Licensing F1 technology with fixed lead times

[Total-F1]

But that completely destroys all aspects of competition in F1.

"Never mind boys, we don't need any R&D, Ferrari's doing it all for us."

[Hugh Jarce]

Total-F1 - No, no, no. I think you're being too short sighted.

Do companies in other fields give up development work and rely on others. No! - because to be the 'leader' in a field you have to do this stuff. If you take the view to rely on others for development, by definition you will always be behind by a year or so (or more if you like)!

Many companies who now produce paracetamol gain directly from the investment of other companies who took the brunt of development. But it is those companies who took the initial hit that still remain out the front becuase of their on-going innovation. They may now be producing even more innovative pain-relievers!

As far as I can see, the way F1 is going, the rich will have the budgets to develop and the mid / lower teams will struggle more and more. So, in my view a license and share type system may help stop the gulf becomming painfully large.

[Glen]

Total - This is precisely the point - doh. It takes the incentive for extravagant multi-million dollar design away. F1 gets cheaper in a lasting way, we avoid losing more teams, we close the field up.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by Glen
It takes the incentive for extravagant multi-million dollar design away. F1 gets cheaper in a lasting way, we avoid losing more teams, we close the field up.

You speak about extravagant design as if it was a bad thing. This is what F1 is supposed to be about. If they aren't doing it in F1, where will they do it?

While this thread describes an interesting idea, I still believe that a "dumbing down" of F1 technology is not the answer - nor is forcing teams to share the fruits of their R&D . The answer is a more even distribution of wealth amongst the teams. I propose profit sharing - but with the smaller teams getting a bigger share than they currently do. And Bernie is a billionaire. No need for him to be siphoning any more money away from the teams that need it. I guess that is why I don't think that this Premier F1 thing is such a bad idea.

[Red]

Originally posted by ljakse
Generally, I like this idea, but who will set the prices?

The market of course. Why would Ferrari put a price that someone could actually afford? That's exactly my point: they wouldn't!!! However, after 1 year (and new further developments of their cars) they would not be reluctant to put a decent price on their previous car. That certainly solves the "on what basis should that fixed period be established" on more natural and reaqlistic basis than pick a random number of races. (I still don't like the idea of buying cars instead of actually building them. Actually if it were to me I'd force all of them to build engines too; maybe even the tyres )

Total-F1 - yes, yes, yes. And actually if I hear one more "we must aim to bring about races in which there is a lot of overtaking and yadda-yadda-yadda" coming from a team-principal (last one was Berger) I think I'm gonna puke. Not THAT is their aim. Or it shouldn't be. Actually they all say that they're trying hard to transform the sport into a show. And we like that. Sheese.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
You speak about extravagant design as if it was a bad thing. This is what F1 is supposed to be about. If they aren't doing it in F1, where will they do it?

Actually, as I've said many times before, the technology is very much integral to the appeal of F1 for me. The snag is that only the elite can afford it. Tough choice though it is, I'd far rather see Minardi, Arrows and Jordan able to compete than ever more extreme development of the cars. I see this as a much better compromise than many of the other suggestions that we have seen lately - such as banning of all electronics, which is very un-F1.

[ASCII Man]

Why is banning driver aids so "un-F1"?

And buying old F1 cars isn't something new to Formula 1, Red...
But i think you already knew that, huh?

But why isn't that a good way to go, cause it would certainly limit the huge costs and stuff...

[Glen]

Banning driver aids is not un-F1 per se - but going backwards with the designs certainly is. This kind of proposal (making the technology more open) means that we get to keep the advanced designs, but that the lead team will enjoy the benefit for a much shorter time.

[Hugh Jarce]

The only problem I see Red, is that to have a viable sport (not show - I agree) you need competitors.

But, at this rate, we will either be losing competitors who simply give up as a result of being constantly at the back with no hope of closing the gap or because the costs become too prohibitive.

F1 will be no sport with 4 teams - which is not beyond the realms of possibility.

The status quo just ain't an option - so, someone better think about somthing - and I think making technology more available to all, not just the rich, may have some merits.

Oh and by the way, regarding 'old technology' under license - who says anything about 'decent prices' - why not make the stuff genuinely affordable for Minardi and co?

[Hugh Jarce]

Originally posted by Glen
This kind of proposal (making the technology more open) means that we get to keep the advanced designs, but that the lead team will enjoy the benefit for a much shorter time.

Hurrah!

[Red]

Rijntjuh, I know that buying second-hand cars is not new to Formula 1. However that is not the *current* Formula 1. To better understand what I'm saying, try to solve that puzzle: what's the difference between Formula 1 and Formula 3000? They're both single seaters, open wheels, 3000 cmc engines.

Anyway, how would that close the gap is kinda mystery to me. I would agree that a F1-2000 would've been much better than a Jaguar R2 for example, but certailnly would be 2 seconds per lap slower to F-2002. It is NOT a good way to go.

Hugh, not quite hurrah.

Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
The only problem I see Red, is that to have a viable sport (not show - I agree) you need competitors.

But, at this rate, we will either be losing competitors who simply give up as a result of being constantly at the back with no hope of closing the gap or because the costs become too prohibitive.

