Patrick Head Says F1 Going the Wrong Way

[cosworth151]

Williams co-founder Patrick Head says that F1 is headed in the wrong direction. I think he makes a good point.

“I think it should be more about the drivers and more about entertainment on the track,” said Head. “The road car people are doing a perfectly good job on hybrid anyway at the moment. I’m not sure that it needs Formula 1 to demonstrate hybrid technology.”

And he thinks the main problem is the cost of the engines to the teams, “You could produce 800 horse power for 2 million euros a team each year. I think the teams are having to pay about ten times that amount.”

“It’s a very expensive way of powering Formula 1 cars. I think the engines are fascinating pieces of kit, but I think they are far too expensive for what they are supposed to be doing.”


http://www.grandprix247.com/2014/06/02/new-turbo-engine-era-far-too-expensive-says-head/

[vintly]

Can't argue with that.

[F1fanaticBD]

Yeah its a fair point, but the input F1 people can give regarding any new technology is unparalleled, that is one of the great thing I like about F1. The reliability of the new power-units are testament to that (I know Irisado, you resent it, but what can you do, these teams are awefully efficient) What would take decade to develop, F1 can push that time-frame withing few years, that is no small power, I am telling you.

[Jericoke]

I know that 'modern F1' is about being 'high tech'.  I get that, and I like it.  All the same, F1 was never designed to be 'high tech'.  It was just about building the fastest car.  It only became 'high tech' when people realized that technology was the solution to better engines, better tires, better chassis, better building materials, better aerodynamics, and many other fields involved in the sport.

Aerodynamics weren't MANDATED into the sport.  Turbos weren't (originally) MANDATED into the sport.  They all happened because they provided and advantage that was copied.

If F1 wants to be INNOVATIVE, then what they have now is ridiculous.  Cookie cutter engine plants may be high tech, but quite frankly, instead of focusing on making the car run better, they're focused on meeting a narrow set of rules.

Let innovation return to the sport.  If someone can make a 'green' engine that gives 800 hp without a turbo for 2 million dollars, LET THEM.

Does anyone remember the 6 wheeled Tyrell?  Of course you do.  I bet there are plenty of non F1 fans who would look at that car today and remember having seen pictures before, and still think it's pretty cool, and wonder why doesn't F1 do anything NEAT like that any more? 

[cosworth151]

There is little to no innovation allowed in F1 today. It is essentially a spec racer series. Even Williams' flywheel KERS system has been outlawed.

Speaking of Williams, and 6 wheel cars, do any of you remember the 6 wheel Williams FW08B? It was the reverse of the Tyrrell with the twin axles at the rear. Like the twin chassis Lotus 88, it was outlawed before it could race.

[F1fanaticBD]

I know that 'modern F1' is about being 'high tech'.  I get that, and I like it.  All the same, F1 was never designed to be 'high tech'.  It was just about building the fastest car.  It only became 'high tech' when people realized that technology was the solution to better engines, better tires, better chassis, better building materials, better aerodynamics, and many other fields involved in the sport.

Aerodynamics weren't MANDATED into the sport.  Turbos weren't (originally) MANDATED into the sport.  They all happened because they provided and advantage that was copied.

If F1 wants to be INNOVATIVE, then what they have now is ridiculous.  Cookie cutter engine plants may be high tech, but quite frankly, instead of focusing on making the car run better, they're focused on meeting a narrow set of rules.

Let innovation return to the sport.  If someone can make a 'green' engine that gives 800 hp without a turbo for 2 million dollars, LET THEM.

Does anyone remember the 6 wheeled Tyrell?  Of course you do.  I bet there are plenty of non F1 fans who would look at that car today and remember having seen pictures before, and still think it's pretty cool, and wonder why doesn't F1 do anything NEAT like that any more?

The reason for restricted rules is to stop the domianation of big teams, and give the smaller teams a little space to thrive ( Though I doubt how much of that is being achieved, though the progress of Force India this year and last year while the progress of Sauber in the year before does give me some faint hope). So we allow the imagination game, the smaller teams with be gone in few months, and the bigger teams will bleed to death slowly, as there is no restriction in the innovation race.

[Jericoke]

I know that 'modern F1' is about being 'high tech'.  I get that, and I like it.  All the same, F1 was never designed to be 'high tech'.  It was just about building the fastest car.  It only became 'high tech' when people realized that technology was the solution to better engines, better tires, better chassis, better building materials, better aerodynamics, and many other fields involved in the sport.

Aerodynamics weren't MANDATED into the sport.  Turbos weren't (originally) MANDATED into the sport.  They all happened because they provided and advantage that was copied.

If F1 wants to be INNOVATIVE, then what they have now is ridiculous.  Cookie cutter engine plants may be high tech, but quite frankly, instead of focusing on making the car run better, they're focused on meeting a narrow set of rules.

Let innovation return to the sport.  If someone can make a 'green' engine that gives 800 hp without a turbo for 2 million dollars, LET THEM.

Does anyone remember the 6 wheeled Tyrell?  Of course you do.  I bet there are plenty of non F1 fans who would look at that car today and remember having seen pictures before, and still think it's pretty cool, and wonder why doesn't F1 do anything NEAT like that any more?

The reason for restricted rules is to stop the domianation of big teams, and give the smaller teams a little space to thrive ( Though I doubt how much of that is being achieved, though the progress of Force India this year and last year while the progress of Sauber in the year before does give me some faint hope). So we allow the imagination game, the smaller teams with be gone in few months, and the bigger teams will bleed to death slowly, as there is no restriction in the innovation race.

