[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Is this the driving standard of modern F1 drivers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opzzn9sl1kU

Alexander Rossi at Circuit of the Americas in a Lotus 49.

Point and squirt and crunching the box!

I see your comments now.

Yes, a complete lack of finesse in a car that demands it.

The most important skill now is boldness from the driver to keep their foot down in a turn for the aero grip do its thing, and the finer skills of driving don't matter much now.

[Adam43]

He's probably driving it like the equivalent standing driver in the late '60s. Except they will have experience of similar cars. He's no Rindt.

Still, it ain't what it used to be. Probably shouldn't watch anymore.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I see your comments now.

Yes, a complete lack of finesse in a car that demands it.

The most important skill now is boldness from the driver to keep their foot down in a turn for the aero grip do its thing, and the finer skills of driving don't matter much now.

When I watch those at the top of their game, the Alonsos of the world, it is clear that there is so much more to it than that.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Another team boss has come out against the stupid double points rule this time its Vijay Mallya.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115373

The sooner this stupid rule goes the better.

Yes.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I see your comments now.

Yes, a complete lack of finesse in a car that demands it.

The most important skill now is boldness from the driver to keep their foot down in a turn for the aero grip do its thing, and the finer skills of driving don't matter much now.

I still appreciate aerodynamic grip. Not only does it add another variable, but it allows or even requires an aggressive driving style.

Despite the forgoing, downforce should be severely limited in absolute terms. This will both correct an imbalance and a step forward towards an efficiency-driven instead of a performance-driven Formula One, that allows for lower costs, improved cost-efficiency - a higher return of investments - and more relevance.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

He's probably driving it like the equivalent standing driver in the late '60s. Except they will have experience of similar cars. He's no Rindt.

Still, it ain't what it used to be. Probably shouldn't watch anymore.

Any driver from those days who drove it like that back then would qualify four seconds down. Maybe more. The key was they all had experience driving cars that weren't so stuck and had an excess of power over grip. The 49/DFV combo was just the extreme case.

It was an accumulation of things we lost that blew me out of fandom, but that was one of the early ones. The 1990's where when grip really overtook power.

Originally Posted by Adam43

When I watch those at the top of their game, the Alonsos of the world, it is clear that there is so much more to it than that.

Alonso is a special case. Schumi too. The braking characteristics change and Vettel struggles kind of demonstrates how the modern drivers are very much a product of the cars they drive. The seat-of-the-pants drivers do rally and don't achieve nearly the fame.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Any driver from those days who drove it like that back then would qualify four seconds down. Maybe more. The key was they all had experience driving cars that weren't so stuck and had an excess of power over grip. The 49/DFV combo was just the extreme case.

It was an accumulation of things we lost that blew me out of fandom, but that was one of the early ones. The 1990's where when grip really overtook power.


Alonso is a special case. Schumi too. The braking characteristics change and Vettel struggles kind of demonstrates how the modern drivers are very much a product of the cars they drive. The seat-of-the-pants drivers do rally and don't achieve nearly the fame.

What I could not believe was the total lack of feeling or any ability to adjust to what the car was doing!

I reckon your estimate of 4 seconds a lap is pretty generous Miatanut, put me down for about 14 seconds, and from a professional driver who is apparently deserving / in consideration for an F1 seat!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

What I could not believe was the total lack of feeling or any ability to adjust to what the car was doing!

I reckon your estimate of 4 seconds a lap is pretty generous Miatanut, put me down for about 14 seconds, and from a professional driver who is apparently deserving / in consideration for an F1 seat!

I agree. I bet if you put any top rally driver in that car, they would get it around several seconds faster.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I agree. I bet if you put any top rally driver in that car, they would get it around several seconds faster.

Good point Miatanut!

Seb Loeb

Such a pity they did not let him drive in that GP a few years ago!


P.S.

This was a really good point you made that I had never really considered!

"I don't understand any KERS system that stores more than the largest braking event. After you've accomplished that, the rest of it is wasted weight. I'm sure a simulation would show that even storing all of the largest braking event is too much. Optimum would probably be closer to storing all of an average baking event."

