FIA propose radical rule changes

Current F1 blends give the engines some 50 HP over what pump gas of known composition. It is believed that random pump gas would subtract another 35-50 HP as you tune the engine to put up with anything that the tanker brings. The ECUs are what allow the engines to survive running on the ragged edge, magnetos and distributors would bring the engines back from the edge. ECUs also enable the "traction Control" cheating that has been rampant the last few years. So banning this directly addresses the "diver drives the car" issues.

I said manually operated clutch. I did not require the transmissions to be built such that the clutch has to be depressed to shift gears, indeed, My f355 can be shifted without the clutch snick-snick-snick with careful throttle manipulation.

Note: I indicated that no change in brakes were necessary when aero is banned.

The controls prevent the gas companies from dumping extra premium gasoline in that town before the race.

 

First off, I am a big F1 fan. I try to attend two or three races a year and actually really like the "show." I think the proposed regs would be the worst thing to happen to F1.

In the short term wouldn't manufacturers spend huge amount of money to go backwards to the "low tech" way of doing things?

In the long term why would a manufacturer want to be in a series that does not give them the opportunity to develope and showcase new technology, train engineers, and ultimately sell cars? Wouldn't some to the technology sponsors and partners also leave F1?

The teams and manufacturers complain about the costs of F1, but you don't see them voluntarily reducing their spending, why force it upon them. Maybe it would be best to allow the larger teams to gain additional constructors points by selling cars, parts, engines to the smaller independant teams.

My $.02 for my first FChat post.

 

I Really like the manual gearbox thing -- that would be cool if there was a possibility of a missed shift.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some more strict aero requirement.

All the other things really fall under the umbrella of innovation. I think it is cool that these 3.0L engines rev to 19,000 rpm!

The biggest disparity between teams like Minardi and Ferrari, IMHO, is their access to a Wind tunnel. Eliminating the aero advantage would go a long way towards leveling the field without stifling innovation.

I'm not vehemently opposed to a spec ECU, but I don't like it either.

 

My sentiments exactly. Yay for MS, but if F1 turns into a damn driver soap opera (*coughNASCARcough*) I'm DONE.

 

...if the end result should be leveling the F1 playing field, what would it take for Minardi to have a real "chance" at winning?

Toyota's budget is larger than Ferrari's, so we can't just attribute the difference to money. Sure, the extra funding allows Ferrari to run their second squad team for log data year round. Of course MS and Ruben's salaries make up nearly half of Minardi's budget, but even if Minardi was on par with Ferrari financially, would we see them develop a decent aero package or strong engine?

And what about experience? Minardi has been in F1 since 1985, and their "best season to date was 1991, when its effective, Ferrari-powered chassis helped the team to claim seventh place in the final standings of the World Constructors’ Championship."*

McLaren? Jordan? Sauber even having the essential F2003GA chassis with this year's Scuderia internals...? This cyclical gridlock seems to be the inherent nature of a constructor's championship series, just moreso today with the high dollars and technology.


*source <http://www.minardi.it/team/history/?LN=UK>

 

I just heard on Wind Tunnel that Ferrari and McLaren have agreed to the terms set for 2008. I'm not sure of any revisions done.

I always thought that F1 was the pinnacle of car racing technology but all of this sure sounds like it's turning into the European Cart series, or the International NASCAR Association. I agree with the idea that innovation in the sport should continue, but maybe at a slower rate so other teams can catch up.

I think Charlie makes a good point when he says that money can't mean everything. Toyota does have a bigger budget, yet they still can't seem to move out of the middle of the pack. Not only that Toyota is supposed to have an excellent engineering team too. IMO it's just that Ferrari has the perfect combination of engineering, money, driving, skill, and luck.

I'm just curious about this one. Let's say there was no Schumi factor for Ferrari, and they didn't dominate so much the past couple of years. Would these changes be neccesary? I'm trying to figure out how much of this is actually Ferrari engineering vs MS's talent as a driver. I guess with new rule changes that give the driving back to the driver, we'll find out. But there has to be a less drastic compromise than making it NASCAR.

 

If Ferrari was not on the verge of their 5th straight title as we approach race 5, these concerns wouldn't exist. MS raised the bar higher than anyone could have imagined, and coupled with the engineering and support of the Ferrari team, proved the combo unstoppable.

