In the past, teams didn't use to develop their cars at the rate they do now. That didn't stop the competition. It only started when they introduced aero, and became part of the F1 culture of looking for constant improvement. Maybe the FIA needs to accompany the budget cap with a limit on updates through the season.
The problem with the update limits is that if you start badly you're dead. With engines now it's not so bad because everybody got to about the same level, but at the beginning of the hybrid era it wasted two or three entire seasons. They'd need to wait some years with the same aero regulations to freeze the development. Anyway, I could understand all the moaning about the budget cap from the big three, but not from McLaren or Aston Martin. They must be doing something wrong if they're already out of money. They started with a higher budget than Alpine or Sauber and they're not so much better.
No amount of updates can tranform an inferior car into a winner anyway. "You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" The teams at the back of the grid (Haas, Sauber, Williams) usually don't have extra money to spend. I read that Haas has only a $100M budget in 2022, which is $45M short of the limit ! The teams asking for more money are already at the top, and winning! What more do they want ?
That's a crude reductionism. Cars change through the season, we saw it last year and again now, where Mercedes/Red Bull/Ferrari had the upper hand at some times of the season and lost it later. Of course nobody is asking Williams or Haas to go from last to first in a single year.
I accept that, but the budget cap don't allow anymore an unbridled development war all through the season. What's so difficult for the team principals to understand? They cannot spend, spend, spend and then ask to be allowed to spend more. I wasn't in favour of budget cap, but since it's here now, at least they should respect it.
In the past, a car would be 2 seconds faster at the end of the year than at the beginning of a year {same trace, same tires, same weather} This is all due to development. In the distant past this was motor and suspension, in the not-so distant past this was aero, motor, and suspension, now it is just aero and suspension. In contrast, a car without development was the same speed at the end as at the beginning. And looks, from the grid and from the results as losing performance as the year goes on.
--Steiner expects $200m F1 dilution fund to be adjusted in the future Gunther Steiner expects the $200 million dilution fund any new entrant must pay before joining the Formula 1 grid to be adjusted to reflect the increasing value of teams.-- Increasing value LOL. Half or more of the grid cannot compete. They are used for passing or holding up the only 3 teams with a chance to win. F1 thinks highly of itself. Would anyone buy Haas. A fool or a fund I guess..................over valued is the apt description. They take up space to make the grid.
I don't agree here. F1 always had backmarkers, that's not something new; but it needs them to make up the grid. Imagine a GP with only 10 cars (half the field). who would come to watch that? Most teams that hit the front started at the back at some point. Some like McLaren and Williams won several titles. If Haas and the like "take up space", which are the teams ready, waiting to replace them and compete against the top 3?
FIA announce fuel temperature and engine changes in F1 https://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-confirm-2022-fuel-temperature-engine-changes/
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/whats-changed-with-f1s-new-rear-wing-deflection-tests/10330470/?nrt=54 What's changed with F1's new rear wing deflection tests On the eve of Formula 1's British Grand Prix, the FIA World Motor Sport Council announced a raft of tweaks to the regulations that come into force with immediate effect. Image Unavailable, Please Login By: Matt Somerfield Jun 30, 2022, 2:08 PM Image Unavailable, Please Login One of the most intriguing, that has been placed into the rules rather than fall under the remit of a technical directive, relates to rear wing flexibility tests. As teams have begun to settle into F1's new regulations, and produce a steady stream of updates orientated towards reducing drag while maintaining downforce, it's interesting to see that changes have been made to the rear wing and beam wing deflection tests. At first glance, the changes regarding the deflection of the rear wing's mainplane might seem like the governing body is being more lenient, as rather than the trailing edge not being able to deflect more than 2mm, it may now deflect no more than 3mm. However, the key here is that previously it could not deflect more than 2mm vertically. Now the direction of variance has been removed. This would suggest that while teams have been able to pass the deflection test up until this point, they might have been doing so in a very specific way, with more deflection in a direction not specified. Additionally, the rear wing slot gap deflection test has been formally entered into the regulations (3.15.15), rather than being monitored via a technical directive. This follows the issue that surrounded Lewis Hamilton's exclusion from the qualifying results in Brazil last year, when the W12's rear wing was found to be 0.2mm outside of the 85mm gap that is permitted between the two wing elements when DRS is deployed. Image Unavailable, Please Login Red Bull Racing members check the RB16B rear wing Photo by: Giorgio Piola This also follows the issues Red Bull has seemingly carried over from last season with its DRS, as the team has made fixes to the wing and actuator at some of the events earlier in the season. Furthermore, the contrasting markers placed on the rear wings since Baku last season have also been written into the regulations (3.15.16), with the FIA keen to continue their assessment of the dynamic flexion of the wing when under load. The markings are used by the FIA to monitor the behaviour of the wing elements via footage captured by the rear facing onboard cameras. The reintroduction