Gustav Malja, Sauber, Hungaroring, 2017

More standard parts likely for F1

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Formula One is likely to introduce more standardised parts in order to cut costs.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

@John-h raises a point about nepotism in motor racing:

7,400,000,000 people in the world, and in the last couple of years we’ve had five sons of drivers:

Magnussen, Palmer, Verstappen, Rosberg, Sainz (OK, not F1, but you know what I mean).

Sure, they have families that bring them up in a motorsport environment, but something is clearly not right here.
F1 is not the best drivers in the world.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Pimbers4955 and Dawson Johnstone!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 70 comments on “More standard parts likely for F1”

    1. CoTD is spot on… F1 isn’t the best drivers in the world. It’s a mixture of the best, or most well-connected, drivers who had the opportunity to get within touching distance.

      As for the real best in the world… only a fraction of one percent of people even get an opportunity to be a racing driver. I genuinely believe that the 20 most naturally talented drivers in the world today have probably never even sat in a go-kart, and they’re all more talented than Ayrton Senna was.

      1. Agree….Also worth noting that people in most jobs got there because they had some connections…F1 is no different.

        1. +1 although the leaf doesn’t fall far from the tree usually.

      2. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
        12th August 2017, 8:36

        I genuinely believe that the 20 most naturally talented drivers in the world today have probably never even sat in a go-kart

        That’s seems pretty unlikely given that the best in any technical sport tend to be the people who started doing it seriously from a very young age: doesn’t matter whether it’s football, tennis, snooker, golf, or motor-racing.

        Sure, the champions in these sports had great nature aptitude, but it was the long hours spent training which turned them into superstars.

        1. @thegrapeunwashed
          Most talented is not the same as the best and most developed. Training, experience and good connections dont get you all the way as proven by Palmer and Stroll this season.

          Most likely this is true for all things. The most talented hockeyplayer has never hold a stick, the most talented guitarplayer has never hold a guitar etc, etc, its not a problem exclusive to F1 and i dont even think its a problem. Maybe the most talented driver to ever be born isnt interested in driving, thats fine.

          1. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
            13th August 2017, 9:24

            @rethla, look at the Williams sisters in tennis, they will talk endlessly about how tough their dad was on them when growing up. How he’d force them to practice far harder than their natural inclination until it became the thing which defined them. These are now two of the best players in the world.

            Now, had Taylor Swift’s dad tried to turn her into a tennis star I doubt that she’d have made it even if she had practiced twice as hard as the Williams sisters. So certainly natural aptitude is important.

            But if you want to point to some kid in the middle of the Amazonian rain forest and say something like: “I bet she’d be far better than either of the Williams sisters, if only someone had give her the chance.” Then you’re making a completely pointless statement, because firstly it’s purely speculative, you’ve nothing to base it on; and second it’s irrelevant because the Amazonian hasn’t ever played tennis and therefore isn’t better. So what’s the point of the statement? You may claim that there are millions who might be better than the Williams sisters, if only they’d had the chance, but the fact is that they aren’t better – or to put it another way, the Williams sisters really are two of the best tennis players in the real world.

            Bringing it back to F1, Alonso got in a car aged 4(?), Hamilton aged 6(?). Both because obsessed with the sport and practiced endlessly. Both rose through motor-racing because they repeatedly beat their peers at every stage. Both are multiple F1 title-holders because they repeatedly beat their peers at motorsport’s highest level. Therefore these two are two of the best drivers in the world. If you want to claim that some Amazonian rainforesters might have been better had they been given the chance then you’re hypothesising about some alternative reality. Meanwhile in the real world, Alonso and Hamilton are two of the best racing drivers we’ve ever seen.

        2. He was talking about natural talent, not counting training.

          1. I think it is a stretch to say something is clearly not right and that F1 does not have the top twenty drivers in the world…realistically.

            Five drivers borne of ex-F1ers is unavoidable (other than what will be a fluctuating head count). These ‘kids’ have a natural open door if they want it and love it in their childhood, just as any kid would have to start with a burning love for it in order to get that good. How many kids of ex-F1ers were NOT interested nor showed enough talent as kids? Probably way more than have actually made it to F1. And the ones that are into it? Should they be discouraged just because some people in 10 or 15 years once they’re in F1 might cry ‘no fair?’ Should Lance refuse his Dads money? Money that Lawrence might have spent on Lance some other way if his interest was in a totally different field? If a parent can’t use their money and or influence to help their kid along…well…put another way…try stopping parents from helping their kids with money or an in to their profession or interest or passion of it is available to them to do that and the kid legitimately wants to pursue the same passion or career as their parent? In any profession.

            Of course there are always going to be circumstances that would have twenty drivers on the grid that are there for all the reasons that add up to them being there…money, talent, connections, timing, right place at the right time, etc etc. But water finds it’s own level. Drivers that don’t cut it don’t last.

            And why stop at he drivers? Do all the teams have all the best engineers in the world, team managers, mechanics, IT guys etc etc?

            F1 teams have the best drivers they can ‘feasibly’ have due to all sorts of circumstance. To say so and so would be way better if he was in F1 and if so and so didn’t have that seat so and so would be way better (total speculation needed) guess what…’if’ is the biggest word in the dictionary.

            Until they figure out how to do a 7.4 billion person driving talent contest, the easiest way to fill a grid is with drivers who are actually within a shout of having been able to show their stuff since their youth. With what…a caveat that no kids trained by their F1 parents are allowed to pursue that too?

          2. Natural talent is a myth. You may have some natural physical attributes that help you, but it’s practice that gets you places.

            1. @jimbo0070
              That explains everything, Vettel simply practiced more than Webber.

            2. Yes, I agree. Talent isn’t worth much without effort.

            3. @rethla
              No it really does make a difference. I’ve no doubt he put more hours in to his craft, but its not just time put in to practice, it has to be purposeful practice. You always here that vettel is the one who stays late with his engineers at race weekends, longer than other drivers, I’m sure he puts in more effort into eveything F1 related than other drivers. Do you think Tiger woods is naturally talented? Or that his father made him hit thousands of golf balls from the age of 2.

            4. @jimbo0070

              I have no clue whatsoever about Tiger woods but i think its pretty clear in millions of cases that you will never reach the top without talent. No doubt you will never reach the top without training either but thats the whole point in this discussion isnt it, The most talented guy will never get the training thats needed.

              If you really want good drivers you need to dig deep into big junior programs looking for pure talent that you can develop. That is what Red Bull is doing and the opposite of what Williams is doing and you can clearly see the difference between their young drivers.

            5. @rethla I bet if you look at each of those drivers in rhr youth programs, there will be a reason why they stand out, not somehing they are born with. Maybe started at an earlier age, maybe had easy access to a track growing up, a great mentor etc. Etc.. At one point in the early 2000’s 6 of the top 10 female tennis players in the world happened to have been born in the same Russian town.that town hadnt put the best male tennis players out to stud! They happened to have free tennis courts and an amazing coach. I would say that talent is actually a product of practice and success a product of practice and opportunity. One one is born talented in my opinion. If most people had the opportunity, desire and means, they could probably go quite far in the motor sport world.

            6. @james

              Then you need to try a few physical motor race activities because your statement is ridiculous.

              There are many naturally more talented racers than others and a host of research to support that. Everything from the mental abilities through to the sensitivity of the direct connect between nerve bunches in the spine, balance abilities and the brain.

              Add that to the ability to process fast moving information as well as the direct to brain instinctive reactions (like removing your finger when it’s burnt) and the only real fallacy is that ‘reaction times’ matter. They frequently do not.

              I have no interest in blowing my trumpet but I have been successful in club and national terms despite disabilities. With the smallest budgets imaginable. Very successful. I was considered naturally talented at nine years old and literally built and raced my own stuff before a crippling accident at 18. End of sponsership yet I continued. I can with realistic humility point to at least a half a dozen over the 20 years of racing that were stand out more talented naturally than I and while often they were ‘seen’ and had better budgets as a result, they were very tough to beat even on equal footing. You had to do something very special to overcome that innate advantage. Even if you too had similar. That’s where experience comes in. Hamilton is one of those just so you know. Button had ability but other advantages and hence while a talent, he had far less than Hamilton. You had to be there at the races to see that. Ant Davis is similar. Zip karts was more than able to see natural ability long before any practice came to play. Their teams were set up that way if you had the budgets. The international scene is even more so.

              Then look at bikes. You think practice makes a Rossi? – it really does not.

              Even Nigel Mansel will agree his karting nemesis from Shennington was an equal or better talent than he, they exchange Christmas cards yet his nemesis never made it to F1. Or even out of karting. Senna had similar people in his career.

