Max Moisely- Run F1 under two sets of rules.

Danthus

Danthus

Danthus

Permabanned
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Posts
15,459
What does everybody think of this idea, the crux of it is two sets of rules run concurrently:

1. Technical freedom under a financial cap.
2. Financial freedom under technical restrictions.

He also talks about a level playing field and how under the current agreements the financial payouts mean that F1 is anything other than a level playing field.

The more I think about this the more I am coming around too the idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33033968
 
This is what he tried to impose for 2010 that saw USF1, Campos and Manor accepted onto the grid.

Not a single one of them made it to the 2010 grid in the form they were accepted. 2 had to be bought out and one never even turned up all. Both that made it and the additional replacement team went bust, and have scored a total of only 2 points between them over 5 and a bit seasons.

So no, I don't think it's a good idea. It created 4 completely useless teams last time they tried it, what makes you think it will work this time?

And those teams all did pathetically rubbish spending waaaay more than the capped budget they were expecting to spend inside very tight regulations. In what parallel universe does giving a team even less money to spend mean they can compete with Mercedes? Most of them couldn't even afford to develop in season, let alone come up with magical fast designs.

Its retarded, and from another senile old man in a long list of senile old men F1 should be distancing itself from.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
This is what he tried to impose for 2010 that saw USF1, Campos and Manor accepted onto the grid.

Not a single one of them made it to the 2010 grid in the form they were accepted. 2 had to be bought out and one never even turned up all. Both that made it and the additional replacement team went bust, and have scored a total of only 2 points between them over 5 and a bit seasons.

So no, I don't think it's a good idea. It created 4 completely useless teams last time they tried it, what makes you think it will work this time?

And those teams all did pathetically rubbish spending waaaay more than the capped budget they were expecting to spend inside very tight regulations. In what parallel universe does giving a team even less money to spend mean they can compete with Mercedes? Most of them couldn't even afford to develop in season, let alone come up with magical fast designs.

Its retarded, and from another senile old man in a long list of senile old men F1 should be distancing itself from.
Click to expand...

doesn't that just highlight what Mosely means when he talks about a level playing field?
 
It's stupid pretty much, there was a proposal before where if you operated under a cap you could have unlimited wind tunnel time and allowed to use more engines as well.... except... under a cost cap you can't actually afford more engines, nor more wind tunnel time, nor the number/quality of aero guys to test even more aero designs, so it's almost entirely pointless.

If you can fit under a certain budget... we'll allow you to spend more trying different things...... and people can't see a problem with that.

Even up prize money a bit, sure, it will help smaller teams survive and bring in some more staff but it's not going to level the playing field. Sponsors want to have their name on successful cars and as they are at a premium they will pay much more to secure that sponsorship. Manor will never be able to generate as much as Merc for sponsorship until they are equally successful, which they won't be without money.

£30mil less for the top teams and £30mil more for the bottom teams will make the gap smaller... but not enough to make any real difference.
 
A DM point I agree with.

HRT spent more than £40m in 2010 and didn't bring a single upgrade to the car all year. Quite how teams are meant to afford unlimited development with less money when they cant currently afford any development is beyond me.

The problem with the lower teams is money. That problem won't be solved with regulations. F1 needs to be cheaper, it doesn't need to be divided.
 
So, the (in)famously pro-Ferrari Max 'Whipping Boy' Mosley there trotting out an idea that Ferrari have always been dead against.

.





..








...






Wait, hang a minute....

;):p
 
Restricted aero designs generally mean lower costs because the changes in aero are small year to year and while there are things to be gained it's not as huge. If Aero regulations are open you have a far higher chance of getting aero wrong and needed to redo bits, again, costs. When aero regs are pretty tight you have less chance to get things wrong. The way to get the very best aero performance is to constantly make smaller and smaller changes for diminishing returns. This is something the big teams can afford to do and the little teams can't, but also has less gains to be made within more strict regulations. Smaller teams basically make a new wing, it works or doesn't but they are stuck with it, maybe going back to the old design if/when updated wings are broken, they can't afford to not use them. Good ideas get picked up 6-12 months later by the small teams because frankly they can't afford the costs of coming up with the best ideas on their own.

It's why Merc might do 10 updates to the front wing in a season and FI might bring one or two new wings a year. WIth super open aero regulations you only bring an increased cost.

Double diffusers were designed by the team that spent the most money and time playing with various designs. Other teams then copied it, a smaller team with a small budget would have been very unlikely to come up with that idea on their own because they can't afford to spend so much on a risky design. Remember no one was even sure it was legal for quite a while. Small teams can't afford those risks, Honda threw massive money into developing that car. Merc can afford to run a fric system and also design a non fric system just in case, a smaller team would likely ignore fric because they can't afford to develop a fric and non fric system. Risks = money, radical designs come from large teams of design guys thinking up loads of ideas. Then when you think you stumble across something awesome you still have to prototype, test, simulate and wind tunnel test it to see if it will really work, all costing money.

