planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:50 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 5629
Location: Mumbai, India
Here's what Liberty has planned ahead for Formula 1 from 2021 that was presented today:

Power units (PU)
• The PU must be cheaper, simpler, louder, have more power and reduce the necessity of grid
penalties.
• It must remain road relevant, hybrid and allow manufacturers to build unique and original PU.
• New PU rules must be attractive for new entrants and Customer teams must have access to
equivalent performance.

Costs
• Liberty believes how you spend the money must be more decisive and important than how much
money you spend.
• While there will be some standardised elements, car differentiation must remain a core value.
• Implement a cost cap that maintains Formula 1 position as the pinnacle of motorsport with a
state-of-the-art technology.
Bonus - It's understood that Liberty is intending a $150m budget cap but this would not include driver salaries or key executives or marketing budget.

Revenues
• The new revenue distribution criteria must be more balanced, based on meritocracy of the
current performance and reward success for the teams and the Commercial Rights Holder.
• F1s unique, historical franchise and value must and will still be recognised.
• Revenue support to both cars and engine suppliers.

Sporting and technical rules & regulations
• It wants to make cars more raceable to increase overtaking opportunities.
• Engineering technology must remain a cornerstone but driver’s skill must be the predominant
factor in the performance of the car.
• The cars must and will remain different from each other and maintain performance
differentiators like aerodynamics, suspensions and PU performance. However, we believe areas
not relevant to fans need to be standardised.

Ferrari & even till recently Mercedes that have been yelling to quit F1, I wonder if they'll love this or hate it. Hamilton was also waiting for clarifications regarding these new set of rules for F1 before agreeing to a new contract.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 904
I'm not going to say some of those are contradictory, but they might get in the way of each other as objectives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5677
Alex53 wrote:
I'm not going to say some of those are contradictory, but they might get in the way of each other as objectives.

I was thinking the same.

Like how can you have a budget cap but also create state-of-the art technology? Wouldn't a budget cap cripple exploring innovative ideas to a large extend?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:06 am
Posts: 2886
Siao7 wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
I'm not going to say some of those are contradictory, but they might get in the way of each other as objectives.

I was thinking the same.

Like how can you have a budget cap but also create state-of-the art technology? Wouldn't a budget cap cripple exploring innovative ideas to a large extend?

I guess it depends on how much they are willing to open up the technical restrictions.

_________________
Danger is real, fear is choice.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco '12 & '15, Silverstone '14, Austria '15, Mexico '15, China '16)
Podiums: 11
2018 Championship Standing: As good as Max in China


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12938
Mainly worthless. It's easy to set out ideals without any indication of how they're going to be achieved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 952
They should tell ALL teams take it or leave it.

If Ferrari and Merc quit, then tough. Need to get tough otherwise nothing will ever change.
Then Liberty should focus on seasons 2018-2020 to ensure they are not just a waste of time until the new rules of 2021.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5677
specdecible wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
I'm not going to say some of those are contradictory, but they might get in the way of each other as objectives.

I was thinking the same.

Like how can you have a budget cap but also create state-of-the art technology? Wouldn't a budget cap cripple exploring innovative ideas to a large extend?

I guess it depends on how much they are willing to open up the technical restrictions.

Yes, very true. But generally speaking, inventions need R&D and that costs a lot of money. Especially as you have technical restrictions. Anyway, we'll see how that pans out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5677
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mainly worthless. It's easy to set out ideals without any indication of how they're going to be achieved.

I found it very vague as well. Maybe that was their target anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21678
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mainly worthless. It's easy to set out ideals without any indication of how they're going to be achieved.

This. There's nothing specific there. All just looks like PR speak


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
V6T with no mgu-h,stronger mgu-k,increased fuel flow, increased rpm (3000), standard batteries and turbochargers
$150m Budget Cap (Not included-Driver and upper management salaries and marketing)
Simplified front and rear wing proposal (2019)
$10m Engine Manufacturer bonus. Ferrari get extra $40m.
Majority decision needed in future rather than unanimous.

This was in Amus, I'm going by memory so if I've missed anything apologies until I get home and find the link.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
Oh and it was supposedly a one-way, take it or leave it meeting. Sign up or leave.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9050
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mainly worthless. It's easy to set out ideals without any indication of how they're going to be achieved.

This. There's nothing specific there. All just looks like PR speak

They've got to start somewhere. Would you rather they remain silent until they have all minute details ready? IMO they're better off being open about their plans, however crude they may be, so that they'll get some feedback along the way instead of putting in countless hours in something that'll be rejected.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12938
Covalent wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mainly worthless. It's easy to set out ideals without any indication of how they're going to be achieved.

This. There's nothing specific there. All just looks like PR speak

They've got to start somewhere. Would you rather they remain silent until they have all minute details ready? IMO they're better off being open about their plans, however crude they may be, so that they'll get some feedback along the way instead of putting in countless hours in something that'll be rejected.


I'm not saying they shouldn't say anything. Just that you can't take much from it without any indication of how these goals are to be achieved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9050
mikeyg123 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mainly worthless. It's easy to set out ideals without any indication of how they're going to be achieved.

This. There's nothing specific there. All just looks like PR speak

They've got to start somewhere. Would you rather they remain silent until they have all minute details ready? IMO they're better off being open about their plans, however crude they may be, so that they'll get some feedback along the way instead of putting in countless hours in something that'll be rejected.


I'm not saying they shouldn't say anything. Just that you can't take much from it without any indication of how these goals are to be achieved.

Ok, it's sometimes difficult to apprehend the tone in written text.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:47 pm
Posts: 2775
Lotus49 wrote:
Oh and it was supposedly a one-way, take it or leave it meeting. Sign up or leave.


Doesn't sound like that was the case at all. According to this quote from Ross Brawn on Motorsport.com, the discussion will come at a later stage once the teams have gone away and absorbed the information: "It was a more a meeting to pass the information and to pass the views onto the teams ... The teams need to digest it now, and then the discussion proper will start. It was a straightforward meeting with no major controversies."

_________________
Cheering for: Leclerc, Hulkenberg, Vandoorne
Pick 10 | 1 win, 10 podiums
2017: 6th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
Jenson's Understeer wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Oh and it was supposedly a one-way, take it or leave it meeting. Sign up or leave.


Doesn't sound like that was the case at all. According to this quote from Ross Brawn on Motorsport.com, the discussion will come at a later stage once the teams have gone away and absorbed the information: "It was a more a meeting to pass the information and to pass the views onto the teams ... The teams need to digest it now, and then the discussion proper will start. It was a straightforward meeting with no major controversies."


It came from Tobi Grüner who's usually pretty accurate, maybe Brawn's sugar coating it for the media as to not come across as a my way or the high way type and embarrass the teams? Who knows, we'll find out soon enough.


_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24867
That all seems quite sensible, I'm guessing the MGU-H will get ditched which would be a shame because it's great technology.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Last edited by pokerman on Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 1-bahrain/

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 952
Lotus49 wrote:
Jenson's Understeer wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Oh and it was supposedly a one-way, take it or leave it meeting. Sign up or leave.


Doesn't sound like that was the case at all. According to this quote from Ross Brawn on Motorsport.com, the discussion will come at a later stage once the teams have gone away and absorbed the information: "It was a more a meeting to pass the information and to pass the views onto the teams ... The teams need to digest it now, and then the discussion proper will start. It was a straightforward meeting with no major controversies."


It came from Tobi Grüner who's usually pretty accurate, maybe Brawn's sugar coating it for the media as to not come across as a my way or the high way type and embarrass the teams? Who knows, we'll find out soon enough.



I really hope it is a take it or leave it approach.
For far, far too long F1 has treat footed around the like of Ferrari. The big teams.
Should this mean we lose the manufacturers then I couldn't care less. Goodbye.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
pokerman wrote:
That all seems quite sensible, I'm guessing the MG-U will get ditched which would be a shame because it's great technology.


The h will yeah, the k stays and it's power or availability increased.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
Apart from the Ferrari payment which is, well it is what it is, I'm not seeing much wrong with that. I'd have chucked in standard active suspension to offset the standard batteries and turbochargers on the PU side but that's about as good as it could be for me.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 1206
I seem to be in the minority as I’m reasonably happy with this. Yes it seems vague, but this is pretty much what Brawn has been talking about since his appointment.

I am encouraged that the usual array of sticking plaster and novel quick fixes are absent.

He has said (paraphrasing) that they need to build a solid mid to long term blueprint for what F1 should look like in the future, and work toward that in a sensible way, and without the knee jerk year on year changes that have been happening recently.

Obviously the devil will be in the detail, but I get sense that we might for once have a stable hand at the tiller with a properly thought out plan. Cautiously optimistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21678
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

lot more specific, thanks. Majority decision making means Ferrari lose their veto, I guess? Although it's not specifically mentioned. Wonder how that will go down.

I'm no engineer but the increased revs seem fairly pointless, since I'm almost certain I read that they don't currently explore the full rev range anyway. Anyone with greater tech know-how care to comment?

Wonder how DRS everywhere will work. Anytime a car is less than 1s behind he can open the flaps?

I'm glad they are banning the cascades. A bit less convinced about the financial constraints, though. I also think that instead of a minimum driver + seat weight they should establish a mandatory weight (to be supplemented by ballast in the seat itself), so that heavier drivers are not disadvantaged. I'm also not 100% about having standard turbos and curious about how the fuel flow limit will be relaxed, exactly.

Interesting times!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 952
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

I like it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4524
Great, they've identified the issues. The next step is to solve them...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24867
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

I don't understand why still the need for DRS?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9050
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

I don't understand why still the need for DRS?

Yeah that one stands out for me as well. Otherwise I quite like it. Would've liked to see some mention of the return of ground effects as well.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
Zoue wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

lot more specific, thanks. Majority decision making means Ferrari lose their veto, I guess? Although it's not specifically mentioned. Wonder how that will go down.

I'm no engineer but the increased revs seem fairly pointless, since I'm almost certain I read that they don't currently explore the full rev range anyway. Anyone with greater tech know-how care to comment?

Wonder how DRS everywhere will work. Anytime a car is less than 1s behind he can open the flaps?

I'm glad they are banning the cascades. A bit less convinced about the financial constraints, though. I also think that instead of a minimum driver + seat weight they should establish a mandatory weight (to be supplemented by ballast in the seat itself), so that heavier drivers are not disadvantaged. I'm also not 100% about having standard turbos and curious about how the fuel flow limit will be relaxed, exactly.

Interesting times!


I guess the extra money for Ferrari is to compensate the loss of the veto but I'm only guessing.

Yeah they don't hit the 15000 limit because the fuel flow is at max at 10500 anyway as I understand it (Which tbf is limited,lol). Giving an extra 3000rpm limit will be because of the relaxing of the fuel flow might mean that will increase too and they wont want it bouncing off the limiter like in the V8 days I assume as that hurt overtaking.

No clue about DRS or how that'll work.

Standard turbo chargers so that there isn't a development war as with no mgu-h the turbo lag will be severe.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

I don't understand why still the need for DRS?

Yeah that one stands out for me as well. Otherwise I quite like it. Would've liked to see some mention of the return of ground effects as well.


Yeah the drs one is a bit vague. Do they mean as Zoue suggests or is it a free for all for everyone can use it when they want which would be completely pointless.

Need more info on that one.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24867
Lotus49 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

lot more specific, thanks. Majority decision making means Ferrari lose their veto, I guess? Although it's not specifically mentioned. Wonder how that will go down.

I'm no engineer but the increased revs seem fairly pointless, since I'm almost certain I read that they don't currently explore the full rev range anyway. Anyone with greater tech know-how care to comment?

Wonder how DRS everywhere will work. Anytime a car is less than 1s behind he can open the flaps?

I'm glad they are banning the cascades. A bit less convinced about the financial constraints, though. I also think that instead of a minimum driver + seat weight they should establish a mandatory weight (to be supplemented by ballast in the seat itself), so that heavier drivers are not disadvantaged. I'm also not 100% about having standard turbos and curious about how the fuel flow limit will be relaxed, exactly.

Interesting times!


I guess the extra money for Ferrari is to compensate the loss of the veto but I'm only guessing.

Yeah they don't hit the 15000 limit because the fuel flow is at max at 10500 anyway as I understand it (Which tbf is limited,lol). Giving an extra 3000rpm limit will be because of the relaxing of the fuel flow might mean that will increase too and they wont want it bouncing off the limiter like in the V8 days I assume as that hurt overtaking.

No clue about DRS or how that'll work.

Standard turbo chargers so that there isn't a development war as with no mgu-h the turbo lag will be severe.

With Ferrari I guess it's just a case of reaching a compromise, regarding turbo lag I guess they just use the electrical energy to try and compensate?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24867
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

I don't understand why still the need for DRS?

Yeah that one stands out for me as well. Otherwise I quite like it. Would've liked to see some mention of the return of ground effects as well.


Yeah the drs one is a bit vague. Do they mean as Zoue suggests or is it a free for all for everyone can use it when they want which would be completely pointless.

Need more info on that one.

Indeed these cars are supposed to allow the drivers to make the difference so why the need for artificial assistance?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

lot more specific, thanks. Majority decision making means Ferrari lose their veto, I guess? Although it's not specifically mentioned. Wonder how that will go down.

I'm no engineer but the increased revs seem fairly pointless, since I'm almost certain I read that they don't currently explore the full rev range anyway. Anyone with greater tech know-how care to comment?

Wonder how DRS everywhere will work. Anytime a car is less than 1s behind he can open the flaps?

I'm glad they are banning the cascades. A bit less convinced about the financial constraints, though. I also think that instead of a minimum driver + seat weight they should establish a mandatory weight (to be supplemented by ballast in the seat itself), so that heavier drivers are not disadvantaged. I'm also not 100% about having standard turbos and curious about how the fuel flow limit will be relaxed, exactly.

Interesting times!


I guess the extra money for Ferrari is to compensate the loss of the veto but I'm only guessing.

Yeah they don't hit the 15000 limit because the fuel flow is at max at 10500 anyway as I understand it (Which tbf is limited,lol). Giving an extra 3000rpm limit will be because of the relaxing of the fuel flow might mean that will increase too and they wont want it bouncing off the limiter like in the V8 days I assume as that hurt overtaking.

No clue about DRS or how that'll work.

Standard turbo chargers so that there isn't a development war as with no mgu-h the turbo lag will be severe.

With Ferrari I guess it's just a case of reaching a compromise, regarding turbo lag I guess they just use the electrical energy to try and compensate?


Yeah could be with Ferrari. I just assumed the standard turbocharger was to help fight the lag as well but yeah I think they could use the K but I'm honestly not sure. I think I got myself muddled lol and was thinking the spec turbocharger would be a supercharger but obviously not.

AMuS now saying standard active suspension and 18" wheels are on the list too.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from "statman" on AS...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

* Budget cap of $150 Million
* Budget cap excludes salaries for drivers and executives, and spending on marketing (the non pure racing items)
* Evenly distribution revenue streams to the teams
* Bonus available for Ferrari ($50 Million) and all engine manufacturers ($10 Million)
* Bonusses cannot be used on the car
* Simple majority decision making
* Special critical decisions at 75% majority
* In case of emergency voting: panel of ten representatives each of the FIA, the F1 management and the teams is entitled to vote

* 1.6 liter V6 turbo
* Elimination of MGU-H
* Stronger MGU-K
* Increase of revs (+ 3000)
* Relaxing of the fuel flow limit
* Standard batteries and turbochargers

These plans are non-negotiable, teams can accept or leave

I don't understand why still the need for DRS?

Yeah that one stands out for me as well. Otherwise I quite like it. Would've liked to see some mention of the return of ground effects as well.


Yeah the drs one is a bit vague. Do they mean as Zoue suggests or is it a free for all for everyone can use it when they want which would be completely pointless.

Need more info on that one.

Indeed these cars are supposed to allow the drivers to make the difference so why the need for artificial assistance?


Yeah I've no idea bud, It's the strangest one for sure. I hope it's more like Zoue's thinking at least as if it's just a free for all it will be the daftest thing I've read in a while,lol.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4641
If they're going to larger rims there definitely needs to be changes made to suspension.

Overall the list sounds pretty good but losing the MGU-H is a disappointment since I think that's one of the more brilliant things that was done with the current PU.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1241
Chase Carey, Chairman and CEO at Formula One, said: "Formula One is a sport with a rich history. We want to preserve, protect and enhance that history by unleashing F1s potential, by putting our fans at the heart of a more competitive and more exciting sport. We are driven by one desire: to create the world's leading sporting brand. Fan- centred, commercially successful, profitable for our teams, and with technological innovation at its heart."

I like this a lot. Finally, Formula One has a roadmap and clearly defined goals. One thing that jumps out at me is that this plan is designed with a sane business model in mind. Under current practices, anyone wishing to enter this sport has a very high probability of crashing and burning. That is not good business. It does not attract new teams or investors, it does not have a healthy future.