I had never considered KERS in these terms, would make much more sense in a racing car!

[wolfhound]

Max Mosley has been talking to Autosport about budget caps and he is convinced it is the only way to go for F1. Among the things he mentioned after the engine freeze on the V8's the teams/manufacturers spent millions getting a few extra HP from the airbox.
He also says there should be an equal distribution of money from Bernie.
I agree with him on having a budget cap is about the only way to control costs in F1.
Now whats the chance of those involved in F1 agreeing on anything?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115425

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Max Mosley has been talking to Autosport about budget caps and he is convinced it is the only way to go for F1. Among the things he mentioned after the engine freeze on the V8's the teams/manufacturers spent millions getting a few extra HP from the airbox.
He also says there should be an equal distribution of money from Bernie.
I agree with him on having a budget cap is about the only way to control costs in F1.
Now whats the chance of those involved in F1 agreeing on anything?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115425

This is just the same old from Max.

None of the manufacturers will stay in F1 with budget policing or different classes, they've said so, the rest are just rats and mice, nobody who counts cares about them!

We will see 3 car teams before you get budget restrictions.

[MagVanisher]

You know, cost capping would work if the cars have the same chassis tub with different aero kits... Oh wait, they're emulating Indycar!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Double points to be dropped in 2015?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115933

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Double points to be dropped in 2015?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115933

I hope so I will be glad to see the end of such a stupid rule that should never have been brought in in the first place.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I hope so I will be glad to see the end of such a stupid rule that should never have been brought in in the first place.

The FIA should just dump it now, I agree stupid idea..

[wolfhound]

I see where Lewis Hamilton says losing the title with double points would "suck"

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/29843868

You can't argue with that hopefully we will see no more of them after this season.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Max Mosley has been talking to Autosport about budget caps and he is convinced it is the only way to go for F1. Among the things he mentioned after the engine freeze on the V8's the teams/manufacturers spent millions getting a few extra HP from the airbox.
He also says there should be an equal distribution of money from Bernie.
I agree with him on having a budget cap is about the only way to control costs in F1.
Now whats the chance of those involved in F1 agreeing on anything?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115425

The FIA will have to force a budget cap....

[Pingguest]

I still think a budget cap is unenforceable. Under the regime of the resource restriction agreement is was constantly rumoured already that a number of teams breached it and finally the agreement was terminated.
For purpose of cost reduction a number of regulations should be repealed or altered. One could think of the ban on customer parts, including the chassis.

Currently, the focus is solely on cost reduction. But what about the teams' revenues? Despite - in my opinion: because of - artificial regulations to 'spice up' the racing, Formula One has lost a huge number of fans and, as a consequence, the ratings are declining steadily. The sport is in need of a proper fix.

[bella]

i refer you to my sudden moment of enlightenment in the caterham thread - i reckon capping won't work but...

Originally Posted by bella

i've just had a bit of a lightbulb moment.

people keep bringing up a cost cap. well, let's be real, the top teams are going to figure out a way of doing it so they can spend more than they're supposed to. it'll be like the reverse of the military purchasing price hikes. the top one or two have oodles of cash.

surely the way to do it is to do the exact opposite - impose a *minimum* spend, which represents all the commercial and tv money pooled and divided equally, plus a value of sponsorship money on top of that. the minimum spend represents a sum determined by boffins that a marussia/caterham sized team can run on. the extra amount on top of the commercial and tv money must be presented by november the previous season for use the next season, and must only be spent by the team. accounts proving that it has been spent by the team must be submitted at the end of each season - the onus is to prove the money has been spent on racing matters.

if you impose a minimum spend instead of a maximum one, you're ensuring the health of the teams at the back for at least a full season. i realise there's problems and downsides associated with that, but i think it would be a benefit to potential investors. instead of not knowing what you're getting into, you have a figure representing exactly what it costs to run a formula one car.

thoughts?

(quoting myself: the royal "we" of forum behaviour )

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bella

i refer you to my sudden moment of enlightenment in the caterham thread - i reckon capping won't work but...


