FIA Thread

[Shakeman]

OEMs literally use F1 as R&D for road going vehicles. Utilizing your wind tunnels and redundant staffing for other R&D projects that feed a central database (and can generate profit) is a synergy that should not be arrogantly ignored.

This is why I have explained lots of times that the concept F1 had agreed upon was never going to work. The answer is to invert the axis of the symmetry and force a self-balancing formula through data sharing (like the synergy mentioned above). That way the teams simply have zero incentive to overspend. Then you can *cough*blockchain*cough* the data (Teams can run any part that is uploaded, verified by scrutineering/3d scans) and run it through the profit mill of selling access to fans/journos/universities and non-involved manufacturers(now the blockchain makes sense). Different tokens open deeper access and have different costs involved (CFD results, FEA results, 3d point cloud model, etc.) Teams have unlimited tokens for maximum level access (can vote on "trade secret" type security.)

The most close, tight, pinnacle, cheap, epic, and bespoke racecars of all time.

You don't understand why car manufacturers are interested in spending millions even billions on competing in F1. Your idea is no less barking up the wrong tree than Bernie's idea that each driver should drive for each team on the grid.

Team owners give not one single fuc* about the closeness of racing or spectacle of F1, they care only about winning and having their brand associated with success. No brand is going to pump millions into development of parts only for their competitor to potentially beat them on the track. No engine manufacturer gives their engine designs to competitors and they never give their engines to those who are in direct competition ergo no team is going to hand out trick suspension designs and clever aero for the good of the sport. It would be the end of F1.

[Zynerji]

OEMs literally use F1 as R&D for road going vehicles. Utilizing your wind tunnels and redundant staffing for other R&D projects that feed a central database (and can generate profit) is a synergy that should not be arrogantly ignored.

This is why I have explained lots of times that the concept F1 had agreed upon was never going to work. The answer is to invert the axis of the symmetry and force a self-balancing formula through data sharing (like the synergy mentioned above). That way the teams simply have zero incentive to overspend. Then you can *cough*blockchain*cough* the data (Teams can run any part that is uploaded, verified by scrutineering/3d scans) and run it through the profit mill of selling access to fans/journos/universities and non-involved manufacturers(now the blockchain makes sense). Different tokens open deeper access and have different costs involved (CFD results, FEA results, 3d point cloud model, etc.) Teams have unlimited tokens for maximum level access (can vote on "trade secret" type security.)

The most close, tight, pinnacle, cheap, epic, and bespoke racecars of all time.

You don't understand why car manufacturers are interested in spending millions even billions on competing in F1. Your idea is no less barking up the wrong tree than Bernie's idea that each driver should drive for each team on the grid.

Team owners give not one single fuc* about the closeness of racing or spectacle of F1, they care only about winning and having their brand associated with success. No brand is going to pump millions into development of parts only for their competitor to potentially beat them on the track. No engine manufacturer gives their engine designs to competitors and they never give their engines to those who are in direct competition ergo no team is going to hand out trick suspension designs and clever aero for the good of the sport. It would be the end of F1.

Wrong. Teams and OEMs care about OUR MONEY. Period. Full stop. Personnel changing teams has ALWAYS cross pollinated the technology.

The rules have no balance between content creation and consumption.

Your post sounds very protective of a system with built-in advantages for certain teams. That isn't a great view of things.

[Cuky]

This is really getting ridiculous
https://www.racefans.net/2022/10/01/f1- ... ce-season/

[astracrazy]

This is really getting ridiculous
https://www.racefans.net/2022/10/01/f1- ... ce-season/

Its getting too much. Fans won't even have the time to watch it soon.

[Hoffman900]

Makes you wonder, Redbull announcing their own hyper car project is surely a way of getting around the cost cap. They can spend unlimited amounts of D&D on materials and processes, then shift this knowledge onto the F1 project

Careful, when I suggested such a thing it didn't go well with the Red Bull faithful.

OEMs literally use F1 as R&D for road going vehicles. Utilizing your wind tunnels and redundant staffing for other R&D projects that feed a central database (and can generate profit) is a synergy that should not be arrogantly ignored.

