planetf1.com

I often believed over the 30 years watching this sport. Should the FIA interfere with the the regulations of the sport and change it the following year? Why change the rules of the car?

How can a small team catch up?

Personally I believe there's enough money in each team, specially those that have not got the prize money to shift direction.

Am I wrong here?..... Just a thought !!!

There's a valid argument to keep the rules as they are and this may lead to convergence eventually.

But... it's also highly unlikely that the current rules will ever allow the manufacturers to be challenged. Agree that minor changes would't affect that and would be largely pointless. Depends how genuine they are about wanting to improve things

Rule changes will only work if teams stop making the rules. Rule changes should be completely in dependant.
Otherwise just leave it, then we at least have the hope of convergence.

Zoue wrote:There's a valid argument to keep the rules as they are and this may lead to convergence eventually.

But... it's also highly unlikely that the current rules will ever allow the manufacturers to be challenged. Agree that minor changes would't affect that and would be largely pointless. Depends how genuine they are about wanting to improve things

.

My point is, we will never change, money is an issue here!......

McLaren is slowly catching up, but what about Williams?

It does not effect the big teams!

The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

mikeyg123 wrote:The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

yeah I'm inclined to agree. There may be a little more convergence within each "division," but the pecking order doesn't really change

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

yeah I'm inclined to agree. There may be a little more convergence within each "division," but the pecking order doesn't really change

And it makes sense really. Ferrari and Mercedes can afford 500+ top engineers on the factory floor. The smaller teams have way less than that, I remember Manor had something like 250 personnel or so.

So no matter how much you equalise the rules, they will probably not catch up as fast as the big teams. Or if you want, the big teams will pull away much faster with the development race. And this is not something that F1 can easily fix, can they force them to hire more and better engineers? Re-distributing the money pot is one thing towards that, but I'm afraid it will not just solve this by itself.

Then again Williams has a similar number of employees as the big teams and they are not really setting the world on fire...

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

yeah I'm inclined to agree. There may be a little more convergence within each "division," but the pecking order doesn't really change

And it makes sense really. Ferrari and Mercedes can afford 500+ top engineers on the factory floor. The smaller teams have way less than that, I remember Manor had something like 250 personnel or so.

So no matter how much you equalise the rules, they will probably not catch up as fast as the big teams. Or if you want, the big teams will pull away much faster with the development race. And this is not something that F1 can easily fix, can they force them to hire more and better engineers? Re-distributing the money pot is one thing towards that, but I'm afraid it will not just solve this by itself.

Then again Williams has a similar number of employees as the big teams and they are not really setting the world on fire...

Budget caps.

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

yeah I'm inclined to agree. There may be a little more convergence within each "division," but the pecking order doesn't really change

And it makes sense really. Ferrari and Mercedes can afford 500+ top engineers on the factory floor. The smaller teams have way less than that, I remember Manor had something like 250 personnel or so.

So no matter how much you equalise the rules, they will probably not catch up as fast as the big teams. Or if you want, the big teams will pull away much faster with the development race. And this is not something that F1 can easily fix, can they force them to hire more and better engineers? Re-distributing the money pot is one thing towards that, but I'm afraid it will not just solve this by itself.

Then again Williams has a similar number of employees as the big teams and they are not really setting the world on fire...

They need to disincentivise the big teams from spending that much. A budget cap is a solution but call me cynical but I believe the manufacturers will find ways to bury research in some other division and will circumvent this. There will always be some inequality but that in itself isn't terrible it's just the way things are at the moment the bigger teams have a built-in advantage that only grows the more restrictions they put on things.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

yeah I'm inclined to agree. There may be a little more convergence within each "division," but the pecking order doesn't really change

And it makes sense really. Ferrari and Mercedes can afford 500+ top engineers on the factory floor. The smaller teams have way less than that, I remember Manor had something like 250 personnel or so.

So no matter how much you equalise the rules, they will probably not catch up as fast as the big teams. Or if you want, the big teams will pull away much faster with the development race. And this is not something that F1 can easily fix, can they force them to hire more and better engineers? Re-distributing the money pot is one thing towards that, but I'm afraid it will not just solve this by itself.

Then again Williams has a similar number of employees as the big teams and they are not really setting the world on fire...

Budget caps.

Oh yeah, they were contemplating the budget caps for 2021, weren't they? It seems that it will only affect the big teams and the driver salaries would be separate.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

yeah I'm inclined to agree. There may be a little more convergence within each "division," but the pecking order doesn't really change

And it makes sense really. Ferrari and Mercedes can afford 500+ top engineers on the factory floor. The smaller teams have way less than that, I remember Manor had something like 250 personnel or so.

