planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:57 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
mikeyg123 wrote:
I don't mind the idea of removing blue flags but I don't think it's possible to do it while you have junior teams.

This. I don't like the current concept where backmarkers have to jump out of their way like a scalded cat and potentially ruin their own race but having customer teams is an obstacle to blue flags' removal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2104
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I don't mind the idea of removing blue flags but I don't think it's possible to do it while you have junior teams.

This. I don't like the current concept where backmarkers have to jump out of their way like a scalded cat and potentially ruin their own race but having customer teams is an obstacle to blue flags' removal.


We witnessed the outrage during last years Brazilian GP when a back marker impacted the race leader and that driver was un-lapping himself. Imagine the storm that'd occur if a B - team back marker was allowed to park himself in front of its A-Teams main competitor in that race with absolutely no compulsion for it to move out of the way, eventually costing that competitor any chance of challenging for victory, or worse still, taking that competitor out.

Maybe if the cars were smaller, maybe if they were less aero dependant, maybe if the tyres didn't disintegrate so quickly littering the track with marbles off the racing line & maybe if B teams didn't exist then yeah, it might be worth consideration, though personally I believe a car being lapped has no right getting in the way of the lead cars. It's not in the race for the lead so it should have as little impact on the result as possible.

As the sport stands now I feel that use of blue flags & the rules that go with them are as imperative as they've ever been

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Italy- 19) - 132 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 342 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15778
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2104
Location: Far side of Koozebane
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Italy- 19) - 132 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 342 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15778
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.


You could keep the 3 blue flags rule but the first blue flag should only be shown when the leader is in a position to go past. Rather than i think now it's up to 1.5 seconds which I find ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7632
mikeyg123 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.


You could keep the 3 blue flags rule but the first blue flag should only be shown when the leader is in a position to go past. Rather than i think now it's up to 1.5 seconds which I find ridiculous.

1.2 sec and it was Bottas that brought it up as it can't be the same for every track. In some track's it is not enough, he made a good point. But fell into deaf ears at the time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:17 pm
Posts: 282
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.
it woukd lead to more actual passing.

It will tighten up the field in some occasions.

It will stop ruining the best of the rest cars races.

If formula one was more exciting and less of a predictable spectacle where the car leading out of the first corner pretty much wins the race, with that lead car having no more challenges for the rest of the race, then the removal of blue flags wouldn't be a topic of discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2104
Location: Far side of Koozebane
mikeyg123 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.


You could keep the 3 blue flags rule but the first blue flag should only be shown when the leader is in a position to go past. Rather than i think now it's up to 1.5 seconds which I find ridiculous.


:thumbup: Gotya.

That's a fair call.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Italy- 19) - 132 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 342 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7794
Location: Belgium
I can only add one thing to Altair's post, which is that we now can monitor team radio, so any order to slow a leader down would be clear for all to hear. All manoeuvres by a backmarker that are not allowed by the rules, have to be reported to the stewards by the marshals anyway, so there is really no excuse to keep ruining the races of those at the rear of the field.
I'm not one who thinks the normal course of a race is boring, and I don't believe that overtake counts are any sign of the sport being healthy.

Also, if the leaders of a race really can't afford to lose a few tenths in getting past a backmarker who is simply running his own race, then the authorities should abolish the use of the Spectacle Car that takes away all of the leaders' previous hard work. They should also look at the rationale of wanting to remove stranded cars that aren't on the track anyway, and take a leaf out of MotoGP's book.

Enforcing the age-old rules correctly and consistently is nearly always better than introducing silly new ones to favour the big teams.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1921
Fiki wrote:
I can only add one thing to Altair's post, which is that we now can monitor team radio, so any order to slow a leader down would be clear for all to hear. All manoeuvres by a backmarker that are not allowed by the rules, have to be reported to the stewards by the marshals anyway, so there is really no excuse to keep ruining the races of those at the rear of the field.
I'm not one who thinks the normal course of a race is boring, and I don't believe that overtake counts are any sign of the sport being healthy.

Also, if the leaders of a race really can't afford to lose a few tenths in getting past a backmarker who is simply running his own race, then the authorities should abolish the use of the Spectacle Car that takes away all of the leaders' previous hard work. They should also look at the rationale of wanting to remove stranded cars that aren't on the track anyway, and take a leaf out of MotoGP's book.

Enforcing the age-old rules correctly and consistently is nearly always better than introducing silly new ones to favour the big teams.


Team radio did not stop Piquet Jr.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:33 am
Posts: 2938
mikeyg123 wrote:
I don't think Ferrari are an issue at this point. You draw up a set of rules and Ferrari can either play by them or go and do something else. I think what F1 is currently going through is worse than an F1 without Ferrari.


