Liberty is ruining F1

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
ubuysa
ubuysa
0
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:39 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

dans79 wrote:
Zynerji wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:53 pm
Can you give a specific example as to how data sharing would damage the sport, or turn it into Euro NASCAR (like you falsely claim)?
As I've said several times now, F1 is first and foremost a Formula series, Though I'm really starting to believe very few people understand what that actually means.

In a Formula series a team at minimum designs and in some cases is required to manufacture all or substantial portions of their racing vehicle, doesn't mater if it's a car, boat or plane. In the Americas cup for example, most of the manufacturing is contracted out, but the teams still have custom unique designs. Thus, the competition is as much about the design and engineering as it is the actual racing.

In the case of F1, requiring data sharing removes 50% of the competition.
Quite agree. Too many I think, including Liberty it seems, see F1 as being all about the drivers. It's not, it's a team sport that's all about the cars.

Zynerji
Zynerji
75
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:06 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:53 pm
Can you give a specific example as to how data sharing would damage the sport, or turn it into Euro NASCAR (like you falsely claim)?
As I've said several times now, F1 is first and foremost a Formula series, Though I'm really starting to believe very few people understand what that actually means.

In a Formula series a team at minimum designs and in some cases is required to manufacture all or substantial portions of their racing vehicle, doesn't mater if it's a car, boat or plane. In the Americas cup for example, most of the manufacturing is contracted out, but the teams still have custom unique designs. Thus, the competition is as much about the design and engineering as it is the actual racing.

In the case of F1, requiring data sharing removes 50% of the competition.
BLUE:
There is only ONE perfectly optimal solution to any given formula. Convergence is the nature of improvement in any Formula series.

RED:
The design and engineering competition stays the same with data-sharing, what it prevents is 2-3 teams overspending in R&D to gain advantage thus leading to several years' worth of boring domination, and a multi-tier formula.

Data-sharing only removes the competition of reverse-engineering. That is one that gives zero points, is hidden from the fans, and only exponentially increases the cost of being competitive.

Neither of those excuses actually counter my point.
Last edited by Zynerji on Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:34 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Sulman
Sulman
1
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:28 am

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

Capharol wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:45 pm

if ALL teams would have equal parts, equal engine there will be not 1 team that dominates, i will all come down to driver skill
This is not true, even in spec series.

dans79
dans79
216
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:17 pm
BLUE:
There is only ONE perfectly optimal solution to any given formula. Convergence is the nature of improvement in any Formula series.
:lol: :wtf: I know a crap ton of developers and engineers who would strongly disagree with that, specially when you are talking about something as complex as an F1 car.

Zynerji
Zynerji
75
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:40 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:17 pm
BLUE:
There is only ONE perfectly optimal solution to any given formula. Convergence is the nature of improvement in any Formula series.
:lol: :wtf: I know a crap ton of developers and engineers who would strongly disagree with that, specially when you are talking about something as complex as an F1 car.
Disagreement over if the optimal changes from venue to venue is not a question, it is differing. But in any given setting for a race, there is only one perfect solution, and it is proven by the nature of convergence.

User avatar
subcritical71
89
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:06 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:53 pm
Can you give a specific example as to how data sharing would damage the sport, or turn it into Euro NASCAR (like you falsely claim)?
As I've said several times now, F1 is first and foremost a Formula series, Though I'm really starting to believe very few people understand what that actually means.

In a Formula series a team at minimum designs and in some cases is required to manufacture all or substantial portions of their racing vehicle, doesn't mater if it's a car, boat or plane. In the Americas cup for example, most of the manufacturing is contracted out, but the teams still have custom unique designs. Thus, the competition is as much about the design and engineering as it is the actual racing.

In the case of F1, requiring data sharing removes 50% of the competition.
You bring up a decent point about the Americas Cup boats.While I think you'd be surprised that some of the major parts are 'supplied' or what you are referring to as spec. For example; foil arms, foil cant system, and rigging. Spec'ing the foil arms and cant system is like spec'ing all F1 aero (edit: DRS would be a better example)!!

I kind of like the idea they have. Each component has a classification, 1) Open, 2) Specified, and 3) Supplied.
5.2 In Rule 5.1, the terms in the column “Rule” have the following meaning:

(a) Open: The shape and construction is open to design, within the constraints specified for that com-
ponent within this AC75 Class Rule.

(b) Specified: The outer shape and some aspects of construction are specified by this AC75 Class Rule,
but other aspects of construction are open to design.