I disagree entirely.  With cars being largely identical, the big teams can afford to refine the details, while the small teams are stuck with what they come up with on the first try.

With innovation, the small teams can show up with something no one else has (double decker diffuser anyone?), and do surprising things.

True, the big teams can afford to try innovations, and not use them if they don't work. 

Notice that the 'big' teams have only become powerful since the formula was locked down?

[F1fanaticBD]

I am not against innovation Jeri, I am against the power of the big teams to be able to spend huge and reaping all the benefits. If you can limit the budget spending with no limit in innovation I am all up for it.

[Scott]

I'm coming down on Jeri's side on this one.  One of the things that has made F1 so expensive is the rule overhauls to slow the cars down or 'save money'.  The cost in building a gearbox is not in the material, manufacture and hours to put it together.  The cost is in the R&D to design a gearbox that won't blow up for 5-6 races.  Same with the engines.  The cost in aero isn't the basic car design, but the hundreds of hours spent trying to design all the tiny little flicks on the front wing to give a car a couple tenths of a second per lap, while fitting the aero all in a tight boundary.  As well, the cost of KERS and ERS, along with DRS is way too high, especially when they have to integrate it into an already delicate engine, and make the whole system last multiple races.  The other problem is chassis - why does the FIA insist that each team must design from scratch their own chassis?  Bring back customer chassis and save the small teams a ton of employees and manufacturing facilities.

[Scott]

I am not against innovation Jeri, I am against the power of the big teams to be able to spend huge and reaping all the benefits. If you can limit the budget spending with no limit in innovation I am all up for it.

Open up the aero rules too - if teams didn't have to worry about their ultra complicated wing fitting into a tight template, then they could be innovative, come up with a new shape, or size or whatever of wings and curves on the car.  Make the aero big again, so if someone tries something new, the other teams will watch for a couple of races and then simply copy it as best as they can...used to work that way.  That was innovation...just that thankfully a team couldn't put a patent on one of their developments.

[cosworth151]

Consider the Le Mans LMP1 category. Out of the 3 engine suppliers, Porsche has a V4 gas (petrol) engine with an F1 style KERS (harvesting from the rear wheels & turbo). Audi has a V6 diesel using their standard E-Tron rear wheel harvesting. Toyota is using a V8 gas engine harvesting from all 4 wheels.

It seems like F1 could manage more than one power train configuration.

[F1fanaticBD]

Consider the Le Mans LMP1 category. Out of the 3 engine suppliers, Porsche has a V4 gas (petrol) engine with an F1 style KERS (harvesting from the rear wheels & turbo). Audi has a V6 diesel using their standard E-Tron rear wheel harvesting. Toyota is using a V8 gas engine harvesting from all 4 wheels.

It seems like F1 could manage more than one power train configuration.

I do agree with Cossie in this one, it does not have to be a strict engine Formula, if not open atleast few more option than what they have to follow now.

My only concern is cost because the more they spend, the more chances are there of being busted.

[Jericoke]

Consider the Le Mans LMP1 category. Out of the 3 engine suppliers, Porsche has a V4 gas (petrol) engine with an F1 style KERS (harvesting from the rear wheels & turbo). Audi has a V6 diesel using their standard E-Tron rear wheel harvesting. Toyota is using a V8 gas engine harvesting from all 4 wheels.

It seems like F1 could manage more than one power train configuration.

I do agree with Cossie in this one, it does not have to be a strict engine Formula, if not open atleast few more option than what they have to follow now.

My only concern is cost because the more they spend, the more chances are there of being busted.

Exactly what we're saying:  the teams are spending all their money creating a car that matches the F1 specifications. 

That's not high tech or innovative, and it leaves no room for a small team to get ahead of a big team.

[Irisado]

Customer cars were a terrible idea and still are a terrible idea.  There are all sorts of reasons for this, not least robbing teams of their identity, but they're also performance related.  Most customer cars simply weren't very good, and when they were the big team which supported the project pulled the plug, because it didn't want to be embarrassed by the 'B team'.

As for Patrick Head's comments, I agree entirely about the cost associated with the new engines, but the cost of competing in general needs to be looked at.  Yes, there should be more diversity and less homogenisation, that would also help to generate more unreliability, which would give the smaller teams more of a chance to score points, but for the current homogeneous engine and gearbox rules to be abolished, for example, the teams, especially those at the back, need access to more finances, as much of the grid is very precariously placed at the moment.

[John S]

Consider the Le Mans LMP1 category. Out of the 3 engine suppliers, Porsche has a V4 gas (petrol) engine with an F1 style KERS (harvesting from the rear wheels & turbo). Audi has a V6 diesel using their standard E-Tron rear wheel harvesting. Toyota is using a V8 gas engine harvesting from all 4 wheels.

It seems like F1 could manage more than one power train configuration.

Whilst I would prefer to see more variety in the engine power in F1 I can't agree that LMP1 can offer any example in this argument about cost. LMP1 has always required big, big money from manufacturers, the exact sums are never really disclosed as far as I know, and this leads to a problem of two - sometimes only one - in contention for the win. 

If LMP 1 is not really hugely expensive why do manufacturers only do a two or three year foray into it?  It's almost like it's on most manufacturers bucket lists and they will spend whatever it takes over a limited period just to tick it off.