of the beam wing this season, having been absent since 2014, has also seen teams making frequent changes in specification as they look to balance their drag and downforce needs. As part of the regulatory rewrite, the governing body is addressing flexion of the beam wing elements, as up until Silverstone the tests had allowed up to 5mm of flexion when a 60N load was applied to any sections present at Y=±100 and Y=±215. The new, more stringent tests (3.15.12), allow just 3mm of flexion when a 150N load is applied to each element's trailing edge, with two loads of 150N applied simultaneously at Y=270 and Y=-270 and 5mm forward (measured along the lower surface) of the local trailing edge. Read Also: Five standout technical ideas from F1’s 2022 cars F1 teams given more scope to fix engine reliability issues McLaren: Budget cap uncertainty has 'put handbrake' on F1 upgrades Most teams have adapted their beam wing design in relation to the downforce level of the rear wing they're adopting for a given race weekend, with the elements usually trimmed as a consequence. However, at the last two races, Red Bull, in an effort to reduce drag further still, had removed the upper of its two elements, leaving just the lowermost element in place, which has also been re-angled as a consequence. As part of its continued development, Alpine became the first team to adopt Red Bull's novel beam wing arrangement, whereby the two elements are stacked on top of one another in a bi-plane arrangement, rather than conventional in-series layout. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Between the new bouncing rules and rule changes being considered for next year, FIA is really bending over backwards to appease Wolff & co. Hopefully Horner and others will shame them into behaving ethically. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Tell Horner he is the one saying mid season changes should not be allowed yet he pushes in the RECENT past for them. The issue is simply that lol. Ok there is a grip for you!!
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-set-to-challenge-fias-porpoising-intervention/10333441/ F1 teams set to challenge FIA’s porpoising intervention The FIA’s plan to enforce a porpoising metric and clamp down on flexi floor tricks looks set to face a challenge in this week’s Formula 1 commission meeting. Image Unavailable, Please Login By: Jonathan Noble Jul 5, 2022, 4:55 PM Image Unavailable, Please Login Ahead of the Austrian Grand Prix at the Red Bull Ring, F1 teams , Formula One Management and the FIA will meet to discuss a number of burning topics that are being put forward for action. As well as the discussions to involve the inflation impact on the cost cap and the latest on the 2026 F1 engine regulations, it now looks certain that the issue of the FIA’s intervention on porpoising will be brought up. It is understood that a number of teams are not happy about the approach of the governing body on the matter, with two Technical Directives having been sent out on the matter. A number of teams argue that there is no need for the governing body to step in on cars bouncing. Furthermore, some squads are unhappy that there is scope for the FIA to influence how teams set up their cars when the sport has always been about maximum performance. As one team boss said: “What will be next? A wet track metric that forces us to change from slicks to inters when a certain amount of rain has fallen?” Red Bull team principal Christian Horner thinks it important that the whole situation regarding the FIA’s intervention is talked about in a transparent manner. “I think the process is the thing to discuss,” he said. “TDs shouldn't be regulatory changes, there is a governance and a process for that. So I think we just need to talk through exactly why [they have been issued]. “It didn't look like there was a lot of porpoising in this race [the British GP]. So teams are sorting it out. I don't feel it needs the intervention of a TD.” Image Unavailable, Please Login Christian Horner, Team Principal, Red Bull Racing Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images Even the Mercedes team, which has suffered badly from porpoising and would have broken the oscillation metric if it had been in place at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, is not sure the FIA needs to be too involved. Asked about the metric plan, trackside engineering director Andrew Shovlin said: “It wouldn't be a very good metric if we weren't over it in Baku and I think we were probably the one case that they could use it to sort of calibrate. In Montreal, we were in a sensible place. Read Also: Steiner: We must keep pressure off Schumacher despite first F1 points Tsunoda takes blame for clash with Gasly in F1 British GP Mercedes no longer "fighting to survive" with troubled W13 F1 car “But the point that we've made to the FIA, and we're very supportive of their efforts, is that we will fix these problems for our own performance. "So, to be honest, the metric that the FIA is doing is not a particular distraction to us. “We are sincerely hoping that whatever they come up with, we don't trigger it and we just run the car how we want to, because that's exactly what we're trying to do for lap time.” One of the knock-on consequences of the FIA’s analysis on porpoising is a move to clamp down on tricks that some teams are believed to have done with flexible floors. Amid suspicions that some cars feature more flexible floors and planks that allow them to be run closer to the ground for extra performance, the FIA plans to tighten up its policing of the matter from the French Grand Prix. Horner thinks, however, that the governing body cannot just simply step in to regulations if teams having found clever interpretations. “The regulations need to be black and white,” he said. “Otherwise I think we end up with encyclopedias that sometimes are way too complicated. “And there's no such thing as the intent of the regulations either: it is a binary thing. So I think with the Commission meeting: there's many things to discuss on the agenda, and maybe two hours won't quite be enough.”
