So, a return of active, sparks and vortices
Discussion
Can't believe theres been no mention of the proposals on here so far 
What do we think, i for one would welcome back the sparks regardless of how they achieve it although i did notice in China that the RBRs were sparking quite a lot from the front wings anyway, the vortices i haven't really noticed had disapeared, hell bring them back too!
What do we think, i for one would welcome back the sparks regardless of how they achieve it although i did notice in China that the RBRs were sparking quite a lot from the front wings anyway, the vortices i haven't really noticed had disapeared, hell bring them back too!
Inertiatic said:
Active Suspension? Why?
To cut costs, obviously... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113465...thegreenhell said:
To cut costs, obviously... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113465...
Obviously 
I think this is the basis of a good idea. The plank was a primitive idea when it was introduced, much better to have an FIA supplied suspension system that can be easily tested to make sure it cannot drop the car below 50mm at any point during the race, but also allow the smaller teams to optimise their diffuser airflow.
So sparks will not fly because it will be impossible to cheat while on track but pass a static test in the pits. The whole idea of bringing standard brake ducts etc. has merit, otherwise there will be very few teams able to be competitive in future years.
All we need now is to stop the top teams bringing new / different aero items to each race and maybe, just maybe, all teams might be able to finish on the same lap at each race. This can be done easily by just allowing say 3 iterations of a car with a 2-day test before the change. Seeing a compromised car between the extremes Monaco and Monza should improve the show also.
If the top teams refuse to allow a sensible cost cap then regulation is the only way to stop continuing RBR, or Mercedes, runaway championships.
So sparks will not fly because it will be impossible to cheat while on track but pass a static test in the pits. The whole idea of bringing standard brake ducts etc. has merit, otherwise there will be very few teams able to be competitive in future years.
All we need now is to stop the top teams bringing new / different aero items to each race and maybe, just maybe, all teams might be able to finish on the same lap at each race. This can be done easily by just allowing say 3 iterations of a car with a 2-day test before the change. Seeing a compromised car between the extremes Monaco and Monza should improve the show also.
If the top teams refuse to allow a sensible cost cap then regulation is the only way to stop continuing RBR, or Mercedes, runaway championships.
Careful you don't cut off your nose to spite your face there rdjohn.
If you restrict development, you also restrict the ability of slower teams to develop to catch up to the faster teams. Thus the status quo is maintained.
I'm sure there's no smoking gun regulation that will make it perfect. There will always be slow and fast teams, just like in a democracy there are people who are richer or have better jobs than you. A new F1 regulation just creates a variation of the hierarchy; the best you can hope for is a brief upset to create some excitement.
If you restrict development, you also restrict the ability of slower teams to develop to catch up to the faster teams. Thus the status quo is maintained.
I'm sure there's no smoking gun regulation that will make it perfect. There will always be slow and fast teams, just like in a democracy there are people who are richer or have better jobs than you. A new F1 regulation just creates a variation of the hierarchy; the best you can hope for is a brief upset to create some excitement.
2013 F1 Team Budgets
Team Budget
Ferrari £250 million
Red Bull £235.5 million
McLaren £160 million
Mercedes £160 million
Lotus £130 million
Force India £100 million
Williams £90 million
Sauber £90 million
Toro Rosso £70 million
Caterham £65 million
Marussia £51 million
Source Autosport
GP2 £3 million
Mercedes is probably more like Ferrari's spend as they also have their engine plant to finance.
We have now entered an era where an engine package is costing small teams about half their budget and the cost of actually going racing is pretty much the same for every team I.e. mega expensive
So inevitably this means that the biggest teams have many multiples of cash to spend on their chassis development than do the small teams. That is why 3 incremental steps might be worth a look at. It also might allow a medium team to optimize their car for a win at 1 race, or a small team to grab some points. There has to be some tangible reason to keep the likes of Tony Fernandes, or Vijay Mallya or even Carl Haas coming back for more financial punishment.
It is churlish to say that the small teams just have to find more cash; we have moved to a world where the Internet can provide large corporations with the global presence they required, so it probably is not going to happen.
Unless we want to end up with the big teams running customer cars, or 3 or 4 car teams then some means of leveling the playing field needs to be found urgently.
F1 is meant to be a sport - unless everyone is happy for the "who spends most wins" attitude, there is very little point for people to watch. It is because fans are turning away in droves and younger potential fans find F1 a turn-off that those at the top table (F1 Strategy Group) want to do something to spice up the show.
Urgent and fairly radical action is required.
