F1 balance of performance

[TNTHead]

I've raced in various handicapped (yachts) and open (solar car) series. There is no doubt that performance based handicaps mean that the top teams are just racing their personal bests. That is not F1 as it used to be. For simplicities sake assume we ballast the top teams. That graph of added ballast vs recent performance will entirely govern the finishing order. Tweak it one way, Max will win. Tweak it the other way and anybody could win, because they aren't dragging 200 kg of ballast around. Or go Top Gear, make it a caravan. It'll be a circus.

I'd opt for old Dutch DAF-achteruitrijden (racing in reverse) in that case.

I concur, at least to do this once a year:

[DChemTech]

On a more serious note, I do think it would be very interesting to have a few events a year where all drivers race in equal equipment (be it an F2-like car, be it some high-end consumer car) as a separate small competition. Would be more interesting than the current sprint format, and give more insight in car vs. driver.

[bluechris]

On a more serious note, I do think it would be very interesting to have a few events a year where all drivers race in equal equipment (be it an F2-like car, be it some high-end consumer car) as a separate small competition. Would be more interesting than the current sprint format, and give more insight in car vs. driver.

They don't dare to kill f1 lore to show suddenly the drivers. People will love that to have their semigods racing all equal and that will reduce F1 appealing.

[langedweil]

I'd opt for old Dutch DAF-achteruitrijden (racing in reverse) in that case.

I concur, at least to do this once a year:

This was a great era where a concept like danger did not seem to have been born yet
At least 95% of those cars & caravans that were brought in to Zandvoort got killed in action !

I am so glad I grew up in that period of time ...

[dren]

On a more serious note, I do think it would be very interesting to have a few events a year where all drivers race in equal equipment (be it an F2-like car, be it some high-end consumer car) as a separate small competition. Would be more interesting than the current sprint format, and give more insight in car vs. driver.

Bring back the ROC.

[SealTheRealDeal]

I think F1 has the right idea applying success-based handicaps to data collection (championship position based wind tunnel and CFD time) rather than the cars themselves. As it challenges the better engineers with a constrained data set rather than a guaranteed downgrade. How about applying it to free practice time as well?

[Zynerji]

On a more serious note, I do think it would be very interesting to have a few events a year where all drivers race in equal equipment (be it an F2-like car, be it some high-end consumer car) as a separate small competition. Would be more interesting than the current sprint format, and give more insight in car vs. driver.

Bring back the ROC.

Didnt the BMW M1 cars do this kind of series? Or IROC?

[CaribouBread]

I think F1 has the right idea applying success-based handicaps to data collection (championship position based wind tunnel and CFD time) rather than the cars themselves. As it challenges the better engineers with a constrained data set rather than a guaranteed downgrade. How about applying it to free practice time as well?

That would affect the on track product for the audience who've paid to see their favorite team or driver. It is too tangible, too visible of a handicap.

[DChemTech]

On a more serious note, I do think it would be very interesting to have a few events a year where all drivers race in equal equipment (be it an F2-like car, be it some high-end consumer car) as a separate small competition. Would be more interesting than the current sprint format, and give more insight in car vs. driver.

Bring back the ROC.

It exists still, but doesn't seem to be attracting a lot of top drivers (and has a bit too much show component IMO).
Would prefer some ~5 events at different locations with open wheel cars and the whole F1 field (although the concept of the RoC with top drivers from different categories is also fun - doesn't have to be mutually exclusive of course).

[JordanMugen]

You probably don't even know what WEC does. There would be more variance in the cars if F1 went similar to WEC. Not less. F1 is already a defacto spec series. Then when one car dominates, everyone copies that car. So in the end, you have a spec series anyway. This is why manufacturers don't like Indycar or F1.

Manufacturers don't like Indycar because it has a low profile (apart from the actual Indy 500) and poor return-on-investment.

It costs Honda more than the actual value of the exposure (with how engine suppliers are compelled to lease engines at a fixed fee which is a loss price), that's why they aren't happy with it and why a third manufacturer or engine supplier is not intersted. On those terms, a Judd or AER or Gibson independent engine (assuming it is competitive) are not going to be interested either -- they don't want to lose money, the more engines leased the greater the loss!