Go Seb!! Eco warrior to save F1 V10 !! This is an interesting review of his bio- fuel demo in his Williams!! https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-inconvenient-questions-posed-by-vettels-williams-run/10333998/ The inconvenient questions posed by Vettel’s Williams run By:Jonathan Noble Jul 7, 2022, 10:42 AM Sebastian Vettel's demo laps on board his own Williams FW14B was not only a great spectacle for the fans, but were carried out with a fully sustainable, carbon-neutral fuel. And it begs the question - for all of the money F1 has spent on championing hybrids and electric components, could it go back to V8s or V10s with a similar kind of fuel? The grand prix paddock may be a piranha club at times, but there is no greater unifying force than a loud, iconic Formula 1 car putting in some demo laps. Every time it has happened recently – whether it was Fernando Alonso reunited with his Renault R25 at Abu Dhabi in 2019, or Mick Schumacher in an F2004 at Mugello in 2020 – tools are downed in the pitlane and everyone finds time to admire the on-track action. It was certainly no different at the British Grand Prix last weekend when Sebastian Vettel got the privilege of driving his own Williams FW14B, which Nigel Mansell had taken to the world championship title in 1992. The pitlane fence was crammed with drivers, mechanics, engineers and team bosses, all eager to catch a glimpse of the Williams in action. And, as the German returned to the start/finish straight afterwards, there was Mansell to greet the beaming four-time champion. “It was very special,” admitted Vettel afterwards. “I felt like a five-year-old again, because the sound, everything, just brought me back to 30 years ago.” But there was more to Vettel’s run in the Williams than just being about a bit of fun on a pre-race Sunday morning, for there was something incredibly significant about what Vettel had done. Having become the F1 paddock’s chief environmentalist, he had convinced himself that the only way to justify the laps in his classic car was for it to be done in a climate-friendly way. For Vettel, that meant sourcing fully sustainable carbon neutral fuel that would allow the screaming V10 engine to run without modifications. Image Unavailable, Please Login Sebastian Vettel drives his Williams FW14B Renault with a fully-sustainable fuel Photo by: Dom Romney / Motorsport Images PLUS: How F1's future fuels can shape the automotive sector “I asked the question: can you have fun with a Formula 1 car and at the same time have as little impact on the environment as possible?” He said before the event. “How could we drive an original 1992 FW14B in a totally sustainable way? Given the time frame and not wanting to change anything about the engine, could we find a fuel that would replace traditional fossil fuel? And that would allow us to run the car in an environmentally friendly way? “The answer is yes. We left everything as it was and used a carbon-neutral fuel. This is a fuel that does not add any CO2 to the environment, but is a fully sustainable, carbon-neutral solution. With this future technology we are able to keep an old-school platform alive like a traditional race car and drive it without ecological traces.” Vettel called upon the services of Berlin-based sustainable fuel producers P1 Performance Fuels to provide its Eco100 RS product. Its fully synthetic fuel is what is known as a drop-in fuel – so doesn’t require any modifications to an existing engine for it to run. P1’s fully sustainable fuel made its debut in the World Rally Championship this year, with its products having first made an appearance in the WTCR. "The introduction [of sustainable fuels] is planned for 2026. I understand that not everybody is easily agreeing on changing it sooner, but in the end that's probably what would be the right call, to do it sooner" Sebastian Vettel The non-fossil fuel-based components are derived from bioethanol produced from cellulose and ligneous biomass, as well as bio-synthetic (fully renewable) fuel. The success of Vettel’s run in wowing the crowd and F1 personnel delivered the answer that historic cars can have a long future to keep being driven for years to come, despite the growing momentum behind electric cars. As Vettel said: “You can express culture in many ways – music, arts – but our sort of culture, our way of expressing ourselves, is driving cars, racing cars. And it would be a shame if that was all to disappear. I think it's a way to keep it alive.” The answer to the question about running old cars on sustainable fuel was great. But there is a more inconvenient question that has been prompted by Vettel’s run. And it is that if even old machinery can run on current 100% sustainable fuels, then is F1’s policy of waiting until 2026 to make the switch with its own product too slow? Vettel for one reckoned that the evidence of the Mansell car run had showed the technology is ready now to make the move. Image Unavailable, Please Login Big oil companies have spent hundreds of millions on developing their