planetf1.com

FIA sent out a tender for common gearbox for all cars in 2021.
F1 is becoming NASCAR and INDY Racing now. The reason many F1 fans from USA are attracted is because of the teams building cars with non standard components. As much as I like HAAS I despise that they buy parts from Ferrari.

When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
I don't think cost issues are the reason, how much is buried in sims these days? They have sim drivers which is cost they have sim teams just working at the factory...take this away let them test on the circuits its better for the fans. Go back young men go back!!

Yeah, a step towards spec series.

The common ECU I get, makes it easier to police that the teams are not using dodgy software. But standard components is just a disgrace...

AstoriaisBACK wrote:FIA sent out a tender for common gearbox for all cars in 2021.
F1 is becoming NASCAR and INDY Racing now. The reason many F1 fans from USA are attracted is because of the teams building cars with non standard components. As much as I like HAAS I despise that they buy parts from Ferrari.

When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
I don't think cost issues are the reason, how much is buried in sims these days? They have sim drivers which is cost they have sim teams just working at the factory...take this away let them test on the circuits its better for the fans. Go back young men go back!!

They're trying to control costs to make the sport more viable for teams. I don't have a problem with standard gear boxes so long as they actually save on costs. Unfortunately half of the cost-cutting measures that are implemented by the FIA have the unintended consequence of increasing costs as teams seek workarounds to circumvent them.

sandman1347 wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:FIA sent out a tender for common gearbox for all cars in 2021.
F1 is becoming NASCAR and INDY Racing now. The reason many F1 fans from USA are attracted is because of the teams building cars with non standard components. As much as I like HAAS I despise that they buy parts from Ferrari.

When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
I don't think cost issues are the reason, how much is buried in sims these days? They have sim drivers which is cost they have sim teams just working at the factory...take this away let them test on the circuits its better for the fans. Go back young men go back!!

They're trying to control costs to make the sport more viable for teams. I don't have a problem with standard gear boxes so long as they actually save on costs. Unfortunately half of the cost-cutting measures that are implemented by the FIA have the unintended consequence of increasing costs as teams seek workarounds to circumvent them.

how much is the cost of gearbox? really? I don not buy this other than a step towards spec series. Start small keep taking away things and before you know it we are spec. This is disgraceful. I would argue that simulators are terribly expensive to purchase , maintain, how much are the spending to emulate the car on the computer and every circuit. the software costs alone are massive I am guessing in excess of 20 million dollars per year all in costs. why not let the teams test every day with regulation that the circuits must be free and costs are paid by teams most likely you have Silverstone, Mugello, for the teams all garages must be open no screens and covered by tv coverage. I would for sure pay an extra 10-20 bucks a year for f1Tv to show this. just one example of many out there.

We need access and we need individuality to keep F1 relevant. I like that Ferrari is different then MB. we need to keep this inside as well as outside.

sandman1347 wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:FIA sent out a tender for common gearbox for all cars in 2021.
F1 is becoming NASCAR and INDY Racing now. The reason many F1 fans from USA are attracted is because of the teams building cars with non standard components. As much as I like HAAS I despise that they buy parts from Ferrari.

When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
I don't think cost issues are the reason, how much is buried in sims these days? They have sim drivers which is cost they have sim teams just working at the factory...take this away let them test on the circuits its better for the fans. Go back young men go back!!

They're trying to control costs to make the sport more viable for teams. I don't have a problem with standard gear boxes so long as they actually save on costs. Unfortunately half of the cost-cutting measures that are implemented by the FIA have the unintended consequence of increasing costs as teams seek workarounds to circumvent them.

I'm with you on the cost aspect but this being COMPETITION, I think standardized gearboxes in essence are a mistake and a step in the wrong direction for F1. I feel that gear boxes add another element to the competition that is F1.

The tires are now standardized, Engines are now down to just 4 so many teams run the same ones, the rules are written to force teams to adhere to a homologation of sorts and for teams to devise their own proprietary design without breaching the regs is a monumental feat in and of itself. If they want to cut costs, they should do away with DRS, ERS, KERS and the Hybrid altogether and bring back either larger, naturally aspirated engines or supercharged V8's that run off the crankshaft rather than relying on complex electronics to drive the system.

The ECU has been standardized for 2 decades now and I feel that's enough. So long as teams can't cheat thanks to the ECU, all else should be free form design. Things like maximum and minimum wheelbase and width should be limited to a tight range, and ride height as well, but all else should be left to interpretation.

The modern day practice of teams pointing out that team X is beating us because they designed component X so radically different that it's simply beating the pants out of ours. Example being the Exhaust Blown and Double-Decker Diffusers. In 2011-ish Lotus devised a double-decker floor that was deemed legal by the FIA "BEFORE" they started building it, and when some teams saw it they went crying foul to the FIA who once again declared it legal until more complaints were filed, at which point it was deemed illegal, thereby forcing Lotus to redesign their floor as well as much of the car which was all designed to work in unison with their unique floor design.

And the ultimate in saving money is to bring back ground effects so that all the MILLIONS of dollars being spent on wings, winglets, and crap like DRS can be better invested by the teams. That would also help solve the issue people have when claiming the sport is processional and boring, because with ground effects, cars can once again go around the outside and follow one another closely without having to worry about severe washout.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I think my question would be how much of a differentiator is the gearbox in performance? Now they are pretty much instantaneous - changing in sub milliseconds - and the regulations are so tight there is no scope for any new ideas. I think the last time I heard of anyone trying anything inventive was the super low gearbox Williams tried around 2012, and it was hardly a game changer.

So I would say - if there is serious scope for performance gains between competing designs then this is a bad step - but if pretty much all of the teams are on the same page then it makes sense to save money and have everyone use the same part.

I agree with this. What is the point in having all the teams each spend millions on developing their own version of the same thing? They could have secretly introduced standard gearboxes without telling the public and no one would have noticed.

How could the teams develop clutches to increase performance from standardised gearboxes?

I'm not really having the "sky is falling" reaction to this as some other fans.

The point has been made that gearboxes have converged to similar technologies and performance. When this happens, the cost of performance gains increases exponentially. It's much more costly to get half a tenth out of a highly developed gearbox than a new one.

The big teams also sell each other gearboxes and driveline components:

Alfa Romeo and Haas use Ferrari gearboxes.
Toro Rosso use Red Bull gearboxes.
Racing Point use Mercedes gearboxes.

Williams use their own, but admit this is an expensive exercise.

These kinds of commercial arrangements further increase the gap between the big teams and the small teams - small teams buying gearboxes helps the financial position of the big teams.

If there was an independent control supplier, this means lower expenses for all teams (as the development cost is negated).

A control gearbox certainly wouldn't be the end of the world - it's a fairly inconsequential component in terms of performance. The teams still have massive scope with the chassis, suspension, exhausts, choice of engine.

Yeah I’m not fussed with making a spec gearbox. I don’t recall hearing commentators praising one team for having a superior gearbox, or a superior gearbox giving a team an advantage over its rivals.

If the powers that be have done their research, and found there’s no difference in designs/performance, but having a standard gearbox would create a significant cost saving, then why not

The problem is you lose innovation. Let's say Mclaren come up with some next generation gearbox that gives them some performence. we lose this innovation and its terrible. Again take away gearbox next they take away something else, before you know it we are a spec series. When all get the same thing there is no desire to enhance or make better, we get NASCAR. All the same cars all the same everything, you could buy a Penske car right now go racing under your own team name with sponsors. You have 30 different sponsor boards rolling around a circuit. Not for me and should not be for F1

Charles LeBrad wrote:Yeah I’m not fussed with making a spec gearbox. I don’t recall hearing commentators praising one team for having a superior gearbox, or a superior gearbox giving a team an advantage over its rivals.