Source: https://racer.com/2023/12/08/honda-weig ... e-slashed/

Nothing to do with it being spec or being a competition. As we know, Honda are happy to compete in Grand Prix car racing (which is a competition) and Grand Prix motorcycle racing (which is also a competition) -- despite being very uncompetitive in Grand Prix motorycle racing!

This lack of competitiveness in MotoGP is Honda's own fault, as it should be, no BOP nonsense!

[TeamKoolGreen]

You probably don't even know what WEC does. There would be more variance in the cars if F1 went similar to WEC. Not less. F1 is already a defacto spec series. Then when one car dominates, everyone copies that car. So in the end, you have a spec series anyway. This is why manufacturers don't like Indycar or F1.

Manufacturers don't like Indycar because it has a low profile (apart from the actual Indy 500) and poor return-on-investment.

It costs Honda more than the actual value of the exposure (with how engine suppliers are compelled to lease engines at a fixed fee which is a loss price), that's why they aren't happy with it and why a third manufacturer or engine supplier is not intersted. On those terms, a Judd or AER or Gibson independent engine (assuming it is competitive) are not going to be interested either -- they don't want to lose money, the more engines leased the greater the loss!

Source: https://racer.com/2023/12/08/honda-weig ... e-slashed/

Nothing to do with it being spec or being a competition. As we know, Honda are happy to compete in Grand Prix car racing (which is a competition) and Grand Prix motorcycle racing (which is also a competition) -- despite being very uncompetitive in Grand Prix motorycle racing!

This lack of competitiveness in MotoGP is Honda's own fault, as it should be, no BOP nonsense!

That has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Yes Honda said that. But they also said they were quitting F1 because it was bad for the trees. Then they joined again.

The point is, F1 and Indycar have both had trouble getting more manufacturers to join. F1 has been the fastest growing sport in the world and still cant get manufacturers.

And yet WEC has no issues at all. And it is curious why. Nobody knows about WEC. So it isn't about eyes. Indycar has way better name recognition than WEC and has higher viewership numbers.

I think the reason they all flocked to WEC is because these manufacturers like tinkering with their own stuff and their own ideas. With non descriptive rules. And they are insulated from getting completely embarrassed by someone else. (like everyone but Mercedes got embarrassed for almost a decade)

There's no fun for these mfg'ers in F1 or Indycar. They have to build an engine to the spec of the series. So they cant tinker with their own. And they have to pour 100's of millions into these engines just to eek out miniscule gains to keep from getting their asses kicked. And if their design wasn't the best, they have almost no choice but to copy the one that was. How is this any fun ? It isn't.

[JordanMugen]

There's no fun for these mfg'ers in F1 or Indycar. They have to build an engine to the spec of the series. So they cant tinker with their own. And they have to pour 100's of millions into these engines just to eek out miniscule gains to keep from getting their asses kicked. And if their design wasn't the best, they have almost no choice but to copy the one that was. How is this any fun ? It isn't.

Gee, like a competition!

HRC and Acura are still there in IMSA, but having built a car with a really tidy F1-like V6 installation to then have to carry 20kg more than others to be brought back and then some to others with large, hard-to-package V8 twin-turbos... To be taken completely out of contention to win a repeat Daytona 24 hours by the compensation weight. It's not good. It's really bad actually.

That's a thumbs down for BOP.

HRC and Honda did a crap job in MotoGP, that's their own fault. No ifs, no BOP questions. That's a million times better!

Alpine are welcome to "tinker" with their Formula 2 engine and third-party Oreca chassis in LMDh, but it's clear as day that building a good engine and chassis in Formula One is a far greater demonstration of technical excellence (or lack thereof) by Alpine.

Why shouldn't HRC and Alpine take responsibility for building a substandard Grand Prix bike and substandard Grand Prix car respectively? It's a competition!

[Sevach]

You probably don't even know what WEC does. There would be more variance in the cars if F1 went similar to WEC. Not less. F1 is already a defacto spec series. Then when one car dominates, everyone copies that car. So in the end, you have a spec series anyway. This is why manufacturers don't like Indycar or F1.

