FIA Thread

[Just_a_fan]

That's the point. You are literally making it for me.

Setting a smaller Minimum spend ($50m maybe?) prevents the sand-bagging completely. If some teams do 'nothing', they can be removed from the following-years championship.

I fix companies for a living. I'm successful because I immediately slaughter all sacred-cows that hand-cuff options for improvement. These ego-centric, style requirements are the utter death of any business in a constantly evolving world.

Balance the human nature with performance based pay and incentives.

Balance the technology and spending by data sharing.

Improve the automotive industry through compounding R&D knowledge.

Organize and protect the database to build value in its contents, and sell at a market price.

We've been doing things the current way since 1950. It's obviously not leading to a great product (unless your driver lucks into an untouchable car).

For all of its engineering prowess, the FIA runs on pure politics, and we endure the idiocy that it produces. Mathematics removes the subjectiveness that currently sub-optimizes the sport, and that is a fact.

None of which applies to a sport where one of the central concepts is that teams build their own cars.

[Zynerji]

That's the point. You are literally making it for me.

Setting a smaller Minimum spend ($50m maybe?) prevents the sand-bagging completely. If some teams do 'nothing', they can be removed from the following-years championship.

I fix companies for a living. I'm successful because I immediately slaughter all sacred-cows that hand-cuff options for improvement. These ego-centric, style requirements are the utter death of any business in a constantly evolving world.

Balance the human nature with performance based pay and incentives.

Balance the technology and spending by data sharing.

Improve the automotive industry through compounding R&D knowledge.

Organize and protect the database to build value in its contents, and sell at a market price.

We've been doing things the current way since 1950. It's obviously not leading to a great product (unless your driver lucks into an untouchable car).

For all of its engineering prowess, the FIA runs on pure politics, and we endure the idiocy that it produces. Mathematics removes the subjectiveness that currently sub-optimizes the sport, and that is a fact.

None of which applies to a sport where one of the central concepts is that teams build their own cars.

Are you reading or skimming? In my system, they still build their own cars. The only difference is that all teams would draw from a single source of R&D data for their bespoke designs.

You are inventing issues in my proposal that simply do not exist.

[Just_a_fan]

That's the point. You are literally making it for me.

Setting a smaller Minimum spend ($50m maybe?) prevents the sand-bagging completely. If some teams do 'nothing', they can be removed from the following-years championship.

I fix companies for a living. I'm successful because I immediately slaughter all sacred-cows that hand-cuff options for improvement. These ego-centric, style requirements are the utter death of any business in a constantly evolving world.

Balance the human nature with performance based pay and incentives.

Balance the technology and spending by data sharing.

Improve the automotive industry through compounding R&D knowledge.

Organize and protect the database to build value in its contents, and sell at a market price.

We've been doing things the current way since 1950. It's obviously not leading to a great product (unless your driver lucks into an untouchable car).

For all of its engineering prowess, the FIA runs on pure politics, and we endure the idiocy that it produces. Mathematics removes the subjectiveness that currently sub-optimizes the sport, and that is a fact.

None of which applies to a sport where one of the central concepts is that teams build their own cars.

Are you reading or skimming? In my system, they still build their own cars. The only difference is that all teams would draw from a single source of R&D data for their bespoke designs.

You are inventing issues in my proposal that simply do not exist.

Still irrelevant. It's not how F1 is done.

[Zynerji]

None of which applies to a sport where one of the central concepts is that teams build their own cars.

Are you reading or skimming? In my system, they still build their own cars. The only difference is that all teams would draw from a single source of R&D data for their bespoke designs.

You are inventing issues in my proposal that simply do not exist.

Still irrelevant. It's not how F1 is done.

I know. That's why F1 is a never-ending cluster-fukk of nonsense and posing.

An actual race series based upon merit, effort and rule balance would be much better.

[Shakeman]

Earlier in the day I started to write a post explaining why Teams compete in F1 and why open sourcing designs is a complete nonstarter. I stopped after a couple of words because I knew it would fall on deaf ears and would be a waste of time. I was not wrong in my conclusion.

[Zynerji]

Double

[Zynerji]

Earlier in the day I started to write a post explaining why Teams compete in F1 and why open sourcing designs is a complete nonstarter. I stopped after a couple of words because I knew it would fall on deaf ears and would be a waste of time. I was not wrong in my conclusion.

Come on. Overwhelm us with your wisdom.

The real funny part is that I can easily have my mind changed, but suspending my personal experience and career as part of my critical thinking process is not something I'm willing to do.

PS F1 is already a De Facto open-source series. Team personnel changing teams and reverse engineering ALREADY SUPPLIES THIS DATA to each team.

Your argument is that the cost and black-art of that fact should be preserved. I propose that it is actually the root of all of F1s issues.

[diffuser]

Earlier in the day I started to write a post explaining why Teams compete in F1 and why open sourcing designs is a complete nonstarter. I stopped after a couple of words because I knew it would fall on deaf ears and would be a waste of time. I was not wrong in my conclusion.

