WEC has the right ruleset to help with balance

[vorticism]

Yes we all got it that RBR created a great design. So let's kill the next n years of competition, let's forget when Horner was the one crying for FIA too intervene to stop Mercedes dominance or threatened to leave f1 if Mercedes wasn't going to be reined in.

"Mercedes isn't winning therefore F1 needs to ..." Too transparent, mate. Consider that Horner's team had one of their main innovations cracked down on two seasons into their first reign, the EBD. So he knows a thing or two about being targeted for parity--only to then see Merc's main innovation, their PU, go largely unassailed.

You are arguing for the health of the sport in some sense, as was Horner, although from a different angle. Remember that 2014 and after was pretty grim, aesthetically and spiritually. The cars looked goofy and sounded bad. The new hybrid engines were incredibly complex and expensive; and for no good reason. So an argument could have been made to rethink the regs.

Same could be said again, however which team would benefit from another regs shake up? "..." I suppose that's why you are arguing for selectively adding ballast as the next big regs shake up... (lol)

[dialtone]

I'm a Ferrari fan, not Mercedes fan . Not so transparent apparently.

But BoP is one of the rules, tests is the other. We have a budget cap, let the teams do whatever they want to do within it.

[vorticism]

I'm a Ferrari fan, not Mercedes fan . Not so transparent apparently.

Noted although you read similar to their running "F1 is suddenly uniquely historically boring starting around April 2022" narrative.

[napoleon1981]

The disparity is the beauty of F1 to me. It can be frustrating at times when the team you are rooting for gets it wrong, but no other racing series is so rewarding for engineering. Its what makes F1. Take that away, and it becomes another spec series. Adding weight to cars to me is like the socialist/communist version of motorsports.

[AR3-GP]

I'm a Ferrari fan, not Mercedes fan .

I've seen your 44 cap

[JordanMugen]

I'm a Ferrari fan, not Mercedes fan . Not so transparent apparently.

If there is an obvious grey area being exploited by the Red Bull, like the Ferrari F1-75's flexible floor, then the FIA will target it just like they did with the Ferrari's flexible floor.

But BoP is one of the rules, tests is the other. We have a budget cap, let the teams do whatever they want to do within it.

But aside from that, is BOP and ballast really necessary in Formula One?!

The FIA are already happy to act to ban or target any specific things that fall in grey areas of the regulations in Formula One, without a need for balance-of-performance.

It only took Honda, Renault and Ferrari 8-9 years to catch up to Mercedes' power units (legally, Ferrari had caught up earlier by using grey areas which were then targeted by the FIA).

Whereas this current chassis regulation set isn't even scheduled to run for 9 years, it's only scheduled to run until the end of 2025 for only 4 years in any case when it will be reset again. So if Red Bull wins until then, which is not certain, that doesn't seem like any kind of problem at all, whatsoever.

[politburo]

I'm a Ferrari fan, not Mercedes fan . Not so transparent apparently.

If there is an obvious grey area being exploited by the Red Bull, like the Ferrari F1-75's flexible floor, then the FIA will target it just like they did with the Ferrari's flexible floor.

But BoP is one of the rules, tests is the other. We have a budget cap, let the teams do whatever they want to do within it.

But aside from that, is BOP and ballast really necessary in Formula One?!

The FIA are already happy to act to ban or target any specific things that fall in grey areas of the regulations in Formula One, without a need for balance-of-performance.

It only took Honda, Renault and Ferrari 8-9 years to catch up to Mercedes' power units (legally, Ferrari had caught up earlier by using grey areas which were then targeted by the FIA).

Whereas this current chassis regulation set isn't even scheduled to run for 9 years, it's only scheduled to run until the end of 2025 for only 4 years in any case when it will be reset again. So if Red Bull wins until then, which is not certain, that doesn't seem like any kind of problem at all, whatsoever.

The FIA seem to be happy to ban things based only on safety and fairness/"intent of the regulations" requirements and nothing else really nowadays.

[politburo]

Which is good thing, all things considered.

[ValeVida46]

"Mercedes isn't winning therefore F1 needs to ..." Too transparent, mate. Consider that Horner's team had one of their main innovations cracked down on two seasons into their first reign, the EBD. So he knows a thing or two about being targeted for parity--only to then see Merc's main innovation, their PU, go largely unassailed.