This is why I have explained lots of times that the concept F1 had agreed upon was never going to work. The answer is to invert the axis of the symmetry and force a self-balancing formula through data sharing (like the synergy mentioned above). That way the teams simply have zero incentive to overspend. Then you can *cough*blockchain*cough* the data (Teams can run any part that is uploaded, verified by scrutineering/3d scans) and run it through the profit mill of selling access to fans/journos/universities and non-involved manufacturers(now the blockchain makes sense). Different tokens open deeper access and have different costs involved (CFD results, FEA results, 3d point cloud model, etc.) Teams have unlimited tokens for maximum level access (can vote on "trade secret" type security.)

The most close, tight, pinnacle, cheap, epic, and bespoke racecars of all time.

Every OEM improving the products WE buy because the data-compounding.

And let's get real. RBT could make a billion dollars a year if they just engineered their 2021 suspension into a retrofit kit for 1990-2022 Honda Civics.

Or better yet, RB powertrains could "develop" an engine with Honda for a New NeweySX with .8L, inline 3 with a MGU-H turbo and a MGU-K. They could call it the Half-One.

F1 isn’t a development arm for OEMs and never has, that’s always been the domain of endurance sports car racing. F1 is a marketing exercise more than anything.

[fritticaldi]

Horner threatening legal action over defamatory remarks by rival teams. Toto Wolff is well informed from his allies in the FIA or else he wouldnt make those remarks.

[Writinglife]

German media AMuS is reporting the other team breaching the budget cap rules in 2021 was AMR .

Easy for AMR to resolve their financial issues "Sorry son, we can't pay you this year as we've overspent on copying other teams, but the good news is your pocket money is going up to $1m a week"

Except driver salaries are not currently included in the cap.

Do I need to explain it was a joke?

[Zynerji]

Careful, when I suggested such a thing it didn't go well with the Red Bull faithful.

OEMs literally use F1 as R&D for road going vehicles. Utilizing your wind tunnels and redundant staffing for other R&D projects that feed a central database (and can generate profit) is a synergy that should not be arrogantly ignored.

This is why I have explained lots of times that the concept F1 had agreed upon was never going to work. The answer is to invert the axis of the symmetry and force a self-balancing formula through data sharing (like the synergy mentioned above). That way the teams simply have zero incentive to overspend. Then you can *cough*blockchain*cough* the data (Teams can run any part that is uploaded, verified by scrutineering/3d scans) and run it through the profit mill of selling access to fans/journos/universities and non-involved manufacturers(now the blockchain makes sense). Different tokens open deeper access and have different costs involved (CFD results, FEA results, 3d point cloud model, etc.) Teams have unlimited tokens for maximum level access (can vote on "trade secret" type security.)

The most close, tight, pinnacle, cheap, epic, and bespoke racecars of all time.

Every OEM improving the products WE buy because the data-compounding.

And let's get real. RBT could make a billion dollars a year if they just engineered their 2021 suspension into a retrofit kit for 1990-2022 Honda Civics.

Or better yet, RB powertrains could "develop" an engine with Honda for a New NeweySX with .8L, inline 3 with a MGU-H turbo and a MGU-K. They could call it the Half-One.

F1 isn’t a development arm for OEMs and never has, that’s always been the domain of endurance sports car racing. F1 is a marketing exercise more than anything.

ANY data generating exercises in engineering IS a development arm. I agree that sports cars are more similar to road cars, but the Ferrari engines in their road cars were developed from years of F1 data. (Find YouTube vid of GM engineers reverse engineering a Modena engine for some inside info...) All R&D is helpful (like Merc having diesel engineers designing the 2014 engine, or Honda using jet-engine engineers on their turbocharger).

Like folks say here all the time... You cannot un-learn these epiphanies of engineering.

[djones]

This is really getting ridiculous
https://www.racefans.net/2022/10/01/f1- ... ce-season/

Its getting too much. Fans won't even have the time to watch it soon.

The idiotic sprint races already ensure a lot of fans can't even watch qualifying due to being at work.

[gandharva]

Well, I think there is still alot of potential in logistic improvement of the race calendar.

[diffuser]

OEMs literally use F1 as R&D for road going vehicles. Utilizing your wind tunnels and redundant staffing for other R&D projects that feed a central database (and can generate profit) is a synergy that should not be arrogantly ignored.

This is why I have explained lots of times that the concept F1 had agreed upon was never going to work. The answer is to invert the axis of the symmetry and force a self-balancing formula through data sharing (like the synergy mentioned above). That way the teams simply have zero incentive to overspend. Then you can *cough*blockchain*cough* the data (Teams can run any part that is uploaded, verified by scrutineering/3d scans) and run it through the profit mill of selling access to fans/journos/universities and non-involved manufacturers(now the blockchain makes sense). Different tokens open deeper access and have different costs involved (CFD results, FEA results, 3d point cloud model, etc.) Teams have unlimited tokens for maximum level access (can vote on "trade secret" type security.)