So no matter how much you equalise the rules, they will probably not catch up as fast as the big teams. Or if you want, the big teams will pull away much faster with the development race. And this is not something that F1 can easily fix, can they force them to hire more and better engineers? Re-distributing the money pot is one thing towards that, but I'm afraid it will not just solve this by itself.

Then again Williams has a similar number of employees as the big teams and they are not really setting the world on fire...

They need to disincentivise the big teams from spending that much. A budget cap is a solution but call me cynical but I believe the manufacturers will find ways to bury research in some other division and will circumvent this. There will always be some inequality but that in itself isn't terrible it's just the way things are at the moment the bigger teams have a built-in advantage that only grows the more restrictions they put on things.

Yeah, I agree, policing it will be the major issue from then on

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:The convergence theory is the biggest myth going.

2009-2013 - Almost the entire 2009 grid would fit into the gap between Vettel and everyone else by the end of 2013.

2005-2008 - Competitiveness about the same.

1998-2004 - McLaren vs Ferrari in 98. Nobody near Ferrari in 04.

Convergence never happens. The have's just accelerate away from the have not's.

yeah I'm inclined to agree. There may be a little more convergence within each "division," but the pecking order doesn't really change

And it makes sense really. Ferrari and Mercedes can afford 500+ top engineers on the factory floor. The smaller teams have way less than that, I remember Manor had something like 250 personnel or so.

So no matter how much you equalise the rules, they will probably not catch up as fast as the big teams. Or if you want, the big teams will pull away much faster with the development race. And this is not something that F1 can easily fix, can they force them to hire more and better engineers? Re-distributing the money pot is one thing towards that, but I'm afraid it will not just solve this by itself.

Then again Williams has a similar number of employees as the big teams and they are not really setting the world on fire...

Budget caps.

Oh yeah, they were contemplating the budget caps for 2021, weren't they? It seems that it will only affect the big teams and the driver salaries would be separate.

The driver salaries should be separate.

I think rule changes should be bigger, more frequent, and be set without team input. Also, I don't think money is half as big of a factor as many others seem to think it is. Ferrari and Redbull haven't really been able to touch Mercedes the last several years even with their massive budgets. Williams is also a great example of how money doesn't buy performance; they went from 3rd in 2014 to dead last lately despite the bigger payout for their performance AND a historical payment. Besides that, tracking team spending seems like it would be an absolute nightmare, and I'm sure the teams will find ways to spend massive amounts of money under the radar.

There are multiple sets of rules. There are the Technical Regulations, the Sporting regulations, and the licensing agreements between the sanctioning body (FIA), the commercial rights holder (Liberty) and the teams, bound by the Concorde Agreement.

Formula One has never stood still, it is constantly changing and evolving. The cars change, the technology changes, everything is in a constant state of flux. That is what makes Formula One what it is. And of course, safety never stops improving, reflected mainly in the Technical Regulations.

But I suspect the main topic in this thread is the Concorde Agreement, who really runs Formula One and where all the money goes. And that is why the three teams that entered Formula One in 2010 folded. And that is why there is a distinct division between the top 3 teams and the rest. And this is why 2019 may be the last year we see Williams competing in Formula One.

Parity is good for any sport, and this is why I pay little interest in Formula One anymore.

Why did Honda and Toyota do so badly when they were serious manufacturer teams? Was it just a logistical thing being based in Japan?

This 'manufacturers are guaranteed to beat the other teams' idea seems to have been a relatively recent notion, albeit I do worry that it is still true nowadays even if it didn't used to be, (i.e. look at Ferrari between 1980 and 1996).

'Small' teams will never catch up with the big boys in the current iteration of the sport, it's that simple. Keep the rules the same, change them every other race it doesn't matter. The big teams can simply outspend them to either exploit a new set of rules faster or keep chasing after minor improvements when the cheap and easy wins have been done. Budget caps are one option but, as mentioned earlier, don't necessarily fix the problem as they're very hard to police and likely to not be low enough to eliminate the divide. This is nothing new of course, in fact it's pretty much inherent in F1. Even if you go back to, say, the 90's the only reason teams like Jordon could keep up was they had the big tobacco money which not only let them develop the car but get decent drivers as well.

