Read that Ilmor & Cosworth are favoring the 2021 engine regs. With them & Porsche, maybe there would be some new suppliers in the sport.

Maybe enough to entice a new constructor or 2?

Wishful thinking.

I would prefer a much more open engine formula as in limiting them to a V6 turbo layout. Have a displacement/weight/aspiration ratio instead of a hard limit.

Drastic reduction in wing design and downforce. Limit shape and type of wing. Let the engines be overpowered and the bodies be underdownforced.

Chassis dynamics are almost a lost art. Everything is aero. Hire the best aerodynamicist and buy enough wind tunnel you can win. The engines are going to almost be spec racing after 2021.

F1 needs to get away from eco racing. Let LeMans be the testbed for eco racing.

Did anyone else see the Williams movie on Netflix?
Thought is was a good look behind the scenes.

I think it would definitely be interesting to relax the engine spec & give them some design freedom. Set thresholds for size & configuration based on FI or NA.
I'm sure it'd be grossly expensive, which is why it'll likely not happen.

Early this season they had an interview with Gene Haas.
He said the most interesting part is to get to see the amazing equipment up close but it was sad that the fans didn’t get to see any of it.
Opening up the garages more so spectators could walk through would make an event so much more worthwhile.
I went to Watkins Glen when the GP was there years ago. For a small sum you could walk down the center isle in the garage and look at the teams close up, just separated by a wire fence. You could talk to the team members and often the drivers.
Too bad that they don’t do that anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Early this season they had an interview with Gene Haas.
He said the most interesting part is to get to see the amazing equipment up close but it was sad that the fans didn’t get to see any of it.
Opening up the garages more so spectators could walk through would make an event so much more worthwhile.
I went to Watkins Glen when the GP was there years ago. For a small sum you could walk down the center isle in the garage and look at the teams close up, just separated by a wire fence. You could talk to the team members and often the drivers.
Too bad that they don’t do that anymore.

Well, they do to an extent. But Paddock Club tickets are quite pricey.
Comes with a pit walk & paddock tour.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: P250UA5,

It is so odd to hear people say we want no restrictions, yet they want better racing. Any idea how well the last 10 years of restrictions has been - take a look at Force India. If you let teams spend what they want, you would get the two teams competing. F1 does a good job by constantly switching it up so you don't get 8 years of a single dominant car, and keeping costs down to entice new teams.

Honestly, I think the best thing to happen would be for Fararri to quit the sport, and stop threatening, because it is getting pretty tired, the whole I'll take my ball and go home shtick.

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:
It is so odd to hear people say we want no restrictions, yet they want better racing. Any idea how well the last 10 years of restrictions has been - take a look at Force India. If you let teams spend what they want, you would get the two teams competing. F1 does a good job by constantly switching it up so you don't get 8 years of a single dominant car, and keeping costs down to entice new teams.

Honestly, I think the best thing to happen would be for Fararri to quit the sport, and stop threatening, because it is getting pretty tired, the whole I'll take my ball and go home shtick.

Definitely a good argument, it would drive costs into astronomical territory & drive out the smaller teams. Unless some additional outside engine suppliers came in.

Ferrari spends $800 million and William spends $50 million. Look at their respective grid spots. The specs aren’t saving anyone any money.

All that is gone includes competition, innovation, non-cfd testing, and spare cars. Is it really cheaper to spend 24 hours and all hands on deck rebuilding a car from parts/scratch? Or to have a car ready to go back in the trailer?

Do you really think that Mercedes is not spending a metric shit-ton of money to lead the pack for the last four years?

And Redbull? Crap, they have four cars on the grid. Tell me again about saving money and how that fits in to formula one … was that really ever the intent of the premier racing series in the world?

If you need to watch your pennies, formula one isn’t for you. If anyone recalls, the reason more manufactures are not in the sport was because of the lack of racing in North America for a while. You can thank Bernie for that mess. No one was going to spend big money just to showcase their cars in Europe, Arabia to Malaysia. All the buyers are here in the USA. Don’t ever fool yourself into believing that racing isn’t marketing.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
Ferrari spends $800 million and William spends $50 million. Look at their respective grid spots. The specs aren’t saving anyone any money.

All that is gone includes competition, innovation, non-cfd testing, and spare cars. Is it really cheaper to spend 24 hours and all hands on deck rebuilding a car from parts/scratch? Or to have a car ready to go back in the trailer?

Do you really think that Mercedes is not spending a metric shit-ton of money to lead the pack for the last four years?

And Redbull? Crap, they have four cars on the grid. Tell me again about saving money and how that fits in to formula one … was that really ever the intent of the premier racing series in the world?

If you need to watch your pennies, formula one isn’t for you. If anyone recalls, the reason more manufactures are not in the sport was because of the lack of racing in North America for a while. You can thank Bernie for that mess. No one was going to spend big money just to showcase their cars in Europe, Arabia to Malaysia. All the buyers are here in the USA. Don’t ever fool yourself into believing that racing isn’t marketing.

You are not even remotely close in your costs. Last year Williams spent 187MM Euro, Red Bull and Mercedes spent between 465-469 million euro each. Now given Mercendes has won the Championship each of the last three previous years, you would think they get the most prize money - No your wrong. Ferrari has taken the largest purse each of the last three years - last year $190 million euro. What those teams get for that increase in spending is aerodynamic improvements and efficiency. I mean Force India runs the exact same engine as MB, and while they are faster in a line (low drag), they have not mastered going faster through the bends, which wins championships.

Red Bull has decided to own two teams, and they pay the entry and costs for two teams, and if they wish to sell a team they can.

Nobody is saying F1 is all for pinching pennies - I mean the top 3 spending teams spend more than the other 7 combined (of which Ferrari add 450 million euro), and keep in mind, they don't play for tires or cargo - that is covered by DHL and Perelli. So yeah, chew on that for a second, the 10 teams spent 3 BILLION Euro in 2015, I would not call that cheap. Is your goal to drive away Williams, Renault, Force India, Sauber and Hass, all of which have budgets under $225 million euro, and just let Red Bull, Mercedes, McLaren and Ferrari Race?

Does somebody need to remind you of the teams that have folded for monetary reasons? I'll refresh your memory, but I'll spare you and only go back to 1990, and only list out those who raced a full season:
Jordon
Leyton House
Larrousse
Jaguar
Brawn (yes Ross Brawn has admitted he did not have the $$$ for another full season even though they won the championship. This was in part because Honda had already paid entry fee for the 2009 season and done the work on the car, and Mercedes took a leap on a handshake deal with Brawn for engines)
Midland
Fondmetal
BAR
Marussia
Forti
Lambo (Modena)
Honda
Caterham
HRT
Manor
Lotus (Malaysian)
Lotus (was bought by Renault for pennies on the dollar from Genii Capital)
Pacific
Simtek
Spyker
Super Aguri
Toyota
Venturi
Virgin

Yes, 24 teams that raced at least one full season folded/ or were bought out in the last 26 years.

And you make a point to mention no innovation - seriously? KERs is on cars today, and that was developed in the F1 garage less than a decade ago. Regenerative Breaking is already on Ferrari's road cars, Thermal Turbo's have been a bit of a drag, but there are more road cars with turbo's today on the road than any time is history, and Mercedes V6 has reached new milestones on thermal efficiency?

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I would prefer a much more open engine formula as in limiting them to a V6 turbo layout. Have a displacement/weight/aspiration ratio instead of a hard limit.

Drastic reduction in wing design and downforce. Limit shape and type of wing. Let the engines be overpowered and the bodies be underdownforced.

Chassis dynamics are almost a lost art. Everything is aero. Hire the best aerodynamicist and buy enough wind tunnel you can win.

So let me get this straight, you want slower lap times, (a la slower speeds)? Another words you want to make the engines heavier, with less downforce, and therefore more dangerous?

Also, what do you mean by Chassis Dynamics? Are you suggesting ride height controls, such as the 1993 Rothmans Williams? All the people who are calling for reduced downforce and other changes seem to forget 1994, which saw the loss of life of both Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna, the later who was quoted as saying "this is going to be a season with a lot of accidents" as a results of "reduction of drivers aids and an increase in speed". That was on March 26 at qualifying before the Brazilian Grand Prix, 34 days before he died from injuries sustained on the track at Imola.

