[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Casper

Stifling design and restricting free thinking leads to mediocrity and we have a prime example of that in F1. Put some broad restrictions or limitations in place and let the teams get on with building cars with a bit of character for want of a better phrase.

variety is the spice of life!

clearly the mixed messages of the past week suggests that the stakeholders are unwilling to address the larger issues but i think the one lesson that comes from the almost universal condemnation of the new quali format is that the majority of fans are also unwilling to accept change (despite knowing there are issues) and lack the patience to wait it out while those changes are made.

but what incentive is there for anything to change when any change is put down even before it has a chance to come into its own?

they may get a lot of things wrong before they find the right solution. that is a fact of life and not an example of what is wrong with the sport imo. exceptional is not possible without the possibility of failure so we settle for mediocrity.

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, you keep on saying that there is wholesale condemnation of the new qualifying format despite the acknowledgement that there needs to be change. The problem is though that it is not qualifying that needs to be changed to neuter the current fastest cars; it is the rules surrounding the construction that need changing.

Go back over the decades, you will find that there has always been a certain level of dissatisfaction when ever a car or team were dominant. I can remember it when Tyrrel ruled the roost, and Williams, and McLaren and Ferrari. Back then, you knew before a wheel had turned which cars would be at the front, and usually who would be near the back. But those in charge didn't alter the qualifying to mix up the grid, which is what BCE and Todt are aiming to do.

It is not Mercedes' or Ferrari's fault that they have the best cars on the grid at the moment. It is just plain not right to attempt to punish them, especially Mercedes, for thinking outside of the box and producing something that is within the rules and yet is so much better than the rest. I don't think that any of the teams signed a contract with FOM to enter their cars into a handicap race championship, and I think that it is time that the teams mentioned that to BCE and the FIA; it certainly would be something that I would be saying to Mr E if I ran one of the teams.

[wolfhound]

If Bernie wants to mix up the grid a bit so that the same teams are not always at the front the answer is simple.

Change the prise fund that goes to the teams.
As we all know the top teams get lots more money from FOM than the teams down the back of the grid.
If all teams were to get an equal amount of money from FOM and the top ten teams would get an extra £10,000 for first £9,000 for second, £8,000 for third and so on. At least now all teams are now starting on an almost equal footing.

With the trend towards pay TV teams will loose most of there sponsor money so now all teams will have similar amounts to spend unless they find a generous benefactor who does not want any publicity.

In such a situation it will come down to the cleverest and most skillful who is fastest not who has the most got 3 times the resources of the other teams.

Chances of this happening....... some of it probably will ( the bit with no sponsors!).

[Casper]

Change the prize fund? I hear that a lot. BE would tell you that the teams agreed to what they get when they signed up, in fact it isn't prize money so much as a contracted award for appearing in BE's circus, in other words appearance money for a set period of time. Why change something that each team agreed on? Those who put the most in and risk the most get the biggest slice of the money given to the teams for appearing and racing. In BE's world that is fair and equitable and the teams would seem to agree as they signed up for it. He would argue that if a team finds itself unable to fund its racing budget then they had better get their act together and race within their budget.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I would suggest that he should stop being a little wuss, and stand up for himself at these meetings; or can he only be aggressive when he's behind the wheel of a car?

Not a wuss, but somewhat disingenuous.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Renault would like the fuel limit ended.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...limit-scrapped

[JeremySmith]

Me too, I think it's a silly rule and creates "lift and coast " racing ..

[chillibowl]

'lift and coast' vs a return to 'passing in the pits' racing!

which devil is worse?

[S griffin]

Passing in the pits obviously....

[Mike Harte]

You have to wonder, though, why Renault are for the change yet Mercedes are against it. If the Mercs are lifting and coasting and yet winning with ease whilst at the same time average race speeds are increasing, it would seem to indicate that they have produced a power-unit that burns fuel efficiently whilst Renault have failed in that department.

And please bear in mind that at the beginning of 2015 the Daimler Benz main board met to decide on the future of Mercedes' F1 programme. They were at the point of canning the project, but it's future was saved solely because the team were able to demonstrate the great fuel savings that they have been making, and the fact that this technology is or will be transferring to their road going vehicles.

I fear that if Renault were to get their way that Mercedes will leave.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You have to wonder, though, why Renault are for the change yet Mercedes are against it. If the Mercs are lifting and coasting and yet winning with ease whilst at the same time average race speeds are increasing, it would seem to indicate that they have produced a power-unit that burns fuel efficiently whilst Renault have failed in that department.

And please bear in mind that at the beginning of 2015 the Daimler Benz main board met to decide on the future of Mercedes' F1 programme. They were at the point of canning the project, but it's future was saved solely because the team were able to demonstrate the great fuel savings that they have been making, and the fact that this technology is or will be transferring to their road going vehicles.

I fear that if Renault were to get their way that Mercedes will leave.

and if Renault don't get their way, they will leave?

[Mike Harte]

Possibly BJ, but if they were to leave, it would create less of a void, IMHO. I think that there would also be recriminations if they left for that reason, because Renault are responsible, primarily, for the new power-units. Don't forget that it was them in 2010, or so, that threatened the FIA that they would withdraw from F1 if they didn't get to play with the new technology.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Possibly BJ, but if they were to leave, it would create less of a void, IMHO. I think that there would also be recriminations if they left for that reason, because Renault are responsible, primarily, for the new power-units. Don't forget that it was them in 2010, or so, that threatened the FIA that they would withdraw from F1 if they didn't get to play with the new technology.

I was sort of begging question and would think it rather ironic, as they have now returned to F1 as a works team as well as an engine manufacturer.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

and if Renault don't get their way, they will leave?