Completely agree. I can easily live with an F1 without Ferrari, if it comes to that. Anyway, there has probably been no bigger under-performer in the sport's history, than Ferrari over the last decade, given their enormous financial advantage from just turning up. Seems like such a wicked waste...$90M per year appearance money and zero championships to show for it. Does F1 need that? I think not.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition:
- 6 victories (Italy '19, Mexico '18, Singapore '18, USA '17, USA '16, Mexico '16),
- 6 podiums
- 2013 Rookie of the Year
- 2014 Championship 6th position
- 2016 Championship 9th position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Fiki wrote:
I can only add one thing to Altair's post, which is that we now can monitor team radio, so any order to slow a leader down would be clear for all to hear. All manoeuvres by a backmarker that are not allowed by the rules, have to be reported to the stewards by the marshals anyway, so there is really no excuse to keep ruining the races of those at the rear of the field.
I'm not one who thinks the normal course of a race is boring, and I don't believe that overtake counts are any sign of the sport being healthy.

Also, if the leaders of a race really can't afford to lose a few tenths in getting past a backmarker who is simply running his own race, then the authorities should abolish the use of the Spectacle Car that takes away all of the leaders' previous hard work. They should also look at the rationale of wanting to remove stranded cars that aren't on the track anyway, and take a leaf out of MotoGP's book.

Enforcing the age-old rules correctly and consistently is nearly always better than introducing silly new ones to favour the big teams.

TBH I think it would be fairly easy to develop coded messages to get around the message monitoring, or even have a prearranged strategy to block everyone bar your team mates. Even if I do disagree with the current blue flag rule!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7632
Rockie wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I can only add one thing to Altair's post, which is that we now can monitor team radio, so any order to slow a leader down would be clear for all to hear. All manoeuvres by a backmarker that are not allowed by the rules, have to be reported to the stewards by the marshals anyway, so there is really no excuse to keep ruining the races of those at the rear of the field.
I'm not one who thinks the normal course of a race is boring, and I don't believe that overtake counts are any sign of the sport being healthy.

Also, if the leaders of a race really can't afford to lose a few tenths in getting past a backmarker who is simply running his own race, then the authorities should abolish the use of the Spectacle Car that takes away all of the leaders' previous hard work. They should also look at the rationale of wanting to remove stranded cars that aren't on the track anyway, and take a leaf out of MotoGP's book.

Enforcing the age-old rules correctly and consistently is nearly always better than introducing silly new ones to favour the big teams.


Team radio did not stop Piquet Jr.


Jr. wasn't used to stop any leaders though. It was a premeditated act.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3551
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

Yeah I've put forward the idea on fixed engine pricing for customers previously so I'm onboard with that. Although I believe the main difference between works and customer teams these days is in the software rather than the hardware and I think that's far harder to police.

The above would still be a compromise, though, and won't address the lack of new engine suppliers while these PUs are around in the form they are


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7632
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Siao7 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

BIB: I would have agreed with you in the pre-hybrid era, when teams were free to source engines from anywhere. However, now with the hybrids that option has been effectively closed down so teams are hostage to the existing four manufacturers and in such a situation I don't think it's fait to give them an even bigger advantage than they already enjoy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7632
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

BIB: I would have agreed with you in the pre-hybrid era, when teams were free to source engines from anywhere. However, now with the hybrids that option has been effectively closed down so teams are hostage to the existing four manufacturers and in such a situation I don't think it's fait to give them an even bigger advantage than they already enjoy.


You are right, I did not think of that. Another reason to hate these new "road relevant" engines!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3551
Siao7 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

To be clear, the manufacturer would set their own bounding boxes, and these works be defined ahead of the next season before the chassis are homologated. This would still endless Mercedes or Ferrari to do sunbathing clever with packaging, but it would mean that their customers would be able to copy it as well. I'm thinking like the f-duct where none of the teams could copy McLaren's as effectively because McLaren's chassis was designed for it. Mercedes couldn't suddenly bolt on a clever turbo charger that would only work on their chassis because their customers chassis couldn't fit it in properly, or get airflow to it, or something.

I also believe that software should be standard across the manufacturers customer teams as well, this could be regulated by hash checks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:40 am
Posts: 170
They should offer more testing days for teams in the back of the championship. Last place teams get more testing days available. Second to last get some but not as many and so on.
Could help smaller teams bridge the gap to the larger teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1844
Vettel Fan wrote:
They should offer more testing days for teams in the back of the championship. Last place teams get more testing days available. Second to last get some but not as many and so on.
Could help smaller teams bridge the gap to the larger teams.


Small teams don't have the budget to run more tests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 5:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2104
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

BIB: I would have agreed with you in the pre-hybrid era, when teams were free to source engines from anywhere. However, now with the hybrids that option has been effectively closed down so teams are hostage to the existing four manufacturers and in such a situation I don't think it's fait to give them an even bigger advantage than they already enjoy.


You are right, I did not think of that. Another reason to hate these new "road relevant" engines!


Being "hostage" to 4 engine manufacturers in itself only a small part of issue. I think the larger issue is that 3 of those manufacturers also field teams in the series & have a HUGE say in the direction of the sport & it's at that point self interest collides with the betterment of the sport.

As for "road relevance", to me these engines are as far from being road relevant as any F1 engine has ever been. It's only really high end luxury & supercars that have variable engine modes like the F1 cars have &, speaking from a personal point of view, I can't wait for the day I & everyone else in my car have to perform a nose dive out of it for fear it might be "live" & we risk frying ourselves if any of us come in contact with the car & the ground at the same time.

