About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[xpensive]

Just limit the opportunities for spending, which to all of my xperience is the only way as stoopid money will never have a limit.

Right now, when money seems to go to aero-xtravaganza, a flat-floor-rule as long as there is car to measure would kill it.

[GitanesBlondes]

The day the FIA decides to take a stand against snowplow front wings, and that sort of thing, is the day costs will start going down.

Invert the formula so engine spending is allowed, and aero-spending has nowhere to go. Too bad they didn't bring back ground effects for 2014.

[FoxHound]

Where does 70/80 percent of the R&D spend go?
Aero right?
That's what teams spend.

Its a very easy solution to limit downforce, increase tyre adhesion to make up the difference.

Mercedes ferrari and renault can then spend what they want on engines.
However, they must be made available to each non manufacturer team at a set price of say 10million a season.

It would keep things in balance. And where would teams spend the rest of their cash?
Ingenuity and real innovation rather than 4/5 element front wings and burning fuel for downforce.
Agreed fully gitanes.

[Pup]

Fans have been saying to get rid of the wings for years. No one in F1 wants to listen because they think it will make the cars too slow.

Of course, then they argue over the cars being too fast.

I've always argued that they should split the difference and go with a single mid-wing just behind the cockpit and ground effects.

[GitanesBlondes]

Increasing tire adhesion would be a good one. It would be a good reason to bring back the wide rear slicks of the past.

Plus the other thing to do too Fox would be to eliminate the current neutral section of the nose. Force teams to run noses that slope downward as they did in the 80s and early 90s with out the pylons to hold up the front wing. In fact, wide track cars are long overdue in my opinion. We've had a decade and a half of narrow cars and narrow tires. Time to change all of that.

[xpensive]

As longe as curved undersides are allowed, there will be aerodynamic tricks to play.

A flat-floor, with a ban altogether on front wings and it will all be done cost-wise.

Mega-Watt wind-tunnels will be obsolete in a heartbeat.

[GitanesBlondes]

Fans have been saying to get rid of the wings for years. No one in F1 wants to listen because they think it will make the cars too slow.

Of course, then they argue over the cars being too fast.

I've always argued that they should split the difference and go with a single mid-wing just behind the cockpit and ground effects.

Well depending on how accurate the 2014 lap time estimates are, the cars are going to be much slower already. But who knows what tricks someone like Newey has up his sleeve anyway.

The teams are addicted to aero anyway and have been since 1969.

Lap times being slower would be fine if the result was for a more spectacular style of driving instead of the riding on rails experience we see.

[GitanesBlondes]

As longe as curved undersides are allowed, there will be aerodynamic tricks to play.

A flat-floor, with a ban altogether on front wings and it will all be done cost-wise.

Mega-Watt wind-tunnels will be obsolete in a heartbeat.

There is that too.

All this trouble started when everyone started bolting on front wings, and we were off to the races from there.

[FoxHound]

Can anyone recall when something mechanical was a performance differentiator? I'm thinking maybe the beemer v10.

I wonder also how much money BMW and toyota ploughed into their aero versus their engine programmes.

[GitanesBlondes]

Can anyone recall when something mechanical was a performance differentiator? I'm thinking maybe the beemer v10.

I wonder also how much money BMW and toyota ploughed into their aero versus their engine programmes.

Renault mass dampers?

[raymondu999]

Can anyone recall when something mechanical was a performance differentiator? I'm thinking maybe the beemer v10.

Mechanical as in mechanical grip, or "something that is physical and moves" - ie opposed to aero

[FoxHound]

Yes probably the mass dampers.
But they where eventually prohibited. ..
FRICS is pretty cool...but is nowhere near making the difference.

Mechanical as in greasy metal bits, suspensions etc Raymond

[xpensive]

Don't forget MGP's mercury-suspension, but I guess that one was banned as well?

[GitanesBlondes]

Can anyone recall when something mechanical was a performance differentiator? I'm thinking maybe the beemer v10.

I wonder also how much money BMW and toyota ploughed into their aero versus their engine programmes.

I've been thinking some more about various times where mechanical was a performance differentiator. Just some others to throw out there as well.

The design of the Lotus 49 and the placement of the DFV Cosworth. Not to mention the power it had.

The Renault Sport V10's of the early to mid-90s.

Honda RA168-E.

The Ferrari flat 12 of the 1970s.

The Mercedes V10's with beryllium.

Coincidentally, there is very little that I can really think of within the modern era of F1.

[WhiteBlue]

It is funny to read all the speculatin and tripe about a cost cutting mechanism that is not even on the first step of invention let alone introduction or implementation.

Everyman and his dog knows that cost control is imperative for F1 in order to make a full grid of individually designed and constructed chassis viable. Now we have for the first time a rule making mechanism which will work with simple majorities and we have an FiA presidency that is determined to see things through at the same time. Why should such unique conditions not lead us to new results? Why must we always put on the dark goggles and the full set of blinkers?

I can easily imagine that this round of cost cutting measures to be implemented in 2015 will be successful and will improve F1. In my view the constructor principle will be reinforced if teams work against cost caps. We have already seen how the engine and power pack development can be influenced on the cost side. If a purely accounting based cost capping is not feasible the engine mechanism can be used as a blueprint for cost control on the chassis side.

Teams can be restricted to fixed numbers of aerodynamic specs per season and tubs can be homologated for several seasons. Assemblies like the exhaust, suspension, gear box, brakes, cooling system, fuel system or the stearing assembly can be homologated for a variable number of seasons.

The teams could come up with entirely new ideas if they do some serious brainstorming on it. F1 has been diagnosed as half dead for decades and has always found ways to renew itself. It can happen again and it will happen in my view.