Max Mosley's wrecking F1

[Jim Richards]

Max has gone too far with his dictatorial rule over the sport, and the 8 major teams have finally told him to bugger off.

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5388223,00.html
http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5388233,00.html

[onewhippedpuppy]

Anytime you put several insanely egotistical men in control of an organization and give them unlimited control, bad things are bound to happen.

[Neilk]

In a round about way, Mosley might have saved F1. If the teams actually go through and start their own series, we'd have "F1" without the Max and Bernie BS. I hope FOTA doesn't blink.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Neilk

In a round about way, Mosley might have saved F1. If the teams actually go through and start their own series, we'd have "F1" without the Max and Bernie BS. I hope FOTA doesn't blink.

Excellent point!

[svandamme]

[Jim Richards]

A tidbit from Andrew Davies of the Planet F1 editorial staff:

* Porsche were said to be looking at a bid to join F1 in its new revamped form. The makers of the world's favourite sportscar and the world's most pointless 4x4 were quick to distance themselves from the European Car Manufacturer's Association condemnation of the FIA last weekend. So it looks like the suck-ups have backed the wrong horse.


and another:

* If this series goes ahead, Max Mosley will at least have shed his image as the man who likes to be flayed in cellars. He will be known very simply as the man who killed F1.

[legion]

Max and Bernie need to decide which they value more: The sport or their egos. This will determine whether F1 lives or dies. I think most of us agree on the answer to the above question.

As an aside, is the France family funding the break-away series?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'd love to see it, but I think Ferrari is bluffing. There simply isn't enough money out there in today's world to start a new F1 series AND pay off the bajillions in legal fees and potential settlements to Mosley et al. One sad consequence of global wealth destruction I guess...

F1 has become a b@$t@rd1zed version of its former self. Way too many regulations, way too much micromanagement, way too much BS. It's frikkin' NASCAR with better cars nowadays. One of the things I always loved about F1 (in the good ole' days) was its ability to spark innovation. I say you run the series but keep the rules to a minimum. No dollar (or Euro) cap, no restriction on movable control surfaces, etc. Specify the safety gear requirements and the overall car dimensions/weight. All four wheels must be in contact with the ground at all times and the car must be driven by one or more of those wheels (i.e. no "jet cars", "rocket cars", etc.) No combative driving (taking out your opponent). The race starts at noon. First guy to the finish line wins. Have fun.

Then you'd see some real innovation, which is badly needed both in F1 and in the automotive world in general.

[legion]

Jeff, in my vision, F1 WOULD have a budget cap, but far fewer technical rules.

The way I see it, it would attract more teams to F1, but allow each team to spend where they think it will give them an advantage.

[Jim Richards]

A budget cap and technical innovation are incompatible.

[legion]

You guys do realize that many of the new entrants to F1 are contingent on a budget cap being in place, right? I beleive Manor and USF1 have said they may withdraw their entries without one.

[Jim Richards]

Who cares? If they are simply a dressed up F3 team, does it really matter to the sport?

[jyl]

A truly "unlimited" F1 car would be as much a robot with a human programmer, as a human-operated race car.

It would have massively forced induction, electronic traction and braking and stability control, fully active suspension with GPS and track mapping, fully active computer-controlled aero, full ground effects, etc. Over2,000 HP, under 1,000 lbs. It would brake at 7+g with flaps deployed for braking, corner at 7g with rudders activated and wings/underbody configured for max downforce, and then accelerate to 250-300 MPH with all aero retracting and just enough underbody effect for stability. All controls would be "drive by wire", the computers would actuate steering, camber, bump and roll stiffness, individual wheel brakes, maybe individual wheel steering, according to sensor readings and the car's precise location on each mapped track. As the car approaches each corner the computer could determine the ideal line and when to initiate braking and how to constrain or even control steering input. THe car could also include the location of other nearby cars in its computations and even take defensive measures like making the air "dirty" when a following car comes too close.