Open aero = higher costs, more relaxed rules basically mean increased costs, they are almost worthless. Spend less, get more relaxed rules, can't afford to take advantage.

Any performance penalty against non cost cap teams would effectively have to be within using the same equipment. Meaning maybe cost cap teams can harvest 0.25MJ more per lap or use 0.5MJ more per lap. But again that is difficult to implement. Merc/other big budget teams will have better brake by wire systems, more reliable and better cooled brakes letting them use more aggressive harvesting. A rule that says you can harvest more doesn't mean the car can actually harvest more.

the only real way you get different rules within a series is when you start having multiple classes in their own races... which simply isn't going to work in F1.
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
It's not necessarily saying 'oh look, now you can use a wind tunnel as much as you want'. It's saying the regulations will be relaxed in certain areas so there are fewer restrictions, then they can do creative stuff that doesn't cost loads of money but brings relatively big benefits. It's not saying everything would be the same, except now they can chase more small gains in the wind tunnel slightly tweaking aero parts for a massive cost per tenth saved in lap time.

Imagine, for example, the teams with no cost caps weren't allowed double diffusers, blown diffusers, etc, but the ones in the cost caps were. I bet there are a load of things engineers know they could probably do if the technical regs were loosened slightly in specific areas.
Click to expand...

Blown and double, trick diffusers would require specially designed engine, exhaust and gearbox components. The bottom teams currently buy those in. Whos would make those for them if they wanted a different spec to the top, restricted teams? They certainly can't afford to build them themselves.
 
No I think there good examples. The areas they would focus are going to be the floor and rear. I imagine they would be straight onto removing the flat floor and bringing in some ground effects.

But the problem is nobody is doing that in F1, so theres no baseline to work from. So any design would be brand new. That requires lots of testing, and development, and wind tunnel time and then oh.... they havent got any money to do that.

Max's plan would basically be like asking a bunch of smaller teams to design and build a brand new car for a brand new series, from scratch with no base line, and then to do it with no money.

It just won't work as making the most of open rules requires funding, and the proposal is to then limit their funding. The only chance a team has is to luck its way into a design.
 
Split the prize money proportionally, for a start. None of this "let's give Ferrari more because they're Ferrari", nonsense! :rolleyes:

Allow a fixed number of hours per team for in-season testing. To be used as and when teams see fit (under the pretence it is supervised by FIA delegate).

Revise retarded rules about tyre compounds and get shot of DRS. Fix the current rules for 5 years and wait for the pack to even itself out, then think about changing the rules. It's becoming a bit of a whinge fest at the moment... Almost like a football manager mentality... If you aren't winning people are begging for rule changes and the FIA are bending to pressure.

Get it wrong on the design? Tough ****. The FIA need to man-up and play hard ball tbh.
 
People just don't seem to understand that evenly splitting the prize pot doesn't work.

Oh, and the teams can't complain about the current split either. The reason they have the current setup is because each team arranged its own agreement with Bernie because they were incapable of coming to agreement together :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't it work?

Come first and you deserve more than second etc. not because you agreed a massive chunk before anyone else or because "you are Ferrari".

That is also my point about the FIA/Bernie. The teams call the shots and never agree on anything. The FIA/Bernie need to man-up, tell the teams how it's going to be and STFU tbh. Case in point the strategy meetings that achieve nothing.

They'll threaten to go elsewhere but it's better than the nonsense we have now :(
 
meh bad idea but something needs to happen and please not 3 drivers per team

the Mercedes snore fest is only just tolerable with a ferrari mixing it up occasionally having a 1 2 3 Meh
 
TBH it's just easier to not waste time thinking or typing out changes you think should happen. I have done that for years and nothing ever happens other than knee jerk badly thought out rules to keep the top teams at or near the top and the balance from driver to car get's less and less. Each and every time they knee jerk change it up it never works. Now they are thinking of going back to car and tyre pre 98. The same rule change Villeneuve openly criticised so he got hauled in for a hearing on the eve of his home gp. He was saying then what the fans were saying, narrower cars and tyres was a bad thing, nobble the aero. Almost 20 years later the same things are still being said, it's still too expensive, the drivers are passengers and it's all too easy.
 
There is certainly a lot of heads burried in the sand at the FIA.

But at the end of the day, why is Max Mosely even suggesting these things? Why does his opinion even matter any more? It feels like literally everyone in the world has an opinion on what to do with F1, except for the FIA :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom