FIA force through new rule changes - 2.4 litre V8s for 2006, changes for 2005

I happen to agree with Mario in this article:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=22734

Especially his last point.

 

Same here, I dont think F1 should have any limits.

 

It sounds very silly and communist, anti-competitive. There are other ways to cut costs. Performance should never be inhibited. There have been no serious crashes in some time that result from high speeds. Where does this grandmotherly worry about high speeds come from? Let the drivers and the engineers be the experts they are and take risks. Hopefully one or two of the larger manufacturers, say BMW and Honda, will threaten to quit and force these bureaucrats to let men be men.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

Simple get the Manufacturers together and revive the GPWC Series. Stay in Europe and keep the TV money for the teams, tell Eccelstone and Mosley to blow off.

 

I agree, there're dumbing down F1. It's supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports, pretty soon it'll be a glorified version of IRL/INDY cars.700 HP, c'mon, I think you're right,break away and form they're own league.F1 should always be about the latest and greatest. As far as pit stops and fuel I wouldn't mind if they cut those back to encourage more racing.

 

Let's see if BMW was bluffing now that there will be a V8 again. The have threatened to withdraw if they changed from a V10 formula...

 

Exactly. F1 should be the pinnacle, in every way.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

One legit problem is that the cars are outgrowing the tracks. Tracks where there is passing in other formulas, see little passing in F1. I'm for limiting areo packages to lessen non mechanical grip. Right now you can't follow closely because you are in bad air. I'm also for limiting braking systems to create significantly longer breaking zones, so overtaking can happen.

 

I wonder how they will enforce this? Will the car/engine go into a Parc Ferme for two weeks? Sounds like a lot of loopholes to be covered.

The thing that irks me about the announcement is the lack of information in regards to the qualifying session. Haven't they realized that the current format stinks?

 

I'm no expert, but possibly different areo packages (ground effects emphasis) and definitely poorer brakes.

 

It seems like a short developmental period to me for the tire companies to design, develop and test these extended-use tires. I hope the second part of these changes includes the elimination of pit stops.

 

I'm reminded of the Orwell novel (don't remember which - Animal Farm or 1984 - it's been a while) in which the highest-jumping ballerinas had to perform with weights, and people judged to be attractive had to wear masks or bags over their heads, so that everyone could be "equal."

I guess they have to do some things to keep from outgrowing the tracks, but one set of tires? That means a puncture or leak could take somebody completely out of the race. Seems like that's just too much.

 

Admiral Thrawn


Simple,no computer aided paddle shifting.

 

Great news. Glad the FIA has finally acted.

As for BMW, Honda and Mercedes ... they can fnck off!. F1 was great before them and will be great without them. You all say F1 should not have restrictions but BMW (in particular) want to restrict (for ever) to a v10 formula ... not because it is benificial for F1, but because they have made the M5 with a v10 engine. That is all, nothing more than a marketing thing.

As for the engine size being below a support formula ... who cares, they will still have more POWER. Remember it is not the engine size that dictates performance but power extracted. F1 at 2.4 ltrs will produce more power and more amazing power/litre than any restricted support series that uses a single engine.

F1 is supposed to be the pinicle, to ensure that is ALSO is the pinicle or design they need to constantly make the designers work harder by further restrictions. F1 is not the pathetic US CART series with 2.65 ltr engines on methanol and turbo charged ... lucky to make enough hp to even start an F1 engine ... is that where you want F1 to go, bigger larger cr@p engines, but way cool ( ) because they are big and lazy?.

Reducing engine size is critical to pushing technology and differentiating F1 from support series. The 2.4 ltr will have small initial cost due to just being able to design wise cut 2 cylinders of the v10 and thus no great R&D costs. Yep by 2007-8 the R&D costs will be the same as the v10 ... but the real killer is when the change the engine size so you have to start with a clean sheet. They didn't and using the 2.4 size is very sensible. I am dissappointed though that they continue to set the number of cylinders ... should just enforce the cc size. You all realise that the current v10 is mandatory ... and that is wrong, and hardly positive for free thinking.

Change is difficult for some ... but like all things change is a positive thing. Personally I really hope that BMW leaves F1 so Mario can go and moan in another series ... and stops trying to enforce road car marketing on F1! ... lets enforce 4 seats, that will link it even closer to the M5

Pete

 

I'm all for the V8, but not for reasons one might expect....

Given that Ferrari never won a F1 championship with a V12, what are the elitists going to say once they win one with a V8?

Seriously, though, I would favor an open engine spec, limited only by displacement. V8, V10, I6, whatever works for the manufacturer.

 

An idea I've tossed around in my head is why don't we take a que from /whispers/nascar/whisper/ and force the developers to sell their technology to any of the other teams interested in buying it. Now I'm thinking a system where after one or two seasons you must make your complete car (or at least the plans) variable to all the other manufacturers. And at the same time completely remove all restrictions. We would have unbridled pure speed and technology while also having a more even set of cars.

Though I'm sure I'm overlooking something.

 

Ferrari Dictionary

Page 1

Racing - the act of driving an UNLIMITED car built to the hgihest safety standards possibleagainst other teams who build the same based upon FAIR rules that allowq the drivers to PASS in order to win after a specified number of laps. Pit stops are allowed to refuel the car and check on tire wear to determine if the tires should be replaced should the load upon them cause them not to perform correctly.

Racing used to mean passing, pit stops and FUN FUN FUN. For the fans and the teams too.

The rule makers are just that rule makers and lately they all have forgot the ROOTS of racing. Men and machines doing what they LOVE to do, compete and WIN.

F1 is NOT NASCAR it is F1 and it has always stood for the best of them all in terms of technology and speed.

Why build race tracks if you can't race on them.

Years ago they said to the Top Fuel dragsters that they could not go over 500 CID and not lower than a certain gear ratio. These engines are now making over 6000 HP and the only thing that has really changed is the technology of fuel delivery, tires, safer chassis. All of this has resulted in the cars going FASTER than before because the nature of NITRO is the harder the engine has to work, (more load) the better it performs. This now means that they are going over 320 MPH in umder 4.5 secnods.

The rule makers are making these changes to benefit WHO?

We must follow the MONEY TRAIL. That is where we will find the GRINCH at the end of the Rainbow drowning in rule books and paper money.

Do the rule makers even ask the driver what changes they want as after all they are part of the TEAM effort it takes to produce what the fans want - REAL RACING.

 

Before we get off on the UNLIMITED tangent, remember what Formula 1 means, its not an UNLIMITED class, but rather the top SPECIFIED class. Playing by the rules is more of a challenge and that's the whole reason why all of the teams have so many engineers working on it.

Radical rule changes are good, it allows everyone to start with a cleaner sheet rather the endless polishing of an old formula that we have now. Chaos is good for the fans. The reason we don't see more evolution is that the Concorde agreement makes changes require 100% agreement. Why change the status quo when you're still trying to figure out how to go faster under existing rules? If you really look closely at the last 5 years of Ferrari monopostos, you'll notice that it has been a very evolutionary change in design. If you want to shuffle the order, throw something new at the engineers for them to fiddle with!

 

WTF???? I can only hope they wake up and smell the coffee!! One set of tires per race? One engine for 2 races?? PLease?!?!?!

Rick