              To suggest it’s just practice is infantile.

      3. FlyingLobster27
        12th August 2017, 13:22

        @neilosjames, I believe it was Markku Alén who said that the best driver in the world is probably a lumberjack who never got the chance or the funds to sit in a race car.

      4. The same is true for all motorsport. It is expensive and unless your both parents are willing to work from dusk to dawn and spend weekends on karting circuits and later if you don’t get a sponsor or be rich you are not getting higher than F3. It has always been like that and it is worse today but f1 is nothing special. I’d say getting into f1 is easier than to get into GP2/F2 because at least after gp2 you have the resources and more numbers to show.

        Also motorsport is very different in the sense that very few people even get to try it. Football for example is dirt cheap. All you need is shoes and a ball and a field to play. I’d imagine in many cultures all boys and many girls try football at some point. But karting? I’d be surprised is even if 5% have ever tried it. Anything higher than that? Less than 1 in a thousand.

      5. 323,000,000 Americans, and then picking that one as president.

        F1 not that bad at picking talent after all!

        1. Yeah, but it was ‘least worst’ out of a choice of two.

          1. @ceevee It really, really wasn’t

            1. The majority of American voters thought Mr Trump was the best candidate on the voting paper, so they voted for him.

            2. Not they didn’t. It’s just their system. Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes. 3 million more people voted for her than the hideous egotist than sadly has the job…for now.

            3. ‘That’ sadly has the job…

            4. Well said Robbie.

              This ridiculous notion that a guy playing a rigged deck where you have to out score your opponent in say five states out of 50 tells you what a farce their system has become.

              The founding fathers tried hard to see the issues ahead but they missed out on this type of divide in America as a whole. They also missed out on how the population would be spread. I mean, Florida a key state? On what planet?

              That said I can’t see it lasting much longer.

            5. Or girl of course.

              I just hope politics do not stop some extra races being developed over there…

    2. An F1 fan to Clint Bowyer: “So, you want to go to the F1 track with all the boats around it? Well, I would like to go to that track in Florida with those great big bankings.” (Daytona)

      1. To be fair, Daytona has a lake (man made, to make the banking) in the middle of it. Also he never specified Monaco (I’m sure he meant Monaco), but what about Yas Marina?

    3. I’m afraid of standard parts, in my view this subject questions f1 more than the introduction of the Halo.

      1. @peartree
        I agree but then again it seems at least half of the F1 fanbase is screaming for more standardised cars that let the drivers be more crucial to success. Also everyone is screaming for cheaper cars so i dont see how F1 can avoid standardisation, its just a matter of time.

        1. “Standardisation of parts” I agree should be the most feared announcement of F1 this year @peartree. It didn’t take them long did it? Standard aerokit anyone?

          1. @baron wow pretty hardcore! Another one: standard suspension.

            Standard circuit would be boring while standard driver looks difficult to achieve.

            1. One of the fascinations (for me) in the 50 or so years I have been following F1 is that 2 completely different companies can design a racing car within a set of rules and emerge in the Spring and be within a couple of seconds a lap of each other out of the box (or not). That’s the engineering challenge that F1 represents and any standardisation, beyond a few simple parts, removes that challenge. F1 has always been about the dual thrust of both driving & engineering skills and it’s important to maintain that balance, at least for me, and I hope thousands of others.

          2. I used to think that way but standard parts on the recent Indycars have always made it possible for any good driver to win a race and the racing is better stateside than it ever has been. I’m done with the argument of removing the challenge of the engineering processes over good racing. I’m also tired of seeing teams throw so much money at the sport with little payoff simply because they can’t afford the latest in CFD or wind tunnel technology – give everyone a reasonable shot and get the grid affordable.

            1. I completely agree @skydiverian. Let’s call it ” Formula Fun”, because it won’t be serious and it won’t be pivotal.

        2. *cheaper engines. Nobody has mentioned cheaper cars, I’ve not seen single mention of cheaper cars.

      2. I doubt the front running teams would allow the stand parts list to include too many things where performance could be lost due to equalising. So long as it helps to stop more teams going out of business then it should be a good thing.

        1. @tonyyeb
          The frontrunning teams are also threatening to quit every second year because soemone has built better parts than them and they feel cheated.

