The FIA has just shot Formula 1 in the foot. Thankfully, I saw the light ages ago and follow WRC instead where such a rule, should it ever happen, wouldn't make a difference. On circuit racing though, it just means "same old, same old" for the next decade.
formatting link
"FIA has just announced a 10-year ban on engine development in Formula One. Teams will have to submit an engine to FIA by March 31, 2008, which they will then have to use through 2017." Speaking about the decision, FIA President Max Mosley said, "There is no need to develop an F1 engine any further. The engine runs at 19,000 rpm, which is far faster than any comparable engine. It sounds good, it's reliable and amazingly the six partially frozen engines of the current manufacturers are really evenly matched."
Nonsense, and hardly recent news since the announcement was made nearly 2 months ago.
Whilst I would agree that F1 is maybe not as exciting as one could wish, I think that has little to do with engine power. IMO aerodynamics and chassis design have bigger influence on ultimate performance. I certainly don't think allowing engine development to carry on would alter this situation, or make F1 more competitive. Probably less so as it makes it harder for those teams with limited budgets to compete.
In GP2 all the cars use the same chassis, engine and tyre supplier, yet the series has produced some of the most exciting racing you'll see on a GP circuit. Sure F1 could be more entertaining on occasion, but again IMO, that has more to do with drivers than with the power of the engine.
The top drivers and their cars are so evenly matched, that it bound to be a bit processional. There's usually quite a bit a scrapping and overtaking lower down the field though.
Personally I shall continue to follow F1 and the WRC, BTCC, GP2, SBK, and Moto GP. They're all interesting to watch. Some more than others. Some races more than others.
And, the WRC has rules which restrict the power the engines can develop, so engine development is not as unrestricted as you suggest. Mike.
Psst, WRC has a similar rule allready since more than a decade. All engines are 300 HP limited through an intakelimiter on the turbo, rendering engine development useless. The actual WRC-engines have barely changed in the last 5-8 years.
The engine freeze in F1 saves a lot of money, the new ruling on aerodynamics even more. Racing will become more matched, more Nascar- like and pilots input will be far more important. Maybe some new teams will be able to get in.
The only (and very slight) inconveniant is that F1 moves away for being the pinnacle of technology but the existing, very strict ruling allready created that situation and the sheer amount of money needed, made that such development were only payable for huge coporations.
In 2007 there were 2 teams who got their act together, 5 extra teams who can hope ever to get their act together, the rest is struggling to survive.
Do you consider Dave Richard a fool? Somebody who doesn't know about racing? His hotly fought for 2008-entry in F1 is not going to happen. Why? The money-side of his new team went belly up.
WRC? It has become such a success lately that television hardly spends any attention to it. Ok: Loeb has won his 4-th consecutif title, Gronholm retires and Subaru seem the lot all edge. 2 Ford's, 2 citroens and 2 Subaur's. Is Skoda still in? 6 to 8 cars fighting for each victory...
It won't anymore. Freeze means there will be redundant designers and engineers. No new low volume / one off bits to rapid prototype, fab, mould and lay up or make from solid. More of the same old bits needed season after season, farm it out to a batch production shop in China or Eastern Europe.
Just the opposite: the money is always in the numbers. More races = more money, more competitors = more money, more cars = more money.
F1 has to find an equilibrium between unpayable technology (ending up with 2 teams racing, the rest driving to arrive) ann the Nascar-formula with gigantic audiences, lots of close racing but preferable with more than left turns too.
Where are the Indy-and IRL-cars, which all have the same chassis, same engine, etc, made? In China? In Eastern Europe?
The UK has the expertise, the production facilities, the schooling and the people. I should guess that gives the UK more than a headstart.
When the number of users grows, margins of profit goes down. The absolute ammount of the profit however goes up.
Example: I had a mobile phone back in 1989. It was bulky (10 kg) and very expensif (more the 4000 UKP). I was about the only one who had one.
Now I have a cellphone with vastly superior possibilities, it costs 20 UKP and everybody has one (or more). Have you seen Vodaphone sponsoring Formula 1 back in 1989?
1) Research,technology and competition made cellphones smaller,cheaper, and better.
2) The mobile phone market wasn't limited to how many of them you could fit on a starting grid
Research,technology and competition made formula 1 so expensif that there are 2 teams able to get their act together, that there are not even 26 cars on the grid, that 4 teams (backed by a manufacturer!!) have considered to not compete in the 2008 season.
What is F1 with 8 cars less on the grid?
There are now 11 teams, each providing 2 cars. Start capacity is 26. The Dave Richards/Aston Martin attempt for 2008 went belly up before even starting. Few consider Dave Richard as not capable.
From the start 20% of the capacity is not used.
As stated above 4 manufactures have considered not competing in 2008 due to the combination of bad results, no very good publicity and extreme cost. 2 "private" teams struggle to survive and drive in another competition: both compete by favor of FIA because their car is not in accordance to the Concord agreement.
Do you realy think that Fia would allow somebody to start racing "in the pinnacle of motorsports" with a 5 year old Arrows-chassis if there was an other option? Idem dito for the Gerard Berger-effort.
What is F1 now? McLaren, Ferrari, BWM (almost there but needing to double/triple its budget and staff to close the gap) and (allready some years) Williams trailing behind. Renault is super-tricky: rumour goes that they would pull out if fined McLaren-style for spying. Fia had to bend over backwards to find a way out.
The rest of the teams are in effect underfunded or loosing money with a second agenda (tax evasion, money laundring, etc) as important or more than the racing itself.
70% of a team's budget goes to the last 1% of performance: the two topteams are now the fase that every extra 1 million US$ invested provides 0,1 sec in laptime improvement and it comes from aero-testing in the windtunnel.
A windtunnel (especially a 1/1-unit) is not powered by electricity nor is air forced through: a lorry full of money comes up and dumps it in. And the windtunnel is just the top of the iceberg: next to it is a factory making parts, of which 80% are destroyed 3-4 weeks later.
In effect F1 has become extreme investment of a very small platform: 17 races of 2 Hr, 34 hours in which 100-800 million US$ must be gained by the team. That is not balancing on a wire, that's a throwing 5 parachutes for a plane , followed by 10 skydivers without chute. They are all fine untill the ground.
No one seemed to complain when Lotus, Brabham, Tyrall , BRM, Vanwall, Benneton and Williams dominated F1. It took Ferrari 15 years to win a F1 championship, not by complaining about the construction regulations but by building a better car within those regulations. What you propose is effectively a one make series with the cars built in different factories.
People don't go into motor racing to make money. Its all paid for via sponsorship. And if there don't look like winning they won't get the sponsors. If they can't win using the same rules as everyone else thats their fault
Stick the drivers in Formula Ford's.
This would ensure close racing, lots of entries, even the local garage could sponsor them, and anyone could build one in his shed.
I do not propose anything nor do I think F1 will end up IRL or Indy-car style.
Your remark of Lotus is funny: the first Lotus-domination was when up to eight cars on the grid were Lotusses, when gentleman drivers (who bought their car) could mix and dice with professionals. As to Vanwall: wasn't that a customer-bought Ferrari painted green? Those things are perfectly outlawed now...
With the actual rules the kind of walk-over by a small but genius-led squad is not longer possible: read about C. Chapmans live and you'll notice he started out from zero. If a new, equal geniussed C. Chapman would like now to start in LeMans or F1 he would have to secure a bancwarranty of around 100 million UPD even before he could start building a car.
AN example? Jordan/Midland/SPyker is now Force India: is the man who bought it an engineer from the Chapman or Cooper-mold? A man interested in technical skills? No: he is a beancounter, a kind of banker. Jordan was a banker too iirc.
You really think that freezing the engine, increasing engine- and gearboxlife, severly reducing actual track testing and reducing windtunnel testing is going to create a one make series? On what is that claim based?
Why has Btcc died? Because the costs were in no relation with the return. Formula 1 is on the same path. While 2007 was a eventfull year, all racing was between 4 cars... 4 out of 22.
I firmly believe there is more money and equally interesting racing (for far less economical risk) to be gained if F1 goes from 17 races to 40 races with a grid from 22 cars (of which 4 are above everything else) to
40 cars, more or less evenly matched.
FYI: every team in the 2007-campaing drove 17 races... and their individual testing miles account for 100-500 race-distances deppending on the actual team. Money spent in windtunnels staggers belief.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.