What word from Manor, Campos and USGP?

[Belatti]

I was really surprised when the FIA choose Manor and Campos instead of Lola and Prodrive. Can be that the Prodrive miss was due to the Mercedes "B" team supposition and in that case it could be another FOTA memeber against FIA?
I have never had doubts about USF1, they are long time claimers about being in F1 and all the "american market is important" stuff have its weight.

I personally think that those three teams will be seconds slower than STR and FI at least for 2010.

[ISLAMATRON]

I see budget-cap rules as hilarious. You can't just go ahead and buy some second hand stuff for your deeply innovative Formula1 car. Look at the active front wing thingy. Many teams didn't even bother brining one to Albert Park. Look at that EPIC KERS thing. Wasting billions didn't get them anywhere, while all they had to do is adapt the old technology for F1. Expecting them to have real technological advancement under the budget cap is just... erm. You name it.

PS: I'm not denying the right of those 3 new entrants to sue FIA for chaning the rules at this point. They actually entered a GP2 championship with some cheap promises (for the fans) attached, then it suddenly became F1 again.

You may see it as hilarious but in actuality that is how engineering around the entire world operates, do you think engineers are given unlimited resources to complete even the minute tasks? All projects are given a stated budget with which to complete the task, even huge government projects for war machines that have gone over budget have been cancelled. And yes even in F1 they work with (rather loose) budgetary constraints.

Just because you cant do it does not mean it cant be done, dont impose your incompetence onto others. Give me a 45 mil Euros, open regs and a handful of good engineers and I can build something faster than todays BGP01.

[modbaraban]

Just because you cant do it does not mean it cant be done, dont impose your incompetence onto others.

I didn't say that can't be done
Simply the teams would choose not to mess with the risky stuff and fail in other areas. Like BGP didn't go for KERS having limited budget. And they won. That's a fact.

Give me a 45 mil Euros, open regs and a handful of good engineers and I can build something faster than todays BGP01

That is not.

PS: Besides what was the chance for the open-ish rules beneficial to small teams last longer than a year? Would the struggling manufacturers get on with it? Look at petrol-diesel thing at Le Mans. If Audi and Peugeots were petrol and AER, Judd etc engines were diesel we'd see rules adjusted in favor of the petrols quickly

The double regulations idea was Utopian from the begining.

[Saribro]

Give me a 45 mil Euros, open regs and a handful of good engineers and I can build something faster than todays BGP01

That is not.

+1

I was really surprised when the FIA choose Manor and Campos instead of Lola and Prodrive.

In their favour, Manor and Campos have been running low-budget single-seater -teams- for several years. Lola has been producing very nice cars (mostly (A)LMS) , and Prodrive has been running very nice saloon teams (WRC, LMS).
That's what -I- know of them, and the FIA has actually seen the submissions, and it's not entirely unlikely that Manor and Campos simply had more affairs in order for a 2010 F1 season than either Lola or Prodrive.

[RacingManiac]

Just because you cant do it does not mean it cant be done, dont impose your incompetence onto others. Give me a 45 mil Euros, open regs and a handful of good engineers and I can build something faster than todays BGP01.

Personal insult AND a boastful statement.....someone is really full of themselves?

Part of engineering is also working within the constraint of the rule, you are rarely given what you want in terms of a customer's need....more often than not they might want something that can cost a lot if it works for them they don't care(I am working on 2 projects thats like that right now).....

[Saribro]

more often than not they might want something that can cost a lot if it works for them they don't care(I am working on 2 projects thats like that right now).....

Quoted for truth. Engineering is more of 'keeping it withing limits' rather than 'getting the best solution'.

[Conceptual]

more often than not they might want something that can cost a lot if it works for them they don't care(I am working on 2 projects thats like that right now).....

Quoted for truth. Engineering is more of 'keeping it withing limits' rather than 'getting the best solution'.

I think that is antithetical to what Formula 1 is. It is ALL ABOUT the search for the perfect solution.

I have to agree with ISLAMATRON on this one. With the technology of stereo-lithography and other things, pattern making can be very inexpensive and fast. And even the F1 tech regs have the basic monocoque layout to start from.

I think for 45MEUR Islamatron and the many engineers on this board alone could produce a chassis with AWD KERS (from Bosch) and movable wings (electric).

