2017 F1 Constructor technical info/developmentFormula 1

[Carbon_6]

Given the current state of power play in F1, it's not surprising that the manufacturer's are crying wolf about costs rising, new arms races being fought, or quitting altogether. I've heard it so many times now I think they just play a tape recording on a loop through a speaker.

"We know the problems. We have the solutions. We're going to moan about them instead."



Go figure.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

This is a really interesting read on the topic of Ferrari quit threats...
https://wtf1.com/post/when-ferrari-threatened-to-quit-f1-to-go-and-race-at-indy/

 

[EngieDiesel]

This is a really interesting read on the topic of Ferrari quit threats...
https://wtf1.com/post/when-ferrari-threatened-to-quit-f1-to-go-and-race-at-indy/

This makes me wonder, supposing Ferrari did decide to walk away from Formula 1 now... where exactly would they go?

 

[DesertPenguin]

DPi or focus all their efforts on their factory based GT teams?

 

[Pete05]

This makes me wonder, supposing Ferrari did decide to walk away from Formula 1 now... where exactly would they go?

Le Mans once the new regulations are settled.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This makes me wonder, supposing Ferrari did decide to walk away from Formula 1 now... where exactly would they go?

Arguably they don't need to go anywhere, I really don't think their brand or customer base would diminish at all at this point... and that's from a lifelong Ferrari fan.

 

[Carbon_6]

You could argue Ferrari doesn't need F1 as much as F1 needs Ferrari.

Or any other manufacturer for that matter.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Then why does F1 pay Ferrari just for being there?

 

[Carbon_6]

Simply a bad legacy of CVC's time as the leaseholders of the sport.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Then why does F1 pay Ferrari just for being there?

You could argue Ferrari doesn't need F1 as much as F1 needs Ferrari.

Or any other manufacturer for that matter.

Sounds like Carbon was saying that to begin with. It sounds like he's saying that F1 needs Ferrari and on a larger scale any manufacture support of the series to thrive, Ferrari doesn't need F1 to thrive. So you're question basically validates his perspective on it to begin with. And that's always been Ferrari's view of it too, that Ferrari will still be Ferrari without F1 but F1 wont be F1 without Ferrari.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Gotcha. Stupid Ferrari...

 

[Carbon_6]

Manufacturer teams are like badges of honour to a series like F1, a vindication of its existence. Without them, it seems nothing else will do.

Not even perhaps an energy drink giant and a couple of teams that were founded to go racing.

 

[EngieDiesel]

Sounds like Carbon was saying that to begin with. It sounds like he's saying that F1 needs Ferrari and on a larger scale any manufacture support of the series to thrive, Ferrari doesn't need F1 to thrive. So you're question basically validates his perspective on it to begin with. And that's always been Ferrari's view of it too, that Ferrari will still be Ferrari without F1 but F1 wont be F1 without Ferrari.

This does make sense. Ferrari is essentially a racing team that funds itself by selling road cars, and even if they departed from F1 they still have their FXX programs where people pay ridiculous sums of cash for the privilege of doing R&D work for them under the guise of private track days. And if Ferrari left, that leaves Haas and Sauber without an engine supplier so it would have a pretty widespread effect.

That said, I don't think they would seriously entertain the idea of leaving unless they felt the new engine regs would cause an influx of manufacturers that threatened their top dog status, but I'm not sure that'll happen since everyone seems to be tripping over each other to get into Formula E at the moment.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This does make sense. Ferrari is essentially a racing team that funds itself by selling road cars, and even if they departed from F1 they still have their FXX programs where people pay ridiculous sums of cash for the privilege of doing R&D work for them under the guise of private track days. And if Ferrari left, that leaves Haas and Sauber without an engine supplier so it would have a pretty widespread effect.

That said, I don't think they would seriously entertain the idea of leaving unless they felt the new engine regs would cause an influx of manufacturers that threatened their top dog status, but I'm not sure that'll happen since everyone seems to be tripping over each other to get into Formula E at the moment.

