[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Adam43]

I see we are back to “the point you are missing” and “the thing you don’t understand” type discussion. You do realise that everyone else sees those comments as a failing in the the person who types it not who they are referring to.

Disagree, by all means, but is that the level of retort?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see we are back to “the point you are missing” and “the thing you don’t understand” type discussion. You do realise that everyone else sees those comments as a failing in the the person who types it not who they are referring to.

Disagree, by all means, but is that the level of retort?

I don't think that is necessarily a given. More often than not, I think those comments are genuine, even though they are a tad clichéd.

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think that is necessarily a given. More often than not, I think those comments are genuine, even though they are a tad clichéd.

100% agree BJS.

Why don't we all just agree to disagree and leave it that? The over policing is a bit much, just because a certain someone does not like what has been posted. Let the discussions be. We don't all have agree or be "lovey dovey" with each other. A little drama, a bit of a disagreement, ads to the "show" I say. Keeps it interesting.

[Adam43]

I think you are missing the point.

Especially the disagree by all means bit. Sometimes the tone gets in the way. We don’t have to be lovey dovey, but people could not be patronising in reply. Then we just get to the situation where looking to disagree is the main reason to post rather than seeing what the actual meaning of a post is (I.e. disagree by all means).

[Casper]

Formula One entered a cul de sac of their own making when they allowed energy recovery and then to compound that they specified a hybrid. It was obvious then that they could never retreat back to a pure IC motor & FE had stolen the electric open wheeler category from them so they had in effect been check mated with nowhere to go. From next year on EV's are being released in greater numbers and guess what....no hybrids amongst any of them. It was always a dopey idea to go down this path and I thought that F1 was full of bright people who knew what they were doing.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

Formula One entered a cul de sac of their own making when they allowed energy recovery and then to compound that they specified a hybrid. It was obvious then that they could never retreat back to a pure IC motor & FE had stolen the electric open wheeler category from them so they had in effect been check mated with nowhere to go. From next year on EV's are being released in greater numbers and guess what....no hybrids amongst any of them. It was always a dopey idea to go down this path and I thought that F1 was full of bright people who knew what they were doing.

I don't think F1 is necessarily full of bright people, who know what they are doing. F1 is forever adopting, or developing an idea and then over complicating it. Specifying a hybrid is a good example and I can think of more. Why not try to keep it simple, or is it because F1 is supposed to be at the pinnacle of motorsport, things have to be overly complicated?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why not try to keep it simple, or is it because F1 is supposed to be at the pinnacle of motorsport, things have to be overly complicated?

Fortunately or not, one half of F1 is a constructors championship. Regardless of how complex or simple the rules, both the nature of competition plus this being the pinnacle, it will result in complex and expensive solutions.

However, I believe other factors negatively aggravate the situation such as those with the money (aka power) create rules that ensure dominance. Such as power unit longevity rules or testing restrictions.

Richard

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think F1 is necessarily full of bright people, who know what they are doing. F1 is forever adopting, or developing an idea and then over complicating it. Specifying a hybrid is a good example and I can think of more. Why not try to keep it simple, or is it because F1 is supposed to be at the pinnacle of motorsport, things have to be overly complicated?

But the point may be that you don't need to keep developing technically since it is about racing. It has been sold as a technical exercise but in reality it just needs to be the fastest, most difficult race series.

So yes, the FIA and the owners have walked into a trap. When Merc/Renault and the rest go all electric, the FIA will have no Formula 1 championship.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Fortunately or not, one half of F1 is a constructors championship. Regardless of how complex or simple the rules, both the nature of competition plus this being the pinnacle, it will result in complex and expensive solutions.

However, I believe other factors negatively aggravate the situation such as those with the money (aka power) create rules that ensure dominance. Such as power unit longevity rules or testing restrictions.

Richard

By its nature F1 is expensive but that doesn't mean a solution has to be expensive or complicated. I remember when F1 was far less complicated and it wasn't that long a go.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But the point may be that you don't need to keep developing technically since it is about racing. It has been sold as a technical exercise but in reality it just needs to be the fastest, most difficult race series.

So yes, the FIA and the owners have walked into a trap. When Merc/Renault and the rest go all electric, the FIA will have no Formula 1 championship.

But in F1 if you want to be faster than your competitors, one thing you need is to have that technological edge and as a race fan, I like the technological aspect.

If the FIA has walked into a trap, wasn't the trap for all motorsport already sprung when FE came a long?

[Peter Mallett]

I think you miss my point. Never mind.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I think you miss my point. Never mind.

Tell me again.

[Peter Mallett]

Can't be arsed frankly.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see we are back to “the point you are missing” and “the thing you don’t understand” type discussion. You do realise that everyone else sees those comments as a failing in the the person who types it not who they are referring to.

Disagree, by all means, but is that the level of retort?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Can't be arsed frankly.

Ok...

[Peter Mallett]

Sorry, I'm just tired of repeating myself. You want technical superiority, which means all the junk we are carrying now. All I want is to see drivers and cars racing. I don't really see the relevance of "road relevance" since all it is doing is leading to EV and then the manufacturers will leave since their cars are all electric.

Oh **** it whats the point?

[EffectiveSprinkles]

I don't see it as a dilemma either way. There is good racing and terrible racing in F1, some things contribute to the former and some to the latter but as far as the racing goes I think F1 is doing better than a few years ago. Regardless of technology level. IndyCar is all spec and it's also good and bad races. Though I would argue they've taken a wrong turn this year.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

By its nature F1 is expensive but that doesn't mean a solution has to be expensive or complicated. I remember when F1 was far less complicated and it wasn't that long a go.

Was it complicated and expensive for its era? What could they have done during that era that was left undone?

Regardless, I contend that the sport will always spend as much money as it’s sponsorship will allow. We are in a period in which a select few participants have driven the cost of success to be quite high.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think F1 is necessarily full of bright people, who know what they are doing. F1 is forever adopting, or developing an idea and then over complicating it. Specifying a hybrid is a good example and I can think of more. Why not try to keep it simple, or is it because F1 is supposed to be at the pinnacle of motorsport, things have to be overly complicated?

Road reference was never an issue and where the idea came from will forever be shrouded in mystery. Road reference from lower classes of racing such as production sedan racing had some semblance or truth but in reality not a lot.

This period of F1 is trying to emulate road cars or rather pretending too because in reality the crap on an F1 car is unusable on the road for about 1000 reasons I can think off right of the top of my head.

I liken this period of car production and use to what happened when California got a bee in its bonnet and demanded that cars meet certain emission rules and the rest of the world were forced to follow which was a very good thing but a very messy process at the same time. The manufacturers instead of going back to the drawing board and building motors that complied instead started adding crap to the outside of the motor to get the emissions down and it was a total disaster, every car was a dog to drive and to keep on the road. we had to wait until the electronic evolution in cars began creeping in for cars to be nice to drive again much as we are waiting for battery technology to mature right now.

We are now going into a period of change once again from IC to EV and manufacturers have done exactly the same thing all over again, they invented the hybrid instead of going straight to the EV and no IC motor and guess what F1 did...the exact same stupid thing! We are now going to come out of that phase and when people look back in a few decades they will wonder why anyone thought it a good idea at all.

From when Tesla started to gain traction the European manufacturers who were already nibbling around the edges ramped up the R&D and booted the design engineers into action and that was about 5 years ago. Next year they all start to release the first EV with no IC or hybrid components at all.The hybrid is effectively dead, do not confuse that with range extenders which is a different animal altogether.

F has two choices, get with the EV message or go totally retro because if they don't they will be the odd man out, not only in relation to road cars but also within motor racing because there is no other hybrid class of racing for which we should be eternally thankful. it pushes up costs to stratospheric levels and it in the end will self harm and die, the sooner the better. The intention from what we know is to modify and use this PU for the next period of agreement, by the time that runs out F1 will be a dinosaur in relation to road cars as it is close to that now.

I can predict the responses now, FE is slow, batteries don't last etc, yep all true your honour but IC engines were not fast or reliable when they were first used either and petrol was not pumped in clean service stations either, there were fuel dumps on the side of the road and cars were refueled from cans. Going electric will simplify things but a lot needs to be done before racing at F1 levels can be achieved. Going electric will be way cheaper and far far simpler and that is appealing or should be.

They could go totally retro and bolt a LS9 or similar in the back and do it even cheaper that electric, the need for bespoke motors does not exist anymore like it did back when Cosworths were king because road car engines were dogs. The stake holders won't like that idea as their hold on the sport is in fact the complicated drive line they produce and I reckon it was the intention all along to produce a PU so complicated that no one else could challenge them with so they had the category by the short and curlies while ever they could convince the powers to be to continue with the present PU. It appears they have succeeded to do just that and they continue to wrap their hands around the throat of F1 well into the next dcade.

it will be interesting to see where F1 is placed towards the latter half of the next decade as the manufacturers who hold all the power at the same time move away from IC production more and more, talk about a conflict of interests!