I thought they'd done a lot to reduce costs in the last 4-5 years. For example reduced in-season testing and when they do, they all test at the same circuit. Engine caps (rather than 40-50 engines per year), gearbox caps, now gear ratio caps. Bans on expensive metals like beryllium alloys. Wind tunnel time is reduced. Fewer sets of tyres are shipped to every race. Rear wing end plate size increased for more sponsorship space (;)).
I agree fundamentally that it'd be better for all if it were cheaper but despite these changes which I thought must have been quite effective we're still having this discussion.
I agree fundamentally that it'd be better for all if it were cheaper but despite these changes which I thought must have been quite effective we're still having this discussion.
zac510 said:
I agree fundamentally that it'd be better for all if it were cheaper but despite these changes which I thought must have been quite effective we're still having this discussion.
All thanks to RBR and their take on the RRA. Saying that, FOTA was never going to have a long shelf life anyway.Chrisgr31 said:
course everytime they have sought to spice up the show it has failed to work. In my opinion Bahrain showed there was not much wrong with the rules and regulations, just that drivers have to be allowed to race!
But they can't race for fear of being punished by the comical FIA and their inability to punish drivers fairly. rdjohn said:
2013 F1 Team Budgets
Team Budget
Ferrari £250 million
Red Bull £235.5 million
McLaren £160 million
Mercedes £160 million
Lotus £130 million
Force India £100 million
Williams £90 million
Sauber £90 million
Toro Rosso £70 million
Caterham £65 million
Marussia £51 million
Source Autosport
GP2 £3 million
Mercedes is probably more like Ferrari's spend as they also have their engine plant to finance.
That Ferrari spend figure must piss them off seeing as they are being whooped by Merc. Team Budget
Ferrari £250 million
Red Bull £235.5 million
McLaren £160 million
Mercedes £160 million
Lotus £130 million
Force India £100 million
Williams £90 million
Sauber £90 million
Toro Rosso £70 million
Caterham £65 million
Marussia £51 million
Source Autosport
GP2 £3 million
Mercedes is probably more like Ferrari's spend as they also have their engine plant to finance.
thegreenhell said:
But where do you draw the line? Piece by piece you're just creating a spec-series.
Personally, I would draw a line at about £75 million to take two competitive cars to 20 GP's and still turn a profitThis was buried in the 20 years of Imola's handwringing.
It seems to be the outcome of the smaller team's threats to go to the EU for the totally unsporting structure of the F1 strategy group http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113705
Sparks and vortices I don't see a problem with, stick a couple of skid blocks underneath, seriously low cost.
Active suspension - Brundle spoke out against it, seemingly on the understanding that we were talking "full" active suspension as per '92/'93. Paddy Lowe has the opposite view, but then he designed/built the Williams system back then so knows how to make it work.
It seems a bit of a weird thing to suggest to be honest - FIA have spent years getting cornering speed down (reducing downforce year on year, ditching EBDs, etc) and now they are considering systems that basically make the car stick like s
t to a blanket ?
Then we'll be back in to the realms of the car being more capable than the tyres and we'll go through all the whining and crying about that..
IMHO leave the suspension alone, let them get the engines developed for a year or two and lets see what we have, the increased torque of the engines (vs the V8s) and reduced downforce has made the cars harder to drive, they can't just jump on the throttle on exit of a corner now as it'll go sideways - good stuff, if a/s means more grip that could be undone. Less grip than power is the way to go.
Regardless, these changes do not help the little guys at all, I think most teams would be opposed on cost and complexity grounds - the cars are currently difficult enough with all the ERS stuff now.
Active suspension - Brundle spoke out against it, seemingly on the understanding that we were talking "full" active suspension as per '92/'93. Paddy Lowe has the opposite view, but then he designed/built the Williams system back then so knows how to make it work.
It seems a bit of a weird thing to suggest to be honest - FIA have spent years getting cornering speed down (reducing downforce year on year, ditching EBDs, etc) and now they are considering systems that basically make the car stick like s
t to a blanket ?Then we'll be back in to the realms of the car being more capable than the tyres and we'll go through all the whining and crying about that..
IMHO leave the suspension alone, let them get the engines developed for a year or two and lets see what we have, the increased torque of the engines (vs the V8s) and reduced downforce has made the cars harder to drive, they can't just jump on the throttle on exit of a corner now as it'll go sideways - good stuff, if a/s means more grip that could be undone. Less grip than power is the way to go.
Regardless, these changes do not help the little guys at all, I think most teams would be opposed on cost and complexity grounds - the cars are currently difficult enough with all the ERS stuff now.
It's a quid pro quo. Give them active suspension, but take away a lot of aero. Active suspension is cheaper to develop than aero - all you need is the car and a laptop, rather than a wind tunnel. That does level the playing field quite a lot, with the added bonus that when aero is removed from the cars, they can follow each other more closely. That's better for racing.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff