Motorsport Off Topic Thread

Link

Not sure if this has been discussed previously here, or in another thread, but was looking at this story on Motorsport about the engine freeze. With engines being pretty much locked in place until 2026.
Is this really a good thing? It says only in extreme circumstances would changes be allowed. I don't see the point in having multiple engine manufacturers, if they aren't in a development battle.
"Here's our engine. See you in a few years."
Got to be a way that developments could still happen, but be reigned in a little?
4 years of the same engine. :(
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Link

Not sure if this has been discussed previously here, or in another thread, but was looking at this story on Motorsport about the engine freeze. With engines being pretty much locked in place until 2026.
Is this really a good thing? It says only in extreme circumstances would changes be allowed. I don't see the point in having multiple engine manufacturers, if they aren't in a development battle.
"Here's our engine. See you in a few years."
Got to be a way that developments could still happen, but be reigned in a little?
4 years of the same engine. :(
Click to expand...

Nah, we can't have engine development in the alleged pinnacle of motorsport. Much better to spend the kind of sums involved in small nuclear wars on tricky little aero bits and hiring lawyers to decide the championship...
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Not sure if this has been discussed previously here, or in another thread, but was looking at this story on Motorsport about the engine freeze. With engines being pretty much locked in place until 2026.
Is this really a good thing? It says only in extreme circumstances would changes be allowed. I don't see the point in having multiple engine manufacturers, if they aren't in a development battle.
"Here's our engine. See you in a few years."
Got to be a way that developments could still happen, but be reigned in a little?
4 years of the same engine. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not a fan. I think it mostly happened for two reasons (1) to let Red Bull continue after Honda (who now aren't leaving) and (2) because they haven't figured out how to budget cap the engine development, and Merc/Ferrari would simply have shifted their massive budgets over to the engine department given the opportunity.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
The issue is they want to cut costs to make it more attractive for new teams but to do that in reality you edge ever closer to a stock car format.
Click to expand...

1992 - no cost caps, all sorts of fancy technology (active ride, traction control et al.) allowed, budgets not out of control, 16 teams entered
2022 - cost caps, cars edging ever closer to spec racing, budgets wildly out of control in spite of caps, 10 teams entered

I mean...I'm just a simple country fella an' I got problems of my own but I have to wonder if maybe there's a better way than the current plan...;)
 
JRS said:
1992 - no cost caps, all sorts of fancy technology (active ride, traction control et al.) allowed, budgets not out of control, 16 teams entered
2022 - cost caps, cars edging ever closer to spec racing, budgets wildly out of control in spite of caps, 10 teams entered

I mean...I'm just a simple country fella an' I got problems of my own but I have to wonder if maybe there's a better way than the current plan...;)
Click to expand...
There is. Tighter regulation to prevent spending on 15 different barge boards, taking the best one and making 15 new developments of that one. Cost caps to give smaller teams a better chance of competing against the bigger teams.

And let's be honest here, many of the teams that entered F1 in the 80's had no business on the grid at all. Laughable jokes of efforts and millionaires play things
 
That kind of marginal gain, cost intensive, iterative development has only come about because the regulations are so ridiculously constraining that it’s the only way to progress. Innovation doesn’t have to be expensive and with a more open set of regulations the poorer teams always have a chance to come up with something a bit left field that the big boys have overlooked. Unfortunately innovation has been legislated out of the sport.
 
JRS said:
1992 - no cost caps, all sorts of fancy technology (active ride, traction control et al.) allowed, budgets not out of control, 16 teams entered
2022 - cost caps, cars edging ever closer to spec racing, budgets wildly out of control in spite of caps, 10 teams entered

I mean...I'm just a simple country fella an' I got problems of my own but I have to wonder if maybe there's a better way than the current plan...;)
Click to expand...

1980 Williams budget £2m
1992 Willims budget £32m

1980 Williams budget uplifted for inflation to 1992 £4.4m.

I’m not sure one can say costs were not out of control back then and nothing has really changed since as costs keep spiralling for all those marginal gains.

You also need to consider that there were ‘only’ 16 races in 1992 and only 6 of them were outside Europe. The calendar looks very different now than it did back then.

kaiowas said:
That kind of marginal gain, cost intensive, iterative development has only come about because the regulations are so ridiculously constraining that it’s the only way to progress. Innovation doesn’t have to be expensive and with a more open set of regulations the poorer teams always have a chance to come up with something a bit left field that the big boys have overlooked. Unfortunately innovation has been legislated out of the sport.
Click to expand...

