[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[BSchneiderFan]

Didn't an Offy win at some point in '78?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Didn't an Offy win at some point in '78?

It did. Trenton was the last race an Offy ever won, with Gordon Johncock driving a Wildcat. Known as the DGS, which stands for Drake-Goosen-Sparks. It was the last serious development of the Offy.

Now, I've totally gone off topic.

Anyway back to track limits. Any more developments?

[S griffin]

I agree with Toto, it's about time we got rid of asphalt run off in places where cars easily gain an advantage. It's becoming a joke when the big talking point is track limits

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I agree with Toto, it's about time we got rid of asphalt run off in places where cars easily gain an advantage. It's becoming a joke when the big talking point is track limits

but thats not entirely what he was saying though.

he starts off saying that the amount of asphalt run off areas are bad (and that is something im inclined to agree with) but his solution to the problem is that if they are going to be there then drivers should be allowed to use them...essentially abolishing the concept of track limits.

he speaks to the ideal of drivers being able to take the quickest line through a corner which on the surface makes sense but by also advocating the removal of track limits what he is talking about is also taking away the challenge of using the truest fastest line possible (a line which exists somewhere within the white lines).

with Spa coming up Eau Rouge seems to be a good example of this. traditionally one of the things that makes this section so amazing is that the drivers would strive to go flat out from La Source through Eau Rouge so you could carry that speed through the straight.

so taking the fastest line was optimal and a great challenge.

what we saw several years ago when Kimi (cant recal the year) used the asphalt area on the exit of La Source to pick up extra speed/traction and effectively gained an advantage which he was ultimately able to carry onto the straight.

at the time this was considered a great move by a driver who knew the track well but the true challenge was to take the fastest line within the track limits...yes you can go faster by going out of bounds but where is the challenge in doing that?

rather going out of bounds is, imo, anathema to racing.

its speed without the difficulty of going fast.

anyways hope that ramble made sense.

[BSchneiderFan]

It seems to me quite simple. The area beyond the track boundaries should be configured - whether it's grass, AstroTurf, gravel, whatever - so that you can't gain an advantage by going off.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

It seems to me quite simple. The area beyond the track boundaries should be configured - whether it's grass, AstroTurf, gravel, whatever - so that you can't gain an advantage by going off.

In my book, when you go off you should go out!

But then I come from a hill climb perspective where the scenery is bloomin hard!

You go off, you don't come back!

I believe this is the uncertainty F1 currently lacks, it is no longer the skill to keep it on the circuit, but the ability of superior machinery to win no matter how many mistakes you make and no matter how many times you fall off the circuit, hell its an advantage to fall off actually! Monty Pythonesque.

[VIVA GT]

I too think that track limits should be strongly enforced, as has been said above, the skill is in negotiating the turns as quickly as possible.
Put simply, if there are no track limits, then there is no skill required to straightline every series of S bends which is bound to be quicker than actually wiggle-woggling around the corners!

[chillibowl]

looks like FIA is giving further thought to a Force India's proposal to allow for the use of more CFD. im not sure exactly what their proposal is but it sounds like they are working on an equivalency of sorts between hours of wind tunnel usage vs teraflops required to conduct CFD modeling.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fi...oposal-807840/

no doubt this too is far too complicated for the FIA to work out but i think there may be some interesting ideas here above and beyond creating a better balance between tunnels and cfd teams.

maybe some sort of 'cap and trade' style exchange...rather additional revenue streams for the smaller teams who would not use either their allotment of wind tunnel hours or teraflops limits could sell their unused cap space on to the bigger teams.

[wnut]

Why is Haas hiring wind tunnels, they have a full scale tunnel.
Has its use been made illegal?!

[wnut]

This is rich from Herr Wolff:

http://www.racer.com/f1/item/133614-...hange-loophole

[old man]

Interesting comments in view of the debate on the Belgian GP thread.

A phrase involving stable doors comes to mind!!

[chillibowl]

also curious about how the engine change works...does it need to be installed and then taken out, do they have to run a lap with it, or do they just have to break a FIA seal.

also how many hours did their mechanics work over the weekend?

also how many hours did the engine factory work over the August break to prepare the new engines? does the Aug break apply to the independent engine facility or just the team factory?

perhaps no other rules were broken, but i am curious if any of these questions are being asked.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

also curious about how the engine change works...does it need to be installed and then taken out, do they have to run a lap with it, or do they just have to break a FIA seal.

I believe this is covered by 23.4 (f) of the sporting regulations of which the quote below is just part of it...

