced to support customer cars.

Richard

Thats what it looks like to me, no what way you look at it the small teams are basically $#*!%?

I think they might be better off going to the WEC than staying in F1.

[AoB Special Stage]

The theory is that is that, via these measures, they can lure sponsors that have been scarcer as of late, which solves the financial problems of the smaller teams.

Further, observed phenomenon 'passing during pit rotation' affecting or possibly negated by variable '100 kg/h fuel limit' which was not previously present.

As for making the cars harder to drive, adding difficulty to driving the car results in more DNF's and higher potential for driver injury.

[Casper]

I think re-fueling could work but not as we know it. Reduce the number of pit lane personnel to about two or three and allow re-fueling then the teams have to decide if it is worth their while and what they will gain or lose. I really hope none of the existing F1 teams ever change to another category because they have collectively sought to protect their own interests and by doing so destroyed F1. Motor sport in general is losing popularity but these guys are aiding and abetting that process more than they need to.