Liberty Media New F1 from 2021

[AngusF1]

IF the teams had to submit a fully detailed mechanical model of the car as it sits in parc-ferme, the teams could converge more quickly, and not be inclined to spend so much.

Not untrue, but such an idea would run completely counter to F1's values and principles, which have long been founded on excellence, competition and meritocracy. It would make all design ideas and IP public, rather than private, property and transform the sport into an "equalitarian" (equal-outcome) system.

I'd be very disappointed as an engineer working in F1 knowing that any great idea I had would be immediately known and copied by all and sundry and hence rendered close to useless, and my incentive to innovate would be significantly reduced.

[Restomaniac]

IF the teams had to submit a fully detailed mechanical model of the car as it sits in parc-ferme, the teams could converge more quickly, and not be inclined to spend so much.

Not untrue, but such an idea would run completely counter to F1's values and principles, which have long been founded on excellence, competition and meritocracy. It would make all design ideas and IP public, rather than private, property and transform the sport into an "equalitarian" (equal-outcome) system.

I'd be very disappointed as an engineer working in F1 knowing that any great idea I had would be immediately known and copied by all and sundry and hence rendered close to useless, and my incentive to innovate would be significantly reduced.

Then make the sharing every other month. That way the innovator gets 3 months (by the time it's copied) of advantage.

[AngusF1]

IF the teams had to submit a fully detailed mechanical model of the car as it sits in parc-ferme, the teams could converge more quickly, and not be inclined to spend so much.

Not untrue, but such an idea would run completely counter to F1's values and principles, which have long been founded on excellence, competition and meritocracy. It would make all design ideas and IP public, rather than private, property and transform the sport into an "equalitarian" (equal-outcome) system.

I'd be very disappointed as an engineer working in F1 knowing that any great idea I had would be immediately known and copied by all and sundry and hence rendered close to useless, and my incentive to innovate would be significantly reduced.

Then make the sharing every other month. That way the innovator gets 3 months (by the time it's copied) of advantage.

Agreed that would be less extreme, in fact the period could even be extended to each year. Even so, it would still run counter to F1's core values and principles.

Along an equivalent line, we could force all drivers' telemetry to be publicised in an effort to help the slow ones catch up. Would we like to do this, and why or why not?

[johnny comelately]

Where driver input is somewhere between 10% and 20% the idea of more parity will possibly produce worse racing.

[AngusF1]

Indeed. Yes, at least making the cars more similar would increase the driver contribution.


In other news from Autosport,The Wolf fires his opening salvo, outright refusing the $150M figure and seeking a compromise. Open to any amount of standardisation as an olive branch.

"That number will not be achievable, but maybe something sensible [can be]..."

He realises that $150M would see 3/4 of his staff out the door, so must oppose the notion to maintain the confidence of his ~1000 employees.

"My utmost priority is protecting our structure and our people."

[3jawchuck]

IF the teams had to submit a fully detailed mechanical model of the car as it sits in parc-ferme, the teams could converge more quickly, and not be inclined to spend so much.

Not untrue, but such an idea would run completely counter to F1's values and principles, which have long been founded on excellence, competition and meritocracy. It would make all design ideas and IP public, rather than private, property and transform the sport into an "equalitarian" (equal-outcome) system.

I'd be very disappointed as an engineer working in F1 knowing that any great idea I had would be immediately known and copied by all and sundry and hence rendered close to useless, and my incentive to innovate would be significantly reduced.

Then make the sharing every other month. That way the innovator gets 3 months (by the time it's copied) of advantage.

If this idea were to happen ( I don't think it should) it would be better to make the data available at the end of the season. So, a team which does innovate has a whole year to take advantage of what they innovated and to develop it. However, for the next year the other teams have something they can work with to get the gap to the innovative team down. Making this data available each event or even monthly is just plain silly That would, in a way, punish any teams who put effort into innovation.

[astracrazy]

In other news from Autosport,The Wolf fires his opening salvo, outright refusing the $150M figure and seeking a compromise. Open to any amount of standardisation as an olive branch.

"That number will not be achievable, but maybe something sensible [can be]..."

He realises that $150M would see 3/4 of his staff out the door, so must oppose the notion to maintain the confidence of his ~1000 employees.

"My utmost priority is protecting our structure and our people."

Ok so it does include staff wages. Liberty are going to have a hard time convincing Merc, Ferrari and Red Bull to cut there staff by, what, 50%?

$150M wont happen imo, if they get a cap through it will be $250-300M. If you look at the estimated budget figeres for 2018, $150M would lead to half the grid making staff redundent which i would find disgusting.

[Restomaniac]

Not untrue, but such an idea would run completely counter to F1's values and principles, which have long been founded on excellence, competition and meritocracy. It would make all design ideas and IP public, rather than private, property and transform the sport into an "equalitarian" (equal-outcome) system.

