[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[wolfhound]

New proposal from the stratagy group to save costs. A meeting on Thursday will decide some of these?

2015
Tyre blaket ban
Fuel system simplification
Front wing simplification
Brack duct simplification
Increase in curfew
Bring gearbox life inline with engines
Ban interconnected front to rear suspension.

2016
Standard front impact structure
Standard rear impact structure
Standard steering rack
Standard final drive system

2017
FIA controled active suspension
Move to 18 inch wheels

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113705

Some of the above may not have any significant impact on costs and may initially increase them. The changes for 2017 would fall into this catagory.

How big a cost reduction will come from these? Depends on the detail and how many loopholes are there to be exploited.
I would question how much of a saving standard steering rack would have but they will dictate other things about front end layout.

Question to the Mods should we change the name of this thread?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Question to the Mods should we change the name of this thread?

What would you like? "New rules make F1 even more rubbish?", "F1 to become even less like the time I started watching when it was good?", "opportunity to repeat what you said last Thursday" or just simply "Worst thing ever?"



Seriously, what do think is better? "Future Rule Changes"?

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What would you like? "New rules make F1 even more rubbish?", "F1 to become even less like the time I started watching when it was good?", "opportunity to repeat what you said last Thursday" or just simply "Worst thing ever?"



Seriously, what do think is better? "Future Rule Changes"?

"Future Rule Changes" sounds good I just thought we needed to get rid of the year.

[Adam43]

I'm on it, sir

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What would you like? "New rules make F1 even more rubbish?", "F1 to become even less like the time I started watching when it was good?", "opportunity to repeat what you said last Thursday" or just simply "Worst thing ever?"

Originally Posted by Adam43

Seriously, what do think is better? "Future Rule Changes"?

To keep it semi-relevant what about, [Rules] 2014 Rule Changes and beyond..... ?

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I'm on it, sir

Thanking you

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What would you like? "F1 to become even less like the time I started watching when it was good?"

My vote.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

New proposal from the stratagy group to save costs. A meeting on Thursday will decide some of these?

2015
Tyre blaket ban
Fuel system simplification
Front wing simplification
Brack duct simplification
Increase in curfew
Bring gearbox life inline with engines
Ban interconnected front to rear suspension.

2016
Standard front impact structure
Standard rear impact structure
Standard steering rack
Standard final drive system

2017
FIA controled active suspension
Move to 18 inch wheels

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113705

Some of the above may not have any significant impact on costs and may initially increase them. The changes for 2017 would fall into this catagory.

How big a cost reduction will come from these? Depends on the detail and how many loopholes are there to be exploited.
I would question how much of a saving standard steering rack would have but they will dictate other things about front end layout.

Question to the Mods should we change the name of this thread?

And still all over the noise apparently:

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27898.html

"The first meeting to discuss potential solutions was in Shanghai, and Italy's Autosprint reports that more meetings are taking place away from the paddock this week."

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

And still all over the noise apparently:

Noise is that noise needed by Bernie to drown out the sounds coming from a German court?

[Pingguest]

Yesterday Marussia sporting director Graeme Lowdon said that a further standardization is necessary, because fans are turning their back to the series due to the lack of competition among teams. The lack of competition is the consequence of financial inequality among teams, he said.

I could not disagree more. The standardization, homologation and equalization of Formula 1 caused boredom and forced the series to introduce artificial gimmicks, such as the drag reduction system and deliberately ill-functioning tires. All purity and sporting spectacle has been eliminated. That, Mr Lowdon, is reason why people turn their back to Formula 1.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Yesterday Marussia sporting director Graeme Lowdon said that a further standardization is necessary, because fans are turning their back to the series due to the lack of competition among teams. The lack of competition is the consequence of financial inequality among teams, he said.

I could not disagree more. The standardization, homologation and equalization of Formula 1 caused boredom and forced the series to introduce artificial gimmicks, such as the drag reduction system and deliberately ill-functioning tires. All purity and sporting spectacle has been eliminated. That, Mr Lowdon, is reason why people turn their back to Formula 1.

Er, no it isn't.

There are many reasons, Lowdon's certainly seems to be one of the major ones. Cost to view (whether on TV or live) is going to be the biggest problem. And people won't be willing to spend if the race is a procession as some cars are clearly better than others (which is down to how much money you can spend). A spec series would equalise the cars and make the racing more interesting as it is in lower formulae.

That said, I don't think they should do that. I think they should have a budget cap, the cars will be different, but closer.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Er, no it isn't.

