Patrick Head Says F1 Going the Wrong Way

[J.Clark]

There is a lot of good discussion in this topic.

I am probably older than most of you on this forum - seems I am older than most period  and frankly, happy to be so.

I well remember a lot of what many of you have mentioned; although, I had to wait for Road & Track to come out each month to see it.  Back when I began following racing of all series, they were not televised live, or even delayed.

The points made regarding innovation are correct and seem to have become the norm in just about every series of motor racing.  I can understand the basis being to level the playing field so that the smaller teams can make the grid - again, true in all series.  It does stifle innovation by the strict and very limiting regulations.

If one compares F1 to other series:
Indy cars - in the mid-1900s teams built a car for one race, the 500, and spent a lot of money and a year's worth of man-hours to prepare a car that the regulations only loosely defined.  As a result, there was a turbine powered car and even a diesel before the rear engines started showing up around 1962/3.
NASCAR - Fords were Fords, Plymouths were Plymouths, Chevys . . .  and the basics of the regulations were engine size by cubic inches.

I could go into others, but point is I believe clearly made.  The transition of the regulations have turned nearly all series into more-or-less cookie-cutter cars, with very little room for design differences, let alone innovative ideas.

NASCAR now has a car that has the only difference on the outside being the paint to make it look like a Ford, Chevy, Dodge or Toyota, chassis are identical, and engines that don't even closely resemble what the family car has under the hood.
Indy cars now have identical bodies as well, and chassis from a single supplier with engines, like in NASCAR can only be called a Chevy, or Honda by a huge stretch of the imagination.

I don't think we can ever go back.

I like what Head says about the engines.  I also think that since we are allowing customer engines, we should be allowing customer chassis, if in fact, we (FIA) are trying to limit costs.  This is true for many of the items. 

I would support scrapping the regulations and reviewing them for what is actually relevant to cost savings/limits.  Maybe instead of the "box" style aero packaging,  put a limit on total down-force, front-rear-total, and giving the engine development back to the factories.  If a team wanted to not run KERS (for example) allow that and simply add a weight requirement for the equipment they aren't running. 

There is a lot of room for improvement in this area.

[lkjohnson1950]

You woud have to be old indeed to be older than Cossie, me and some of the others around here. I remember R/T, loved Henry Manney, Rob Walker, Innes Ireland. True insiders who got stories no one else could. I also bought Autoweek when it was a racing newspaper at 50 cents a week. Both have gone mainstream and are not nearly as interesting anymore. Racing has become professional entertainment, and as such has to be more closely regulated for cost purposes. IMSA in the glory days of Nissan, Porsche, Jaguar etc., is probably the best example of a series that got too expensive for the little guys. You can throw the Can-Am in there too. That said, NASCAR is declining and many blame the cookie cutter cars. Same for INDYCAR. There still could be room for innovation, but I think you will find the series execs are afraid someone will build a better mousetrap and kill the competition they value. I don't know the answer, but I miss the Good Old Days.
 

[John S]

There is a lot of good discussion in this topic.

I am probably older than most of you on this forum - seems I am older than most period  and frankly, happy to be so.

Seems you might be our most senior member, but there are a few of us close on your heels in the age stakes. 

I like what Head says about the engines.  I also think that since we are allowing customer engines, we should be allowing customer chassis, if in fact, we (FIA) are trying to limit costs.  This is true for many of the items. 

I would support scrapping the regulations and reviewing them for what is actually relevant to cost savings/limits.  Maybe instead of the "box" style aero packaging,  put a limit on total down-force, front-rear-total, and giving the engine development back to the factories.  If a team wanted to not run KERS (for example) allow that and simply add a weight requirement for the equipment they aren't running. 

There is a lot of room for improvement in this area.

I'm in two minds about customer cars, sure it can cut costs and after all it's traditional/historic - if you go back to the 50s and 60s - but is it really the answer? Looking at the evidence of the last time chassis sharing was allowed, when Super Aguri & Torro Rosso used the previous years chassis form Honda & Red Bull respectively, we see that the main teams got a bit narked about the junior teams running ahead of them in quite a few races. In fact the start of Super Aguri's demise can probably be traced directly to them beating/embarrassing the main team in several races in 07 season.

I reckon they should allow the big teams to sell last year's chassis to any other team, but now here's the rub; the lower order team using the old spec chassis must put a different power unit/engine into it, no running with the same power plant and transmission as the original - now that should spice things up a bit. 

[Scott]

I reckon they should allow the big teams to sell last year's chassis to any other team, but now here's the rub; the lower order team using the old spec chassis must put a different power unit/engine into it, no running with the same power plant and transmission as the original - now that should spice things up a bit. 

