2014 Formula 1 Thread
03-05-2014, 09:15 AM
#61
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
^Most of my friends who pay attention locally tend to agree with you.
However, I forgot to add my 2nd part to that:
1. Spending cap
2. Decreased technical regulation
That would give the smaller teams a chance to come up with something innovative instead of just having to spend $75 million a year in CFD and wind tunnel time with a 60% model.
I think it would be more interesting if there was a bit more competition at the front.
However, I forgot to add my 2nd part to that:
1. Spending cap
2. Decreased technical regulation
That would give the smaller teams a chance to come up with something innovative instead of just having to spend $75 million a year in CFD and wind tunnel time with a 60% model.
I think it would be more interesting if there was a bit more competition at the front.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2014, 11:47 AM
#63
Last year had considerable competition from 2-14 in positions. you can go back and look there is about 1.5s covering the majority of front runner and midfield guys during a large part of the year.
The problem with a sport like F1 is that the drivers (and cars) are the best of the best. The driver skill levels do not have as big of a gap, which means they make very few significant mistakes and are VERY consistent in their driving ability.
The cars tend to make up the difference and a part of that is luck. Its like a lottery, you win by luck, but you can "get" more luck by spending more money to get more chances at winning.
You will find that every now and then they will make an odd regulatory rule to avoid that (ex. first pirelli year, they required all cars to have a ~48/52 weight distro so that no team would get lucky and figure out the "magic number" for the tires), but its counter intuitive for 2 reasons:
1) making the cars the same is boring because they never pass or do anything exciting.
2) making the cars different is boring because one guy runs away with it.
Its balancing that fine line that's important, and I really don't think regulating the money is the right way. I think a possibly better way is to identify areas that teams spend significant amount of money on and make that available to all teams in equal amounts (ex. testing). I have no clue if that would work or not, but its a better idea.
Good luck convincing the teams to give up their wind tunnels though. They spent tons of money on that bit.
The problem with a sport like F1 is that the drivers (and cars) are the best of the best. The driver skill levels do not have as big of a gap, which means they make very few significant mistakes and are VERY consistent in their driving ability.
The cars tend to make up the difference and a part of that is luck. Its like a lottery, you win by luck, but you can "get" more luck by spending more money to get more chances at winning.
You will find that every now and then they will make an odd regulatory rule to avoid that (ex. first pirelli year, they required all cars to have a ~48/52 weight distro so that no team would get lucky and figure out the "magic number" for the tires), but its counter intuitive for 2 reasons:
1) making the cars the same is boring because they never pass or do anything exciting.
2) making the cars different is boring because one guy runs away with it.
Its balancing that fine line that's important, and I really don't think regulating the money is the right way. I think a possibly better way is to identify areas that teams spend significant amount of money on and make that available to all teams in equal amounts (ex. testing). I have no clue if that would work or not, but its a better idea.
Good luck convincing the teams to give up their wind tunnels though. They spent tons of money on that bit.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2014, 02:47 PM
#67
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Keep in mind I'm not saying cap the teams to $50-60 million a year like a Marussia. Something more like $250-275 million a year (rather than $400+ the top few have now). That, along with more freedom in the regs, is more than enough to maintain it's status as the top flight motorsports in the world. And this is from a few years ago:
Basically all that does is keep a few teams from winning by just outspending everyone. In the last 30 years, a "small" team has only taken the championship once (Brawn with the innovative double-diffuser) and they were still spawned from Honda's failed attempt at F1.
Other than that it's been:
Williams (And it's 15 years for them)
Ferrari
Benetton/Renault
McLaren
RBR
You have to go back to Piquet in '83 to find a different team who wins either the WDC or WCC.
Best designer + most money to spend on Aero development = championships. That's why since '92 Adrian Newey and Rory Byrne are responsible for 17 WDC.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2014, 03:48 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: ATL
Posts: 1,346
Total Cats: 128
Its balancing that fine line that's important, and I really don't think regulating the money is the right way. I think a possibly better way is to identify areas that teams spend significant amount of money on and make that available to all teams in equal amounts (ex. testing). I have no clue if that would work or not, but its a better idea.
Being creative with finding ways to "spread the wealth" (how 'bout a F1 "claiming rule"?) throughout the lower tier teams. That would tend to curb the enthusiasm of big-buck teams putting cutting edge technology into play.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2014, 03:58 PM
#69
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
The top teams were running an ENTIRE 2nd TEAM to carry out testing, and the small teams couldn't keep up. They've added some in-season testing this year, but forcing the small teams to test more doesn't help the spending amounts.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2014, 10:42 PM
#70
How so?
