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

[bhall]

...

What's the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a car that's ultimately slower than what can be had for substantially less money in a lower series? If I'm the owner of Caterham or Marussia, I don't know how I could justify the expense, especially given the nature of rules that are ironically set in opposition to progress (homologation).

The sport is asking race teams to jump through very expensive hoops so that a couple of engine manufacturers can claim to be at the bleeding edge of hybrid development to a general public that's mostly unaware of just how little truth there is to such claims. In other words, teams like Williams, Sauber, and Force India are each effectively subsidizing a significant portion of the marketing costs associated with advertising the engine manufacturers' wares. And for what in return? To participate in a series so hamstrung with idiosyncrasies that it's often only as entertaining as watching paint dry, leading viewers to abandon it in droves and with them, sponsors? It doesn't make any sense, and it's why those teams are begging for relief.

I can appreciate that some folks enjoy this current brand of racing, and there's nothing wrong with that, as we're all snowflakes. But, you've gotta admit that F1 has never been like this before, and the reasons for its condition are frivolous at best.

[Juzh]

Of course it'll get better - this has repeatedly happened in F1. You get a year where the rules get tightened significantly, then a series of relatively small things taken away, while the teams gain back the time lost.

You can bet all the money in the world no amount of development time will gain 5 seconds with current regs. When there were major reshufflings going on in the past fia generally closed some areas, but opened up others. See 2008 -> 2009. Current barcelona track layout record is held by barichello with 1:19.954 in BGP01.
What they've done this time round is basically shut off all doors and angles. There's literally no breakthroughs possible anymore as we can see by the horrendously slow lap times.

[beelsebob]

...

What's the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a car that's ultimately slower than what can be had for substantially less money in a lower series? If I'm the owner of Caterham or Marussia, I don't know how I could justify the expense, especially given the nature of rules that are ironically set in opposition to progress (homologation).

The point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars is to win, not to achieve some arbitrary goal like being 10 seconds faster than a GP2 car. If you feel like you can win by spending $1.8m, then go for it... Here's a hint though - you can't.

You can bet all the money in the world no amount of development time will gain 5 seconds with current regs.

Your bet is almost certainly wrong. Engineers from the team repeatedly state that they expect to gain around 2.5 seconds this year alone, and about 2 seconds next year.

[PlatinumZealot]

The weight is the real enemy here not the concept.We just have to hope that battery technology advances to give smaller. lighter, cooler batteries/super capacitors.

The enemy of performance right now is absolutely the concept. For one thing, the battery only weighs between 20 and 25 kilograms (5.4.3).

Only?!! Only 25kg? That is a massive amount. Have you seen those cables they use? The huge radiators... The many high pressure hoses... The PU is almost making up that entire 80kg or more of the extra weight, not even half of the teams can meet the 690kg. Back in 2009 we say how heavy cars were affected by 80kg of fuel much less... I mean SECONDS off the pace of the lighter front runners.. So I think it is mighty impressive that without, blown diffusers, wide bendy wings, bridgestones and what not, that the cars are only 3 to 5 seconds off the pace of yesteryear cars. I think Realistically with lighter, better ERS's and a raise in fuel flow these cars are a good foundation for the future. The hybrid concept again, I is the way forward even though it is a bitter medicine.

[bhall]

The point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars is to win, not to achieve some arbitrary goal like being 10 seconds faster than a GP2 car. If you feel like you can win by spending $1.8m, then go for it... Here's a hint though - you can't.

I think that kinda misses the point, because the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars aren't necessarily doing it to win; they're doing because their corporate parents hope to realize a return on the investment, which has the knock-on effect of making things more expensive for everyone else.

It would be nice, I guess, if there was more to it than that. But, a company's sole duty is to increase shareholder value. Everything it does serves that goal, and that goal alone.

Consequently, I don't understand why F1 continually allows the rules to be dictated by teams whose objectives don't quite include serving the best interests of the sport. I guarantee the board of directors at Daimler AG couldn't possibly care less about the overall health of F1, because that's not their job. But, they sure were adamant in asserting that their marketing objectives were paramount when they insisted that Mercedes' participation in the sport was contingent upon the introduction of hybrid technology. Now, who benefits most from that arrangement?

(Hint: it's not F1.)

I guess I'd just rather the sport be directed by racers instead of marketers.

To each his own, though.

@ n smikle: you're right; I shouldn't have belittled the impact of the weight increase caused by the new regulations, as it is significant. But, I still think there's a bit more to F1's sluggish performance than that.

[Edax]

...

What's the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a car that's ultimately slower than what can be had for substantially less money in a lower series? If I'm the owner of Caterham or Marussia, I don't know how I could justify the expense, especially given the nature of rules that are ironically set in opposition to progress (homologation).

Well for one the Caterham will always beat the GP2 car, since the latter will run out of fuel at 60% of race distance.

But I think you're right F1 should become faster to retain its place as the ultimate racing series.

However I do like the current cars. I found it quite annoying how in the aero dominated cars an error went unpunished. That is no longer the case, make a mistake, and you lose serious time, or worse. Look at Maldonado today, last year he would just have ran over the astroturf, and actually set a decent time. Now he's facing the track in the wrong way. And rightfully so.

I absolutely love how the drivers are fighting the cars in the corners, looking for grip, looking for the right moment to drop the hammer. Accellerating out of the corners appears like a wild bull ride, thats how a proper F1 car should be.

It only should be a bit faster.

[johnsonwax]

...

What's the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a car that's ultimately slower than what can be had for substantially less money in a lower series?

Then why would MotoGP exist, if there's no capacity for those bikes to ever approach the speeds of even amateur auto series?

