FOTA is dead

[Raptor22]

I certainly hope so.
Volkswagen Motorsport's spokes person has siad they are lookin for rule stability and a relevant engine rule and concept to consider it. Thats 10 brands that could be represented by one manufacturer.

Toyota and Honda are rumoured to be looking into it for the new formula but again cost is a factor.
I sit on variosu fora with reps from many of the manufactures and generally there is not a big appetite for F1. Occasionally it gets sold to the board from an image perspective but generally the market research shows very little association bewteen F1 and whta theyproduce..

Volswagen have alawayss developed their gearboxes in house. Tey never entered a rally formula with an X-trac box as far as I know. It had to be a VAG gearbox or don't do it was the philosophy. It will be that way in F1 as well. If they cannot leverage drivetrain technology then they will simply stick to LeMans, WRC, touring cars. They don't care about f1 at all. Dakar ahs done more for Touareg image than f1 can.
WRC will do more for the Polo than F1 can. Lemans has improved TDi's image with massive growth in the US and Australia, traditionally petrol markets!

The widely held fan view of F1 not requiring relevance is what is ultimately killing F1 slowly. The current fans are mostly non technical people with short attention spans. In a few years they will be following boxing or somthing else. How many watch other motorsport disciplines?

And theren lies the rub.

So who could enter?
Re-entries first
Honda
Toyota
BMW

New entries
Volkswagen (and utilising Porsche, Audi, Skoda, SEAT, Bentley, Lamborghini, or Suzuki)
Ford
Chrysler
Peugeot/Citroen (already in LMS and WRC)
Any of the Chinese manufacturers Chery, Geely, GWM
TATA
McLaren Cars (engine supplier)


Of the above, the Indian and Chinese manufacturers have the most to gain from participation as by association they will be on the quality map.
McLaren will do so for their own growth and ambition.

Of the big guys I really don't see VW and PSA/Citroen entering F1 unless the whole formula is revamped into something the people who buy ther cars wants to watch. Currently your average VAG driver preferst o watch hsi/her race around a track against Opel/Vauxhall , BMW and Mercedes AMG touring cars or watch their diesel engine lap Le Mans. Audi already has orders for a V10 TDi R10. I doubt F1 would create that kind of pull...

[Mr.S]

has no relevance with Motor cars in general. This is Motor-racing after all.

And who said F1 has to be relevant to cars in general? There are already series that are more relevant to cars in general. They are called touring cars.

F1 is an open-wheel, single-seat series and as such has precious little to do with road cars by it's nature. It's a niche formula which majors on aero. That's it big seller - high lap speeds by virtue of high grip brought by high downforce.

You want F1 cars to be road relevant? How about we have them run MacPherson struts at the front and multi-link rear axles? How about front wheel drive? That's good and relevant too. Perhaps we should have them fit at least one passenger seat too?

Sheesh! If you want road-car relevant racing cars go look at tin tops (touring cars) etc. F1 isn't road relevant - it's "fantasy car" racing. Stop trying to make it something it isn't!!!

Look mate,Formula has never ever been a an all aero fantasy series. If you really think it has been then you are living in la-la land & I would ask you to snap out of it.

First & foremost downforce never had as much importance as pure brute engine power had along with various other factors relating to engine efficieny. Historically engines were probably as a big a factor if not bigger. Those days Spa & Monza were death-traps,the track has been remodelled time & again to tone it down to acceptable safety corners.It was never about team A has X level & team B has X+2 levels of downforce.

People with limited downforce would often take the car to the limit & that is where the challenge was.Not like these days when you can go flt out with DRS open through 130R. It has given so many inoovations. Ground-effects & stuff were really cool. Nowadays you see a bunch of weird aero stuff.

Tradinally that was never Formula. Have you even checked out the cars Farina,Ascari,Fangio drove & compare it to the Vettel,Webber generation. There is a hell & heaven difference in terms of oure aero reliance.Formula 1 has always been the pinnacle of motorsport & without the engine & mechanical side it is already a watered down version. I would go as far as to say Engines should be almost as important as Chasis(both aero & mechanical combined). If 150 Million can be spend on a chasis then 150 Million should be spend on the engine side as well.

Besides burst out of your bubble & your weird Fantasy aero racing series.

[Mandrake]

It's all aero & it's stupid & has no relevance with Motor cars in general. This is Motor-racing after all.

I've said it before and I will say it again, Aero is very important for normal street cars.

Take the range of BMW.....surely they've changed their engine lineup massively...what used to be a 2.8l straight 6 in the past is now a 2l turbo engine delivering 245hp.....but that's just to meet CO2 and fuel consumption requirements. These engines are not high revving, the turbo is supposed to keep the revs low. High RPM F1 engines are a joke and have no relevance to road car engines.