No because they have just re entered as a works team, I think they are just displaying some muscle after having been beaten and abused by Red Bull .. I happen to think that Cyril is correct, allow the teams more fuel ,turn up the engines and allow these drivers to race flat out....
That's what we want Isn't it !!

[chillibowl]

except when we had that in the past it didnt work out that way.

drivers didnt pass on track, they conserved fuel, waiting for the guy in front to pit, and then passed. aside from safety and costs, the other reason it was removed was because refueling did not promote on track racing. arguably it was more lift and coast pre 2010.

as an aside, when they last brought it in (94?) wasnt it done to spice things up by breaking William's advantage? a bit of irony considering Williams were using Renault engines back then.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Renault would like the fuel limit ended.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...limit-scrapped

If power output keep progressing as they are and people say, okay the cars are becoming powerful enough now, alternatively they could also limit the fuel flow from 100kg/h to say 98 in 2017 and 96 in 2018. That way you wouldn't have to increase the average weight of the car during the race and you would still have less lift and coasting.

PS. The agenda's of Renault and Mercedes on fuel limit have been quite clear I reckon.



In a scenario where you have a short sprint race to determine grid position, they would not be fuel limited and go full throttle all the way.

[Pingguest]

As far as I know, Renault team is not proposing the reintroduction of in-race refueling, is it? I have my doubts about lifting the fuel consumption limit. Drivers are using far less than the allowed 100 kilograms of fuel occasionally, as being 'under-fueled' makes the car faster on the long run. Without the fuel consumption limit, it is very likely drivers will continu to run 'under-fueled', therefore having to 'lift and coast'. It worth mentioning that this was already the case before 2014 but after the 2010 banning of in-race refueling.
The fuel consumption limit makes it effectively impossible to use fuel wasting solutions as the exhaust blown diffuser as well.

I have my doubts too regarding the necessity of drivers going flat-out the entire racing. The eighties are still remembered as possibly the best decade in Formula One's history, although in the majority of that decade drivers were limited in terms of fuel consumption. As there was no fuel-flow limit, limiting fuel consumption was even more important then.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I have my doubts too regarding the necessity of drivers going flat-out the entire racing. The eighties are still remembered as possibly the best decade in Formula One's history, although in the majority of that decade drivers were limited in terms of fuel consumption. As there was no fuel-flow limit, limiting fuel consumption was even more important then.

They put restrictors on the turbos to limit power then told them they only had so many litres of fuel to play with. They used to freeze the fuel so that they could get more into the tanks then cover the cars with foil on the grid to reduce any heat sink.

Didn't stop them racing flat out which is why many ran out of fuel.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

They put restrictors on the turbos to limit power then told them they only had so many litres of fuel to play with. They used to freeze the fuel so that they could get more into the tanks then cover the cars with foil on the grid to reduce any heat sink.

Didn't stop them racing flat out which is why many ran out of fuel.

The reason drivers run out of fuel, was because the fuel readouts were not that accurate at that time.

In the eighties, the fuel consumption was effectively limited by a fuel tank size limit. This limit was gradually decreased from 225 liters in 1984 to 150 liters in 1988 (for super- and turbocharged engines only). I failed to find any rule book from the eighties, apart from the one for the 1988 season. In that year, [a]ny storage of fuel on board of the car at a temperature more than ten centigrade below the ambient temperature [...] [and] [t]he use of any specific device (whether on-board or otherwise) to decrease the temperature of the fuel below the ambient temperature [were] forbidden.

Regardless the possibility and legality of cooling fuel to any temperature, one could not work around the fuel tank size limit. If this limit is not incredibly high, making it meaningless, it will cause a fuel ration.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

They put restrictors on the turbos to limit power then told them they only had so many litres of fuel to play with. They used to freeze the fuel so that they could get more into the tanks then cover the cars with foil on the grid to reduce any heat sink.

Didn't stop them racing flat out which is why many ran out of fuel.

The good old days of the early turbos.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Regardless the possibility and legality of cooling fuel to any temperature, one could not work around the fuel tank size limit. If this limit is not incredibly high, making it meaningless, it will cause a fuel ration.

As was discovered at a later date, the size of the fuel tank was meaningless as some teams had devised ways to secretly store fuel and other liquids. I don't think that in the history of motor racing that there has been a time when teams and engineers/mechanics haven't found ways to circumvent the rules.

Back in the sixties, even though I competed in series that allowed almost any type of modification, I am more than aware that fellow competitors were flouting those few rules that existed. it's just the nature of the beast.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As was discovered at a later date, the size of the fuel tank was meaningless as some teams had devised ways to secretly store fuel and other liquids.

As the regulations only allowed one fuel tank, I am very interested in what devices they used to circumvent the fuel tank size limit.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As was discovered at a later date, the size of the fuel tank was meaningless as some teams had devised ways to secretly store fuel and other liquids. I don't think that in the history of motor racing that there has been a time when teams and engineers/mechanics haven't found ways to circumvent the rules.

Back in the sixties, even though I competed in series that allowed almost any type of modification, I am more than aware that fellow competitors were flouting those few rules that existed. it's just the nature of the beast.

You're not thinking of Tyrrell and the water injection supply tanks that had lead shot in them, to ensure the car made the weight limit?

[djinvicta]

Were not there tanks inside the fuel tank, to ensure there was enough fuel for testing post race? Red Bull did this? Maybe I'm wrong...

[Adam43]

Are you thinking about BAR and their cheeky fuel tanks that led to a race ban?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/4514569.stm
It was more a weight limit thing to allow them to pump all the fuel out to check the weight, but it would leave some in the second tank. At points in the race, as refuelling was allowed, it could run under weight.