Why Not To Go To One Engine Manufacturer

[DOF_power 0]

Probably enough. I was imagining if you took eg Force India's budget and multiplied it by 10 teams, then you'd end up with more than McLaren spend each year to develop their current car.

Sure. But if you want safe racing you'll need regulations. Especially if you want it to be entertaining. With spec cars the engineers could have a free reign to develop new technology because they wouldn't be under competitive pressure to sacrifice safety.

Not if you get rid of the drivers and go with fully automated cars.

That way it will be a manufacturers competitions just as motorsport was intended (the driver's championship was just a marking gimmick borrowed from ball games like tennis/golf and Co.).

[Rainmaster 7]

I saw the same race (at midnight!) and actually enjoyed it. Mostly due to multiple Danica Patrick commercials (she is hands down the hottest driver around with a possible exception of Nico Rosberg who, I am sure, is a woman on some level). BUT, one thing I noticed, each one of those drivers worked 10 times harder than Hamilton or Raikkonen during any F1 race!

The best make it look easy

[Max Mosley 2]

Not if you get rid of the drivers and go with fully automated cars.

That way it will be a manufacturers competitions just as motorsport was intended (the driver's championship was just a marking gimmick borrowed from ball games like tennis/golf and Co.).

Yup. If I had my way we'd have separate competitions for fully automated race cars (surely the future for regular cars anyway?) and on the other hand for drivers in identical equipment, to satisfy the driver fanboy in me.

[james 0]

Consider, however, that a F1 regulated as I mentioned would provide its own "bumps". Innovation would take care of that.

I don't doubt that the innovation would be there. But putting a major block in conventional thinking would make the engineers think completely outside of the norm. The innovation would be much faster and there would be more of it. It would be like telling the teams that they can do whatever they want with their engine but only have one valve per cylinder. Completely off the wall.

[JayStorm 0]

Even if it does create better, and more competitive racing bringing evertyone to a very similar level. After a couple of races you'd soon see the top few dominate. Having said that V8 Supercars works well but there's very little overtaking especially considering the number of cars on the grid. It's been tamed and everyone drives in such a way that everyone's priorty is being safe rather than trying to shunt someone wide.

I think also, and this applies to MotoGP as well. We're always going backwards. F1 uses V8s now instead of V10s and the revs are limited and regardless of everything else F1 should be about showcasing the fastest cars and drivers possible. It should be loud and proud and not try and kid us about being green.

[freaky2 1]

Even if it does create better, and more competitive racing bringing evertyone to a very similar level. After a couple of races you'd soon see the top few dominate. Having said that V8 Supercars works well but there's very little overtaking especially considering the number of cars on the grid. It's been tamed and everyone drives in such a way that everyone's priorty is being safe rather than trying to shunt someone wide.

I think also, and this applies to MotoGP as well. We're always going backwards. F1 uses V8s now instead of V10s and the revs are limited and regardless of everything else F1 should be about showcasing the fastest cars and drivers possible. It should be loud and proud and not try and kid us about being green.

I think they can go green without so much fuss!! I'm ok if they want to do that, I'm even ok if they want to cut costs, though to me that should be a decision to be made by the guys who spend their money on it. But they just make too much of a problem out of it!!

[The Burro 0]

There's only one chassis in the IRL, and it's one of the worst chassis ever in racing, hence the road course races suck.

With that said, good chassis or not, spec car racing is pointless.

And anyone who needs me to say more than that never really liked racing and never will.

And no one cares who the best driver is, because you'll never know, and what constitutes a "best driver" is tough to define, and at the end of the day, a spec car will always favor one driver that adapts best too it which makes them an adaptable driver or a lucky driver, but not the best, because we can't measure talent. The winners wins and it counts as a win and that's what you aim for so therefore the winner is the "best" and that's really all you need to know.

If you want a human sport, watch tennis or golf or some other individual sport. Off the track the drivers can be humans, on the track I don't give a s##t. It's hard to believe people can claim they're passionate about auto racing and yet not care about the cars or engines themselves.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Yes everything std! C

[Rainmaster 7]

There's only one chassis in the IRL, and it's one of the worst chassis ever in racing, hence the road course races suck.

With that said, good chassis or not, spec car racing is pointless.

And anyone who needs me to say more than that never really liked racing and never will.

