Ideas to cut costs in F1

[xpensive]

Scotracer provided an abstract from today's FOTA meeting on another thread, why the following is an excerpt from that:

Ross Brawn wonders: ''If the're such an 'end of the world alike atmosphere', then why not limit the revs to 15,000 rpm straight away, whilst controlling the torque curve with the use of the ECU. In that case, next year we would already be able to use the current engines for four to five races, and the exasperating conflict of obtaining equalisation in the area of the engine would automatically be solved.''

Absolutly beautiful Ross, compare with my piece from this morning above on this thread.

[WhiteBlue]

Scotracer provided an abstract from today's FOTA meeting on another thread, why the following is an excerpt from that:

Ross Brawn wonders: ''If the're such an 'end of the world alike atmosphere', then why not limit the revs to 15,000 rpm straight away, whilst controlling the torque curve with the use of the ECU. In that case, next year we would already be able to use the current engines for four to five races, and the exasperating conflict of obtaining equalisation in the area of the engine would automatically be solved.''

Absolutly beautiful Ross, compare with my piece from this morning above on this thread.

So here we see the idea of limiting power by rpm and torque in combination with downrating rpm to extend engine life. It would have been better if they had not quite so drastically limited KERS.

[timbo]

If they reduce revs that much we would have engines only capable of around 600 hp. That would bring F1 to the Indy, GP2, Superleague power/weight ratio. That is rediculous! F1 HAS to be the ultimate formula. That's why it is F ONE.

[ISLAMATRON]

But going back to valve-spring actuation is another step back. I am all for Direct-injection but I don't want a tiny ICE unit (under 2 litres) as it just removes most of the "raw-power" feel that the sport has and should always have.

Oh and my Type R has variable cam profiles, ABS, the same suspension layout as an F1 car (double wishbone all-around) and many other technologies that are banned in F1. Kinda sad really...

The raw power will come from the KERS & HERS... not as loud but something new to think about while being developed. Add the KERS & Hers power to the smaller lump and the power will be the same, although you may not feel it the same as a spectator. Electric motors have gobs of torque(low end) so they may actually accelerate faster(if the tires allow).

The old 1.5L v6's had all that raw power, and had conventional valve springs, it wouldnt exactly be a step back, it would be more of a step back towards reality. Road cars will never use pneumatic valves, f1 only uses them to get to 16,000rpm plus, and that raises costs exponentially. the 1.5's had more power than the 3.5L v-10's back in 88, to the point where they were banned. That was limited at 2.5 bars(36psi).

[Metar]

Problem is this:

If you cut costs, you'll end up staying with essentially the same cars as now. That means not much green cred.

If you go green, road-relevant, hyper-advanced or old-school, that means new cars to be developed, and massive new costs.



Frankly, I think the engines should stay just where they are, like they are, until a real alternative is found. Rev-limiting? Turbocharged small bombs? They'll sound radically different (probably worse - the V8's only appear compared to the old cars was the high revs, and they're not that high anymore. A turbocharged engine would be even worse..), and costs will go through the roof trying to develop them, and then it will take another year or two until the FIA can start equalizing them. While spec-engines, of course, will mean that many here, the hardcore fans that watch every race, and attend GPs, will be alienated.

Until KERS is freed up (again, costs), or actual alternative drivetrains become a viable solution (hydrogen?), the most cost-efficient method is staying where you are. With some equalization for Honda and Renault, we'll have essentially-equal engines but with their own differences - and then we can freeze it. As we all know, the greenest way to buy a car is not to buy a new one - and this can be applied in F1.

V12s and V10s were beasts that sang. V8s were angry little screamers, and now just angry little rev-limited screamers. But forced-induction 1l 4-bangers? Count me out. 15RPM V8s? Where's the joy in that? I don't think they'll pass 650HP then (and I fear I'm optimistic), either - we could just as well switch to A1GP's spec-engines, or Le Mans engines.

Whatever F1 chooses, it'll be bad: New formula = large costs, and spec-engines = alienation and boredom.

[ISLAMATRON]

isn't kers scheduled to be freed up some in 2010? and wont HERS be introduced then too?

