|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
30 Apr 2014, 13:31 (Ref:3400010) | #401 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,562
|
New proposal from the stratagy group to save costs. A meeting on Thursday will decide some of these?
2015 Tyre blaket ban Fuel system simplification Front wing simplification Brack duct simplification Increase in curfew Bring gearbox life inline with engines Ban interconnected front to rear suspension. 2016 Standard front impact structure Standard rear impact structure Standard steering rack Standard final drive system 2017 FIA controled active suspension Move to 18 inch wheels http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113705 Some of the above may not have any significant impact on costs and may initially increase them. The changes for 2017 would fall into this catagory. How big a cost reduction will come from these? Depends on the detail and how many loopholes are there to be exploited. I would question how much of a saving standard steering rack would have but they will dictate other things about front end layout. Question to the Mods should we change the name of this thread? |
|
|
30 Apr 2014, 19:36 (Ref:3400124) | #402 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,950
|
Quote:
Seriously, what do think is better? "Future Rule Changes"? |
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
30 Apr 2014, 19:50 (Ref:3400131) | #403 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,562
|
Quote:
|
||
|
30 Apr 2014, 19:57 (Ref:3400135) | #404 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,950
|
I'm on it, sir
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
30 Apr 2014, 20:02 (Ref:3400136) | #405 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,733
|
Quote:
To keep it semi-relevant what about, [Rules] 2014 Rule Changes and beyond..... ? |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
30 Apr 2014, 20:08 (Ref:3400138) | #406 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,562
|
||
|
30 Apr 2014, 23:51 (Ref:3400190) | #407 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
|||
|
1 May 2014, 04:59 (Ref:3400216) | #408 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
And still all over the noise apparently: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27898.html "The first meeting to discuss potential solutions was in Shanghai, and Italy's Autosprint reports that more meetings are taking place away from the paddock this week." |
||
|
1 May 2014, 07:21 (Ref:3400236) | #409 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,562
|
||
|
1 May 2014, 09:39 (Ref:3400278) | #410 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Yesterday Marussia sporting director Graeme Lowdon said that a further standardization is necessary, because fans are turning their back to the series due to the lack of competition among teams. The lack of competition is the consequence of financial inequality among teams, he said.
I could not disagree more. The standardization, homologation and equalization of Formula 1 caused boredom and forced the series to introduce artificial gimmicks, such as the drag reduction system and deliberately ill-functioning tires. All purity and sporting spectacle has been eliminated. That, Mr Lowdon, is reason why people turn their back to Formula 1. |
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
1 May 2014, 10:14 (Ref:3400285) | #411 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
There are many reasons, Lowdon's certainly seems to be one of the major ones. Cost to view (whether on TV or live) is going to be the biggest problem. And people won't be willing to spend if the race is a procession as some cars are clearly better than others (which is down to how much money you can spend). A spec series would equalise the cars and make the racing more interesting as it is in lower formulae. That said, I don't think they should do that. I think they should have a budget cap, the cars will be different, but closer. |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
1 May 2014, 10:19 (Ref:3400287) | #412 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
1 May 2014, 10:30 (Ref:3400290) | #413 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,562
|
I have noticed that spec class racing tends to be close but overtaking without power boost etc can be limited. This is because all the cars tend to have the same speeds in the same parts of the track.
However where you have open chassis rules you can get a different result. One car could have better traction than another or better under braking higher top speed etc. In these situations there should be greater potential for overtaking assuming the cars are similar on pace over a lap. I can give you an extreme example from historic racing a few years ago where there was a Sunbeam Tiger v's a Lotus Elan. You might say that these two cars should not be on the same lap but they actually were very closely matched when at a circuit where outright top speed was unimportant. I enjoyed many a battle between these two. |
|
|
1 May 2014, 15:26 (Ref:3400399) | #414 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
But the question is - are F3 races better for worse than F1 races? |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
1 May 2014, 16:14 (Ref:3400427) | #415 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
The rules should improve racing which should mean we could get rid of DRS.
