Max's letter to the teams on the engine tender.

[chrisp2006]

Im sure you could watch a track day instead

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In 1941 Chrysler was the first manufacture to use a semi-automatic gearbox. Porsche was the first manufacture to use a semi-automatic gearbox for racing in the Group C in 1987. But ironically, when Porsche was the first to use a semi-automatic gearbox in racing the technology was already out-dated: in the 1960's DAF already used CVT technology in a Formula 3-car.

CVT has applications for some road cars, but not for all - and "the show" would be harmed. Whilst some may deride the need for F1 to be entertaining to watch from a non-technical standpoint, it is important to have high TV ratings in order to bring the sponsors in, to bring the funding in.

Any way, this all isn't a valid argument against technology. A valid argument against is that Formula 1 should remain a drivers' championship in the first place. Another argument is safety.

The current technical demands of the motor industry are in fuel economy, basically. Performance isn't really the issue now.

For safety speeds should be kept at the current levels or possibly a bit slower.

As for the Driver's Championship, surely a set of rules that incentivises development for engines in areas other than power (fuel economy) would create engine development but not affect the Driver's Championship is an idea.

EDIT : Chrisp : Road relevant technologies have been part of motorsport. Turbo era in F1 coincided with the increase of turbochargers on road cars. If technologies used in F1 are being transferred to road cars it sits well in boardrooms. 2.4 litre naturally aspirated V8s (coincidentally one of the most expensive cockups ever) that only last two weekends are not that.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Surely that means that standard aerodynamics would be a good thing for cost and "the show" reasons, which is a concept that in other threads you didn't like? If, say, all the bodywork in front of the front axle and behind the rear axle was standard as well as the 2009 rules for rest of the car there would be less need for wind tunnels.

Standard components are against the spirit of Formula 1. The series should be a place for technical innovation. If a technology is found to be unsafe, taking too much of the driver or so much unrelevant that regulations is needed, the technology should be heavily restricted or banned.

The lack of road relevance can't be argument for standardization. For example, slicks are not road relevant but grooved all-weather tyres surely are. In this case the FIA should choose, according to your logic, between standard slicks or competing tyre manufactures producing grooved all-weather tyres.

Apart from that, I don't think a standardization will reduce costs. Teams would still use wind tunnels to design the bodywork between the axles and to make better use of the standard bodywork. About the money, a standardization could have quite an opposite effect. The harder it becomes to get a certain return on the investments, to money teams will have to invest to get the wished return.

Agreed, depending on implementation. Any engine formula should create a fuel economy war not a power war.

Fuel economy works on both sides. If an engine is made more fuel efficient the manufacture could decide to use a smaller amount of fuel for the same power, or to use the same amount of fuel for more power. The most effective and easiest way to make Formula 1 more fuel efficient is to leave the engine rules completely free, ban refuelling and introduce a fuel tank size limit and/or fuel flow limit.

Also, there would be a reduction in mechanical grip which could slow the cars a lot.

Pace is, to a certain level, a valid argument. But it shouldn't be the most deceicive one. I hope you agree.

But the time to start that is NOT during a recession.

Why not? Turbos came in and were banned in the middle of world wide recession. The electronic gizmos came in during the recession of the early 1990's.

As cost cuttings are an illusion, it's not about to reduce the costs but to enable manufactures to have technical justification for their presence in Formula 1. The only way to do that, is by allowing road relevant innovations for the future.

[Datsun]

Originally Posted by Marbot

What do you suggest they do...in the nicest possible way of course.

Engine rules: 2.0 liters, spec fuel, N/A, most else open
Transmission rules: zero electronics, gearchanges actuated by mechanical effort of the driver only, most else open

And let the chips fall where they may.

F1 has been being "de-F1'd" quite a LOT over the past decade. The world's premiere spec series has zero interest for me.


