2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

[flyboy2160]

I agree with WB's point about chassis and aero development in general overshadowing engine development, but not that the solution is homologated chassis regulations.

I've decried the increasing engine configuration restrictions over the last years. I want to see a much more open engine configuration and engine engineering competition, not the restrictive homologated straightjacket we have now. Let's see a BMW I4 or I3 go up against V6s, or V8s, or whatever. I'm not saying that there isn't room for innovation in the current regs, but that the window is much too small to give a really interesting engine competition.

But restricting/homologating the chassis would be, in my view, as bad as restricting the engines.

[bhall]

I agree with that. I'm just leery of engine manufacturers gaining too much of a regulatory toehold, as it were, because of their tendency to abandon the sport when the marketing objectives of their corporate parents shift.

[langwadt]

I agree with WB's point about chassis and aero development in general overshadowing engine development, but not that the solution is homologated chassis regulations.

I've decried the increasing engine configuration restrictions over the last years. I want to see a much more open engine configuration and engine engineering competition, not the restrictive homologated straightjacket we have now. Let's see a BMW I4 or I3 go up against V6s, or V8s, or whatever. I'm not saying that there isn't room for innovation in the current regs, but that the window is much too small to give a really interesting engine competition.

But restricting/homologating the chassis would be, in my view, as bad as restricting the engines.

I doubt you would ever see a big variation in engines, they would all look at the rules do few calculations
and come up with the same configuration. Just look at WEC the only reason there is more than one configuration is that the rules get tweaked to make each manufacturers choice of engine competitive

[hollowBallistix]

I'd like it if they actually removed the minimum weight limit from the cars, or tie in the weight limit based on engine selection..

[WhiteBlue]

But restricting/homologating the chassis would be, in my view, as bad as restricting the engines.

IMO a team has limited financial resources and cannot spend on power units what they have to spend on chassis to be competitive. To help the smaller teams survive F1 has homologated the engines and recovery systems. It is an obvious way to cut cost in the absence of a budget cap.

If this cost restriction is only applied to the engine side it cements the superiority of the chassis construction in terms of being a source of competitiveness. The engine constructors are penalized and do not get enough freedom for innovation and competitiveness. So if homologation is necessary for cost limitation it should be applied to both sides of the game.

I would have preferred a budget cap and inside the monetary limits no homologation or additional cost saving by standardization. Unfortunately this is not going to happen by politicking. So chassis restrictions must follow IMO.

[turbof1]

I'd like it if they actually removed the minimum weight limit from the cars, or tie in the weight limit based on engine selection..

Yes, but only if a minimum weight is established for drivers. It's getting risky already with their weight, and we don't want to disadvantage bigger drivers further.

A weight calculation system for each driver could be established (no, not BMI) based on several factors like bone mass, length and other reliable factors, to get the minimum weight for each driver. To ensure more equality, the team has to add ballast in the cockpit to match the driver with the biggest minimum weight. It isn't perfect, but it's much better then we have today.

But restricting/homologating the chassis would be, in my view, as bad as restricting the engines.

IMO a team has limited financial resources and cannot spend on power units what they have to spend on chassis to be competitive. To help the smaller teams survive F1 has homologated the engines and recovery systems. It is an obvious way to cut cost in the absence of a budget cap.

If this cost restriction is only applied to the engine side it cements the superiority of the chassis construction in terms of being a source of competitiveness. The engine constructors are penalized and do not get enough freedom for innovation and competitiveness. So if homologation is necessary for cost limitation it should be applied to both sides of the game.

I would have preferred a budget cap and inside the monetary limits no homologation or additional cost saving by standardization. Unfortunately this is not going to happen by politicking. So chassis restrictions must follow IMO.

You could homologate them throughout the year, allowing changes between seasons. Like we had in 2010.

How about a limit on changeable mass? Production of parts is very expensive; The production and installation of an f-duct back in 2010 alone was 500,000-1,000,000 dollars. Say you allow the teams to change x kg on the car throughout the season, which also means they have to be careful with what they produce. changing parts because of damage should be excluded from this of course, provided the new parts are the same as the ones damaged.

[Pingguest]

But restricting/homologating the chassis would be, in my view, as bad as restricting the engines.