Keep in mind I'm not saying cap the teams to $50-60 million a year like a Marussia. Something more like $250-275 million a year (rather than $400+ the top few have now). That, along with more freedom in the regs, is more than enough to maintain it's status as the top flight motorsports in the world. And this is from a few years ago:
[YT]Ex5dhhpSHCw[YT]
Basically all that does is keep a few teams from winning by just outspending everyone. In the last 30 years, a "small" team has only taken the championship once (Brawn with the innovative double-diffuser) and they were still spawned from Honda's failed attempt at F1.
Other than that it's been:
Williams (And it's 15 years for them)
Ferrari
Benetton/Renault
McLaren
RBR
You have to go back to Piquet in '83 to find a different team who wins either the WDC or WCC.
Best designer + most money to spend on Aero development = championships. That's why since '92 Adrian Newey and Rory Byrne are responsible for 17 WDC.
Keep in mind I'm not saying cap the teams to $50-60 million a year like a Marussia. Something more like $250-275 million a year (rather than $400+ the top few have now). That, along with more freedom in the regs, is more than enough to maintain it's status as the top flight motorsports in the world. And this is from a few years ago:
[YT]Ex5dhhpSHCw[YT]
Basically all that does is keep a few teams from winning by just outspending everyone. In the last 30 years, a "small" team has only taken the championship once (Brawn with the innovative double-diffuser) and they were still spawned from Honda's failed attempt at F1.
Other than that it's been:
Williams (And it's 15 years for them)
Ferrari
Benetton/Renault
McLaren
RBR
You have to go back to Piquet in '83 to find a different team who wins either the WDC or WCC.
Best designer + most money to spend on Aero development = championships. That's why since '92 Adrian Newey and Rory Byrne are responsible for 17 WDC.
Its an innovations thing. Innovation involves trying many different things, which as an engineering practice tends to cost lots of money.
1) By limiting the money, each team has to pick and chose areas to spend money on.
2) backmarker teams are still unlikely to reach any reasonably high money cap, which means they won't be competitive anyway (if we use the money + aero rule).
3) There has to be a way to enforce and check a budget cap. What goes in a budget cap? wages? testing time? tires? spare parts? what about parts for both cars? etc.
4) what happens when a team is over budget? what happens when a team is overbudget for non performance reasons (ie balled up a car 3 times in a row).
5) what happens when I make a part and sell it?
6) What happens if I buy a part at discount prices?
7) safety items don't count in most racing budgets, but what exactly constitutes a safety item in an F1 car?
8) etc. I can come up with another rule book just dealing with budgetary items and I am not an accountant....
Its a complicated hairy beast and its not going to have the effect people expect (and will have effects that people didn't expect too).
F1 really just needs big rule changes (similar to this year) and a slight move away from aero as the dominant performance mod. by sealing engines (for example) you really only give teams one place to improve the car. Suspension and Chassis are generally very hashed out components at this time. F1 really started as a chassis engineering series, but there really isn't as much to innovate there (so there is very little if any time available). F1 could seriously make a shake up by going to older rules with multiple engine configurations (as a random example) etc.
Basically I am saying we need to allow teams more areas to gain performance rather than limit them to aero packages. That is it. There is aero mods, and then repackaging components to improve aero mods.
Reply
0
0
03-06-2014, 04:55 AM
#71
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cromwell CT
Posts: 1,146
Total Cats: 56
Pretty much anything they develop on another area of the car gets banned by FIA, Lotus had the passive ride height control under braking thing that the was declared legal by Charlie Whiting i think, and then declared illegal by the FIA.
Reply
0
0
03-06-2014, 07:50 AM
#72
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
quick warning...This is all purely opinionated with no real evidence to back any of it up. Just sharing my opinion and hope to hear what you all have to say, but have no intention of upsetting or offending anyone.
Get offended? This is the internet, if you get offended you should become an hero.
Its an innovations thing. Innovation involves trying many different things, which as an engineering practice tends to cost lots of money.
1) By limiting the money, each team has to pick and chose areas to spend money on.
(Part of the reason I like it.)
2) backmarker teams are still unlikely to reach any reasonably high money cap, which means they won't be competitive anyway (if we use the money + aero rule).
I'm not sure, there will still be sponsors for F1, if the backmarker teams could be more competitive, more fighting beyond the points, they would get more TV time and attract more monies.
3) There has to be a way to enforce and check a budget cap. What goes in a budget cap? wages? testing time? tires? spare parts? what about parts for both cars? etc.
Certainly. What the best way is? That I'm not sure.