I just want to hear them say Megatron every race again when talking about the Renault turbo'd engines.

To me DI turdo'd I-4's or V-6's are more interesting than the detuned v-8's that we have been awatching for some years now. But I'm much more interested in what type of KERS & HERS they can come up with... thats the reall hi-tech.

But no doubt, keeping the V-8's for some years would be the cheapest option, especially if they can strech them to 4 or 5 races... I thint Ross Brawn is right on the money and they should put his idea to Mosley ASAP.

Its the only option that
1) reduceses costs for manufacturers & leasers
2) detunes(less power for safety reasons)
3) cuts out the threat of standard engines
4) reequalizes the engines(level playing field)
5) Lowers fuel consumptiion(i heard they were considering banning refueling)

[meves]

I thought the refueling ban was going to come in with 4 pot turbo'd engines, given that they give better fuel consumption figures?

[timbo]

2) detunes(less power for safety reasons)

That is absurd. You won't gain much safety by detuning modern F1 cars. They are already underpowered, and capable of much more. It is passive safety/track safety where constant improvement is needed.

[ISLAMATRON]

2) detunes(less power for safety reasons)

That is absurd. You won't gain much safety by detuning modern F1 cars. They are already underpowered, and capable of much more. It is passive safety/track safety where constant improvement is needed.

Its not me calling for it, it is just something the FIA is looking for... dont shoot the messengeer. I rather them have 1000 plus hp behind them, but it aint my call. But eventually I could see the KERS sytems giving 200 plus Hp bursts, so you would only need about 600 hp from the engine. Do you drive anything with 600 hp?

[jamsbong]

Hey, I've got an idea about cost cutting. Instead of putting endless lists of technical rules to limit the creativity of science and technology, How about taxing the rich and supporting the poor?

Like a Robinhood style system. You can do whatever you want but the more you pay to rich top place, the lesser you get to out of the sponsorship. So if spend little amount to rich the top, you don't get taxed.

So if you spend
150Mil/yr or less gets aid from the tax.
200Mil/yr = 0% tax
300Mil/yr = 25% tax
400Mil/yr = 50% tax
400+ Mil/yr = 75% tax

This encourage engineers to cut cost on everything, like Fuel, tires and also improve mechanical reliability.

[WhiteBlue]

2) detunes(less power for safety reasons)

That is absurd. You won't gain much safety by detuning modern F1 cars. They are already underpowered, and capable of much more. It is passive safety/track safety where constant improvement is needed.

I would take the opposite view here. Since 1994 passive safety and track safety measures have cost constructors and track owners incredible amounts of money. The increases in safety zones have removed the spectators further from the tracks, some tracks (Imola, Hockenheim) have gone under because they could not afford the necessary changes to make tracks safer and improve pit and press facilities at the same time.

Performance of the cars has generally gone up with short intervalls when the FiA mandated cuts. All serious commentators agree that the 2009 lap times will once again be faster than last season due to the misleading estimates of downforce by the OWG. The slick tyres will give back a lot of the performance that was lost by downforce cuts.

It never makes sense to just look at raw horse power of the ICE and forget the influence of mechanical grip, tyres, downforce and regenerative power. To compare a sophisticated 2009 car with trbo monsters of the seventies and say they are underpowered is like comparing apples and bananas.

[timbo]

It never makes sense to just look at raw horse power of the ICE and forget the influence of mechanical grip, tyres, downforce and regenerative power. To compare a sophisticated 2009 car with trbo monsters of the seventies and say they are underpowered is like comparing apples and bananas.

I'm comparing 2008 cars and 2004 or 2005 cars. Would you say that 2008-technology chassis ain't able to cope with 2004 power? Also track safety and passive safety are not VERY expensive, comparing to other F1 costs. As for track modification it was reported that Magny-Cours changes are at $50 mil range - not too much comparing with teams budgets and Bernie's real estate? Maybe Ciro can comment on the approximate price for development. As for passive safety - yes it adds something to the price of developing new tube, but not that much as for every new season leading teams are designing new monocoques and crash-test them.