Still, if that's the price we have to pay in the name of progress, then so be it. Population control in action right there people.

Speaking of variable engine modes, I just had a thought. We all know Merc have the famed "party mode" available for quali. Does anyone here know if that mode is also available on the RP & Williams cars? I've never heard either of those teams mention anything to do with a special quali mode.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Italy- 19) - 132 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 342 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 6:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Jezza13 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

BIB: I would have agreed with you in the pre-hybrid era, when teams were free to source engines from anywhere. However, now with the hybrids that option has been effectively closed down so teams are hostage to the existing four manufacturers and in such a situation I don't think it's fait to give them an even bigger advantage than they already enjoy.


You are right, I did not think of that. Another reason to hate these new "road relevant" engines!


Being "hostage" to 4 engine manufacturers in itself only a small part of issue. I think the larger issue is that 3 of those manufacturers also field teams in the series & have a HUGE say in the direction of the sport & it's at that point self interest collides with the betterment of the sport.

As for "road relevance", to me these engines are as far from being road relevant as any F1 engine has ever been. It's only really high end luxury & supercars that have variable engine modes like the F1 cars have &, speaking from a personal point of view, I can't wait for the day I & everyone else in my car have to perform a nose dive out of it for fear it might be "live" & we risk frying ourselves if any of us come in contact with the car & the ground at the same time.

Still, if that's the price we have to pay in the name of progress, then so be it. Population control in action right there people.

Speaking of variable engine modes, I just had a thought. We all know Merc have the famed "party mode" available for quali. Does anyone here know if that mode is also available on the RP & Williams cars? I've never heard either of those teams mention anything to do with a special quali mode.

Yes agree it's a combination of things. Claire Williams suggests the same in an answer to a question on Ferrari's veto:

Asked if she agreed with Ferrari's right to have a veto, Williams's deputy team principal said: "No, I think it's just silly, if I can be honest. I have a problem in our sport anyway in the fact I feel it's far too democratic. I've been quite open about that.
"I feel that F1 and the FIA should take more ownership in the regulations. We want it too much in a collegiate way, which is detrimental when we all have our own agendas.


As long as the turkeys vote for Christmas F1 will continue to deteriorate

Road relevance is just a hypocritical smokescreen that's possibly more appropriate to WEC or even DTM than it is to F1. These are single seaters and the only resemblance they have to road cars is that they have four wheels. But the aerodynamics, in particular the (front) wings, have no application on public roads and the money invested in that is enormous. Doesn't appear to be any push from the teams or the FIA to make that particular aspect more road relevant, which just goes to show how selectively dishonest the whole concept is. It's a fop to appease the engine manufacturer boards but there is no need for F1 to adopt this and sell its rights away like this.

Re: engine modes I could be wrong but it's my understanding that the manufacturers are not allowed to have unique modes for themselves. I think that the teams have to ask permission to use some of the higher modes (possibly in connection with warranty conditions?) but otherwise they should have them in qualifying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
...and following on from the above regarding road relevance there's this interesting little snippet from Aboutibel in the Monaco Press Conference:

In my opinion we need to look at the next couple of years to form an opinion regarding MGU-H road relevance, because it’s clearly a component that was introduced for that purpose. Right now, we don’t’ see any application on road cars but it may come.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/monaco-gp-thursday-press-conference-4394759/4394759/

So even the manufacturers, who insisted this needed to be here on the grounds of road relevance, can't find any road application for it! It's absolutely criminal that they've ruined F1 in the name of road relevance when they have no clue how relevant the technology they are developing is!

There are more quotes from other TPs in the same interview all saying more or less the same thing, that the current rules are too expensive and the tech needs to be dialed back a bit:

Andy Green:
I think what we have is potentially something where the technology bar of the power unit is just way too high and I think I would like to see something that is just slightly simpler

Zak Brown:
More power would be great. Less expensive would be outstanding. :lol:

and I don’t know that it’s achievable but if we could have some diversity in the engine itself and not be limited to a certain amount of cylinders, things of that nature, I think would maybe spice up the show

Claire Williams:
But from our perspective, as Zak says, something that is cost-efficient, environmentally appropriate and loud. Noisy would be nice


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am
Posts: 748
If there's a racing series that was set to be road relevant, it's endurance racing. It's the only one that saw technologies transfered to road cars (and vice-versa...), and even to F1 racing.
The road relevance of today's F1 is just hypocrisy to justify the ownership of teams and/or nutty investment in PU by road car brands. Nothing of the current F1 is road relevant, certainly not the over outrageous and priceless aero and the useless and over complicated PU technologies.
And no, not the tyres either...

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1671
A few simple rules set by the FIA should suffice. The FIA also have to make the final decision on what is meeting the rules.

eg.
All cars shall have a single flat single plane bottom surface extending to within 5cm of the outer limits of the car bodywork viewed in plan view.
Engines will be normally aspirated with a displacement volume of 5 litres.

Simple rules of that kind are possible and allow for some tweaking, but the performance limit is sort of self-regulating. It would mean there would only be wings to the width of the car's bodywork. The wings could be single element and single profile - or they could ban wings if they wished, as that would probably make the racing better.

They could make the rules to create the best race cars. It's pointless to develop race cars that are too fast for the circuits they race on - especially when we are going to be driving electric cars (or they will be driving us) in a few years.

In American football they could develop a ball that was higher performance, but they don't. They could develop golf equipment that can perform better but they don't. They can make tennis rackets with more strings to put more spin on the ball, but they don't.
Equipment of higher performance does not equate to a better sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 469
Altair wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.
it woukd lead to more actual passing.

It will tighten up the field in some occasions.

It will stop ruining the best of the rest cars races.

If formula one was more exciting and less of a predictable spectacle where the car leading out of the first corner pretty much wins the race, with that lead car having no more challenges for the rest of the race, then the removal of blue flags wouldn't be a topic of discussion.


Your conversation has reminded me that there are some people that are currently advocating no blue flags to spice up the racing. However would a lack of blue flags really spice up the racing? I'm unconvinced if F1 still exists in it's current format with 3 teams being well ahead of the rest on pace.

At the moment in the 2014+ era, when a Merc/Ferrari/Red Bull driver starts down the back due to engine penalties or crashing in qualifying, then when they put in a 'spectacular' recovery drive on Sunday to come through from the back of the field up to 6th place, all of the midfield drivers do not try and get in the lead cars way as it's not worth them wearing out their tyres trying to defend a much faster car when this can hurt their race against the other midfield drivers who they are truly battling with. This remember is when they are on the same lap and are allowed to fight for position in this moment; they still choose not to and while they don't exactly wave the lead drivers past in these instances, they don't really try to do anything defensive to keep the lead car from getting past.

Therefore how would this situation differ when the leaders are coming up later in the race to lap them? Instead of moving right out of the way now, they would instead just hold the leader up for a few corners before they get to the next overtaking spot and the lead car will sail through. They won't try to deliberately block the leader or do anything silly when they are a lap down if they aren't doing it when they are on the same lap now, because the same reasons still exist when being lapped, namely them not wanting to wear their tyres unecessarily when they are ultimately racing the other midfielders.

Ok, someone might say that if F1 also changed in various other ways so that the field spread was much closer, then the midfield would fight more for both position and when being lapped, but if in this hypothetical scenario the field spread was much closer, then the races would naturally be more entertaining by definition compared to now in any case, and so there would be no need to mess around with the current blue flags rule to spice up racing that wouldn't need spicing up, and there would be no need to add in an artificial 'no blue flags' factor to reduce the purity of the racing that would be good anyway with a naturally close field.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Luxury Tax
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6810
We've talked extensively over the years about cost-cutting here in the forum. Many of the more knowledgeable fans do not believe it's really feasible to actually limit spending as the larger corporations have many ways to hide their expenditures on F1. An idea came to me today that I think might possibly work. I live in the US and 2 of the the most popular sports leagues in this country have what are known as salary caps. In the NFL and the NBA, each team has a salary cap; meaning that their entire roster's salary for any given year cannot add up to more than a certain figure. This type of cap could be introduced in F1 as well.

Now here's the thing. There can be a hard cap or a soft cap. A hard cap means that you cannot spend more than the cap figure no matter what. A soft cap means that if you spend more than the cap figure, you have to pay what's known as a luxury tax. Basically, if the salary cap is $100 million and your payroll is $110 million, you have to pay luxury tax on $10 million. Usually the luxury tax is quite a high percentage. In the NBA, for example, it is currently 150% for the first $5 million all the way to $375% for every dollar over $20 million with continued escalation every $5 million after that of an additional 50%. In other words, it is prohibitively expensive to go too far into the luxury tax.

I think this kind of system would work wonders for F1 if you could implement it. Let's say you implement a cap of $250 million. Mercedes or Ferrari could spend more than that but let's say that for the first $50 million over that amount that they spend; they have to pay 50% luxury tax. So it would cost them $25 million. The next $50 million could be taxed at $100% and if they go over $350 million in budget for the year, you could jack up the rate to 150% or even 200%.

This would accomplish two things: 1. It would effectively deter teams from spending too much over the cap limit and 2. It would accumulate tax revenue from teams who want to win by throwing money around. The pool of money from the luxury tax could be distributed at the end of the year but only to teams that spent less than the cap and with a maximum distribution for any team of the cap number minus that team's budget for the year. This would be a way for lower budget teams to get some kind of pay out for competing with the big boys pound for pound. There are so many perks and payments for the biggest teams in the current revenue structure. Why not have just one that actually benefits the smaller teams? That's what you need if you're really serious about achieving a more close competition.

Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Luxury Tax
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15778
sandman1347 wrote:
We've talked extensively over the years about cost-cutting here in the forum. Many of the more knowledgeable fans do not believe it's really feasible to actually limit spending as the larger corporations have many ways to hide their expenditures on F1. An idea came to me today that I think might possibly work. I live in the US and 2 of the the most popular sports leagues in this country have what are known as salary caps. In the NFL and the NBA, each team has a salary cap; meaning that their entire roster's salary for any given year cannot add up to more than a certain figure. This type of cap could be introduced in F1 as well.

