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

I'm with you. I feel a lot more connection with a V8 Ferrari F1 than with a V10 which doesn't exist in Ferrari's street cars. Not that this is a rational argument, it is solely an emotional one. But that's how I feel.

Also the FIA announced new regulations for the qualifying which will now be an aggregate from a Saturday and a Sunday time. I don't really see how that makes things any different or better. Only advantage is, that the spectators on site actually get to see the F1 cars before the race. So that part improves at least.

 

Both Honda and BMW have threatened to sue the FIA for changing the rules before 2007 Concorde agreement expires.

 

Yah I’m with you on that one. 1 engine for 2 races and 1 set of tires for qualifying and the race, give me a break. This won’t help make F1 more exciting to watch; in fact it will only hurt the small teams. Think about it, when was the last time a Ferrari engine blew-up?
The tire companies will only be concentrating on developing tires for the top 4 or 5 teams. The other reams will just fall further behind.

 

1 engine 1 race is ok. But the same set of tires? WHO is the dumbass who has suggested this insane rule? What benefit does this bring? Certainly not to the tire companies. This will mean more development work and MORE cost.

 

Ofcoarse no one wants F1 to head in the direction of CART. What gives you the idea that, without these restrictions, F1 will head in this direction? The engines will not get "lazy" and will not crappy. There should be no performance restrictions period. May the best team win. They should leave the engines, aerodynamics, and pit strategies (including tyre changes) all up to the team.

And all this bulls&%t about safety.......These restrictions aren't for safety. They are trying to level out the playing field and that is crap.

 

Sorry wires crossed. I was talking about the never ending view by some that engine size should NOT be reduced ... this is my link to CART.

If we do not reduce the engine size we will end up with rediculous engines, that over time WILL become lazy ... why?, because for safety sake, or to slow lap times (after all who wants to watch a race where the lap time is like 30 seconds ... thus the FIA has to endeavour to monitor the lap times) the performance of these cars must be controlled.

Thus without reducing the engine size ... engines will become lazy, as they will find other ways to reduce output, like they are now, ie. the engines have to last the whole race meeting.

I'm all for high technology and pushing the boundaries of ALL design of EVERY facite of car design with F1 ... thus lets reduce the engine size so the engine guys have to work fncken hard.

They will not go slower ... give them a couple of years and these 2.4 ltr engines will make the current 3 ltr engines look like whimps ... that is called progress. If we do not reduce engine size, engine development and progress will stall!

Pete

 

I see what your sayin, and I agree...somewhat!

However, the most rediculous change is makin the tires last through qualifying and the race. When I was reading the initial post in this thread I was waiting for someone to say "just kidding!".

I guess not.

 

Hmmm, yes I am not sure about the tyres either. Personally ... and I know I have opposite views to many on this site regarding this ... but I would like to see refueling during the race banned.

The refueling BS simply enables drivers to play follow the leader and not grow BALLS and never try to do a on the race track pass, and many moan today about the lack of passing in F1. Simple ban refueling (and tyre changes ... unless a flat) and the drivers will have to pass on the track if they want to win.

Pete

 

Totally agree.

Also I find the races as they are very confusing because you never know how much fuel everybody has. You're never quite sure whether the grid is meaningful or the fact that somebody comes in for refueling.

 

Another thing that needs to be considered is the massive extra cost that comes from these 'fast' pitstops.

Without pitstops you could sack about 15 people, get rid of the expensive refueling rig, get rid of the fancy guns ... and also save heaps on travelling expenses.

Again Bernie is working hard against the sport, and doesn't understand the sport when he forced this cr@p on it ... to apparently increase the show.

Pete

 

Not sure you could actually sack all these folks. A lot of the team members are doing double duty when it comes to pitstops.

But you would save tons of $$$ by not having gazillions of tires per race. It would save bucks and increase safety as lower speeds in turn would be necessary for the harder compounds. Driver skills will become more important.

 

Arh good point, yes you would probably still need the personal ... but as you say there would be other savings.

Pete

 

It was 1984. I remember it well, the book and the year.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

That would destroy the sport and be insane and disgraceful. Plus the entire nation of Italy would revolt.