The most close, tight, pinnacle, cheap, epic, and bespoke racecars of all time.

You don't understand why car manufacturers are interested in spending millions even billions on competing in F1. Your idea is no less barking up the wrong tree than Bernie's idea that each driver should drive for each team on the grid.

Team owners give not one single fuc* about the closeness of racing or spectacle of F1, they care only about winning and having their brand associated with success. No brand is going to pump millions into development of parts only for their competitor to potentially beat them on the track. No engine manufacturer gives their engine designs to competitors and they never give their engines to those who are in direct competition ergo no team is going to hand out trick suspension designs and clever aero for the good of the sport. It would be the end of F1.

No sure I agree that he doesn't understand why they're such a high investment in F1.

Until the introduction of the CAP, formula 1 was more of a way for companies to spend thier disposable advertising budgets. These are companies that make Billions. The OEMs are bottom feeders in this scenario. Surviving on what the fat cats throw away. I agree, that the some teams only care about winning. Others are just happy to be at the party. That is probably changing with the CAP. The CAP allows teams to start making money and growing the value of the teams.

I don't see how share data between allow for competion on the track. I'd expect all the teams to have very similar cars. You've also taking the focus away from making money at where you finish(more prize money and more camera time for you car and advertisers) into what you can sell the IP for.

Maybe I just don't understand what you're proposing.

[Zynerji]

Are we getting to the point that the season needs to work like qualifying?

Like splitting into geographic regions, then having the winners from each region participate in a final 5 race run for the championship?

[Zynerji]

OEMs literally use F1 as R&D for road going vehicles. Utilizing your wind tunnels and redundant staffing for other R&D projects that feed a central database (and can generate profit) is a synergy that should not be arrogantly ignored.

This is why I have explained lots of times that the concept F1 had agreed upon was never going to work. The answer is to invert the axis of the symmetry and force a self-balancing formula through data sharing (like the synergy mentioned above). That way the teams simply have zero incentive to overspend. Then you can *cough*blockchain*cough* the data (Teams can run any part that is uploaded, verified by scrutineering/3d scans) and run it through the profit mill of selling access to fans/journos/universities and non-involved manufacturers(now the blockchain makes sense). Different tokens open deeper access and have different costs involved (CFD results, FEA results, 3d point cloud model, etc.) Teams have unlimited tokens for maximum level access (can vote on "trade secret" type security.)

The most close, tight, pinnacle, cheap, epic, and bespoke racecars of all time.

You don't understand why car manufacturers are interested in spending millions even billions on competing in F1. Your idea is no less barking up the wrong tree than Bernie's idea that each driver should drive for each team on the grid.

Team owners give not one single fuc* about the closeness of racing or spectacle of F1, they care only about winning and having their brand associated with success. No brand is going to pump millions into development of parts only for their competitor to potentially beat them on the track. No engine manufacturer gives their engine designs to competitors and they never give their engines to those who are in direct competition ergo no team is going to hand out trick suspension designs and clever aero for the good of the sport. It would be the end of F1.

No sure I agree that he doesn't understand why they're such a high investment in F1.

Until the introduction of the CAP, formula 1 was more of a way for companies to spend thier disposable advertising budgets. These are companies that make Billions. The OEMs are bottom feeders in this scenario. Surviving on what the fat cats throw away. I agree, that the some teams only care about winning. Others are just happy to be at the party. That is probably changing with the CAP. The CAP allows teams to start making money and growing the value of the teams.

I don't see how share data between allow for competion on the track. I'd expect all the teams to have very similar cars. You've also taking the focus away from making money at where you finish(more prize money and more camera time for you car and advertisers) into what you can sell the IP for.

Maybe I just don't understand what you're proposing.

A team currently spends 200M a year to develop in isolation. That's 200M worth of data that let's them improve next year's car.

A team sharing data with 9 other teams STILL spends 200M, but receives 2B in data to improve next year's car. That means they can reduce the 200M down to 150M or even 100M.

Calculate that concept over 10 years, and understand that ALL teams only benefit from the sharing. Removing the redundancy engineering inherent in multiple bespoke cars (like wheel nuts, fire suppression systems, etc) leads to HUGE reduction of cost, not to mention closing down 10 reverse engineering departments across the teams.

Team members no longer cost 100M in bidding wars that transfer secrets between teams, the open data can be sold to publishers of web/print/media, and R&D data can be sold to non-F1 OEMS.

So, now they fight for Constructor points for multi-millions of dollars. With data sharing, they could be competing for multi-billions of dollars.

Lay it out, do the math, understand the marketing value, the engineering value, and the human value.

It wins so big, it's a literal no-brainer.

[SmallSoldier]

You don't understand why car manufacturers are interested in spending millions even billions on competing in F1. Your idea is no less barking up the wrong tree than Bernie's idea that each driver should drive for each team on the grid.

Team owners give not one single fuc* about the closeness of racing or spectacle of F1, they care only about winning and having their brand associated with success. No brand is going to pump millions into development of parts only for their competitor to potentially beat them on the track. No engine manufacturer gives their engine designs to competitors and they never give their engines to those who are in direct competition ergo no team is going to hand out trick suspension designs and clever aero for the good of the sport. It would be the end of F1.

No sure I agree that he doesn't understand why they're such a high investment in F1.

Until the introduction of the CAP, formula 1 was more of a way for companies to spend thier disposable advertising budgets. These are companies that make Billions. The OEMs are bottom feeders in this scenario. Surviving on what the fat cats throw away. I agree, that the some teams only care about winning. Others are just happy to be at the party. That is probably changing with the CAP. The CAP allows teams to start making money and growing the value of the teams.

I don't see how share data between allow for competion on the track. I'd expect all the teams to have very similar cars. You've also taking the focus away from making money at where you finish(more prize money and more camera time for you car and advertisers) into what you can sell the IP for.

Maybe I just don't understand what you're proposing.

A team currently spends 200M a year to develop in isolation. That's 200M worth of data that let's them improve next year's car.

A team sharing data with 9 other teams STILL spends 200M, but receives 2B in data to improve next year's car. That means they can reduce the 200M down to 150M or even 100M.

Calculate that concept over 10 years, and understand that ALL teams only benefit from the sharing. Removing the redundancy engineering inherent in multiple bespoke cars (like wheel nuts, fire suppression systems, etc) leads to HUGE reduction of cost, not to mention closing down 10 reverse engineering departments across the teams.

Team members no longer cost 100M in bidding wars that transfer secrets between teams, the open data can be sold to publishers of web/print/media, and R&D data can be sold to non-F1 OEMS.

So, now they fight for Constructor points for multi-millions of dollars. With data sharing, they could be competing for multi-billions of dollars.

Lay it out, do the math, understand the marketing value, the engineering value, and the human value.

It wins so big, it's a literal no-brainer.

The problem is that in a competitive environment this won’t work since not all teams will put the same amount of effort to develop and contribute to the knowledge pool… What would stop the back markers from simply operating under the minimum possible budget, sacrificing a couple of seasons “at the front” (since it wouldn’t be a dramatic change for them) and just working upon others work / knowledge / effort? Why would a handful of teams carry the rest of the grid? Because ultimately, that’s what would happen… While team’s like Red Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari will spend at the whichever the Budget cap is in an effort to fight for a Championship, you will have teams like Williams, Haas, AT and others that simply use the shared knowledge to be competitive enough.

Without been political, it is no different than the dream of the Utopian Communism, sounds great on paper until one realizes that not all individuals will put the same amount of effort for the common good and that is inherit in the nature of a large portion of the population to take advantage of others or minimize their efforts if not needed.

[Zynerji]

That's the point. You are literally making it for me.

Setting a smaller Minimum spend ($50m maybe?) prevents the sand-bagging completely. If some teams do 'nothing', they can be removed from the following-years championship.

I fix companies for a living. I'm successful because I immediately slaughter all sacred-cows that hand-cuff options for improvement. These ego-centric, style requirements are the utter death of any business in a constantly evolving world.

Balance the human nature with performance based pay and incentives.

Balance the technology and spending by data sharing.

Improve the automotive industry through compounding R&D knowledge.

Organize and protect the database to build value in its contents, and sell at a market price.

We've been doing things the current way since 1950. It's obviously not leading to a great product (unless your driver lucks into an untouchable car).

For all of its engineering prowess, the FIA runs on pure politics, and we endure the idiocy that it produces. Mathematics removes the subjectiveness that currently sub-optimizes the sport, and that is a fact.