Now here's the thing. There can be a hard cap or a soft cap. A hard cap means that you cannot spend more than the cap figure no matter what. A soft cap means that if you spend more than the cap figure, you have to pay what's known as a luxury tax. Basically, if the salary cap is $100 million and your payroll is $110 million, you have to pay luxury tax on $10 million. Usually the luxury tax is quite a high percentage. In the NBA, for example, it is currently 150% for the first $5 million all the way to $375% for every dollar over $20 million with continued escalation every $5 million after that of an additional 50%. In other words, it is prohibitively expensive to go too far into the luxury tax.

I think this kind of system would work wonders for F1 if you could implement it. Let's say you implement a cap of $250 million. Mercedes or Ferrari could spend more than that but let's say that for the first $50 million over that amount that they spend; they have to pay 50% luxury tax. So it would cost them $25 million. The next $50 million could be taxed at $100% and if they go over $350 million in budget for the year, you could jack up the rate to 150% or even 200%.

This would accomplish two things: 1. It would effectively deter teams from spending too much over the cap limit and 2. It would accumulate tax revenue from teams who want to win by throwing money around. The pool of money from the luxury tax could be distributed at the end of the year but only to teams that spent less than the cap and with a maximum distribution for any team of the cap number minus that team's budget for the year. This would be a way for lower budget teams to get some kind of pay out for competing with the big boys pound for pound. There are so many perks and payments for the biggest teams in the current revenue structure. Why not have just one that actually benefits the smaller teams? That's what you need if you're really serious about achieving a more close competition.

Thoughts?


I wouldn't be against it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Luxury Tax
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 469
My thoughts are that if these large corporations are able to use certain tactics to hide their expenditure so as to seemingly come in under budget in a hard cap system, (whilst in reality spending way over budget), then wouldn't they be able to use these very same tactics to seemingly come in under budget in a soft cap system to avoid paying luxury tax, whilst still spending way over the cap in reality?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Luxury Tax
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1390
Seems reasonable. Sorta how tax works for normal people. If you earn more than a certain threshold you pay a higher percentage of tax on the money above that threshold. ...The problem being that once you get above a certain level that system breaks down because you can afford to pay someone to find loopholes that mean you pay f-all. I guess the F1 equivilent of that is a bit like the problem cited in the post above.
That said, if it could be enforced, and you could plough that extra money into things that help the heath of the sport overall then I'd be all for it.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Luxury Tax
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 11:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6810
F1 Racer wrote:
My thoughts are that if these large corporations are able to use certain tactics to hide their expenditure so as to seemingly come in under budget in a hard cap system, (whilst in reality spending way over budget), then wouldn't they be able to use these very same tactics to seemingly come in under budget in a soft cap system to avoid paying luxury tax, whilst still spending way over the cap in reality?

Policing it will be hard, I agree. That's the real challenge. I'm not sure how effectively one could do that. There would have to be an expanded level of auditing by the FIA or something. That's the biggest obstacle that they would need to navigate; finding a reliable way to track the teams' spending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32597
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.

Same here I'm a bit dumb founded, it's not fair for a back marker losing a few seconds because of a blue flag but it's perfectly fair for the leader to lose a few seconds instead, if you are a back marker then get out of the way.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32597
mikeyg123 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.


You could keep the 3 blue flags rule but the first blue flag should only be shown when the leader is in a position to go past. Rather than i think now it's up to 1.5 seconds which I find ridiculous.

It's 1.5 seconds because cars struggle to follow any closer than that so they take that into account.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32597
Altair wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would like the backmarkers to be able to take a more sensible approach to moving over. I think the lead cars should be bin a position to pass before the back markers have to yield rather than force them to lose seconds each lap coasting to let a car past that was over a second behind.


I'd imagine a drivers sensibility can disappear pretty quickly if their chances of career advancement or retaining the drive next year may be influenced by how they act when being lapped by a certain teams car.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting your post here mikey but I do find it odd you'd rather change a rule currently designed to prevent a leader being held up by a back marker, potentially for seconds thus having a major impact on the race results in favour of, well, as I read it, no rule, so a back marker who has no bearing on the race won't lose seconds coasting keeping out of the leaders way.
it woukd lead to more actual passing.

It will tighten up the field in some occasions.

It will stop ruining the best of the rest cars races.

If formula one was more exciting and less of a predictable spectacle where the car leading out of the first corner pretty much wins the race, with that lead car having no more challenges for the rest of the race, then the removal of blue flags wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

Well it certainly wasn't boring when Verstappen crashed into a backmarker (Ocon) in Brazil.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32597
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

BIB: I would have agreed with you in the pre-hybrid era, when teams were free to source engines from anywhere. However, now with the hybrids that option has been effectively closed down so teams are hostage to the existing four manufacturers and in such a situation I don't think it's fait to give them an even bigger advantage than they already enjoy.


You are right, I did not think of that. Another reason to hate these new "road relevant" engines!

