• narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
    19·
    1 year ago

    Weird, because on the other hand the regulations go more towards what’s standard in road cars. I thought that’s why we lose the MGU-H.

    So following that logic, Mercedes would have to include all of their road car engine development cost in their F1 budget cap? Doesn’t make much sense.

  • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
    8·
    1 year ago

    You mean yeah, Ferrari can totally share lessons learned for many parts and tech between their hypercar and f1 divisions

    • bwoah@lemmy.worldOPM
      101·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s targeting projects like the AMG One and the Redbull one. The WEC entries have a different set of regulations.

      In the article it says:

      With a Le Mans hypercar, like the ones Ferrari and soon Alpine have, that’s not possible. There are regulations for that that have nothing to do with Formula 1. It would be conspicuous if Ferrari were to screw an underbody under its 499P for testing purposes that looks similar to the SF-23. Ferrari would have to go the same way as Red Bull via a customer sports car for the racetrack.

      • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        Ah that makes since yeah, they are selling those to customers though, would suck if they were forced to stop making a real car because it helps them make a better track only car

        • TheWheelMustGoOn@feddit.de
          11·
          1 year ago

          I couldn’t care less if some rich guys have less choice in spending their money lol.

          I would rather have the rich guys that can buy these cars have a better competition.

          And besides they could still build these cars the money they spend there would just go towards the f1 teams budgets

  • R05@lemmy.world
    6·
    1 year ago

    Good to read that they are closing loopholes left and right. But don’t underestimate the resourcefulness of an f1 team, they’ll find new loopholes to exploit