Refueling is a big safety issue. But so is eliminating tire warmers. Cold tires are not safe. Drivers will have to warm up their tires before putting pedal to the medal. Tire management will be key and making fewer pit stops will be more important. Doesn't it cost more money to build engines that last 3 or 4 races? Not sure I see the "cost" savings here.
If I do the math - 20 engines per year for 5 million Euros or 250,000 per engine or $330k per engine? Is this right?
+1 Refueling was added back on by Bernie for the spectacle. So they limited the size of the fuel tanks to make it actually necessary. Good riddance to that nonsense I say. These are all great changes and will make F1 simply better and sustainable without cutting into the heart of it. Think about it: If there is less money and something has to give, I much rather give up on the non essential stuff. And actually not having the stupid guessing game of who has how much fuel on board is better. I said it all along the current pole positions have lost their true value because any midfielder can get it with an empty tank. The medals are just still an idea. The teams dont like it, only Bernie likes it. So the decision has been postponed, but I doubt it will ever come to fruition. I was wondering that myself. Then I read the German version of the statement and they were saying that only washing the tires is allowed. So I suspect "mechanical purging" means tyre scrubbing. PS: I'll be really interested to see how Ferrari will play ball: In the past they always claimed that their private testing in Fiorano doesn't fall under the testing limitations/ban. If they continue that charade, the whole agreement might fall apart. PPS: Something that this article doesn't mention, but is of equal importance: According to Blick a gentlemen's agreement has been reached not to use KERS next year. Only BMW will use it. http://www.blick.ch/sport/formel1/ausgetestet--107427 If that's the case, I'm already rooting totally against BMW.
In regards to Fiorano, testing mileage done there was counted towards the amount of days teams were allowed to test; which then had an annual limit. (30,000km). This was agreed to in 2004 or 2005, around the time of the stupid one set of tires per race rule. If you notice Ferrari has been using Fiorano less every year since for the F1 program... Good info regarding Kers. Screw BMW... Kevin
There are a few dumb ideas on the list, especially banning tire warmers. At least this is causing a conversation and making teams and the FIA act to do something. I think we will see some of the bad ideas filter themselves out of the talks and we could have an improvement to F1. Then again we have Mad Max and Bernie E in charge of Formula One so we could also see them racing F430s, M5s, Camrys, and SLR McLarens for all we know.
Wow, this is a major safety hazard IMO. Warmer tyres have better grip and reduce out of pit accidents. This is the only really shocking one to me.
+1, As I posted earlier, who wants to see the F1 title for hybrids. No need for KERS, no need for paddle shift, traction control or bans on refueling. There is no shortage of fuel for F1 and it has minimal impact on fuel supplies. Name 1 major race series that doesnt allow refueling. Bernie and Max are the biggest impediments around. Let the teams develop race cars and run them in a series where they can refuel if they like or not. One tire rules(old rule), multi race engines and banning refueling are not good racing and are just more of the same short sighted limitations that they want to expand. They market the series as the pinnacle, the ultimate etc. This plan makes it something other than that. I posted this in another thread based on the quote from good old Bernie - "We are in the business of entertainment and we should be building race cars to race." Bernie E. Great then. Allow teams to build their motors, so no spec anything. No paddle shift or traction control etc. Just a good basic race car that goes fast etc. A driver to DRIVE it. Get back to basics. Distinctive cars and teams again. Enough over engineering. No motor homes and communication centers in the paddock. Money for the car, the motor, the mechanics/team and the drivers. Good racing is the entertainment. Points for second on down, wins for first and the title winner is the guy who WINS the most races at the end of the year. I know Im dreaming but I couldnt resist.
The removal of Active Suspension, too quickly implemente cost us Senna ( in my opinion ) But remember in Moto GP when they canned 500cc two strokes, It was going to be the death of the sport The removal of tyre warmers may cost us (the paying customer ) another great driver for the sake of change and a dollar
If the teams agreed to it, then why all the B!tching & Moaning? Let it run! If it sucks. Then it sucks. I am just going to wait until I can see what happens.
+++++++++1000000000000000000000000000000000 Now make everyone else read your post, so they can realize there isn't anything bad happening.