Rubens has been "vulnerable" over the past few seasons. Let's say that Rubens was the #1 driver, and his teammate consistently finished in back of him. Ferrari would probably still dominate the constructor's championship because of the sick amounts of performance and reliability, but the driver's battle would be, dare I say, exciting??

Or to completely even the field, I propose the following. For 2005, 20 grand prixs are on the schedule. Move Indy to Laguna Seca, add the new Barber track and a road course in New Orleans. With 20 drivers and 20 races, each driver rotates from car to car through the season. The constructor's and driver's championships are completely separate, and each driver has an equal chance of winning at some point in the season. The teams would pool all the driver's salaries together in a lockbox, and the driver's championship would determine the payout at the end of the season. We'll skim the bias right off the top of this series!

The proposed rule changes remind me of communism...looks good on paper, but in application?

 

I'm stunned to see that there wasn't a big discussion and so much agreement.

 

what was not said in Monaco

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns12821.html

 

Anybody wants to speculate on what that means for MS' retirement?

It sounds like everything remains the same for 2005 hence giving him another good chance for another title.

It looks as if big changes are in the works for 2006 therefore leveling the playing field. So would that tickle MS' interest or turn him away into retirement?

 

Why are these dopes trying to make F1 like NASCAR and IRL?

F1 should be the domain of the best drivers, best technology, etc.

Very sad.



Teams agree to new Formula One format
Some of the changes may come sooner than expected


[04/05/04 - 17:33]




Successful meeting for Max Mosley



Formula One team chiefs agreed in principal to give the go-ahead to sweeping changes designed to make the sport more exciting after a meeting with FIA president Max Mosley here Tuesday.

A new engine format, a single tyre supplier and a ban on electronic driver aids were three of the many areas accepted by the teams for introduction by the 2008 season.

Mosley and the 10 team principals were joined by the sport's commercial rights holder, Bernie Ecclestone, and several engine manufacturers for the meeting, which took place in the Automobile Club de Monaco. And Mosley said: "It was a very good meeting. Where I had expected very significant dispute and debate there really was none and it was very constructive.

"We went through all of the proposals and discussed them with the teams in some detail and as far as doing things sooner than 2008 there was a wide measure of agreement that we need changes much sooner. It will make Formula One more interesting, there will be closer racing and more overtaking. The basic idea is to make the racing closer and more interesting for the fans because that is what they want to see."

The engine format could be brought in two years early, by 2006, if engine manufacturers can come up with an efficient method of reducing costs when they meet to discuss ideas at this weekend's Spanish Grand Prix.

Mosley added: "I think we are going to see a new engine formula in 2006 and the engine manufacturers are going to make proposals in addition to those that we have made to reduce the engine cost by 50 percent."

A new qualifying format could be brought in before the end of the year after team principals agreed the back-to-back single lap system introduced this season has failed.

Mosley hopes the changes will improve the spectacle and put a greater emphasis on driver skills while also reducing operating costs and encouraging new teams to enter the sport. He is also pushing for a reduction in non-event testing throughout the year and is also keen on banning mid-race tyre changes while retaining refuelling stops in Grands Prix.

He believes the sport has suffered from a lack of entertainment in recent years and pointed to the battle between Valentino Rossi and Max Biaggi in the opening MotoGP race of the year as an example to follow.

"Everyone I know who likes racing is still talking about Valentino Rossi and Max Biaggi in South Africa. These people care about racing and I think that the point on that is now being accepted."

The conclusions from the meeting here, and from the additional engine manufacturer's discussions, will now be presented for approval to the FIA's World Motorsport Council at a meeting to take place on June 30.

 

I am shocked... and a bit worried for F1. I can't believe the big owners went along with all that. They really need to come to F-Chat... we have much better ideas for them!

 

Haha. I KNOW that Bernie, Max, JT, Flavio, Ron Dennis, and Frank Williams are ALL lurking on f-chat. How could they not? Are we somehow not the experts that we think we are??

 

I agree! WTF...if there was anyone close right now like McLaren and Williams were last year would we be hearing this. I think they are jumping the gun.

 

Have the drivers rotate through the teams. All of the drivers must drive for every single team throughout the season. Makes just about the same sense as saying everyone should have the same car. i thougth F1 was about innovation, anyone remember when renault came out with the turbo?