If the powers that be have done their research, and found there’s no difference in designs/performance, but having a standard gearbox would create a significant cost saving, then why not

That super low gearbox mentioned a few posts above was also radically different in size to everyone else's as it was TINY. Since then however, Williams enlarged it a bit to cope with the increase in torque of the Hybrids. The ideology behind it is to allow everything to be mounted as low as possible in the car to maintain the lowest possible center of gravity. I wouldn't say it wasn't a game changer, so much as I'd say the rest of the car was not capable of running any faster thanks to the aero package.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:The problem is you lose innovation. Let's say Mclaren come up with some next generation gearbox that gives them some performence. we lose this innovation and its terrible. Again take away gearbox next they take away something else, before you know it we are a spec series. When all get the same thing there is no desire to enhance or make better, we get NASCAR. All the same cars all the same everything, you could buy a Penske car right now go racing under your own team name with sponsors. You have 30 different sponsor boards rolling around a circuit. Not for me and should not be for F1

I'm willing to bet the reasoning behind this is to stifle teams doing things with the transmission that afford them an advantage over the rest.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Charles LeBrad wrote:Yeah I’m not fussed with making a spec gearbox. I don’t recall hearing commentators praising one team for having a superior gearbox, or a superior gearbox giving a team an advantage over its rivals.

If the powers that be have done their research, and found there’s no difference in designs/performance, but having a standard gearbox would create a significant cost saving, then why not

That super low gearbox mentioned a few posts above was also radically different in size to everyone else's as it was TINY. Since then however, Williams enlarged it a bit to cope with the increase in torque of the Hybrids. The ideology behind it is to allow everything to be mounted as low as possible in the car to maintain the lowest possible center of gravity. I wouldn't say it wasn't a game changer, so much as I'd say the rest of the car was not capable of running any faster thanks to the aero package.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:The problem is you lose innovation. Let's say Mclaren come up with some next generation gearbox that gives them some performence. we lose this innovation and its terrible. Again take away gearbox next they take away something else, before you know it we are a spec series. When all get the same thing there is no desire to enhance or make better, we get NASCAR. All the same cars all the same everything, you could buy a Penske car right now go racing under your own team name with sponsors. You have 30 different sponsor boards rolling around a circuit. Not for me and should not be for F1

I'm willing to bet the reasoning behind this is to stifle teams doing things with the transmission that afford them an advantage over the rest.

Exactly my point...Let them go innovate if Mclaren gets an advantage better for them, so the only innovation can be aero? so RedBull can spend any amount and win beacuse of Newey? Why limit anywhere? Lets keep innovating thats F1!

AstoriaisBACK wrote:The problem is you lose innovation. Let's say Mclaren come up with some next generation gearbox that gives them some performence. we lose this innovation and its terrible. Again take away gearbox next they take away something else, before you know it we are a spec series. When all get the same thing there is no desire to enhance or make better, we get NASCAR. All the same cars all the same everything, you could buy a Penske car right now go racing under your own team name with sponsors. You have 30 different sponsor boards rolling around a circuit. Not for me and should not be for F1

How much innovation is there currently though in the Gearbox department? It was mentioned earlier that 40% of teams are already buying these components off other teams. That's one team short of being half the grid.

You would still get some degree of innovation, as it won't be a set and forget kind of part. Teams will still have to work out how to best make the spec gearbox work best with their car.

I'm pretty much on the side of those that think this is not a good thing and the first step on a slippery slope towards a spec series. Innovation is part and parcel of F1 and I don't see a good justification to stifle that in this particular area. I very much doubt the cost savings will be that significant anyway and I don't see how this helps anything

Me personally couldn't give two hoots about gearboxes, but I can appreciate alot of people do.
I think we should draw the line here and go no further.

my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

I feel the same, I can see it being less of a "drawing the line here" scenario and more of "we'll do this, in 2 years they'll be used to it so then we can do another change" type of thing...

I sincerely hope not

Siao7 wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

I feel the same, I can see it being less of a "drawing the line here" scenario and more of "we'll do this, in 2 years they'll be used to it so then we can do another change" type of thing...