I can’t say I don’t disagree but you do have to look at the bigger picture. A lot of those regulations are very much to do with safety and the sport have evolved massively in that regard.
 
I’d rather they just said “you have £x million to spend, it has to have 4 open wheels and an open cockpit based on these dimensions… go go go”.
 
EVH said:
I’d rather they just said “you have £x million to spend, it has to have 4 open wheels and an open cockpit based on these dimensions… go go go”.
Click to expand...
Massively complex and extremely expensive. Also runs the risk of one team developing something vastly superior to everyone else, much like Mercedes in 2014. And 2015. And 2016. And 2017. It would end up like CanAm in the 70’s with 8 litre V8’s and twin turbo flat 12’s with monstrously fast cars reaching the limits of human endurance and control. Such an open ‘formula’ won’t ever happen.
 
MissChief said:
Massively complex and extremely expensive. Also runs the risk of one team developing something vastly superior to everyone else, much like Mercedes in 2014. And 2015. And 2016. And 2017. It would end up like CanAm in the 70’s with 8 litre V8’s and twin turbo flat 12’s with monstrously fast cars reaching the limits of human endurance and control. Such an open ‘formula’ won’t ever happen.
Click to expand...
Hence why I said about having a cost-cap.

So what if one team develops something superior? At least the other teams will have the next year to develop something better. As it is now with frozen development, we end up with a situation where one team can crack the regs and enjoy an advantage that no one can compete with until a rule change.

Also, you may some actual innovation. Who's to say someone in the back markers wouldn't implement a cheap (but ultimately powerful) trick to bump them up the order. The question would become do you spend your budget on engines or aero, or do you go down the route of something innovative and sacrifice on the power e.g. mass damper.

I know it'll never happen but it would be nice to see more of those "outside of the box" innovations.. F1 just bans them and freezes development which is stifling creativity. Look at DAS... nothing wrong with that under the letter of the law but banned because it'd cause other teams to spend money on copying it. Boo hoo.
 
EVH said:
Hence why I said about having a cost-cap.

So what if one team develops something superior? At least the other teams will have the next year to develop something better. As it is now with frozen development, we end up with a situation where one team can crack the regs and enjoy an advantage that no one can compete with until a rule change.

Also, you may some actual innovation. Who's to say someone in the back markers wouldn't implement a cheap (but ultimately powerful) trick to bump them up the order. The question would become do you spend your budget on engines or aero, or do you go down the route of something innovative and sacrifice on the power e.g. mass damper.

I know it'll never happen but it would be nice to see more of those "outside of the box" innovations.. F1 just bans them and freezes development which is stifling creativity. Look at DAS... nothing wrong with that under the letter of the law but banned because it'd cause other teams to spend money on copying it. Boo hoo.
Click to expand...
Surveys and studies have shown when one team dominates and the drivers in that team don’t fight each other viewer numbers tank. People watch for passing and on track battles so unless you’re a rabid fan of the driver who is number 1 in the dominant team it can get boring.
 
The looser the regulations the more expensive the sport becomes. having a cost cap and having a team or two woefully, hopelessly in last place, unable to spend their way out is bad. Would Mercedes stay if they're 2 seconds off the pace fighting Haas for 15th two or three years in a row?
 
MissChief said:
The looser the regulations the more expensive the sport becomes.
Click to expand...

Yet budgets and costs have gone up every time the regulations have been made tighter in the last couple of decades.

Soooo... that's weird.

And the current mess has even stopped teams doing what Jordan did when they entered in '91. The Jordan 191 was an uncomplicated, tidy, reliable (for the era) design that didn't break new ground in any way but just worked as a relatively inexpensive package. Meanwhile, what d'you suppose Haas had to spend to tool around at the back of the grid last year?
 
JRS said:
Yet budgets and costs have gone up every time the regulations have been made tighter in the last couple of decades.

Soooo... that's weird.

And the current mess has even stopped teams doing what Jordan did when they entered in '91. The Jordan 191 was an uncomplicated, tidy, reliable (for the era) design that didn't break new ground in any way but just worked as a relatively inexpensive package. Meanwhile, what d'you suppose Haas had to spend to tool around at the back of the grid last year?
Click to expand...
The figures I heard knocked around for Jordan in 1991 were in the region of $10m, which is what, $20m-ish in today's money?

Budget cap last year was $145m. 145!

Not only that, but the 191 was decently competitive for a fledgling team too, a semi regular points scorer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom