Playing with the weight

[Pingguest]

At the beginning of the 2005 season the FIA introduced new tyre and engine regulations. We all know that the regulations were introduced for various reasons, but the FIA's statement was that the new rules were needed for safety concerns.

The new rules, especially for the tires, are still controversial. According to some opponents, including me, the new tyre rules have made the sport unnecessarily dangerous. There was even more controversy after the European Grand Prix, where Kimi Raikkonen crashed out because of his tyre problems.

In my opinion the FIA made mistake at the beginning of this year. I think the FIA should have chosen for other, more sensible measures to slow down the cars. I think it would have been more sensible to ‘play’ with the weight of the cars.

The FIA could have done this by banning refueling during the race and increasing the minimum weight. Just calculate with me. A ban on refueling means that the drivers will have to carry all the fuel they need for the race. Drivers will start with 200 liter fuel onboard. If we assume that one liter fuel weights about 800 grams, then 200 liter fuel will weight 160 kg. If the FIA would increase the minimum weight too with, let's say 100 kg, all cars will have a weight of almost 860 kg at the start of the race. That's an increase of almost 260 kilograms. Assuming that 4 kg extra will slow down the cars with 0.1 sec, 260 kilogram extra will slow down the cars with 6.4 seconds!

I think this would have been better for the racing. An increase of the minimum weight and a ban of refueling would have affected the tires and engines as well. Driver would have to take care of tires, and engine manufactures would look more after to the fuel consumption.

What do you think about it?

[Glen]

You're suggesting adding 20% to the weight of the cars, which is 20% more energy (or is the relationship exponential, meaning even more?) in a crash - with a shed-load of fuel on board. For this reason the FIA have mooted the idea of reducing the weight limit, so the cars would carry little or no ballast (hence reducing cost and complexity) and carry less kinetic energy into a crash.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

You're suggesting adding 20% to the weight of the cars, which is 20% more energy (or is the relationship exponential, meaning even more?) in a crash - with a shed-load of fuel on board. For this reason the FIA have mooted the idea of reducing the weight limit, so the cars would carry little or no ballast (hence reducing cost and complexity) and carry less kinetic energy into a crash.

Of course, the kinetic energy will increase. But on the other hand, cars will be slow downed by 6,4 seconds.

[Glen]

Car performance in acceleration and braking would be affected far more than corner speeds.

Plus, the last time we had no refuelling the racing could be extremely dull, with long periods of fuel-saving.

[T0MAT01]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Of course, the kinetic energy will increase. But on the other hand, cars will be slow downed by 6,4 seconds.

Only at the beginning of the race...

[jb59892]

I think adding more weight is a good idea, but as glen pointed out it would make a crah more dangerous for every one.

I personally think that the aero packages should be limited to give the equivelent downforce the cars had in the late 80's and early 90's, with mechanical grip increased with similar tyre sizes (and slick) as of the same time period. This would, I think, improve the racing and provide more overtaking.

I also think a rule on the minimum MPG the teams get from their engines could be intoduced. This would help limit engine power and help reduce the need for exotic materials to make the engines stronger.

However, all of this would introduce restrictions. Can F1 really be the pinnicle of motor sport with so many restrictions limiting what the teams can and can't do?

[Adam43]

IMHO the safety situation between no tyre changes and tyre changes makes no significant difference to the risk. Neither is below an acceptable level of safety.

In a similar way the safety situation between no refuelling and refuelling makes no significant difference to the risk. Neither is below an acceptable level of safety.

Both change the level of risk (including the actual act of refuelling), but all situations are acceptable. Just because something is more risky than something else doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Unless risk gets completely out of control we should consider more what is in the spirit of GP racing.

[Glen]

I think piling up the minimum weight limit and making the cars big and fat is more of a threat to the "pinnacle of motorsport claim" than sensible cost reducing legislation is. We're still talking about teams spending $300,000,000 per year just to race two cars, even with these restrictions.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

Car performance in acceleration and braking would be affected far more than corner speeds.

The overall performances of the cars would be affected. It's always more difficult to change direction of something heavy, than something light.

Plus, the last time we had no refuelling the racing could be extremely dull, with long periods of fuel-saving.

Could be. Now we have dull racing too, because of the long periods of tyre-saving.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

I think piling up the minimum weight limit and making the cars big and fat is more of a threat to the "pinnacle of motorsport claim" than sensible cost reducing legislation is. We're still talking about teams spending $300,000,000 per year just to race two cars, even with these restrictions.

Introducing regulations which limits the usage of engines and tyres have nothing to do with sense.

In the current Formula 1 it is possible that the pole-sitter will have to start from 11th position, after he blew up his engine on Friday. In the current Formula 1-drivers have less tires available than Formula Ford-drivers. Does that make sense? In the current Formula 1 the starting grid is ordened to the race pace, resulting in a lack of battles on the track. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

What do you think about it?

