Seeing the success of Diesel power in Le Mans/WTCC - will we ever see the day when there is a Diesel F1 engine? And if not, why not? Shouldn't Motorsport, and F1 in particular, be seen to be doing something apart from having green painted tyres?
Printable View
Seeing the success of Diesel power in Le Mans/WTCC - will we ever see the day when there is a Diesel F1 engine? And if not, why not? Shouldn't Motorsport, and F1 in particular, be seen to be doing something apart from having green painted tyres?
Absolutely, for F1 is the biggest global brand in motorsport. But how will the technical regulations be relaxed to allow radical changes in engine type, changes in configuration, etc? The loopholes that allowed six-wheeled cars, fan cars, four-wheel-drive and so on have all been closed up. Will some have to be re-opened?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
I can understand the banning on six-wheelers, fan cars, but not 4WD. Anyway, surely if there's a will, there's a way - as the saying goes. Having seen a report in EVO magazine, the petrol v diesel road car split is much closer now. It would be interesting to see a F1 Diesel car, though you might not hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It matters not what sort of "cap" you put on F1 because the legal departments are smart enough to find legal work arounds for them.
In the cases of the manufacturers, they could very easily consolidate the accounts back into the main body of research and development and then have the work performed on the cars "donated" to the teams as not-for-profit-organisations. You may be able to impose a costs cap on a team, but when those costs no longer "exist" then it scarcely matters.
If you then went on a "full diclosure" basis, then it would not be terribly difficult to shuffle costs back into the rest of the organisation and although it might technically possible to conduct an audit, what would happen for someone like Renault where the associated costs might appear anywhere within the PSA group. A team that was only buying customer equipment might be simple to dicern costs in, but then again a group like Honda could just as easily declare "Friday Club" basis.
I think they should be. The rules should set parameters within which the teams can produce their own solutions, rather than there being a rule for almost every eventuality. The rules have become so restrictive that there is no room for innovation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
On another, related. note it seems that the FIA & FOTA had a "very positive and constructive" meeting yesterday over the future development of F1. It's amazing what can be achieved by unprecedented unity among the teams and dialogue between them and the FIA.
What is your obsession with innovation? :crazy: Innovation doesn't make for better racing and more spectacle :mark: I think it's the James Allen type people who are to blame for this view by constantly going on about how F1 is the pinnacle and so on. It was never innovation that made F1 good to watch. In fact in the last few years innovation with regards to aero and other things has made it worse to watch. Give the cars wide tires, take away the wings and you'll see good racing. Is that innovation? Completely the opposite, it's going back to basics. Sometimes innovation makes for interesting solutions like the air storage tank on the Ford Escort Cosworth but more often than not you get stuff like big wings which makes the cars worse to watch or traction control which also makes F1 worse to watch. Manufacturers will always try to innovate to the point where the cars are fairly easy to drive in terms of a race car and all the driver needs to do is point and shoot. I oversimplify of course but manufacturers don't want good spectacular racing. They want to win and if that means making a series boring to watch then they'll do it.
I wouldn't call it obsession Daniel. Just an enjoyment of the kind of variety - engines, designs - we used to see on an F1 grid. Perhaps that in itself didn't make for better racing, but I think it improved the spectacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Innovation then was a "big idea" - the Tyrrell P34, the Brabham 'fan car', the ground effect Lotus, even the twin chassis Lotus - not evolution of an idea, which is what I think we've seen with the development of aero over the years.
I agree. But I don't think you're talking about innovation but merely a variety of formulae. Thing is if one is inherently better all of the teams will use it hence you're back to square one. That's what always happens in motorsport there days.
You're right that teams have always 'copied' the good ideas - just look at the number of Lotus 79 clones during the 1979 season - but I think over time the problem has been that increasingly restrictive regulation has strangled innovation and therefore variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I'll admit to looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but as an example Lotus were real innovators. Colin Chapman made numerous leaps forward in design ideas that were often improved on by others, the Lotus 79 being just one example.
That simply cannot happen today because the sport has been regulated to the nth degree, and there is little or no sign that is about to change. Therefore it is likely that the status quo will remain, whatever changes are proposed.
I agree, but then F1 runs the risk of becoming boring if someone comes up with a stunning innovation and blitzes every race as a result. It could also bring costs up again, which is surely the opposite of what should be happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1