(c) Supplied: The component is supplied as standard to all Competitors. Modifications to the compo-
nents are prohibited except where specifically permitted by this AC75 Class Rule.
I wouldn't mind seeing a F1 where (b) is used in a lot of areas with limitations which can change over time.

User avatar
Mr. Fahrenheit
14
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:28 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:08 pm
Mr. Fahrenheit wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:02 pm
Standardising the things that don't really matter makes this forum less interesting,
As I mentioned earlier, teams that adopted carbon ceramic brakes and double clutch gear boxes had a significant advantage, so that area of development very much mattered.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Liberty isn't ruining F1. It's ruining what you think F1 should be.

Average Joe doesn't understand carbon ceramic brakes or double clutch gear boxes. He does understand that some teams are diabolically bad and only one of three teams will win. They're making the show - the racing, not the ridiculous technical complication - the priority.

The only audience that is at risk here is us and I'm OK with that. Just now it's interesting to no one.

User avatar
Big Tea
87
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

Mr. Fahrenheit wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:02 pm
dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:08 pm
Mr. Fahrenheit wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:02 pm
Standardising the things that don't really matter makes this forum less interesting,
As I mentioned earlier, teams that adopted carbon ceramic brakes and double clutch gear boxes had a significant advantage, so that area of development very much mattered.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Liberty isn't ruining F1. It's ruining what you think F1 should be.

Average Joe doesn't understand carbon ceramic brakes or double clutch gear boxes. He does understand that some teams are diabolically bad and only one of three teams will win. They're making the show - the racing, not the ridiculous technical complication - the priority.

The only audience that is at risk here is us and I'm OK with that. Just now it's interesting to no one.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Liberty isn't ruining F1. It's ruining what you think F1 should be.

This is the gist of it. Everyone has a different idea of the perfect F1, or indeed the acceptable F1
Most on here, as it is a F1 site, want deeper than those who are the target audience of Liberty/Sky etc. Who just want numbers during broadcast time who will pay for the privilege. I want it free to air.

Even on a site like this we would have a huge spread of what is good, indifferent and bad about F1.
I am glad to have a noise reduction while to others it is essential. I want to see nimble cars race irrespective of speed while other want 300+mph as a requirement for excitement.

We can not win, and Liberty cannot win because as the saying goes they can not be all things to all men (of all sexes)
One test is worth a thousand expert opinions

joshuagore
joshuagore
1
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:01 am

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:59 pm
joshuagore wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:05 am
dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:22 am


Again, I think you're drastically missing the point.

If spec rules we're in place since the beginning, no team would have developed/run a double clutch gearbox, or carbon-ceramic brakes, etc because they wouldn't have been allowed to.

Both of those technologies gave teams that first adopted them a competitive edge.

Could this be solved by doing the following... Spec parts must improve every x years by a quotient devised by and paid for by the teams or some voting body? I understand wanting bespoke everything, but assuming every team is buying x lets look at it like a new ISO/ASTM spec(I win from specs devised by others and for yet others every day as I can apply them to yet other projects), if you wanna make calipers, build to x spec, and teams fund this spec improving as materials and processes improve and governing body demands X% improvement every X years?

Standardized, incremental, improvement?
this is completely solved by forcing teams to share data
Forcing teams to share data, to what extent? Are you talking 100% telemetry exchange across the board? I personally believe at the bleeding edge it should be about the car, the setup, and the drivers ability to work with the team and car to achieve a setup, and ultimately bring it home on track. If one team, say Ferrari has an ability to build a car with a broader setup range via a novel widget, it seems a telemetry share would pretty much give up that ghost.

But I am on the extreme that says to be a constructor you must manufacture or contract the construction of a tub of your specification for this to not be a spec series. I believe the composites development which can come from making that tub work as a stressed safety member to be a pinnacle to be maintained or progressed, we joke about f1 having nothing to do with street cars, but 30 years down the road, when nda's are gone, that knowledge trickles to unknown places and enables lots of unique developments in consumer wares. I may be a bit biased, when champ and indy had their hayday the bespoke race shops were plentiful from Chicago to Indianapolis, when it turned to parts changing a slew of talent was dispersed. The talent pool is pretty concentrated in f1, would be interested to see what they think about this.

Zynerji
Zynerji
75
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

What I'm suggesting is simple R&D data as well as current design. If it was released at the start of the season, the summer break, then at the end of the season, it would keep everyone aligned.

Car settings, setup, and all of those are the fine tuning of the machine, and not to be shared. My sharing concept is more to make it non-helpful to be running thousands of iterations ahead of the next team because you can afford it and they cannot.


