diffuser wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:22 pm
Shakeman wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:52 am
Zynerji wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:21 am
OEMs literally use F1 as R&D for road going vehicles. Utilizing your wind tunnels and redundant staffing for other R&D projects that feed a central database (and can generate profit) is a synergy that should not be arrogantly ignored.
This is why I have explained lots of times that the concept F1 had agreed upon was never going to work. The answer is to invert the axis of the symmetry and force a self-balancing formula through data sharing (like the synergy mentioned above). That way the teams simply have zero incentive to overspend. Then you can *cough*blockchain*cough* the data (Teams can run any part that is uploaded, verified by scrutineering/3d scans) and run it through the profit mill of selling access to fans/journos/universities and non-involved manufacturers
(now the blockchain makes sense
). Different tokens open deeper access and have different costs involved (CFD results, FEA results, 3d point cloud model, etc.) Teams have unlimited tokens for maximum level access (can vote on "trade secret" type security.)
The most close, tight, pinnacle, cheap, epic, and bespoke racecars of all time.
You don't understand why car manufacturers are interested in spending millions even billions on competing in F1. Your idea is no less barking up the wrong tree than Bernie's idea that each driver should drive for each team on the grid.
Team owners give not one single fuc* about the closeness of racing or spectacle of F1, they care only about winning and having their brand associated with success. No brand is going to pump millions into development of parts only for their competitor to potentially beat them on the track. No engine manufacturer gives their engine designs to competitors and they never give their engines to those who are in direct competition ergo no team is going to hand out trick suspension designs and clever aero for the good of the sport. It would be the end of F1.
No sure I agree that he doesn't understand why they're such a high investment in F1.
Until the introduction of the CAP, formula 1 was more of a way for companies to spend thier disposable advertising budgets. These are companies that make Billions. The OEMs are bottom feeders in this scenario. Surviving on what the fat cats throw away. I agree, that the some teams only care about winning. Others are just happy to be at the party. That is probably changing with the CAP. The CAP allows teams to start making money and growing the value of the teams.
I don't see how share data between allow for competion on the track. I'd expect all the teams to have very similar cars. You've also taking the focus away from making money at where you finish(more prize money and more camera time for you car and advertisers) into what you can sell the IP for.
Maybe I just don't understand what you're proposing.
A team currently spends 200M a year to develop in isolation. That's 200M worth of data that let's them improve next year's car.
A team sharing data with 9 other teams STILL spends 200M, but receives 2B in data to improve next year's car. That means they can reduce the 200M down to 150M or even 100M.
Calculate that concept over 10 years, and understand that ALL teams only benefit from the sharing. Removing the redundancy engineering inherent in multiple bespoke cars (like wheel nuts, fire suppression systems, etc) leads to HUGE reduction of cost, not to mention closing down 10 reverse engineering departments across the teams.
Team members no longer cost 100M in bidding wars that transfer secrets between teams, the open data can be sold to publishers of web/print/media, and R&D data can be sold to non-F1 OEMS.
So, now they fight for Constructor points for multi-millions of dollars. With data sharing, they could be competing for multi-billions of dollars.
Lay it out, do the math, understand the marketing value, the engineering value, and the human value.
It wins so big, it's a literal no-brainer.