Pre-hybrid there was only 4 engine manufacturers, one of those was Cosworth who only supplied Marussia, no one else wanted to use the Cosworth, this availability of engines didn't exist despite the simplicity of the engines and thus cheap to produce.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Luxury Tax
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 5:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6810
Edited


Last edited by sandman1347 on Tue May 28, 2019 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2104
Location: Far side of Koozebane
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am going to suggest something that I've said previously, but I'm convinced that this would help narrow the gap between the manufacturer teams and the rest of the playing field, and sort out the issues regarding the engines:

  • Engine Manufacturers can spend what they want developing the engines, but are only allowed to sell them at a fixed price, determined by the FIA. (this means that the engine is not swallowing up smaller teams budgets)
  • Engine suppliers must be prepared to supply at least 3 teams. (this means teams can never be left without a supply)
  • Engines are made in batch numbers, of the size of the number of teams they supply (so 3, if they supply three teams) - these are randomly assigned to the teams by the FIA. New Engine designs can only be released to teams at the same time (this means Mercedes and Ferrari can't give themselves better engines, or the upgrades early)

These are the salient points. I would also suggest that the engine manufacturers, as well as following the requirements of the FIA technical regulations, also define their own bounding boxes for their engine design, that the upgrades have to fit inside (this prevents Mercedes from designing an engine that would only work optimally in their own chassis)

If we were wanting to go super radical, I would also propose making the technical regulations split the KERS/ES from the ICE/HERS with a standard interface. This would mean that a team could buy the ICE/HERS from one supplier and the KERS/ES from another (or make their own KERS/ES)

I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

BIB: I would have agreed with you in the pre-hybrid era, when teams were free to source engines from anywhere. However, now with the hybrids that option has been effectively closed down so teams are hostage to the existing four manufacturers and in such a situation I don't think it's fait to give them an even bigger advantage than they already enjoy.


You are right, I did not think of that. Another reason to hate these new "road relevant" engines!

Pre-hybrid there was only 4 engine manufacturers, one of those was Cosworth who only supplied Marussia, no one else wanted to use the Cosworth, this availability of engines didn't exist despite the simplicity of the engines and thus cheap to produce.


Engine suppliers had been in decline for a good while before the introduction of the hybrids. Lets look at the engine suppliers from the turn of the millennium onward. All 3.0Lt V10 until 2014. When I say here man, I mean manufacturers, the guys that make cars. When I say priv, it's the private guys who only make engines (Cosworth, Illmore, Judd etc).

2000 11 teams - 11 suppliers (5 man, 6 priv)
2001: 11 teams - 10 suppliers (5 man, 5 priv)
2002: 11 teams - 9 suppliers (6 man, 3 priv)
2003: 10 teams - 9 suppliers (7 man, 2 priv)
2004: 10 teams - 9 suppliers (7 man, 2 priv)
2005: 10 teams - 8 suppliers (6 man, 2 priv)
2006: 11 teams - 7 suppliers (6 man, 1 priv)
2007: 11 teams - 6 suppliers (6 man)
2008: 11 teams - 6 suppliers (6 man)
2009: 10 teams - 5 suppliers (5 man)
2010: 12 teams - 4 suppliers ( 3 man, 1 priv. Lowest supplier participation in 30 years)
2011: 12 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2012: 12 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2013: 11 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2014: 11 teams - 3 suppliers ( man)

Then we have what we have now.

I suppose one theory could be that availability was there but possibly most decided to go with the manufacturer engines exactly because the V10's were cheap & simple to produce & they offered more bang for their buck than the ones supplied by the smaller, non manufacturer suppliers. I've no evidence for this. It's just a hunch.

When did discussions regarding the change of the engine formula start?

I've found this article dated June 2011 about delaying the introduction of the hybrids by a year to 2014. That means there were discussions about bringing them in at the start of 2013 which i'd guess would mean they were talking about the hybrids as early as Jan 2011 or even back into 2010 maybe?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/13878359

So another reason could be that the talk of introducing the hybrids might have dissuaded other potential suppliers from tooling up to supply V10's. Again, just a guess.

With the benefit of experience of 1/2 a decade of these engines, I thought it'd be quite interesting to highlight some of the more pertinent sections of the article.

"Then, the plan was to introduce in 2013 four-cylinder engines with a maximum rev limit of 12,000, fitted with extensive hybrid technology. But only Renault of F1's current engine manufacturers were fully behind the rules and a period of negotiations began.The switch to V6s was partly at the behest of Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders.
The sport's longest-serving and most powerful team had objected because the restriction had no relevance to any of their road cars."



"The debate was made more difficult because Renault made clear that it would consider quitting F1 unless the new rules were introduced - the French company is planning for three-quarters of its road-car engines to be small-capacity turbo-hybrids by 2015."

"The decision to limit the engine configuration to a V6 rather than stipulate a six-cylinder maximum and leave it up to individual manufacturers to decide the number of cylinders and layout, was made in a bid to keep costs under control and as a way to ensure engine performance remains as equal as possible."

I like this one.

