Stefan Johansson's F1 revolution, Part 1 - Problems in philosophy Stefan Johansson's F1 revolution, Part 2: Identifying key issues Stefan Johansson?s F1 revolution, Part 3: Proposed solutions I'm just posting his fixes here, the rest you guys can click on the links if you want to: I think on the whole I agree with him. This man has some very solid ideas. Discuss!
"Raced" against him in F3 back in the day. Always seemed like a smart guy. "L'il Leaf" was his moniker as I recall. Anyway, he makes some good points, but I remain staunchly against a 'standard' monocoque. A large part of F1, to me anyway, is that you've got to be a *manufacturer*. Sure, it's expensive, but that's just the way it is. Cheers, Ian
The tubs the tub! If it were standard, they'd all have to have the same pick up points etc. No thanks! Cheers, Ian
In this case, yeah! On an F1 car the tire weight is significant. Particularly, as you say, it's unsrung weight. Bigger wheels & less sidewall reduce's the unsprung weight. Cheers, Ian
Here is what he said: "As mentioned above, make all cars have one common crash structure, supplied by the FIA and then build the rest of the tub around that." The crash structure is only the part protecting the driver. Pick up points etc. would be added by each team to complete the tub. That eliminates all of the design, testing and certification currently required of each team. I assume that this would have considerable cost saving and remove the uncertainty of passing or failing the crash test.
About the only point I would disagree with is the standardized FIA supplied front wing. Just mandate a single element, non-movable, of a fixed width and depth, with endplates of a fixed area, mounted within a certain range in front of the front wheels and a certain range above the ground.
Fair comments. I guess if we're going down that path I'd rather it be called the 'survival cell'. And yeah, I can see that making a little sense. Isn't that what they do in powerboat racing?.... One or two guys supply the 'cell', then you build your boat around that? Cheers, Ian
Agree on many things. Disagree on others. Unless monocoques stop being MONOcoque, in these cars the "survival cell" is almost the same than the monocoque, so a standard monoque and a standard gearbox (and I guess standard gearbox case) would mean standard pick up points for front and rear suspension; the standard front wing and the standard monocoque shape would mean that all cars would look almost identical except from the rear body work, rear wing and the floor (that we don´t see anyways). Also I think that a budget cap would mean that instead of a fight between engineering teams to find the biggest loophole in the rules we would have a fight between accountants to find the most "creative" accounting. Woah, what a show. Agree on less aero, more mechanical grip, more testing and more power. Not sure about different tyre manufacturers: if tyre manufacturers pay their own bills it´s OK, but smaller teams can´t afford more expenses. Also I think that if teams can´t agree on a cheaper set of rules, then F1 needs a different money distribution: smaller teams need a bigger chunk from Bernie´s money just to survive.
I think what he's saying is not to introduce a budget cap, but a way of managing costs for everyone, so no need for creative accounting at all. With his fixes, yearly expenses are massively decreased. Participating teams the likes of Manor will spend far less money to score no points, vs spending way too much to also score...no points. F1 said it would be cheaper but instead costs sky rocketed. Not very nice for them.
He has some good thoughts and some not so good thoughts; the standard wing is one of the not so good ones. I don't need another open wheel formula I don't watch. But his passion to want to correct all the problems and his motivation are genuine. The challenge is that his view conflicts with that of FOM. They don't appear to be interested in solving any of these issues; as he well points out, FOM (other than safety) is focused on all the wrong things.
In general, I agree with virtually all of his ideas, including the front wing. If teams are allowed to continue development on those, you again end up with the problem of loss of aero reducing the ability to overtake. I don't agree with limiting " Gearbox, Brakes and brake ducts, differential, Monocoque, Steering wheel and controls" however, as advances in these areas could prove applicable to road cars. I've long contended that the teams should have a limit on how many crew members they can take to the races; when you can put 20 people over the wall, you're just throwing money down the rabbit hole...
We can dream about that, but it's very unlikely. Since they have decided to adopt an hybrid solution, the genie is out of the bottle now and will never go back in.
I agree with him mostly. I wouldn't have common front wings or tubs though. I'd limit the size and number of elements for the wings.
I think I agree with every single suggestion - crazy. Only one I'm on the fence about is the standard front wing - not crazy about that. But if you limit downforce overall anyway, then shouldn't be a huge deal to allow different wings. Thanks for the links!
I like his ideas. I'm not sure how the budget cap will work, but its a good starting place. perhaps all team expenses have to be monitored by an FIA delegate from a proposed budget. once that budget is used up then you get some form of performance handicap? I'm not so sure I like the standard part manufacturer... what if you come up with a new Wishbone structure or material? then you cant use it? Maybe F-1 needs to look at a points system like CHUMP car... if you use standard equipment then you get additional points per race point you score, if you use proprietary then you lose points per race score? ... then there is a blending of strategy and innovation. I love the engine and testing thoughts. I totally agree... if you open up the regs on engines and power units - to completely open but petrol based... then you get a lot of creativity that can come in. and its also good for large manufacturers to come into and stay in the game.