Another record I heard on the race today - Track Records for both in race and in qualifying. In 2017, there have been 19 races to date, no new tracks, yet there have been 11 race pace lap records set, and 14 qualifying track records set.

Since the 2005 season ended (the last real yer of the V10, there have only be 9 recodes set (qualifying). As of today, the V8 engines have just two records remaining on the books - Spanish Grand Prix (Race Pace), and Yas Marina (Race Pace), but I would have to assume that will end in 2 weeks at the ultimate race of the season.

For those that don't remember, 2004 was the last year the V10 was permitted to have 6 valves (reduced to 5 in 2005) and BMW's engine peaked at 19,500 RPM, was under 200 lbs, and cleared 900 horsepower.

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I would prefer a much more open engine formula as in limiting them to a V6 turbo layout. Have a displacement/weight/aspiration ratio instead of a hard limit.

Drastic reduction in wing design and downforce. Limit shape and type of wing. Let the engines be overpowered and the bodies be underdownforced.

Chassis dynamics are almost a lost art. Everything is aero. Hire the best aerodynamicist and buy enough wind tunnel you can win.

So let me get this straight, you want slower lap times, (a la slower speeds)? Another words you want to make the engines heavier, with less downforce, and therefore more dangerous?

Also, what do you mean by Chassis Dynamics? Are you suggesting ride height controls, such as the 1993 Rothmans Williams? All the people who are calling for reduced downforce and other changes seem to forget 1994, which saw the loss of life of both Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna, the later who was quoted as saying "this is going to be a season with a lot of accidents" as a results of "reduction of drivers aids and an increase in speed". That was on March 26 at qualifying before the Brazilian Grand Prix, 34 days before he died from injuries sustained on the track at Imola.

The weight of the engines and downforce levels had zero to do with those deaths.
Ratzenberger died due to a basilar skull fracture and Senna was unhurt other that the head injury caused by a suspension part and wheel assembly puncturing his helmet.
Head and neck restraints, wheel tethers and higher cockpit sides were introduced to stop the causes of those fatalities. A number of other features have arrived since those days too.
The engine and aero changes have resulted from a variety of other reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I would prefer a much more open engine formula as in limiting them to a V6 turbo layout. Have a displacement/weight/aspiration ratio instead of a hard limit.

Drastic reduction in wing design and downforce. Limit shape and type of wing. Let the engines be overpowered and the bodies be underdownforced.

Chassis dynamics are almost a lost art. Everything is aero. Hire the best aerodynamicist and buy enough wind tunnel you can win.

So let me get this straight, you want slower lap times, (a la slower speeds)? Another words you want to make the engines heavier, with less downforce, and therefore more dangerous?

Also, what do you mean by Chassis Dynamics? Are you suggesting ride height controls, such as the 1993 Rothmans Williams? All the people who are calling for reduced downforce and other changes seem to forget 1994, which saw the loss of life of both Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna, the later who was quoted as saying "this is going to be a season with a lot of accidents" as a results of "reduction of drivers aids and an increase in speed". That was on March 26 at qualifying before the Brazilian Grand Prix, 34 days before he died from injuries sustained on the track at Imola.

The weight of the engines and downforce levels had zero to do with those deaths.
Ratzenberger died due to a basilar skull fracture and Senna was unhurt other that the head injury caused by a suspension part and wheel assembly puncturing his helmet.
Head and neck restraints, wheel tethers and higher cockpit sides were introduced to stop the causes of those fatalities. A number of other features have arrived since those days too.
The engine and aero changes have resulted from a variety of other reasons.

Im guessing you did not see any of the first three races that year. There were crashes galore in pre season testing, practice, and the races. You are correct about how Razenberger died, but you seemingly did not mention that there were a number of accidents in the first two races as well, or that traction control, ride height, and downforce was removed from all cars. Ratzenberger lost control of this car on the previous lap, saved the car, but broke the control arm to the front wing, which ultimately snapped off, jamming it under the car on the front straight, which is why he could not steal into the corner.

Benetton wrote off one of the cards from pre-season testing because their driver JJ Lehto nearly broke his neck when his car torpedoed into a wall. How about two cars going airborne in the first race in Brazil, or how about Senna spinning off his home course not once but twice during the race - in the dry?

