The Future Of F1

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Hamilton just made three rule proposals:

1. Switch to normally aspirated V-12 engines
2. Go back to manual gearboxes
3. Get rid of power steering.

These last two I support. I favor outlawing any driver aids, requiring all interface between the driver and the car to be mechanical. The first one I am not sure about. I would actually like to see more engine options available, including V-12s, but there are some valid reasons why F1 is racing hybrids. If F1 is going to stay the premier race series, it will have to race a relevant engine (with Formula E lurking in the background).
 

RasputinLives

Not dead
Contributor
I've advocated a free for all on engine regs for quite a while now because it creates different performance and strategy which of course leads to more interesting racing.

You mention Formula E and there is a great example of it over in that formula at the moment. There is a rule regarding how much power a car can put out but no the method of producing it. This has lead to different approaches. Nissan differ from the rest of the teams by having a twin motor in their car. This means their car is heavier but can get on the power far quicker. It's quite noticeable that they are quicker than everyone off the line and out of the corners but start to bog down as everyone else gets up to speed. It also means they have to be more careful on power management. It has led to some interesting racing.

I guess the point I'm making is that I think F1 limits itself too much on some regs and not on others. Limited the aero, reduce restrictions on engine regs. Boom.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
I've advocated a free for all on engine regs for quite a while now because it creates different performance and strategy which of course leads to more interesting racing.
I remember the days when F1 had V-8s, V-12s and turbo inline 4s all racing side-by-side. The cars all behaved differently and they had advantages and disadvantages at different tracks. Which track they were on actually mattered...a lot.

I guess the point I'm making is that I think F1 limits itself too much on some regs and not on others. Limited the aero, reduce restrictions on engine regs. Boom.
Agree entirely, with the caveat that it needs to be under a budget cap.

I have considered for a while whether F1 should use an engine equivalency formula, like sports cars series often do, to encourage the use of multiple configurations and types of engines. Now, there were always problems with that.....but I would rather see multiple engine types and have them deal with the regulatory issues as opposed to running what is becoming a glorified spec series. Not exactly sure how you work that with the current three-engine engines....but I am sure there is a way to balance it with other engines types.
 
Last edited:

Bill Boddy

Professional layabout
Premium Contributor
I enjoy going to the circuit on Friday and seeing a variety of differing series. Remove Friday and one or more of these is likely do disappear which would be a shame. What we could do with is an increase in the number of series on view including some sports cars.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
I enjoy going to the circuit on Friday and seeing a variety of differing series. Remove Friday and one or more of these is likely do disappear which would be a shame. What we could do with is an increase in the number of series on view including some sports cars.
Well, I don't think that what they will be doing will have an impact on that. I gather they are getting rid of the Thursday press conference and the Friday morning practice. So, effectively shortening the race weekend by getting rid of Thursday. It is not an earthshaking change.
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
Well, I am not sure about this change either....especially as I still think they should be doing qualifying on Friday. I gather the underlying reason is that they want to shorten the race weekend by a day, so instead of being Thursday to Sunday, it will be Friday to Sunday. This is of course, related to the increasingly crowded race calendar. The significant impact of requiring cars to be in parc ferme on Saturday was that the team mechanics were no longer do all nighters...which used to be fairly common in F1. Moving it to Friday will certainly make the race weekend better for the crews. Like many changes, this one comes with some plusses and minuses.

Now, not sure who is disadvantaged by the rule change if anyone. I suspect it will make the race weekends a little more random for if people get things a little wrong they won't be able to so easily correct it.
Mercedes boss not in favour of proposed parc ferme rule
Great men think alike..?

https://www.planetf1.com/news/wolff-speaks-out-against-new-parc-ferme-rules/

His reasoning sheds light on how inadequately FiA and Liberty analyzed impact of imposed (arbitrarily established limits on) budget. Buget is a step backwards, just as parc ferme is.
 
Last edited:

Izumi

Points Scorer
Abiteboul slams $175m budget cap figure

Looks like there is more of us who do think Liberty is dead wrong.

Budget excludes: travel, promotions, driver, and engine.

Outspoken 1997 world champion Jacques Villeneuve told Italy's Automoto that the 2021 rules are going in "the opposite direction" compared to what F1 really needs.
"Total stupidity," the Canadian said when asked about the draft 2021 rules which are being talked about in the Montreal paddock.
Yes Jacques, some of us are with you on the same page.
 
Last edited:

Bill Boddy

Professional layabout
Premium Contributor
Yesterday I watched the practice sessions with video from n-tv and commentary on 5 Live. at the end of FP2 the commentators were saying that it had been an extremely interesting session with plenty of interest. I agreed, it was better than the every race that I have seen this year.

Why was this? Could it be because the teams were on the closest together for heaven knows how many years - the top ten drivers were within 1 second of the leader, the next seven drivers were within 1.421 seconds.

Do not do away with FP1 and FP2, get the racing closer by having simpler wings, what were those Newey winglets doing there? And yes, I do mean viciously trim the wings and make engines which cost less than the GDP of the Falkland Islands.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Buget is a step backwards, just as parc ferme is.
Well, a budget cap has never been done before in Formula one...so by definition it can't be a step backwards. Going to naturally aspirated V-8s would be a step backwards...but is a step a lot of fans would support.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Abiteboul slams $175m budget cap figure

Looks like there is more of us who do think Liberty is dead wrong.

Budget excludes: travel, promotions, driver, and engine.

Outspoken 1997 world champion Jacques Villeneuve told Italy's Automoto that the 2021 rules are going in "the opposite direction" compared to what F1 really needs.
"Total stupidity," the Canadian said when asked about the draft 2021 rules which are being talked about in the Montreal paddock.
Yes Jacques, some of us are with you on the same page.
Thanks for this. It is the first concrete numbers I have seen on the budget cap.

So 175 million with drivers, engines, travel and marketing cost excluded. I have to digest this for a while before I make up my mind on it. Understand why drivers and marketing costs were excluded. Not sure about travel, but I don't think I care. Engines is the big one. I do remember at one point they were talking about an increased budget cap for the teams that manufactured engines.

Engines, of course, are the tricky part of any budget cap as there are only four engine manufacturers and 10 teams. So how does one address and control that? I did consider that they needed a separate budget cap for engines. As it is, Mercedes could spend $700 million on new engines...which may be why Abiteboul is not happy (the article does not say why he is not happy....is there an article elsewhere that provides more detail?).

Or.....are we now in the situation where we are close to engine parity between Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda and Renault and with the no new engine regulations, they think that will not be an issue?
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
Well, a budget cap has never been done before in Formula one...so by definition it can't be a step backwards. Going to naturally aspirated V-8s would be a step backwards...but is a step a lot of fans would support.
It would be useful to agree on definitions first. Is F1 an entertainment, business, or mix of both? Budget together with voluminous restrictions (for benefit of Williams and alike) in terms of entertainment is - in my book - step backwards.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
It would be useful to agree on definitions first. Is F1 an entertainment, business, or mix of both? Budget together with voluminous restrictions (for benefit of Williams and alike) in terms of entertainment is - in my book - step backwards.
Not sure what you are trying to define and to what purpose?

It is a sport first. That is why people started racing cars.
Of course, if you are going to sell tickets and get people to watch, it is entertainment also.
Finally, by default, it is a business.

This has always been the case. But it is a sport.
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff member
Premium Contributor
Basically it's 175 million a year to spend on aero and suspension.

Given that a few years back some of the lower order teams were spending less than 100 million all in for cars, drivers, engine purchase, etc etc, they should fall well inside that.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Basically it's 175 million a year to spend on aero and suspension.

Given that a few years back some of the lower order teams were spending less than 100 million all in for cars, drivers, engine purchase, etc etc, they should fall well inside that.
Well, it appears to be a compromise figure, which is fine by me. You kind of need compromise to get things done. So yea, it does not really help some of the backmarker teams and doesn't severely restrict the top teams, but it is a start. It is where they needed to be a decade or so ago. I think they can and should tighten it up the budget cap over time (and place a separate budget cap on engines).

Overall, my sense of the changes by Liberty is that their steps have been very small and incremental. No earthshaking changes in the engines, minor tweaks to aero, minor tweaks to the schedule, minor tweaks to the weekend, a budget cap that is not overly significant, etc. It appears to be a go slow approach and maintain the endorsement/support of the majority of the teams.

Now....I do think that F1 needs more than a few minor tweaks, but in a 100+ billion business, I can understand why they might go with a incremental approach.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Well, it does look like the budget cap is locked in: https://www.grandprix.com/news/teams-sign-agreement-to-lock-in-budget-cap.html

Suspect it will be a permanent fixture in F1 from now on. Once established, I suspect they will never be able to remove it. Sorry Izumi but it needed to be done. As to the value of it (which is actually pretty high), Ross Brawn says "We had to compromise for the beginning....we have a foot in the door now, and that was important.": https://www.grandprix.com/news/early-budget-cap-figure-a-compromise-says-brawn.html
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
Sacrilege act, desecration of values of this unique sport, dubious competence to manage technology series. What else is there to be said?
 
Top Bottom