IMO a team has limited financial resources and cannot spend on power units what they have to spend on chassis to be competitive. To help the smaller teams survive F1 has homologated the engines and recovery systems. It is an obvious way to cut cost in the absence of a budget cap.

If this cost restriction is only applied to the engine side it cements the superiority of the chassis construction in terms of being a source of competitiveness. The engine constructors are penalized and do not get enough freedom for innovation and competitiveness. So if homologation is necessary for cost limitation it should be applied to both sides of the game.

I would have preferred a budget cap and inside the monetary limits no homologation or additional cost saving by standardization. Unfortunately this is not going to happen by politicking. So chassis restrictions must follow IMO.

I disagree more and stricter rules are necessary for cost containment. In fact, the stricter the rules are, the more cars tend to converge. Strict regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and the only way to win races, is to get closer to that point than your opponents and that requires an increase of resources.
However, the free-er the rules are, the more cars tend to diverge. Not using as much resources as possible but intelligence and creativity will the key factors.

[chip engineer]

But restricting/homologating the chassis would be, in my view, as bad as restricting the engines.

IMO a team has limited financial resources and cannot spend on power units what they have to spend on chassis to be competitive. To help the smaller teams survive F1 has homologated the engines and recovery systems. It is an obvious way to cut cost in the absence of a budget cap.

If this cost restriction is only applied to the engine side it cements the superiority of the chassis construction in terms of being a source of competitiveness. The engine constructors are penalized and do not get enough freedom for innovation and competitiveness. So if homologation is necessary for cost limitation it should be applied to both sides of the game.

I would have preferred a budget cap and inside the monetary limits no homologation or additional cost saving by standardization. Unfortunately this is not going to happen by politicking. So chassis restrictions must follow IMO.

I think the chassis cost problem could be solved by just eliminating one rule (the one requiring each team to build their own chassis). This seemed to work fine for CART/IndyCar for many years.
Some well funded teams would still build their own and refuse to sell to anyone (as Penske occasionally did in CART); others could spread their development costs among several teams. There would very likely be competition between 3 or more chassis builders.

[bhall]

[...]
So if homologation is necessary for cost limitation it should be applied to both [engine and chassis].

[...]

All credit is due to Mercedes for engineering the best PU in F1 this year. But, the in-season freeze on PU updates means their leading position is practically unassailable, which means the rest of the Championship is likely to be incredibly boring. I don't see how a similarly entrenched chassis advantage for one team, the inevitable result of any homologation scheme, will produce anything but a similar outcome.

In my view, homologation largely relegates the competitive process to the offseason, where it cannot be seen, and that's boring. This latest iteration also does very little to control costs, as you can rest assured all manufacturers are feverishly spending money to update their PUs for next year.

As always, the only viable way to reduce costs is to completely standardize components. That way there's little scope for development costs and no single team is afforded a terminal advantage. But - and this is highly important - I think such a scenario cuts against very grain of Formula One and should be avoided, regardless of the collateral damage to lesser funded teams. There are plenty of outlets for motor racing for those with limited means.

And just to steer this a bit more on-topic, standardization is also inherently slow. This is easily seen in any comparison of a spec-series versus a more deregulated counterpart. Hell, just look at the effect even limited standardization and homologation has had on F1 over the last ten years. Performance is now a shell of itself.

[flyboy2160]

...I doubt you would ever see a big variation in engines, they would all look at the rules do few calculations
and come up with the same configuration...

l,

I respectfully have to disagree. In 1966 we had V8, V12, and H16!

If there were fewer restrictions of how much and what type of energy reuse was allowed, you'd have different interpretations possible there as well. Look at the much more open LMP powertrain regulations: http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/toyo ... -lmp1-car/

As a result you have different engine and energy recovery systems in that series. Audi just gave up on the MGU for this year's R18 http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113077 This year you have V4(Porsche), V6(Audi), and V8 (Toyota) in that series. After many years of F1 being my motorsports priority, I'm seriously considering jumping ship to LMP because if its greater technical diversity.

I want to see attempts at diversity in the F1 powertrains, not the restricting F1 regulations. That's totally boring to me. If they all end up at the same place, so be it. But don't require them to all be the same.