Come on. Overwhelm us with your wisdom.

The real funny part is that I can easily have my mind changed, but suspending my personal experience and career as part of my critical thinking process is not something I'm willing to do.

PS F1 is already a De Facto open-source series. Team personnel changing teams and reverse engineering ALREADY SUPPLIES THIS DATA to each team.

Your argument is that the cost and black-art of that fact should be preserved. I propose that it is actually the root of all of F1s issues.

You lost me at "A team sharing data with 9 other teams STILL spends 200M, but receives 2B in data to improve next year's car. That means they can reduce the 200M down to 150M or even 100M."

I guess I have to beleive you that it's true. I find it hard to beleive that teams will not withhold data to win.

People are very predictable. If you reward them for 1 behaviour that's the behaviour you'll get. How do you reward teams more for winning and still keep them willing to share data. Knowledge is power and data. Guess you'd have to share data from the year previous to the last? For example in 2023 you'd share 2021's data?


Still don't know how you'd monitize that data. I would think that Wind tunnel data is only usefull for the item you have in the wind tunnel. Maybe CFD data would be more relevant but nobody is trying to go around a right angle corner at 150 KPH? So who would be interested?

I will confess that I'm not that knowledgable in the whole open source thing. All I see is linux, docker, kubernetes, terraform, ansible, etc that I don't think anybody makes money on directly. Those products get used to make money by repackaging it with something else or building on it with non open pieces. Like RED Hat support or "the cloud" in general. The cloud will use all those tools to automate building and tearing down resources in the cloud. Microsoft will package that stuff into thier own products that you pay for so you can uses that stuff to in you projects.

Although someone must have funded and is funding the development of those products.

[Zynerji]

Teams will spend on development to win, as it gives them a temporary advantage. It would take weeks to see something at an event, study it, and incorporate the concept into your design. It would just be a yearly tightening of the field as the designs converge instead of instant parts transfer. You would probably start with a "basic" engine design from Cosworth, and include the changes made by the teams in the chain from there.

Who would buy the data? Boeing and Lockheed would buy aero data, journos would buy cfd/cad data for technical content, consumers could buy merchandise as well as access to footage/media of the teams. And dont forget, the teams still keep their sponsors. The chain could even monetize licensing of the data-based technology to non-F1 OEM auto makers. This alone could drive the purse into multi-billions.

It would be open source (but Privately operated) as it would be an Ethereum-type (virtual machine) blockchain that the teams would tokenize the design of each part with its supporting data, mint it to the chain, and then submit it for scrutineering. Fans could then install a mining app on their phones/PCs that would mine the chain (virtual CPU) and can process CFD/FEA cases. Fans then earn merch tokens to get stuff like hats or event tickets for supporting the cycles.

Then it really becomes a user interface design that the teams can analyze, journos can self-pleasure over, and fans can plug into.

Someone will eventually harness the power of these chains for more than "coins". The true power is trusted compliance with full accounting and a virtual CPU. They could also run the spending budgets through there for FIA access.

The sport becomes cheaper, faster, and the competition loses its subjective influences. The purse gets bigger with the quality of content provided by the teams. Converged, thrilling races bring more sponsorship as viewership increases. More viewers means more blockchain miners.

As I say at work, if it's a full circle, it will roll downhill!

[Shakeman]

As I say at work, if it's a full circle, it will roll downhill!

<personal stuff removed>

...maybe think a bit more about why manufacturers want to be associated with F1 as either a works team or supply engines. F1 rules are written with just enough scope for teams to express their development and engineering prowess over other teams, this is why F1 is not a spec series, the FIA understand this. F1 is just as much about what goes on in the labs and garages as it is about racing on track, I'm surprised you hadn't noticed this while reading this forum!

No sportsperson or teams cares about the 'show'. No boxer walks out to the ring hoping he'll be in a 12 round slugfest, he wants it over in the first round. No tennis player walks out hoping for a 5 set thriller, they want the game dead in 3 sets at 6/0. Every F1 team starts the year hoping to lead the pack round by 2 seconds like Merc did at the beginning of the hybrid era. So the very idea that a team investing 200M in a winning car will have to open up their IP to the whole grid is an absurd notion. No team, and more importantly, no boardroom is going to sanction that. F1 would cease to exist as teams would simply join another racing series which did allow them to demonstrate their engineering prowess and retain their IP which they have invested heavily in. When Merc was leading and lapping the field and publicly saying they hoped others would catch up, privately they would've been thinking the diametric opposite as a multi-year winning streak would've done almost incalculable benefit to the Mercedes brand. This is why teams compete and are prepared to invest such huge sums.

There is a reason why the FIA came down heavily on photogrammetry and laser scanning plagiarism as a means of drastically reducing development costs because they understood this would drive the top teams out of the sport and F1 would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport, how could it be? There would be no reason to invest millions into the sport when a competitor can get close to your performance with a 100MP camera and a copy of Reality Capture. If you can understand this then surely you understand why your scheme is a non-starter?