4) what happens when a team is over budget? what happens when a team is overbudget for non performance reasons (ie balled up a car 3 times in a row).
Salary tax like in NBA? Just an idea. Typically, they produce 5-6 chassis at the beginning of the year and that lasts. Unless there is a particularly horrific crash, say Kubica Canada '07, the safety cell/tub are reusable after an impact. For instance, you can get around the engine/gearbox rule if you DNF a race. So sometimes, if one of the big teams has a driver outside the points, you'll see them bring them in with a few laps to go because of some unidentified problem. Bang no penalty for a new gearbox at the next race.
5) what happens when I make a part and sell it?
Shared technology? Or are you talking about things like McLaren ECU?
6) What happens if I buy a part at discount prices?
Then you win at negotiating.
7) safety items don't count in most racing budgets, but what exactly constitutes a safety item in an F1 car?
This isn't LeMons, Chump, or the GRM Challenge. The crash testing and everything else is part of fielding the car, I'd include it in the budget. Or else you'd have all kinds of trickery around forcing other parts to be parts of the impact structures, etc.
8) etc. I can come up with another rule book just dealing with budgetary items and I am not an accountant....
Easily.
Its a complicated hairy beast and its not going to have the effect people expect (and will have effects that people didn't expect too).
F1 really just needs big rule changes (similar to this year) and a slight move away from aero as the dominant performance mod. by sealing engines (for example) you really only give teams one place to improve the car. Suspension and Chassis are generally very hashed out components at this time. F1 really started as a chassis engineering series, but there really isn't as much to innovate there (so there is very little if any time available). F1 could seriously make a shake up by going to older rules with multiple engine configurations (as a random example) etc.
It needs big rule changes, followed by periods of rule stability. That's one of the funny hypocrisies of all this turbo/TERS/KERS stuff. They spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS developing the engines, the leases are now something like $30 million per year (a huge increase). The "sealed" engine thing is kind of a joke as well. They are allowed to change the engine for "reliability purposes" and those just so happen to bring performance increases.
That's why in the last few years you didn't hear about the Renault engines being underpowered by 30-35hp anymore and RBR really started dominating.
Basically I am saying we need to allow teams more areas to gain performance rather than limit them to aero packages. That is it. There is aero mods, and then repackaging components to improve aero mods.
I agree. But if you don't limit spending, but open up areas for development, the top few teams will only pull farther away from the mid-pack and back markers. Because they will have the money to spend developing everything vs picking what they want to work on.
Get offended? This is the internet, if you get offended you should become an hero.
Its an innovations thing. Innovation involves trying many different things, which as an engineering practice tends to cost lots of money.
1) By limiting the money, each team has to pick and chose areas to spend money on.
(Part of the reason I like it.)
2) backmarker teams are still unlikely to reach any reasonably high money cap, which means they won't be competitive anyway (if we use the money + aero rule).
I'm not sure, there will still be sponsors for F1, if the backmarker teams could be more competitive, more fighting beyond the points, they would get more TV time and attract more monies.
3) There has to be a way to enforce and check a budget cap. What goes in a budget cap? wages? testing time? tires? spare parts? what about parts for both cars? etc.
Certainly. What the best way is? That I'm not sure.
4) what happens when a team is over budget? what happens when a team is overbudget for non performance reasons (ie balled up a car 3 times in a row).
Salary tax like in NBA? Just an idea. Typically, they produce 5-6 chassis at the beginning of the year and that lasts. Unless there is a particularly horrific crash, say Kubica Canada '07, the safety cell/tub are reusable after an impact. For instance, you can get around the engine/gearbox rule if you DNF a race. So sometimes, if one of the big teams has a driver outside the points, you'll see them bring them in with a few laps to go because of some unidentified problem. Bang no penalty for a new gearbox at the next race.
5) what happens when I make a part and sell it?
Shared technology? Or are you talking about things like McLaren ECU?
6) What happens if I buy a part at discount prices?
Then you win at negotiating.
7) safety items don't count in most racing budgets, but what exactly constitutes a safety item in an F1 car?
This isn't LeMons, Chump, or the GRM Challenge. The crash testing and everything else is part of fielding the car, I'd include it in the budget. Or else you'd have all kinds of trickery around forcing other parts to be parts of the impact structures, etc.
8) etc. I can come up with another rule book just dealing with budgetary items and I am not an accountant....
Easily.
Its a complicated hairy beast and its not going to have the effect people expect (and will have effects that people didn't expect too).