      3. I think we need to look at the bigger picture a little here.

        F1 has never been more expensive, and never been comprised of so many different parts on the car. The cars, and more specifically the ‘power units’ are so incredibly expensively complicated, that making a few internal bits and pieces generic for all would be a very sensible solution.

        What does it really matter if a few elements of the unseen section of the car are one-size-fits-all? If it means there’s a greater chance of adding a few more teams on the grid, i’m all for it.

        Of course, if this opens the floodgates and ten years time we’re looking at standardised engines, that’s another matter entirely!

        1. @ecwdanselby I agree. First off I think it is taking a tiny bit of license for the headline to read more standard parts ‘likely,’ although in fairness maybe Keith knows more than Carey is saying in the cited article and quotes from him. So far Carey has only said they have brought it up in their meetings as a potential option. So this just to say I really see no need for fear mongering that this is some slippery slope they are about to embark on. They may not go that route and if they do it could be very mundane.

          I envision that Brawn and his team are working as we speak on improving the product on the track and there are many many ways to do that which could delete the need for them to even talk further about more standardized parts.

          Example. Next year the tires (which are standardized parts) are going to be better now that they will have actually been able to test with current cars rather than mules. Brawn et al are well aware that dirty air is still too negatively affecting trailing cars. They’re working on that and I believe if Brawn has his way they’ll improve on it enough to turf DRS and bring integrity back into passing by making them all earned. And it will be possible with the closer racing that we will see in the near future.

          They want to pump F1 back up to really being the pinnacle, which will see smaller teams in the fight more, and a larger audience for more marketing impact which generates revenues and invites sponsors etc etc.

          But the cost cutting or capping measures? I think it is the case that teams with more money, forced to spend less in one area, will just spend it elsewhere. It has already happened with the curtailing of on-track testing. They spend it instead on more and more sophisticated simulators. So lesser teams may have to spend less on some standard components, which aren’t going to help their performance anyway, while the big teams still have bags more money.

          F1 should start by making itself a much better product to ‘purchase’ first and foremost, and then see what the theoretical renewed global interest and hype and increase in audience brings in terms of future directions to pursue.

        2. @ecwdanselby yes, bigger picture should have think of that before the current PUs. Its like financial fair play and neymar.

    4. Well don’t you worry your pretty little head there, Chase, because sporting regs are non of your business.

    5. Honda seem to be getting their act together.

      Who knows, the spec 4 engine may be good enough to get Mclaren onto the podium?

      Their engine can only get better from here. Yes, they were grossly under prepared at the start of the season with new engine concept, and fair play to Hasegawa-san, he’s admitted that.

      Bring on the second half !

      1. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
        12th August 2017, 8:40

        @jaymenon I wonder whether they’ve learnt anything from the BAR Honda days: one step forward two steps back? I’m sceptical, but I’d love to be proved wrong.

      2. @jaymenon10
        I wish I could share your enthusiasm. I think Honda are absolute rubbish. Their spec 3 engine only performed decently at a track it was supposed to be perform decently at.

        I think in Spa they’ll be a good 12 to 15 kmh slower on the straights, and lose at least 1.3 to 1.6 seconds a lap alone from the power unit. Not to mention that they had a fresh power unit at Hungary, so they’ll be cranking up this power unit at a power hungry circuit. It’s highly doubtful that it will go past lap 29 in the race.

        Regarding spec 4. God knows how it will be. So far, we’ve seen that Honda manages to get very few updates right due to their sheer cluelessness in every department. Going by their track record, there is a higher chance of it being an absolute failure than an improvement.

    6. COTD
      As the saying goes, the best driver in the world is a shoemaker in Kazakhstan but no one will ever know not even himself.

    7. With regards standardized parts, it’s not the big horror story everyone seems to think it is.
      The cars already share side and rear impact structures, ECU’s, fuel flow meters and driver displays, also I believe the on-board fire extinguishing system is spec too, along with several teams buying in their gearboxes and often rear suspension too from their engine suppliers (Hass/Ferrari, Williams/Mercedes and Force India used to do a similar thing with McLaren.)
      I’m sure things like DRS actuators, oil and water coolers, the whole of the ERS (especially if the MGU-H is dropped for the next generation of engines), not mention things like drivers pedal assemblies and several other ancillary systems and components can be made spec, without, in any way, effecting the spectacle or the competition.

      These changes could save the teams $millions and if no-one told us, we would never know…….