[Just_a_fan]

[...]

This.

[KeiKo403]

As I say at work, if it's a full circle, it will roll downhill!

<personal stuff removed>

... maybe think a bit more about why manufacturers want to be associated with F1 as either a works team or supply engines. F1 rules are written with just enough scope for teams to express their development and engineering prowess over other teams, this is why F1 is not a spec series, the FIA understand this. F1 is just as much about what goes on in the labs and garages as it is about racing on track, I'm surprised you hadn't noticed this while reading this forum!

No sportsperson or teams cares about the 'show'. No boxer walks out to the ring hoping he'll be in a 12 round slugfest, he wants it over in the first round. No tennis player walks out hoping for a 5 set thriller, they want the game dead in 3 sets at 6/0. Every F1 team starts the year hoping to lead the pack round by 2 seconds like Merc did at the beginning of the hybrid era. So the very idea that a team investing 200M in a winning car will have to open up their IP to the whole grid is an absurd notion. No team, and more importantly, no boardroom is going to sanction that. F1 would cease to exist as teams would simply join another racing series which did allow them to demonstrate their engineering prowess and retain their IP which they have invested heavily in. When Merc was leading and lapping the field and publicly saying they hoped others would catch up, privately they would've been thinking the diametric opposite as a multi-year winning streak would've done almost incalculable benefit to the Mercedes brand. This is why teams compete and are prepared to invest such huge sums.

There is a reason why the FIA came down heavily on photogrammetry and laser scanning plagiarism as a means of drastically reducing development costs because they understood this would drive the top teams out of the sport and F1 would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport, how could it be? There would be no reason to invest millions into the sport when a competitor can get close to your performance with a 100MP camera and a copy of Reality Capture. If you can understand this then surely you understand why your scheme is a non-starter?

Another thought I had was even if Merc had access to Red Bull data and vice versa I still think there’d be a power struggle and teams would think “I can do that better, let’s throw money at it until we’re half a tenth faster” and so it continues until we’re back up to massive budgets.

[n_anirudh]

On the topic of awarding fastest laps, seeing G Russel who was out of contention of the race (Singapore GP 2022) compete for it is a bit ridiculous and almost bad sportsmanship. (Nothing personal against him or his team, but it could just as well be applicable to any other team. It is within the current rules and is not illegal). It seemed he was there just to take off points from Perez or Leclerc, which seemed like a sore loser.

Its a mockery of the rules IMO, and if a driver outside of the top 10 has the FL, the fastest of the points finishers should be awarded the point.

I hope FIA considers this for 2023

[Big Tea]

On the topic of awarding fastest laps, seeing G Russel who was out of contention of the race (Singapore GP 2022) compete for it is a bit ridiculous and almost bad sportsmanship. (Nothing personal against him or his team, but it could just as well be applicable to any other team. It is within the current rules and is not illegal). It seemed he was there just to take off points from Perez or Leclerc, which seemed like a sore loser.

Its a mockery of the rules IMO, and if a driver outside of the top 10 has the FL, the fastest of the points finishers should be awarded the point.

I hope FIA considers this for 2023

Not really as Sergio is the driver directly ahead of Russell and it was worth 2 points to him if Sergio did not get it.

[Jolle]

Teams will spend on development to win, as it gives them a temporary advantage. It would take weeks to see something at an event, study it, and incorporate the concept into your design. It would just be a yearly tightening of the field as the designs converge instead of instant parts transfer. You would probably start with a "basic" engine design from Cosworth, and include the changes made by the teams in the chain from there.

Who would buy the data? Boeing and Lockheed would buy aero data, journos would buy cfd/cad data for technical content, consumers could buy merchandise as well as access to footage/media of the teams. And dont forget, the teams still keep their sponsors. The chain could even monetize licensing of the data-based technology to non-F1 OEM auto makers. This alone could drive the purse into multi-billions.

It would be open source (but Privately operated) as it would be an Ethereum-type (virtual machine) blockchain that the teams would tokenize the design of each part with its supporting data, mint it to the chain, and then submit it for scrutineering. Fans could then install a mining app on their phones/PCs that would mine the chain (virtual CPU) and can process CFD/FEA cases. Fans then earn merch tokens to get stuff like hats or event tickets for supporting the cycles.

Then it really becomes a user interface design that the teams can analyze, journos can self-pleasure over, and fans can plug into.

Someone will eventually harness the power of these chains for more than "coins". The true power is trusted compliance with full accounting and a virtual CPU. They could also run the spending budgets through there for FIA access.

The sport becomes cheaper, faster, and the competition loses its subjective influences. The purse gets bigger with the quality of content provided by the teams. Converged, thrilling races bring more sponsorship as viewership increases. More viewers means more blockchain miners.

As I say at work, if it's a full circle, it will roll downhill!

100 % sure that Renault, Daimler, VW and Ferrari plus partners like INEOS, DuPont, AP, etc would leave as there IP’s (and investments) would be shared to their direct competitors inside and outside F1.