The FIA meeting in Monaco/teams agree! (merged)

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by The Monster
No spare car is a bad bad bad idea. What happens when a driver smashes his car to bits in Saturday qualifying - does he sit out the race?

No, just stressed out mechanics...

[hamsmith]

Originally posted by Mr V
Once tobacco sponsership goes, expect to see the likes of Coca-Cola or Maccy D's at least, take an interest in F1 to see if it's viable for them.

Stolen post! Thats what I wrote previously in the Turkey thread. Could I sue for plagerism?

[shiny side up!]

Quoting others:
Brakes - I just hope they use steel brakes, not carbon - better for racing.
It may be true that carbon would lead to longer braking zones... and maybe more over taking... but from the safety aspect, I can't see them adding more weight to the wheel/hub/upright assemblies.

Why a weight reduction? Why not a weight increase? If they increased the weight by 100Kg, we would see more overtaking.
Again, safety concerns. The cars are already carrying too much ballast, and the thought of it breaking free in a crash and the inertia it would have is a scary thought for drivers, marshals, and spectators.

No spare car is a bad bad bad idea. What happens when a driver smashes his car to bits in Saturday qualifying - does he sit out the race?
They will still be allowed a spare tub, and unlimited spare parts... so if a driver wads up his car on Sat, the mechanics will have him a racecar... albeit an untested racecar... waiting on the grid Sunday afternoon. I still don't really understand this rule, however... if you are carrying all the parts to the track, anyway, where are the cost savings with not allowing the third car to be complete?

Ban on tyre changes, im unsure on this one. Would this mean that the tyre company would be forced to make hard compound tyres with reduced mechanical grip? If so its a bad idea.
Where did this come from? Mosely's release doesn't mention a ban on tyre changes... only that there is agreement to limit F1 to a single tyre supplier (a rule I despise...)

Slick tyres is great news. Now all they need to do is widen the cars back to the pre - 97 levels...
Spot on!

[ASCII Man]

Uhm, just a note..
Steel brakes lead to longer brake zones than carbon brakes, not the other way around.

[shiny side up!]

OOPS, that's what I meant! Replace 'carbon' with 'steel' in my post and it might actually make sense!

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by The Monster
No spare car is a bad bad bad idea. What happens when a driver smashes his car to bits in Saturday qualifying - does he sit out the race?

No.

There will be a spare monocoque on hand in a pre-packed box.

They'll just get that out.

[Sodemo]

Originally posted by shiny side up!
Quoting others:
Brakes - I just hope they use steel brakes, not carbon - better for racing.
It may be true that carbon would lead to longer braking zones... and maybe more over taking... but from the safety aspect, I can't see them adding more weight to the wheel/hub/upright assemblies.

Why a weight reduction? Why not a weight increase? If they increased the weight by 100Kg, we would see more overtaking.
Again, safety concerns. The cars are already carrying too much ballast, and the thought of it breaking free in a crash and the inertia it would have is a scary thought for drivers, marshals, and spectators.

No spare car is a bad bad bad idea. What happens when a driver smashes his car to bits in Saturday qualifying - does he sit out the race?
They will still be allowed a spare tub, and unlimited spare parts... so if a driver wads up his car on Sat, the mechanics will have him a racecar... albeit an untested racecar... waiting on the grid Sunday afternoon. I still don't really understand this rule, however... if you are carrying all the parts to the track, anyway, where are the cost savings with not allowing the third car to be complete?

Ban on tyre changes, im unsure on this one. Would this mean that the tyre company would be forced to make hard compound tyres with reduced mechanical grip? If so its a bad idea.
Where did this come from? Mosely's release doesn't mention a ban on tyre changes... only that there is agreement to limit F1 to a single tyre supplier (a rule I despise...)

Slick tyres is great news. Now all they need to do is widen the cars back to the pre - 97 levels...
Spot on!

OK, you make good points. Maybe they could reduce the weight and as a countermeasure use steel brakes due to the reduced inertia.:confused:

[RWC]

Unfortunately these changes won't improve f1 much

Most of the major factors and people that contibute to the current pathetic state of the 'sport' will still be there

[gttouring]

if they open up the Engine options and a single tyre and no In race tyre changes like i have been saying for years this can be quite a show...