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
1 May 2014, 17:04 (Ref:3400444) | #416 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
1 May 2014, 21:14 (Ref:3400529) | #417 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,095
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
|
1 May 2014, 21:36 (Ref:3400531) | #418 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,495
|
Quote:
I agree with comments written that a spec F1 is not the way to go because it eliminates creativity and engineering excellence, and doesn't reward pioneering new ideas. But all of those standardisation ideas, or what we have seen suggested so far will save less than $20 million across the whole field and what is needed is something to cap the spending of the most well funded teams who operate on a budget three to five times the backmarker teams. That whole spending ratio has only continued to get wider and wider over the last two decades. The six teams that represent the teams on the strategy group will always push for freedom of use for any technology hence the push for active suspension etc. they know they will be able to exploit it to their advantage. That will never change unless you bring in a balancing factor to at least level the financial field. At the ,moment the small teams get about 10-20 million and the very top teams $70-$100 million on the 'Concorde' payout. Make that more balanced and you would have an improvement in lower end competitiveness and reign in some of the more unnecessary spending at the top end. Create a cap (250 million?) but make it toward specific costs you can measure. Then make them responsible for breaking it by significantly fining them and give the proceeds to the poorer teams... They would moan like crazy but someone needs to be hard enough and tough enough to do it. |
||
|
1 May 2014, 22:19 (Ref:3400543) | #419 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,950
|
Closeness of the cars, or rather a lack of is not a problem as described above. Hasn't been for years as the grid is very compressed in terms of lap times. Especially compared to the good old days! Currently there is a team further ahead than normal, but that will settle down. The team themselves have said that others will catch up as they have more potential.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
2 May 2014, 02:27 (Ref:3400571) | #420 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Stricter rules lower the return on investments. As the return is fixed in Formula One, more investments are needed.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
2 May 2014, 09:52 (Ref:3400675) | #421 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,223
|
Quote:
Yeah - you're probably right. There was a suggestion of replacing it with a "push to pass" like in IndyCar - but I don't think it'll be powerful enough - what with the "dirty air problem" in F1. As for more standardisation - are they going to standardise the brakes? I suppose that could be a cost-cutting measure as well? |
||
|
15 May 2014, 19:06 (Ref:3406740) | #422 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,733
|
Quite an interesting article regarding rule changes and fan input.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113964 |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
15 May 2014, 21:09 (Ref:3406775) | #423 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,095
|
Quote:
I think one think that would be interesting to know (and likely would take some market research to answer) would be exactly who is the "fan" that they are trying to please. I can envision three basic types of fans... 1. Hardcore. They know the history, the specifications, etc. Likely most, but not all of us here on this forum might fit that category. 2. Average. They know the players, follow year to year, but some details just slip past them from season to season. 3. Casual. They watch or attend occasionally. Technical details may or may not be important to them. I have no idea what the percentage breakdown might be. I suspect that #2 and #3 hugely outweigh #1. Overlay the above with who is the most vocal and militant about how F1 is run day to day. I suspect it is mostly #1 that fits that category. If all of us in #1 was forced to have tape put on our mouths and our computer keyboards were taken away, I wonder what the state of F1 might be? Better, worse, or just different. I suspect the "optimal" answer (especially from a commercial perspective) would likely not make the hardcore fans happy. However... count me as an aspiring hard core fan. I would like to see the sport "done right" (whatever that is) even if it means the entire show ends up being a bit smaller and less flashy than it is today. Richard |
||
|
15 May 2014, 22:30 (Ref:3406793) | #424 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 437
|
I would add in a fourth group of "non-fans". F1 has a reputation (rightly or wrongly) of being a "boring sport" where cars spend most of the time following each other around. Of course we don't think that, but a lot of people do and have told me so. Adding in things like tyres that degrade quickly, DRS, KERS to improve the spectacle with lots of overtaking may draw in people who don't watch F1 because they think it's just a parade (which it could sometimes be in the past).
|
||
|
16 May 2014, 09:44 (Ref:3406888) | #425 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,878
|
Quote:
As my kids keep telling me, I am an odd breed, and I like to live my life by certain standards, one being that my word is my bond, etc. So, when Mr Ecclestone, who holds the rights to the TV broadcasts, gave an undertaking that live races (not recorded and/or just highlights) would always be made available on free terrestrial to audiences in the UK, I took him at his word. I have followed Formula 1 for nigh on 50 years, have travelled around the world to watch it in the flesh, and until two and half years ago, I had watched every Grand Prix on TV that I hadn't actually been present at. So, I would class myself as a hardcore fan, but I haven't watched a single race for those 2 1/2 years, and to be honest, I haven't missed it. Yes, you could say that I cut my nose off to spite my face, but I wasn't prepared to pay a large chunk of my money to my cable TV provider so that I could watch a few hours of sometimes processional races, especially knowing that that chunk of money was ending up in the pocket of the F1 circus who shouldn't need my money. Now, if I ,as a hardcore fan, am prepared to not bother to watch, how will those less enamoured with the "sport" react. I believe that I am right in saying that in the UK audience viewing figures have reduced since total free output was stopped (only about half the races are shown live for free, and it would not surprise me if even that stopped when the current contract ends), and this is the big cash-cow for the F1 circus. so if audiences keep shrinking, for whatever reason and artificial rules/regulations could be a major factor because the average man in the street can't understand or appreciate the reasoning behind them, then broadcasters will be less inclined to pay huge bucks to buy the rights to show the races. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |