Richards: F1 aero excessive and irrelevant

[n smikle]

That's the problem. F1 either goes road-relevant-ish so that massive spending w/o wins could be justified, or F1 goes spec. where massive spending is not necessary.... or F1 becomes a small and far less glamorous series where the garagistes have more engineering freedom than money to exploit it.

or F1 will show it does not have to be so expensive.

Burt Rutan and Co. needed just 25 million $ to sent "SpaceShipOne" into the space, if it was corporation the cost would be probably at least 10 times bigger.

But Scaled Composites is a big corporation with funding from Virgin and Apple principals for the Space Ship One program.

The difference is Burt is capable of doing more with less because he hires smart people and gets out of their way. There is an almost complete lack of ego there. F1 rarely does the same because ego seems to saturate all.

The only real recent example in F1 would be Super Aguri-Brawn. Mark Preston had a scrappy bunch of engineers with a no-holds-barred attitude to put the team as far from the back as they could--even beating their step-parent Honda with their own year-old car. But being given free reign, SA engineers developed the DDD to jump through a hole in the '09 regs which Brawn, being broke, took advantage of. Neither Brawn nor SA combined spent as much as the front runners but put up hellacious effort that took the champonship.

So it's corporate attitude that makes the difference. Would those same SA engineers developed as much at Williams, Toyota, Honda or McLaren? Probably not.

BTW, here's Space Ship Two
http://www.scaled.com/

The Brawn was on the most expensive cars! They didn't spend much to actually run the team in 2009 but I heard that Honda pumped in hundreds of millions to make that BGP001.

[tok-tokkie]

Anyone else on here finding that story by James Allen utter rubbish? It's just as credible as that article about dead-zones on a Ferrari fansite. Why did he just assume that by year 20** F1 cars will have that amount of power, using this and that technology (currently banned btw) and achieve precisely 100 mpg.

There are people here that take James Allen seriously ?

I don't. However the concept of KERS & HERS & turbos & direct injection & electric drive in 10 years time all sounds good to me. What I detest are the prescriptive technical rules that currently prohibit innovation in F1

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, tok-tokkie, allow me to add this, to the common talking point of lack of innovation:

How innovative is F1?

No, really: think about it for a moment. It's not such a simple question.

Perhaps F1 is more a "fair of parts" than anything, where money dominates, given the fact that two aspects of research have dominated the landscape for years, if not for decades: downforce generation and engine revving.

I think basic research is done elsewhere nowadays. One word has killed the concept of clever "racing guys" coming up with new ideas: outsourcing.

The level of complexity of a modern car has increased so much that you need scientists to advance in "racing research". Don't expect much more from F1 teams these days than "rule exploitaition", I'd say.

So, perhaps the guys in charge are not as blind as they seem and they are sincerely trying to cope with the money flood. It's true that F1 is a rich-guy sport, but it becomes ugly when this fact becomes evident to the gallery.

However, it's christmas, don't get me too seriously: I'm in a "wait-for-the-world-to-bring-things-to-you" mood...

[WhiteBlue]

Anyone else on here finding that story by James Allen utter rubbish? It's just as credible as that article about dead-zones on a Ferrari fansite. Why did he just assume that by year 20** F1 cars will have that amount of power, using this and that technology (currently banned btw) and achieve precisely 100 mpg.

There are people here that take James Allen seriously ?

I don't. However the concept of KERS & HERS & turbos & direct injection & electric drive in 10 years time all sounds good to me. What I detest are the prescriptive technical rules that currently prohibit innovation in F1

I don't think the facts mentioned in the blog were James Allan's ideas. He just polled the team engineering departments. So even if we don't take Allan serious we can still deal in a serious way with those facts.

Perhaps F1 is more a "fair of parts" than anything, where money dominates, given the fact that two aspects of research have dominated the landscape for years, if not for decades: downforce generation and engine revving.

I think basic research is done elsewhere nowadays. One word has killed the concept of clever "racing guys" coming up with new ideas: outsourcing.

The level of complexity of a modern car has increased so much that you need scientists to advance in "racing research". Don't expect much more from F1 teams these days than "rule exploitaition", I'd say.

So, perhaps the guys in charge are not as blind as they seem and they are sincerely trying to cope with the money flood. It's true that F1 is a rich-guy sport, but it becomes ugly when this fact becomes evident to the gallery.

Clever thinking, Ciro! But I don't think "outsourcing" is the dominating expression here. "Division of labor" is a term that describes it more exactly. McLaren is said to have changed the system of technical direction six years ago. In the times of Newey they had a director. Now they have split up that function into management matrix decision making. It is obviously much more expensive but appropriate perhaps for huge organizations. If F1 gets back to 60 mil $ budgets it may even get more personal and innovative again.

The FIA also seems to wade in on the discussion and appointed Gilles Simon

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80685

After giving up on KERS, we will accomplish nothing innovative next year. I'm sorry about that. I have therefore decided to create a working group...Gilles Simon, former boss at Ferrari engines, will join the FIA in this context.

[Pandamasque]

Anyone else on here finding that story by James Allen utter rubbish? It's just as credible as that article about dead-zones on a Ferrari fansite. Why did he just assume that by year 20** F1 cars will have that amount of power, using this and that technology (currently banned btw) and achieve precisely 100 mpg.

There are people here that take James Allen seriously ?

Apparently so.

[n smikle]

Now they have split up that function into management matrix decision making. It is obviously much more expensive but appropriate perhaps for huge organizations. If F1 gets back to 60 mil $ budgets it may even get more personal and innovative again.

The way things are now, there might even be "management simulator" software that are used run the teams.

[Raptor22]

James Allen's "view of the future is based on a Riccardo presentation that outlines the ke development areas for the ICE and the incorporation of hybrid drive en masse. all he is saying is that f1 will have to mirror those developments if it is survive.

Have a look at Todt'd developing vision for F1 and you will see that relevance to environmental trends and raod cars is stronger in his F1 than at any time in the past.

[WhiteBlue]

Have a look at Todt'd developing vision for F1 and you will see that relevance to environmental trends and raod cars is stronger in his F1 than at any time in the past.

It will be a huge task for Todt and Simon to keep Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Cosworth in the sport while luring the likes of Aston Martin and VW into a new commitment. I see this as the only way how we can have affordable innovative propulsion technology. Just look at the Audi or Peugeot Le Mans developments. Those companies a pouring hundreds of millions into innovative racing engine development. They do it primarily because they are convinced that the lessons learned and and the exposure will help them with their road car sales and engineering.

F1 needs the manufacturers to carry the cost of developing innovative engine technology and supply it to the teams in a cost efficient way. Pay back for development cost should not be generated by selling those engines but by exploiting their road relevance and image. Engine suppliers (except privateers) should be obliged to supply a proportional part of the grid at manufacturing cost plus a bit. Each year the cards should be remixed by publishing the new tricks so that the playing field is kept relatively level.

[Raptor22]

what you are advocating is production car relevance and I support that.
However large manaufacturers also participate in f1 thanks to their marketing budget, hence Mercedes was able to buy Brawn and take Schumacher on board without BoD approval, or least not BoD concensus.

It will be increasingly difficult to hold on to manufacturers unless F1 becomes more road passenger car relevant.

Norbert Haug is a very well connected individual and has thus far managed to keep Mercedes in F! despite strong opposition from the Diamler BoD. They cancelled an F1 program in the past and can do it again.

I'm not familiar with the Mercedes Benz High Pperformance engines structure not how Mercedes GP reports into the Diamler organisation but I do know itsa more complicated governance structure than Scuderia Ferrari Spa.

To attract VW into F1 is a monumental task since that will have to be approved through the Piech and Porsche families, and the German government who are major shareholders. VAG would be far more sensitive to economic variances than Ferrari would be, hence for VAG, low cost is of paramount importance.

BMW, being a private company, the decision to enter f1 was far easier and the decision to exit just as easy.

Formula 1 needs manufacturers, but not manufacturer teams. It needs privateers, working in conjunction with manufacturer to develop technology thats relevant to road cars.

Tin tops and sports cars simply does not have sufficient appeal to extract the marketing value out of technology that f1 allows.

Thats theplatform for f1 as a product and thats where its differentiated.

[djos]

I would be really nice imo if there was some regulatory way to prevent major auto companies like ford, toyota, bmw, merc, mitsu, nissan etc from owning F1 teams (Ferrari, Maclaren and other niche auto-makers exempted - say limit on max cars sold = <10,000 per year).

Instead big auto-makers should be limited to being technology partners whether it be drive-train, electronics or whatever and their contributions to the F1 team/s of their choice should be fully auditable and capped to say 50mil of freebies per team.

/2c

[CMSMJ1]

It will be increasingly difficult to hold on to manufacturers unless F1 becomes more road passenger car relevant.

Formula 1 needs manufacturers, but not manufacturer teams. It needs privateers, working in conjunction with manufacturer to develop technology thats relevant to road cars.

Tin tops and sports cars simply does not have sufficient appeal to extract the marketing value out of technology that f1 allows.

Thats theplatform for f1 as a product and thats where its differentiated.

You are so far wide of the mark my friend!

F1 does not need manufacturers - the manufacturers, if they wish to promote raod relevant engineering need to do better with the road car racing series that we already have....

Why are people missing this obvious point?

F1 is about engineering to make a fast car. Not about making a new cup holder or 7 speed auto box.

WTCC and rallying are the platforms for manufacturers to showcase their road relevant engineering.

F1 is for them to go wild and waste money, if they choose to do so.

[raceman]

F1 is for them to go wild ( I love this side of F1) and waste money, if they choose to do so.

+1

[richard_leeds]

Engine suppliers (except privateers) should be obliged to supply a proportional part of the grid at manufacturing cost plus a bit.

AFAIK, that is already the case for E5m a year.

[richard_leeds]

I see Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has made some sensible comments on the subject too...

di Montezemolo thinks that F1 needs to undertake a wholesale rethink about what it is doing, rather than small tinkering of the rules to try and improve the show.

"First we have to decide where we want to position the product," he said. "I think it needs to encompass extreme technology, performance and research. Secondly, we need to save costs without losing the appealing elements. Carbon brakes, for instance, are impossible to use with road cars and we can accept a standard gearbox without losing F1 characteristics."

That bit I think is sensible, but he then goes off on a whimsical tangent....

"It’s like in Italy, one day the doctor is smoking while he’s doing an operation but now, if you smoke in the street, you’re killed. We need something in the middle.

Finally, he appeals to the romantic heart that we know lies at Bernie's soft centre ...

"Should we have such expensive tickets? Today a young boy with his girlfriend can fly around the world for less than attending the Monza GP in the best seats. Is that right?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80687

[JoeE]

LdM does have a point about ticket sales. For me to go the the bristh gp with the girl is about £600 not incl flights and sleeping accom for the 3days.

That would take me to Amsterdam and somewhere to stay and go unlovely that place.

We need the big guns such as ford, vw, or even the audi brand to come in but as engine suppliers/drivettain/gearboxs supplier only and leave it at that. If the results don't come within 3years for merc I can see them pulling the plug just as Honda did.

The board is already unhappy with the route that has been taken and if the mo eh keeps falling into a black hole them boom there gone.

I don't want a spec series but I don't wanted two tier racing.