If you want to have everyone mixing it up you've really (IMO of course) only really got two choices. 1) Open the rule book up and allow true innovation. None of this small aerodynamic nonsense that'll always favour the richer teams but stuff like sticking six wheels on the car or a whacking big fan on the back. Well, okay, likely not either of those but you get my drift. Smaller teams can then take a punt on something radically different that might gain them a handful of races at the front and enough performance to just about sneak over the line for a title before everyone catches up. Brawn are the classic example of that and I think people forget just how fast the other teams managed to close back up to them.

2) Make it a spec series. Or, at least, a mostly spec series. Best example right now is likely Indycar with a standard chassis and aero kit plus a choice of two engine suppliers. The result is close, tight racing where even teams with ridiculous resources (hi Penske!) can be beaten by an independent entry provided that entry isn't run by McLaren. Now such a restrictive spec wouldn't work for F1 but cutting way down on areas that can give small marginal gains, simplifying designs and doing what you can to ensure parity between design choices might work. Formula E might also work as a decent template though, again, would need some tweaking.

Again though, that's if you want the teams to be on a mostly even footing. The bigger question for F1 is if that's something the sport wants. Is the future close, bumper to bumper racing where anyone could win or does it remain a series focused on the combination of driver and engineering with the biggest bank balance giving an inherent advantage in developing that combo? That's going to be the real challenge to solve and I've got no idea what the answer might be.

F1 Racer wrote:Why did Honda and Toyota do so badly when they were serious manufacturer teams? Was it just a logistical thing being based in Japan?

This 'manufacturers are guaranteed to beat the other teams' idea seems to have been a relatively recent notion, albeit I do worry that it is still true nowadays even if it didn't used to be, (i.e. look at Ferrari between 1980 and 1996).

Honda didn't do too badly to be fair. They built a car capable of dominating for 2009. and before 2007 they looked OK as well.

Even Toyota had their moments. Both competed at a time when there were 8 or so teams aiming to win races and they can't all succeed in that all the time.

Allow Honda and Renaut to develop without stupid engine penatlies..

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Why did Honda and Toyota do so badly when they were serious manufacturer teams? Was it just a logistical thing being based in Japan?

This 'manufacturers are guaranteed to beat the other teams' idea seems to have been a relatively recent notion, albeit I do worry that it is still true nowadays even if it didn't used to be, (i.e. look at Ferrari between 1980 and 1996).

Honda didn't do too badly to be fair. They built a car capable of dominating for 2009. and before 2007 they looked OK as well.

Even Toyota had their moments. Both competed at a time when there were 8 or so teams aiming to win races and they can't all succeed in that all the time.

Toyota had an enormous budget, their own private track, good solid drivers like Trulli and Ralf. It was a fairy tale, that somehow didn't work out. They pulled out after they got hit by the financial crisis in 2009, otherwise they'd still be there. They never managed a win, but had some 2nd and 3rd places pretty much on merit. I do remember them being dragged into a scandal when one year their cars were strikingly similar to the Ferraris, but I don't remember the outcome

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Why did Honda and Toyota do so badly when they were serious manufacturer teams? Was it just a logistical thing being based in Japan?

This 'manufacturers are guaranteed to beat the other teams' idea seems to have been a relatively recent notion, albeit I do worry that it is still true nowadays even if it didn't used to be, (i.e. look at Ferrari between 1980 and 1996).

Honda didn't do too badly to be fair. They built a car capable of dominating for 2009. and before 2007 they looked OK as well.

Even Toyota had their moments. Both competed at a time when there were 8 or so teams aiming to win races and they can't all succeed in that all the time.

Toyota had an enormous budget, their own private track, good solid drivers like Trulli and Ralf. It was a fairy tale, that somehow didn't work out. They pulled out after they got hit by the financial crisis in 2009, otherwise they'd still be there. They never managed a win, but had some 2nd and 3rd places pretty much on merit. I do remember them being dragged into a scandal when one year their cars were strikingly similar to the Ferraris, but I don't remember the outcome

The 2005 car was a good one. With a top driver instead of 2 good ones I htink that car could've taken a championship run.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Why did Honda and Toyota do so badly when they were serious manufacturer teams? Was it just a logistical thing being based in Japan?

This 'manufacturers are guaranteed to beat the other teams' idea seems to have been a relatively recent notion, albeit I do worry that it is still true nowadays even if it didn't used to be, (i.e. look at Ferrari between 1980 and 1996).

Honda didn't do too badly to be fair. They built a car capable of dominating for 2009. and before 2007 they looked OK as well.

Even Toyota had their moments. Both competed at a time when there were 8 or so teams aiming to win races and they can't all succeed in that all the time.