Make no mistake, Liberty are taking control of the sport in a manner very alien to Ecclestone's practices. Instead of Bernie's "divide and conquer", and basically bribing teams to agree with him, Liberty have laid out a roadmap for the teams to digest, and then either join the parade or use the door. The teams will be stripped of their abilities to control the sport. Instead of the lunatics running the asylum, now we will have a much simpler hierarchy.

What Liberty are doing is what any new owner does, to clean house. And they are going to resolve this in the near future. Five years from now Ferrari will either be in Formula One, or not. They deserve to be in Formula One, but their politics and influence in the sport will be gone. And Liberty are giving them enough notice to decide, and act on their decision. If they are going to leave and maybe form a new competitive series, now is the time to march. In poker, this is known as calling their bluff.

Oh my, I expect a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by some teams. It will probably get ugly, but in the end, Liberty will tell everyone to either sign on the dotted line or get out.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
I really would like standard active suspension for a few reasons. One is that the amount of money being spent in trying to achieve it's effects through hydraulics is a nonsense and splits the grid into who can afford to do it and who can't.

Second is when I watch a display like Lewis/Max/Seb or Alonso in the wet I don't want to be sitting there wondering what they'd be like in a midfield car without it like a Williams on any given day. What I mean by that isn't to doubt their skills, I know they are the best in the wet, but what I mean is if in one race Stroll bins it in the wet driving a car without it, and we all jump on him, for me it takes the shine off if someone with it is getting praised in the same race if you see what I mean.

Clearly it is easier in the wet the better your car is anyway so we're giving the best tools to those that need it the least and it creates this huge gap in performance.

I think I'm all over the place in that second one but I know what I mean anyway. Everyone with AS and then it's down to the aero and the driver in the wet and we can actually watch that magic knowing it is predominantly his magic over the rest of the field rather than just his team mate and those with the faux AS.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
Apparently that list I posted is partly 2019 suggestions to help racing. (I assume the first list)

So DRS might not even be part of 2021 but still not clear. Proposed ban on tyre heater blankets as well.

Picking this info up from some other places so bear with me.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1359
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Chase Carey, Chairman and CEO at Formula One, said: "Formula One is a sport with a rich history. We want to preserve, protect and enhance that history by unleashing F1s potential, by putting our fans at the heart of a more competitive and more exciting sport. We are driven by one desire: to create the world's leading sporting brand. Fan- centred, commercially successful, profitable for our teams, and with technological innovation at its heart."

I like this a lot. Finally, Formula One has a roadmap and clearly defined goals. One thing that jumps out at me is that this plan is designed with a sane business model in mind. Under current practices, anyone wishing to enter this sport has a very high probability of crashing and burning. That is not good business. It does not attract new teams or investors, it does not have a healthy future.

Make no mistake, Liberty are taking control of the sport in a manner very alien to Ecclestone's practices. Instead of Bernie's "divide and conquer", and basically bribing teams to agree with him, Liberty have laid out a roadmap for the teams to digest, and then either join the parade or use the door. The teams will be stripped of their abilities to control the sport. Instead of the lunatics running the asylum, now we will have a much simpler hierarchy.

What Liberty are doing is what any new owner does, to clean house. And they are going to resolve this in the near future. Five years from now Ferrari will either be in Formula One, or not. They deserve to be in Formula One, but their politics and influence in the sport will be gone. And Liberty are giving them enough notice to decide, and act on their decision. If they are going to leave and maybe form a new competitive series, now is the time to march. In poker, this is known as calling their bluff.

Oh my, I expect a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by some teams. It will probably get ugly, but in the end, Liberty will tell everyone to either sign on the dotted line or get out.


That is atleast in my view a good thing.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4093
That first list needs to be unanimously approved by the teams by 30th April to introduce it for next year.

So not a chance in hell then.

For clarity it's this one I believe...

* Airbox fin stays as it is
* Load tests for the attachment points of the noses are tightened
* Height of the exhaust pipes is reduced
* Exhaust pipes must not be angled upwards
* Bigger rearwing flap
* Ban of slots in upper part of rear wing endplate
* Increase of the slotgaps to the main wing
* Simplification of the front wing and ban the cascades
* New bargeboard dimensions
* DRS everywhere on the track
* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group