Good and bad. I like more passing, rev limits are fine and probably a good idea. I'm not sure I like getting rid of traction control, most street car have it. I have absolutely no idea what the heck 5.75% bio fuel is all about. and hybrid has to do with racing, and isn't even a very good idea for street cars mouch less race cars.
Hard to just generally say yes or no, so I tried to disect: Overall things that improve the sporting side of it, I'm all for it. Things that just cut costs have no place in F1. Companies with bigger budgets and more resources should have a right to have a competitive advantage. Knowing Mad Max' tactics he put the usual mix of proposals together: Some reasonable, some off the wall. The teams will throw out the crazy ones and maybe that way he can sell a few good ones. Good idea: - single tyre supplier - weight penalties for early replacements instead of ten spots back - sell components and customer cars • The rear wing is split in two. • Changes to the bodywork regulations at the front of the car to make the car behave better in traffic (Article 3). • The minimum weight is reduced from 605 to 550kg (Article 4). • Tyre pressures may be adjusted by the driver while the car is moving (Article 12.5). • Maximum wheel diameter increased to 640mm front and 710mm rear, with maximum widths of 365mm front and 460mm rear (Article 12.4) with slick tyres. Bad idea: - three race engines - four race transmissions - limiting teams to changes of bodywork • New technologies which give a team an advantage for one season but which are then adopted by all teams for subsequent seasons at significant expense will be banned after the end of the first season (Article 2.5). • Engine to be subject to a rev limit of 19,000 rpm, with a possible increase to 20,000 rpm in consultation with the competing teams (Article 5.1.3). • A standard electronic control unit for engine and gearbox to be used at all times in Formula One (Article 8.2). • Only permitted materials may be used to construct the car (Article 15.1). • At least 5.75% (m/m) of fuel must be from biological sources (Article 19.4.5). • a limit of two cars per team at an Event; PS: I don't want to end up with only a few rich teams, so survival of the "garagistes" is crucial. The way to do that is by legalizing what has already been done in some years of F1: A small team buys last year's car from the big boys. It happened in the eighties with e.g. Williams (seller) and it happened to some degree with Sauber (buyer) in recent years. Banning progress is the wrong approach.
The ugliest item I read was this ridiculous use of engines and transmissions for multiple events. I can understand tryng to control, even reduce costs, but this is F1. This is supposed to be the most advanced from of racing on the planet. At some point, an engine or gearbox will fail, causing a car to leave the race, which reduces the number of cars on the track at the end. I would rather not see any more events where only 8-9 cars are running at the end.
Although I agree with you, that this is a stupid rule, the effect of it would be however quite the opposite: You'd see everybody still running at the end of the race. I don't like the 2 races/engine rule we got this year, but we have never before seen so many cars running at the end of the race. The argument against this suggestion is, that F1 is not endurance racing. If I wanted to see cars circle 24 hours non stop I'd go to Le Mans. But that's not what I want to watch.
I'm guessing this is either Renault or Ferrari. Things I like the most: - three race engines - four race transmissions - limiting teams to changes of bodywork tifosiron, I'm surprised at you. If you longed for the 80s this will be the quickest way back to it! Let's face it. F1 is currently a technological dinosaur in relation to the world car market. The average street car has more electronic controls on it than most F1 cars. The argument that F1 is the panicle of technology is laughable and has been since the mid nineties. If F1 wants to regain the moniker of "cutting edge technology" then they must begin to employ technology that will help change the lives of the driving public at large. That's power with reliability and fuel economy. Period. Three race engines not only will reduce costs but also force engineers to focus on reliability. Four race transmissions will do the same. Limiting changes of bodywork will force the teams to make tactical decisions on when to implement their bodywork. It'll only help the racing. Bio fuel % and hybrid technology only strengthens my argument in making F1 a bed of cutting edge technology. The cars of the future whether you like it or not will be low fuel consumption and low pollution. They have to be. For F1 to ignore this would only underline my argument that the series is a technological dinosaur evolving on a separate vector from the world at large. BAR had been working on a hybrid F1 Brake system in the early 90s (harnessing the massive energy released by the brakes when used) only to shelve it because of the FIA. I suspect the FIA might be looking back on this with some embarrassment. As far as stored energy being put to good use just imagine if a team were able to eliminate one of it's pit stops during a race. How would the results be this year if Ferrari were able to run a one stop instead of a two thereby eliminating the 30-40 some odd seconds that get tacked on to their over all race time? Now not only do the new regs allow this but it mandates that these innovations must be cost efficient. This translates into creating technology that could go from racetrack to production line, which is what occurred with the ECU advances in F1 and Group C during the 1980s. So HUZZAH! To the new rules. Its time we pull F1 back into the real world and out of refining technology thats now well over a decade old and will never be used by the public at large.