I sincerely hope not

Thanks and I feel you are correct. It's funny they took away testing because of the Ferrari advantage of owning a circuit and of course because of costs as rich teams can run every day if they wanted. They failed to grasp that simulation now is a huge part of the F1 budgets, testing is still happening however now it's done by computers, reserve drives, Sim drivers and Sim teams not to mention the sim development teams and it's also done behind closed doors so no fan can see this. If they just change this one area I feel that fans would enjoy this. Just look at the community we chat in...last week it was exploding with information, with ideas, posts, opinions....this week the traffic is down from what I see, posts aren't as many and I believe it's due to the visual aspect, we got to see whats going on... Keep engineers doing the engineering and stop making them the rules makers...

AstoriaisBACK wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

I feel the same, I can see it being less of a "drawing the line here" scenario and more of "we'll do this, in 2 years they'll be used to it so then we can do another change" type of thing...

I sincerely hope not

Thanks and I feel you are correct. It's funny they took away testing because of the Ferrari advantage of owning a circuit and of course because of costs as rich teams can run every day if they wanted. They failed to grasp that simulation now is a huge part of the F1 budgets, testing is still happening however now it's done by computers, reserve drives, Sim drivers and Sim teams not to mention the sim development teams and it's also done behind closed doors so no fan can see this. If they just change this one area I feel that fans would enjoy this. Just look at the community we chat in...last week it was exploding with information, with ideas, posts, opinions....this week the traffic is down from what I see, posts aren't as many and I believe it's due to the visual aspect, we got to see whats going on... Keep engineers doing the engineering and stop making them the rules makers...

Yes, agreed fully.

What do gearboxes add to the show?

ALESI wrote:What do gearboxes add to the show?

Same thing that all the stuff that you can't see under the bonnet do to be fair...

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

wolfticket wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

The engine limit was introduced in 2005, wasn't it? Something like 8 engines per year, one every two GPs?

Siao7 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

The engine limit was introduced in 2005, wasn't it? Something like 8 engines per year, one every two GPs?

Think they went one engine per weekend prior to that (2004?). Before then they'd literally use one engine per qualifying run and then throw it away, which I found depressingly wasteful to be honest. Restricting the number of engines being used was not a bad idea in my view, but they've gone WAY too far with it now.

wolfticket wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

It was true in the early 80's and 90's right up to 2004 I think or the previous concorde agreeemnt that limited testing and engines for a year not sure of that agreement year off top of my head. 2007-08

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

The engine limit was introduced in 2005, wasn't it? Something like 8 engines per year, one every two GPs?

Think they went one engine per weekend prior to that (2004?). Before then they'd literally use one engine per qualifying run and then throw it away, which I found depressingly wasteful to be honest. Restricting the number of engines being used was not a bad idea in my view, but they've gone WAY too far with it now.

I’m going to be non PC but I actually wouldn’t mind a return to disposable engines, not that I think it will ever happen.

The philosophy of the day was build things for the GP and no more. So everything on the car was designed to last for that race. Now we have a situation where drivers try to push as little as possible in order to extend the life of various components and for me that has changed the character of F1 and not in a good way. I would rather they use less technically advanced engines and change them every race than use engineering miracles that the drivers have to mollycoddle over several weekends. For me there is way too much emphasis on conservation and durability which is a little ironic given how obsessed they are with “the show.’ Now drivers only push out of necessity and invariably for the briefest time possible and I think F1 is poorer for it

Zoue wrote:

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

The engine limit was introduced in 2005, wasn't it? Something like 8 engines per year, one every two GPs?

Think they went one engine per weekend prior to that (2004?). Before then they'd literally use one engine per qualifying run and then throw it away, which I found depressingly wasteful to be honest. Restricting the number of engines being used was not a bad idea in my view, but they've gone WAY too far with it now.

I’m going to be non PC but I actually wouldn’t mind a return to disposable engines, not that I think it will ever happen.

