"Formula 1 needs equalisation moves says Red Bull's Christian Horner"

Cry babay..no other name for it......

 

I don't agree with any of it. Frankly, I'm insulted by the fact that he is suggesting that the rules are too complicated. Seriously? What exactly is so complicated that the fans don't understand?

The old formula was stagnant...a parade based on qualifying. Cars were too reliable (i.e., next to zero attrition). Cars were too reliant on aero packaging (not much passing because getting near another car would upset the balance). The engine/drivetrain packages were so similar and reliable that they were irrelevant (there's cause for Enzo to be rolling in his grave...a Ferrari engine in a formula car being irrelevant).

The new rules are the only reason I'm back to watching F1. There are no drivers or other personalities that I find compelling. The cars and the technical challenges are all I've got...and, one race into the second year, I am not disappointed.

I'd be fine with additional testing. I'd love it if they didn't have to manage tires. But, stick shifts and V-12s are about twenty years past their prime. They are definitely cool...but, vintage cool...not cutting edge cool. F1 has never been about being a cool blast from the past.

 

Well... when a team of engineers can't even get a car started and don't know why... I'd say that's a bit overcomplicated. It's happened to every team.

 

Very true.

However, that's been happening since the dawn of the sport....... In my day it was the Prince of Darkness' metering unit that was often the problem. Change that and the plugs and she'd generally fire, but not always.

Rightly or wrongly (another debate?), the days of 'we've got fuel & spark' are long gone.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The problem is...that isn't what CH said. He said it's too complicated for the fan to understand.

I'm not a big Lewis fan, but he nailed it when he said that RBR needs to hire better people if THEY find it to be too complicated to understand.

If a bunch of dudes standing back scratching their heads because a car won't start is a sign of over-complicatedness...then cars have been over complicated from day one. We lost a Mars Rover because somewhere along the line some engineer forgot to convert from SAE to metric...that was just a dumb mistake in the midst of a complicated project. Stuff happens. Nico's car failed last year because there was some contaminating crud on an electrical connector. Stuff happens...esp. while everyone is learning. Incredibly smart people can make simple mistakes.

It's Formula 1! It's supposed to be hard!

 

Cutting edge technology tends to be complicated.

Something F1 fans used to respect and embrace.

 

I watched a Mini Seven (NZ racing class for Mini's of 850cc I think. Very highly strung engines) racer desperately try and start his car once as the minutes to his race counted down. Poor guy, the thing would not fire ...

Of course once he had no chance of starting the race the thing fired up like and ran like a Toyota Corolla. I've always wondered if in the next race he broke his personal lap record due to beating on the thing ... heck I know I would have had the thing sitting on the rev limiter for the first few laps until my blood stopped boiling.
Pete

 

Personally, i do feel it's complicated. I have no idea how to explain ERS to someone new..

Anyhow, the current rules, stagnant, because the lack of testing.

I remember, back in 1998, i think Mika used 200 engines in a single season to beat Schumi and Ferrari.

 

I for one like the fact F1 is restricted to just 4 engines per season.
If the engines are designed to last longer then more tech will come
through to real world applications. As opposed to previous era of
disposable engines - just saying IMO

 

You think ?

 

Remember reading the book. (Ferrari Formula 1 by Peter Wright): They built 400 engines that 2000 winning season. But some were one cylinder development tests, and built an experimental fabricated Titanium engine that didn't work out. Excellent technical book by the way. They gave Peter Wright free rein, but he couldn't publish for 4 years. By then the development secrets were obsolete. I think it was one the best technical books I ever read on F1.

 

+1 exactly, do one Horner put yer dummy back in.

 

I think if you read his comments objectively... there's something to it. I'm an RB fan... not a rabid fan where RB rules the world or anything, but RB, Williams, and Ferrari are the guys I seem to cheer for.

But anyway... legislating failure is a problem in F1. I think suggesting that because teams didn't initially develop their engines to the same success as Merc that they should all now spend the next 3 or 4 years without a chance to win because you cant redevelop, fully develop, or make the necessary changes is an unfair situation for any team to be in. That didn't exist during RB dominance and they certainly didn't have the dominance that Merc does now.

It's a rather different scenario than when RB was dominating. I think if you're going to be fair... you have to concede that point.

 

The rules can be changed for 2016 with just a majority vote no unanimous vote needed
So Merc's advantage could be voted out by the teams for 2016

 

How bout this... limit maximum downforce? If there's a meaningful and accurate way to measure downforce...how about limiting that further?

So... Let's say Merc can run X amount of downforce because their additional 50 or 60 horsepower is able to more than compensate and push the car through the straights without the drag penalty really affecting them.

I'm going to throw out stupid meaningless numbers here for the sake of discussion... so say Merc can run 30 degrees of downforce (again... I know that doesn't really mean anything but I don't know how these things are measured) and everyone else is running a maximum of 15 because they can't overcome the higher drag penalty... perhaps they could make the 15 the limit. They did aero penelaties to RB in the their 4 year stint so perhaps there's some potential.