(quoting myself: the royal "we" of forum behaviour )

I've never understood this argument.

Yes, it turns into a cat and mouse game. Just like with any rule in F1.

Still, it would take some work for the big teams to hide $50,000,000. A hole that size is one the sanctioning body could identify and close.

Yes, the big teams will always be able to run on real budgets that are larger than the official maximum because of their ability to hide money, but if the cap is set at a level most of the field can raise, the different budgets will still be a LOT closer than they are today.

But, I contend if you open the technical rules up and as a result blow-up the predictable ROI of spending big bucks, this problem would fix itself.

[bella]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Still, it would take some work for the big teams to hide $50,000,000. A hole that size is one the sanctioning body could identify and close.

it's really not. it'd be quite simple. you only need to set up your machine shop as a seperate company and it has the same relationship to the team as a genuine third party supplier does. then you lose costs there. do it with each section of the company - drawing office, manufacturing, r&d... each one supplies the products at a 10-15% discount to actual cost to the team and you've already lost $10-15m on a $100m budget. team doesnt need to buy or invest in any new kit because the third party supplier is doing that for them.

what do you expect the governing body to do, demand to see the accounts and ownership information of any third party suppliers too? the *genuine* third parties are gonna get a bit stroppy about that...

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bella

it's really not. it'd be quite simple. you only need to set up your machine shop as a seperate company and it has the same relationship to the team as a genuine third party supplier does. then you lose costs there. do it with each section of the company - drawing office, manufacturing, r&d... each one supplies the products at a 10-15% discount to actual cost to the team and you've already lost $10-15m on a $100m budget. team doesnt need to buy or invest in any new kit because the third party supplier is doing that for them.

what do you expect the governing body to do, demand to see the accounts and ownership information of any third party suppliers too? the *genuine* third parties are gonna get a bit stroppy about that...

I have always contended that a cap is unworkable and you illustrate one of the many reasons it would not work. It is easy to reduce costs by making the cars and support infrastructure technically simpler, even I can work out how to do that. It won't happen though, not while the greedy ones can squeeze money out of a dying patient.

[bella]

i think the most you can do is give everyone a standard share. if the amount required in sponsorship and/or capital from an "investor"/toymaster is realistic and achievable then it negates a lot of the uncertainty.

but what are we trying to do here? there's two sides of it - keeping a decent sized field and as many teams alive as possible, and cutting the amount the top teams throw at it. i don't really believe you can stop the top guys throwing money at it until you do something nuts like start taxing them a set figure every time they employ over a set number of man hours a month (because employees are vague - contractors and shiftwork). anything one team is taxed is spread equally amongst those who haven't exceeded that number of man hours. at least with something like that where a team is throwing money at a problem it filters down.

idk, at this point there is no simple solution to either keeping teams in business or stopping the big guys waving their will.. er, wallets around. penalising in a way that hands their cash to the opposition has to be the best disincentive (sic) for overspending, surely?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bella

it's really not. it'd be quite simple. you only need to set up your machine shop as a seperate company and it has the same relationship to the team as a genuine third party supplier does. then you lose costs there. do it with each section of the company - drawing office, manufacturing, r&d... each one supplies the products at a 10-15% discount to actual cost to the team and you've already lost $10-15m on a $100m budget. team doesnt need to buy or invest in any new kit because the third party supplier is doing that for them.

what do you expect the governing body to do, demand to see the accounts and ownership information of any third party suppliers too? the *genuine* third parties are gonna get a bit stroppy about that...

It would not surprise me at all if at this time, the "logistics" part of an F1 team is technically a separate company with common ownership. The factory building is probably owned by a real estate arm. It is common practice for large businesses to divide their operation into smaller companies. The rules makers have to decide how they want to structure the rules on disclosure. Short form: 'You have to disclose all related entities. If we discover you didn't disclose a related entity supplier, you are banned from participation in F1.'

