Liberty is ruining F1

[SmallSoldier]

Can you give a specific example as to how data sharing would damage the sport, or turn it into Euro NASCAR (like you falsely claim)?

As I've said several times now, F1 is first and foremost a Formula series, Though I'm really starting to believe very few people understand what that actually means.

In a Formula series a team at minimum designs and in some cases is required to manufacture all or substantial portions of their racing vehicle, doesn't mater if it's a car, boat or plane. In the Americas cup for example, most of the manufacturing is contracted out, but the teams still have custom unique designs. Thus, the competition is as much about the design and engineering as it is the actual racing.

In the case of F1, requiring data sharing removes 50% of the competition.

BLUE:
There is only ONE perfectly optimal solution to any given formula. Convergence is the nature of improvement in any Formula series.

RED:
The design and engineering competition stays the same with data-sharing, what it prevents is 2-3 teams overspending in R&D to gain advantage thus leading to several years' worth of boring domination, and a multi-tier formula.

Data-sharing only removes the competition of reverse-engineering. That is one that gives zero points, is hidden from the fans, and only exponentially increases the cost of being competitive.

Neither of those excuses actually counter my point.

I can’t agree with the data sharing... Why would a team be forced to share (and loose) their competitive advantage? One team invests in designing or developing something new and then have to share it with the rest of the field? How is that fair or good for the sport?

You mention that you are a business man, do you also believe that patents shouldn’t be allowed? That IP should be banned? I mean, it should boost the economy and avoid companies from spending billions of dollars in R&D, right? More supply and therefore lower prices?... That’s how you hinder progress and evolution.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Zynerji]

As I've said several times now, F1 is first and foremost a Formula series, Though I'm really starting to believe very few people understand what that actually means.

In a Formula series a team at minimum designs and in some cases is required to manufacture all or substantial portions of their racing vehicle, doesn't mater if it's a car, boat or plane. In the Americas cup for example, most of the manufacturing is contracted out, but the teams still have custom unique designs. Thus, the competition is as much about the design and engineering as it is the actual racing.

In the case of F1, requiring data sharing removes 50% of the competition.

BLUE:
There is only ONE perfectly optimal solution to any given formula. Convergence is the nature of improvement in any Formula series.

RED:
The design and engineering competition stays the same with data-sharing, what it prevents is 2-3 teams overspending in R&D to gain advantage thus leading to several years' worth of boring domination, and a multi-tier formula.

Data-sharing only removes the competition of reverse-engineering. That is one that gives zero points, is hidden from the fans, and only exponentially increases the cost of being competitive.

Neither of those excuses actually counter my point.

I can’t agree with the data sharing... Why would a team be forced to share (and loose) their competitive advantage? One team invests in designing or developing something new and then have to share it with the rest of the field? How is that fair or good for the sport?

You mention that you are a business man, do you also believe that patents shouldn’t be allowed? That IP should be banned? I mean, it should boost the economy and avoid companies from spending billions of dollars in R&D, right? More supply and therefore lower prices?... That’s how you hinder progress and evolution.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read my follow-up posts. Allowing these advantages to exist is why we have a 2 tier championship, and ridiculous costs. Data sharing stops teams from spending $50M for .2sec/lap because they will just have to share it with the other teams. This also removes the reverse-engineering department from each team as well.


I encourage the thought experiment, as even the obvious objections have quick and simple solutions.


TL:DR Teams spend Millions to have competitor data anyway through reverse engineering. This solves that issue before it becomes a problem.

[SmallSoldier]

BLUE:
There is only ONE perfectly optimal solution to any given formula. Convergence is the nature of improvement in any Formula series.

RED:
The design and engineering competition stays the same with data-sharing, what it prevents is 2-3 teams overspending in R&D to gain advantage thus leading to several years' worth of boring domination, and a multi-tier formula.

Data-sharing only removes the competition of reverse-engineering. That is one that gives zero points, is hidden from the fans, and only exponentially increases the cost of being competitive.

Neither of those excuses actually counter my point.

I can’t agree with the data sharing... Why would a team be forced to share (and loose) their competitive advantage? One team invests in designing or developing something new and then have to share it with the rest of the field? How is that fair or good for the sport?