I can't believe N-car does that. What a revelation. Sell your secrets, don't force everyone else to catch up by beating them over the head time and time again. What logic.

Forza,


Cavallini

 

If the goal is to slow the cars down and make them safer (or at least A goal...), and if F1 has also become boring because of less passing, why not make the cars run MAX (and increase the max) wing all the time, along with slicks?

Current configs make the cars rocket fast in a straight line, but with less stick in the corners, where the passing/driving expertise shows up. Seems to be a high-speed straight-line rocket that doesn't corner well isn't in the best interest of automotive design.

Running a maximum wing setting would increase downforce, slow down top speeds, increase cornering speeds and agility, increase passing. Slicks would give needed grip in corners, and make more passing lines available. Downside would be increased lateral g's in the corners.

Am I off base here?

 

Perhaps a better idea is to have a spec front and rear wing. Only the most die hard spectator would notice and it would give the FIA the ability to strongly control downforce. The teams also spend a great deal of money developing wing packages for each track and this cost can therefore be saved. I of course am dreaming here because the money will be spent somewhere else but it may be a start.

 

You're contradicting yourself: One of the permanent goals is to make it safer or at least not make it anymore dangerous.

As you correctly state, max wings would increase cornering speeds.

=> ergo mutually exclusive objectives

A stock wing as Nuvolari suggests would do the trick. Better yet: Ban all aeros.

 

QUOTE=tifosi12]You're contradicting yourself: One of the permanent goals is to make it safer or at least not make it anymore dangerous.

As you correctly state, max wings would increase cornering speeds.

=> ergo mutually exclusive objectives

A stock wing as Nuvolari suggests would do the trick. Better yet: Ban all aeros.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's a tradeoff. My (somewhat ignorant) thinking on this is that a car that is slower in a straight line, but faster and more stable in corners could be a good thing for the sport. No doubt corners are the places to pass, and this would aid that, making F1 more exciting for drivers (I'm sure) and spectators. However, FIA and better educated F1 fans & experts might argue that it's the lateral g's that are most dangerous when the car "lets go" mid corner.

Put me on the list of people who cringe at the "dumbing down" of F1 overall.

 

Rick,

the dangers in F1 are always about speeds in turns. It is never about straight away speeds. It is all about loosing it in the turn and then having nowhere to go. That's why all safety related efforts try to reduce cornering speeds by limiting downforce and making tires smaller and turns slower.

PS: I used to smile at CART, which called itself the fastest race cars on Earth. Was probably technically true at the time. But if a F1 ever wanted to go flat out on a straight, it would have probably matched CARTs speeds. But it ain't about straight line speed. It's all about the corners.

 

Jody Scheckter 1979 F1 Champion driving a 312 T4

 

Sorry that was not a v12 but a flat 12. While we all know that Ferrari's flat 12s were like a v12 flattened ... they are still not a v12 because there is no V.

Ferrari never won a championship with a v12 ... the closest I think was with Prost in the 90's.

Pete
BTW: You forgot about the 2 earlier WC's by Lauda with flat 12's, 1974 and 1976, I believe.

 

I've heard them referred to as "horizontally opposed V12s" Go figure!

 

Yeah and I have also heard them referred to as 180 degree v12s ... , but then I have also heard people refer to their straight 6 (Toyota) engine as a v6 ... it's a complicated thing I guess to many

I guess a V engines range (to me anyway) is 0 < angle of V < 180.

Pete
ps: When I make a V with my 2 middle fingers ... it's a V

 

I've recently started referring to my car's displacement in gallons instead of liters.

I get a few odd looks!

"What size engine you got in that there SUV?"

"Why, it has a 1.4 gallon engine!"

"Huh?"

 

Regardless of the changes, they will get faster. I have a good feeling that the cars will get much smaller due to other advances. Anyone else pick up the last Race Car Engineering mag? hint hint: carbon gaphite foam radiators. =) http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_3_00/foam.htm Think about how small those inlets are going to be on the side.

edit: small correction, it was the aug/sept 04 issue of Race Tech mag. www.racetechmag.com