      1. The teams will never agree to spec cooling systems or batterypacks. Their placement and configuration is a really big part of balancing the cars weight distribution. Back in KERS time, Red Bull were able to split their batteries in three and place them really low.

      2. While I agree that making more parts spec would make things cheaper for teams and would not significantly impact anyone’s perception of F1, I am worried about where this path leads. I, as an aspiring engineer, am fascinated by the fact that F1 cars are uniquely designed (in general). Ideally, every significant component would have to be uniquely designed, but that isn’t financially feasible. I think F1 needs to be careful about standardising more parts because it erodes on the primary thing that makes F1 great (in my opinion): the engineering competition. I do understand that certain measures must be taken to ensure the competition itself survives, however.

        1. @blockwall2 I think F1 is well aware of all aspects of what consequences standardizing to any degree might have. That’s why so far they have only brought it up as a potential option. I’m sure they’re smart enough to know, as will the teams have plenty of say, such that this is no slippery slope.

      3. @thebullwhipper It depends what they do & how far they go.

        Things like spec DRS systems & a lot of the safety related stuff that are currently spec is fine…. However I don’t like the idea of having things like spec engine components, turbo/hybrid systems, suspension components, wings, floors etc…. as these are all areas that generate a lot of performance & give teams/engineer’s a lot of freedom to be smart & creative.

        The argument that stuff that fans can’t see & what many don’t understand should be made spec because they don’t matter is a nonsense argument to me.

        1. @stefmeister Not sure I get why you are expressing a fear of the very things that they are saying they would NOT standardize…performance things. In your last paragraph…nobody is saying anything ‘should’ be made spec.

          For now they are only starting to suggest it as a potential option. With Brawn et al focussed on doing it right, ie. we have only just embarked on the post-BE era, I’m excited for the future and only see improvement coming from several angles.

          1. @robbie Some of the things I listed (Gearbox, Suspension & turbo/hybrid systems) are things that have been mentioned with regards to making them spec including not too long ago on Sky by Ross Brawn.

            I don’t have the exact quote but Ross said something along the lines of how things like gearboxes & suspension components are things that fans can’t see & don’t understand so wouldn’t make a difference if they were standard parts run by everyone. I have also seen Ross talk about looking at standardized front wings & floors to improve overtaking.

            1. @stefmeister, it also begs the question of how much of a monetary saving can really be achieved if teams can already buy components such as gearboxes and suspension parts from other teams – teams like Sauber, Haas and Force India already do that.

              Asides from that, there are only a small number of specialist suppliers for most of the parts that go into those components, making it questionable whether Brawn really could obtain that much of a better deal for the teams.

              For example, if you look at the shock absorbers, Penske has, since the 1990’s, had the lions share of the market in F1 (though Koni, Sachs and Bilstein have been active at times) – on fuel cells, ATL pretty much is the only manufacturer in town in that area.

              If you want pistons, Mahle is pretty much the sole supplier in the world of motorsport full stop, and has been for decades – the only manufacturer in recent years I can think of that hasn’t used them was Toyota, as they insisted on forging their own pistons.

              For brake components, you’re really limited to Brembo, Carbone Industrie and Hitco as suppliers, and Brembo has most of the market (though often the choice of the brake materials has been down to driver preference on the bite point, and it is not unusual for drivers to switch back and forth between suppliers over the years).

              On top of that, what Brawn neglected to mention is that gearbox costs are already capped – back in 2015, the teams agreed that an annual supply deal for gearboxes – which includes the cost of servicing and technical support as well as the component costs – at €1.5 million per annum (as reported by Autosport at the time

              All in all, given that a number of the components that Brawn has mentioned are already subject to cost control measures and supplied at a comparatively low cost to most teams in the first place, it makes me wonder if there really is that much of a scope for cost saving in the first place (especially when there aren’t that many alternative suppliers you can turn to in the first place in search of a better deal).

              That makes me wonder if there is a different desire behind these proposals than just cost savings, given that the components are already comparatively low cost. It makes me wonder if this is being used as a way for Liberty Media to achieve their stated goal of reducing performance differentiators by moving the sport towards a semi standardised spec, with cost savings being more of a secondary goal.

              Furthermore, cynically speaking, if Liberty Media was able to engineer it so they could influence or control the supply of parts to teams, that would be fairly useful leverage to have when negotiating with those teams.

