F1 needs rule changes Urgently

[rogazilla]

There is no need for a T car. Ferrari had the time to rebuild the car with another gear box. They rolled the dice. I don't think anything there is done unfairly, the driver made a mistake impeded other's final run of qualifying but also paid for the price. I do agree there could be a rolling track time before going to grid up. I could see Q3 yellow/red flag person have their fastest time deleted or something along that line to prevent someone does this on purpose (NOT saying Leclerc's case is on purpose).

[SmallSoldier]

We need more entrants to the Championship, but if the only way to compete is to have a half a billion budget (which with no cap will keep on growing), we will only see teams leaving the sport until there isn’t one.

How is the 200 million dollar entrance fee, going to garner more entrants?
https://www.racefans.net/2020/09/16/200 ... -panthera/


IMO, F1 is a mess right now, because Liberty and the FIA are focusing to much on cost, both directly and indirectly. Not to mention they are the reason the costs are so high to start with. The rules are so tight that to gain a competitive advantage teams have to throw huge sums of money into the diminishing returns black hole. Yet, they still have ridiculous special payout for some teams.

Not to mention some people just need to deal with the fact that racing is a rich person/organizations sport, regardless of what level you are participating at.

In regards to the entrance fee, I understand why it’s been put in place and is to ensure that whomever comes in, it’s looking at a long term participation and not a short one.

In regards to the ridiculous amount of money to be competitive, the Budget Cap equalizes this for the teams, no longer do you need to match the Mercedes / Ferrari / Red Bull budget to be able to compete with them, everyone is in equal footing.

Are we going to get a lot of private teams to come on board, I don’t think so... But is there space for OEM’s and a few potential big money investors to do so? Maybe... At least it’s a better proposition than it was last year for them... If the numbers for Mercedes are in the ball park, it creates a profit for them, not only as a team but from a Marketing perspective.

With the implementation of List Parts, it also allows for new teams to come on board and avoid the need to develop those parts and not lose competitive advantage by doing so.

Is it perfect? No... Is it better than it used to be, in my opinion it is.

Formula 1 was never and will never be a cheap sport, the reality is that most forms of Motorsports Competitions are a money pit, from your local SCCA championship, Karting, Touring... You name it, participating in Motorsports isn’t the most lucrative way to invest money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[El Scorchio]

In an ideal world absolutely. Everything should be covered.
The thing that doesn't quite add up to me is teams being financially punished for circumstances beyond their control, so therefore maybe a distinction between replacing like for like broken parts vs developing new or upgraded ones needs to be made.

For instance if Red Bull have to spend a million dollars rebuilding a destroyed chassis because their driver got caught up in a crash that wasn't even their fault or could do nothing to avoid, then it seems unfair that it potentially impacts on the amount of R&D they are able to do going forward for this season and next.

Definitely they'd be fools not to budget for damage and I am sure they all have, but a couple of freak accidents here and there could make things very difficult.

Maybe the point is that it's not a bad thing if RBR and Mercedes have less to spend on R&D because it potentially brings the field closer, but I sure in the real world the cars toward the middle and back of the grid get involved in a lot more incidents and they have to take resource away from their already tight R&D which just drops them further behind. I'd be willing to bet RBR and Merc's annual repair bills are amongst the lowest on the grid.

I agree, on the other hand, the smaller teams are anyway below the budget cap, while the large teams will push reach as close as possible to the cap - and as such, allowing for repairs outside of the cap, in essence increases the spending difference between smaller and larger teams again. Hence a small preference to have the repairs inside the cap as well, and let the teams decide how much 'unforeseen' costs they budget.

In the end, the difference would be small anyhow I guess. Whether you would say "the budget cap is 150 million", or "the budget cap is 145 million, but all teams are allowed to spend an extra 5 million on repairs (without upgrades)", the effect is likely similar. Well, except maybe for teams that forget to budget for repairs in the former scenario, and end up not being allowed to make them anymore.

Valid point. The well off teams are always going to spend every penny available to them regardless. I'd be quite interested to see actually whether Williams and Haas, for example will come close to spending all they are allowed to or not.

[JRindt]

Maybe add unlimited engines, gearboxes and what is the point of a parc ferme, anyway?

