removed by user
Last edited:
Chase Carey Interested in Introduction of Standard F1 Parts
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
If they want to cut costs should go to a formula similar to CART then. 
Those suspension arms and some other generic parts are already not really expensive. If they want to bring costs drastically down maybe they should address the amount of people developing a car. Or make the hospitality areas a bit smaller, less luxurious. I read Mercedes has about 1200 people employed, RB has about 800 people working for them. With those number who cares they can save a few bucks on suspension arms. The most expensive parts are too specific for the manufacturers "lead" on their competitors.
Gone political within two pages. Great job...
Matthew Allington
Wham!ming into Spanish rocks
Maybe simplify rather than standardise?
For example: As I see it, the cars are so dependent on the extraordinarily complex & expensive front wings. Maybe limiting the front wing to 2 planes (like the rear wings are) would reduce the development cost and/or improve the racing?
EDIT: same applies to the engines, too
For example: As I see it, the cars are so dependent on the extraordinarily complex & expensive front wings. Maybe limiting the front wing to 2 planes (like the rear wings are) would reduce the development cost and/or improve the racing?
EDIT: same applies to the engines, too
Last edited:
removed by user
Last edited:
Ghoults
Lasse Luisu
This sounds more like a last minute attempt to keep the expensive hybrid engines in F1 no matter what. Introducing standard parts however is not a magic bullet for cost cutting in the short term. Whatever standard parts you introduce it is likely some manufacturers need to change their engines a lot more than others. Many standard parts could even mean redesign of big parts of the engines if your engine design is simply different.
The biggest issue with the hybrid engines is that the performance levels vary so much and the teams can not do anything about. Mclaren is stuck with honda and red bull is stuck with renault and in both cases the engine power deficist puts a hard limit on their performance. More standardised parts could in theory bring the engines closer together which would mean better racing. And give more control to the teams instead of engine manufacturers which is 100% good thing.
I did propose an engine ruleset earlier when this topic was discussed:
"So here is my engine rule proposal. Everybody can sell engines in f1. No tech rules at all. Anything goes. Double turbo 2 litre v12, na 4 liter pushrod straight 6 or fully electric duracell powered lawnmower with windmills and lasers. But there is a catch. An engine manufacturer must sell their engine to anyone and everyone who wants to buy it. At fixed cost of 5 million per season. No more, no less. If more teams want to buy your engine than you can make them then you need to find a supplier to build more engines. Everybody must use the same fuel and that fuel is designed to be as eco friendly as possible. Lubricants are free. And all teams must use the same engine spec. No more selling year old engines. No more running the latest spec engine in your factory team cars while everybody else is months behind. No fuel flow limits, no fuel cell limits (no refueling though). Just minimum weight, fixed price and no choosing of customers."
I still think it would be amazing. Truly technologically innovative sport instead of regulated boredom designed by car manufacturers who only care about looking green.
Those who think fuel efficiency is exciting can go watch formula e or go polish their prius.
The biggest issue with the hybrid engines is that the performance levels vary so much and the teams can not do anything about. Mclaren is stuck with honda and red bull is stuck with renault and in both cases the engine power deficist puts a hard limit on their performance. More standardised parts could in theory bring the engines closer together which would mean better racing. And give more control to the teams instead of engine manufacturers which is 100% good thing.
I did propose an engine ruleset earlier when this topic was discussed:
"So here is my engine rule proposal. Everybody can sell engines in f1. No tech rules at all. Anything goes. Double turbo 2 litre v12, na 4 liter pushrod straight 6 or fully electric duracell powered lawnmower with windmills and lasers. But there is a catch. An engine manufacturer must sell their engine to anyone and everyone who wants to buy it. At fixed cost of 5 million per season. No more, no less. If more teams want to buy your engine than you can make them then you need to find a supplier to build more engines. Everybody must use the same fuel and that fuel is designed to be as eco friendly as possible. Lubricants are free. And all teams must use the same engine spec. No more selling year old engines. No more running the latest spec engine in your factory team cars while everybody else is months behind. No fuel flow limits, no fuel cell limits (no refueling though). Just minimum weight, fixed price and no choosing of customers."
I still think it would be amazing. Truly technologically innovative sport instead of regulated boredom designed by car manufacturers who only care about looking green.
Those who think fuel efficiency is exciting can go watch formula e or go polish their prius.
Examples?
Let's see... over here in the US, our major sports leagues have improved considerably every time new rules about parity and revenue sharing have been brought into effect. (MLB, NFL both.) As Americans, I strongly suspect Liberty Media are aware of this. So there's a decent chance they have a valid point.
