A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
“I think we are over-regulated while under the cost cap,” said Brown.
“If you've got the cost cap, I'd almost go the other way, which is: do what you want. If you want to have six wheels, have six wheels. But this is how much you have to spend.”
Brown believes that giving team more freedom to look at left field ideas would help drive new innovations in the series, and ensure the cars looked different.
“I don't know why the regulations have to be as tight as they are,” he said.
“I think if you've got a cost cap, then there should actually be some more technical freedom within the cost cap as you are governed.
"I think then you'd see more innovation and more risk taking. The cars would look even more different.
“At the moment you've got two governances: everything has to look exactly like that, and you cannot spend more than that. Just stop the spend and do what you want.”
FIA allows innovation, get ready for fans complaining about no overtaking, or one team dominating.
The FIA can't win with fans which is why they need a singular vision rather than the reactionary bullshit we've had for the last decade. Fans don't neccessarily know what's best.
(I do agree that F1 is over regulated.)
#aerogandalf "There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica
FIA allows innovation, get ready for fans complaining about no overtaking, or one team dominating.
The FIA can't win with fans which is why they need a singular vision rather than the reactionary bullshit we've had for the last decade. Fans don't neccessarily know what's best.
big teams dont like small teams coming with breakthrough ideas then embarrassing them on track.they like beating them by outspending them on small marginal gain thereby maintaining there "return on investment". f1 have been tinkering with cars to improve show since 2009 ,the only original thing they gave us is the much maligned drs ,so is not like the bosses know how to improve show either.
FIA allows innovation, get ready for fans complaining about no overtaking, or one team dominating.
The FIA can't win with fans which is why they need a singular vision rather than the reactionary bullshit we've had for the last decade. Fans don't neccessarily know what's best.
(I do agree that F1 is over regulated.)
Agreed jjn. With open wheels it's much harder to let the teams tinker with bodywork how they want the way WEC does it. They can allow free sculpting since everything has to be covered anyway and don't care about overtaking in any case - 6 or 24 hour race is about endurance as the name says.
Agreed jjn. With open wheels it's much harder to let the teams tinker with bodywork how they want the way WEC does it. They can allow free sculpting since everything has to be covered anyway and don't care about overtaking in any case - 6 or 24 hour race is about endurance as the name says.
WEC limit absolute aero performance, plus there's a heap of BOP to stop any single team getting a big lead. Then the LMDh have quite strict limits on where there's freedom to deviate from the LMP2 bodywork underneath for "styling" purposes. I don't think it's a great example of innovation
#aerogandalf "There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica
big teams dont like small teams coming with breakthrough ideas then embarrassing them on track.they like beating them by outspending them on small marginal gain thereby maintaining there "return on investment". f1 have been tinkering with cars to improve show since 2009 ,the only original thing they gave us is the much maligned drs ,so is not like the bosses know how to improve show either.
Big teams like to see what small teams come up with so they can poach the engineer/designer for themselves
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
Probably already can do something similar. I mean how many of the top teams have side projects they could develop trick stuff for, outside of any budget, and bring it into F1 for a fraction of the cost and not have to worry about any cost cap inside of F1
big teams dont like small teams coming with breakthrough ideas then embarrassing them on track.they like beating them by outspending them on small marginal gain thereby maintaining there "return on investment". f1 have been tinkering with cars to improve show since 2009 ,the only original thing they gave us is the much maligned drs ,so is not like the bosses know how to improve show either.
Big teams like to see what small teams come up with so they can poach the engineer/designer for themselves
Brawn ex honda although not necessary a small team was sued for his double decker diffuser ,no they dont like competition they squabble over the smallest of advantage ie rbr fast pitstop are a danger to safety
big teams dont like small teams coming with breakthrough ideas then embarrassing them on track.they like beating them by outspending them on small marginal gain thereby maintaining there "return on investment". f1 have been tinkering with cars to improve show since 2009 ,the only original thing they gave us is the much maligned drs ,so is not like the bosses know how to improve show either.
Big teams like to see what small teams come up with so they can poach the engineer/designer for themselves
Brawn ex honda although not necessary a small team was sued for his double decker diffuser ,no they dont like competition they squabble over the smallest of advantage ie rbr fast pitstop are a danger to safety
They do not like other peoples advantage, I think they are fine with their own
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
When you allow too big of a design space, cars end up even further apart and under a cost cap there's little opportunity to recover.
As it were, by prescribing so many aspects like the number of wings, volumes for certain elements, number of cylinders, and so on, you end up with a much smaller variance in the car performance than otherwise.
Think of it like trying to drive across the country without a map and having multiple exits to get lost on. The more exits there are are the way, the larger the variance in ending points. The fewer the number of exits, the smaller the variance in ending points
This is a good thing. No idea what Zak Brown is on about as he should know better.
We've already seen this play out in sportscars in the LMP1 category.
Agree . Regulation is only for major restrictions (car dimension, car weight, PU types, tyre size), the rest should be a total freedom for engineers. Money is the limit.
If Mercedes develop a 2000HP PU, they will run out of money to develop aero and suspension. If Audi build a Dakar-style F1 car that could be driven on gravel, they might not have appropriate wing for monza and monaco. and if Adrian Newey came up with a wingless RB22 and active diffuser, probably the crews will only eat breads
okhörosinc bandhi-bandhi, mœnoghujlu sil ɥmhpleöng, kêmphád chømu kwærthwono
This is the approach to regulation I’ve long advocated for - ie that many of the freedoms (testing) or innovations (name any) that have been removed are done so under the auspices of cost control; as soon as you can control costs in another way (ie a cost cap) then the argument that led to removal (ie “arms race”) disappears.
The one addition I think would be necessary though is some kind of “acceptance testing”. For example, you’re unrestricted on the type of engine you want to build but (a) you must do so within budget (b) you must meet certain criteria - let’s say fuel usage, emissions etc. You can solve that problem however you like and the FIA’s job is to design the tests your solution must pass (eg some kind of bench test to show you’re not exceeding 100kgs of fuel etc).
This approach could also, for example, include acceptance testing for the ‘wake’ produced by the car - again, control by outcome (in this case ‘ability to follow’) not solution. You could in theory also do some kind of BoP (ala WEC) but my POV is that this is actually *less* needed where innovation is more free vs prescriptive regulation. Right now, if you’re behind on performance then there are very few ways to recover (mainly around the underfloor) and the solutions for these tend to converge; if innovation is freer, you can theoretically ‘catch up’ in any number of ways - indeed, you become incentivised to add the cheapest (lowest monetary spend) performance you can find. Maybe that means sticking a solar panel on the car that charges x kw per lap? Maybe it’s w fan car (which, again, would also need to pass safety acceptance testing)? Maybe it’s movable aero? And what you choose to focus on then leans into where one manufacturer may have more expertise than another, leading to the solution that is right for one being wrong for another.
My view is that, when controlled by cost, this might lead to more swings in performance (by track, throughout a season etc) than we currently see.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-sh ... /10412469/
