FOTA is dead

[Richard]

castling? (or rochieren/rochada/roque/arrocco in other languages)

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

castling? (or rochieren/rochada/roque/arrocco in other languages)

That's the one richard. Haven't played chess in ages...

[WhiteBlue]

...
Although the FiA owns F1 they cannot step in willy nilly and impose any rules they want.
...

Of course they can, "on the grounds of safety" the FIA can do just about anything they want, something which served MrM in good steed on many occations, almost as frequent and useful as another favourite, "bringing the sport into disrepute".

All MrT has to do is to declare the level of downforce dangerous, impose a flat-bottom rule and ban the front wing, ovenite.

That would make windtunnels and CFD almost redundant, overnite.

Your own words contradict you. Safety rules are not willy nilly. Anybody in the FiA who initiates a safety rule will have to defend the initiative against criticism of the stake holders and the public. The current FiA president looks very unlikely to pursue such a policy. So you concerns over historic conflicts don't look very applicable to the current discussion.

[xpensive]

castling? (or rochieren/rochada/roque/arrocco in other languages)

That's the one richard. Haven't played chess in ages...

"It's not chess Mr Spock...poker!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph6Fj_VLa2g

[WhiteBlue]

@ whiteblue

Who in f1 supports an aero dominant formula?

.......

I believe that the majority of chassis constructors want the dominance of chassis technologies like aerodynamics to continue. You can also add the promoters led by Bernie Ecclestone. High downforce means a need for high power and both things enable high performance. All those things can differentiate F1 cars from other motor sport series and can help with the marketing of the F1 championships.

On the other hand engine suppliers and teams that produce their own engine might be inclined to follow the Ferrari line of thought to strengthen the influence of drive train and mechanical designs on performance. In fact it is what I think the right way to go forward.

But my point of view is not complete when the issue of aero vs engine is dealt with as an isolated issue. I agree with Red Bull and most constructors that the influence of the drive train on performance should be balanced. Too much is not healthy and it must not trigger another cost race by the engine manufacturers. Prices for competitive engines must not be increased over the price level that is currently established. It cannot be allowed that rich manufacturers buy championships by unlimited spending on engines.

My opinion on aerodynamics is very simple. There should not be any rapid change of aerodynamic configuration and there should be fewer restrictions compared to today. The aero rules should remain relatively static in order to keep aero expenditure to a lower level. The rule of diminishing returns will take care of the cost problem that way. The other point that I advocate is a limit on downforce. The other rules can be more liberal if that is applied. The control system of the car should have sensors that measure the downforce in real time and time penalties should be issued for violations of downforce limits. This would change the direction of the aero research. All cars would have the maximum downforce but the best cars would achieve the DF by lower drag and gain a performance advantage from that.

[ESPImperium]

With Ferrari and Sauber leaving with Red Bull i can see STR following.

However i can see F1 splinter into 3 forces, Team Mercedes (Mercedes AMG, McLaren and Force India) as the first force, the second force will be Team Ferrari-Red Bull (Red Bull/Ferrari, STR and Sauber) this leaves Hispania in the area of never being part of FOTA in the past. However the Red Bull and STR guuys could try and bargin together and leave Ferrari and their back up Sauber on their own.

I am missing out some thems here as well, Williams i recon will leave and be on their own as they traditionally have done in F1s past, they may try to bargin with Hispania. This leaves Lotus Renault, Caterham amd Marussia in no mans land. Caterham will probably be in the Red Bull/Ferrari camp as they get alot from Red Bull; as for Marussia, they will probably fall into the Mercedes group as they have been courting a Mercedes block for 2013 and have the McLaren guys on site now. This leaves Lotus Renault, who may team up with Williams and Hispania as it would make sence for arguably the 3 most neutral teams on the grid to bargin as a group.

The way ive been thinking is that the groups will splinter into the following groups:

Group 1: Ferrari/Sauber
Group 2: Red Bull/Toro Rosso/Caterham
Group 3: Mercedes AMG/McLaren/Force India/Marussia
Group 4: Lotus Renault/Williams/Hispania

[WhiteBlue]

..... I am missing out some thems here as well, Williams i recon will leave and be on their own as they traditionally have done in F1s past, they may try to bargin with Hispania. ....