Ah thank you. Didn't know that. So Fiorano testing should not be an issue then. Not true. Sorry to "speak ex cathedra", but you simply haven't followed F1 long enough to realize that this is nothing new: Every decade F1 undergoes some sweeping changes to adjust to the changing world. People ridiculed the mid engine cars, people thought wings on the cars are crazy, people said the end of the sport was the arrival of sponsorship, then the end of F1 was predicted as skirts got banned (and it almost tore F1 apart), then the end of F1 was predicted with the ban of turbos, then the naysayers had a fit over the ban of active suspension, then it was Senna's death, then it was the departure of Schumacher, now this. Changing F1 is actually exactly the opposite of a slow death: It assures adaptation to a changing world and hence secures survival. You lost me on that one: How can you root for a team that is so egoistic to not agree to a gentlemen's agreement? I hated Ferrari when they broke the test ban (see Fiorano issue above). I hope that BMW's engines expire every race next year. With the s/f line in sight. Having said that, I'm sure this will bring Heidfeld's maiden victory. No. It was either a broken steering column from a shoddy welding job or a car that bottomed out over a rough patch on the track. I still think it was the broken steering column as there was no steering input at all. Yes, he lost grip on the front tires, but if you don't steer, that becomes a minor point. I find the whole safety aspect regarding the tires a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, they're less sticky and there is a chance to put the car into the wall, but it is the same condition for everybody and besides, the arrival of the slightest bit of rain is ten times (or more) of a risk regarding grip levels. Tire blankets give an advantage, but not if everybody has them and the drivers can do without them. Regarding refuelling: I've said it already: Refuelling came into play in the nineties as teams figured out it would give them a strategic advantage (basically pass while parked). The pit fires then caused a ban on it. Bernie brought it back because of the added spectacle. To make it more meaningfull the FIA went along with Bernie and limited the fuel tank size therefore forcing the teams to refuel. Technically the cars have enough space to carry a bigger fuel cell and can go the distance. So yes, we loose some spectacle, but the benefit of it is, that we now have a much clearer picture what is going on in the race: No more second guessing the fuel loads and strategies, it'll be a real race right from the start. I like that a lot better.
Here is the explanation of the testing agreement regarding Fiorano (this was started for the 2006 season) Fiorano protected as Ferrari joins test agreement. Ross Brawn says that Ferrari has joined the other teams in signing a new test agreement because the opposition was prepared to treat Fiorano as a special case. Ferrari's desire to run as much as possible in its own backyard has always been a major stumbling block in discussions over cutting testing, but a day at Fiorano has now been counted as a half day. That makes sense in part because the team can only run one car at a time, rather than two as at a normal test. The new agreement actually stipulates 36 testing days during the season, but each team can nominate a home track where days are counted as halves. Although British teams can name Silverstone and count only half days, they don't run there very often, and thus Ferrari stands to gain more.
Which will lead to new ideas, and possibly "holes" in the rules. Just because the engines are frozen doesn't mean performance isn't.
Wow - a lot of changes for next year. Refueling banned: I am in the Wait and Watch category about this. I wonder if the strategy to wait till the fuel burns down before racing at 100% will affect the spectacle. I hope it will not be a procession for 2/3rds the race. Some of the races in the 80s were quite processional to the end - the guy in second could not come close to the leader because they had no fuel to do this. Similarly how would the fast guys that are forced to start the race in the back end of the grid (say due to a penalty) fight back to the front. They would have to consume more fuel than the leaders. Wonder if it will dampen overtaking a bit. Of course overtaking during the refueling era wasn't that great either. I guess the team's main justification for banning refueling is to reduce the size of the team that travels to the races. I like the fact that qualifying will be more a function of driver and car pace and not fuel strategy. Tire warmers: I don't care one way or the other. Will make it more challenging in the wet and conditions for sure. Slicks: All for it. Grooved tires look silly. Testing ban: Fine with me as we never get to see it and it is a significant chunk of the total budget. However, it kind of goes against the grain where teams try to eke out hundreds and tenths of seconds through testing of multiple alternatives. I wonder if this will all transfer over to CFD or Computer Graphics driven which may be as expensive an option as testing. Sadly this would mean layoffs to a bunch of engineers and mechanics that are at the heart of F1. Driver salaries: Not attacked as yet but it will go down in the future. Paying a 50-70 MM USD salary for 2 drivers may not be too bad when the budget is 400 MM USD But if the budget drops to 200MM USD, salaries will have to come down in unison.
Your fears of comparing it with the eighties are not justified: Those fuel limits were to starve the turbos. Basically teams had a choice of running less thirsty turbos, which meant less performance or take a gamble with the fuel quantity and run full boost. The engines are already cut down to 18k, so fuel starvation will not be the issue. As I said before: Today's refueling is an artificial spectacle added by Bernie and sanctioned by FIA's tank limit. Double the fuel tank size and you're done. There is enough room in the bodies for it (PS: I just built a 1/12 F1 Ferrari from 2002 and was amazed how much empty space there is left in the monocoque). The FIA's main justification for banning refueling is that they weren't able to come up with a fuel hose mechanism that doesn't get stuck... Actually they have plans for 2010 and onwards in place to reduce CFD and wind tunnel testing. Even dyno runs might get limited. That to me sounds a bit silly: How will you enforce this? But then again if there is a cap on engine performance, it might become a mood point altogether.