I like the idea of customer cars, but I think it should come with manu support as well...it wouldn't change anything if the customer team couldn't get developments as well, or at least guidance on how to understand the car and design their own.  Not being able to use the same engine as the chassis manufacturer would spice things up, but still might upset the mother teams (for example, could you imagine how miffed Lotus would be if Sauber bought a couple chassis and put Merc's in them this year?). 

I don't know what the best solution is, but I am sure that forcing every team to completely design and manufacture their own car in their own factory is very likely one of the biggest costs a smaller team has.  At the very least share the R&D.

[Jericoke]

I reckon they should allow the big teams to sell last year's chassis to any other team, but now here's the rub; the lower order team using the old spec chassis must put a different power unit/engine into it, no running with the same power plant and transmission as the original - now that should spice things up a bit. 

I like the idea of customer cars, but I think it should come with manu support as well...it wouldn't change anything if the customer team couldn't get developments as well, or at least guidance on how to understand the car and design their own.  Not being able to use the same engine as the chassis manufacturer would spice things up, but still might upset the mother teams (for example, could you imagine how miffed Lotus would be if Sauber bought a couple chassis and put Merc's in them this year?). 

I don't know what the best solution is, but I am sure that forcing every team to completely design and manufacture their own car in their own factory is very likely one of the biggest costs a smaller team has.  At the very least share the R&D.

If people are concerned with customer cars 'killing innovation', then put some simple rules about who can run customer cars.

• Teams that are 5 years or younger
• Teams without a podium or Q3 qualifier in a season
• Teams that don't have Adrian Newey on staff

Obviously any team could design a car if they want, but the teams that meet the criteria wouldn't have to.

[cosworth151]

How about customer cars not built by other teams? An outside manufacturer, say Dallara or Oreca, could built a car available to the smaller teams. Dallara did build the 2010 HRT. That could provide a platform for neophyte teams to start with.

[Irisado]

None of the ideas proposed for customer cars 'purchased' from existing teams solves the issue that I pointed out previously.  At least if customer cars are going to be reconsidered, it would be necessary to ask Dallara, Lola, or other constructors to make them, but the track record of such chassis suppliers in recent history isn't very good.  You need only look at Hispania's relationship with Dallara and Lola's last effort as a chassis supplier to Scuderia Italia in 1993 for evidence.

The only way to solve the problem of expense for the small teams is to pay them more, and to cut the budget of the top teams, so that they can't just keep spending more money to outperform the smaller teams.  How this is achieved is a problem, but that's what needs to be done.

[Jericoke]

None of the ideas proposed for customer cars 'purchased' from existing teams solves the issue that I pointed out previously.  At least if customer cars are going to be reconsidered, it would be necessary to ask Dallara, Lola, or other constructors to make them, but the track record of such chassis suppliers in recent history isn't very good.  You need only look at Hispania's relationship with Dallara and Lola's last effort as a chassis supplier to Scuderia Italia in 1993 for evidence.

The only way to solve the problem of expense for the small teams is to pay them more, and to cut the budget of the top teams, so that they can't just keep spending more money to outperform the smaller teams.  How this is achieved is a problem, but that's what needs to be done.

If they use outside suppliers, then they're going to want input, just like the engine and tire suppliers.  I'm pretty sure allowing Mercedes to dictate the engine formula has caused some strife, not to mention the hotwater Pirelli was forced into over their tires performaing exactly as requested.

As for limiting budgets, I agree that if each team spent a fixed amount, that would go a long way to balancing the teams.  However, beyond the legal impossibilities of that, think of the overall ramification of F1 being known as a 'budget' sport.  F1 continues to trade on being 'glamourous', and 'high tech'.  If it becomes the budget racing series, it will lose cachet.  (I know that most here don't really care about the cachet as long as the on track action is there, but it would hurt the sport long term.)

Already many parts of an F1 car are shared amongst teams to keep costs down, doing it with chassis seems to be pretty simple to me. 

Perhaps adopting the IndyCar idea of having separate chassis and aero packages might help meet half way.  Instead of building a crashworthy car, each team only needs to concentrate on building their unique aero package. 

[lkjohnson1950]

Indycar's Aero packages have been a big bust. The teams are still running the Dallara bodywork. Also some of the unique features of current chassis are there for aero reasons. I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps F1 will need to go broke as Indycar, IMSA and ALMS did.

[John S]

By Jove I think I've got it!  All customer cars must carry a weight penalty, say about 20kg, which can be as moveable ballast or a heavier driver. Should help some of the midfield teams like Sauber and Force India by saving their big boned pilots from going on starvation diets.