You forget that Williams Adam Parr was the person who led the RRA negotiations in Summer 2009 which eventually resolved the issues between FiA and FOTA and enabled the current Concord agreement to come into effect. Without the RRA the FiA woud not have signed the Concord.

Williams is recognized as a traditional voice of the British constructors. Their position is fundamentally opposed to Ferrari over the constructor or third car issue. They are much more likely to pull Red Bull back into FOTA if given half a chance. At least that is the way I see it.

[Raptor22]

@ whiteblue

Who in f1 supports an aero dominant formula?

.......

I believe that the majority of chassis constructors want the dominance of chassis technologies like aerodynamics to continue. You can also add the promoters led by Bernie Ecclestone. High downforce means a need for high power and both things enable high performance. All those things can differentiate F1 cars from other motor sport series and can help with the marketing of the F1 championships.

On the other hand engine suppliers and teams that produce their own engine might be inclined to follow the Ferrari line of thought to strengthen the influence of drive train and mechanical designs on performance. In fact it is what I think the right way to go forward.

But my point of view is not complete when the issue of aero vs engine is dealt with as an isolated issue. I agree with Red Bull and most constructors that the influence of the drive train on performance should be balanced. Too much is not healthy and it must not trigger another cost race by the engine manufacturers. Prices for competitive engines must not be increased over the price level that is currently established. It cannot be allowed that rich manufacturers buy championships by unlimited spending on engines.

My opinion on aerodynamics is very simple. There should not be any rapid change of aerodynamic configuration and there should be fewer restrictions compared to today. The aero rules should remain relatively static in order to keep aero expenditure to a lower level. The rule of diminishing returns will take care of the cost problem that way. The other point that I advocate is a limit on downforce. The other rules can be more liberal if that is applied. The control system of the car should have sensors that measure the downforce in real time and time penalties should be issued for violations of downforce limits. This would change the direction of the aero research. All cars would have the maximum downforce but the best cars would achieve the DF by lower drag and gain a performance advantage from that.

+1

Red Bull and the constructors concerns over a drivetrain race is that it leaves them vulnerable to engine suppliers walking in and out of F1. Ferrari want the focus to be more drivetrain based because it is their strength. Red Bull strength is chassis and aerodynamics. Each proponent wants to influence the rules to play to their strengths simple.

Red Bull also wants to ensure that it can have continuity of perfromance with anyone other than just Renault. But they also want less restrictions of engine performance leveling. Its known that the Renault engine is at a disadvantage to the Mercedes and Ferrari engines and it will be more of an issue next year as the thermal efficiency of the Renault cannot be utlised as effectively to boost downforce as it did in 2010 and 2011.
Ferrari knows its advantage and is on the other side of the fence wanting to push the engine agenda so they can maximise their advantage till end 2013.

Red Bull's only hope of remainng competitive in 2012 and 2013 is too ensure they can spend wha they need to on Chassis to remain compettive with a Renault that is still down on power compared to Mercedes and Ferrari.

[Mandrake]

Not because of Ferrari favouritism or some such bollocks, but because its a logical and progressive step towards modernising f1 to have more relevance to road cars...

Aero might not have relevance for for a Renault roadcar, but for Ferrari, McLaren and even Mercedes aero is important as they sell sports cars. Of course you could put giant wings onto your cars, but that'd make them ugly as hell.

Instead, they try to shape the body in a way that it produces enough downforce itself without adding any wings at all. This is a bit like RedBull do and others in F1 try to achieve, with the "simple" front and rear wings and restricted aero on the body they still try to extract the best from the shape.

The drivetrain however has far less similarities with the roadcars......Mercedes AMG often use automatic transmissions......double clutch is the new secret for sports cars and engines are Turbo fed in order to reduce revs and save fuel + emissions.....
The V6 Turbo revving at 16k rpm has 0! relevance to roadcar development for the mentioned manufacturers......as well as sequential gearboxes have.

[xpensive]

...
There should not be any rapid change of aerodynamic configuration and there should be fewer restrictions compared to today.
...

Of course, we don't wish to jeopardize today's pecking order in Formula One, do we now?

[WhiteBlue]

...
There should not be any rapid change of aerodynamic configuration and there should be fewer restrictions compared to today.
...

Of course, we don't wish to jeopardize today's pecking order in Formula One, do we now?

I fail to see the relevance of the comment. I have explained in detail why those points are reasonable. Both have nothing to do with team preference. Aero configuration change for the sake of it means that F1 wastes the research resources which can be employed to make progress in relevant technologies. Relevant technologies are those that improve the efficiency at highest performance levels. A good example is the turbo compounding technology and the direct injection. Fewer restrictions mean that engineers can be more creative in their quest to reduce drag

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

WB


You fail to see the relevance of why its ridiculous to spend 100 million on aero every year?
What relevance has F1 aero brought to the real world of the automotive industry?

People question its equally ludicrous to spend that amount on engine research and development.
Well lets see shall we? Every year new lubricants are developed in conjunction with oil companies that bear very good results that can be utilised by automotive companies. KERS is not just a white elephant, it is something people learn from to develop better recuperative technologies the like of which is extremely relevant to todays market place.

12 years ago an F1 qualifying engine was pumping out around 820bhp and could only manage around 100 miles maximum. This from a 3litre V10.
Today you get 760bhp from a 2.4 litre V8 that can do 3000 miles!
The technological know how involved in making these engines has real world relevance from using certain materials and different construction techniques right up to exhaust technologies and cylinder linings and such like.

Can you please explain to me how FOTA and Ferrari in particular are missing the point when they want reduced aero dependence, for more relevant technologies(their words and also mine)?

Because from my position I can see Formula 1 being far more relevant to the aerospace industry than anything I or anyone else drives on public roads at present.

Also I'm scratching my head here thinking how aero research helps cars when downforce adds drag and all car makers are now looking at slippery designs to reduce their drag co effiecient(cd)?
Manufacturers draw nothing from this are as they alread have seperate entities working in this area, therefore making the aero argument even less relevant.

The sooner aero dependance is nullified the better for F1.

[dren]

F1 cars are designed to be slippery in some areas and create low drag high downforce in others. Overall understanding of aerodynamics will benefit the real world market.

[timbo]

F1 cars are designed to be slippery in some areas and create low drag high downforce in others. Overall understanding of aerodynamics will benefit the real world market.

The level of understanding that can be useful is reached many years ago in my opinion. Nowadays it is the race of who can make bendy wings and tune complex vortex structure. It also seems that while the general understanding of how it works is good, when it comes to practice it is trial and error, and I doubt it make any sense for real word cars.

[Raptor22]

Just over a year ago there were big arguements raging about how F1 does not need to be relevant because its F1 and should be set apart from regualr automotive racing. "use DTM or other formulae for that"

Now Ferrari uses a thinly veiled tactic to attempt to swing the rules in their favour and everyone is talking about how relevant F1 needs to be to road car technologies. =D>

There are a few folk here wo just argue for the sake of argueing.

I agree and have always stated that for F1 to survive it needs to be road car relevant.
Hence a 4 cyclinder 1,6 Turbo would have been ideal. But Ferrari opposed that because their pride says a Ferrari can't have 4 cyclinders... to hell with whats good for the sustainability of the osport/business.
Instead we have rev limited turbo charged V6 engines and now Ferrari wants more emphasis placed on drivetrain. So what ace do they hold up their sleeve that will only be revealed once the rest have had their arms twisted by Bernie with the promise of a bigger slice of the pie that never comes.

Wheres the arguements against winding back the clock 20yrs? Whats wrong with V6 Turbos, manual gearboxes and ground effect aerodynamics coupled to smaller wings?

Do you want racing or do you want a tech feast. The FIA has always tried to maintain the balance somewhere in the middle from what I can see. Theres been knee jerk reactions along the way but the unfortunate path F1 finds itself on is due to FOTA and FOTA alone. Good ridance if it dies. Bernie is just letting them hang themselves. They will be runnng back to Bernie asking for a solution within 3 months