GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => Pit Pass => Topic started by: John S on May 30, 2018, 01:42:56 PM
-
Racefans.net attributes the following information, in a longer piece about the Liberty/Teams meeting in Monaco, to an FOM insider source.
The suggestion is price control will be established on many more components from selected, and probably cheaper, sub-contract supply.
The real question is whether this is dumbing down or level playing field, I fear the latter.
There is, though seldom a meeting without a twist, and in this case it was prescriptive parts. These are not to be confused with listed and non-listed parts, to which teams are either required to hold the intellectual property (the former) and those they may source outside to suit their designs.
Prescriptive parts are non-performance-differentiating components which must be used by all teams, much as the halo is a prescriptive part sourced from an approved supplier. The urgency is that teams are informed which parts will appear on the prescriptive list to enable them plan their headcounts as soon as possible. While some of the targeted parts will have little effect on operations, others such as complete gear cassettes certainly will.
According to a source, in addition to gear clusters, the list is likely to include differentials, standardised front and rear hubs, brakes and possibly drive shafts and some form of standard active suspension system – last-named to aid set-up and tuning while cutting the costs of development.
The plan is to ensure that the list of prescriptive parts enables F1 to maintain performance differentiation while cutting costs without becoming a one-make series.
Courtesy Dieter Rencken on racefans.net, 30th May.
-
I don't think there is a problem with that as long as there is transparency to ensure the FIA or FOM isn't getting a cut from the supplier if there is only one.
Having teams build or even source parts that shouldn't have any competitive advantage IS a waste of money.
...but of course I still have a fundamental problem with the cost cuts, because I don't think they would be necessary if there was a more equitable distribution of FOM money.
-
I think that the focus would be more toward "level playing field" .. as from what I've seen, this is more in line with Liberty Media's DNA.
All the best,
Cal :)
-
They already use a couple standard parts, the engine ECU and I think the MGU-K? They banned active suspension after the Williams FW14B because they got it right and killed the field. The FIA thought programming the suspension would be too expensive for the small teams. :tease:
-
They already use a couple standard parts, the engine ECU and I think the MGU-K? They banned active suspension after the Williams FW14B because they got it right and killed the field. The FIA thought programming the suspension would be too expensive for the small teams. :tease:
it is interesting that Williams was once a 'big' team in F1. I don't think they shrank, but that their competition grew.
The list of Williams' innovations banned from the sport are extensive. It's hard to research an advantage and then have it immediately dismissed.
I'm okay with standardized 'non competitive' parts. While there's advantages possible with every part of an F1 car, having an arms race over seatbelt buckles seems like a waste of money, and a silly thing to act as a barrier to entry to the sport.
-
The FIA automatically "takes a cut" from all prescribed contracts, though this is a set amount to cover tender review and contract support (such as testing fees).
My problem with this is that they are likely to mandate parts that are more expensive than necessary, especially since there's no good reason for the extra expense of an active suspension. That's likely to make things harder for the small teams for no good reason.
-
Gee, and I thought their mandate was to SAVE the teams money (dripping with sarcasm).