Jean Alesi (who happened to have 5 years experience in F1) injured his back when he lost control of his Ferrari in downforce testing before the second race in the high speed Biondetti left/right complex.

We all know what happened in the third race, and yes, Ayrton died because his steering wheel broke, but he had crashed that car twice since pre season testing, which is part of what led to it's breakage. I believe the team was even sued because the linkage was 60% damaged.

In Monaco one of Sauber cars crashed heavily in the Nouvelle Chicane, and Sauber withdrew their other car on safety concerns. Unfortunately they decided to make aerodynamic changes to the cars for the 5th race, which ended up removing downforce, not adding it back. Other regulations on both fuel and air flow to the engines drastically reduced horsepower. Other changes to the cars added 25kg of weight, and those changes significantly strengthened the suspension, chassis, and increasing the size of the cockpit.

In many of the several following races, padded barriers, artificial tire chicanes, and additional changes to the cars reduced lap speeds, overall speeds, improved downforce, and strengthened the cars.

Now, was some of this done as a result of the two deaths in San Marino - absolutely yes. However, hopefully I have shown just how many accidents happened in the weeks before, practice, and pre season testing to show how much worse the cars were handling. As I said before, they tuned the engines between 1993 and 1994 and subsiquently added power, yet removed downforce, grip and ride height. And we saw the cars were a handful to drive and accidents increased fourfold over the previous year.

So ask yourself this - if they did not feel like they had to take any of these steps in previous years, at the same tracks they had already raced at - why make so many changes, reduce the HP by close to 100, and alter the tracks?

Sorry 280nosler, I'm not sure how to address all those questions or statements so I won't try. But a few.....

"Im guessing you did not see any of the first three races that year."
Actually, I've watched almost all the Formula 1 Grand Prix's either in person or on TV for the last 44 years.

"Another words you want to make the engines heavier, with less downforce, and therefore more dangerous?"
Again, the weight and horsepower level didn't have anything to do with the danger level.

When new technology came and went, such as ground effects with sliding skirts, active suspension, etc., the time when teams transitioned to or away from those caused some issues until they got on top of the problems.

Cars and tracks have become much safer during the years I have been following F-1 and medical care has also improved tremendously. Just look at some of the highlight films from recent seasons and you'll see accidents that would have killed the driver in the 70's-90's but they just walked away. Remember Robert Kubica's Canada crash, Mark Webbers launch and back flips, Alonso's Australia crash, and many others? We forget about those today but they wouldn't be survivable a few decades ago. However the outcomes or causes had nothing to do with the engine weight or aerodynamic rules. When air gets underneath cars at high speeds, even 3500 lb. stock cars fly.
Horsepower and downforce levels have gone up and down following the rules and technology improvements but the danger level has continuously improved.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 220-9er,

Gasly / Hartley confirmed for STR 2018.
I imagine the Kvyat speculation to Williams should be coming soon.

quote:

I imagine the Kvyat speculation to Williams should be coming soon.

They're gonna need more chassis. And a mute button.

Seriously, I don't expect to see him on the grid again. Ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

I imagine the Kvyat speculation to Williams should be coming soon.

They're gonna need more chassis. And a mute button.

Seriously, I don't expect to see him on the grid again. Ever.

As a Williams fan & not a Kvyat fan, I hope you're right. Would hate to see a few FW cars get 'torpedoed'

Maybe Kubica?

I wonder how much money Kvyat could have brought to Red Bull or if he was there so they would get special considerations to sell their product in Russia?
If so he isn't that attractive to Williams. I think he was a half decent driver but didn't take the pressure well being up against top quality teammates. There are plenty of other top prospects out there that should get the chance.
Williams is hard to rate right now. They have the Mercedes engine like Force India but both drivers are a big question mark. Bottas outperformed Massa last year and Massa would have easily outperformed Stroll on points if not for the fluke finish at Baku where Massa's car broke when he was ahead.

Kubica for 2 years?

That would be awesome!

Note, this isn't an official Williams statement, and the F1 press seems to play pretty loose with "facts" generally, but at least a semi reputable site.