But you pay your money and take your choice....

[Cam]

I want to see attempts at diversity in the F1 powertrains, not the restricting F1 regulations. That's totally boring to me. If they all end up at the same place, so be it. But don't require them to all be the same.

Agreed.

As a fan, surely seeing a Honda straight 4 beat a Mercedes V6 would be a better clearer example of F1 tech in practice, or a Mercedes V6 beating a Renault V4 and beating it with better fuel consumption - that too I can appreciate and the lines of comparison are clear to even a laymen.

Economy also has little merit unless you have re-fueling. Having a car trundle around 1 second slower a lap, but winning as it stops less, would send a very loud (or not loud now) message indeed.

Whether a car gains it's pace in a straight line this year as opposed to last, ultimately means little. Unless they can demonstrate an improved faster completion time, using less overall resources.... what's the point? At the moment F1 is giving us 'less for more' - when the world demands 'more for less'. Surely that's where the relevance should be?

[Artur Craft]

Well, despite being quite a lot slower in cornering, it seems they will be about "only" 3s slower in Barcelona. The reason for that is quite simple, though. Last year's top speed was 319kmh while today they already hitted 335kmh

GP2 pole will not outqualify some F1 cars because they are nowhere that fast on straights and have only around 500HP, AFAIR. Plus, the GP2s also are relatively heavy with 690kg, unlike F3s which are usually 550kg. If they had 700HP, that would low their laptimes by around 6s leading to a pole of 1.23.3.

That might be completely irrelevant for most members but I don't like the idea of a junior series cornering at the same speeds, or even faster, than even F1 fastest car. And FR 3.5 might corner even faster...

Oh, I was forgetting, GP2 also doesn't have DRS which would bring that pole further down by some 1s(maybe). So, a 1.22.3 laptime by a GP2 car would be possible in today track rubbering state if it had F1 straight line performance. So this 3s advantage over Mercedes(which is alone 1s faster than the second fastest car) would need to come from cornering and as both series uses same tyres, it shows how poor downforce current cars have. And the GP2 cars can follow each other better than F1 because of their more dependance on ground effect rather than on wings

[WhiteBlue]

Where is it set in stone that you have to have two tons of downforce? I think that cars with less downforce are more difficult to drive and more spectacular to watch. All these comparisons to other formulae are meaningless in the end because the general public never watches the races. Only anoraks ever watch such races and the occasional European race goer who watches the whole program from his seat at the track. 99.9% of viewers are watching via TV and less than 1% of them ever get to see a junior class race. So commercially those formulae are totally irrelevant. They only exist for the sporting idea and for drivers to climb the ladder to F1. So again, why are we worried about those formulae?

[bhall]

Your post made me think of "The Wizard of Oz," WB: an anthropomorphized Formula One loudly proclaiming its worth to the masses while desperately trying to hide the truth behind a thin facade of marketing spin.

"Pay no attention to that other series behind the curtain! It's not commercially viable!"

By bullishly calling itself "the pinnacle of motorsport," F1 invites any and all comparisons to other series. And, like it or not, what has kept it faster than the rest over the years is a liberal application of aerodynamics. Other series feature cars with more power or rules that allow greater technical freedom and so on. Yet, none match F1's aerodynamically-driven pace.

That advantage is rapidly deteriorating, though, because of the boneheads in the world who insist the sport needs loftier aspirations. It can't just be about racing cars; no, it has to be a proving ground for other technologies.

"Pay no attention to the sport's history! It's not as idyllic as we want you to believe!"

Or, even worse, it has to be the Great Green Savior.

"Pay no attention to our gigantic fleet of trucks and motorhomes! They're not on the track, so they don't count!"

Because of moves like that, and stuff like this, I think F1 is killing itself before our very eyes.

[Sevach]

I'd like it if they actually removed the minimum weight limit from the cars, or tie in the weight limit based on engine selection..

The best suggestion i've heard is something the effect of the WRC power limited regulations.

Something like the cars can have up to 800 hp.
How you get there, totally up to you, V12 or V4 turbo? up to you... volumetric capacity, fuel flow, rev limit... all up to each individual manufacturer.

That would be something that drives efficiency.