You mention that you are a business man, do you also believe that patents shouldn’t be allowed? That IP should be banned? I mean, it should boost the economy and avoid companies from spending billions of dollars in R&D, right? More supply and therefore lower prices?... That’s how you hinder progress and evolution.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read my follow-up posts. Allowing these advantages to exist is why we have a 2 tier championship, and ridiculous costs. Data sharing stops teams from spending $50M for .2sec/lap because they will just have to share it with the other teams. This also removes the reverse-engineering department from each team as well.


I encourage the thought experiment, as even the obvious objections have quick and simple solutions.


TL:DR Teams spend Millions to have competitor data anyway through reverse engineering. This solves that issue before it becomes a problem.

That’s where we disagree... This is a competition and therefore, those who invest more are expected to perform better... Why wouldn’t that additional effort/investment be rewarded with results?... It’s like telling any competitor on any sport that he can’t train more than the rest because it isn’t fair.

But coming back to sharing data, someone will have to make the investment for the research, what is to stop teams from just “waiting to get the data” from the ones doing the work?... Did you shared your strategy, cost structure and margins with competitors when you were turning around businesses? I’m pretty sure you didn’t, because if you would have, you would have never achieved a turnaround... In Formula 1, the designs and concepts are what adds value, why would they give it away?... It just doesn’t make any sense.

I don’t understand some of the complaints, Formula 1 has always had dominant teams, there have always being top teams and backmarkers and we have never had every team capable to fight for a championship... It isn’t different today... And instead of asking a “minimum amount of capability” from the ones at the back, we want to hamper those that are at the front?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Zynerji]

The data share at intervals instead of real-time still gives the teams a few months of benefit from any development, so they will push on.

I understand that the secrecy of F1 is a bit of a sacred cow, but I also can find the root of every problem with F1 in it.

Someone will figure it out. Maybe if 2021 ends up with only 3 teams, people will sacrifice the sacred to root out the real problems.

PS: Yes. Sometimes I DO share data with a competitor in business for the common good. Sometimes I need a single piece of info to finish a product, and I will trade 2 pieces of other data for it.


Mission Accomplishment
Troop Welfare
Success

[joshuagore]

TL:DR Teams spend Millions to have competitor data anyway through reverse engineering. This solves that issue before it becomes a problem.

They spend millions advancing their car, some of that is copying, some of that copying works, some never translates to the new car cause it didn't work with say 6 in different wheelbase.

I would feel more confident if you could predict the cons of your 'synergy' plan. I want to know the loophole in your plan, because I don't think there is a perfect plan, so imo you should come with what will go wrong too not just how you fantasize it will go right.
Some notes.. How do cars get faster? Why are teams motivated to improve anything? Do brands see even these reduced costs as a worthy venture if the branding suggests their win was nothing more than paying for the fastest driver? Maybe I honestly don't know.

I've personally been developing a product trying to release it in an open source fashion, looking at my legal costs to create a GNU physical hardware license it starts to look like a cluster****, scale that in an international sporting/regulation climate... well you might just be working on perpetual motion.

[turbof1]

There are some interesting points made in this topic

For one, I personally believe standarization of some parts which have been literally developed for decades now up to a point where we are in heavy convergence territory, we can just as well standarize now. These parts are deep into diminishing returns territory.

However, some parts on the official list I would like to see removed. Brake discs is one of them. That's because they have proven to be NOT that deep into diminishing returns. Each year the manufcturers are pushing the structural boundaries to get more holes for more cooling. The technological advance in there should be safeguarded, because the lessons in structural integrity in there are invaluable. Standarization in there would mean the technological advance would come to a halt.

But something like a halo, which is basically standarized already, yeah... . The same with steering column, on the condition it can be adapted to a driver's specific needs. The same with the DRS mechanism. And let's be real: the jacks for lifting the car up are basically made from scrap material already. It's not high tech stuff in there.

Concerning sharing data: Sharing current data would kill off competition, I would be really against that. Rather, I'd love it if the teams were forced to put all their external parts, included the full car on display at all times when the car is not driving, for the public. Also, data of like 5 years ago or a previous formula spec would also be a good thing. But you do have to respect the IP of teams to some extent.

Also, the question remains if the list is not a reaction to the budget cap, to free up budget for actual development areas.

[joshuagore]

Also, the question remains if the list is not a reaction to the budget cap, to free up budget for actual development areas.