[xpensive]

Gentlemen, Max Mosley this morning:

Further to my letter of 18 November, we have completed the tendering process and are now in exclusive negotiations with Cosworth together with Xtrac and Ricardo Transmissions (XR) to supply a complete Formula One power train starting in 2010. The engine will be a current Formula One engine while the transmission will be state-of-the-art Formula One and a joint effort by two companies which already supply transmissions to most of the grid.

The cost to each team taking up this option will be an up-front payment of £1.68m (1.97m euros) and then £5.49m (6.42m euros) per season for each of the three years of the supply contract (2010, 2011, 2012). This price is based on four teams signing up and includes full technical support at all
races and official tests, plus 30,000 km of testing. The annual cost will reduce if more teams take up the option, for example to £4.99m (5.84m euros) per team with eight teams. It will further reduce if less than 30,000 km of testing is required. Neither engine nor transmission will be badged.

As suggested in my letter of 18 November, teams participating in the 2010 Championship would then have three options:


The above


The right to build an engine themselves, identical to the above, having been supplied with all the necessary technical information


The right to continue to use their existing engine, with the current ban on development and requirement for engine parity still in place (noting that the engine supplied will become the reference engine for output and other performance indicators and no engine will be permitted to exceed those indicators)

Teams opting for one of the latter two options would nevertheless use the XR transmission.

In combination with the programme of cost reductions for the chassis, race weekend and team home base outlined in my letter of 18 November, these arrangements have a number of advantages. These include:


Enabling the independent teams to survive in the current difficult economic climate


Facilitating the replacement of a manufacturer team if (as seems likely) we suffer additional losses


Stabilising Formula One while new road-relevant technologies are introduced together with a state-of-the-art high tech engine, which could be in Formula One as early as 2013 should the car industry by then be in a position to fund its development


Avoiding any change to the Formula One spectacle and keeping the technology at current levels

These arrangements are on the basis that at least four teams enter into contracts to use the power train described above, and do so no later than close of business (5pm CET) on Thursday 11 December 2008. In the event of fewer than four teams signing up, the FIA may still proceed but the price on offer will vary. The supply contracts will be with Cosworth but in the first instance teams are requested to make their intentions known to my office.

Yours sincerely

Max Mosley

[monkeyboy1976]

This is remarkably dimplomatic stuff from Max IMHO.
Teams will have options at least.
The FOTA have not yet responded to this with their proposal.

FYI Ricardo transmissions is based in Leamington Spa, UK. Chinese car manufacturer SAIC (who now own, along with NAC, the MG brand and old MG Rover factory at Longbridge) rent half the site from Ricardo as their UK Technical Centre and I guess there is some common work going on. With Ricardo providing engineering services etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_A ... orporation
I wonder when/if Chinese car companies will ever get involved in F1?
There's a team in Brackley available.

[WhiteBlue]

The deal from the FiA to the teams remains unchanged. It has only been updated to show the latest state of negotiation. This means in practical terms that teams from 2010-2012 will anually pay 7 mil € for a state of the art F1 engine and transmission with a gurantee that nobody will outpower them engine wise or outperform them transmission wise.

They have the option to continue their existing engine with the standard transmission with full power control of torque and rpm, if at least four teams sign up to the Cosworth contract next week.

To me it looks that the FiA was the only organization that has kept its head and done what was needed. One has to consider that measures of such drastic nature have to be decided in the next 25 days to meet the deadline of one year prior to coming into effect.

Which ever way it goes I think that FOTA will have nobody to blame but themselves if finally the much dreaded standard engines do materialize. It appears to me that Red Bull, Force India, Toro Rosso, Williams and ex Honda would be well advised to sign up and should be encouraged by their current suppliers to do so.

Only that way the five remaining automotive teams will retain their own engines and get a chance to develop them for efficiency. They also retain the resources to start a new engine formula in 2013 that way. If FOTA fail to come up with four customers to Cosworth they will end up with the Cosworth engine without an alternative of their own and no F1 resources to get back into the game after 4 years of draught. That would clearly be the worst possible outcome.

I must say I'm glad that "spank me" Max is still running the FiA because a less experienced successor would probably have long thrown the towel. With the current initiative not all is lost and things can still turn to the better.