I mean is Mercs care really that incredibly awesome or are they just able to run more downforce since they have the HP to push the car through the drag down the straights? Maybe that's somewhat of an equalizer... though do they then just make it back up by blasting down the straights that much more faster than the others? Back during RB's reign it was a far "truer" equalization attempt because RB didn't have the huge HP advantage to make it up elsewhere.

Just a thought.

 

Agree, but they can redevelop via the tokens. For some crazy reasons Renault's 2015 engine still has the hot and cold part of their turbo next to each other. That means a bigger intercooler is required and this also affects aero.

Mercedes this year have a different exhaust manifold, so changes can be made

Yes it did. The testing and development ban affects everything (to my understanding). The difference is RB had a massive aero advantage that the other teams took years to catch up on

Er, yes they did. Heck for a while I thought Mark Webber was going to win a WDC!

Nope. Renault stuffed up and seemed to be lost on how to fix their stuff up, when I can see what Merc and Ferrari are doing by searching the internet. I would like to know what Renault have changed on their engine as they have cashed in some tokens?
Pete

 

Yes hp advantages nowadays is turned into being able to run more downforce. In the old days it meant you were faster on the straights but not any more.

I imagine that the Merc drivers are finding their cars so much easier to drive because they can run many degrees more wing meaning stability and grip improvements.

Well done Merc engineers, you guys were not asleep or over celebrating past wins ...
Pete

 

I can't help but dwell on a comment Bernie made recently. "There are teams that spend maybe £500m a season and other people that are trying to work with a £120m budget, which is still too much"

If Mercedes are a team spending £500m (which is insane)or more a season they should be dominating and it will be interesting to see what their appetite is for the sport if the board were writing that size of a cheque and some other team was winning. I would guess around the same as Dietrich Mateschitz and they would probably be making the same noises about leaving too, as have other car manufacturers who's boards became tired of throwing money at the sport.

F1 seems to follow a regular pattern. Enjoy your turn in the sun, complain about cost and threaten to pack up when you are out of it.

 

If you look further I think you will find it is the teams, that either it be in the aerodynamics department or PU dep, manage to lets say, for want of a better word, circumvent, or delve into the grey area's of the rule books that get to gain an advantage...RB flexing front wings, Brawn GP hole in D-Diffuser

Or put simply build a better mouse trap, Horner wouldn't be whining if he was in Merc's position right now would he.. IIRC the reason RB are lacking, is because they threw all their resources into there dominating run/spell, so it left them short when the new rules came into effect, so he should suck it up, or up his game.

 

I've given this way too much thought and here is what I would change if I was Jean Todt:

1. Allowing the teams to make the rules I think was the first mistake, this gave them too much power and self interest. After all you do not ask a 100m runner to set that sports rules do you? So either the FIA returns to setting the rules OR

2. The requirement that all teams agree is dropped. If all but one team agrees then a rule should be permitted to change. It is obvious that there will always be one team that does not want the rules to change because they are currently benefiting from them so it is silly to require unanimous agreement.

Pete

 

+1

Gotta dumb it down for the great unwashed it seems!

I agree(ish!) I do think they've gone a step too far right now - Something like 6-8 would be a better compromise IMO.

Certainly the days of using hundreds of engines for the season are gone.

Are you sure on that? I could be wrong, but thought that now the season's started any changes for next year must be unanimous. Changes for 2017 could be passed with a simple majority.

For all of them? Or just Merc?

If just Merc, never!..... As has been said before, they've built a better mousetrap, they deserve the mice. F1 has always been so and I for one certainly don't want to see success penalized like in many other series.

If for all of them, Merc will still be ahead of course.

Incidentally, Merc are rarely, if ever, at the top of the trap times. I've asked this before, but never got any response; Why don't the high top speed guys (often STR & Sauber IIRC) increase their downforce to put them at the same speed as the Mercs?

Please share what penalties were applied to the Cans over that period?

They *all* agreed to try and limit D/F year on year. (Attempting to make the racing closer & the cars less aero sensitive). But those changes applied to all, not just the Cans.

I believe their 'package' is indeed "incredibly awesome". And again, they're not stand out fast on the straights. Given their power advantage they're no doubt running more D/F than the others, which buys a little time, but not a huge amount.

Cheers,
Ian

 

^^^ The reason I mentioned 2016 is because C Horner was threatening it if something was not done about Merc right now
He said something to the effect that they only need a simple majority of teams to vote for a change

 

It was more like 40-45, but your point is valid. (For those who don't remember, testing used a lot of engines.)

Also Coulthard went through about as many.

And their test drivers went through maybe 25.

But don't forget, Ferrari went through just as many.

 

40 - 50 of those still probably cost less than 4 of today's.

 

FOTA was, is and will be the answer. All the teams have to do is realise it.

CVC without the teams is just 3 letters strung together.