Cost-cutting/parity in F1

[ZXRobert]

Greetings, folks. I'm getting back into F1 after a few year's absence; wooden wear planks, grooved tyres, and the like had seemingly done me in.

So, I start following casually last year and I see some new rules regarding qualifying, engine longevity, and other parity-enhancing "ideas". There's some of the same ol', of course...people going bonkers over a trivial contrivance with a catchy name; keels, in this case.

Now there's the red-tyre rule; all I can say is, "wow".

The thing that really saddens me is that when I followed F1 in the golden age (for me, anyway) of turbos, it really came off as an engineering exercise first, and entertainment second. Whether it was pneumatic valve actuation, active suspension, or Barnard's torsion spring front suspension on the Ferrari 639/640 (yeah, I'm dating myself here), these were the things you remembered.

But somewhere along the line (around the time of Senna's death and the aforementioned wooden planks and tyre situation, I suspect), F1 truly became a circus.

Now, I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth a bit, here. Yes, I think cost-cutting is a good thing. Limits on exotic materials and sophisticated driver's aids could/should be kept to a minimum, in my opinion. Simple, cheap, and effective ideas like McLaren's 2nd brake pedal (MP4-17?) should be encouraged, not banned; not a huge fan of traction control, but if it requires a new skill set from the driver to operate it, I'm all for it.

Where do you think it will all end? What will F1 be in 5 or 10 years? There's a massive integrity hit taking place in the sport, and it is painful to watch.

[Glen]

I don't know how to explain that "integrity hit", because F1 is essentially the same. The turbo era did not have more racing or overtaking, despite the rose-tinted way some remember it. In many ways F1 was not as pure and good back then, because reliability was very much an issue, as was fuel consumption. Plus drivers were not nearly as fit and the basic method was not to drive flat out for every lap, which was considered impossible for both car and driver.

What it did have, as you say, is heaps of quite overt innovation, much of it pretty radical. But one thing that has changed profoundly is the profile and worth of F1 - which means that there is much more investment. Loads more. And that is an unstainable situation which must be addressed, especially if it means no more smaller/privateer teams.

Hopefully in 5-10 years we will be where we are now, but with some reduction in costs and therefore a healthy (big) grid. And by then folk will all be claiming it was much better in their day when Schumacher was ruling the roost!

[Marbot]

5-10 years,it'll be small,highly efficient 1 litre turbo engines,bio-fuels,ultra-trick regenerative systems.I can hardly wait.

I can still hear the dying screams of Ferrari V12's.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

5-10 years,it'll be small,highly efficient 1 litre turbo engines,bio-fuels,ultra-trick regenerative systems.I can hardly wait.

I can still hear the dying screams of Ferrari V12's.

They could have mandated 2L V12's instead of 2.4L V8's, a shame.

I hope in 5 years time we are back to some good racing, where cars can follow closely and don't get a guaranteed pass if they get within 3 car lengths of a car in front (ie less tow).

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by The Monster

They could have mandated 2L V12's instead of 2.4L V8's, a shame.

In the interests of cost cutting the 2.4 V8 was the logical choice.However the logical thing to do would have been to use restricted V10's (like STR) last season.So much for logic and cost cutting.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by ZXRobert

Where do you think it will all end? What will F1 be in 5 or 10 years?

- Grooved tyres
- Mandatory pit stop strategy
- Chassis freeze for at least one whole season
- Engines to last at least a third of the season, rev-limited to 15.000 rpm
- Less interest from media and audience.

The thing that really saddens me is that when I followed F1 in the golden age (for me, anyway) of turbos, it really came off as an engineering exercise first, and entertainment second.

That's so ironic. As 'entertainment' become more important, Formula 1 lost much of it.

Simple, cheap, and effective ideas like McLaren's 2nd brake pedal (MP4-17?) should be encouraged, not banned; not a huge fan of traction control, but if it requires a new skill set from the driver to operate it, I'm all for it.

I disagree. Technologies that reduce the rol of the driver, should be banned. I don't think these devices contribute anything good to the sport.

[Bononi]

Welcome ZXRobert !

Browse our forum and you find a thousand threads about how it, and it's been like this since this forum has begun. I guess the doomsday will eventually come.

[safc_fan89]

Cost-cutting...I don't see how it could possibly be done suiccessfully. How can the FIA monitor all spending by each team?

Regarding F1's future...I think it's best to see what these proposed changes in 2008/9 lead to, and take it from there. In a driver sense, F1 is in a very strong and promising position, but certain factors like Bernie Ecclestone, ticket prices, coverage, the difficulty to overtake, etc etc means it is not as popular as something dubbed as the 'pinnacle of motorsport' should be. I haven't been watching F1 for all that long (started in 1998), and even back in 2000 or so, the races were considerably more interesting.

My interest in the sport hasn't dropped at all since then however. I guess if you get hooked, you stay hooked.

I'd also like to see no driver aids, or fewer driving aids. Separate the men from the boys.

[ZXRobert]

It's tough to play both sides here; we want manufacturer participation, we want F1 to be the biggest event in the world, and that sort of accessibility sometimes means keeping costs out of the stratosphere. At the same time, we want it to be the pinnacle of engineering achievement. Damn.

It seems like you could have existing technology, but limit it so that any advances are made in terms of application, and not sophisticated materials. For instance, I'm a big fan of forced induction; I just appreciate the efficiency of it. Let any gains come from clever subtleties with intercooling, or ducting, or variable-vane geometry setups. That sort of thing is commonplace now, it wasn't back when turbos put you in the world of the haves/have nots.

A 1 litre turbo with a 15,000 rev limit? Eh, sounds pretty limp, but you might have some pretty good racing with drivers really having to watch their right foot when the turbo spools up and then having to get the power down with grooved tyres. And no traction control, of course.

Ah well. Looking forward to watching again, regardless.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

Cost-cutting...I don't see how it could possibly be done suiccessfully. How can the FIA monitor all spending by each team?

Regarding F1's future...I think it's best to see what these proposed changes in 2008/9 lead to, and take it from there. In a driver sense, F1 is in a very strong and promising position, but certain factors like Bernie Ecclestone, ticket prices, coverage, the difficulty to overtake, etc etc means it is not as popular as something dubbed as the 'pinnacle of motorsport' should be. I haven't been watching F1 for all that long (started in 1998), and even back in 2000 or so, the races were considerably more interesting.

I'd also like to see no driver aids, or fewer driving aids. Separate the men from the boys.

Good points all safc!

The only way to limit spending is by slapping drastic regs onto the teams and running it as more of a spec formula, but that would never happen, nor would we necessarily like it! However F3000 and GP2 runs to spec and look how competitive they turned out to be. F1 could be: run whatever chassis and engine you want as long as it's 3.0 litres or whatever limited to x bhp and x rpm and using this x limited dimension of front and rear wing.

Like you I think we should wait until the new regs in 08 or whenever they're due and evaluate then. However I still think a back to basics route should be introduced and then add bits and bobs from there. Some technology isn't avoidable - it's important and needed, but some of it is just OTT madness.

As you say the driver aids bit is unnecessary and no good for drivers or us! It can't be that hard to modify the cars to run manual gearboxes surely!!

[safc_fan89]

If changes were to make F1 a spec series, then it would lose a lot of fans. It needs to be entertaining, but more advanced than any of its feeder series'. How about ban driver aids and allow innovation? If the FIA were to take a long, hard look at the sport, they would see what is wrong. it's meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport, so how about letting that happen?

I also don't see why F1 should have any relevance to normal road technology. F1 is a sport. Well, it's meant to be. Not a formula for testing possible innovation in road cars.