There are several amateur race series in the USA that requires you to sell your engine at the end of a race for a set price (like $500). You can put $30,000 into it, and win, but you have to sell it for $500 to any other competitor that wants it. This type of rule is what keeps those costs down, and I believe the mechanic can be harnessed in this instance.
Last edited by Zynerji on Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

They're also ruining the word liberty.

User avatar
Andres125sx
338
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:18 pm
Maybe its a cultural difference or something, because it seems like a lot of the European fans want the open wheel equivalent of NASCAR.

You know Nascar and F1 are two opposites, right? Standarizing parts in F1 doesn´t mean it will become european Nascar, there are some hundreds parts in a F1 car, standarizing 20-30 parts is light years from becoming an European Nascar

Try to make a list like you did about parts they want to standarize, but now about parts wich will be free to develop. You´ll desist when the list is about 8x the list of standarized parts.


Like everything in life, it´s about balance. Total free development and no budget cap has been proved a disaster for the sport, like CanAm proved. Standarizing eveything is a different route, the opposite route, but it´s been proved valid by many series all around the world, contrary to 100% free development wich proved the opposite. F1 standarizing some parts is only trying to guarantee its own survival and avoid same mistakes wich made CanAm collapse.

About Liberty making stupid decisions to make happy short viewers... short viewers are what sponsors want, because they make the huge numbers in viewership. If Liberty would only care about hardcore fans, audience would be a small fraction compared to what it is today, so sponsors will provide a small fraction of the money wich runs the sport, and F1 will become a minor series where development is something of the past because teams don´t have enough money

You can´t have a sport with 100% free development, current astronomic budgets, and sustainable. If first two conditions are true, like they have been for some years/decades, top teams dominate wich motivate audience numbers to go down, sponsors start reducing their money, and the sport collapse.

What Liberty is doing is not a choose, it´s mandatory for F1 to survive, like it or not

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 1:50 pm
About Liberty making stupid decisions to make happy short viewers... short viewers are what sponsors want, because they make the huge numbers in viewership. If Liberty would only care about hardcore fans, audience would be a small fraction compared to what it is today, so sponsors will provide a small fraction of the money wich runs the sport...
The way it used to be. Over dependency upon ad revenue is a key problem for modern F1. Pay for things with entrant wealth, subscriptions, products, and ticket sales. Ditch sponsorship. Stop forming a financial case around lying and assuming to know what spectators want.

Xwang
Xwang
10
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:12 am

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:22 am
Maplesoup wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:23 am
Nothing about standardizing these parts is affecting the "formula" because pretty much none of the teams develop this stuff themselves anyway.
Again, I think you're drastically missing the point.

If spec rules we're in place since the beginning, no team would have developed/run a double clutch gearbox, or carbon-ceramic brakes, etc because they wouldn't have been allowed to.

Both of those technologies gave teams that first adopted them a competitive edge.
I agree with you.
For me standardization is a non sense.
Maybe it could be possible for smaller teams (or let's say the ones below fourth in the previous year championship) to jointly develop some of these things so that to share R&D costs.

dans79
dans79
216
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: Liberty is ruining F1

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:55 pm
Mr. Fahrenheit wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:02 pm
dans79 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:08 pm


As I mentioned earlier, teams that adopted carbon ceramic brakes and double clutch gear boxes had a significant advantage, so that area of development very much mattered.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Liberty isn't ruining F1. It's ruining what you think F1 should be.

Average Joe doesn't understand carbon ceramic brakes or double clutch gear boxes. He does understand that some teams are diabolically bad and only one of three teams will win. They're making the show - the racing, not the ridiculous technical complication - the priority.

The only audience that is at risk here is us and I'm OK with that. Just now it's interesting to no one.
This is the gist of it. Everyone has a different idea of the perfect F1, or indeed the acceptable F1
Most on here, as it is a F1 site, want deeper than those who are the target audience of Liberty/Sky etc. Who just want numbers during broadcast time who will pay for the privilege. I want it free to air.

Even on a site like this we would have a huge spread of what is good, indifferent and bad about F1.
I am glad to have a noise reduction while to others it is essential. I want to see nimble cars race irrespective of speed while other want 300+mph as a requirement for excitement.

We can not win, and Liberty cannot win because as the saying goes they can not be all things to all men (of all sexes)
I guess to me this was a downward spiral that started under Bernie, and Liberty is continuing down the same path.
  • Dumb every thing down, for the lowest of low brow casual fans, so they aren't intimidated.
  • Do everything they can to add fake drama for the casual fans with ultra short attention spans.
  • Do everything they can to cheapen the sport so some teams and some fans don't have to be exposed to the real world of social standings.