A power unit or any of the six components will be deemed to have been used once the car’s timing transponder has shown that it has left the pit lane.

In short, the item in question has to be installed and they have to drive the car out of the pit. I guess they don't even have to finish a lap, but in reality they likely run a few easy laps to ensure all is good and then park it. That is on the assumption they are cycling through multiple to "bank" power unit components.

Richard

[Richard C]

I had posted a potential solution to the problem of cycling through a number of power unit components in a single weekend for the purposes of "banking" a number of components that can be used in the future without penalty. But I think that post was swamped in the flood of race weekend talk. So I wanted to repost (and clarify) that idea here in the rules thread...

When I read the sporting regulations, it seems this topic is mostly encompassed in article 23.4. It speaks of how the power unit is comprised of six separate elements...

1. Internal combustion engine (ICE)
2. Motor generator unit-kinetic (MGU-K)
3. Motor generator unit-heat (MGU-H)
4. Energy store (ES)
5. Turbocharger (TC)
6. Control Electronics (CE)

Each driver gets an allocation of four of each. A complete power unit can be assembled from any combination of your allocation. You incur penalties when you use (see post directly above this one) something beyond the initial four.

The problem is that the penalty is effectively a one time deal and occur in the event in which the swap first happens. The penalties are grid positions so once you have been pushed to the rear of the grid there is no more ability to penalize. So you can continue to use new components and once you get past your initial penalty, it appears you can use those components freely in the future.

My solution would be two extra clauses be added to article 23.4. First, is that teams would have to maintain a list of when each component has been used (actually probably already a housekeeping chore by scrutineers at each event). This is different than FIA seals to prevent tampering. The second is that each time you replace any component with new one (after the initial four), that if you must surrender the most recently used previous component of the same time. To "surrender" the component means that it can never be used again regardless of its condition. By making it the most "recently used" component it prevents the banking scenario. So it would force teams to give up "good" components. They couldn't pick and choose and surrender working, but high mileage parts and keep the newer low mileage stuff.

So lets use the example of this weekend. I don't know how many complete power units Mercedes cycled through Hamilton's car over the entire weekend, but lets say they did one full unit that put them over the top. They would incur their grid penalties and lets say it puts them at the rear. If they tried to cycle another engine through to "bank" it, they would have to surrender usage of the one they just used previously. So short of having a new engine each session within a race weekend, there is no benefit of cycling multiple through in a weekend because at the most they can leave the event with one and only one new engine (plus penalties that would move you to the back of the grid).

The only potential downside is if you are able to create a dominant engine that just can't survive more than a single race. Lewis started at the back of the grid and finished 3rd. So we are not far off that mark. Imagine if Mercedes had a killer engine that somehow would propel a driver from the rear of the grid to the front each race, but it was done and needed to be replaced. There might need to be extra rules to deduct championship points or some other penalty to prevent that scenario.

I know the "more regulations is not good" brigade will not be happy, but it does move closer to the intent of the power unit limit rules. Thoughts?

Richard

[chillibowl]

thanks for the previous answer.

sensible steps to solve the problem, but i guess for me i look at it in a way where i think these are actually different problems for different teams.

for example, i am ok with Honda exceeding their allotments or pooling engines because they are attempting to catch up.

rather, the issue for me is only with Merc, who already have an PU advantage exploiting the rules in this way. and by exploiting i mean that Merc can because of their overall advantage make up the grid spots more easily/starting at the back is less of a disadvantage for them.

but its sport so there should only be one rule for everyone...so how do you create/implement a rule the burdens the Merc team for using more PUs while not discouraging development by Honda?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thanks for the previous answer.

sensible steps to solve the problem, but i guess for me i look at it in a way where i think these are actually different problems for different teams.

for example, i am ok with Honda exceeding their allotments or pooling engines because they are attempting to catch up.

rather, the issue for me is only with Merc, who already have an PU advantage exploiting the rules in this way. and by exploiting i mean that Merc can because of their overall advantage make up the grid spots more easily/starting at the back is less of a disadvantage for them.

but its sport so there should only be one rule for everyone...so how do you create/implement a rule the burdens the Merc team for using more PUs while not discouraging development by Honda?

I am a Honda fan and would like to see them succeed. However I would rather have a single rule for all even if life is hard for Honda.

