The FIA's rule plans. 2003, 2004 & 2005 - Page 3

Super Tourer · 15 Jan 2003, 20:43 (Ref:475537)

More comment from. www.grandprix.com

What does it all mean?
Having spent years trying to make the Formula 1 teams agree with one another, the FIA has finally grabbed the initiative to force the teams to accept cost-cutting changes to save the smaller teams from extinction. Such moves have always been blocked up to now by the powerful big teams which want to maintain their advantage over the smaller operations by refusing to cut costs.

The FIA is very aware that if one more team drops out of F1 teams will be in breach of the Concorde Agreement and will then have to make up the numbers by supplying additional cars. The problem is that there does not seem to be a procedure for choosing which teams must run the third cars and according to the current regulations only two are officially entered in the World Championship and can score points so there is little advantage or incentive to run an extra car.

The logical way to organise who will run a third car would be by a system of ballot although there are problems associated with this because some teams are utterly opposed to running third cars. It is rumoured that at least one team has said that it will withdraw from the sport if forced to run three cars, a situation which would add to the teams' problems.

The only way that the federation had to get around the problem was to revise the interpretation of the existing set of regulations rather than trying to change the rules. This was possible because many of the rules are worded loosely enough to be interpreted differently. The most obvious example of this is Article 62 of the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations which states that "the driver must drive the car alone and unaided". A different interpretation of this rule now results in the banning of most of the electronic systems now being used.

The only way in which a change of interpretation can be challenged by the teams is by going to arbitration. The FIA Sporting Regulations are treated as a part of the Concorde Agreement and thus are governed by Article 17.3 of that contract which states that all disputes arising "shall be finally settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce" in Lausanne, Switzerland. This is a process which will takes several months and is likely to cost any protester a huge amount of money as it is an expensive business.

There is also no guarantee that any challenge would be successful as the FIA has only applied the existing rules. This is, of course, open to interpretation by lawyers.

paulzinho · 15 Jan 2003, 20:44 (Ref:475538)

They forgot to ban refueling!

But I'm in favour of most of these changes, something needed to be done a long time ago and now things are finally happening!

Damon · 15 Jan 2003, 20:46 (Ref:475540)

Quote:

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
But... what the heck is WRONG with the CARS (or at least the driver/car combo)being the difference, rather than just the drivers. We already have lots of series where the cars are all the same, do we really need F1 to go in that direction as well?

What this has done is actually given the driver a role again. They are not standard cars, its the electronics and one part of the aero package, other than that the designers have a free reign. I agree that to have one type of car would be terrible, but that is not the case.

Super Tourer · 15 Jan 2003, 20:49 (Ref:475541)

Looks like TV cash is to be re-allocated as well, according to www.autosport.com

"After the loss of outfits such as Arrows and Prost in the past two years, the smaller teams are believed to have been given financial assurances via changes to way television money is appropriated.

Team boss Eddie Jordan: "Restructuring of how certain funds work within the operations of Bernie's [company] - how the television works - has made it vitally important for Jordan, so it is a huge day as far as we are concerned. Everyone was in agreement, it was a great union. All the teams are committed to ensure that the 10 teams remain in place in a financially-structured way that will ensure their future."

Inigo Montoya · 15 Jan 2003, 20:53 (Ref:475542)

Quote:

Originally posted by Damon
What this has done is actually given the driver a role again. They are not standard cars, its the electronics and one part of the aero package, other than that the designers have a free reign. I agree that to have one type of car would be terrible, but that is not the case.

Its going in that direction though Damon... And you know as well as I do that the driver already had a big role.

I am willing to accept banning the electrical gizmos (if they MUST, and if they can figure out how to police it properly), but enforced standardized parts are sacreligious

I wonder which one of Bernie's buddy's companies will get to make the "standard" brakes and aero parts... And how much will they pay for that right - and where will that money go? Probably back into Bernies multi-billioniare pockets...

**Adam43** · 15 Jan 2003, 20:55 (Ref:475545)

Quote:

Originally posted by paulzinho
They forgot to ban refueling!

Good point.

That I think would have been too hard ot introduce for this year (big changes to the cars), but 2004, 05...

paulzinho · 15 Jan 2003, 20:57 (Ref:475546)

We can hope for it Adam!

F1 hasn't been the same since it was reintroduced.

Sato san · 15 Jan 2003, 20:59 (Ref:475548)

im soooooooo looking forward to next year already .

Andrew Kitson · 15 Jan 2003, 21:03 (Ref:475555)

Quote:

Originally posted by Super Tourer
[BYet F1 is currently like having Cambridge FC against Liverpool week in week out....... [/B]

Oi!!! What's wrong with Cambridge Utd FC!! OK, they might let the odd goal or two in and...well...er...um....they are my team OK?
Seriously though....hallelujah!! At last Max has shown he has the balls. I just might start to love F1 again. I just hope it all happens as we know there is often a lot promised that comes to nought. But what about those dreaded treaded tyres?

Testure · 15 Jan 2003, 21:05 (Ref:475558)

Quote:

Originally posted by Asp
And how the 'best' series in the world can be lacking technology that even some national series posess is just a daft suggestion.

Here's a thought - how are you defining "high tech"? Wouldn't an F1 engine that can last six races be an incredible technical leap? Every time we see an engine explode in flames, isn't that a demonstration that it's easier to make an engine go fast than it is to make it last even one single race? And wouldn't the R&D required to build such a reliable engine be of much more interest to manufacturers than the ability to build one that'll go 200MPH but only last 90 minutes? That sounds pretty damn high-tech to me.