Toyota had an enormous budget, their own private track, good solid drivers like Trulli and Ralf. It was a fairy tale, that somehow didn't work out. They pulled out after they got hit by the financial crisis in 2009, otherwise they'd still be there. They never managed a win, but had some 2nd and 3rd places pretty much on merit. I do remember them being dragged into a scandal when one year their cars were strikingly similar to the Ferraris, but I don't remember the outcome

The 2005 car was a good one. With a top driver instead of 2 good ones I htink that car could've taken a championship run.

Well, with Ferrari out of the picture, they'd have Alonso and the flying Renault to compete, it would be a tall order in my opinion. Only Schumi Sr. from that grid could have done that in my view, but that would be impossible. Maybe Rubens or Montoya could have faired better than the Toyota duo that year, but not to the extent that they'd seriously challenge for the WDC

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Why did Honda and Toyota do so badly when they were serious manufacturer teams? Was it just a logistical thing being based in Japan?

This 'manufacturers are guaranteed to beat the other teams' idea seems to have been a relatively recent notion, albeit I do worry that it is still true nowadays even if it didn't used to be, (i.e. look at Ferrari between 1980 and 1996).

Honda didn't do too badly to be fair. They built a car capable of dominating for 2009. and before 2007 they looked OK as well.

Even Toyota had their moments. Both competed at a time when there were 8 or so teams aiming to win races and they can't all succeed in that all the time.

Toyota had an enormous budget, their own private track, good solid drivers like Trulli and Ralf. It was a fairy tale, that somehow didn't work out. They pulled out after they got hit by the financial crisis in 2009, otherwise they'd still be there. They never managed a win, but had some 2nd and 3rd places pretty much on merit. I do remember them being dragged into a scandal when one year their cars were strikingly similar to the Ferraris, but I don't remember the outcome

The 2005 car was a good one. With a top driver instead of 2 good ones I htink that car could've taken a championship run.

Well, with Ferrari out of the picture, they'd have Alonso and the flying Renault to compete, it would be a tall order in my opinion. Only Schumi Sr. from that grid could have done that in my view, but that would be impossible. Maybe Rubens or Montoya could have faired better than the Toyota duo that year, but not to the extent that they'd seriously challenge for the WDC

Schumacher or Alonso could've given it a go. I'm not saying they could get those drivers. I'm just saying I think the car could've been close to the Renault in performance.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Honda didn't do too badly to be fair. They built a car capable of dominating for 2009. and before 2007 they looked OK as well.

Even Toyota had their moments. Both competed at a time when there were 8 or so teams aiming to win races and they can't all succeed in that all the time.

Toyota had an enormous budget, their own private track, good solid drivers like Trulli and Ralf. It was a fairy tale, that somehow didn't work out. They pulled out after they got hit by the financial crisis in 2009, otherwise they'd still be there. They never managed a win, but had some 2nd and 3rd places pretty much on merit. I do remember them being dragged into a scandal when one year their cars were strikingly similar to the Ferraris, but I don't remember the outcome

The 2005 car was a good one. With a top driver instead of 2 good ones I htink that car could've taken a championship run.

Well, with Ferrari out of the picture, they'd have Alonso and the flying Renault to compete, it would be a tall order in my opinion. Only Schumi Sr. from that grid could have done that in my view, but that would be impossible. Maybe Rubens or Montoya could have faired better than the Toyota duo that year, but not to the extent that they'd seriously challenge for the WDC

Schumacher or Alonso could've given it a go. I'm not saying they could get those drivers. I'm just saying I think the car could've been close to the Renault in performance.

Ok got you, yeah I agree.

One problem no-one ever mentions with F1 today is reliability. Nowadays the top drivers can finish 19-20 races of the 21-race calendar. No wonder the 2nd rank teams never get a chance to win! Back in the 1908s/90s the best teams seldom got above 75% reliability and on average about 50% of the field failed to finish. Now it's regularly 80% finishing, and in Monaco it was 95%!

I'm guessing the reason for this upping of reliability is, ironically, cost saving, ie. that engines have to last so many races now. Presumably they aren't run anywhere near their theoretical max, or they wouldn't last.. Hence they don't break. (Ok so Renault havent been so good, but Merc and Ferrari have). Given their complexity these days it's amazing when you think about it. So let's have more highly stressed engines, which break down more, adding drama and unpredictability to the sport!

I still think the cars are too easy to drive on race day, and not taken close enough to their limit.