But as has been discussed a great deal, while the four PU limit would not be ideal for Honda, the real problem for them has been the token system which is going away. If there were no token this year, you can imagine Honda making more substantial changes quicker (assuming they had the budget and knowledge to solve there problems!). They could roll out those changes throughout the year and within the four PU limit. Their biggest issue might just be reliability, but from a competitive perspective, I am OK with a new power unit provider having a rough time at first because there shouldn't be an expectation that they would be truly competitive out of the box. It would always be within the power of someone like Honda to create a fast and reliable solution.

My suggestion in the post above is just a patch for the current system. I can envision more tweaks that might alleviate some of the pain someone like Honda or Renault might feel. It will be really interesting to see what the PU situation looks like next year.

Richard

[chillibowl]

indeed the token systems was the limiting factor for Honda and with that system set to be gone for 2017 (i think?) it wont be an issue for much longer anyways....hopefully.

[wolfhound]

I saw a suggestion somewhere for a time penalty to be added for engine component changes. This could be applied at the pit stops. To me this seams a practical way to get round the problem as then a potential 30 place grid penalty will result in a proportional time penalty being applied.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Quickest way to make engines last, deduct manufacturers points at the grid drop rate. ... Sadly as the teams have a say in the rules , this will never happen.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Quickest way to make engines last, deduct manufacturers points at the grid drop rate. ... Sadly as the teams have a say in the rules , this will never happen.

Really like this idea.

[wnut]

Prompted by BJ's hope that the 2017 season is going to be better than the current season.

Who believes that the rule changes for the 2017 season will lead to better racing, and why?

Bigger tyres, bigger wings and an extra 5 litres of fuel to complete a GP.
Only relieved by the end of the token system.

I can only see a greater advantage for the big teams, a bigger spread between the haves and have nots on the grid and even more lift and coast during the race. ??

Hope please gentlemen.

[Sodemo]

Ive said it a thousand times, but more aero isnt the answer.

Aero done in the right way, COULD be ok, however they seemed to have abandoned the underbody ventiuri aero ideas (if I am not mistaken?).

If they want more grip in the corners allow them to develop unique suspension technology and stop banning things like the mass dampers and FRIC. I know the overall idea behind these technologies was to provide a more stable aero profile when cornering and going over bumps, however essentially they were suspension tech which was banned.

- Wider Tyres - Good
- Wider Cars - Good
- More *upper surface* aero - Bad

Another thing they need to do. Give the teams more durable tyres that don't leave a mass bed of marbles off the racing like after 10 laps. I mean, the FIA wants to promote safety at every opportunity? How did that one pass them by? Do they think its safe to have a sea of marbles off the racing line at less than a 1/4 race distance. Ridiculous.

[Taxi645]

I'm quite surprised there are not more positive reaction to Ross Brawn's interest to return in favour of the long term future of the sport. His methodical approach on the technical side is just what the technical rulebook needs.

That would be one very good news to me. Just need to be sure that it is in the right position, with the proper authority and the proper context.

- That means no more rabbits out of the hat from the commercial side of things regarding technical rules
- Changes to the composisiton and role of the strategy group, which is disfunctional at the moment.
- A methodical/scientific approach to how improve the racing (cars being able to follow each other in corners, tires that endure fights for position etc.).


As it should be the FIA that sets the technical rule, a role as FIA F1 director or F1 technical director would seem apropriate.

[S griffin]

I would love to see Ross doing more on the future of the sport too. Hopefully he can get cars to follow each other and we'd have no more need for DRS

[old man]

There are two pieces on the Autosport website that link with comments about Ross Brawn's role. One is the discussion of how Ferrari operates that has interesting quotes form his new book about the culture n Ferrari when he arrived and the way he dealt with it. Interesting both from a racing viewpoint and a management viewpoint. The technical side of the Ferrari success was, to my mind, more to do with Rory Byrne than Ross. I believe Brawn's value was in his management skills and rule interpretation / strategic thinking and that is what led to the success of the Brawn F1 car before Mercedes stepped in.

To get Brawn to apply his skills to the overall rule making and management of F1 would be a real step forward IMO

The other piece that I think links in to this situation and thread is the question of track limits and I do feel the difference in stewarding between the Lewis incident and the Max incident does require attention. We often say to new drivers, "keep it on the black stuff" and whilst we have to have a margin of error given the nature of our sport there is no doubt in my mind that Lewis deserved a penalty, as did Nico.

Draconian measures such as walls would be wrong, gravel traps have been out of favour I believe because they rob us of competitors in a race but we should have stewards decisions clearly based on what the limit of the track is. Some change of rule based on logic should follow, whether Ross is a man who could set down a rule we can only speculate but it does seem likely!

The overall technical rule management of F1 does need a man with a proven track record