This isn't politics, it's a spectator sport. Artificially balanced competition is and has always been good for spectator sports. (Case in point: the DFV era wasn't a total disaster in F1, was it?)
As for the rest of this nonsense, I suggest everyone read the article before launching into a heated argument. It might not help you to look less foolish, that may be genuine, but it can't hurt.
This isn't politics, it's a spectator sport. Artificially balanced competition is and has always been good for spectator sports. (Case in point: the DFV era wasn't a total disaster in F1, was it?)
As for the rest of this nonsense, I suggest everyone read the article before launching into a heated argument. It might not help you to look less foolish, that may be genuine, but it can't hurt.
removed by user
Last edited:
F1 is politics on country level. I guess we will never know the amount of match (team) fixing is involved and that system is so deeply burried and inplemented like Hitman 47 that the audience takes it as being absolute normal. I do understand Carey's whish but im afraid he will never succeed in short term. And if he manages to change the rules, by the time everyone thinks teams are run by standardization, Hitman 47 has burried itself even deeper. We have no clue and maybe thats good. In the end the crowd enjoys F1 no matter which system runs it.
Nick Gregory
iRating is just a number
I hope one of them will be Chase's mustache.
In response to the posed question, no.
I'd like to see some form of scaled earnings/prize money based on resources. By that I mean, for example if a team with thousands of employees (including consultants maybe) wins then they would earn X amount whereas if a team with a much smaller number of employees were to win then they get a bigger payout (e.g. 1.5 times X amount), thus allowing them to employ more people and grow their team.. This theory effectively would reward teams with the most efficient workforce, i.e. if one guy (or girl) at a tiny team comes up with an race winning design idea that would take 100 guys (or girls) at Mercedes to invent, then the tiny team should be rewarded for their "skill per head" being much better, if that makes sense. You could speculate that the bigger teams may want to remove people who they deem to be hindering their "efficiency" whilst the smaller teams, with their new budgets, may well be looking for such people to expand their capabilities, and thus just maybe get the team employee numbers within the same order of magnitude, unlike now.
Bonkers idea, and will never be implementable. But we're all talking about F1 so it can't be all bad..
I'd like to see some form of scaled earnings/prize money based on resources. By that I mean, for example if a team with thousands of employees (including consultants maybe) wins then they would earn X amount whereas if a team with a much smaller number of employees were to win then they get a bigger payout (e.g. 1.5 times X amount), thus allowing them to employ more people and grow their team.. This theory effectively would reward teams with the most efficient workforce, i.e. if one guy (or girl) at a tiny team comes up with an race winning design idea that would take 100 guys (or girls) at Mercedes to invent, then the tiny team should be rewarded for their "skill per head" being much better, if that makes sense. You could speculate that the bigger teams may want to remove people who they deem to be hindering their "efficiency" whilst the smaller teams, with their new budgets, may well be looking for such people to expand their capabilities, and thus just maybe get the team employee numbers within the same order of magnitude, unlike now.
Bonkers idea, and will never be implementable. But we're all talking about F1 so it can't be all bad..
You know something i wouldn't shed a single tear if it was made standard?
The hybrid stuff, batteries, ERS-K...
The ERS-H would have to be ditched i guess since it's tied directly to the engine.
The hybrid stuff, batteries, ERS-K...
The ERS-H would have to be ditched i guess since it's tied directly to the engine.
F1 has to decide if it would rather be a sport or a technical exercise. They're at a crossroads right now. Formula E has the manufacturer's ear.
I'd wait to see how Indycars fair next year with the new aero promising better racing for one and also see what common elements they are considering that will keep the car makers happy
I'd wait to see how Indycars fair next year with the new aero promising better racing for one and also see what common elements they are considering that will keep the car makers happy
Agree with this, if they made it while open the regs for different ICE configs would be great.
Anyway whatever they make spec the teams will just spend milions to make the other parts interact better with the spec one, in the end the cycle continues and costs will not be reduced.
The haves n have nots, I'm the later. F1 was about development for the future, "NOW" it's not in engine terms, The blue sparks are the future but hopefully with an awesome V8 attached.
F1 needs to get total AERO freedom see how far pushing the drag limits can go. Tyres that stick like shite.
The future of F1 is in "Hover Cars"
F1 needs to get total AERO freedom see how far pushing the drag limits can go. Tyres that stick like shite.
The future of F1 is in "Hover Cars"
Ghoults
Lasse Luisu
So no examples then. You did not give even one specific example. Germany or US are not very specific...
removed by user
Last edited:
Nooooope.