There are many reasons, Lowdon's certainly seems to be one of the major ones. Cost to view (whether on TV or live) is going to be the biggest problem. And people won't be willing to spend if the race is a procession as some cars are clearly better than others (which is down to how much money you can spend). A spec series would equalise the cars and make the racing more interesting as it is in lower formulae.

That said, I don't think they should do that. I think they should have a budget cap, the cars will be different, but closer.

Every time I watch a Formula 3 race, I find it rather boring most of the time. Having said that, speed differences are necessary to have any action at all. A further standardization contradicts this principle.

[wolfhound]

I have noticed that spec class racing tends to be close but overtaking without power boost etc can be limited. This is because all the cars tend to have the same speeds in the same parts of the track.

However where you have open chassis rules you can get a different result. One car could have better traction than another or better under braking higher top speed etc. In these situations there should be greater potential for overtaking assuming the cars are similar on pace over a lap.
I can give you an extreme example from historic racing a few years ago where there was a Sunbeam Tiger v's a Lotus Elan. You might say that these two cars should not be on the same lap but they actually were very closely matched when at a circuit where outright top speed was unimportant. I enjoyed many a battle between these two.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Every time I watch a Formula 3 race, I find it rather boring most of the time. Having said that, speed differences are necessary to have any action at all. A further standardization contradicts this principle.

Try a 750MC meeting. That have lots of spec'ish cars, and the racing is pretty funky.

But the question is - are F3 races better for worse than F1 races?

[S griffin]

The rules should improve racing which should mean we could get rid of DRS.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I could not disagree more. The standardization, homologation and equalization of Formula 1 caused boredom and forced the series to introduce artificial gimmicks, such as the drag reduction system and deliberately ill-functioning tires. All purity and sporting spectacle has been eliminated. That, Mr Lowdon, is reason why people turn their back to Formula 1.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by JamesH

That said, I don't think they should do that. I think they should have a budget cap, the cars will be different, but closer.

They keep trying to cure the symptoms, not the disease.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

However where you have open chassis rules you can get a different result. One car could have better traction than another or better under braking higher top speed etc. In these situations there should be greater potential for overtaking assuming the cars are similar on pace over a lap.

I can give you an extreme example from historic racing a few years ago where there was a Sunbeam Tiger v's a Lotus Elan. You might say that these two cars should not be on the same lap but they actually were very closely matched when at a circuit where outright top speed was unimportant. I enjoyed many a battle between these two.

For me, this was what made racing interesting, and we've lost that.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The rules should improve racing which should mean we could get rid of DRS.

I don't follow the logic. The more spec parts, the closer the performance will be (including likely having similar performance). So that likely results in much less passing if you don't have some type of "push to pass" capability. So I say this reinforces keeping DRS.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Yesterday Marussia sporting director Graeme Lowdon said that a further standardization is necessary, because fans are turning their back to the series due to the lack of competition among teams. The lack of competition is the consequence of financial inequality among teams, he said.

I could not disagree more. The standardization, homologation and equalization of Formula 1 caused boredom and forced the series to introduce artificial gimmicks, such as the drag reduction system and deliberately ill-functioning tires. All purity and sporting spectacle has been eliminated. That, Mr Lowdon, is reason why people turn their back to Formula 1.

Lowdon suggested more standardisation as a means to level the playing field because the Strategy group rejected a cost cap and said they would use the rules to bring about cost reductions. He's playing their game.
I agree with comments written that a spec F1 is not the way to go because it eliminates creativity and engineering excellence, and doesn't reward pioneering new ideas.
But all of those standardisation ideas, or what we have seen suggested so far will save less than $20 million across the whole field and what is needed is something to cap the spending of the most well funded teams who operate on a budget three to five times the backmarker teams. That whole spending ratio has only continued to get wider and wider over the last two decades.

The six teams that represent the teams on the strategy group will always push for freedom of use for any technology hence the push for active suspension etc. they know they will be able to exploit it to their advantage. That will never change unless you bring in a balancing factor to at least level the financial field.

At the ,moment the small teams get about 10-20 million and the very top teams $70-$100 million on the 'Concorde' payout. Make that more balanced and you would have an improvement in lower end competitiveness and reign in some of the more unnecessary spending at the top end. Create a cap (250 million?) but make it toward specific costs you can measure.
Then make them responsible for breaking it by significantly fining them and give the proceeds to the poorer teams...

They would moan like crazy but someone needs to be hard enough and tough enough to do it.

[Adam43]

Closeness of the cars, or rather a lack of is not a problem as described above. Hasn't been for years as the grid is very compressed in terms of lap times. Especially compared to the good old days! Currently there is a team further ahead than normal, but that will settle down. The team themselves have said that others will catch up as they have more potential.