"A series of checks and balances have been written into the regulations to keep costs down and to ensure it should be impossible for one manufacturer to steal a march on the others in terms of performance." :lol: :lol:

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Italy- 19) - 132 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 342 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7632
Jezza13 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I'm in two minds about this. I do like that a team and an engine manufacturer worked close to make an engine super tight in their chassis (like RB-Honda recently) for example, pure engineering and finding solutions. Engineer's wet dream! So the bounding boxes solution isn't really my favourite.

I do not find it is too bad that one team has some kind of advantage when they make their own engine; it is their own hard work that they are reaping the rewards from after all. But I wouldn't want them to give their customers de-tuned or any bad batch engines either.

The only thing that I can think that may be of unfair benefit is if RB goes to Ferrari or Merc (random examples) and tell them that they want to develop the engine for their car packed in a specific way, which then will give the Ferrari/Merc team ideas for their own car. That would gain them an unfair advantage. Can't see that happening of course nowadays

BIB: I would have agreed with you in the pre-hybrid era, when teams were free to source engines from anywhere. However, now with the hybrids that option has been effectively closed down so teams are hostage to the existing four manufacturers and in such a situation I don't think it's fait to give them an even bigger advantage than they already enjoy.


You are right, I did not think of that. Another reason to hate these new "road relevant" engines!

Pre-hybrid there was only 4 engine manufacturers, one of those was Cosworth who only supplied Marussia, no one else wanted to use the Cosworth, this availability of engines didn't exist despite the simplicity of the engines and thus cheap to produce.


Engine suppliers had been in decline for a good while before the introduction of the hybrids. Lets look at the engine suppliers from the turn of the millennium onward. All 3.0Lt V10 until 2014. When I say here man, I mean manufacturers, the guys that make cars. When I say priv, it's the private guys who only make engines (Cosworth, Illmore, Judd etc).

2000 11 teams - 11 suppliers (5 man, 6 priv)
2001: 11 teams - 10 suppliers (5 man, 5 priv)
2002: 11 teams - 9 suppliers (6 man, 3 priv)
2003: 10 teams - 9 suppliers (7 man, 2 priv)
2004: 10 teams - 9 suppliers (7 man, 2 priv)
2005: 10 teams - 8 suppliers (6 man, 2 priv)
2006: 11 teams - 7 suppliers (6 man, 1 priv)
2007: 11 teams - 6 suppliers (6 man)
2008: 11 teams - 6 suppliers (6 man)
2009: 10 teams - 5 suppliers (5 man)
2010: 12 teams - 4 suppliers ( 3 man, 1 priv. Lowest supplier participation in 30 years)
2011: 12 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2012: 12 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2013: 11 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2014: 11 teams - 3 suppliers ( man)

Then we have what we have now.

I suppose one theory could be that availability was there but possibly most decided to go with the manufacturer engines exactly because the V10's were cheap & simple to produce & they offered more bang for their buck than the ones supplied by the smaller, non manufacturer suppliers. I've no evidence for this. It's just a hunch.

When did discussions regarding the change of the engine formula start?

I've found this article dated June 2011 about delaying the introduction of the hybrids by a year to 2014. That means there were discussions about bringing them in at the start of 2013 which i'd guess would mean they were talking about the hybrids as early as Jan 2011 or even back into 2010 maybe?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/13878359

So another reason could be that the talk of introducing the hybrids might have dissuaded other potential suppliers from tooling up to supply V10's. Again, just a guess.

With the benefit of experience of 1/2 a decade of these engines, I thought it'd be quite interesting to highlight some of the more pertinent sections of the article.

"Then, the plan was to introduce in 2013 four-cylinder engines with a maximum rev limit of 12,000, fitted with extensive hybrid technology. But only Renault of F1's current engine manufacturers were fully behind the rules and a period of negotiations began.The switch to V6s was partly at the behest of Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders.
The sport's longest-serving and most powerful team had objected because the restriction had no relevance to any of their road cars."



"The debate was made more difficult because Renault made clear that it would consider quitting F1 unless the new rules were introduced - the French company is planning for three-quarters of its road-car engines to be small-capacity turbo-hybrids by 2015."

"The decision to limit the engine configuration to a V6 rather than stipulate a six-cylinder maximum and leave it up to individual manufacturers to decide the number of cylinders and layout, was made in a bid to keep costs under control and as a way to ensure engine performance remains as equal as possible."

I like this one.

"A series of checks and balances have been written into the regulations to keep costs down and to ensure it should be impossible for one manufacturer to steal a march on the others in terms of performance." :lol: :lol:

Good post. It is sad to see from the last bit that in essence the engines are what they are today so that the manufacturers can sell more cars... It is sad to say the least, racing should not be a selling platform for road cars. I mostly agree with Ferrari on this, I do not care if Renault does not produce many V8 road cars that can use relevant technology from these engines. This is racing and they should have engines tuned for that.

On the flip side, the most powerful engine ever used in F1 was a 4-straight turbocharged, so maybe Renault did have a point. Maybe small engines with huge turbo chargers are the solution since nowadays the turbo lag tends to be much smaller than back then. Damn, I can't make my mind up now!

