[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by FIRE

They could race in the virtual world...

Probably more likely to happen. Imagine an off season virtual racing series! I know some of the younger drivers do it for fun and to promote their own brand.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I really like Monaco for the sporting side. The races aren't always the best due to it being difficult to overtake but as it is the most difficult circuit to drive on the F1 calendar, there is something mesmerising about watching the cars on a qualifying lap, absolutely at the limit, the drivers showcasing all of their skills. In terms of the races, although they can be rather processional, when you do get an overtake it is normally a great one that requires an incredible amount of skill, as long as the car ahead is trying to defend, and that is something worth watching as something different to every other F1 race. I wouldn't want 22 Monaco-like races but one a year is the right number, in my opinion.

Personally, I see 'sport' as being about the contest.
I can fully appreciate that performing well at Monaco in an F1 car requires a momentous level of skill. But I don't see the races as having a level of contest over position that makes it high on the sporting level.
Qualifying is high on sport, but for me the weekend is basically a time trial on Saturday rather than a race on Sunday.

Which brings me back to the concept of sport vs show. The F1 calendar is marketed (show business?) as a series of Grands Prix. With the winner on Sunday taking that weekend's prize. But if the results are pretty much determined on Saturday, does Sunday see any real contest for that prize?

If F1 was to really be seen as a sporting contest first, then venues have to be a track that permits a contested result on Sunday rather than be chosen because of what surrounds the circuit.

I'm still to be convinced about what makes the asphalt at Monaco worthy of hosting an F1 race, rather than an F1 event.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Personally, I see 'sport' as being about the contest.
I can fully appreciate that performing well at Monaco in an F1 car requires a momentous level of skill. But I don't see the races as having a level of contest over position that makes it high on the sporting level.
Qualifying is high on sport, but for me the weekend is basically a time trial on Saturday rather than a race on Sunday.

Which brings me back to the concept of sport vs show. The F1 calendar is marketed (show business?) as a series of Grands Prix. With the winner on Sunday taking that weekend's prize. But if the results are pretty much determined on Saturday, does Sunday see any real contest for that prize?

If F1 was to really be seen as a sporting contest first, then venues have to be a track that permits a contested result on Sunday rather than be chosen because of what surrounds the circuit.

I'm still to be convinced about what makes the asphalt at Monaco worthy of hosting an F1 race, rather than an F1 event.

But what is F1?
A driver contest or a technical one (design and engineering)?

The current technical regulations make a track like Monaco much more difficult to race on. If we had F1 regulations that were put in a manner that determined that the cars were much more able to be raced (still quick but not as quick) with overtaking much simpler and driver dependent then most of the aspects like the size of the cars and the aerodynamic influence could be dealt with but under the current rule making system that is highly unlikely'
Don't blame the tracks. Look at the regulations.

F1 is very much a technical contest.
Traditionally it was primarily a driver contest but the technical excellence aspect determines the result far more completely now than 20 or 30 or 50 years ago.
A contest that put all drivers on a more even basis would be a more obvious even balance but that would be more like the 67-79 DFV era or, perish the thought, more like Indycar....

[Casper]

I don't mind the sprint races but the biggest problem is the cars are too big and are not suitable to be raced in the aggressive manner suitable for stick it up the inside style sprint racing. Using a dedicated and smaller sprint car would also introduce a car suitable for Monaco but that is not going to happen because a separate sprint car is not going to happen. A sprint car would be a vastly more simple car that costs very little in comparison to the GP car and would remove the risk of costly damage to the GP car, no data needed, no buttons on the steering wheel, far less aero allowed, steel brakes and costs little to repair. Dreams are made of this sort of competition by the so called best drivers in the world.

[NaBUru38]

Here's my proposal for the FIA Super Licence.

Drivers who claim any of these feats earn the right to apply:

• Top 5 in FIA Formula 2 in the previous 3 seasons.
• Top 5 in FIA WEC Hypercars in the previous 3 seasons.

• Top 3 in FIA Formula E in the previous 2 seasons.
• Top 3 in IndyCar in the previous 2 seasons.
• Top 3 in Japanese Super Formula in the previous 2 seasons.
• Top 3 in FIA WEC LMP2 in the previous 2 seasons.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Here's my proposal for the FIA Super Licence.

Drivers who claim any of these feats earn the right to apply:

• Top 5 in FIA Formula 2 in the previous 3 seasons.
• Top 5 in FIA WEC Hypercars in the previous 3 seasons.