F1 really just needs big rule changes (similar to this year) and a slight move away from aero as the dominant performance mod. by sealing engines (for example) you really only give teams one place to improve the car. Suspension and Chassis are generally very hashed out components at this time. F1 really started as a chassis engineering series, but there really isn't as much to innovate there (so there is very little if any time available). F1 could seriously make a shake up by going to older rules with multiple engine configurations (as a random example) etc.
It needs big rule changes, followed by periods of rule stability. That's one of the funny hypocrisies of all this turbo/TERS/KERS stuff. They spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS developing the engines, the leases are now something like $30 million per year (a huge increase). The "sealed" engine thing is kind of a joke as well. They are allowed to change the engine for "reliability purposes" and those just so happen to bring performance increases.
That's why in the last few years you didn't hear about the Renault engines being underpowered by 30-35hp anymore and RBR really started dominating.
Basically I am saying we need to allow teams more areas to gain performance rather than limit them to aero packages. That is it. There is aero mods, and then repackaging components to improve aero mods.
I agree. But if you don't limit spending, but open up areas for development, the top few teams will only pull farther away from the mid-pack and back markers. Because they will have the money to spend developing everything vs picking what they want to work on.
Reply
0
0
03-06-2014, 08:53 AM
#73
I think a lot of the budgetary things you say "ok" and "certainly" are the big stumbling blocks which will inherently splinter up teams as each one will have their own opinion. I just don't think you can impose budget caps on F1 and still keep the important players around. As much as I hate to say it, I don't think F1 would be F1 without McLaren and Ferrari and Williams duking it out in some fashion.
F1 has always been about engineering the absolute best machine possible, and financial caps just get in the way of that (so does regulating the **** out of every piece of the car, but that's another discussion).
F1 has always been about engineering the absolute best machine possible, and financial caps just get in the way of that (so does regulating the **** out of every piece of the car, but that's another discussion).
Reply
0
0
03-06-2014, 09:18 AM
#74
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
See and where I would disagree with you is that regulation/money are not separate conversations. They are deeply intertwined.
Either way, it will be interesting to see how next weekend plays out.
Either way, it will be interesting to see how next weekend plays out.
Reply
0
0
03-14-2014, 10:28 AM
#75
Red bull are posting some pretty quick times in the FPs so far. Its safe to say they are not too far behind pace wise.
1.29s in FP2. Merc on top, Ferrari not too far behind at all. No one had any major failures on track (Hamilton missed FP1 due to a safety sensor turning the engine off).
I would say we are in for a good weekend...unless Red Bull spoils it for everyone!
EDIT: here is some timing info. long runs listed too (may have NSFW ads, run adblock):
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...wis%20Hamilton
1.29s in FP2. Merc on top, Ferrari not too far behind at all. No one had any major failures on track (Hamilton missed FP1 due to a safety sensor turning the engine off).
I would say we are in for a good weekend...unless Red Bull spoils it for everyone!
EDIT: here is some timing info. long runs listed too (may have NSFW ads, run adblock):
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...wis%20Hamilton
Reply
0
0
03-14-2014, 12:09 PM
#78
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Torrents - I use a private site with no trackers. This is how I've watched F1 the last 3+ years, it also has a ton of other racing, DTM, BTCC, V8 Supercars, etc.
V8 Supercars - I just went ahead and paid the $39 for access to live Streams and all replays for all the sessions from their web site. The torrents are kind of PITA. You have to wait for it to be recorded, someone to code it, upload it, then you have to download it, then you can finally watch it.
Typically if a race is on at 6am (F1 for instance), it's not until 2-3pm that I can actually watch it.
V8 Supercars - The Official Website
V8 Supercars - I just went ahead and paid the $39 for access to live Streams and all replays for all the sessions from their web site. The torrents are kind of PITA. You have to wait for it to be recorded, someone to code it, upload it, then you have to download it, then you can finally watch it.
Typically if a race is on at 6am (F1 for instance), it's not until 2-3pm that I can actually watch it.
V8 Supercars - The Official Website
Reply
0
0
03-14-2014, 12:17 PM
#79
Racing4me is great for those who can't watch live.
I watched FP2 this morning and wasn't sure if my neighbour was mowing the lawn or I heard the new V6 at full speed finally. Such a big big disappointment. Cars look like ****, they sound like ****, RB aren't that slow after all (sandbagging much?) and the racing wont be that great either this season (again). Why am I still watching this?
I watched FP2 this morning and wasn't sure if my neighbour was mowing the lawn or I heard the new V6 at full speed finally. Such a big big disappointment. Cars look like ****, they sound like ****, RB aren't that slow after all (sandbagging much?) and the racing wont be that great either this season (again). Why am I still watching this?
Reply
0
0
