How to fix F1?

[Casper]

I think I have the answer to fixing F1 and that is to ban F1 engineers and and allow the fans to design the cars. The only problem with that idea is what fan has the best idea, I reckon I am right and the rest are wrong. I will leave the room now and thanks for reading.

[wnut]

Pitpass seems to have very little faith in the FIA's cost cap strategy.

https://www.pitpass.com/70477/Cash-on-Delivery

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Pitpass seems to have very little faith in the FIA's cost cap strategy.

https://www.pitpass.com/70477/Cash-on-Delivery

That makes two of us because I reckon it is an utterly stupid idea that can't be policed and laughed the first time I heard about it. The teams break rules and bend them in a professional sense and as part of their job, what chance has a bunch of accountants got of controlling professional crooks who can only get better at it with practise????

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Pitpass seems to have very little faith in the FIA's cost cap strategy.

https://www.pitpass.com/70477/Cash-on-Delivery

I believe the goal of the cost caps is to not be perfect, but good enough. There will always be room for games and people gaming the system.

But, that article is confusing to me. It mostly seems to be using power unit development as an example of how you can get around the cost caps. When, I believe broadly speaking power unit development is excluded from the cost caps. I am relatively sure that power unit costs to teams is an existing regulatory item. There are F1 teams and then there are power unit suppliers. Teams like Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault (and soon Red Bull) do both. But I believe from a cost cap perspective, the power unit budget is more tied to the per year limits that can be charged to customer teams. Which I think is around $15 M

Here is another way to look at it. If a Mercedes customer spends $15 M per season to use Mercedes power unit, do we expect Mercedes to do ALL Mercedes power unit R&D, etc. AND also provide power units to the Mercedes team all within that $15 M? If Honda was still in the sport and was providing engines, but not running an F1 team. How do they fit into the cost caps? They don't. Honda (and frankly anyone) can spend as much as they want in power unit R&D, etc. What matters is how much they charge the teams. I think from an accounting perspective, the new financial regulations track the costs related to the racing team. There will be line items for power unit costs for each team with those costs being capped (again, I think it's the $15 M value).

If that article is making a point (with it's specific example), then they are making a case that Mercedes F1 team is going to try to call out an amount that is less (much less?) for the power unit line items than what might be reasonably expected. In this case, lets say they "buy" their power units from the larger "Mercedes" for $1 M per season. With that meaning they have freed up $14 M for other things. While at the same time they are charging the customer teams some other value that is closer to $15 M. Do we expect that to slide through and not get called out?

I tend to think that those who complain about the new financial regulations (including maybe the author of that article) probably have never even read the regulations.

Richard

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I believe the goal of the cost caps is to not be perfect, but good enough.

I remember someone saying this around here some time ago. Possibly you I liked it then and like it now. The intention of the cost cap is to equalize the resources of the teams. It isn't perfect and it may never be, but even an imperfect cost cap equalizes the resources more than not having one.

Trying to think of an analogy. What about this? A speed limit on a road doesn't stop everyone going over that limit, but that doesn't mean you don't have one.

I'm sure you could pick that apart, as people will always try to find fault in analogies rather than trying to understand what they are trying to get at. A bit like the cost cap.

I thought that pitpass article was poorly written and thought out. It is the obvious masquerading as insight. Could have just been an armchair forum post rather than a journalists editorial.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I remember someone saying this around here some time ago. Possibly you I liked it then and like it now.

It probably was me as I know I have posted that comment before.

You can find articles online in which the FIA talks about these general issues of it not being perfect. They know it isn't perfect. They know it will require adjustments. And they have been upfront about that. It will be dynamic and adjust as needed to fill in any gaps that they didn't initially think about. This is from the FIA Financial Regulations...

1.7 The Cost Cap Administration shall periodically review these Financial Regulations. These Financial Regulations may be amended and/or supplemented by the FIA World Motor Sport Council from time to time.

Originally Posted by Adam43

The intention of the cost cap is to equalize the resources of the teams. It isn't perfect and it may never be, but even an imperfect cost cap equalizes the resources more than not having one.

Trying to think of an analogy. What about this? A speed limit on a road doesn't stop everyone going over that limit, but that doesn't mean you don't have one.

I'm sure you could pick that apart, as people will always try to find fault in analogies rather than trying to understand what they are trying to get at. A bit like the cost cap.

I thought that pitpass article was poorly written and thought out. It is the obvious masquerading as insight. Could have just been an armchair forum post rather than a journalists editorial.

Lets look at the difference between cheating on the technical/sporting regulations and the financial regulations.

On the technical side, lets look at the supposed infractions by Ferrari in which the speculation was that they were working around how fuel flow was measured. Effectively gaming the homologated flow sensors. While creative and bold, it could potentially only exist as verbal conversations with those who do the work and the only "on paper" evidence would be the code for the ECU which could be obfuscated (ie. vaguely written) so as to claim innocence. There are no standard (or legally required) ways to document everything that can happen as you build a solution that is about cheating. So it is easy to hide the evidence because you never had to document anything internally that might come back to bite you.

Lets look at the financial side. Financial accounting is a mature endeavor. Double entry books is over 100 years old and GAAP Accounting Standards is over 80 years old. The games (and process of detection) has been going on long before there was something called F1.

Of course you can still play games. But it requires much more overt action such as creating false or misleading paper trails. While the sporting and technical regulations are about FIA, the financial side will go beyond the FIA. Especially for any large publicly traded company. This means that there are legal ramifications (outside of FIA/F1) with respect to playing financial games. The risk of being overly creative is not just to their standing within F1. Someone might actually go to jail.

Frankly I suspect it may be much easier for teams to game and "cheat" at technical and sporting regulations and get away with it, than it will be to cheat on the financial side and get away with it. Teams can play games with technical solutions, but the cars are sometimes wired up to generate data. While the teams may know their own data, the FIA knows/sees the data for ALL of the teams. That can allow a team to stand out in ways that just just don't understand because they only have their data. The same applies on the financial side. Except there is likely to be more data on the financial side. More data means more chances to slip up somehow and expose whatever you don't want to expose.

In the end. Small games will be played and won by the teams on the financial side. However, I just don't see the FIA looking to "Nickle and Dime" the teams to death (just like they do on the technical regulations). They are not looking to hammer teams with small infractions. They are looking for the large infractions that adjust the balance of power in ways that is beyond the goal of the regulations. If it happens on the technical side, they ban the technology or clarify the regulations to stop technical solutions (be them legal or not). They will do the same on the financial side.

Teams who are exploring the envelope with respect to the sporting or technical regulations are generally playing in an artificial sandbox. And generally speaking their punishments exist within that sandbox (some exceptions exist such as the 2007 "Spygate" scandal). Playing games with finances puts them outside of the F1 sandbox and in the real world which opens them up to real world penalties.

Overall, I think the teams understand that it is just not worth the risk to try any significant financial gamesmanship (which would require them to hide the evidence) as it would put them risk for problems bigger than just F1.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

I assume that similar to company audits, the financial cap will be monitored by the teams' accountants and their report will be forwarded to the FIA. My concern is that, as has been found in over the past few years, the accountants might turn a blind eye to what they actually find and paint an inaccurate picture of the true position.

Enron in the USA and Carrillion in the UK come to mind.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

aero in Professional open wheelers might define it a bit more. It has forced open wheel racing and F1 in particular down an unsustainable expensive path and along the way and it was the wedge that forced out the privateers initially as they could not compete against the factory teams. Some would label me as an Idealist and you would be right and the heyday of my dreams will never return.

Everything that is wrong with F1 started when aero was introduced...

If I understand correctly, it was actually the privateer Williams team who was the first F1 team to obtain their own wind tunnel, in the late 1970's. It seems the privateer garigistes with engineers like Dernie were more flexible and forward looking the continental manufacturer teams. Dernie was already using computer based optimisation algorithms for suspension in the early 1970's -- at a time when access to industrial computers (or any computers) was quite limited.

As you know, many of the other famous F1 innovations like a monocoque chassis and engine as a stressed member came from British privateers like Lotus and not from continental manufacturer teams like Ferrari or Renault too.

Williams and Lotus were also the first to bring active suspension, and Williams even trialled a CVT!

Conversely, in the pre-downforce era, Grand Prix racing was very much dominated by super wealthy manufacturer teams in the 1930's and 1950's. With even the works Alfa Romeos being unable to match the spending of the Nazi-backed Auto Union and Mercedes-Benz teams in the 1930's European championships. So I am not sure it is as simple as aerodynamics making privateers uncompetitive.

[Anyopenroad]

I have always wondered if what did for the garagistas was the reliance on computers to refine and design. This negated the maverick genius that underpinned teams like Lotus both because the same end result could be achieved by brute force computing power (a bit like the first chess computers won by testing every possible move) and because the result could then be refined to the nth degree more easily. The essential difference between teams then became the amount of computing power they were able to deploy, which includes very high-precision computer-controlled parts manufacture.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If I understand correctly, it was actually the privateer Williams team who was the first F1 team to obtain their own wind tunnel, in the late 1970's. It seems the privateer garigistes with engineers like Dernie were more flexible and forward looking the continental manufacturer teams. Dernie was already using computer based optimisation algorithms for suspension in the early 1970's -- at a time when access to industrial computers (or any computers) was quite limited.

As you know, many of the other famous F1 innovations like a monocoque chassis and engine as a stressed member came from British privateers like Lotus and not from continental manufacturer teams like Ferrari or Renault too.

Williams and Lotus were also the first to bring active suspension, and Williams even trialled a CVT!

Conversely, in the pre-downforce era, Grand Prix racing was very much dominated by super wealthy manufacturer teams in the 1930's and 1950's. With even the works Alfa Romeos being unable to match the spending of the Nazi-backed Auto Union and Mercedes-Benz teams in the 1930's European championships. So I am not sure it is as simple as aerodynamics making privateers uncompetitive.

According to this article on wind tunnels, Brabham were the first F1 team to own their own wind tunnel during Bernie Ecclestone/Gordon Murray era.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/wind_tunnel.html

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If I understand correctly, it was actually the privateer Williams team who was the first F1 team to obtain their own wind tunnel, in the late 1970's. It seems the privateer garigistes with engineers like Dernie were more flexible and forward looking the continental manufacturer teams. Dernie was already using computer based optimisation algorithms for suspension in the early 1970's -- at a time when access to industrial computers (or any computers) was quite limited.

As you know, many of the other famous F1 innovations like a monocoque chassis and engine as a stressed member came from British privateers like Lotus and not from continental manufacturer teams like Ferrari or Renault too.

Williams and Lotus were also the first to bring active suspension, and Williams even trialled a CVT!

Conversely, in the pre-downforce era, Grand Prix racing was very much dominated by super wealthy manufacturer teams in the 1930's and 1950's. With even the works Alfa Romeos being unable to match the spending of the Nazi-backed Auto Union and Mercedes-Benz teams in the 1930's European championships. So I am not sure it is as simple as aerodynamics making privateers uncompetitive.

All true except it does not change history. In the days of transition between mechanical grip to aero true innovative thinking from independent and less wealthy teams were taking the sport down different paths which was all well and good but aero was a huge banquet of thinking and gains for engineers so they took to it like a duck to water. The result is what we have today, no privateer could even remotely get into F1 today due to the expense and vast technical knowledge needed.

I stand by what I said, every on track racing problem F1 suffers from today stems form aero being introduced into the sport no matter who did it. This was compounded by F1 trying to restrict the innovative thinking that began back then has also done the sport no favours. When was the last time some of the restrictive regulation was removed to allow thinking engineers to introduce advantage for their team? No wonder Adrian Newey gets on his bike occasionely and expresses his frustration around this aspect of the sport. The reason F1 flourished was the fact that advances were made and shown off to the world. It is all very contradictory and I would be the first to admit that and that is another major problem.

A good question would be why does F1 restrict true innovation when that was initially what it was all about? Everyone says costs but if an engineer dreams up something and the boss can't afford it then the idea won't happen. Take the aero away and give the teams a clean slate and some room to think without boundaries, the huge cost of aero development could be channelled into new areas. I know dream time stuff and I am shouting into the wind.

[chillibowl]

more and unrestricted innovation will only costs more money and will change the sport in ways none can predict other than to say what we end up getting will be as different from today as what horse and carriage racing was to the automobile used in the first car race.

in fairness, you dont seem to like the direction money or innovation has currently brought us to so i am a bit confused as to why you would think the future evolution of racing via unrestricted innovation will be more to your liking and/or more reminiscent to your past ideal ?

again no disrespect, but these goals seem to be contradictory no?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

more and unrestricted innovation will only costs more money and will change the sport in ways none can predict other than to say what we end up getting will be as different from today as what horse and carriage racing was to the automobile used in the first car race.

in fairness, you dont seem to like the direction money or innovation has currently brought us to so i am a bit confused as to why you would think the future evolution of racing via unrestricted innovation will be more to your liking and/or more reminiscent to your past ideal ?

again no disrespect, but these goals seem to be contradictory no?

I admit it is a contradiction but aero takes a huge amount of money and does not in the end give us better racing only faster racing. It is a irrefutable fact that most fans despise what aero has done to the sport and led to DRS as a band aid solution.

[chillibowl]

fair enough...what is life without a little contradiction?

overall i do agree about the relationship between aero and money. although i am more in the camp of reduce spending while limiting much (but not all) innovation. overall i think the current approach of just picking one sandbox at a time to play in has been, all be it a little too slowly at times, actually has been working.

obviously we will see how the teams claw back any reductions in downforce next year, but i hope the further decrease in 'primary' budget is enough to slow the development cycle to a point where we get back to different development cycles thus hopefully increasing the relative ebbs and flows of performance differences between the teams.

for me a big lesson from this past season and a half is the almost freeze on development while also restricting the amount of money spent.

for lack of a better term, this 'covid era' philosophy should be continued imo.

[bathurst77]

must have no more than 6 wheels, total car size no more than x by y by z mm. Must be propelled by 1 or more engines powering at least 2 wheels. Steering, gear change brakes and throttle must be entirely controlled by the on board driver. Show us what you got - free for all.

But with a total annual cost cap for entire team.
R&D, car build, running costs, all salaries down to the bloke who deals with the bombs that haunt Lewis.
Books open to official audit without notice.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

overall i do agree about the relationship between aero and money.

I think F1 teams spend just as much on their other simulation rigs like six-post rigs and the like. Red Bull's integrated chassis and engine dyno from AVL cost around 40m GBP IIRC. It's not like aero is the end-all of designing an F1 car, there is still other stuff.

Almost no reliability engineering goes into aero. That's all for the mechanical parts of the car, and allows for the metronomic reliability they have now.

Banning testing has just funnelled spending elsewhere into other tools.

For example, if all you need for good aero is money -- Toyota had lots of money, yet their car was never above midpack level!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I think F1 teams spend just as much on their other simulation rigs like six-post rigs and the like. Red Bull's integrated chassis and engine dyno from AVL cost around 40m GBP IIRC. It's not like aero is the end-all of designing an F1 car, there is still other stuff.

Almost no reliability engineering goes into aero. That's all for the mechanical parts of the car, and allows for the metronomic reliability they have now.

Banning testing has just funnelled spending elsewhere into other tools.

For example, if all you need for good aero is money -- Toyota had lots of money, yet their car was never above midpack level!

However only aero trails 5 seconds behind a car and disrupts the oppositions aero .... ruining the racing.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

For example, if all you need for good aero is money -- Toyota had lots of money, yet their car was never above midpack level!

You are trying to simplify the equation of what makes a winning team and not addressing the problem of aero applied to an open wheel racing car over multiple decades. Aero has destroyed good on track racing and there is no disputing that. If it had not F1 would not have tried to limit its ongoing effect and failed dismally to the point of introducing DRS because they were out of ideas.

Next year's regulation changes are a prime example of that and while I think we will never see a wingless car again it could have happened if the will to change things had been there. It would have been a huge re-set for F1 and open wheel racing because all the series used in the ladder to F1 would have had to change as well and that was never going to happen. I have little faith in next year being any better than any previous year TTTT as far as good on track racing goes and neither has Ferrari who has come out and openly said so.

As far as I can see they have two choices, ban it totally or take all limits off it because partial fiddling with it has never worked. I will be surprised if we aren't back here before the 2022 season ends saying similar things about aero as we are now. I hope someone can quote me next year to prove me wrong.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

You are trying to simplify the equation of what makes a winning team and not addressing the problem of aero applied to an open wheel racing car over multiple decades. Aero has destroyed good on track racing and there is no disputing that. If it had not F1 would not have tried to limit its ongoing effect and failed dismally to the point of introducing DRS because they were out of ideas.

Next year's regulation changes are a prime example of that and while I think we will never see a wingless car again it could have happened if the will to change things had been there. It would have been a huge re-set for F1 and open wheel racing because all the series used in the ladder to F1 would have had to change as well and that was never going to happen. I have little faith in next year being any better than any previous year TTTT as far as good on track racing goes and neither has Ferrari who has come out and openly said so.

As far as I can see they have two choices, ban it totally or take all limits off it because partial fiddling with it has never worked. I will be surprised if we aren't back here before the 2022 season ends saying similar things about aero as we are now. I hope someone can quote me next year to prove me wrong.

Plus 1

Just ban front wings and restrict the rear wing to one element.

The banning of the front wing causes the car to trip over its own turbulence, therefore the turbulence generated by trailing another car becomes less significant.

No wings at all and flat bottoms/ standard undertray would be better still.

[S griffin]

I say get rid of barge boards and winglets, reduce the front and rear wing size and have most of the downforce come from the floor. Hopefully next year's cars will do the goods

[Casper]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I say get rid of barge boards and winglets, reduce the front and rear wing size and have most of the downforce come from the floor. Hopefully next year's cars will do the goods

What is the advantage you see in doing that, every time there has been fiddling around as I call it the result has been worse or achieved nothing. Maybe a single element rear wing with a floor the same height front to back and with no diffusers might work but the preference should be no aero. Let them run tricky suspension to improve mechanical grip and things will be interesting. You will begin to see strategy racing set up by the drivers and not the pit engineers and cars getting out of shape as they used to.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

the preference should be no aero

So you propose Formula 1 adopt Formula Ford aerodynamic regulations? They say "aerofoils, spoilers or bodywork shaped to produce negative lift are banned", end. (I'm paraphrasing a little, there are some other rules about the engine air intake, engine covers etc.)

I raised the topic of adopting Formula Ford bodywork regulations for F1 cars on F1Technical.net here: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28566

F1 aerodynamist William Toet produced an analysis of such a "no downforce" F1 car here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/formu...s-willem-toet/

It would be a very interesting proposition.

Downforce F1 car vs no downforce F1 car, speed simulation for lap of Catalunya by William Toet:

You are comparing the black line, 'normal' F1 car, to the purple line, F1 car with no downforce and 25% of 'normal' drag.

The no downforce car is faster on the main straight but slower on the other straights. The overall lap time is 24 seconds slower.

Note how the gain from having 25% drag with 'normal' downforce is only worth 4.5 seconds. It shows how adding downforce is worth much more lap time, than reducing drag is worth lap time. [At least for Catalunya -- Le Mans or Indianapolis will obviously have a quite different sensitivity!]

[Richard C]

I think F1 is too far down the path of using aero... to drastically remove it (i.e. high powered Formula Ford). The Genie can't be stuffed back into the box.

Richard

[S griffin]

You can have a series with aero and still produce great racing. The 90s CART series is a good example of that and that was again due to their excellent ground effect

And for those complaining that lap times would be slower if we limit aero, so what? The MotoGP lap times at Silverstone may be about 20 seconds slower than what F1 could, but I dare anyone to say the two wheelers were dull. If anything the spectacle was better because they looked more on the limit than their 4 wheel counterparts

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think F1 is too far down the path of using aero... to drastically remove it (i.e. high powered Formula Ford). The Genie can't be stuffed back into the box.

Richard

Sadly, I think you are right, they have however stuffed a number of Genies back in the bottle.

Formula Ford aero rules would be good imo. Wingless cars react so much quicker and are much more fun to drive.

I think the some of the resistance is because the driver would become too important in a no aero formula.