Would you call the occupant a "race car driver"? Maybe he's now more of a "vehicle operator". Sort of like an Airbus versus a WW2 fighter. Simply being able to stay conscious for an hour of such g-loads will probably be as important as driving skill.

How much could it cost to run such a team? Pretty much unlimited - easily multiple billions of $ per year. Hard to call for an "unlimited" series in an era of global wealth destruction. How many teams could actually be competitive - three, two, one?

If you think F1 races are boring now, wait until the cars are grossly unequal, one team has the equivalent of an F-22 and the others are fielding F-4s and A-4s.

No thanks I'll watch MotoGP.

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

F1 has become a b@$t@rd1zed version of its former self. Way too many regulations, way too much micromanagement, way too much BS. It's frikkin' NASCAR with better cars nowadays. One of the things I always loved about F1 (in the good ole' days) was its ability to spark innovation. I say you run the series but keep the rules to a minimum. No dollar (or Euro) cap, no restriction on movable control surfaces, etc. Specify the safety gear requirements and the overall car dimensions/weight. All four wheels must be in contact with the ground at all times and the car must be driven by one or more of those wheels (i.e. no "jet cars", "rocket cars", etc.) No combative driving (taking out your opponent). The race starts at noon. First guy to the finish line wins. Have fun.

Then you'd see some real innovation, which is badly needed both in F1 and in the automotive world in general.

[TheMentat]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

A budget cap and technical innovation are incompatible.

I suspect the opposite... at least to an extent. A budget cap allows them to relax a ton of regulations that were implemented for cost control.

To be honest, I think the manufacturers are just as much to blame here.

[Jim Richards]

Technical R&D is expensive. I know that, I did that for more than half my career. If you limit budgets, teams are not going to be able invest in technical innovation. It takes manpower and sophisticated tools to develop technologies, and they cost money.

[MFAFF]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Technical R&D is expensive. I know that, I did that for more than half my career. If you limit budgets, teams are not going to be able invest in technical innovation. It takes manpower and sophisticated tools to develop technologies, and they cost money.

Its interesting to note that the real innovation.. as seen in F1 that is during the early 80s (ground effects etc. .active suspension...forced induction, active aero ; fan car...) were achieved via relatively small budget teams working with open regs.

I wonder if the expense today is directly linked with the need to squeeze every last bit of performance out of a very tightly regulated car....the endless iterative development needed to obtain that last .1 second must cost 80% of the budget...

Imagine looser regs allowing for geniune innovation delivering a .5 second advantage....at lower cost...

Maybe I'm day dreaming.... too many pretty girls in mind.

[legion]

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Its interesting to note that the real innovation.. as seen in F1 that is during the early 80s (ground effects etc. .active suspension...forced induction, active aero ; fan car...) were achieved via relatively small budget teams working with open regs.

I wonder if the expense today is directly linked with the need to squeeze every last bit of performance out of a very tightly regulated car....the endless iterative development needed to obtain that last .1 second must cost 80% of the budget...

Imagine looser regs allowing for geniune innovation delivering a .5 second advantage....at lower cost...

Maybe I'm day dreaming.... too many pretty girls in mind.

Bingo!

[Jim Richards]

I believe it has more to do with the primitive level of technical development in F1 during the 80's. There has been 25 years of learning that cannot be undone. You have to look at technical innovation and their associated costs based on 2009. To extract a meaningful difference, even on a car with more loose regulations, will be costly. Just my 2 pesos.

[legion]

Jim, I agree with you, to an extent.

I think if they tried to limit team budgets to $1 million, we'd have a very boring series with not technical innovation.

I think with a $40 milllion budget AND loosened regs, we could see some innovation, especially the first few seasons as teams go different directions with their limited resources. Over time though, everyone will start developing the same aspects of the cars and ignoring the same aspects. Then its time for another rule shakeup.

[Jim Richards]

Chris, how 'bout we forget budget caps except for that ol' git Bernie? He's take alone could finance a number of teams.