I personally don't buy into the "2 race engine" saves money arguement. So obviously I don't think a 3 race engine will save money. The teams will be forced / encouraged to test then engines more [not necessarily track testing but NDT (non-destructive testing)] i.e., x-ray, ultrasound, and god knows what else to make sure there is no flaw in each and every part. any suspect part goes in the waste bin. Max has his head up his exhaust pipe.
Actually I read an interview with one of the BMW team members in charge of engine maintenance etc. Asked about the costs he said that the constructions costs went a bit down since they had to build less engines. However he also said the engineering costs went way up to make a more reliable yet powerful engine. The cost cutting argument cannot work: In essence we want more out of the engine (longevity in addition to power) so it has to cost more to engineer, produce and maintain one. NASA tried a similar approach with the Shuttle after the Apollo age. They learned it the hard way and guess what: They're returning to single use only rockets.
I wonder if the paddle shift is getting banned too. Traction control should not be on a race car and i'm glad it's going. Now my real question is will this new rear split wing stuff work. Has the FIA even tested it? I mean it seems stupid and wasteful to cram a new rule like this down everyone's throat without even knowing if it really does work, ala last years regs which probably made passing harder.
they want to cut 70% of budget, knowing they'll lose about 30% of audience. May be a good decision from business point of view.
They should get a couple of teams with these wings already fitted to go out and see what they are like before even making the rules. This is why most of the stuff they do to make passing easier fails
Some of these rules are complete B.S. Engine and Transmissions for 3 or 4 races are nonsense and it deprives the competition as we saw this year with Kimi. Personally I wish they would go back to 1989 Rules and decrease the diffuser and wings (Bring down Aero) and increase the Tire Width (Which they are doing to increase Mechanical Grip). Get rid of traction control, Paddle Shift, Carbon Brakes, and have a nice 3.5 Liter V8 or V10 so Engine Power is greater than the chassis. Get rid of refueling but allow tire changes. F1 would be a lot more fun to watch.
I like the parts about bringing back slicks and taking off TC (although I don't like the rev limiter). I'm not against the split wing idea, but I do think it looks like crap I still don't like the 2 race weekend engine rule from this past year and extending it to 3 and 4 for a transmission is just stupid imo. As previously said, engineering costs will go up, but manufacturing costs down. The net effect is what is important and I don't think the FIA looked much into that. Good luck trying to predict R&D costs FIA.
Unfortunatley they want to turn F1 from premiership into sunday league......... wouldnt it be cheaper if all the teams had to use a small diesel hatchback that had to go the whole season without changing tyres and on one tank of fuel it still wouldnt be F1 but it would be cheaper
So spend millions developing an engine for 2006, but worry about costs 2 years after that. The people running F1 are MORONS
Did you just come to realize that? Look at the stupid one rule one set of tires. They want to save money yet they go from a V10 to a V8 instead of RPM limiting the V10 or putting in fuel restrictions as they did in the Turbo Age. Max Mosley is Max Moron, F1 might have been the pinnacle, but the rules are an absolute joke. It was far better when that crazy bastard Balestre ran the FIA in the 80's. He was even funny to watch.
Yes, I'm with you guys. Looking at the various answers/reactions given here I guess it all just depends on what your goals for F1 are: a) lower costs b) safety c) racing d) entertainment e) technology development ad a) Lower costs only matter to me in the sense that I want a full grid of cars and not just a race between a few manufacturers. But as I stated below cost reduction should not come through restricting the big boys but rather through a free market approach where smaller teams can legally buy parts and cars from the big boys. That will assure a full grid and leave the competitive advantage with the big guys as it should be in a free economy. ad b) For me safety is a given and thanks to carbon fibre survival cells, crash tests and one tire manufacturer that one is a given (meaning as safe as racing can be), so I wouldn't give it much priority anymore. ad c) Racing. Isn't that what it's all about? F1 wants to be technical pinnacle yet also have the world's best drivers. Therein lies the contradiction: If you'd have the ultimate car a monkey could drive it (sounds like Lauda, doesn't it?). So the technical arms race should be engineered into the car, but not when it comes to drivers aids. That's why I'd like to see manual gearboxes and engines decoupled from the rest of the vehicle (no sensors, no electronic connections, no fly by wire, just a throttle cable, electric power and fuel into the thing and two drifeshafts coming out). ad d) PSK will stone me for that, but I always said racing is entertainment and if it doesn't entertain we gotta fix it. I don't want F1 to turn into NASCAR, but I don't want boring processional races either. So entertainment has some weight for me. ad e) Technology development is for me only an afterthought. It is nice if there are trickle down effects (eg. Paddle shifters for the F430), but not really a must. Which is quite the contrary to how Senna21 sees it. So to recap my priorities are: Racing>Entertainment>Costs>Safety>Development