You're absolutely right. Yes, you need competitors. However, every single artificial attempt to close the gap is abolutely unacceptable. Make the technology available - OK. 2 ways I see from this point:

a) for free, after a fixed time (as you proposed). Either that time would be too short, and in that case those who invest billions would not be happy to invest anymore just for an advantage that lasts a couple of races. That's the worst scenario, actually it's called communism. And doesn't work. Or, that time is long enough but in that case the measure has no effect whatsoever.

b) for money, as I said. Again, not practical at all, but at least is reasonable. The technology will cost dearly when new, or will become affordable when it's no more usefull. Either way, a potential development from other teams is not encouraged.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Red
[B... that time would be too short, and in that case those who invest billions would not be happy to invest anymore just for an advantage that lasts a couple of races. That's the worst scenario, actually it's called communism. And doesn't work. [/B]

Communism! Don't be daft. That they would no longer feel it worth while investing "billions" is part of the the point - if it takes "billions" to compete Minardi, Jordan and Arrows will be history - quite possible closely followed by several others.

Publishing car designs in detail would also cut out all the innuendo and sceptisism about teams cheating and the playing-field being not level. Another big problem in F1 today. Let them produce cars within the formula, and then make them publish the designs to prove that they conform. Excellence for engineering will still be rewarded, but an advantage due to subterfuge and extreme measures would not carry the same benefit as now.

[Red]

Well Glen, I imagined a capitalist way to do exactly the same. Both ways are, in my opinion, as useless.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by Glen
Publishing car designs in detail would also cut out all the innuendo and sceptisism about teams cheating and the playing-field being not level.

And also probably violate any number of patents. You cannot expect a team to invest millions into a technology, and then force them to make that public domain. What if there is a potential application to road cars down the line, and the parent company of the F1 team wants to patent it (whether it be IP or a device)?

Or do you think that patents rarely come out of F1 R&D?

[Hugh Jarce]

But, if such a system existed, patents or registered ideas would be applied for at the time of submission to the F1 'body' whoever that was.

So, I don't see any problem with this. Many companies patent possible ideas.

Anyway, as F1 stands with so much 'sharing' and 'watching' going on the teams must have to deal with this already.

Next please!

[Inigo Montoya]

And so you would register the patent at the time of submission, and then make the information public domain so that everyone can use it?

I'm no patent lawyer, but this would seem to me to defeat the purpose of the patent.... Regardless, this patent registering thing, from what I understand, is quite a lengthy procedure.

I suppose you could have everyone involved in F1 sign a non-disclosure agreement, though I still think that the legal implications are huge.

And, what do we do about the tyre manufacturers? Do they also have to share information on new compounds, manufacturing techniques, etc? This is stuff which is the bread & butter of their company - its all they do.

[avsfan733]

wats to stop me as head designer of team x from just claiming any possible design for anythiung ew and then no one can use it... imagine if someone had done that with the use of titanium for part a and b and c,d,e,f.....

[Glen]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
You cannot expect a team to invest millions into a technology, and then force them to make that public domain.

Am I going mad? Why do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over again? One of the benefits might be that the best funded teams would be dissuaded from making overly extravagant developments, thereby cutting F1 costs. Why is that so difficut to understand? You might not agree with it, but surely you must be able to see the point.

As far as patents and technology filtering-down to normal cars and more widely useful applications go - yes OBVIOUSLY I can see that this goes on and that F1 is a useful proving-ground for useful stuff. A simple solution would be to require any team to waive their rights under a specific patent for F1 only. Or to have a modest charge.

Although, like all things, this idea has some snags I still like it on balance. To repeat myself (apparenty I need to) it keeps technology in F1, but diminishes the benefits. It could drastically reduce costs and produce a more level field.

[Inigo Montoya]

Glen, may I humbly suggest you calm down a little bit? I think I am old enough to not have to hear someone patronize me with their "Don't make me tell you again!" daddy talk. And frankly, from a respected poster like you, its disappointing.

**I understand** that you think this might cut overall costs to all the teams. But this **will not** change the fact that YOU ARE FORCING THEM TO SHARE R&D that they potentially spent significant amounts (maybe less than before the introduction of your rules, but still probably significant) of money on. I do not think you would have an easy time convincing a team boss that this would benefit them.

Again (because you seem to need to be reassured that people listen to you), I understand that in the long term, it **might** benefit even the top teams, but good luck convincing them.

What about the tyre manufacturers? Anyone got any ideas what to do about them?

[Inigo Montoya]

Ooops, accidentally pressed quote rather than edit. Sorry for double post.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
Or do you think that patents rarely come out of F1 R&D?

Sorry matey - got annoyed because you started the patronising tone, so I thought I'd give it back to you double. If you don't do it again, I promise I won't. Deal?

[Tristan]

Back to the topic: it's arse. **** idea. Next!

[Glen]

Tristan

Perhaps you could suggest a better way to keep a high-tech F1 but reduce the total costs and help the lesser teams get on terms with the quicker ones?

Fans seem to want closer racing with overtaking. Never mind little details like cut refuelling or get rid of TC - the same basic differential between cars would remain with those kind of ideas. A Jordan can't overtake a McLaren because the McLaren is too much faster due to havng a much more finely honed and expensive design. The smaller teams need less emphasis on exotica and greater emphasis on pure racing (good management, solid engineering, proper set-up and quality driving).

[Inigo Montoya]

I think that perhaps you misinterpreted my original message. I was actually *genuinely* interested in knowing whether automobile patents come directly from F1 technology.

But I can see how you might have thought I was trying to be patronizing - I honestly wasn't! Anyways, glad to be back on friendly terms.

[Glen]

Never anything but Inigo - a little bit of to-and-fro never hurt anyone.