I'd be very disappointed as an engineer working in F1 knowing that any great idea I had would be immediately known and copied by all and sundry and hence rendered close to useless, and my incentive to innovate would be significantly reduced.

Then make the sharing every other month. That way the innovator gets 3 months (by the time it's copied) of advantage.

If this idea were to happen ( I don't think it should) it would be better to make the data available at the end of the season. So, a team which does innovate has a whole year to take advantage of what they innovated and to develop it. However, for the next year the other teams have something they can work with to get the gap to the innovative team down. Making this data available each event or even monthly is just plain silly That would, in a way, punish any teams who put effort into innovation.

But we are talking about reducing costs too. Look at RedBull copying the Ferrari idea near the sidepods last season. Just how much did that cost RB?

Cars are not racing in a vacuum and copying doesn't wait a year ATM anyway. At least if it had to wait 3 months before it appears on another car. That would be on average 6 races for the original team.

Simply put waiting a year before sharing data won't save costs at all. Teams will still try to get the ideas on their cars before that which again ends up being just the teams with stupid budgets bring miles ahead. They are the ones who can afford stupid levels of R&D and investigations to copy ideas off other teams.

[johnny comelately]

Libertynot looking for big cost caps: the gross take doesn't get affected, less payout to teams (because of lower costs?) = bigger net for Libertynot.

[Xwang]

I think that a financial cap will never work in F1 due to the fact that teams operate in different countries, with different laws, different currency and so it seems not enforceable.
What will keep teams to create a different R&D structure with thousand of engineers and unlimited CFD and wind gallery (because formally this R&D is outside the F1) and only when they have done their homework entering the F1 having greatly outspent the teams who are already inside?

It seems only a move from Liberty Media to pay less and keep more money.
Moreover this standardization and over ruling seems in contrast with what a F1 should be.
If I can understand that some things (like anti intrusion cones) are standard because they are for safety reasons, I don't understand why should be limited the possibility for teams to invest in performance related stuff (like turbo). If I remember correctly Mercedes does its turbo in house. Why to limit this research?

[ripper]

They will have to thighly regulate it, otherwise teams with big structures behind will be able to hide costs somewhere else. Good luck to proving that a CFD study done in FCA in USA and sold to Scuderia Ferrari really costed 175.000 $ and not 100.000 $ as payed.

Moreover I don't like PU semplification, i'll miss their complexity and MGU-H.

[Xwang]

They will have to thighly regulate it, otherwise teams with big structures behind will be able to hide costs somewhere else. Good luck to proving that a CFD study done in FCA in USA and sold to Scuderia Ferrari really costed 175.000 $ and not 100.000 $ as payed.

Moreover I don't like PU semplification, i'll miss their complexity and MGU-H.

Agree.
I would like to know how they will prove that what paid by Mercedes F1 to DaimlerBenz Truck division is correct or to much less than its real value.
The same happens for RBR Technology, Mclaren Engineering, Williams engineering, Haas, Honda, Renault.

Moreover I'm thinking that in the last 30 years only the "F1 right holder" is making a profit with F1.
All teams are losing money or even. Circuits are pretty in the same situation. Not the same we can say about Mr Ecclestone and now Liberty Media.
How many money is Liberty Media taking away from F1?
Maybe they should use their profit to finance smaller teams and other independent engine manufacturers instead of putting all this money in their wallet.

[Vanja #66]

They will have to thighly regulate it, otherwise teams with big structures behind will be able to hide costs somewhere else. Good luck to proving that a CFD study done in FCA in USA and sold to Scuderia Ferrari really costed 175.000 $ and not 100.000 $ as payed.

Moreover I don't like PU semplification, i'll miss their complexity and MGU-H.

Hell, we'll offer teams a price of $25.000 for CFD here in Serbia.

[ripper]

Oh my gosh Vanja, if I'm talking about 100000$ you shouldn't downplay at 25.000$ at your first offer! You might be a good aerodynamicist but you've a long way to go in bargaining and commercial stuff!

[Zynerji]

IF the teams had to submit a fully detailed mechanical model of the car as it sits in parc-ferme, the teams could converge more quickly, and not be inclined to spend so much.

Not untrue, but such an idea would run completely counter to F1's values and principles, which have long been founded on excellence, competition and meritocracy. It would make all design ideas and IP public, rather than private, property and transform the sport into an "equalitarian" (equal-outcome) system.

I'd be very disappointed as an engineer working in F1 knowing that any great idea I had would be immediately known and copied by all and sundry and hence rendered close to useless, and my incentive to innovate would be significantly reduced.

But you're more comfortable knowing that each team is paying 75 staff members to reverse-engineer your ideas anyway. Not to mention the 75 staff members on your team that you are paying to do it two nine other teams. I believe F1 would be a manufacturer's magnet if it was set up in such a way that all of the money that was invested from the various manufacturers benefited the group when it moved to their production vehicles. You wouldn't be able to keep the big manufacturers out!