The philosophy of the day was build things for the GP and no more. So everything on the car was designed to last for that race. Now we have a situation where drivers try to push as little as possible in order to extend the life of various components and for me that has changed the character of F1 and not in a good way. I would rather they use less technically advanced engines and change them every race than use engineering miracles that the drivers have to mollycoddle over several weekends. For me there is way too much emphasis on conservation and durability which is a little ironic given how obsessed they are with “the show.’ Now drivers only push out of necessity and invariably for the briefest time possible and I think F1 is poorer for it

Agree!! Let's let these guys race, develop engines etc. no restrictions!

Today they building the transmission on a metal case that fits like a cartridge inside a carbon fiber shell that provides all the car specific hard points. The common transmission makes a lot of sense as it could still allow the teams to design around it as they desire.

Perfectly fine with this. In 1978, for example, everybody got that Hewlett gearboxes and all was fine. The sport did not suffer.

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

The engine limit was introduced in 2005, wasn't it? Something like 8 engines per year, one every two GPs?

Think they went one engine per weekend prior to that (2004?). Before then they'd literally use one engine per qualifying run and then throw it away, which I found depressingly wasteful to be honest. Restricting the number of engines being used was not a bad idea in my view, but they've gone WAY too far with it now.

Probably you are right, can't remember now.

But I agree, they went completely the other way.

Zoue wrote:

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:...
When can I wake up from this terrible dream? I want to go back to unlimited testing, unlimited engines....lets just go race.
...

When was this true?

The engine limit was introduced in 2005, wasn't it? Something like 8 engines per year, one every two GPs?

Think they went one engine per weekend prior to that (2004?). Before then they'd literally use one engine per qualifying run and then throw it away, which I found depressingly wasteful to be honest. Restricting the number of engines being used was not a bad idea in my view, but they've gone WAY too far with it now.

I’m going to be non PC but I actually wouldn’t mind a return to disposable engines, not that I think it will ever happen.

The philosophy of the day was build things for the GP and no more. So everything on the car was designed to last for that race. Now we have a situation where drivers try to push as little as possible in order to extend the life of various components and for me that has changed the character of F1 and not in a good way. I would rather they use less technically advanced engines and change them every race than use engineering miracles that the drivers have to mollycoddle over several weekends. For me there is way too much emphasis on conservation and durability which is a little ironic given how obsessed they are with “the show.’ Now drivers only push out of necessity and invariably for the briefest time possible and I think F1 is poorer for it

True, back then Prost was a genius for nursing his car and making it last when others pushed and broke down. These days it is the norm to nurse the car throughout the GP. I will respect the teams decisions of course, as we can moan here about someone else's purse all we want really.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

When has this ever happened?

By all means disagree with the proposal because you think it's not what F1 should be about. But, generally speaking, whenever teams have been left to innovate and be creative, it's ended up with one team dominating, resulting in anything but great racing

Argentum wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

When has this ever happened?

By all means disagree with the proposal because you think it's not what F1 should be about. But, generally speaking, whenever teams have been left to innovate and be creative, it's ended up with one team dominating, resulting in anything but great racing

I disagree look at the years when BMW/Williams was winnimg and Ferrari was winning and Mclaren was winning you had three great teams plus the occasional Jordan win and Benneton too. those years as an example was great years with no budget, no restrictions on engines, no restrictions on testing, you had three complete cars go to every GP and could jump into the spare if needed before the GP started, those were great years you had 4-5 teams winning and costs where not limited.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:

Argentum wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

When has this ever happened?

By all means disagree with the proposal because you think it's not what F1 should be about. But, generally speaking, whenever teams have been left to innovate and be creative, it's ended up with one team dominating, resulting in anything but great racing

I disagree look at the years when BMW/Williams was winnimg and Ferrari was winning and Mclaren was winning you had three great teams plus the occasional Jordan win and Benneton too. those years as an example was great years with no budget, no restrictions on engines, no restrictions on testing, you had three complete cars go to every GP and could jump into the spare if needed before the GP started, those were great years you had 4-5 teams winning and costs where not limited.

... and it was completely unsustainable in the long run and the sport nearly imploded when the manufacturers decided that spending hundreds of millions per year on F1 was not a good investment.

j man wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:

Argentum wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

When has this ever happened?

By all means disagree with the proposal because you think it's not what F1 should be about. But, generally speaking, whenever teams have been left to innovate and be creative, it's ended up with one team dominating, resulting in anything but great racing

I disagree look at the years when BMW/Williams was winnimg and Ferrari was winning and Mclaren was winning you had three great teams plus the occasional Jordan win and Benneton too. those years as an example was great years with no budget, no restrictions on engines, no restrictions on testing, you had three complete cars go to every GP and could jump into the spare if needed before the GP started, those were great years you had 4-5 teams winning and costs where not limited.

... and it was completely unsustainable in the long run and the sport nearly imploded when the manufacturers decided that spending hundreds of millions per year on F1 was not a good investment.

What do you mean? Willimas is still here, as is Ferrari, Mclaren and Renault. I don't hear Ferrari or MB complaining. If you make it a spec series I bet you hear complaining and leaving there you are for sure not getting any innovation at all.

But they still have to make their own cases so is there really a substantial saving here? The casing is used to mount the rear suspension and each team has their own configuration.

Swiss1 wrote:But they still have to make their own cases so is there really a substantial saving here? The casing is used to mount the rear suspension and each team has their own configuration.

point taken!

AstoriaisBACK wrote:

j man wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:

Argentum wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:my argument is will that be it? One day hey it's only a gearbox next day hey it's only a front wing. I keep saying this and hopefully there are others that support this, F1 is not other series let the team be creative let the teams innovate let them test and from this we get great racing.

When has this ever happened?

By all means disagree with the proposal because you think it's not what F1 should be about. But, generally speaking, whenever teams have been left to innovate and be creative, it's ended up with one team dominating, resulting in anything but great racing

I disagree look at the years when BMW/Williams was winnimg and Ferrari was winning and Mclaren was winning you had three great teams plus the occasional Jordan win and Benneton too. those years as an example was great years with no budget, no restrictions on engines, no restrictions on testing, you had three complete cars go to every GP and could jump into the spare if needed before the GP started, those were great years you had 4-5 teams winning and costs where not limited.

... and it was completely unsustainable in the long run and the sport nearly imploded when the manufacturers decided that spending hundreds of millions per year on F1 was not a good investment.

What do you mean? Willimas is still here, as is Ferrari, Mclaren and Renault. I don't hear Ferrari or MB complaining. If you make it a spec series I bet you hear complaining and leaving there you are for sure not getting any innovation at all.

We nearly ended up with a farcical 16 car grid for 2010 after Toyota and BMW suddenly decided to pull the plug on their operations; fortunately Peter Sauber cared enough about his old team to bail them out, and then the likes of HRT came in to make up the numbers. Renault pulled out the year after. All three decided that this big-budget free-for-all arrangement was a waste of money, and Bernie only managed to keep the remaining big players on board by giving them a disproportionate share of the TV money and not leaving enough left over for the 11th and 12th placed teams to receive anything at all.

I don't want a spec series either, and making some components standardised does not necessarily mean the sport is headed down that route. One could argue that by introducing cost-saving standardised parts in areas with minimal performance differential, we are opening the door to greater investment and hence greater innovation in the areas of the car that actually make a difference. We pretty much have standardised gearboxes already because the teams all converge on pretty much the same solution.

Incidentally the most interesting area of innovation in the sport for some years has been the hybrid engines, yet lots of people argue that their cost and complexity don't benefit the sport at all.

I am quite against a spec series, but I'd bet that a spec gearbox would be 99% of what any gearbox a team could make.

It's a well trodden, and well mastered bit of tech, that probably sees every team do nearly the same thing. Nobody is going to make anything much better than the next team, but I suppose somebody could build a dog.

Tbh, a standard part here makes sense.