            2. @stefmeister Fair comment. I missed where he mentioned those things. Suffice it to say for now these are just ideas they’re bouncing around with the Brawn team and the F1 teams, Liberty, FOM, and FIA.

              I currently don’t have a fear that F1 will become too spec, because it just feels like Carey is conscientious of maintaining F1’s DNA. Ensuring classic venues are retained in the calendar…getting rid of DRS…getting back to smaller teams having a little better chance to compete and grow. It’s a complex combination of things that will achieve this and I just think we have to keep reminding ourselves that they are likely going to do things differently than the BE era, which is exciting. Perhaps if they go ‘too spec’ in one aspect, they’ll at the same time free up some development room in another area that allows teams to ply their trade with design and engineering ideas.

    8. The COTD is spot on in terms of raw ability to drive a racing car. However, the same could be said of almost any other sport or job. Even with football (or soccer to Americans like me), there are billions of people in India, China, and Africa who either aren’t exposed to the sport or who don’t have the opportunity to pursue the proper training to ‘make it’ as a professional. And football is by far the most global sport. It is also pretty inexpensive for anyone to play at a basic level. This problem is exactly why I think racing as an eSport can really take off. It becomes far more accessible to everyone in the form of sims like iRacing, rFactor, etc. So even though most eSports exist because they are impossible to play in real life (aka killing people), sim racing could be a big thing because of how inaccessible real racing is.

      The problem is magnified with racing however, because racing is inaccessible to most people because of either its lack of popularity in a particular region or, more commonly for us, the amount of money required to go racing.

      1. The last sentence should go before the one starting with ‘this problem is exactly’

      2. I don’t agree with that @blockwall2. The social mobility problems that you talk about in India, China and developing nations applies to all walks of life – education, business, politics as well as sport.

        But in the UK and most of Europe, look at the backgrounds of top footballers. They are almost all working class. It’s rare to see a second generation footballer being successful, and arguably the culture of football means that having a famous father can count against you.

        But it’s comparing chalk and cheese really. Playing football costs nothing, motorsport at any level is an expensive hobby.

        My hope is that e-sports will provide a cheap and level playing field for future young stars. Particularly if cost cutting makes the car less of a factor and makes the driver more of a differentiator, teams will need to expand their scouting networks beyond the rich kids who’s dads can pay for them to go karting every weekend.

        1. Sorry – should have said “don’t agree with some of that”!

    9. Well, what to say about COTD? Firstly, no, as Arsene Wenger always says, F1 is clearly not the best drivers, because 99.8% of the world’s population never gets a chance to try karting or motorsport and to prove that maybe they have talent. That much is obvious.

      What COTD clearly seems to miss is that the drivers that are in F1 from ‘nepotism’, are actually the most likely of the entire field to have ‘talent’. They are genetically endowed with talent from their fathers (and indeed in Verstappen’s case, the most talented of the lot, his mother too). This makes COTD a complete nonsense. If anything, drivers coming through the ranks who are children of former F1 drivers shows the retention of talent in F1, not the deflecting of talent away from F1.

      Obviously it would be preferable if every kid (not just boys, girls too) had a thorough test in a simulator or on a kart so that we could know if they were talented. Unlike football, it doesn’t work that way. But it’s ridiculous to suggest that children of people who have already proven themselves to be at the very top of the talent-table (as far as we know) to not be in F1 on talent. Their talent is in their genes. Obviously this is not the case for all children of former racers, but the ones who make F1 will have at least enough to get there.

      It’s a very unusual COTD.

      1. @hahostolze
        Yep. Every kids at certain age had to enter physical and brain simulator so that we could know what talent they has.
        Maybe laser barcoded them in the neck too..

    10. I really don’t understand this whole no-one want to go back to N/A v8’s or v10’s. Fine I get that but why does the cylinder count, induction and use of complimentary electrical power have to be mutually exclusive?

      There are plenty of blown v8’s in the retail market and some other racing series. Just look at the mclaren P1. Could anyone enlighten me?

    11. I’m not really much of an engineer, but would something like a V10 or V8 engine with all the current hybrid systems work? I get that it would become a lot less efficient, as more of the energy is lost to sound, but if this is possible, I feel as if we might be able to get the best of both worlds. We’ll have cars that are much quicker in the straights, cars that sound better (I personally don’t mind the current engine sounds, but I won’t say that a loud engine wouldn’t make me happier) despite the presence of a silencer in the form the turbo, but with the technology and efficiency of the other PU components. Or perhaps even make the technology less complicated to keep down costs, as they have been thinking of doing. However, more and more car manufacturers are shying away from the V10s and the V8s, so the engine manufacturers might veto this.