And no one cares who the best driver is, because you'll never know, and what constitutes a "best driver" is tough to define, and at the end of the day, a spec car will always favor one driver that adapts best too it which makes them an adaptable driver or a lucky driver, but not the best, because we can't measure talent. The winners wins and it counts as a win and that's what you aim for so therefore the winner is the "best" and that's really all you need to know.

If you want a human sport, watch tennis or golf or some other individual sport. Off the track the drivers can be humans, on the track I don't give a s##t. It's hard to believe people can claim they're passionate about auto racing and yet not care about the cars or engines themselves.

Yeah. The best drivers usually get the best cars anyways.

[The Burro 0]

I agree with Geo.

[Max Mosley 2]

There's only one chassis in the IRL, and it's one of the worst chassis ever in racing, hence the road course races suck.

With that said, good chassis or not, spec car racing is pointless.

And anyone who needs me to say more than that never really liked racing and never will.

And no one cares who the best driver is, because you'll never know, and what constitutes a "best driver" is tough to define, and at the end of the day, a spec car will always favor one driver that adapts best too it which makes them an adaptable driver or a lucky driver, but not the best, because we can't measure talent. The winners wins and it counts as a win and that's what you aim for so therefore the winner is the "best" and that's really all you need to know.

If you want a human sport, watch tennis or golf or some other individual sport. Off the track the drivers can be humans, on the track I don't give a s##t. It's hard to believe people can claim they're passionate about auto racing and yet not care about the cars or engines themselves.

Sounds like you had a bad day at the office. Well, each to his own about the true point of auto racing. There will always be some arbitrariness in motorracing I agree, but we can reduce it enormously to the point where it's not much more of a factor than in other sports imho. If 3/4 grand slams were played on clay the tennis world rankings would look quite different after all.

[maure 1]

Spec cars wouldn't have to have such arbitrary and severe restrictions on technology for safety, that's the point. When you have teams all trying to 'beat' the rules you have to have strict rules that rule certain things out completely. If the FIA's contractor built the cars we could have any technology we wanted because it would then be implemented in a safe way.

A single constructor could be safer or less so but not by virtue of his "singularity". In fact, safety is like everything else and also relies on innovation. Cripple that and you end up in the same place, namely, mediocre safety.

Besides which, no amount of regulation or specs will ever prevent teams from "trying to 'beat' the rules". You are lying to yourself here (too).

[maure 1]

I don't doubt that the innovation would be there. But putting a major block in conventional thinking would make the engineers think completely outside of the norm. The innovation would be much faster and there would be more of it. It would be like telling the teams that they can do whatever they want with their engine but only have one valve per cylinder. Completely off the wall.

I didn't disagree with you. An obstacle goes a long way to seed and motivate the minds of those so disposed.

[Max Mosley 2]

A single constructor could be safer or less so but not by virtue of his "singularity". In fact, safety is like everything else and also relies on innovation. Cripple that and you end up in the same place, namely, mediocre safety.

Besides which, no amount of regulation or specs will ever prevent teams from "trying to 'beat' the rules".

I agree to a large extent: spec cars will be safer precisely because of the ''singularity'' involved. But I don't agree that we have ''mediocre safety'' atm.

[Boily 0]

If safety is so important why don't they drive tanks around the tracks ?

I bet the M1A1 would kick the british tanks arse !!!!!!!1

[maure 1]

I agree to a large extent: spec cars will be safer precisely because of the ''singularity'' involved. But I don't agree that we have ''mediocre safety'' atm.

Improvements in safety require the same innovation and ingenuity as everything else.

F1 remains a dangerous sport. Better safety can be achieved at a greater pace if the incentive is there to go beyond the established and the regulated.

[Max Mosley 2]

Hmm I can't even spot the sarcasm in that post. You're improving with practice.

The thing is, competition between teams on the race track doesn't add much to safety research: they don't win by being the safest. The FIA could offer a competitive tender to whoever can design the safest (spec) F1 car and we'd get the same innovation in safety that we get today. In addition, the spec car could have technology that has to be banned today because it would be much easier to implement it in a safe way when the FIA is in charge of the (spec) car. So in many ways, especially useful ways, we'd get more innovation with specs.

[freaky2 1]

Hmm I can't even spot the sarcasm in that post. You're improving with practice.

The thing is, competition between teams on the race track doesn't add much to safety research: they don't win by being the safest. The FIA could offer a competitive tender to whoever can design the safest (spec) F1 car and we'd get the same innovation in safety that we get today. In addition, the spec car could have technology that has to be banned today because it would be much easier to implement it in a safe way when the FIA is in charge of the (spec) car. So in many ways, especially useful ways, we'd get more innovation with specs.

Huh? The drivers are the ones that should be campaigning for safety, it's their lives that are on the line. Take what happened in MotoGP after Daijiro Kato's death, the drivers all assembled to protest, and changes in the circuits were made to meet their requests. Why can't the same happen in F1 with the drivers actively involved in this issue that concerns them the most? Otherwise we get changes promoted "because of safety" on paper but "because of interest" in reality. I heard Carmelo Ezpeleta saying that having MotoGP riders race only Bridgestones was a change implemented because of safety. I think no one honestly believes that.

Sorry for the lot of MotoGP analogies, but that's what I think.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yes, in F1 too it's very common for someone (my hero, Max) to use safety as a smoke-screen to sneak a change in through the back door. There's a lot of politics and at least in F1 that's a core part of the sport, atm. Of course, if we got rid of the teams, things would be different!

Btw there is a drivers' association in F1 that meets to promote the drivers' concerns, like safety issues, rule clarifications etc. I believe Mark Webber is very keen about it but Lewis probably doesn't attend and I'm not sure if Michael ever did.

[The Rumble Strip 0]

Michael did.

He was the chairman.

[freaky2 1]

Yes, in F1 too it's very common for someone (my hero, Max) to use safety as a smoke-screen to sneak a change in through the back door. There's a lot of politics and at least in F1 that's a core part of the sport, atm. Of course, if we got rid of the teams, things would be different!

Btw there is a drivers' association in F1 that meets to promote the drivers' concerns, like safety issues, rule clarifications etc. I believe Mark Webber is very keen about it but Lewis probably doesn't attend and I'm not sure if Michael ever did.

They just need to get the drivers more involved. And the FIA to really listen to them (that would be the hard part I guess). That's a lot less costly than promoting drastic changes in the sport.

[Max Mosley 2]

Michael did.

He was the chairman.

Cheers!

They just need to get the drivers more involved. And the FIA to really listen to them (that would be the hard part I guess). That's a lot less costly than promoting drastic changes in the sport.

Oh yeah that's true. If you just want to improve safety there's no need to have spec cars. But I like being dramatic and drastic. It's more fun that way! (Yeah, it's probably just a phase.)

[Rainmaster 7]

Huh? The drivers are the ones that should be campaigning for safety, it's their lives that are on the line. Take what happened in MotoGP after Daijiro Kato's death, the drivers all assembled to protest, and changes in the circuits were made to meet their requests. Why can't the same happen in F1 with the drivers actively involved in this issue that concerns them the most? Otherwise we get changes promoted "because of safety" on paper but "because of interest" in reality. I heard Carmelo Ezpeleta saying that having MotoGP riders race only Bridgestones was a change implemented because of safety. I think no one honestly believes that.

Sorry for the lot of MotoGP analogies, but that's what I think.

This is true. Good posting.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Huh? The drivers are the ones that should be campaigning for safety, it's their lives that are on the line. Take what happened in MotoGP after Daijiro Kato's death, the drivers all assembled to protest, and changes in the circuits were made to meet their requests. Why can't the same happen in F1 with the drivers actively involved in this issue that concerns them the most? Otherwise we get changes promoted "because of safety" on paper but "because of interest" in reality. I heard Carmelo Ezpeleta saying that having MotoGP riders race only Bridgestones was a change implemented because of safety. I think no one honestly believes that.

Sorry for the lot of MotoGP analogies, but that's what I think.

Completely agree 100%.

As Murray said there is the association of drivers which do campaign for safety measures to be implemented (and you are right by the way about Lewis not attending although I dont know if he does now), for instance the protective shield in the c#ckpit came from the ideas of the drivers (so according to DC), but I do believe they need to campaign a little harder for rule clarifications rather than discussing it publicly, get something done about it.

[dribbler 6]

Sorry, but I love the way that I got the word 'c0ck' banned and now we can't write 'c0ckpit'. Ah, little things.........