When was the last time a front runner retired due to a mistake that didn't involve:-

1) Contact with another car
2) Botched overtake/Defence
3) Weather (ie like Vettel last year. Small error big consequence... but that can happen almost at random when the track goes into the grey area between slicks and inters)

Genuinely, when was the last time a front runner (that isn't called Max)made a mistake, all on his own, that ended his race?

You rarely see it happen further down the grid too.

How often does the wall of champions claim a victim compared to times gone by, same with monaco.

Throw the current rule book in the fire. Get the one from 1978, add the safety features and that's it. Current F1 rule book looks like a nazi constitution.

AravJ wrote:Rule changes will only work if teams stop making the rules. Rule changes should be completely in dependant.
Otherwise just leave it, then we at least have the hope of convergence.

Unfortunately you can't just change the rules drastically because the teams are the ones that cover the costs. Scrap the rule book and you'll have the high spenders putting out the best possible cars using any means necessary. Every new tech idea will be copied by other teams.

Put in cost limits and you'll have higher salaries so only certain teams have the best designers.

Tighten the rules every year to stop the current trend of domination (which has been the norm) and you have a rule book which grows bigger and far more complicated every single year.

The result is what we see today. The teams with the biggest budgets are mostly dominating the sport (Merc, Ferrari, RBR). You can mention the likes of Mclaren being one of the big boys lacking at the moment.

What people seem to forget is how these teams and drivers try so hard to cream every .1 of a second compared to 40 years ago. You also have to remember that back in those days... drivers were being killed far too often.

I've yet to see an idea that is going to 'fix' this problem that F1 has had for decades where the same feqw teams dominate the front...

The fix? every car is the same but congratulations.. this is no longer Formula 1. I want to see technical engineering at its best. I don't care how much it costs. I don't care if a car costs £20M or £100M. This needs to take a page out of Football. If you want to be in this sport - cough up the cash or leave. I want to see Merc, Ferrari, Mclaren, RBR all fighting it out. I want to see drivers there for merit not cash injected in to the sport.

If a team is struggling to be there? Well, leave. F1 can survive without a few teams that can't afford to be there.

Cost cap only exempting 5 salaries?

Badgeronimous wrote:I still think the cars are too easy to drive on race day, and not taken close enough to their limit.

When was the last time a front runner retired due to a mistake that didn't involve:-

1) Contact with another car
2) Botched overtake/Defence
3) Weather (ie like Vettel last year. Small error big consequence... but that can happen almost at random when the track goes into the grey area between slicks and inters)

Genuinely, when was the last time a front runner (that isn't called Max)made a mistake, all on his own, that ended his race?

You rarely see it happen further down the grid too.

How often does the wall of champions claim a victim compared to times gone by, same with monaco.

It would be interesting to actually answer those questions and comparisons objectively, without any (arguably) rose tinted perspective.
I know that the wall of champions gained it's name after a few incidents in quick succession but has never been a particularly common black spot.

kowen1208 wrote:I think rule changes should be bigger, more frequent, and be set without team input. Also, I don't think money is half as big of a factor as many others seem to think it is. Ferrari and Redbull haven't really been able to touch Mercedes the last several years even with their massive budgets. Williams is also a great example of how money doesn't buy performance; they went from 3rd in 2014 to dead last lately despite the bigger payout for their performance AND a historical payment. Besides that, tracking team spending seems like it would be an absolute nightmare, and I'm sure the teams will find ways to spend massive amounts of money under the radar.

According to Newey, merc's aero (or engineering) team is twice that of Red Bull. That's a huge budget difference. Merc also has many top designers/engineers in their squad, RBR only has one.

The biggest change needed is to ease regulations considerably so that engineers have more freedom to design new systems that afford them a performance advantage, so long as it all falls within a specified wheelbase and maximum width.

Doing so will afford teams greater opportunities to come up with designs that will allow their cars to run further up the order. As well a return to some form of ground effects would allow for better racing because cars would be able to follow closer together without suffering from nearly as much washout as we currently see, and drivers can take different lines without worrying about losing it.

ReservoirDog wrote:

kowen1208 wrote:I think rule changes should be bigger, more frequent, and be set without team input. Also, I don't think money is half as big of a factor as many others seem to think it is. Ferrari and Redbull haven't really been able to touch Mercedes the last several years even with their massive budgets. Williams is also a great example of how money doesn't buy performance; they went from 3rd in 2014 to dead last lately despite the bigger payout for their performance AND a historical payment. Besides that, tracking team spending seems like it would be an absolute nightmare, and I'm sure the teams will find ways to spend massive amounts of money under the radar.

