[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bella

...but how would it affect strategies?

in the most amazing way ever!

imagine if teams could implement their own strategies based the unique characteristics of their cars applied to each unique track they visit!

actually thats too crazy...i take it back!

[wnut]

Ross Brawn shocked by response to engine proposal.

http://www.f1reader.com/news/brawn-s...roposal-185653

Is Ross naïve?
How would he expect the existing manufacturers to respond to rules that make it easier to attack their profitable oligopoly?

“The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering, but it is not a great racing engine.” Brawn

“ a little bit shocked a the response we’ve had” as Liberty’s proposal was heavily criticism by Mercedes and Renault with Ferrari even going as far as to threaten to quit the sport over it with some fearing it is a done deal. F1 Reader

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Ross Brawn shocked by response to engine proposal.

http://www.f1reader.com/news/brawn-s...roposal-185653

Is Ross naïve?
How would he expect the existing manufacturers to respond to rules that make it easier to attack their profitable oligopoly?

I suspect there is a healthy bit of feigned surprise in his response.

"Oh, my... you don't like our idea? Sorry to have upset you. What is your solution? Note, it still must meets the goals we outlined. We are all ears!"

Richard

[S griffin]

Sometimes needs must, and that's what I see Ross saying there

[Moneyseeker]

Well, as RB is now 'poacher turned gamekeeper', he knows how the game is played..

[wnut]

I had not seen this before, absolute engine and electronic parity, but would be very happy if it is a rule, no brainer really!

"The other is that for an independent team such as Red Bull is really encouraging is that they want to ensure as a customer you get absolute parity, not just on product but on electronics as well, so electrical settings will have to be homologated. So the FIA will have to say ‘like for like they’ll have to be the same as on a works car’." Christian Horner MS Magazine.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/op...ly-motor-sport

Great Rule!

[bella]

thinking aloud (and incredibly theoretically) about the big picture here, but i think f1's cost control ideas are dependant on there being a healthy set of alternative series that are equally restricted.

the problem with having series where a manufacturer with a lot of cash and relevant resources can go and start an arms race is just that - it only takes one manufacturer throwing money and r&d effort at it to set the bar for everyone else. see: audi in lmp1, mercedes in f1, renault/nissan in formula e. if the rules across the board, including rally, limit the ability of money and resources to make a difference then in theory you should see less of the 'eggs in one basket' approach, and more diversity. *in theory*.

equally you also want a range of rule sets to create a bit of diversity and allow manufacturers to choose according to their commercial and r&d priorities. i think that's an advantage of combining f1 and formula e as a strategy - formula e is full electric whereas f1 is about developing technologies to make the traditional petrol engine produce more power and in a roundabout way be more efficient.

ideally you want to present suppliers with similar opportunities. tyre technology, fuel technology, battery and energy storage... as much as f1 wants to stand alone and be what it is, in the interests of sustainability for the entire sport it needs to be a part of a coherant strategy by the fia and relevant bodies to serve the needs of manufacturers and suppliers rather than itself.

...next time in utopia

[F1Guy]

Ferrari in favour of the 3 engine rule for 2018.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...r-year-979708/

All other teams are willing to keep the engines at 4 per year for 2018. But not Ferrari.

[S griffin]

Well, this is going to get difficult now probably

[ASCII Man]

It's actually pretty easy, get rid of Ferrari.

[loon]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

It's actually pretty easy, get rid of Ferrari.

Or even easier, get rid of F1

[ASCII Man]

F1 is more than just Ferrari, quit being dramatic.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

F1 is more than just Ferrari, quit being dramatic.

I don't think there is anything being overdramatic here.
Both Ferrari and F1 have been a massive part of each other's history. So much so, that neither organisation knows how they would fare without each other.

Would F1 be willing to see Ferrari leave?
Can Ferrari stomach walking away into the unknown?
The people at the top of both don't want to be the one to force the issue and see their own fate suffer as a result.
At the moment, it would take a failure of either organisation to see them part. And it looks more likely that an alternative to F1 might emerge one day, unless F1 makes the right rule changes and becomes that alternative to what it is today.

[ASCII Man]

A manufacturer shouldn't be considered so important to F1, so much that said manufacturer uses/abuses this sense of self importance to keep bullying the sport into doing what it wants to do. I don't think its right to continue such an abusive relationship, and both should cut ties as soon as possible.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

A manufacturer shouldn't be considered so important to F1, so much that said manufacturer uses/abuses this sense of self importance to keep bullying the sport into doing what it wants to do. I don't think its right to continue such an abusive relationship, and both should cut ties as soon as possible.

I think manipulative might be more appropriate than abusive. Though having said that, have Ferrari actually benefited from any of this posturing? The last time a Ferrari driver won the WDC was 10 years ago and the last time they won the WCC was 9 years a go. Since then, despite having hired Alonso and now Vettel, they are still playing second fiddle.

Maybe Ferrari should be looking at themselves, rather than trying to manipulate F1 for their own ends because so far, it hasn't worked.