Once the budget and the talent is in place, it is all down to project and resource management, as well as the logistics of travelling around the world.

It may not win with being a web-forum team, but I believe that these teams could easily do it with their experience much easier.

But whatever, people say and do what they want on here, mostly with nothing to back it up, so as always, the one that yells the loudest, and writes the most scathing and witty remarks will win the Web Special Olympian Gold...

[PlatinumZealot]

I think it really depends on how different the the 2010 rules are to the 2009 rules.
I think modifying existing CAD models and rerunning the CFD simulations is much much easier than doing the same to an actual live model in a wind tunnel. Oh.. the Lead designer is also a Key factor too.. only somebody who really, really knows the ropes can bounce back and re optimize and test a CAD model even under the most sudden rule changes.

[WhiteBlue]

From what I'm reading in the press it will be made difficult for Cosworth to keep the cost down on their F1 project. I would have liked to see the manufacturers engines start with a handicap for a three year development advantage. At least Renault claimed that when they dismissed their engine engineers and dropped development for a year. And they were allowed certain adjustments, which are not well published. The principle should apply here as well. An independant engine manufacturer would be good for F1 although the manufacturer controlled FOTA will probably see this different.

[outer_bongolia]

From what I'm reading in the press it will be made difficult for Cosworth to keep the cost down on their F1 project. I would have liked to see the manufacturers engines start with a handicap for a three year development advantage. At least Renault claimed that when they dismissed their engine engineers and dropped development for a year. And they were allowed certain adjustments, which are not well published. The principle should apply here as well. An independant engine manufacturer would be good for F1 although the manufacturer controlled FOTA will probably see this different.

It sounds like, with the RPM limitation, two of the new entrants are considering switching their engine supplier. The third has already signed a deal with Cosworth and is most probably screwed for the year.

Unless Cosworth pulls itself out, they will definitely be looking at losing some money in 2010, supplying only one or may be two teams.

With Mosley starting his tirades, we will have to wait till october to see what will happen.

[donskar]

more often than not they might want something that can cost a lot if it works for them they don't care(I am working on 2 projects thats like that right now).....

Quoted for truth. Engineering is more of 'keeping it withing limits' rather than 'getting the best solution'.

I think that is antithetical to what Formula 1 is. It is ALL ABOUT the search for the perfect solution.

I have to agree with ISLAMATRON on this one. With the technology of stereo-lithography and other things, pattern making can be very inexpensive and fast. And even the F1 tech regs have the basic monocoque layout to start from.

I think for 45MEUR Islamatron and the many engineers on this board alone could produce a chassis with AWD KERS (from Bosch) and movable wings (electric).

Once the budget and the talent is in place, it is all down to project and resource management, as well as the logistics of travelling around the world.

It may not win with being a web-forum team, but I believe that these teams could easily do it with their experience much easier.

But whatever, people say and do what they want on here, mostly with nothing to back it up, so as always, the one that yells the loudest, and writes the most scathing and witty remarks will win the Web Special Olympian Gold...

Let's steer clear of name-calling and references to each other's competence or lack of same.

From my experience on this forum, I'd guess that Scarbs is the one poster who has the best perspective to chime in on what can be done for the budget in place (which I believe is NOT yet established at a definitive amount(?)

As for the unqualified assertions on what can be accomplished -- great. The proof of those assertions is only a few months away. The people who are actually spending the money and actually designing the cars will do what they think is best. And without referring to anyone in this forum, I think the racing professionals are a notch or two above us in knowledge and experience.

I started as an engineer and worked alongside them for 20 years in the computer business. My mentor was the VP of networking engineering (hardware and software). Among the things he impressed on me was that the engineering solution had to be on time, on budget, and it had to work. Technical advances are exciting, elegant solutions are preferred, perfect solutions should always be the goal, but the product has to reach the market (or the grid) on time, and it has to work.

Taking that into account, we might not see AWD, super KERS or other advancements right away.

[donskar]

Back on topic, interesting rumors:

Virgin to sponsor Manor
YouTube to sponsor US F1
Google potential sponsor for Brawn

Anyone know if there's any substance to these rumors?

And on sponsorship: bad economic times ar the best time to spend more advertising dollars.