      1. @mashiat A V8/V10 with the current systems would work, However they would create some extra weight as the engines themselves would be larger, Would require a larger fuel tank & maybe some extra cooling as well as been less efficient.

        I believe they opted for a V6 configuration as the general trend the motor industry has been taking has been smaller capacity turbo’s & so it was the general direction the manufacturer’s involved in discussions back when the engine regulations were been drawn up wanted to go in. The original idea was actually 4-cylender turbo hybrids but in the end they settled on a V6.

        Around the same time Indycar was also having discussions with engine manufacturer’s & also ended moving to a V6 turbo formula from 2012 but without the hybrid stuff (Maybe why it only managed to attract Chevrolet) & a larger capacity (2.2ltrs) which are currently producing around 700bhp I believe.

        What used to be called the V8 Supercars series in Australia will also be moving to a V6 turbo formula next year.

    12. On CoTD.

      I’m Dutch. It’s nice and all that Max is in a top team (although the hype around him can be pretty cringing most of the time), no doubt his surname helped massively strong arming him into a seat and making his name known to the public.
      After the Max hype in F3 started here, I asked some people who started following him if they knew who Robin Frijns is. They didn’t know.

      Frijns was winning junior championships against Bianchi and Sainz jr, won on his second weekend in GP2 but got screwed over since he didn’t have any funding for a fulltime seat. Got hired as Sauber’s test driver in 2013 with promise of Friday running, which never came and couldn’t compete with the financial backings of Gutierrez forcing him to leave the team and signed for the sinking ship that was Caterham in 2014 before Ericsson bought his way into that.

      There is also that news report that claimed he said that Red Bull treated it’s ”drivers like dogs” two days before he would test for the senior team for winning the Formula Renault 3.5 title, a claim he keeps denying till this very day. And Frijns says he never ever saw the journalist before who wrote that report.

      So yeah. It’s not a matter of who you are, but who you know.

      1. It’s not who you are, not even who you know but it is ALL about who knows you…

    13. Wee Jock Poo-Pong McPlop
      12th August 2017, 9:41

      Spec parts aren’t going to help. If you standardise, for example, suspension, rendering irrelevant however many millions teams would spend developing their own solutions, those that have it will simply spend it extracting more speed from some other aspect. Worse, some of those who don’t have it will spend it too, taking on debt in the hope of ending up better off as a result of increased performance attracting more sponsorship and prize money.

      Addressing the prize money situation is the way forward. F1 needs to be a viable business model for all its entrants, not just the top three. If talk of spec parts represents a between-the-lines admission from Liberty that they don’t think they can fix the financial situation, F1 is in trouble.

      1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
        16th August 2017, 12:38

        Spec parts will help massively in a number of ways.

        1. It will reduce the chances that team can just spend its way to success, which is simply wrong and not sport.
        2. It will allow less well off teams to be more competitive.
        3. It will allow more teams to enter the sport.
        4. The racing will be closer and more entertaining

        Granted some of the technical interest will be reduced but overall I believe viewer numbers will increase because it won’t be so predictable. You can only marvel at the Mercedes engineering expertise as its cars head the field for a 30 or 40 laps or so before you nod off to sleep.

        Granted also the spread of prize money needs looking at.

        The financial situation can only be solved when there is less to gain by spending more. If the rules are framed thus it will be a fairer, cheaper, closer and more entertaining sport.

        If you need F1 to be the pinnacle of science, development and engineering forget it. Go and get immersed in the aircraft industry instead. That is way ahead technology wise and far less hindered by artificial rules.

        Liberty along with Ross Brawn know exactly what they are doing. Its just we are so far down the Bernie path there will need to be some pain along the way.

    14. That Clint Bowyer interview is comical really but it does highlight how F1 is seen as far removed from the classic racing ‘Days of Thunder’ oil, sweat, grease machismo that defines motor racing in the USA and used to define F1 in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s viewed, justifiably so to some extent as a clinical scientific experiment almost solely conducted by

      1. oops hit submit prematurely 😂

        It’s viewed, justifiably so to some extent as a clinical scientific experiment almost solely conducted by scientists rather than engineers.

    Comments are closed.