[Teretonga]

A lot of these ideas reflect what some people have been saying on this forum for years. Maybe someone has listened after all...
Getting rid of tyre stops is an interesting one. Getting rid of fuel stops would be even better. having to set and adjust the car as it gets lighter over the full race distance used to make for some very interesting races.

[300kph]

Wow....that's a lot of changes...'hope they don't change the round wheels to square ones...

I think these changes will improve the present situation...it would be good to see it implemented sooner rather than later..

[mark_l]

I dont think there is anything to worry about in the new regulations, they will get watered down to be absolutely meaningless before 2007

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by hamsmith
Stolen post! Thats what I wrote previously in the Turkey thread. Could I sue for plagerism?

Possibly but you'd have to make sure you spell it properly.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by hamsmith
Stolen post! Thats what I wrote previously in the Turkey thread. Could I sue for plagerism?

Sue away, although you do have to prove that i stole it

Either that, or 2 great minds and all that

[BootsOntheSide]

I'm pretty pleased with most of this. The slick tyres should never have been dropped in the first place, and less powerful engines and brakes coupled with less emchanical grip should improve the racing. Plus, it'll be cheaper to run a team, so we could get mroe non-works teams entering.

Getting rid of tyre changes should be a good thing, and the fact that fuel stops will remain could be interesting - we may get a car running ahead of a lighter car that has worn its tyres out by chasing down the guy ahead.

I'd like to see someone new or returning as the tyre supplier - ideally someone who will provide the tyres cheaply, not have more than 3 or 4 different compounds, and will ensure that the tyres are not over-powerful. The thing is, will there be 'restraint of trade' repurcussions from it?

[Dick Spanner]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
I'm pretty pleased with most of this. The slick tyres should never have been dropped in the first place, and less powerful engines and brakes coupled with less emchanical grip should improve the racing. Plus, it'll be cheaper to run a team, so we could get mroe non-works teams entering.

Getting rid of tyre changes should be a good thing, and the fact that fuel stops will remain could be interesting - we may get a car running ahead of a lighter car that has worn its tyres out by chasing down the guy ahead.

I'd like to see someone new or returning as the tyre supplier - ideally someone who will provide the tyres cheaply, not have more than 3 or 4 different compounds, and will ensure that the tyres are not over-powerful. The thing is, will there be 'restraint of trade' repurcussions from it?

I'm in 2 minds regarding tyre changes, on the one hand we want races decided out on the track but on the other, how many times has a botched tyre change livened up an otherwise dull race? On balance as you say Boots if refuelling is retained I there is still the possibility of the odd surprise either through strategy or mishap.

I'm sure the restraint of trade thing could be bypassed by only contracting a supplier for 2 years at a time.

[Super Tourer]

Originally posted by mark_l
I dont think there is anything to worry about in the new regulations, they will get watered down to be absolutely meaningless before 2007

For once, this time I don't think that will happen for the following reasons.

In 2008 the FIA is no longer bound by the concorde agreement as it has expired, so it can set the rules without agreement amongst the teams anyway.

The GPWC is not going to happen, so the only 'F1 type series' will be F1. Personally, from the moment it was mentioned I doubted it would get off the ground as the notion of 4 or 5 fierce competitors 'buddying up' around the table to form a new series and AGREE a set of rules is non-sensical. That's aside from the (rarely mentioned you will notice)point about contracts with circuits and TV companies, to my mind the GPWC were always cutting up the cake before it was made.

If they can remain in agreement, the car makers can compete in F1 and get the same publicity and kudos for half the money or less - sounds a good deal to me. Of course without having regulation imposed this would never happen, BMW aren't going to cut back on testing or engine development without Ferrari and Mercedes, etc, doing the same - hence that year on year costs keep rising. If the same spending increases we have seen this year are maintained unchecked, the top teams would have to spend $600M a year in 2007.


F1 is nearing the end of a cycle:

In 2007 the concorde agreement ends

By 2006 the main source of F1 sponsorship, tobacco is supposed, or will (depending on who you listen too), end.

As Max Mosley pointed out F1 is largely headed by an ageing population, with many key figures either past, at, or approaching retirement age. This will inevitably change the face of F1 and it's future direction.

Many F1 teams are over reliant on two 'uncertain' forms of reveneue - tobacco which will be banned from F1, and car makers who can withdraw to suit themselves. Some teams have all their eggs in that combined basket. Unlike previous era's, its unlikely that some teams could now survive a car maker pull out, as it would see more than 50% of their entire revenue removed at a stroke. In the case of BAR they are almost entirely reliant on both forms of support.