fuels Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images “I'm not taking decisions here, but I can obviously ask questions and the plan is to move in that direction,” he said. “There's pros and cons, also when you talk about synthetic fuels, how you do them, what's the source and so on. But we have no time to waste, no time to wait, and obviously the introduction is planned for 2026. I understand that not everybody is easily agreeing on changing it sooner, but in the end that's probably what would be the right call, to do it sooner." A fast-tracking of sustainable fuels to F1 before 2026 would inevitably hit some big resistance. Fuel and oil companies involved in grand prix racing would certainly not be too happy at seeing their current work on fossil fuel technology thrown out sooner than anticipated. And for manufacturers, the concern would be, amid an F1 engine freeze, how a switch to sustainable fuel would impact on performance and reliability of their current engines. It’s one thing to have a sustainable fuel that an engine will happily run on for a few laps; quite another if that power unit has to last seven grands prix with little performance drop off. It will be interesting to see how the WRC power units are impacted over the long haul of a season by the switch of fuel. A wider philosophical question posed by Vettel’s run also is that if sustainable fuels are capable of powering powerful and loud racing cars, then does F1 really need to keep pushing on with quieter fuel efficient turbo hybrid engines for its next rules cycle? Former F1 driver Karun Chandhok, who is now a pundit for Sky Sports, reckoned Vettel’s run should start a debate within Formula 1 about grand prix racing plotting a different path for future engine rules. “I feel like the road car industry, and I do a little bit of work now doing programmes on the road car side and learning about that, are doing so much research, and ploughing billions into electrification and hybrid,” he told Sky Sports. "I feel like F1 should actually ditch the hybrid, ditch the battery systems, and save 120-odd kilos. I think F1 cars have got a bit too fat now, and let's go back to V10s which are screaming and running on biofuels.” While a return to screaming V8s or V10s run on sustainable fuel would be something a lot of fans would like, it would be a hard sell for the current manufacturers in F1. Despite the shift to fully electric cars, they still see the road relevance in an F1 programme of hybrid engines in allowing technology to shift across to the electric products they sell on garage forecourts. Image Unavailable, Please Login Could F1 return to V10s with a fully-sustainable fuel? Photo by: Steve Etherington / Motorsport Images The likes of Mercedes, Renault, Porsche and Audi don’t sell sustainable fuels so there is little interest in F1 pushing only that technology. They sell cars, so a bespoke old-school racing engine that is a world away from what is in their product ranges does not have the same attraction. However, it will be interesting to see in a few years’ time whether the rush of worldwide governments towards electrification hits some hurdles when the reality of what they do bites. We are already seeing the first concerns aired about the environmental negativity of lithium mining; and the proper analysis about the dust-to-dust climate impact on electric cars suggests they are far from as green as some would like to make out (especially when electric power is sourced from coal-fired power stations). "I feel like F1 should actually ditch the hybrid, ditch the battery systems, and save 120-odd kilos. Let's go back to V10s which are screaming and running on biofuels" Karun Chandhok If F1’s sustainable fuel push from 2026 is a success, in helping open the door for a mass market carbon neutral drop-in fuel that hits a realistic price point (Vettel’s Williams fuel costs 5.95 Euros for a litre), then the arguments against not extending the life of combustion engines suddenly fall away very quickly. The world could then be set for an intriguing battleground of public opinion between the combustion engine and the electric car... Red Bull boss Christian Horner, whose team has just set up its own powertrains division and is poised for a partnership with Porsche, reckons that the significance of Vettel’s carbon neutral run should not be brushed aside for one other simple reason: the noise. “Listening to that engine, it makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up,” he said. “People still go to see Rolling Stones concerts and music, and I think the noise of F1 is something that is part of its DNA. It shouldn't be ignored.” Vettel’s run has given F1 plenty of food for thought about the future; which is exactly what he had hoped for. Image Unavailable, Please Login Could Vettel's Williams run inspire a new technology path for F1? Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images
The engine manufacturers (read that as $$$$$ suppliers) are the ones who "give a crap" about the environmental parts of the equation.
Mercedes, Ferrari deny suggestions they're frustrating VW's F1 planned entry Ferrari and Mercedes have both denied a suggestion in the paddock that current Formula 1 manufacturers have delayed the 2026 regulations to make life more difficult for Porsche and Audi.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/disappearing-skid-blocks-a-part-of-f1s-flexi-floor-tricks/10336010/ 'Disappearing' skid blocks a part of F1's flexi floor tricks Moveable skid blocks, that are pushed up and disappear inside the plank when the car strikes the ground, have emerged as a key component of Formula 1’s flexi floor tricks. Image Unavailable, Please Login By: Jonathan Noble Jul 10, 2022, 10:06 AM Image Unavailable, Please Login As part of the FIA’s effort to stamp out excessive porpoising, it is also tightening up on floor stiffness to ensure there is a level playing field between teams. There have been suspicions that some squads have found clever ways to run their cars lower to the ground than their rivals through more flexible floor components. By running a less stiff floor, teams are able to be more aggressive with their front rightheight to increase their performance – as there are fewer concerns about porpoising and of wearing away the plank. But as part of the FIA’s investigation in to the porpoising phenomenon in F1, it discovered that some teams have been exploiting grey areas to fully comply with the underfloor rules and checks, yet run their cars in a way that was not originally intended. This was originally believed to have been mainly through teams ensuring their floors and planks were stiff enough in areas that were checked, but then flexed in other areas. However, Autosport has learned that, following the latest discussions between teams and the FIA in this weekend’s F1 Commission meeting, an even more intricate trick has emerged. It is suspected that some teams have cleverly split up the skid blocks, which protect the holes where the FIA plank thickness measurements are taken, in to separate sections. There is a main skid block that runs around the majority of the hole, but then a more rearward section that moves up and down independently within the plank to become fully enclosed and protected if the car hits the ground. By disappearing up inside the plank, this section does not get worn down as the rest of the floor hits the track – so remains at its original thickness throughout to be fully compliant with the previous 9mm depth checks that are conducted by the FIA after races. Image Unavailable, Please Login Sergio Perez, Red Bull Racing RB18 Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images Up until now, teams only needed to ensure enough thickness at one area of the hole to comply with the rules – so the moveable part of the skid would have no problem passing this. From the Belgian Grand Prix, when the new floor stipulations will come in to force, the FIA’s checks on the thickness are being changed. In the draft TD sent to teams ahead of the British Grand Prix it noted: “we wish to confirm that compliance with this Article will be required around at least 75% of each periphery.” This means that teams will no longer be able to use small areas of moveable skid block material to help comply with the rules in a single area. Mercedes boss Toto Wolff, whose team has welcomed the FIA’s move to act on floor stiffness, confirmed at the Austrian Grand Prix that two tricks had emerged in the last discussions. “As a matter of fact, some teams have skids that actually disappear when the car hits the bottom,” he said. “The reason for skids is that they are the limitation of how much plank wear you can have. And if a skid can disappear miraculously into the floor, that is clearly against the regulations. “Then the second thing is a plank that can deflect or that basically also moves away more than the tolerance should be. The tolerance is one millimetre. And if a plank moves away many more millimetres up into the car obviously, you gain some performance there too. “I think the first one [skid tricks] is going to disappear for Spa... because apparently skid material is not available [until then]. And the second one is going to be clarified in next year's regulations.” Red Bull and Ferrari have been central to the focus on flexi floors and skid block tricks, having been the quickest teams so far this season. Christian Horner, the Red Bull team boss, is adamant that his squad has not been up to anything. “That’s total rubbish. Total rubbish,” he said. “I think we’re getting issues mixed up here. “Maybe he’s referring to, I don’t know, cars that are around him at the moment. I have no idea, but I have absolutely no issues or concerns on our floor.” Ferrari has admitted, however, that the clarification regarding new tests on the floor will require his squad to make some modifications. “There will be some changes which will be required because now a new clarification has been issued with new tests which is required on new requirements, new specification,” he said. “It will take some time to do it, so at least I think it's good to relax it to Belgium because [porpoising] not being a subject, there is no need to rush.”