Mercedes doesn't particularly care if their car is faster than GP2 or ALMS. They have an ecosystem that allows them to invest in R&D that they hope will pass down to their products that will be paid for directly by sponsorship and purses, and indirectly by advertising for their own products. This is R&D that they'd never do otherwise, and it's R&D that they can't do in GP2, or in IRL, or in NASCAR that they want to do. If they didn't want to do it (and Renault) then they wouldn't have pushed for the reg changes, and Honda wouldn't be re-entering the sport.

It's why NASCAR has manufacturers investing in their series, even though they're slower than almost all other pro racing series. Everyone has their market, their advertising targets, where they want to invest, and they pick the series that best fits that approach. That we now have 3 street-legal cars that are not far removed from current F1 tech is probably a big clue that the current regs are beneficial to the manufacturers. So long as fans and advertisers don't abandon the sport, then it doesn't matter if it's faster or slower or cheaper or whatever.

[johnsonwax]

There's literally no breakthroughs possible anymore as we can see by the horrendously slow lap times.

Then why is Mercedes 1-2s faster than everyone else? Or is Hamilton suddenly a better driver than Michael ever was?

[Juzh]

There's literally no breakthroughs possible anymore as we can see by the horrendously slow lap times.

Then why is Mercedes 1-2s faster than everyone else? Or is Hamilton suddenly a better driver than Michael ever was?

Merc pace advantage has zero relevance here. They're still 5.3s off the ultimate pace.

[strad]

So? Why does that matter?

Now you're kidding or playing the troll.
Because I wouldn't want to build a AA/FD just to be blown away by a AA/AD.
BTW,,does Pinnacle of Motorsport ring a bell?

[beelsebob]

Now you're kidding or playing the troll.

No, I'm completely serious. What gets me off is exciting racing, not a car completing a lap half a second faster than anyone has done so before. A 1:25.2 looks to a TV viewer basically exactly the same as a 1:19.0. I couldn't care less which I watch. Instead, what I care about seeing is people fighting. We're seeing far more people fighting than we did in 2004-2008, so I'm good.

[Sevach]

Now you're kidding or playing the troll.

No, I'm completely serious. What gets me off is exciting racing, not a car completing a lap half a second faster than anyone has done so before. A 1:25.2 looks to a TV viewer basically exactly the same as a 1:19.0. I couldn't care less which I watch. Instead, what I care about seeing is people fighting. We're seeing far more people fighting than we did in 2004-2008, so I'm good.

Disagree on both counts, first i can clearly see the difference between a GP2 car going around the track to an new F1 to an old F1.

Second, F1 has always been about the fastest most exciting cars in the world and not good racing.
Occasionally it has good racing (i would argue you on whether the current race for 3rd has been good but that is besides the point), but it has never been a series with particularly good racing...
Every team aims to produce a car that can curb stomp the opposition, and that leads to a tiered "static" grid, not exactly good racing.


Right now one team is curb stomping the opposition, which is nothing new (though the margins are), the big change is that cars are the least exciting in relation to the tech available in the world that they've ever been...

[bhall]

[...]

Mercedes doesn't particularly care if their car is faster than GP2 or ALMS. They have an ecosystem that allows them to invest in R&D that they hope will pass down to their products that will be paid for directly by sponsorship and purses, and indirectly by advertising for their own products. This is R&D that they'd never do otherwise, and it's R&D that they can't do in GP2, or in IRL, or in NASCAR that they want to do. If they didn't want to do it (and Renault) then they wouldn't have pushed for the reg changes, and Honda wouldn't be re-entering the sport.

It's why NASCAR has manufacturers investing in their series, even though they're slower than almost all other pro racing series. Everyone has their market, their advertising targets, where they want to invest, and they pick the series that best fits that approach. That we now have 3 street-legal cars that are not far removed from current F1 tech is probably a big clue that the current regs are beneficial to the manufacturers. So long as fans and advertisers don't abandon the sport, then it doesn't matter if it's faster or slower or cheaper or whatever.

Don't succumb to the marketing hype. At least 99% of the technology employed in Formula One originated in road cars or has no relevance whatsoever to road cars. The engine manufacturers pushed for changes in the sport, because it's easier for them to draw a marketing line between their current products and V6T-hybrid PUs than it is do so with V8s or V10s. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But, let's be honest about it and call it what it is.

Formula One lost 10% of its viewership last year after the outcome of the Championship became obvious, which is why FOM thought it best to patronize the sport's fanbase with a farcical double-points scheme for the last race this year. I'll be interested to see what those numbers look like at the conclusion of this season, one in which the Championship was decided before the cars even took to the track in Australia, because the financial burden imposed by the sport's current business model - what you call R&D, and I call marketing - is such that most teams cannot afford to take the steps necessary to ensure any semblance of parity. Thus, development is frozen for the year, and Mercedes won the title when the PU it spent upwards of $400,000,000 to design was ensconced by homologation as the best in the sport by far.

And what do we, the fans, get out of it all? A "spectacle" that more closely resembles a feeder series than anything it's ever been before. I don't think it's very difficult to understand why some folks find the whole thing unpalatable.

(Holy ---, that sounds sooo bitter. )

[Vettel Maggot]

Now you're kidding or playing the troll.

No, I'm completely serious. What gets me off is exciting racing, not a car completing a lap half a second faster than anyone has done so before. A 1:25.2 looks to a TV viewer basically exactly the same as a 1:19.0. I couldn't care less which I watch. Instead, what I care about seeing is people fighting. We're seeing far more people fighting than we did in 2004-2008, so I'm good.

No. Just no.

Go look at some videos of the old V10s, they are visually faster. To use an old advertising slogan: F1. The Ultimate. Is it really the ultimate anymore? Probably not.

[strad]

I don't upvote just because I agree but if I did would give the last upvotes