• Top 3 in FIA Formula E in the previous 2 seasons.
• Top 3 in IndyCar in the previous 2 seasons.
• Top 3 in Japanese Super Formula in the previous 2 seasons.
• Top 3 in FIA WEC LMP2 in the previous 2 seasons.

I appreciate you taking a swing at this. I tend to rant a bit about this, but don't have the time to create a fully fleshed proposal.

But I think in highly competitive series in which it is hard, I mean REALLY hard to break into the top three, that logic that focuses on top three is overly exclusive.

I mentioned in an earlier post to use whatever logic that is applied to Indycar to be used in reverse. Lets see who we might allow into Indycar based upon their F1 experience.

2020 + 2021 F1 top three...

* Lewis Hamilton
* Valtteri Bottas
* Max Verstappen

So clearly all of the other F1 drivers who have multiple championships, race wins, etc. are a bunch of unsafe, inexperienced idiots that can't be trusted to take the green flag.

In short, I think the super license needs to get back to the goal of weeding out "inexperienced drivers" and not excluding clearly experienced drivers. I am suggesting a bit more complexity to blend in other factors (such as race wins) beyond season standings, but I think it would achieve the "stated" goals of excluding those who are seriously inexperienced. It might not achieve the not so secret goals of prioritizing FIA series and punishing other (or competing) series such as Indycar.

Recent talk about Herta taking a step down to spend a time in a lower tier regional feeder series to game the system speaks to the ridiculousness of how the point system is structured. Not to mention that it allows complete yahoos like Roy Nissany to be on track in F1 practice sessions with F1 regulars when clearly he should not be doing so.

Richard

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I appreciate you taking a swing at this. I tend to rant a bit about this, but don't have the time to create a fully fleshed proposal.

But I think in highly competitive series in which it is hard, I mean REALLY hard to break into the top three, that logic that focuses on top three is overly exclusive.

I mentioned in an earlier post to use whatever logic that is applied to Indycar to be used in reverse. Lets see who we might allow into Indycar based upon their F1 experience.

2020 + 2021 F1 top three...

* Lewis Hamilton
* Valtteri Bottas
* Max Verstappen

So clearly all of the other F1 drivers who have multiple championships, race wins, etc. are a bunch of unsafe, inexperienced idiots that can't be trusted to take the green flag.

In short, I think the super license needs to get back to the goal of weeding out "inexperienced drivers" and not excluding clearly experienced drivers. I am suggesting a bit more complexity to blend in other factors (such as race wins) beyond season standings, but I think it would achieve the "stated" goals of excluding those who are seriously inexperienced. It might not achieve the not so secret goals of prioritizing FIA series and punishing other (or competing) series such as Indycar.

Recent talk about Herta taking a step down to spend a time in a lower tier regional feeder series to game the system speaks to the ridiculousness of how the point system is structured. Not to mention that it allows complete yahoos like Roy Nissany to be on track in F1 practice sessions with F1 regulars when clearly he should not be doing so.

Richard

Great post Richard, I found this to be a very worthwhile summary of the situation and where it meeds addressing.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

In short, I think the super license needs to get back to the goal of weeding out "inexperienced drivers" and not excluding clearly experienced drivers.

This (IMO) sums it up entirely.
Possibly switch out "inexperienced" for "unsafe" - but the central point remains.

I think the points system alone is not a comprehensive solution. It can be a way to determine suitability, but it shouldn't be the only way.

So I'll accept that anyone gaining the necessary points under the current system has demonstrated a suitability to compete in F1 - but there should be an alternative route. I'm not sure what this is, but I think it should be looked at.

[S griffin]

I think the Superlicence rules have worked in keeping out drivers who shouldn't be there. Of course results alone don't determine how good a driver is, so there is that side of the coin too. It's a tricky one to balance

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think the Superlicence rules have worked in keeping out drivers who shouldn't be there. Of course results alone don't determine how good a driver is, so there is that side of the coin too. It's a tricky one to balance

I'm not sure that has been the case?

F2 has ben a bit of a lottery since its inception in that no team or driver hss seemingly been able to dominate.
2018 was an anomaly in.that the best drivers in it all cane to the fore! Otherwise, I don't think there has been a season where the best talent or team has won out consistently.
Suits the FIA in that well backed drivers can get their SL for F1.

[S griffin]

I disagree. The champion may not always be the best driver, but they still have enough talent to earn the chance in F1. Let's face it the Leclercs and Russells are special breeds, so you're unlikely to find many more of those, but there are still plenty that are good enough for F1

[NaBUru38]

Inverted grids don't help the top drivers to stand out.