[loon]

Once upon a time Ferrari sold road cars to finance the racing team, but that was the past Ferrari no longer needs F1 to sell cars, maybe electric supercars to replace gt3 in the near future so how relevant is F1 to a non-sentimental
forward looking Ferrari.

[chillibowl]

on one hand, i am very curious to see how F1 could reinvent itself in a post Ferrari era.

on the other hand, if Ferrari leave and take the tifosi global audience with them, then i suspect my local broadcaster will end up canceling/not renewing their local broadcast rights due to a massive decline in audience numbers.

winning and losing at the same time...my life as an F1 fan!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by loon

Once upon a time Ferrari sold road cars to finance the racing team, but that was the past Ferrari no longer needs F1 to sell cars, maybe electric supercars to replace gt3 in the near future so how relevant is F1 to a non-sentimental
forward looking Ferrari.

If we take the possibility that Ferrari could walk away from F1 for any number of reasons, why is it logical to impoverish the sport in the mean time to try and keep Ferrari on board.
Make decisions for the good of the sport and all the entrants, Ferrari can decide whether to stay or go, making the rest of the entrants sponsor Ferrari and Mercedes is just plain wrong.
Keep your audience with good racing, and keep your entrants with fair revenue distribution, the sport will go from strength to strength with or without Ferrari.

[Taxi645]

Liberty could give the manufacturers a choice;

1 Either we keep the current engines, but:
– At much lower cost to the customer teams
– Engines are picked by the FIA from a random pool of engines
– Mapping must be equal
– Each manufacturers is forced to (be able to) supply all teams minus the numbers of other engine supplies (so currently that would be 7). Preference is based on last years championship standing. This is to avoid teams like Red Bull or McLaren to be stuck without a competitive engine.


2 Or, a rule set based upon what Liberty has suggested, enabling independent engine suppliers to successfully enter F1.


They can than choose which of the two they want, but it both case their stranglehold on the grid will be largely gone.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

2 Or, a rule set based upon what Liberty has suggested, enabling independent engine suppliers to successfully enter F1.

I would expand the last part just a bit. I think it also goes beyond independent suppliers. Other manufactures who might be interested watch the bloodbath from the sidelines. How secret sauce solutions rule and all who come face a long uphill climb to success (if they ever are able to climb to the top). Why would they want to spend a lot of money to potentially be the next Honda?

A less complex, less costly solution might being in other manufactures.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would expand the last part just a bit. I think it also goes beyond independent suppliers. Other manufactures who might be interested watch the bloodbath from the sidelines. How secret sauce solutions rule and all who come face a long uphill climb to success (if they ever are able to climb to the top). Why would they want to spend a lot of money to potentially be the next Honda?

A less complex, less costly solution might being in other manufactures.

Richard

You're quite right. A move away from the current engines could indeed attract more manufacturers.


I've thought about it a bit more and concluded that below would quite work well. Someone being stuck last year with a bad engine (like McLaren) would not have a way out of that situation in the below proposal.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

– Each manufacturers is forced to (be able to) supply all teams minus the numbers of other engine supplies (so currently that would be 7). Preference is based on last years championship standing. This is to avoid teams like Red Bull or McLaren to be stuck without a competitive engine.

So I would change it to:

– Each manufacturers is forced to (be able to) supply all teams minus the numbers of other engine supplies (so currently that would be 7). A team can pay more than the limit to get a better performing engine (which the manufacturer is obliged to supply), however everything above the much lower maximum engine fee won't go straight to the supplying manufacturer. Part of it would and part would go to either general revenue (and thus be distributed as usual) or directly be divided among teams or manufacturers.


Consequences:
- Manufactures can't keep good teams (Red Bull, McLaren from getting good engines)
- There is a lower limit to how much is feasible to spend on engine development
- Teams with weak financial health can get a cheap engine.
- If the money paid above the max engine cost is (partly) redistributed among manufacturers new manufacturers or ones lagging behind are persuaded to join/stay and be successful.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Seriously what's wrong with A being the hardest to G being the softest.

For any given weekend the tyre info graphic would be something like

[Skam85]

Well said.

Speaking of rule changes, as Lewis correctly pointed out - this is the last race weekend where the cars are aesthetically pleasing (for the time being).

I'm sure the designers and regs will eventually mould the cars back into being pleasant on the eye, but until then, one last weekend where we can see the driver's helmets unimpeded!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Seriously what's wrong with A being the hardest to G being the softest.

For any given weekend the tyre info graphic would be something like

Attachment 50734

I think part of this is down to what is perceived as the general public's view of what sounds quick.

Hard tyres sound boring. Soft sounds quick.
So having more than 50% of the tyres being 'quick' makes F1 cars faster.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Seriously what's wrong with A being the hardest to G being the softest.

For any given weekend the tyre info graphic would be something like

Attachment 50734

Does F1 really need all those tyre compounds? IndyCar uses two and the racing is better.