I don’t know if you were being sarcastic or not, but that’s the exact thought I was having for about a couple of months now.

All these restrictions on engines, chassis parts, testing, materials, parc ferme and so on are to lower the costs and prevent the big spending teams from having an unfair advantage. But, with the cost cap in place, what’s the point of all this?

[Manoah2u]

Thinking F1 needs rule changes, especially 'urgently', based upon LeClerc's crash is a complete failure of understanding the sport and game, and above all, location. It also imho smells a bit of fanboy-ism (why because of leclerc and not because of any other driver before).

LeClerc had POLE, and it was unlikely that his time would be beaten, but not impossible. He thus decided to go for it another lap, but made a judgement error like so many drivers so many times do. That's it, it's nothing more and nothing less. But just like making a judgement error in a normal corner, this could cost you dearly.

It arguably hurt other drivers even more, as Sainz was on a blistering lap and so were some other drivers IIRC. It could have been a Ferrari 1-2 Qually had LeClerc not thrown it in the wall.
I think it hurt Sainz the most of everybody in terms of 'innocense' but it is what it is, that's racing, especially on Monaco.

The only completely and utter crazy move was that of Ferrari - let's rephrase that, Binotto, once again. Another clear example why Binotto needs to go.
There was no believable way that the car would be able to race without any problem after that shunt. I don't care what story they put out on 'data' and 'visual' inspections.
They didn't want to miss out on blown ego behaviour and wanted that Ferrari on pole. Now they looked like complete fools that can't even judge whether their cars are good or not.
If Montezemolo was in charge @ the headquarters he'd be absolutely volcano blazing angry.

Sainz was the only one to save Ferrari's embarassment. Ferrari should have just taken the pain of getting a grid penalty.
They made pole position, fair and square. They would have started P5 for LeClerc in front of Hamilton, with a fresh gearbox and they were doing great @ Monaco anyway so there were always opportunities, especially IF a SC would have happened. A lot of valuable WCC points have been lost too.

Max has not had the best of luck @ Monaco in the past and anything could happen, especially with pit strategies.

With sunday's results, LeClerc would have had P4 without needing to make any effort at all, Bottas was a free spot back up.
Norris came under pressure from Perez at the end, but it's not unlikely that Ferrari could have beaten the Mclaren due to strategy.

Starting P5 most likely would have been P5 anyway. But P4 would definately happened and with some effort P3.
That means a P2-P3 for Ferrari.

And then there always could have been the possibility that Max would have made contact with the wall, Monaco hasn't been his 'best' of locations after all,
so it could even been a P1-P2.

It's therefor completely and utterly brainless from Ferrari to not fix that gearbox.

It has nothing to do with a spare car. Even if there would have been spare car, Ferrari would not have used it.
They've got plenty of spare parts available, it's not even neccesary.

The only urgent change F1 needs is to get rid of Binotto @ Ferrari ASAP.

[Stu]

How to improve F1?
Now that cars are moving to 18” wheels, why not stipulate cast iron as a brake material....

[sosic2121]

They are doing everything to make this sport cheaper and you want spare car? =)

As cheap as V6 hybrid compound turbo engine with prechamber. How many millions have they saved compared to those expensive NA v8?

[Partymood]

I'd like that, I'd also like if engine change penalties excluded those where the engine was damaged in a crash.

Same. As long as you could prevent teams from 'gaming' the system to get 'free' new engines when it wasn't strictly necessary.

The cost cap and engine allocation does seem to unfairly punish genuine big accidents with a double, (grid penalties for engine) and maybe triple (budget implications down the line) whammy.

It seems to me the cap on parts can be removed with the budget cap in place? It's up to a team to chose where they want to spend their resources, it doesn't seem necessary to put any limitations on that. Quite the converse, it would be nice to see whether different teams make different choices there, e.g. diverting more to frequent drivetrain replacements, or more to aerodynamic upgrades.

Indeed, let them spend the money how they prefer. Even by allowing trak time, just don't go over the BC

[Partymood]

They are doing everything to make this sport cheaper and you want spare car? =)

As cheap as V6 hybrid compound turbo engine with prechamber. How many millions have they saved compared to those expensive NA v8?

Legend!!!

