There is still the issue of how changing one element of the design changes the overall aero package. Opting to just work it out on the computer is going down the path of just being an also ran, not an innovator.
Strictly speaking, they don't. They just list them as a "partner", whatever that means. Could just mean they are getting a steering rack from them. Emco, OTOH, does list themselves as USF1's gearbox supplier. Clearly not a joint announcement, since, besides it being missing from USF1's site, USF1 is consistent about referring to themselves as "US F1 Team", not "Team US F1".
Agreed. I don't see USF1 as innovators anyhow. They're in it for the money. Nothing wrong with that. Sauber and Jordan took that approach for years.
They all are, but that's the wrong question. You should ask, which ones are in it only for the money? Teams like McLaren and Ferrari (and some others) are also in it to win it.
I agree completely with the theory of just making sure they get cars to the first race of the season to start with, before they start worrying too much about developing them, but you don't want to turn up with a car that is badly off the pace and likely to get lapped every 5 laps and get in the way of others or worse still, a car that is actually dangerous to drive due to an aero balance issue.
As Andreas has already stated the only real test is when you put the car on the track. I have no problem of using CFD, especially if it has been developed by a company who knows what they are doing and have obtained good correlation. I am sure USF1 bought the program they are using. In the old days when most of the calculations were done by hand, an engineer needed sub-scale testing in order to see if you were in the ball park. We had tons of wind tunnel data so it was easy to go back into the tunnel to evaluate a design change. I'm sure, Ferrari and Mclaren, etc. have tons of data so it is not a big deal to use sub scale testing as they already know what scale factors to use. USF1 does not have reams of data, so they can use CFD then go to full scale testing in a wind tunnel. It does save them money as each time you test or change wind tunnel model size, chances are all the scale factors change and you re-run all your time consuming analyses.
Yep. The big teams run CFD, aero tunnels, real testing and STILL manage to cock it up. Relying solely on CFD Sports Program for Nintendo Wii just makes them look like dorks.
What money? I honestly cannot imagine that PW thinks this is a good way to make money. There is only one good reason to do what they are doing, and that is because you want to go racing.
Bernie's TV money plus sponsor money. It's just a business like everything else. They won't win races, but can sustain their operational costs while doing what they like. Most midfield and back end teams operate on that model.
I wish. This is my view on it (take it for what it is): The range of operating costs was somewhere between 80 and 600 millions (Minardi to Ferrari). I'd say about 1/3 of that is covered by sponsors and 1/3 by TV money. Which leaves 1/3 for the companies to pick up. For Ferrari and Mercedes that becomes part of the marketing budget and/or gets covered by merchandising deals. Small teams like Minardi can't just pay the remaining third out of their pocket so, they struggle trying to find more sponsors. If they do, they stay afloat, if they don't they eventually sell their team. The TV money is divided by results and "charisma" and a highly guarded secret. But we know that Ferrari gets more cash because they are Ferrari, even when they have a year like this.
I'm not sure they do anymore get more cash that is, however they did though some deal cut with Mosley and Bernie IIRC, makes me ill.
You could be right, the whole TV money is very hush hush. I read somewhere that Ferrari gets a premium for being who they are, but then again, that might be wrong or no longer the case. Who knows. We fans often complain in this forum about all the strange locations Bernie takes his circus and how he has lost his mind and is a greedy bastard. While I wouldn't disagree with that, the teams seem to be just fine with his approach: After all the Bahrains, Singapores and Koreas of this world pay big extra bucks into his TV bucket, part of which gets redistributed to the teams. Or in other words: If F1 would only be racing in the traditional locations, there might not be enough $ in the pot to sustain the costs of the F1 extravaganza. So do you prefer a spec series in Monza/Spa/Silverstone/Dijon or a high tech state of the art series in Bahrain/Korea/Shanghai?
I think Bernie comes over as a fool, but is far from it, however he likes it that way, he has however built the commercial success of F1 over the course of the past 30 years, and that is to be admired. Bernie walks the tight rope between the CVC, teams and paying fans and it is a juggling act. I don't want a spec series period so you have an answer. As long as F1 takes on board and listens to average fan like myself and does not take the p!ss with my hard earned cash I'am happy to go along. I expect to pay good money to go to a race, however I want my budget to stretch to see more than 1 or 2 a year, but I suppose thats up to me.
I recall an interview on TV a couple of years ago with a few of Ferrari's rivals on the subject of the extra money they got. A couple of them begrudged the money being paid out, another couple said that everybody knew the deal when they signed up and some of the Top teams said Ferrari deserved the money due to their history and that the only reason they came into F1 was to race Ferrari. As for your final question, I love the history and tradition in F1 so count Me in for the spec series on the old tracks.
My question was very divisive. The reality is obviously the compromise we have today. But if we leave it as black and white as I asked it, I think I'd side with you as well. I love the whizbang of F1, but the sport can never give up its roots. If it does, it will have lost its identity. Luckily for us the world of F1 which is ruled by $ will never get rid of Monaco because of the $. So the core will always be preserved.
Instead of a spec series, what about a tightly cost-controlled series using production engine blocks? These could be limited to 8 cylinders, and let's say, 4 liters (or even six cylinders and 3 liters), and commercial-grade gasoline. There would have to be severe limitations on the "whizbang" factor, but at least we wouldn't have the monotony (literally) of a one-engine series. I think that there are enough stock aluminum block V8s (or V6s) out there, and perhaps it would even open the door for individual tuners (a la Repco) to offer differing versions of the same basic engine. I would even be open to severe limitations on wheel and tire width, track, and aerodynamic devices. Back to the roots, in other words. I know it's a pipedream...
Well, we might get passing back at Monaco, and narrower cars would be much better suited to street circuits. As for the banking at Monza, I think you'll need your "Grand Prix" DVD for that.