According to Newey, merc's aero (or engineering) team is twice that of Red Bull. That's a huge budget difference. Merc also has many top designers/engineers in their squad, RBR only has one.

The only deficit Newey & Co are experiencing is the fact that some of the key people who worked with his Aero unit have been hired away to opposing teams. Red Bull has a rather illustrious budget. Below is a list of budgets for 2018.

Mercedes……………€450 million
Ferrari……………….€430 million
Red Bull……………..€350 million
McLaren……………..€250 million
Renault………………€200 million
Sauber……………….€135 million
Williams……………..€135 million
Toro Rosso………….€125 million
Haas………………….€110 million
Force India………….€110 million

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The biggest change needed is to ease regulations considerably so that engineers have more freedom to design new systems that afford them a performance advantage, so long as it all falls within a specified wheelbase and maximum width.

Doing so will afford teams greater opportunities to come up with designs that will allow their cars to run further up the order. As well a return to some form of ground effects would allow for better racing because cars would be able to follow closer together without suffering from nearly as much washout as we currently see, and drivers can take different lines without worrying about losing it.

ReservoirDog wrote:

kowen1208 wrote:I think rule changes should be bigger, more frequent, and be set without team input. Also, I don't think money is half as big of a factor as many others seem to think it is. Ferrari and Redbull haven't really been able to touch Mercedes the last several years even with their massive budgets. Williams is also a great example of how money doesn't buy performance; they went from 3rd in 2014 to dead last lately despite the bigger payout for their performance AND a historical payment. Besides that, tracking team spending seems like it would be an absolute nightmare, and I'm sure the teams will find ways to spend massive amounts of money under the radar.

According to Newey, merc's aero (or engineering) team is twice that of Red Bull. That's a huge budget difference. Merc also has many top designers/engineers in their squad, RBR only has one.

The only deficit Newey & Co are experiencing is the fact that some of the key people who worked with his Aero unit have been hired away to opposing teams. Red Bull has a rather illustrious budget. Below is a list of budgets for 2018.

Mercedes……………€450 million
Ferrari……………….€430 million
Red Bull……………..€350 million
McLaren……………..€250 million
Renault………………€200 million
Sauber……………….€135 million
Williams……………..€135 million
Toro Rosso………….€125 million
Haas………………….€110 million
Force India………….€110 million

I brought this up in another thread a while ago. RBR's problem is that they simply aren't hiring people in top positions in chassis/aero dept. Compare that with Mercedes and it's night and day.

RBR always starts the season on the back foot and slowly improve. That schtick simply doesn't work in modern F1 where Mercedes are at the top on their game right out the gates. And not just that, Mercedes are also the best at improving through the season. It's impossible for RBR to challenge Mercedes. I smile at people who think they have a chance.

ReservoirDog wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The biggest change needed is to ease regulations considerably so that engineers have more freedom to design new systems that afford them a performance advantage, so long as it all falls within a specified wheelbase and maximum width.

Doing so will afford teams greater opportunities to come up with designs that will allow their cars to run further up the order. As well a return to some form of ground effects would allow for better racing because cars would be able to follow closer together without suffering from nearly as much washout as we currently see, and drivers can take different lines without worrying about losing it.

ReservoirDog wrote:

kowen1208 wrote:I think rule changes should be bigger, more frequent, and be set without team input. Also, I don't think money is half as big of a factor as many others seem to think it is. Ferrari and Redbull haven't really been able to touch Mercedes the last several years even with their massive budgets. Williams is also a great example of how money doesn't buy performance; they went from 3rd in 2014 to dead last lately despite the bigger payout for their performance AND a historical payment. Besides that, tracking team spending seems like it would be an absolute nightmare, and I'm sure the teams will find ways to spend massive amounts of money under the radar.

According to Newey, merc's aero (or engineering) team is twice that of Red Bull. That's a huge budget difference. Merc also has many top designers/engineers in their squad, RBR only has one.

The only deficit Newey & Co are experiencing is the fact that some of the key people who worked with his Aero unit have been hired away to opposing teams. Red Bull has a rather illustrious budget. Below is a list of budgets for 2018.

Mercedes……………€450 million
Ferrari……………….€430 million
Red Bull……………..€350 million
McLaren……………..€250 million
Renault………………€200 million
Sauber……………….€135 million
Williams……………..€135 million
Toro Rosso………….€125 million
Haas………………….€110 million
Force India………….€110 million

I brought this up in another thread a while ago. RBR's problem is that they simply aren't hiring people in top positions in chassis/aero dept. Compare that with Mercedes and it's night and day.