EBD's weren't banned on an "equalisation" premise. McLaren had a very good implementation of this, as did a few others, but it was still banned. Paddy Lowe commented as much at the time.
http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/51400.html
The reasoning is fairly obvious, fuel was being burnt to create downforce. Innovative yes, but sustainable?
The FIA felt it contravened the use of moving parts to affect aerodynamics, and was offsides from a view of sustainability. So from the off, the EBD was always going to run out of time. DAS was banned for a similar reason(movable aero) after a year, so there is a consistent precedent for this. I mean if we are going to be consistent, you have to include all bans and not just those that might affect 1 team, right?

For engines in 2014, they were frozen with only 8% being open for development... which the FIA disbanded after it saw the gap to Mercedes.
Up to 90% of the engine could changed and even more under a variety of tools implemented by the FIA.
Many people shot down the token system as it "only" allowed a change of circa 50%. When the stark reality is any part of the engine could be changed if reliability, efficiency or economical reasons could be shown to the FIA as reasoning for the change. Honda and Ferrari were prime examples of that.

Ferrari went as far as switching from traditional turbo(2014) standard injection (2014) to turbojet injection and split turbo in 2015, as well as internal architecture changes. This after 1 year. Is the limitation of development in the room with us now?
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... ne-update/

So it really does bring into question any statements suggesting it went "largely unassailed" advantage and citing the rules as evidence, because it's patently false, far more was done then to alleviate the competition problem than has been done now. Especially when you consider lead times for engine development are far longer than those of most aero developments.

Renault could've changed to the TJI sooner, but insisted on it's direction for longer than they should have.
They could have also switched to the split turbo sooner but again insisted on pushing ahead with their own idea, and literally only came round to the idea by implementing it in 2022. How are the rules to blame for that?
We could blame the rules for Mercedes(zeropod)/Ferrari(inwash)/McLaren(list) and these teams remaining insistent on design direction - if we are to be consistent that is.

Honda joined in 2015 and were already better than the Renault by 2019 after 2 painful seasons with McLaren.
So it's very pertinent to clarify that it's no fault of the competition or the rules.
Here's a timeline of developments that Honda managed in a so called "restrictive rule set":
https://www.racefans.net/2022/04/14/th ... champions/
In the space of 2 years(2015-16) Honda ran 2 entirely new engines, with a refined version settled for 2017 which is the basis for todays motor. This is totally at odds with your assertion that engines weren't targeted for parity because of the rules. The rules absolutley allowed for numerous, wide ranging, frequent and comprehensive changes.

While it's easy to dismiss it as the rules, it simply doesn't add up. Strategic decisions made by teams(and engine providers) should hold as true. While people can shoot at McLaren or Ferrari or Mercedes for missing the boat in 2022/23, for making the wrong decisions in terms of design direction, this most certainly applies equally to engine providers in 2015 onwards, when all the tools were there for improvement given the changes the FIA made, but have yet to go as far in this era.
If you were to make a direct comparison to 2022/3 to 2014/15, it would be akin to the FIA opening up the budget cap for everyone. Not identical 1:1, but certainly a variation of the theme.

[mzivtins]

WEC is going for LM GT3 next year to get rid of the stupid GTE class

For example, this is an opinion. The fact is, GT2 Part Two provided us with a mid engine 911. Hence the fact is that, no, it was not stupid. (Fact check: Factual.)

I don't know what you are referring too? I was not talking about Porsche, simply the GT3, and yes there is a GT2 class.
GTE has been dropped in favour for GT3: that is what i would call a fact.

It was silly to run a GTE class where the cars cost nearly 2x as much as GT3 for barely any differences (more freedom with aero as can be seen by longer diffuser tunnels etc)

I dont think you understood my point.

I would argue that it is SRO GT3 class that has the best ruleset where BOP is applied as it covers the widest amount in terms of ... countries...

Haas as WCC... Wait I thought you said this was a good idea.

Again you have no idea about what i was talking about do you? Let me explain:
SRO GT3 BOP Rules are applied per championship basis, each entry chassis has a BOP designed for that Championship.

There is normally a separate championship per country/continent. Each one has its own BOP. You would never have a car have a different category of BOP applied for the race it enters, that would be stupid.