[Manoah2u]

They are doing everything to make this sport cheaper and you want spare car? =)

As cheap as V6 hybrid compound turbo engine with prechamber. How many millions have they saved compared to those expensive NA v8?

Legend!!!

That had nothing to do with making the sport cheaper but making it more relevant for road use.
There was/is little left for F1 to develop NA V8 engines and still be concidered road relevant.
The original proposition were i4 turbo (hybrid) engines, but that was halted and turned into V6T hybrid engines.
And yes, that technology IS road relevant. Whether any of the knowledge in F1 is brought to the real world is another question alltogether, but atleast in name it has relevance, and obviously, will aid in bringing CO2 levels and fuel usage down.

It's a matter of time before the engines will switch to inline 4 turbo hybrid engines. it's probably also a question of time, give it a decade or some, before either or both synthetic fuels will become the norm in motorsport (f1), thankfully blocking F1 from going full electric. Hydrogen will probably also come to play a role somewhere in the future, which could introduce manufacturers to choose their power plants for their cars. Synthetic-Hybrids or Hydrogen powered. Perhaps with full synthetics, we could even find the return of V10 or V12 engines at one point.
On one side i think those magnificient engines are history and never come back,
on the other side synthetic fuels and hydrogen could actually extend the lifespan of combustion engines, whether that'll also be for road use is another question. IIRC the plan is for road car manufacturers to step away from fossil fuel engines, and switch to hybrid and fully electric.

That said, fully synthetic fuels are not fossil fuels, so this could result in manufacturers extending combustion engines' lives.

On another level, F1's engines could also come to become 'driving laboratories' for indeed synthetic or hydrogen powered engines, and that technology theoretically could be used to manufacture hydrogen or synthetic fueled power plants or generators, providing alternatives to solar power, wind power, nuclear power, and coal powered power plants.

fully fossil fuel powered engines are going to become extinct, it's that simple. the decision to go to V6T hybrids had nothing to do with saving millions of dollars for the teams.

[adrianjordan]

As cheap as V6 hybrid compound turbo engine with prechamber. How many millions have they saved compared to those expensive NA v8?

Legend!!!

That had nothing to do with making the sport cheaper but making it more relevant for road use.
There was/is little left for F1 to develop NA V8 engines and still be concidered road relevant.
The original proposition were i4 turbo (hybrid) engines, but that was halted and turned into V6T hybrid engines.
And yes, that technology IS road relevant. Whether any of the knowledge in F1 is brought to the real world is another question alltogether, but atleast in name it has relevance, and obviously, will aid in bringing CO2 levels and fuel usage down.

It's a matter of time before the engines will switch to inline 4 turbo hybrid engines. it's probably also a question of time, give it a decade or some, before either or both synthetic fuels will become the norm in motorsport (f1), thankfully blocking F1 from going full electric. Hydrogen will probably also come to play a role somewhere in the future, which could introduce manufacturers to choose their power plants for their cars. Synthetic-Hybrids or Hydrogen powered. Perhaps with full synthetics, we could even find the return of V10 or V12 engines at one point.
On one side i think those magnificient engines are history and never come back,
on the other side synthetic fuels and hydrogen could actually extend the lifespan of combustion engines, whether that'll also be for road use is another question. IIRC the plan is for road car manufacturers to step away from fossil fuel engines, and switch to hybrid and fully electric.

That said, fully synthetic fuels are not fossil fuels, so this could result in manufacturers extending combustion engines' lives.

On another level, F1's engines could also come to become 'driving laboratories' for indeed synthetic or hydrogen powered engines, and that technology theoretically could be used to manufacture hydrogen or synthetic fueled power plants or generators, providing alternatives to solar power, wind power, nuclear power, and coal powered power plants.

fully fossil fuel powered engines are going to become extinct, it's that simple. the decision to go to V6T hybrids had nothing to do with saving millions of dollars for the teams.

I've heard a number of respected motoring journalists suggest that the future for normal day-to-day road cars is electric, but that high performance cars will stay internal combustion with a switch to synthetic fuels.

So let's use Porsche as an example, their SUV range will switch to electric, and why not, my Audi etron will out perform most Cayennes and the new platform VW group are developing will be even more capable. I've already heard that the success of the Taycan has prompted them to confirm that the next Macan will be an EV. Again the Taycan's success is likely to lead to production of the Panamera being halted.