[Pingguest]

Stricter rules lower the return on investments. As the return is fixed in Formula One, more investments are needed.

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I don't follow the logic. The more spec parts, the closer the performance will be (including likely having similar performance). So that likely results in much less passing if you don't have some type of "push to pass" capability. So I say this reinforces keeping DRS.

Richard

Yeah - you're probably right. There was a suggestion of replacing it with a "push to pass" like in IndyCar - but I don't think it'll be powerful enough - what with the "dirty air problem" in F1.

As for more standardisation - are they going to standardise the brakes? I suppose that could be a cost-cutting measure as well?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Quite an interesting article regarding rule changes and fan input.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113964

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Quite an interesting article regarding rule changes and fan input.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113964

That is a nice article in my opinion.

I think one think that would be interesting to know (and likely would take some market research to answer) would be exactly who is the "fan" that they are trying to please.

I can envision three basic types of fans...

1. Hardcore. They know the history, the specifications, etc. Likely most, but not all of us here on this forum might fit that category.
2. Average. They know the players, follow year to year, but some details just slip past them from season to season.
3. Casual. They watch or attend occasionally. Technical details may or may not be important to them.

I have no idea what the percentage breakdown might be. I suspect that #2 and #3 hugely outweigh #1.

Overlay the above with who is the most vocal and militant about how F1 is run day to day. I suspect it is mostly #1 that fits that category. If all of us in #1 was forced to have tape put on our mouths and our computer keyboards were taken away, I wonder what the state of F1 might be? Better, worse, or just different.

I suspect the "optimal" answer (especially from a commercial perspective) would likely not make the hardcore fans happy. However... count me as an aspiring hard core fan. I would like to see the sport "done right" (whatever that is) even if it means the entire show ends up being a bit smaller and less flashy than it is today.

Richard

[Tucky]

I would add in a fourth group of "non-fans". F1 has a reputation (rightly or wrongly) of being a "boring sport" where cars spend most of the time following each other around. Of course we don't think that, but a lot of people do and have told me so. Adding in things like tyres that degrade quickly, DRS, KERS to improve the spectacle with lots of overtaking may draw in people who don't watch F1 because they think it's just a parade (which it could sometimes be in the past).

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I can envision three basic types of fans...

1. Hardcore. They know the history, the specifications, etc. Likely most, but not all of us here on this forum might fit that category.
2. Average. They know the players, follow year to year, but some details just slip past them from season to season.
3. Casual. They watch or attend occasionally. Technical details may or may not be important to them.

I have no idea what the percentage breakdown might be. I suspect that #2 and #3 hugely outweigh #1.

Overlay the above with who is the most vocal and militant about how F1 is run day to day. I suspect it is mostly #1 that fits that category. If all of us in #1 was forced to have tape put on our mouths and our computer keyboards were taken away, I wonder what the state of F1 might be? Better, worse, or just different.


Richard

You seem to have left out a large part of the equation; who makes up the largest proportion of TV audiences, and what are they prepared to pay for that privilidge.

As my kids keep telling me, I am an odd breed, and I like to live my life by certain standards, one being that my word is my bond, etc. So, when Mr Ecclestone, who holds the rights to the TV broadcasts, gave an undertaking that live races (not recorded and/or just highlights) would always be made available on free terrestrial to audiences in the UK, I took him at his word.

I have followed Formula 1 for nigh on 50 years, have travelled around the world to watch it in the flesh, and until two and half years ago, I had watched every Grand Prix on TV that I hadn't actually been present at. So, I would class myself as a hardcore fan, but I haven't watched a single race for those 2 1/2 years, and to be honest, I haven't missed it. Yes, you could say that I cut my nose off to spite my face, but I wasn't prepared to pay a large chunk of my money to my cable TV provider so that I could watch a few hours of sometimes processional races, especially knowing that that chunk of money was ending up in the pocket of the F1 circus who shouldn't need my money.

Now, if I ,as a hardcore fan, am prepared to not bother to watch, how will those less enamoured with the "sport" react. I believe that I am right in saying that in the UK audience viewing figures have reduced since total free output was stopped (only about half the races are shown live for free, and it would not surprise me if even that stopped when the current contract ends), and this is the big cash-cow for the F1 circus. so if audiences keep shrinking, for whatever reason and artificial rules/regulations could be a major factor because the average man in the street can't understand or appreciate the reasoning behind them, then broadcasters will be less inclined to pay huge bucks to buy the rights to show the races.