That's how you ended your original post. If you are so entrenched in your preconceptions and unwilling to accomodate ideas other than your own, I can't understand why you bothered to invite opinion - or did you just want loads of folk to agree with you?

I happen to think that the latest qualifying rules have improved the spectacle, and the science/art of "pure" qualifying was becoming increasingly irrelevant because of the specialist approach taken to it that I described earlier. I will accept that the engine penalties can be harsh, but you need to take harsh steps to force these teams to take you seriously. If the penalties weren't harsh they would just routinely build marginal engines and change them witout penalty - so what do you propose to prevent that?

[Glen]

Oh - I'll explain the sense of single set of tyres if you like also: One set means harder tyres, means less rubber down, means far fewer marbles, means more lines are viable, means longer braking distances, means driver skill is accentuated and invloves mechanical sympathy, means the end of the race is never certain, means all sorts of good things. Tyre failures were happening before anyhow, plus it remains the responsibility of the teams to ensure driver safety. The elements which you consider unsafe are actually attributable to the tyre war rather than the single set per race rule. A spec tyre would be better for safety.

[BootsOntheSide]

In NASCAR and the Indy 500 qualifying a time is only credited if you start the race with exactly the same car as before (other than fresh tyres and fuel) - changing puts you at the back fo the grid. And I'd say that the one-tyre rule has spiced things up this seaosn, with drivers running at different paces at different stages of the race. Heidfeld and Webber on Alonso at Monaco, and Fisichella on Michael at Hockenheim, were all a direct result of this rule. It's not as if the last few seasons up to 2002 were packed with overtaking.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

In NASCAR and the Indy 500 qualifying a time is only credited if you start the race with exactly the same car as before (other than fresh tyres and fuel) - changing puts you at the back fo the grid. And I'd say that the one-tyre rule has spiced things up this seaosn, with drivers running at different paces at different stages of the race. Heidfeld and Webber on Alonso at Monaco, and Fisichella on Michael at Hockenheim, were all a direct result of this rule. It's not as if the last few seasons up to 2002 were packed with overtaking.

A ban on refueling would have the same result, but it would be safer.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

A ban on refueling would have the same result

How?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

Oh - I'll explain the sense of single set of tyres if you like also: One set means harder tyres, means less rubber down, means far fewer marbles, means more lines are viable, means longer braking distances, means driver skill is accentuated and invloves mechanical sympathy, means the end of the race is never certain, means all sorts of good things. Tyre failures were happening before anyhow, plus it remains the responsibility of the teams to ensure driver safety. The elements which you consider unsafe are actually attributable to the tyre war rather than the single set per race rule. A spec tyre would be better for safety.

With a spec tyre, drivers can still lock up their tires and pay the price later with crash or spin if their tyre or suspension can't last the vibration anymore. I agree that the one tyre rule has its advantages, but there are more ways to accomplish the same.

[Glen]

You're not making much sense, pingu - if you have a damaged tyre you are allowed to change it you know.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

How?

A ban on refueling would make drivers to take care of their tires and fuel consumption. Before refueling was re-allowed, it happened a couple of times per season that a driver had to slow down because of his fuel consumption, while an other driver tried to overtake him.

Before 1994, some drivers managed to do a whole race without a tyre change. But at the end, their tires were really worn. This resulted in nice fights.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

You're not making much sense, pingu - if you have a damaged tyre you are allowed to change it you know.

But because the one tyre rule, you will lose too much. If a driver locks up his tires in the first lap, he will think twice to replace it. Before the one tyre rule, he just had to wait for his pitstop.

[Glen]

In consecutive posts you have 1) supported the idea that it is good if a driver is forced to look after his tyres, and 2) argued against the driver's performance penalty if he locks his tyres.

Other than "refuelling=bad, FIA=bad, single set of tyres=bad - and don't ask me why because it confuses me" what are you trying to say?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

In consecutive posts you have 1) supported the idea that it is good if a driver is forced to look after his tyres, and 2) argued against the driver's performance penalty if he locks his tyres.

Other than "refuelling=bad, FIA=bad, single set of tyres=bad - and don't ask me why because it confuses me" what are you trying to say?

That we have a fundamental disagreement.

I agree that new regulations are needed to improve the show and reduce the costs. I have spoken out my vision, and gave arguments for that. Do with it whatever you want.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

That we have a fundamental disagreement.

I agree that new regulations are needed to improve the show and reduce the costs.

So you agree with yourself?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Don K

So you agree with yourself?

Yep. I agree with Max Mosley that the costs should be reduced. But I disagree with his vision. I would like see the Formula 1 continue as a high-tech championship.

[BootsOntheSide]

You juar haven't given very balanced arguments to back up your vision of Formula 1 pingguest. Why does it cease to be high-technology when tyres can be changed regularly? How are specialised one-lap cars and engines any more representative of outright pace than race fuel qualifying? How would bannign refuelling and reintroducing tyre changes increase excitement? Do you think Max didn't consider the idea before introucing the one-tyre rule?