Media are cheaper
You get a bigger share of a shrinking market
When times improve, you've gaining "mind share" (hate those cliches) and gain even more ground on your rivals.

In the car biz, Hyundai is increasing spending the most and are poised for big gains. VW also spending more.

All that by way of saying that Google, YouTube and other Internet powers are suffering in this economy, but do still have lots of $ to spend. If I were CMO of an F1 team (fat F'ing chance), I'd be courting eBay and Amazon.

[Giblet]

I sort of agree that tough economic times are good if you want cheap advertising, but at the same time, "nobody" has any extra money to spend.

Consider that during tough times who and how to advertise to are more important than how inexpensive it may be.

[ISLAMATRON]

Just because you cant do it does not mean it cant be done, dont impose your incompetence onto others.

I didn't say that can't be done
Simply the teams would choose not to mess with the risky stuff and fail in other areas. Like BGP didn't go for KERS having limited budget. And they won. That's a fact.

Give me a 45 mil Euros, open regs and a handful of good engineers and I can build something faster than todays BGP01

That is not.

PS: Besides what was the chance for the open-ish rules beneficial to small teams last longer than a year? Would the struggling manufacturers get on with it? Look at petrol-diesel thing at Le Mans. If Audi and Peugeots were petrol and AER, Judd etc engines were diesel we'd see rules adjusted in favor of the petrols quickly

The double regulations idea was Utopian from the begining.

You can't just go ahead and...

That is you saying it cant be done... own up to it. You may deem yourself incapable of getting the job done, but there are plenty of others who CAN get the job done. The Microtech designers themselves told me the aux outputs on their engine management computers could not be configured to operate the oil injectors on the mazda rotary engine, but I did it and quite easily... And doing it alleviated a number of other issues and made the rotaries I build cleaner, more reliable and easier to maintain.

You are saying the teams would not go for the risky stuff... is that not just what Williams did with active suspension, or Ferrari with the semi auto gearbox? The unreliability of those systems was EPIC at first, but they brought forward a clear cut advantage over the opposition. Was it not risky when teams were first running with flexi rear wings which broke at the highest speeds, sending JV & Kimi flying into the barriers? Is that not what McLaren, Ferrari, Renault, & BMW did this year with even a heavily restrivted KERS? BGP is winning because of superior aerodynamics, perfected over the last 2 years, not because they dont have KERS and the major teams do. Honda, the true designers of the BGP, surely had a system in place for KERS, but for whatever reasons decided to leave F1 and take their engines with them, so having to focus on fitting a different engine into the the BGP, there was no time or resources for it to run KERS. Your assertions of how the teams operate is false.

I have every confidence that with open regs(pleas dont overlook this caveat), that a decent team of F1 engineers and myself, can build a faster car that the BGP01(which was designed in the period of the tightest tech regs in F1 history), even while restricted to 45mil Euros.

There was no name calling in my post, HE himself said it was incapable of being done, that is indeed him imposing his incompetence onto others, if anyone is name calling it would be Modbaraban, assuming that everyone else is as incapable as himself.

[TheMinister]

I have every confidence that with open regs(pleas dont overlook this caveat), that a decent team of F1 engineers and myself, can build a faster car that the BGP01(which was designed in the period of the tightest tech regs in F1 history), even while restricted to 45mil Euros.

I'll second that- not because I think I am such a great and fantastic engineer, but because the rules right now are absurdly restrictive.

It's not that things like active-adjustable front wings and KERS are stupid ideas, but they have been regulationised into rubbishness. The KERS system has really annoyed me, the way it can only discharge x much power for y seconds per lap. Why on earth is that stupid rule in there? An actual KERS system on an actual car would discharge all the energy it could store up- and so could half the systems that the teams have built, with very little modification. The only thing stopping KERS from being worthwhile are the restrictions on it's use.

Of course there has to be a limit to how fast the cars can be somewhere, but the FIAs answer of banning anything useful is not a good one.

Maybe limit the amount of fuel each car gets for each race- ie if a car uses, say, 10 GJ worth of fuel per lap TODAY (thats an example figure, not based on anything at all) then simply say open regs, but only 2GJ of fuel per lap. So laptime will then be derived from having an a car that is efficient AND fast- which would have real value to normal people cars as well.