RBR always starts the season on the back foot and slowly improve. That schtick simply doesn't work in modern F1 where Mercedes are at the top on their game right out the gates. And not just that, Mercedes are also the best at improving through the season. It's impossible for RBR to challenge Mercedes. I smile at people who think they have a chance.

May I ask how do we know that?

Siao7 wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The biggest change needed is to ease regulations considerably so that engineers have more freedom to design new systems that afford them a performance advantage, so long as it all falls within a specified wheelbase and maximum width.

Doing so will afford teams greater opportunities to come up with designs that will allow their cars to run further up the order. As well a return to some form of ground effects would allow for better racing because cars would be able to follow closer together without suffering from nearly as much washout as we currently see, and drivers can take different lines without worrying about losing it.

ReservoirDog wrote:

kowen1208 wrote:I think rule changes should be bigger, more frequent, and be set without team input. Also, I don't think money is half as big of a factor as many others seem to think it is. Ferrari and Redbull haven't really been able to touch Mercedes the last several years even with their massive budgets. Williams is also a great example of how money doesn't buy performance; they went from 3rd in 2014 to dead last lately despite the bigger payout for their performance AND a historical payment. Besides that, tracking team spending seems like it would be an absolute nightmare, and I'm sure the teams will find ways to spend massive amounts of money under the radar.

According to Newey, merc's aero (or engineering) team is twice that of Red Bull. That's a huge budget difference. Merc also has many top designers/engineers in their squad, RBR only has one.

The only deficit Newey & Co are experiencing is the fact that some of the key people who worked with his Aero unit have been hired away to opposing teams. Red Bull has a rather illustrious budget. Below is a list of budgets for 2018.

Mercedes……………€450 million
Ferrari……………….€430 million
Red Bull……………..€350 million
McLaren……………..€250 million
Renault………………€200 million
Sauber……………….€135 million
Williams……………..€135 million
Toro Rosso………….€125 million
Haas………………….€110 million
Force India………….€110 million

I brought this up in another thread a while ago. RBR's problem is that they simply aren't hiring people in top positions in chassis/aero dept. Compare that with Mercedes and it's night and day.

RBR always starts the season on the back foot and slowly improve. That schtick simply doesn't work in modern F1 where Mercedes are at the top on their game right out the gates. And not just that, Mercedes are also the best at improving through the season. It's impossible for RBR to challenge Mercedes. I smile at people who think they have a chance.

May I ask how do we know that?

Name the last 3 major hires by RBR? Whenever it happens with any team, it's news. Paddy Lowe to Williams (he turned out to be a dud, but that's a different point), James Allison to Merc. One of RBR guys that McLaren poached, the name escapes me. Renault also hired some highly reputed engineer recently.

ReservoirDog wrote:Name the last 3 major hires by RBR? Whenever it happens with any team, it's news. Paddy Lowe to Williams (he turned out to be a dud, but that's a different point), James Allison to Merc. One of RBR guys that McLaren poached, the name escapes me. Renault also hired some highly reputed engineer recently.

- Merc were good before Allison went there so I don't that much of a difference
- James Key was poached by McLaren, but how much impact did he actually have on this years car? Pedromou or however you spell it was also poached by Mclaren from RBR because of when RBR won championships etc. and he hasn't made much difference since
- Renault hired Budwoski who was part of the FIA but he is no designer, he has access to how other teams have specific designs but may be outdated now. They Nick Chester designing the car so meh
- Williams shows with Paddy Lowe that a highly reputed engineer does not mean instant results

RBR have been fine without full-time Newey, new regs and they will eventually get on top of it. Like they did in 2015 and like they did last year when they had arguably the best chassis. Even Newey in his time made duds.

Reputable engineers are all hype, sure it helps to have a good one but IMO it is more the collective than one sole engineer/designer these days.

v@sh wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:Name the last 3 major hires by RBR? Whenever it happens with any team, it's news. Paddy Lowe to Williams (he turned out to be a dud, but that's a different point), James Allison to Merc. One of RBR guys that McLaren poached, the name escapes me. Renault also hired some highly reputed engineer recently.