'lock in the advantage' is what I thought of the last regulation change. I appreciate your commentary on braking... most will suggest this has no real world value, but I believe in 50 years it will be the cost of doing business in a hyper efficient economy. I keep a road & track collection back to the mid 50's... They covered a lot of racing back then and ignored most any american car, I digress... the racing coverage and letters to the editor could basically read like this forum, nothing changes.

I was somewhat convinced recently by an industry insider that racing as we know it, meaning human driver, mostly man made car, was going away.... They used the general decline in young drivers, ride sharing, ev short trip economies, and a rise in automation, lower risk, and artificial intelligence, leading to like I said earlier 'robot' racing... as hes saying this I have a temper tantrum, but some of what he observed is true, although I believe nothing is as good as 'seat of the pants' first hand experience wielding an automobile at max, and having the respect for those other humans who do it best, on a world scale. He says its gone the way of horse racing... I would like to think a regulation could change that, but I think technology don't care.

I'm just ranting and raving on the internet.

[dans79]

I would feel more confident if you could predict the cons of your 'synergy' plan. I want to know the loophole in your plan, because I don't think there is a perfect plan, so imo you should come with what will go wrong too not just how you fantasize it will go right.

I think the loophole would be when the IP doesn't belong to the teams. For example right now the fuel manufactures play a big role in PU development. I'm sure they would have some choice words for any FIA official who shows up, and starts demanding all their research & documentation. If memory servers the brake disks are predominantly designed and manufactured by 3rd parties.

[ubuysa]

All this assumes that F1 viewers only watch the lead cars. Already this year an exciting battle is developing for 4th place between five teams, how much more exciting does it need to be than that?

Plus, Ferrari are dropping the ball and RB look like they could well challenge them soon. So the silver arrows are winning all the time? So what? The midfield is already producing the close racing and exciting battles, does it matter that they're not for 1st place?

[dans79]

Plus, Ferrari are dropping the ball and RB look like they could well challenge them soon. So the silver arrows are winning all the time? So what? The midfield is already producing the close racing and exciting battles, does it matter that they're not for 1st place?

Honestly, I think this is the crux of the issue. Society is more segmented and self-absorbed than ever. People want exactly what they want, and if they don't get it they complain, or stop participating. By that I mean they want a certain team or driver winning all the time, and if that isn't happening, they quickly become disinterested or negative. Others become negative unless a race has lots of overtakes.

You can see it even on this forum if you know what to look for. If you look at race threads from previous seasons, you will see certain people being very boastful when a given team or driver is doing well, but if they falter the individual might not post for months. I feel like I can almost predict when certain users will show up.

[strad]

I'd love it if the teams were forced to put all their external parts, included the full car on display at all times when the car is not driving, for the public.

Turbo, this brings up something that has been eating at me lately.
I thought that some time ago now the FIA mandated that the teams could no longer block the view of the cars in the pit road garage. However there have been many time where they still block our and the cameras view. Most recently Williams after their car was totaled they put up screens to totally block the car from view.

[Zynerji]

B-Teams are going to be the final push into data sharing between teams.

I know many here disagree, but it will eventually coming to this.

How better to get more top manufacturers in the sport?

[shingles]

All this assumes that F1 viewers only watch the lead cars. Already this year an exciting battle is developing for 4th place between five teams, how much more exciting does it need to be than that?

Plus, Ferrari are dropping the ball and RB look like they could well challenge them soon. So the silver arrows are winning all the time? So what? The midfield is already producing the close racing and exciting battles, does it matter that they're not for 1st place?

Of course it matters that there is no close battle up front. Are we seriously arguing that people watch to see who comes in third in any form of competition? Surely you don’t believe that?

But let’s suppose we are ok watching who comes in third, problem is the TV broadcast don’t focus on the mid field.

[roon]

Are we seriously arguing that people watch to see who comes in third in any form of competition?

No. We're arguing that people watch to see who comes in fourth. RB got third cinched this year.

And Williams got tenth in the bag. Like any good sandwich, all the action is in the middle. You would advocate for a pizza instead? Worse yet, a salad like Nascar? I was fond of Le Mans last year--a clear cut prix fixe, with no time wasted over what to pick for the entrée, for there were only tapas listed.

[dans79]

Worse yet, a salad like Nascar?

lol that's a good description, and why I stopped watching when I was in my mid teens. It became blatantly obvious that who won was on a good day 50% chance and on a bad day about 80%. Fox example I can remember Rusty Wallace winning one of the Dover races in 93 after being 2 laps down at one point.