These are all factors that contribute to a reality check reaching F1, they may be 'false smiles' we see from team bosses striking an unlikely union over the future, no doubt we will see some dissent as individual's digest the rules and decide they don't like it as much as they thought - we've heard positive noises before that have turned to nothing - but this time I think we will see a lot of the changes implemented.

[Glen]

A few random thoughts from me:

Any big change in the technical regs, especially if allied to severe restrictions on testing, opens up the chance for other teams to leap up the grid. The predictable quality of modern F1 racing is due to extreme consistency of performance - as I've said many times before, the science is so good there just aren't any little areas to exploit from race to race and make back the difference (like there always used to be). So - good, make some big changes.

Going to 2.4 litre, together with knocking out some of the more extreme technology, will give us about 700bhp - that is a figure that was even comparitavely recently thought to be the thoretical maximum from 3 litres, and it is plenty in a 550kg car/driver package. I doubt the TV viewer would even see the difference.

A spec tyre is interesting - ideologically it is difficult, but life is like that.

Increasing drag is a good idea - slipstreaming doesn't work without it.

I can't see much in there not to like - I am against completely dumbing-down F1, but I am also convinced that the top teams will still find exciting ways to exploit technology and imaginative design to keep F1 the fastest and most exciting formula.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Glen
A few random thoughts from me:

Any big change in the technical regs, especially if allied to severe restrictions on testing, opens up the chance for other teams to leap up the grid.

I sure hope your right about that Glen, and that the opposite doesn't happen, the leading teams gap to the smaller teams doesn't increase.

[Glen]

That could happen too, Mr V - but this way there is a chance for a change, whereas if things stay static nothing will shake the status quo.

[golem]

Well, Minardi will be running the same spec brakes, steering, ECU and so forth as Ferrari for example. The margin for error will be a little lower.

I'm mostly impressed. This bodes well because it means they've realised there's a desperate need for change.

[Robin Plummer]

Some good some bad.

Good - new rules suggested re tyres, semi auto box, get rid of testing teams, no full spare car only monocoque
Bad - Standard ECU, longlife (6 race) 3.0 engines

This is what I would have if I were the FIA
My rules go back to 1986 with some modern changes.

1. Ban traction control
2. Ban Refulling
3. Have 195 litre fuel tanks
4. Car Weight 540kg without driver
5. Ban testing at any track that is on current callender, and no test driver, main drivers do limited testing 6 tests per year.
6. Go with 2.4 V8 engines but with turbos 2.5 bar limit via pop off valve (1988 rule). Rev limiter set at 9,500rpm. Great power 700-800bhp but with long life way better than atmo. Ban air valves, must use springs.
7. Got to slicks with larger rears that stick out and smaller slick front's. Less aerodynamic aids only a front and rear wing only (no winglets anywhere).
8. Boost Button to assist overtaking.

What do you think?. It worked in 1983-1987!

[Adam43]

Robin, I merged it because I thought that ut was to do with the current thread, but did you mean for it to be more of a 1986 discussion than a 2006 discussion?

[Robin Plummer]

No thanks for that I mean it to be a 2006 one

[Schummy]

I like most of 2006 new rules, but I don't like the weight reduction thing.

- It partially defeats the purpose of power reduction in terms of acceleration.
- It makes a faster cornering speed, thus needing further strange ruling over tyres.
- It increase braking deceleration, defeating the purpose of steel disc, and difficulting overtakes (in pure Max tradition).
- Max's words implies the thought of less weight = more safety. Very obviously, a human body travelling at about 200 mph is more unsafe if it goes without enough protection. What is needed is further ruling about ballast and weight distribution.
- (A very personal opinion) F1 cars are going to become more "kartish". I hate it. I *want* to see car racing not kart racing. I dislike how F1 is more and more unrelated to those things we used to call "cars".

Futhermore, I had preferred they had explicitly spoken about aero reduction. I'm one of those rare persons who thinks aero eficiency and downforce is the main evil to racing. All racing format I love are without significant aero (MotoGP, rallying, touring cars,...)

My fav formula, following Damon Hill and others: get rid of downforce, put big tyres (possibly non-radial) to regain some grip (it has a second hit: it reduces aero efficiency).