Manufacturers don't like Indycar because it has a low profile (apart from the actual Indy 500) and poor return-on-investment.

It costs Honda more than the actual value of the exposure (with how engine suppliers are compelled to lease engines at a fixed fee which is a loss price), that's why they aren't happy with it and why a third manufacturer or engine supplier is not intersted. On those terms, a Judd or AER or Gibson independent engine (assuming it is competitive) are not going to be interested either -- they don't want to lose money, the more engines leased the greater the loss!

Source: https://racer.com/2023/12/08/honda-weig ... e-slashed/

Nothing to do with it being spec or being a competition. As we know, Honda are happy to compete in Grand Prix car racing (which is a competition) and Grand Prix motorcycle racing (which is also a competition) -- despite being very uncompetitive in Grand Prix motorycle racing!

This lack of competitiveness in MotoGP is Honda's own fault, as it should be, no BOP nonsense!

Indy wants manufacturers but treats them like an afterthought.

It's always "Will Power in the Verizon Team Penske car", sometimes they remember to say that it's a Chevrolet engine.
Same thing with the Honda powered cars, "whatever sponsor team Ganassi/Andretti".

[TeamKoolGreen]

There's no fun for these mfg'ers in F1 or Indycar. They have to build an engine to the spec of the series. So they cant tinker with their own. And they have to pour 100's of millions into these engines just to eek out miniscule gains to keep from getting their asses kicked. And if their design wasn't the best, they have almost no choice but to copy the one that was. How is this any fun ? It isn't.

Gee, like a competition!

HRC and Acura are still there in IMSA, but having built a car with a really tidy F1-like V6 installation to then have to carry 20kg more than others to be brought back and then some to others with large, hard-to-package V8 twin-turbos... To be taken completely out of contention to win a repeat Daytona 24 hours by the compensation weight. It's not good. It's really bad actually.

That's a thumbs down for BOP.

HRC and Honda did a crap job in MotoGP, that's their own fault. No ifs, no BOP questions. That's a million times better!

Alpine are welcome to "tinker" with their Formula 2 engine and third-party Oreca chassis in LMDh, but it's clear as day that building a good engine and chassis in Formula One is a far greater demonstration of technical excellence (or lack thereof) by Alpine.

Why shouldn't HRC and Alpine take responsibility for building a substandard Grand Prix bike and substandard Grand Prix car respectively? It's a competition!

Acura is free to leave IMSA and join another series if it wants. But what we are noticing is that the race teams and MFG'ers are choosing the BOP evil over the other evil. With the BOP series, the competition is done between drivers and the setups day to day. Actual wheel to wheel, pit crew vs pit crew, strategy racing. Instead of competing for who can spend more money over winter.

You say competition. We literally have multiple F1 teams giving up on the current year less than 5 races into a 24 race season to focus on the next year. After 2 races, everyone knows who is going to win the title. The whole season is just going through the motions.

That's some competition

[TeamKoolGreen]

I've raced in various handicapped (yachts) and open (solar car) series. There is no doubt that performance based handicaps mean that the top teams are just racing their personal bests. That is not F1 as it used to be. For simplicities sake assume we ballast the top teams. That graph of added ballast vs recent performance will entirely govern the finishing order. Tweak it one way, Max will win. Tweak it the other way and anybody could win, because they aren't dragging 200 kg of ballast around. Or go Top Gear, make it a caravan. It'll be a circus.

But WEC isn't a circus. WEC is still taken seriously. And it has been recognized by the motorsport world for having some good close racing. 6 or 24 hour races with good battles and good finishes.

I am not saying BOP is a good thing. BOP or spec is just where the economics of motorsport and the diminishing returns of technology is pointing us to.

Spending 100 million to design barge boards to eek out a minuscule gain is not the in the same spirit of good tech competition of old. And F1 just bans things like automatic gearboxes and electric ride height control anyway. So it hasn't been a battle of technology for 25-30 years anyway. Spending 100 million a year to design the perfect dampeners for each track like Mercedes did, to buy titles isn't either imo.