Or, looking at it another way, say they did get a 15% discount, all across the board from suppliers who, oddly enough, don't supply any other team. Now a team has managed to break a $100,000,000 cap and are really operating on a $1,176,500 budget (pretending a team outsourced every dollar) and the little fishes aren't so clever and really are operating under a $1,000,000 budget. Is that spread anything like the spread between the haves and the have nots now?

Plus, the F1 auditors going through the books will notice some teams getting parts at a significant discount and start asking questions.

The real cost is the dozens of highly capable engineers on the big teams. That means the real scam would be engineering support from "outside" vendors that magically happens at dimes on the dollar. To smoke that out, suppliers would have to provide payroll reports, and the payroll reports would reveal the disconnect between revenue and payroll.

The suppliers would never agree to submit payroll?

Here in the US, any public works construction job requires paying construction workers "prevailing wages." The auditing process includes submitting payrolls to the Sate or Federal Department of Labor. If a company doesn't want to do that, then they just don't participate in public sector work. If you want to be and F1 supplier, then you have to follow F1 rules. Don't like it? Don't participate in F1.

Obviously F1, even under a budget cap, would be good money compared to supplying FF weekend warriors, so most motorsport suppliers would choose to participate. That and the bragging rights of being an F1 supplier.

So, would a budget cap be perfect? No.

Would it be better than teams dropping out because the cost of being competitive is excessive? Absolutely!

Or, stop over-regulating the cars, so the predictable ROI of megadollars goes out the window. Budgets magically drop. We get more variety on the grid. The cars won't all be clones, so they will have different performance envelopes and can pass each other. Win/win/win!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by miatanut

It would not surprise me at all if at this time, the "logistics" part of an F1 team is technically a separate company with common ownership. The factory building is probably owned by a real estate arm. It is common practice for large businesses to divide their operation into smaller companies. The rules makers have to decide how they want to structure the rules on disclosure. Short form: 'You have to disclose all related entities. If we discover you didn't disclose a related entity supplier, you are banned from participation in F1.'

Or, looking at it another way, say they did get a 15% discount, all across the board from suppliers who, oddly enough, don't supply any other team. Now a team has managed to break a $100,000,000 cap and are really operating on a $1,176,500 budget (pretending a team outsourced every dollar) and the little fishes aren't so clever and really are operating under a $1,000,000 budget. Is that spread anything like the spread between the haves and the have nots now?

Plus, the F1 auditors going through the books will notice some teams getting parts at a significant discount and start asking questions.

The real cost is the dozens of highly capable engineers on the big teams. That means the real scam would be engineering support from "outside" vendors that magically happens at dimes on the dollar. To smoke that out, suppliers would have to provide payroll reports, and the payroll reports would reveal the disconnect between revenue and payroll.

The suppliers would never agree to submit payroll?

Here in the US, any public works construction job requires paying construction workers "prevailing wages." The auditing process includes submitting payrolls to the Sate or Federal Department of Labor. If a company doesn't want to do that, then they just don't participate in public sector work. If you want to be and F1 supplier, then you have to follow F1 rules. Don't like it? Don't participate in F1.

Obviously F1, even under a budget cap, would be good money compared to supplying FF weekend warriors, so most motorsport suppliers would choose to participate. That and the bragging rights of being an F1 supplier.

So, would a budget cap be perfect? No.

Would it be better than teams dropping out because the cost of being competitive is excessive? Absolutely!

Or, stop over-regulating the cars, so the predictable ROI of megadollars goes out the window. Budgets magically drop. We get more variety on the grid. The cars won't all be clones, so they will have different performance envelopes and can pass each other. Win/win/win!

You are dreaming, you can put forward as many hypothesis as you can come up with and none will get to the start line.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Casper

You are dreaming, you can put forward as many hypothesis as you can come up with and none will get to the start line.

Kind of like Marussia.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Kind of like Marussia.

And for the same reasons. If the Ferraris and RB's of F1 had wanted to they could have prevented both teams falling into the predicament they have. Sauber are certainly making the same sort of noises and everyone turns a deaf ear so their future has to be in peril as well. I like that BE told everyone that both teams had dispensations for the next two races when in reality he could have done nothing about it. If he keeps repeating stuff like that he might even start believing it himself.