They're only doing that because it's cheap PR that is somewhat not far off of F1 due to the automotive climate where more people are starting to look to electric vehicles. Most people don't care nor will have the money to drive a Ferrari so I feel those who mainly watch FE do it out of what it is and not so much the racing, and those are the same people who don't care about car culture anyways and more likely will switch over to electric in the near future.

If FE actually had some development that was team dependent, it would be have similar issues of cost/spending to that of F1 and WEC. Spec cars, spec power and so forth mean cheap. I'd say those cars with manufactures on the side are similar to Infiniti getting free air time due to be aligned with Renault.

 

[Simmpa]

Budget restrictions make them want to quit but not the V6 hybrid engine or the Halo?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Budget restrictions make them want to quit but not the V6 hybrid engine or the Halo?

I can see the point that Ferrari and Mercedes are making - they've spent a lot of money to create a winning engine in the current formula. Now they have to spend a lot of money to create a winning engine in the new formula while still spending a lot of money in the existing formula at the same time.

Add to that the fact that the top teams have always been against any change in the status quo (for obvious reasons) and you have another classic F1 impasse.

 

[EngieDiesel]

I can see the point that Ferrari and Mercedes are making - they've spent a lot of money to create a winning engine in the current formula. Now they have to spend a lot of money to create a winning engine in the new formula while still spending a lot of money in the existing formula at the same time.

Add to that the fact that the top teams have always been against any change in the status quo (for obvious reasons) and you have another classic F1 impasse.

And this time Bernie's not around to use his iron glove method of dispute resolution, so there is a possibility we may see some actual fireworks come out of this instead of everyone just continuing the status quo while grumbling ever more impolitely.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

I thought Ferrari's main concern (and that of Renault and Mercedes too I believe) was that some of the engine components were going to be spec parts for the sake of the budget cap, but in doing so would take some of the uniqueness from the engine. Everything they get to develop and through money at is a potential area to find an advantage over their rivals, especially if you are the engine manufacturer team. We haven't heard from the customer teams about the forth coming changes, but I suspect they are all very pleased that the gap in engine performance from manufacturer to customer will be reduced.

 

[EngieDiesel]

As if the halo wasn't causing enough headaches in designing the 2018 cars, now McLaren has vetoed keeping the shark fins on the cars for next year.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Doesn't make much sense, since I was quite sure no one was forcing them to run the fin to begin with. So they know there is a benefit, and they rather use the choice they want over this... So why do they care? Unless the fin is still a better alternative and the system they'll be using doesn't follow the new 2018 guidelines.

 

[EngieDiesel]

Doesn't make much sense, since I was quite sure no one was forcing them to run the fin to begin with. So they know there is a benefit, and they rather use the choice they want over this... So why do they care? Unless the fin is still a better alternative and the system they'll be using doesn't follow the new 2018 guidelines.

According to that article, there had to be a unanimous decison by all teams to keep them in place. So it could very well be McLaren's veto was less to benefit themselves and more to screw over everyone else... at this point, I wouldn't put it past anyone to make a spiteful last second decision like that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

According to that article, there had to be a unanimous decison by all teams to keep them in place. So it could very well be McLaren's veto was less to benefit themselves and more to screw over everyone else... at this point, I wouldn't put it past anyone to make a spiteful last second decision like that.

I read it and understood that, my issue that isn't explained, is why they're so against the shark fin to put a wrench in things. And it's always been this way that's why the Halo didn't pass for the longest time. Then the FIA finally said screw that and implemented it.

If McLaren did it to even out the playing field by some small margin then okay I guess...seems somewhat silly when most teams if not all are designing or have already started to build and will soon be finished with 2018 cars.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I read it and understood that, my issue that isn't explained, is why they're so against the shark fin to put a wrench in things.

The benefit to the teams seems to be in lateral stability - that's why in general they were keen to keep it, if you ignore all the nonsense about what a great place it was for a driver number. It could be that McLaren feel they get less benefit from it than other teams do (they're very chassis-orientated after all) and that it would hurt other teams more than them for it to be outlawed.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The benefit to the teams seems to be in lateral stability - that's why in general they were keen to keep it, if you ignore all the nonsense about what a great place it was for a driver number. It could be that McLaren feel they get less benefit from it than other teams do (they're very chassis-orientated after all) and that it would hurt other teams more than them for it to be outlawed.

Then as I said if it's of less benefit, and they have a solution as Bouillier puts it that is better engine cover design, then go with that and leave the rest alone. I see no reason to ban an item, rather keep it like it is now. If you want it, use it, if you don't then don't build an engine cover with it. I'm fine with innovation and loop holes, but going out of your way to try and reset the playing isn't the same concept as the other two.

 

[TenEightyOne]

but going out of your way to try and reset the playing isn't the same concept as the other two.

I see it as being about relative disadvantage. If McLaren lose more to other teams with the aero fin in place than they lose to the other teams if noone has an aero fin then I don't see a problem in them doing exactly what the front-runners are always doing by objecting to things that hold no advantage for them. If McLaren always had this idea and have already evolved a no-fin 2018 design then more power to them, figuratively speaking. Mercedes, Red Bull or Ferrari would do exactly the same in that position.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I see it as being about relative disadvantage. If McLaren lose more to other teams with the aero fin in place than they lose to the other teams if noone has an aero fin then I don't see a problem in them doing exactly what the front-runners are always doing by objecting to things that hold no advantage for them. If McLaren always had this idea and have already evolved a no-fin 2018 design then more power to them, figuratively speaking. Mercedes, Red Bull or Ferrari would do exactly the same in that position.

That's not getting to my point and is essentially a rehash of what you said the first time. So I'll quote this and try to explain again...

“Maybe we have found a way to use the engine cover that works better.

“But we are not playing games. Everyone is developing their own car so if you ask for something which is against our interests, I will not go for it.

So from this, the current set up is against their interests and it would seem that under the current regs McLaren's design path would not be liked or pass current regs. However, they feel it is ground breaking enough to veto current regs, if this explanation is to be believed. My point is if they're willing to be this open with why they're doing it and gaming the system out loud to the FIA. Then FIA should say no, they had no issue doing that with the Halo. It seems (like everyone) McLaren wants to do something that puts them on top but to do that, they need to force the rules to shift so they can use a design. That's to me is simply a wrong way of going about things, and something I've not seen too often.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So from this, the current set up is against their interests and it would seem that under the current regs McLaren's design path would not be liked or pass current regs. However, they feel it is ground breaking enough to veto current regs, if this explanation is to be believed. My point is if they're willing to be this open with why they're doing it and gaming the system out loud to the FIA. Then FIA should say no, they had no issue doing that with the Halo. It seems (like everyone) McLaren wants to do something that puts them on top but to do that, they need to force the rules to shift so they can use a design. That's to me is simply a wrong way of going about things, and something I've not seen too often.

Fair enough - but I don't see why McLaren shouldn't game-play which I think they are doing, even if they obviously say they're not. Halo's in a different category as a safety device, the FIA have often mandated safety changes with or without the agreement of all/any teams (crash structure strengths/locations being an obvious one).

 

[MustangManiac]

Fair enough - but I don't see why McLaren shouldn't game-play which I think they are doing, even if they obviously say they're not. Halo's in a different category as a safety device, the FIA have often mandated safety changes with or without the agreement of all/any teams (crash structure strengths/locations being an obvious one).

I think they could play the safety card with the shark fin if they wanted to. Lateral stability, keep the cars from getting too sideways too fast and when they do get sideways slow them enough to keep them from flipping. Wasn't that the theory when it started in the WEC?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Fair enough - but I don't see why McLaren shouldn't game-play which I think they are doing, even if they obviously say they're not. Halo's in a different category as a safety device, the FIA have often mandated safety changes with or without the agreement of all/any teams (crash structure strengths/locations being an obvious one).

Not saying anything on the halo I'm well aware, just using the fact it was veto'd to hell until the FIA said no more. I don't expect the same for this case, but if it's clear that a team is trying to game the system, some could say the sport is in jeopardy of disrepute. That was most of my point.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This week's test with McLaren/Pirelli at Interlagos has been cancelled following another armed attack, this time on a Pirelli vehicle. The threat was "neutralised", we're told. BBC.