[S griffin]

Yes, I would get rid of the reverse grid. There's no need for it in feeder series

[chillibowl]

do budget and resource caps encourage races not to be start in wet and naturally riskier conditions?

and if it does, should there be extra funds, extra PUs, extra credits or whatever made available when wet races occur?

[Adam43]

I’m not keen on that, under the current situation.

For a team that operates under the budget cap a crash reduces their funds available for development. It should do so for a team who is at the budget cap too.

If all teams were at the cap then they could increase for all, assuming that all the teams would have those extra resources available.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

...assuming that all the teams would have those extra resources available.

indeed, by virtue of participating in a wet race, all would have access to any potential extra resources.

for sure there would be an unfair advantage for some depending on how well they have been managing their cap, but should that be balanced by the desire to see and the challenge of the occasional wet race start?

safety permitting of course.

[Adam43]

I don’t think the budget cap is a consideration in the race start decision. The safety concern has been the driver for many a year now.

BTW what I meant by “assuming the teams had the extra resources” was that they should only allow a breath of all teams can afford to spend more Han there cap.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I don’t think the budget cap is a consideration in the race start decision. The safety concern has been the driver for many a year now.

no doubt but the reduction of any risk on account of safety has the secondary benefit of keeping costs downs?

to be honest though, am more just thinking outload during the delay...watching the race and not sure all the drivers could even handle more wet weather anyways.

[chillibowl]

thinking more on better ways to handle the wet stuff..

why is there not more (well any actually) equipment to help dry off the track?

at what point do they start questioning going to Suzuka basically around typhoon season and acting completely befuddled when it ends up raining?

but seriously, extreme weather is only an increasing issue live events are going to have to contend with, so along with the SCs should FOM also be bringing in those NASCAR style track dryers at the least for at those races where the potential need is greatest?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thinking more on better ways to handle the wet stuff..

why is there not more (well any actually) equipment to help dry off the track?

at what point do they start questioning going to Suzuka basically around typhoon season and acting completely befuddled when it ends up raining?

but seriously, extreme weather is only an increasing issue live events are going to have to contend with, so along with the SCs should FOM also be bringing in those NASCAR style track dryers at the least for at those races where the potential need is greatest?

I know in the pits the teams aren't allowed to artificially dry their pitlane or pit box, but they are allow to clear standing water as that constitutes a safety issue.
I'd guess somewhere in the multitude of regulations, there is something to suggest that the surface can't be materially changed i.e. dried off artificially. But that the circuit can be brushed and cleared (from fluid spillages or debris) to return that section to the same condition as prior to the incident.

Suzuka and it's timing has always been a weird one for me as it does always seem to fall in the "wet season". I believe that other global series used to run within a few weeks of the F1 and they also had rain difficulties.
It would be interesting to know if the the hosting organisations for these events request this time of the year.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

I'd guess somewhere in the multitude of regulations, there is something to suggest that the surface can't be materially changed i.e. dried off artificially. But that the circuit can be brushed and cleared (from fluid spillages or debris) to return that section to the same condition as prior to the incident.

its F1 so it could very well be a weird rule or interpretation but surely that should be easy enough to change if it was the case.

its hard to justify doing nothing but watch the water dry when people are spending a lot of money and making serious effort to get to your event.

although i suppose its a moot point anyways...the inflexibility (and difficulty) in moving the live event window outside the 3 hour tv window means any delay, including drying the track, would only further reduce the number of laps they can fit in.

[VIVA GT]

Just one little thought about artificially drying the track. If this was to happen, but then someone went off because 'that' piece of track wasn't as dry as the rest of it, could that open up a can of worms as to who whoever it was who should take responsibility for that?

[Taxi645]

Personally I think the cars themselves being run behind the SC are quite an effective way to dry the track. Previously I suggested even starting doing that even before the race start time in certain scenario's. Yes some people tuning in late will miss some laps, but these are 10 boring laps behind the SC and 2) you would often loose those laps anyway at the end because you run out of time if you postpone or suspend the race.


The main problem with this might be that current F1 cars are just extremely expensive track driers. Maybe in the future with further reduced budget caps and simpler and cheaper engines the running cost per kilometre is much reduced, this would be less painful.


I'm not sure if the FIA will attempt many standing starts any more in these conditions. The rolling starts behind the safety car have proven to be much more successful/safe.

[Taxi645]

The GPDA proposing indeed something similar in the form of "information laps":

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...aces/10383905/

[Sodemo]

I guess its a tough one because in monsoon conditions you probably need a narrower width tyre to prevent aquaplaning, however as soon as the big standing water is gone, you then want the wider tyre for its increased contact patch.