Rule changes announced on SKY

My idea is best. Give them lasers!

 

Only if Kimi ends up back there ; )

Seriously - I have no idea why Ferrari would agree to this. Maybe with the token system they don't think they can make enough changes for the testing to benefit them more than the Merc powered teams? In other words, although more testing might make them faster, it will make Merc even faster to the tune of an increased delta between the two cars.

...and as to less testing to save money for the smaller teams. Don't they actually want to win and not just be at the party? ...and if not, why not pick another hobby instead of racing.

"I believe if you are doing something like competing, like motor racing, you either do well or forget it."

-Ayrton Senna; 1984

 

^^^ isn't the answer obvious? The bigger teams have massive cfd departments that are getting better and better at simulation, the smaller teams have no chance of being able to compete with them. Net result - status quo. Big teams looking after themselves. Small teams left with no choice but to accept or face massive increases in fees for big team tech and engines. It stinks.

 

The corollary;

There's two ways to go motor racing;

1. Spend the money & win.
2. Don't spend the money, have fun, but don't expect to win.

Applicable to *all* forms of the sport from karts thru F1 & everything in between IMO.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Which is why they need a new system with revenue sharing, so that everyone has a shot. Because Ferrari can't play with itself...errr race against itself ; )

...or they need another sub-championship so the small teams have something to shoot for other than just scoring a point or two.

But what do I know, I'm not a megalomaniac billionaire ; )

 

The teams that vote on these rules changes all hope that they can catch a break and screw everybody else. If they don't, they still show up and collect their check at the end of the season.

I think that the ban on in-season testing is largely due to the new schedule which has fewer open dates for testing. The only thing more ridiculous is that engine develop, excuse me, power unit development is highly restricted, yet teams spend millions on the curvature of the multiple front wing elements, floor slots, side pod winglets, rear wing endplate slots, etc. between every race.

That said, I watch nearly every NASCAR race and they race every weekend, except Easter, Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day during the season which runs from February to the end of November.

 

+1 definitely agree. Ross would be my choice......

It's the whole makeup of the SWG that's turned out wrong IMO - The 6 "grandee" teams aren't even slightly interested in Manor for example.

Then we've got Bernie's 6 votes & the same # for JT's boys.

I gotta be honest, I thought that structure may be a good idea when first announced - "Spread the power" as it were - Particularly as changes further out don't need to be unanimous, but just a majority.

But, it sure doesn't look like its working to me.

Cheers,
Ian

Cartoon from Gurmit @ Pitpass BTW.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

As i said, they become more stupid by the year....

 

Again, it sure seems that way.

But, we've got the 6 "best" teams represented - and they're not stupid. Then FOM - And we know Bernie's not stupid. (We may not like him, but that's another debate.) Then we've got JT's guys - I assume Charlie, who remains one of the few who gets total respect from all & Joe Bauer. Dunno who else.

These are *not* stupid people! That's what I don't get!

Cheers,
Ian

 

Fair comment.

But, what's new? There's always been backmarkers, always will be. Generally, he with the biggest budget is winning. Or is at least "there or thereabouts". Smaller budget -> Further back.

OK, it's CFD now, but that's pretty tightly restricted too, like tunnel time - They can only do so much of it.

I guess I'm saying there's always been a "status quo" - it is what it is.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Would you accept irrational? As in that for most teams participation is irrational. But once you've made the decision to participate you realize the only way to succeed is to win. These days the only way to win out is to get the design right out the gate. And since you think you'll win (why you are participating), make it easier to win out. With that , twisted, logic this vote makes good sense.

Alternately visualization has gotten so good they all believe it can be simulated? That seems contrary to results though.

 

Oh yeah!...... Most top level pro sports are "irrational" IMO.

Sure. The list of F1 participants is long. A few successful, many that never won, and yet others that never came close. The "status quo".

Unfortunately, I have to agree there.

Indeed - CFD is "getting there", but I don't think it's there yet - Hence the correlation runs. Throw in the tunnel, and you can get *really* confused!

Cheers,
Ian

 

I like the widers cars and tires. It seems to me that you cant mandate against the Technology.

I think the best answer is to let the teams build what they want - reduce the regulations - but - include G limits on the cars that ... so that the car cant kill the driver. FIA limits the lateral and side G loading including acceleration and deceleration.

then you can have DRS all around the track, turbos etc... if the cars Look better - meaner - that will bring the average fan back - they will want to see the cool cars...

a sprint race on Satruday - why not. cant be all that bad.... perhaps do a reverse grid from qualifying for the sprint race....

otherwise I say let the teams do what they want. if there are only 3 teams - but competing at the highest level of technology... then so be it.

 

+1

Thats exactly what they're doing though; Or, at least they're trying to. Rightly or wrongly is another debate.

OK, so we'd see the return of active suspension, TC, auto 'boxes, etc etc that many say takes even more responsibility away from the jockey. While I'm a big believer in race car technology, I want to see the drivers as the differentiators, and can't help feeling going down this path would make them even less "significant" as the computers would almost be driving the things.

Has "the average fan" left the sport though? It's the "hard core" fans that appear to be bleating the most to me (?) And while they're not the prettiest cars we've ever seen, they're not too bad anymore IMO. They're still undoubtedly F1 cars.

Can you imagine the carnage!? (& hence cost of course.) This is "serious business", not some made up reality show....

Really? You don't think that scenario would kill it completely? How many folk are going to watch 9 cars (if they allowed 3 each)?

To me, beyond the technology, at least part of the appeal is seeing who's making progress, who's dropping back, who's batting above their average, etc; The Williams, FI's & Saubers & even Manors of the world may not be the backbone, but I think the sport needs them out there.

10 or 11 two car teams is about the optimum IMO.

Cheers,
Ian

 

So what are they doing to fix the noise? I like the wider tires and cars, the current cars are the ugliest of all time so it's a step in the right direction.

 

Going the wrong way. Should be allowing much more testing and the further clamp down on it. Lol, ridiculous.

 

So, in place of dedicated testing, we'll have $$$CFD$$$ and more testing during race weekends. Maybe they should just add an extra P session at half the races.

 

Hummm, you can't get too wide cars, or some tracks will prove to be too narrow and make overtaking ever more difficult, if not impossible.

If the FIA allows sprint races, it has to reconsider the number of engines per season too. That adds to the cost they want to cap.

You may have very good races with 3 teams only "competing at the highest level of technology", but by then you will have lost your audience.
Who wants to watch a race with 6 cars? Certainly not millions of TV spectators around the world. By then, the sponsors will have moved out of F1.

The paying public isn't interested by "the highest level of technology", but by brillant races held under rules it can understand.

 

Like all beaurocracies F1 thinks only in terms of more regulations when what is needed is fewer.
Racing is simple. Elemental even. It doesn't need help from experts to work.

 

Regulators gotta regulate. Otherwise there is no need for them, and they have put lots of effort into becoming regulators. Besides, they probably have written a regulation saying that there must be regulators and regulations.

 

True. Competitors should have the minimum of parameters to abide to; up to them to find the solutions to be at the front.

The present F1 regulations are too complicated and take away freedom from the designers.

I am glad those silly rules didn't exist 10, 20 or more years ago: GP racing was more interesting in those days.

 

The pendulum will swing back.

 

You think so? I am not so sure.

Once a series starts to be too regulated, it slowly becomes a specs series, like many have become, there is usually no way back. F1 has already one tyre supplier, imposed engine configuration, etc... It's heading that way ...

If the FIA, FOM, Ecclestone and others aren't carefull with the way they shape F1 regulations, they will slowly but surely arrive at some sort of IRL, and put most of the chassis builders out of business.

Todt has indicated that he could have his way in capping cost by imposing more common technology in future; chassis, gearboxes, suspension, electronics, etc...
We may not be far away from different badges on a common engine in future. The ban on testing would make sense, since all teams would share the same components already tested by their suppliers. That would drive the cost down even more.

Look at IRL, only one chassis and 2 or 3 engines homologated. End of story.
F1 could end up that way. Already F3 and GP2 are specs series. Lola, March, Reynard have gone out of business because of that.

 

Serious question; In what ways was it "more interesting" back then?

We had the same (but sometimes different) dominant teams.

Everyone was running DFV's & Hewlands outside of Ferrari. And they were mostly crap.

They had to drop 107% to ensure full grids - The back markers *really* were backmarkers. Even dear ol' Manor ain't that far off. And there's much intrigue in the midfield.

Races rarely saw more than a handful of cars finish on the lead lap.

Many of them broke down. Lucky if we saw 10-12 finishers. Today, a retirement is a big deal.

Again, I'm seeing a severe case of the rose tinteds again.

OTOH, I *can* see where Newey, in particular, feels "shackled" today. But believe me, the rule book was almost as thick back then too. It's Formula one, not formula libre.

Always has been, always will be. Merc's domination will end.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Will things be the way they were? No. As they say history doesn't repeat it rhymes. Sooner or later someone will have the brilliant idea for a series that highlights technical innovation.
He will be thought of as an innovator.