[Oldtony]

While I agree with many of the things you say Casper I think you are confusing the motivation behind manufacturers, the teams and the commercial and governing bodies.
The reason we have what we have is not some form of dastardly plot but a position pushed on the sport by conflicting goals.
The manufacturers when you get down to motivation are certainly not in it to provide us with a sporting spectacle. They are in it for brand marketing, for the provision of a laboratory for the pure science side of their R&D, and for corporate ego. They have been pushed into the power units they are building by the pressure of media, government and financial influences.
The teams are only interested in getting themselves a competitive edge and are never going to willingly discard a technology which they think gives them an advantage. Try getting RBR to decide to swap to a spec aero formula?
The present commercial control of F! is to some extent hamstrung by the Bernie legacy which developed the present structure of financial distribution and the playing off of team v team in the politics and financing of the teams. Bernie also used F1 as his power base to achieve a very significant level of power over the FIA and the circuit promoters. Can Liberty fix it?
Finally the FIA is an NGO dependent on the goodwill of Governments all over the world through the motoring organisation which are it's power base. They must be seen to be going in the direction that the rapidly changing voter perceptions of the private car are moving in. That perception is very different in say the US, the EU, China, Central Asia and countries like Australia with major cities and country areas separated by by long, lonely roads.
Yes Hybrids are to some extent interim solutions, but they are probably a solution with a 30+ year life. F1 has to some extent found itself pushed into a blind alley but in doing so has developed some ICE, Kinetic and heat recovery technology that is transferable to both personal and other forms of transport.
The main thing the development of that technology has achieved in F1 is probably a stay of Execution. There are very powerful opinions out there saying that F1 is a wasteful excercise, and a younger cohort of people coming through who do not see the car as their form of personal transport let alone the basis for their sport.

[Richard C]

Great post Oldtony which gets many things right! I think I agree with everything you said. I want to call out one nugget of truth specifically which impedes the level of change many want...

Originally Posted by Oldtony

The teams are only interested in getting themselves a competitive edge and are never going to willingly discard a technology which they think gives them an advantage.

Richard

[Casper]

Hybrids are dead and I doubt any significant number will be released to market beyond 2020, maybe that should read zero beyond 2020. The reason they even got a nod in the market place was that the manufacturers needed to be shown to be doing something while they worked full speed on what they will begin to release next year and that took them about 6 years.

The manufacturers are also going about things differently and putting out test vehicles about a year before the release to wind up the market. Audi, Porsche, MB & Jaguar have all done this to date. Not one of those manufacturers have indicated they will be producing any more hybrids or if they have I missed it.

Even if hybrids were to be produced none of the technology in F1 is suitable for road use, it is too expensive and complicated for day to day use and the technical skills and infrastructure to support its use do not exist. I go back to my point, F1 will be using hybrids when they are being withdrawn from the market by age and lack of need.

The teams will always be pushing their own interests and the engine suppliers do not want anything that allows anyone else to get involved in their gravy train. F1 is not in any form a cohesive organisation which is why it has the difficulties it has today. If a realistic approach was to be taken the best thing that could happen would be a dictatorship approach and while Liberty made sounds about it they have obviously been persuaded by vested interests to back off and play the game the primary entrants want. Brawn as well intentioned as he is does not have the ruthless streak needed to go down the "do it our way or leave" path.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

While I agree with many of the things you say Casper I think you are confusing the motivation behind manufacturers, the teams and the commercial and governing bodies.
The reason we have what we have is not some form of dastardly plot but a position pushed on the sport by conflicting goals.

That was only advanced as a tin foil hat theory and to be honest I don't think they are bright enough or cohesive enough to have thought about it in the beginning. I do think they latched on to the concept when it was proposed to change the PU to something that any half decent engineering firm could build, that frightened the bejesus out of them I reckon. All of a sudden they would not have the political high ground and would have to go with the flow. If they expect me to believe the reason they did not want change was the R&D expense of a new PU they are dreaming or on hard drugs.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Casper

Hybrids are dead.

Good lord


So, what? We're going to be sticking with ICE only for another 25/30 years? Someone else has mentioned this already: governments decide in the short term where things go for markets. The hybrid car is in many instances a victim of its own success. In my country there were big tax breaks for buying a hybrid car when they first appeared on the market. But that started costing the government too much money because too many people were buying them and governments have to tax cars to pay for themselves. The same thing is happening with EVs now, they can only even remotely compete in a market where the government gives an EV a big tax break. When that tax break is inevitably removed, the EV market collapses completely.


By the way, even in my Western European country there are about 4 times as many hybrid cars as there are full EVs. The government took away the tax-break for plugin hybrids and the market for them collapsed predictably. But they didn't take away the tax-break for non-plugin hybrid cars, which are still out-selling EVs by quite a margin. Wanna know why? Because EVs are useless at almost everything except inner city driving. Hybrid vehicles are actually useful since there are fewer emissions and a much longer range. There are no disadvantages except price for the consumer.

[Akrapovic]

Hybrids will be here for at least another 10-15 years lol. Probably closer to 20.