Super Tourer · 15 Jan 2003, 21:08 (Ref:475559)

Hey Andrew, I watch Look East and I know one of the CUFC directors...really, honestly....up CUFC for the cup,etc.....Still bet they wouldn't want to play Liverpool every week....LOL.

ST

Super Tourer · 15 Jan 2003, 21:12 (Ref:475564)

Surely the engine rules would please engine designers, as clearly Honda & Merc have been struggling to produce the power increases without producing engines that go pop.

Reliabiity would have to sacrifice power somewhere along the line.

Sato san · 15 Jan 2003, 21:15 (Ref:475568)

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Kitson
At last Max has shown he has the balls. I

Yes finally after 12 years or so ....he has finally had the guts to take the bull by the horns.

Super Tourer · 15 Jan 2003, 21:20 (Ref:475572)

Sato San - they had no choice, I really believe that the failure of Bernie's PPV TV and falling terrestrial TV audiences, coupled with some sponsors asking for money back, has been a genuine wake up call for the FIA.

You can only keep you head in the sand so long before you suffocate.....

ST

JonesF1 · 15 Jan 2003, 21:23 (Ref:475574)

The idea of using one engine for multiple grand prixs was around last year and its just as ridiculous now as it was then. The standard wing and radio ban im not sure about but the rest looks good.

Damon · 15 Jan 2003, 21:24 (Ref:475575)

what's great is that they are doing exactly what we all knew they needed to do years ago. At times you have to wander what the guys in charge are actually watching.

PoweredByHonda · 15 Jan 2003, 21:27 (Ref:475583)

I do agree that F1 needs some sort of a salary cap/luxury tax/revenue sharing system. Most of the North American sports leagues now adopt that. F1 needs at least a luxury tax system where the FIA needs to set a threshhold of funds for a team, say 150 million, and for every dollar you go over that you have to pay another dollar in tax to the FIA and that tax is then redistributed evenly among all the teams. In this case, no matter how many sponsors Mclaren can get, that money, or at least part of it, gets funneled back into the lesser teams.

Damon · 15 Jan 2003, 21:36 (Ref:475595)

The main problem as far as revenue is concerned is that Bernie gets 55% of all the money F1 generates, the teams (the ones doing all the work and providing the spectacle that makes that money) only get the remaining 45% between them. Is that fair? I think not.

Stuart Hill · 15 Jan 2003, 21:40 (Ref:475600)

Quote:

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh

I most definately like the banning of radiocommunications as well, but i have my doubts about the banning of car-to-pit telemetry. I mean, how are they going to set their cars up during practice and stuff without telemetry?
Feeling the car?

I doubt that everyone on the grid would be able to perfectly balance the car on feeling alone.
Maybe Schumacher or Coulthard but that's it really IMO...

excuse me but...........just what did all the GREAT drivers do before???????????

This is EXACTLY what makes the difference between a Driver and a Test Pilot!!!

Inigo Montoya · 15 Jan 2003, 21:40 (Ref:475601)

Nope, its not fair, and its the_real_reason why F1 is in trouble. That's why PremierF1 may be our only hope...

PoweredByHonda · 15 Jan 2003, 21:40 (Ref:475603)

That's why it needs to start at the top. If Bernie actually shared that money, none of the teams would have gone bankrupt. Thats why im hopeing for a breakway series in 2007.

PoweredByHonda · 15 Jan 2003, 21:42 (Ref:475606)

Quote:

Originally posted by crazystu
excuse me but...........just what did all the GREAT drivers do before???????????

This is EXACTLY what makes the difference between a Driver and a Test Pilot!!!

The drivers before didnt drive anything near as advanced as the cars today. These cars are so technologically advance, theres no way to set them up without telemetry

Stuart Hill · 15 Jan 2003, 21:43 (Ref:475607)

The only problem I have with what they've said is that standard components leads towards a "one-make series". Anyone know of such a series that really lasted???
What is the justisification for the manufacturers if they have to share components?

Super Tourer · 15 Jan 2003, 21:48 (Ref:475617)

Probably F1 needs to be somewhere between where it is now and F3000. If leading drivers say that the main feeder formula has become obselete because it bears no relation, and provides little preperation for F1, then something is wrong.

Similarly if a driver can jump straight into an F1 car from a very minor formula (Nico Rosberg) and be unfazed by a F1 car, it's fair to say something is wrong.

Think back to the feature on ITV when Brundle drove his old 1991 Benetton and last years Ferrari and made the comment that the Ferrari was so easy to drive.

After all, surely F1 is supposed to be a challenge for the drivers not just for the boffins?

Inigo Montoya · 15 Jan 2003, 21:51 (Ref:475625)

Quote:

Originally posted by Super Tourer

After all, surely F1 is supposed to be a challenge for the drivers not just for the boffins?

F1 is supposed to be about driving cars fast. If the cars are easier to drive, the drivers go faster. This is _a_good_thing.

Heck, if you want it to be a real challenge, give the drivers cars with square tyres

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2005 plans?	BillyT	Kart Racing	4	12 Jan 2005 19:13
2005 Plans?	PaulSands	Motorsport Art & Photography	20	9 Jan 2005 18:45
Automatic entries 2003, 2004 and 2005?	vandijk	Sportscar & GT Racing	12	22 Oct 2003 20:39
The FIA's proposed 2 car rule	x_dt	Rallying & Rallycross	16	16 Sep 2003 15:42
Plans for Peugeot in 2003	adamp_uk	Touring Car Racing	9	7 Oct 2002 16:09