That leaves the 718 and the 911.

Personally I think the 718 will at the very least become a hybrid, but they are talking about making it an EV and it would not surprise me if they did. Smaller and lighter than the Taycan with improved battery tech, could be a really good seller.

So, what of the 911? Well, I don't think they'll ever switch the 911 to become an EV. It's just not in that model's DNA. I don't even think we'll see a hybrid version. I think it was Chris Harris who said that the current engine in the 992 is intended to be in use for many years to come and could be adapted to use synthetic fuels.

I think we'll see other companies following suit. Mostly EV's with a halo performance car still running ICE but using synthetic fuels.

[sosic2121]

As cheap as V6 hybrid compound turbo engine with prechamber. How many millions have they saved compared to those expensive NA v8?

Legend!!!

That had nothing to do with making the sport cheaper but making it more relevant for road use.
There was/is little left for F1 to develop NA V8 engines and still be concidered road relevant.
The original proposition were i4 turbo (hybrid) engines, but that was halted and turned into V6T hybrid engines.
And yes, that technology IS road relevant. Whether any of the knowledge in F1 is brought to the real world is another question alltogether, but atleast in name it has relevance, and obviously, will aid in bringing CO2 levels and fuel usage down.

It's a matter of time before the engines will switch to inline 4 turbo hybrid engines. it's probably also a question of time, give it a decade or some, before either or both synthetic fuels will become the norm in motorsport (f1), thankfully blocking F1 from going full electric. Hydrogen will probably also come to play a role somewhere in the future, which could introduce manufacturers to choose their power plants for their cars. Synthetic-Hybrids or Hydrogen powered. Perhaps with full synthetics, we could even find the return of V10 or V12 engines at one point.
On one side i think those magnificient engines are history and never come back,
on the other side synthetic fuels and hydrogen could actually extend the lifespan of combustion engines, whether that'll also be for road use is another question. IIRC the plan is for road car manufacturers to step away from fossil fuel engines, and switch to hybrid and fully electric.

That said, fully synthetic fuels are not fossil fuels, so this could result in manufacturers extending combustion engines' lives.

On another level, F1's engines could also come to become 'driving laboratories' for indeed synthetic or hydrogen powered engines, and that technology theoretically could be used to manufacture hydrogen or synthetic fueled power plants or generators, providing alternatives to solar power, wind power, nuclear power, and coal powered power plants.

fully fossil fuel powered engines are going to become extinct, it's that simple. the decision to go to V6T hybrids had nothing to do with saving millions of dollars for the teams.

IMO it would make more sense if you argued that v6 is cheaper than v8

If F1 car had to do emissions test my then it would be road relevant. And VW would dominate.

My understanding is that lean burn technology, as great as it is, is not viable for road use due to emissions.
Also MGU-H is not having the same potential as in F1 since most of the time road engines are at operated at low throttle % and exhaust energy is much smaller.
So, the only road relevant thing that these engines are doing is marketing turbo and downsizing, which IMO are fake and have better results than engines they replaced due to unrealestic consumption and emissions test.

BTW would current F1 engines be so incredibly efficient if they had no fuel flow limit?

[gshevlin]

How to improve F1?
Now that cars are moving to 18” wheels, why not stipulate cast iron as a brake material....

I remember reading an article about the Williams team testing non-composite brakes at Silverstone in the late 1990s at the request of the FIA. They found that improvements in brake materials meant that the iron brakes were almost as effective as the carbon brakes. The only advantage that the carbon brakes had was that they were significantly lighter, which helped overall performance since they helped to minimize the mass at the corners of the car that was unsprung. The findings that the iron brakes were almost as effective resulted in carbon brakes being allowed to continue.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... lean burn technology, as great as it is, is not viable for road use due to emissions.

my guess is that (discounting oil-burn) F1-type engine emissions including NOx would be quite good
(except when running less lean eg electric boost (reduced) for greatly reduced electricity consumption)

(but not good enough to satisfy the fashion-following law-makers - unless NOx catalysis is added
of course the NOx cat does nothing in urban conditions - as (car) engines make negligible NOx - even Dieselgate baddies
only at high powers do they make NOx - the reason why city exhaust NOx is from trucks)