Either way, I like the last bit as well. It can also be written as "A series of checks and balances have been written into the regulations to keep costs down and to ensure it should be impossible for the other manufacturers to catch the leaders in terms of performance"!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2104
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Siao7 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
[

Engine suppliers had been in decline for a good while before the introduction of the hybrids. Lets look at the engine suppliers from the turn of the millennium onward. All 3.0Lt V10 until 2014. When I say here man, I mean manufacturers, the guys that make cars. When I say priv, it's the private guys who only make engines (Cosworth, Illmore, Judd etc).

2000 11 teams - 11 suppliers (5 man, 6 priv)
2001: 11 teams - 10 suppliers (5 man, 5 priv)
2002: 11 teams - 9 suppliers (6 man, 3 priv)
2003: 10 teams - 9 suppliers (7 man, 2 priv)
2004: 10 teams - 9 suppliers (7 man, 2 priv)
2005: 10 teams - 8 suppliers (6 man, 2 priv)
2006: 11 teams - 7 suppliers (6 man, 1 priv)
2007: 11 teams - 6 suppliers (6 man)
2008: 11 teams - 6 suppliers (6 man)
2009: 10 teams - 5 suppliers (5 man)
2010: 12 teams - 4 suppliers ( 3 man, 1 priv. Lowest supplier participation in 30 years)
2011: 12 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2012: 12 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2013: 11 teams - 4 suppliers (3 man, 1 priv)
2014: 11 teams - 3 suppliers ( man)

Then we have what we have now.

I suppose one theory could be that availability was there but possibly most decided to go with the manufacturer engines exactly because the V10's were cheap & simple to produce & they offered more bang for their buck than the ones supplied by the smaller, non manufacturer suppliers. I've no evidence for this. It's just a hunch.

When did discussions regarding the change of the engine formula start?

I've found this article dated June 2011 about delaying the introduction of the hybrids by a year to 2014. That means there were discussions about bringing them in at the start of 2013 which i'd guess would mean they were talking about the hybrids as early as Jan 2011 or even back into 2010 maybe?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/13878359

So another reason could be that the talk of introducing the hybrids might have dissuaded other potential suppliers from tooling up to supply V10's. Again, just a guess.

With the benefit of experience of 1/2 a decade of these engines, I thought it'd be quite interesting to highlight some of the more pertinent sections of the article.

"Then, the plan was to introduce in 2013 four-cylinder engines with a maximum rev limit of 12,000, fitted with extensive hybrid technology. But only Renault of F1's current engine manufacturers were fully behind the rules and a period of negotiations began.The switch to V6s was partly at the behest of Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders.
The sport's longest-serving and most powerful team had objected because the restriction had no relevance to any of their road cars."



"The debate was made more difficult because Renault made clear that it would consider quitting F1 unless the new rules were introduced - the French company is planning for three-quarters of its road-car engines to be small-capacity turbo-hybrids by 2015."

"The decision to limit the engine configuration to a V6 rather than stipulate a six-cylinder maximum and leave it up to individual manufacturers to decide the number of cylinders and layout, was made in a bid to keep costs under control and as a way to ensure engine performance remains as equal as possible."

I like this one.

"A series of checks and balances have been written into the regulations to keep costs down and to ensure it should be impossible for one manufacturer to steal a march on the others in terms of performance." :lol: :lol:

Good post. It is sad to see from the last bit that in essence the engines are what they are today so that the manufacturers can sell more cars... It is sad to say the least, racing should not be a selling platform for road cars. I mostly agree with Ferrari on this, I do not care if Renault does not produce many V8 road cars that can use relevant technology from these engines. This is racing and they should have engines tuned for that.

On the flip side, the most powerful engine ever used in F1 was a 4-straight turbocharged, so maybe Renault did have a point. Maybe small engines with huge turbo chargers are the solution since nowadays the turbo lag tends to be much smaller than back then. Damn, I can't make my mind up now!

Either way, I like the last bit as well. It can also be written as "A series of checks and balances have been written into the regulations to keep costs down and to ensure it should be impossible for the other manufacturers to catch the leaders in terms of performance"!!!


For right or wrong, motor racing has always been a platform for manufacturers to showcase their products, hence the adage " win on Sunday, sell on Monday".

The issue I have is that there is no relevance between F1 cars & our everyday drives. As someone said earlier, if they want road relevance, look at WEC or the various domestic racing categories.

Also look at who the 4 engine suppliers are.

You've got Ferrari who make high performance & super cars pretty much only available to people in top end management positions, retired divorced guys with bad hair weaves dressed in white shoes & slacks with a sweater draped over his shoulders & 20 something children of drug barons.

You got Mercedes who make mostly high end luxury sedans (saloons to you guys on the continent), pretty much out of the reach of or impractical for the normal suburban family.

Then you've got Renault & Honda who haven't covered themselves in glory during this hybrid era.

The 2 engine suppliers who've had the most success during this era are not the type of manufacturer you'd normally associate with the normal person in the street & the 2 that you'd perhaps be more likely to make that link with have struggled.

to me, maybe F1 should step away from it's road relevance philosophy & concentrate on being loud, fast & competitive.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Italy- 19) - 132 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 342 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], wire2004 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group