For making the cars RACEable, a lot of things they should have done a long time ago:
Two-element front and rear wings of limited chord and camber (must fit within a spec "box" of similar width to '08 wings, but much shallower and shorter chord).
No more flat-bottom, allow underbody venturis but with minimum height requirements to reduce ride-height and pitch sensitivity.

Basically, reduce the cars' dependency on wing downforce and replace it with underbody downforce. Now the faster following car can actually race with and even PASS the slower car, rather than waiting for the next pit stop or resorting to desperate moves that often result in carnage or (often unnecessary and arbitrarily draconian) penalties.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

The current technical demands of the motor industry are in fuel economy, basically. Performance isn't really the issue now.

I disagree. Both fuel economy and engine power are issues. Manufactures could easily produce cars with a fuel consumption of 1 litre fuel per 30/35 kilometres or even better. The reason why those cars are not on the market yet are because they lack power.

[chrisp2006]

Duketoaster - I see your point in terms of transferring know how e.t.c. The pursuit of knowledge is important but it should not be dictated in the direction that the politicians, executives, sponsors want to take it.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Standard components are against the spirit of Formula 1. The series should be a place for technical innovation. If a technology is found to be unsafe, taking too much of the driver or so much unrelevant that regulations is needed, the technology should be heavily restricted or banned.

Technical innovation is important in the right areas. However, road relevant development is what is needed : it's not a money sink unlike something like aero.

The lack of road relevance can't be argument for standardization. For example, slicks are not road relevant but grooved all-weather tyres surely are. In this case the FIA should choose, according to your logic, between standard slicks or competing tyre manufactures producing grooved all-weather tyres.

Grooved all-weather tyres could be interesting but for safety reasons I don't see it happening - we know what happened when we had a one set of tyres per race rule coupled with a tyre war : a near-crash due to it and a non-race. Current wet weather tyres would become slicks if ran in the dry and if they were as hard as current dry tyres they would be almost useless.

Control slicks are the best solution IMO.

Apart from that, I don't think a standardization will reduce costs. Teams would still use wind tunnels to design the bodywork between the axles and to make better use of the standard bodywork. About the money, a standardization could have quite an opposite effect. The harder it becomes to get a certain return on the investments, to money teams will have to invest to get the wished return.

That is one aspect, granted. I didn't exactly do much on the detail on what's allowed between the axles.

Fuel economy works on both sides. If an engine is made more fuel efficient the manufacture could decide to use a smaller amount of fuel for the same power, or to use the same amount of fuel for more power.

I forsee the trend being the same power level for less fuel, not same fuel for more power.

The most effective and easiest way to make Formula 1 more fuel efficient is to leave the engine rules completely free, ban refuelling and introduce a fuel tank size limit and/or fuel flow limit.

I prefer the inverse of it (limit power and incentivise fuel economy) due to the possible implications on the drivers title and entertainment (similar power outputs for the racing) coupled with a build cost price. However it's vaguely the direction F1 should be going in.

Pace is, to a certain level, a valid argument. But it shouldn't be the most deceicive one. I hope you agree.

If pace is significantly compromised it would be a bit less Formula One.

Why not? Turbos came in and were banned in the middle of world wide recession. The electronic gizmos came in during the recession of the early 1990's. As cost cuttings are an illusion, it's not about to reduce the costs but to enable manufactures to have technical justification for their presence in Formula 1. The only way to do that, is by allowing road relevant innovations for the future.

Cutting costs for the manufacturer teams can only be done to a limited extent but for independant teams it could increase the grid size a lot. Even so it will cost the manufacturers a lot of money to develop the new engines. What F1 needs now is short term survivalism.

I agree that F1 needs road relevant technology to keep the manufacturers in but it also needs independant teams as well as factory teams.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by wapomumalo

But I do not understand this:



What's up with the V10?

Mosley doesnt state V8 or V10 in his letter, it couldve simply been a typo.

Another Cossie 3.0 litres V10 engine with air restrictor ala Toro Rosso??

That engine can last a whole season...if air restricted to 16.000 rpm...but won't be competitive against current V8's...unless they let it breathe to 18.000 rpm's-800HP...It will last the mandated 4 races anyway.

With the way the engines have been designed, they wont simply last longer by dropping the revs. The duty cycle should increase, but not to the point where only running 15-16Krpms would get you an engine for all year. Next years engines need to have the pistons redesigned to last for 3 race weekends, and would still need that if the revs were further dropped to 18K or lower rpm.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Next years engines need to have the pistons redesigned to last for 3 race weekends, and would still need that if the revs were further dropped to 18K or lower rpm.

Honda have not yet built any '3 race' engines,which is why the team is to be sold minus powerplants.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Technical innovation is important in the right areas. However, road relevant development is what is needed : it's not a money sink unlike something like aero.

The focus should be on the right areas, I agree. But standardization simply is against the spirit of the series. I think it would be a better idea to heavily restrict the aerodynamics. Instead of having a wide front wing with a spec cental section, required minimum height for the engine cover and spec diameters for the side pods, why not to leaving this complex of rules and simply ban all aero parts that generate a negative lift. We could, as I would like to see, allow a rear wing existing of two elements and mandate low nose cones by making the reference plan to start in front of the front wheel axle.

Grooved all-weather tyres could be interesting but for safety reasons I don't see it happening - we know what happened when we had a one set of tyres per race rule coupled with a tyre war : a near-crash due to it and a non-race.

All-weather tyres do not imply a ban on tyre changes, although I don't see why the 2005 Unites State Grand Prix is a valid argument against such a rule. Even without a ban on tyre changes the Michelin-runners would had been unable to drive.

Current wet weather tyres would become slicks if ran in the dry and if they were as hard as current dry tyres they would be almost useless.

You can make the tyres as hard as you wish. Simply mandate a minimum amount of thread being grooved with a minimum depth, before and after use.

But apart from this all, my thougths about all-weather tyres was just to make my point about non-existing relation between standardization and (lack of) road relevance for some technologies. I do not support the introduction of all-weather tyres.

I forsee the trend being the same power level for less fuel, not same fuel for more power.

For the road relevance of technology it doesn't really matter. The current Formula 1 engines are still more fuel efficient than road car engines. All that fuel efficiency is used to get more power out of the same amount of fuel. But the engines are still more road relevant.

Keith Duckworth had a whole new set of rules in mind based on this principle. Instead of a fuel-economy race in which the amount of fuel is limited, he proposed fuel flow limit.

If pace is significantly compromised it would be a bit less Formula One.

I agree, but would it matter if Formula 1-cars would lap almost 10 seconds slower? In fact, I'd like to see the straight line speeds to be bit higher and the cornering speeds to be lower. That would require a bit more from the drivers' skills.

Even so it will cost the manufacturers a lot of money to develop the new engines. What F1 needs now is short term survivalism.

I think Formula 1 only a very little influence on its own survival. A slight cost reduction would make a manufacture to stay in Formula 1 if the company is about to go bankrupt. Nor it will influence the manufactures which will stay in Formula 1 whatever happens.

[Teretonga]

Pingguest: Grooved all-weather tyres could be interesting but for safety reasons I don't see it happening - we know what happened when we had a one set of tyres per race rule coupled with a tyre war : a near-crash due to it and a non-race. Current wet weather tyres would become slicks if ran in the dry and if they were as hard as current dry tyres they would be almost useless.

I don't agree with that assessment. It is perfectly within the ability of the tyr companies to produce an all weather tyre that will last the distance and be able yo withstand the rigours of racing in any F1 environment.

We used to have races done on one set of tyres back in the 60's 70's and 80's so why not now?

Its the choices the companies made regarding what they did and what they produced and made available that created the problem not a lack of ability or available technology.
with a single supplier there is no reason why a company, (any of them- Bridgestone, Goodyear, Dunlop, Cooper/Avon, BF Goodrich, Continental, Yokohama, Michelin, et al) cannot produce a standard range of tyres, treaded or slick, that would last 250 miles without falling apart.

[davyboy]

Looks like its going ahead and Renault are interested in signing up. It makes a lot of sense for them, if costs are significantly reduced, they could end up running the team as a profit centre through sponsorship revenue alone.

Standard engine go-ahead

[Adam43]

I see this as an admission of failure from Max. He couldn't get suitable cost cutting measures through.

[Glen]

I must say I have completely come-around on this topic - standard engines, and what the hell - transmission and brakes too. Make the Constructor's element chassis only, to include tub, bodywork, suspension, packaging etc.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I see this as an admission of failure from Max. He couldn't get suitable cost cutting measures through.

He was never gonna get them to agree cost cutting measures between themselves. Its a bit like asking a bunch of smokers to agree on methods to quit... and then having them collectively implement it. You'll probably manage to have them cut their smoking habit by one cigarette per week if you're lucky.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Glen

I must say I have completely come-around on this topic - standard engines, and what the hell - transmission and brakes too. Make the Constructor's element chassis only, to include tub, bodywork, suspension, packaging etc.

The problem however is that the chassis area, or more to the point its aero, is where the lion's share of team budget is spent. Expensive though it is, the current engine budget for each team is quite a bit less. They need standardized chassis too.

... in fact we're almost back to where I suggested we should go... give them GP2 cars and be done with it.

[Glen]

We will soon see what effect the reduction in downforce has on that equation - if you can make a relatively smaller difference with aero then costs might be able to be reduced in that department too. A fully spec series would not be interesting for me - there is a lot more to F1 than just driving.

[duke_toaster]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72413

Five teams interested in the Cosworth unit - including Renault?

This Cosworth idea actually could work!

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Glen

A fully spec series would not be interesting for me - there is a lot more to F1 than just driving.

To you yes... and to me too. But to the vast majority of the viewing public it makes no difference at all. Its like the tyre situation. A friend of mine who watches F1, but doesn't know enough about the technical aspects of it asked me once why tyres companies poured so much money into it. I told him that it represented good brand advertising. He said - first the F1 tyres have no bearing at all on road tyres and second, he didn't understand the relative differences between the different road tyre brands and generally bought the cheapest tyres the fitting centre had for his car.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Glen

A fully spec series would not be interesting for me - there is a lot more to F1 than just driving.

To you yes... and to me too. But to the vast majority of the viewing public it makes no difference at all. Its like the tyre situation. A friend of mine who watches F1, but doesn't know enough about the technical aspects of it asked me once why tyres companies poured so much money into it. I told him that it represented good brand advertising. He said - first the F1 tyres have no bearing at all on road tyres and second, he didn't understand the relative differences between the different road tyre brands and generally bought the cheapest tyres the fitting centre had for his car.

[Pingguest]

If the 'vast majority' really would like to see a spec series, why don't they watch IRL and any other spec series then?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If the 'vast majority' really would like to see a spec series, why don't they watch IRL and any other spec series then?

Because it isn't Formula One is it.And as much as 'we' might like to see as many variations on the internal combustion engine as possible,it's just not that interesting or relevant to enough people to warrant the cost.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Because it isn't Formula One is it.And as much as 'we' might like to see as many variations on the internal combustion engine as possible,it's just not that interesting or relevant to enough people to warrant the cost.

So, Formula 1 is just a name? I say: we make a car beauty contest and name it Formula 1. Very cheap, very safe, very eco-friendly and, huh, well, named as Formula 1.

[Marbot]

Formula One (F1) is indeed just a name and that's why Bernie is so protective of it.

We should all watch MotoGP if it's variety and innovation that you want.

[the sniper]

Formula One is dying, all we can do is watch it fade away...