On the other hand, BMW introduced a special kidney grille that can be closed if not needed open to improve the cw value. The cover the floor to make it more slippery and the latest BMW 3-series features a vortex generator at the front fender to improve the cw-value. There's a lot of development going on!

Also, remember the past when the fastest of the sports cars had giant rear wings to keep the car on track, nowadays manaufacturers try to reduce those massive wings to a minimum, giving the cars a cleaner, more refined look. The downforce should be generated by the body itself.....a concept taken close to perfection by RedBull.

If the engine freeze would be lifted, and twinturbo engines with variable turbine geometry etc. would be allowed, capping the revs at 8k max I would agree to having a close relation to normal cars. The way it is now, it's all just massive blabla

[Mandrake]

First & foremost downforce never had as much importance as pure brute engine power had along with various other factors relating to engine efficieny. Historically engines were probably as a big a factor if not bigger. Those days Spa & Monza were death-traps,the track has been remodelled time & again to tone it down to acceptable safety corners.It was never about team A has X level & team B has X+2 levels of downforce.

Who caused that development? The FIA with their cost saving measures. As long as there is an engine freeze, there will not be a large engine differentiator. Open up engine development and we would see differences again, for sure.

But as there is no development now, where shall teams turn to? The mechanical side? Active suspension? Intelligent adaptable damping etc.? It's all banned, too. Aero is the only playground left.

Teams were complaining about 100mio going into aero dev? I wonder where other teams are spending their money instead....the largest impact will be aero!

You also said we have some freaking aero now....the cars now look cleaner and better than they have between 2006 and 2009.....all those winglets etc. they looked like star wars space fighters converted to road cars. That was freaking aero!

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I agree with Mr S here.

How can the louvres in a kidney grill make the difference over newer engine tech like dies-otto, turbo technology which is constantly evolving or other areas?

Cars now days have as good a cd factor as they will have for some time, aero is NOT the industries priority because they already have Aero efficient cars without the need for further breakthroughs. Not only that, but f1 use of aerodynamics is exactly the opposite of what the motor industry in general requires it for. Flexing
Wing relevant? Please! Over specified front wings? Cmon!!
Blown diffusers? On what planet?

Today's v8s may not be road relevant, but the technology and ideas gained from materials, lubricants, production and new ideas for future engines.

Engines are far more relevant to the real world than aerodynamics, it's the power source of the car aerodynamics is tertiary element which in all honesty has very little more to give.

[xpensive]

Aerodynamical gizmos such as movable grill-louvres (sigh!) might make a tiny bit of difference for those burning down the Autobahn at 250+ km/h, but just like those vortex-generators, totally irrelevant for us mortals motoring at sub-100 km/h.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Aerodynamical gizmos such as movable grill-louvres (sigh!) might make a tiny bit of difference for those burning down the Autobahn at 250+ km/h, but just like those vortex-generators, totally irrelevant for us mortals motoring at sub-100 km/h.

+1

Leave aero reliance to the aerospace industry. The automotive world really should look at getting back to being a car rather than an upside down jet fighter propelled with an (automotive relevant) combustion engine.

Look at the seasons over the last 20 years. Aerodynamics was the winner in the vast majority of them all.... Not good.
Saying that...if the merc W03 wipes the floor with the opposition on the aero front... Then Im all for aero!!

[Mandrake]

Aerodynamical gizmos such as movable grill-louvres (sigh!) might make a tiny bit of difference for those burning down the Autobahn at 250+ km/h, but just like those vortex-generators, totally irrelevant for us mortals motoring at sub-100 km/h.

I was quite happy to have that little extra spoiler on the boot lid of the Audi TT when I was driving it on the Autobahn. You could also kill yourself on the nordschleife coming into Schwedenkreuz when the backend didn't want to follow the front of the car.

How can the louvres in a kidney grill make the difference over newer engine tech like dies-otto, turbo technology which is constantly evolving or other areas?

True that currently the biggest development happens in the engine department....but at the same time I'm sure that also the shedding of weight has a large effect on fuel economy. Hell, my 21 year old e30 consumes about as much as a new 3series.....and the engine is more than 21 years old.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying it's the best you can do spending massive amounts of money for aero, but where else should it be invested? Currently the largest gains are won in aero.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Yup lightweight materials should be allowed in f1... On the premise that it's cost per gramme comes in at a specified amount.

Good point mandrake.

[WhiteBlue]

I would go as far as to say Engines should be almost as important as Chasis(both aero & mechanical combined). If 150 Million can be spend on a chasis then 150 Million should be spend on the engine side as well.

[...] The teams have decided to cap expenditure to the average level of the nineties. So inflation corrected that may be the €150m that you talk about. But this would include €5m for engines.

If you allow the manufacturing teams like Merc and Ferrari to spend another €150m on the drive train or engine you automatically blow the current cost model for engines. This will simply not fly in the F1 commission or any meeting where the teams have the voting power.

The logical solution needs two steps. First you need to reduce the resources and budgets for the chassis side. And second you need to introduce a resource and budget limit on the engine side. Then you have to make a compromise to set the level of resource restriction in such a way that it is still acceptable to manufcaturers and customer teams.

For instance you take €50m away from the chassis side in resources and budget and allow the drive train side to spend that amount of resources. At the same time you keep the customer engine cost capped at €5m.

This would be a workable model. Don't be too much fixed on the figures. The teams may arrive at different levels. The general principal at least should work, because if fits the business model of the teams. But there will be tremendous resistance by several teams (Red Bull, Williams, Sauber, Caterham, Lotus, McLaren to name a few) about this resource shift. Nevertheless in the long run I see no reasonable alternative if you want to balance technologies in a good way and keep the budgets affordable.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

That's totally unworkable.

If any one of the 3 facets(aero, chassis, engine) are out of kilter, more investments will be required. And when you can't spend your flaw is frozen in for the year.

What needs to happen is a balance of aero/chassis/engines that will run along with the RRA agreement. Ferrari and mercedes have been very vocal about this, and red bull have been the sticking point....

[WhiteBlue]

If any one of the 3 facets(aero, chassis, engine) are out of kilter, more investments will be required. And when you can't spend your flaw is frozen in for the year.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

1. Aero and chassis are pretty much synonyms as things stand in F1. Anything on a chassis is disposable if it helps to generate more downforce or lower drag. Teams will redesign the suspension or the gearbox at any cost just to accomodate some aero advantages.

2. We are talking FOTA or team technical regulation and budget strategy here. AFAIK there has not been one word out in the public that indicates a new resource or budget target. Nobody will increase budgets willy nilly at a time when team revenues stagnate or decrease.

==> It follows that more money or resources for engines and power train will have to come out of the chassis/aero sector. Or you allow the manufacturing teams a huge competitive advantage which the teams will not tolerate IMO.

[timbo]

==> It follows that more money or resources for engines and power train will have to come out of the chassis/aero sector. Or you allow the manufacturing teams a huge competitive advantage which the teams will not tolerate IMO.

If the engine manufacturer is obliged to sell current spec engines at a fixed price (pretty much as it is now), than there's no advantage gained.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

WhiteBlue


You talk as if these are facts. I'm afraid if you do not have a level playing field in the three disciplines(aero/chassis/powertains) then there will be one dominating the other, much like aero has disproportionately grown as the defacto performance denomination.

And as timbo rightly pointed out, if a manufacturer has to sell an engine(the design of which the FIA are privy, so as no discrepancy) then that manufacterer has in fact no advantage at all.

Imagine for one moment red bull being made to sell their flexing wings, floor and ebd, and not only that, the FIA mandating a maximum price for this to be sold at. Can you imagine the kittens in Milton Keynes??
So while you think you have the answer, i digress and point you to the current unfair state between manufacturers and red bull. It's not going to be solved by your methods...
Red bull have a much resource if not the most in f1, yet they hardly pay a bean for Renault power.

How much money went in to making and developing that powertrain? If red bull are so adamant that they want engine costs included in an RRA, then the common sense thing to do would be to include the cost of of development and build of any engine sold to a customer.
Wonder what red bulls budget would look like then.....

[WhiteBlue]

==> It follows that more money or resources for engines and power train will have to come out of the chassis/aero sector. Or you allow the manufacturing teams a huge competitive advantage which the teams will not tolerate IMO.

If the engine manufacturer is obliged to sell current spec engines at a fixed price (pretty much as it is now), than there's no advantage gained.

You seem to overlook the advantage they gain for their own team (Ferrari, AMG Merc). It may not be an immediate concern for a team like McLaren but they could be cut out of an engine deal sometime in the future. Customer teams like Red Bull, Williams or Sauber would probably face a huge bill for their energy recovery systems in 2014. The MGUH, MGUK, the power electronics and the energy storage system will all be designed by the engine manufacturers for their own teams. Customers will have to buy it. And history shows that cost caps on engines never worked without a freeze. So where is the cost cap going to come from?