- Merc were good before Allison went there so I don't that much of a difference
- James Key was poached by McLaren, but how much impact did he actually have on this years car? Pedromou or however you spell it was also poached by Mclaren from RBR because of when RBR won championships etc. and he hasn't made much difference since
- Renault hired Budwoski who was part of the FIA but he is no designer, he has access to how other teams have specific designs but may be outdated now. They Nick Chester designing the car so meh
- Williams shows with Paddy Lowe that a highly reputed engineer does not mean instant results

RBR have been fine without full-time Newey, new regs and they will eventually get on top of it. Like they did in 2015 and like they did last year when they had arguably the best chassis. Even Newey in his time made duds.

Reputable engineers are all hype, sure it helps to have a good one but IMO it is more the collective than one sole engineer/designer these days.

Your reply is irrelevant to my post, and also highly inaccurate on top of that.

This post is not exactly related to BoP but more of an overtaking thing. One thing that I've often thought is that they are regulating the wrong things. Essentially they have determined why it is so difficult to follow another car (the dirty air that comes off the back of the car). The crackdown on front wing design for this year was intended to dramatically reduce that. Of course the problem is that F1 engineers are really smart and so they have used the bargeboards and other areas to create that outwash that they used to create with the front wing.

I often find myself asking; why don't they regulate outwash itself? I mean literally why not have an FIA wind tunnel and regulations that all cars must produce clean air off of their rear? A little more on the nose, don't you think. Instead of trying to outsmart a bunch of people who you will never outsmart; why not give them no way out?

sandman1347 wrote:This post is not exactly related to BoP but more of an overtaking thing. One thing that I've often thought is that they are regulating the wrong things. Essentially they have determined why it is so difficult to follow another car (the dirty air that comes off the back of the car). The crackdown on front wing design for this year was intended to dramatically reduce that. Of course the problem is that F1 engineers are really smart and so they have used the bargeboards and other areas to create that outwash that they used to create with the front wing.

I often find myself asking; why don't they regulate outwash itself? I mean literally why not have an FIA wind tunnel and regulations that all cars must produce clean air off of their rear? A little more on the nose, don't you think. Instead of trying to outsmart a bunch of people who you will never outsmart; why not give them no way out?

The air will always be turbulent behind the air, how do you define the level of turbulence in a black and white way?

ReservoirDog wrote:

v@sh wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:Name the last 3 major hires by RBR? Whenever it happens with any team, it's news. Paddy Lowe to Williams (he turned out to be a dud, but that's a different point), James Allison to Merc. One of RBR guys that McLaren poached, the name escapes me. Renault also hired some highly reputed engineer recently.

- Merc were good before Allison went there so I don't that much of a difference
- James Key was poached by McLaren, but how much impact did he actually have on this years car? Pedromou or however you spell it was also poached by Mclaren from RBR because of when RBR won championships etc. and he hasn't made much difference since
- Renault hired Budwoski who was part of the FIA but he is no designer, he has access to how other teams have specific designs but may be outdated now. They Nick Chester designing the car so meh
- Williams shows with Paddy Lowe that a highly reputed engineer does not mean instant results

RBR have been fine without full-time Newey, new regs and they will eventually get on top of it. Like they did in 2015 and like they did last year when they had arguably the best chassis. Even Newey in his time made duds.

Reputable engineers are all hype, sure it helps to have a good one but IMO it is more the collective than one sole engineer/designer these days.

Your reply is irrelevant to my post, and also highly inaccurate on top of that.

Looks relevant and accurate enough to me. In particular:

v@sh wrote:Reputable engineers are all hype, sure it helps to have a good one but IMO it is more the collective than one sole engineer/designer these days.

These teams have hundreds of people working for them these days. It is the talent of those people who really make the difference, not the illustrious name at the top of the org chart.

ReservoirDog wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:This post is not exactly related to BoP but more of an overtaking thing. One thing that I've often thought is that they are regulating the wrong things. Essentially they have determined why it is so difficult to follow another car (the dirty air that comes off the back of the car). The crackdown on front wing design for this year was intended to dramatically reduce that. Of course the problem is that F1 engineers are really smart and so they have used the bargeboards and other areas to create that outwash that they used to create with the front wing.

I often find myself asking; why don't they regulate outwash itself? I mean literally why not have an FIA wind tunnel and regulations that all cars must produce clean air off of their rear? A little more on the nose, don't you think. Instead of trying to outsmart a bunch of people who you will never outsmart; why not give them no way out?

The air will always be turbulent behind the air, how do you define the level of turbulence in a black and white way?

It's more about defining what is not allowed; like creating a certain level of outwash. I think it's doable with a bit of brain power. This way; whatever the engineers come up with; it won't lead to it being harder to follow the car in front (like pretty much everything they come up with now).