Here is an example on how it works:

McLaren 720s EVO is racing in British GT: 2023BGP BOP is applied
McLaren 720s EVO is racing in GT World Challenge Europe: 2023GTWC BOP is applied.

This is ONE chassis, but most conform to the BOP for the championship it is racing under, that can means one weekend you have a 15hp swing, or 10kg swing as you enter the same chassis in difference championships.

You need to think outside of F1, in terms of motorsports, F1 is incredibly simplistic, with issues that has been solved elsewhere for over 10 years.

[JordanMugen]

F1 is incredibly simplistic, with issues that has been solved elsewhere for over 10 years.

F1 cars are built to a Formula, as were previous GT1 or LMP1 cars (or even LMP2).

The whole point of balance-of-performance in GT3 is to balance cars that are completely different, a rear-engine naturally aspirated Porsche 911 against a mid-engine naturally aspirated Ferrari 458 against a mid-engine McLaren 720S with a turbocharged engine against a front-engine Nissan GT-R also with a turbocharged engine and so on.

While I appreciate BOP is used in classes with fairly narrow formula (e.g., both of the competitive LMH cars use a similar 2.9L twin-turbo V6 layout, most TCR cars use 2.0L transverse inline-four engines), it shouldn't be as necessary in those classes.

If I understand correctly, the World Rally Championship also manages to avoid use of BOP as does MotoGP. So there are multiple world championships without BOP.

The Ducati bike is the best and wins all the time, and that is just fine.

[Juzh]

The Ducati bike is the best and wins all the time, and that is just fine.

It's fine, there just shouldn't be 8 of them. In Sachsenring 8 out of top 9 were ducatis. Imagine 8 RBs in 2022/2023 or 8 mercs in 2014-16,2019,2020 (or even just 4). Guaranteed complete downfall of sport.

[mzivtins]

F1 is incredibly simplistic, with issues that has been solved elsewhere for over 10 years.

F1 cars are built to a Formula, as were previous GT1 or LMP1 cars (or even LMP2).

The whole point of balance-of-performance in GT3 is to balance cars that are completely different, a rear-engine naturally aspirated Porsche 911 against a mid-engine naturally aspirated Ferrari 458 against a mid-engine McLaren 720S with a turbocharged engine against a front-engine Nissan GT-R also with a turbocharged engine and so on.

While I appreciate BOP is used in classes with fairly narrow formula (e.g., both of the competitive LMH cars use a similar 2.9L twin-turbo V6 layout, most TCR cars use 2.0L transverse inline-four engines), it shouldn't be as necessary in those classes.

If I understand correctly, the World Rally Championship also manages to avoid use of BOP as does MotoGP. So there are multiple world championships without BOP.

The Ducati bike is the best and wins all the time, and that is just fine.

Sorry I meant as a motorsport, so a set of rules that define the competition.

Things like, SC issues, red flag problems, issue running on a wet track, track limits etc, all are the domain of F1 and have been solved in other levels of motorsport for years.

VSC was a funny one, when that was introduced in F1 it was the talk of the town despite being around for so long.

F1 is like the apple of motorsport classes, thinks of itself as the only true innovator, yet it is simply just selling old ideas as new, talking only in a sporting sense of course! I dont mean in terms of the car development... but formula 1 is not a sport about cars anymore, all of the images on screen for the build up only show the drivers, not once will you see a car.

[AR3-GP]

The Ducati bike is the best and wins all the time, and that is just fine.

It's fine, there just shouldn't be 8 of them. In Sachsenring 8 out of top 9 were ducatis. Imagine 8 RBs in 2022/2023 or 8 mercs in 2014-16,2019,2020 (or even just 4). Guaranteed complete downfall of sport.

If there were drivers that made it competitive, it wouldn't be terrible. Not ideal, but not terrible either. Seeing F1 drivers in a spec car is an idle curiosity of mine.

[langedweil]

The disparity is the beauty of F1 to me. It can be frustrating at times when the team you are rooting for gets it wrong, but no other racing series is so rewarding for engineering. Its what makes F1. Take that away, and it becomes another spec series. Adding weight to cars to me is like the socialist/communist version of motorsports.

.. the socialist/communist version of motorsports.

Very well spoken ...