[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/19...montjuich_park
http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/19...ck/silverstone
1 & 2 close, then not so:
http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/19...k/watkins_glen
http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/1970/track/jarama

It wasn't unusual for the track to be quiet between cars at the finish line.

I agree that it is unlikely that under fairly open technical rules, one team would consistently win by a wide margin, but it is a concern of some here that it could happen, and I think it would make good sense to have a system to ensure everybody else didn't pack-up and go home. Maybe the ballast would be based on winning margin, and then the winner would try to make it appear closer than it was, to reduce their ballast penalty, and the fans would like that better.

As I understand it, you propose to make the series entirely artificial. It reminds me to the pre-qualifying for the 2004 British Grand Prix, when drivers decided to deliberately spin or driver slowely so as to prevent to be the fastest and therefore having to qualifying in the rain. The above would make the series entirely artificial and totally incredible.

I do not agree with the historical records as a justificiation for success ballast either, as no causal relationship between open rules and domination is proven.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Bernie says the rules need to be looked at to improve the popularity of F1. The rules are not the problem. Its the lack of F1 visibility in new/digital media is a much bigger issue. The others are F1 going behind paywalls on TV and the shear cost of attending a GP. There does not appear to be any real cental marketing of F1 as well.
These can all be placed at Bernie's door rather than the FIA.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28616.html

Agree with everything besides the pay wall. A pay wall of some sort is required for mobile devices all be it lower price points are clearly needed.

From the link, also fail to see how rehiring another corrupt dinosaur helps.

[Paradise City]

I'd stop watching if they introduced success ballast. That eliminates the racing in order to stack the odds that there's a dramatic championship.

That doesn't interest me. For me, championship is just a complimentary to good racing and punishing people for winning isn't good racing.

[chillibowl]

What effect would a success ballast have on the way that car uses it's tires? Wouldn't this be like a double penalty for the winning team?

As crazy as it sounds but doing away with quali and just have reverse grids based on the finishing order of the previous race makes more sense by comparison....which has probably been Flav's plan all along.muhaha!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I do not agree with the historical records as a justificiation for success ballast either, as no causal relationship between open rules and domination is proven.

We're on the same page there.

Some here think open rules would lead to one team completely dominating, winning by a lap, or more than a lap, fans and opposing teams would both leave, and F1 would cease to exist.

If open technical rules would indeed have that result, I would say success ballast would be the best mechanism to combat it. Not as decreed by whim of Bernie or whoever, but written into the rules from the beginning, so everybody knows what the deal is going into it.

I share your skepticism that any team would so completely dominate.

[wolfhound]

Standing restarts gone next year. Yipeeeeee.

Now how about getting rid of double points?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28622.html

[JeremySmith]

They are such a bunch of nancy's ...

[wolfhound]

Mexico might be a double points final next year according to the president of the Mexican FIA vice president.

Why do we have to have this double points madness it is a stupid mad idea.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28623.html

[wolfhound]

I would not normally agree with what is said on pitpass but on this occasion that are commenting on Bernie's ideas on rule changes and I agree with them 100%.

http://www.pitpass.com/52210/What-was-that-Bernie

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I share your skepticism that any team would so completely dominate.

Despite what Mercedes have done with only the location of the turbo to work with?

No good would come of completely open regulations.

At the end of the day F1 is a sport and a sporting contest is what people wish to see, the technicalities are only an interesting distraction; Casey Stoner on the Ducati, now that was genius on something different.

Most of the F1 technical regs and certainly the tweeks are secret and unavailable to anyone except the team running them, so how can they be relevant to the sport?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Despite what Mercedes have done with only the location of the turbo to work with?

No good would come of completely open regulations.

At the end of the day F1 is a sport and a sporting contest is what people wish to see, the technicalities are only an interesting distraction; Casey Stoner on the Ducati, now that was genius on something different.

Most of the F1 technical regs and certainly the tweeks are secret and unavailable to anyone except the team running them, so how can they be relevant to the sport?

We HAD (comparatively) open regulations. In the 1960's they regulated engine displacement. Now, you could regulate fuel consumption because now we have the technology to. Those are really quite similar. Back then they regulated minimum weight to try to keep Colin Chapman from making the car out of tissue paper, now we have crash testing.

But now, here:
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...14-01-23_0.pdf
we have a whole raft of rules that didn't exist in the 1960's and 1970's. But back then, as Pingguest has pointed out, we didn't have utter domination by one team. Now, they decide to leave one area open, and different teams take different approaches and one approach ends up being better, allowing domination. There is thinking that nowdays, with computer analysis, if you open the rules wide up, everybody still produces the same car, yet we keep getting these examples where one little area is left open or ambiguous, and one team differentiates themselves from the others even though, supposedly, they were all working on the same design problem.

If you open most areas to innovation, that grows exponentially, nobody can simulate themselves to victory, and more importantly, every team has their own strengths and weaknesses, they exploit their strengths, and you end up with a lot of cars that have different performance envelopes and real racing returns.

Oh, and because the predictable ROI for additional investment goes away, the Ferrari BOD doesn't approve such large budgets and spending actually goes down.

A LOT of good would come of more (I would never say completely) open regulations.

[Pingguest]

Maitanut, previously you said a fuel consumption limit in stead of fuel-flow limit would allow more technical freedom. Could you elaborate that?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Maitanut, previously you said a fuel consumption limit in stead of fuel-flow limit would allow more technical freedom. Could you elaborate that?

I am completely indifferent on that subject. We have fuel flow meters now, and there is no reason it couldn't stay that way. It would prevent the complaints about "economy runs." To me, they both accomplish the same thing. If the cars get too fast for safety, you can cut back their fuel. With a flow limit, as you pointed out, there would be more control over top speed, although depending on how a team wanted to use energy stored from regenerative braking or other energy recovery strategies, it may not be effective that way.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I am completely indifferent on that subject. We have fuel flow meters now, and there is no reason it couldn't stay that way. It would prevent the complaints about "economy runs." To me, they both accomplish the same thing. If the cars get too fast for safety, you can cut back their fuel. With a flow limit, as you pointed out, there would be more control over top speed, although depending on how a team wanted to use energy stored from regenerative braking or other energy recovery strategies, it may not be effective that way.

As soon as you cut back on fuel and therefore power all your aerodynamic parameters and assumptions change!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

As soon as you cut back on fuel and therefore power all your aerodynamic parameters and assumptions change!

Yes!

And based on ACO's challenges predicting diesel performance a year out, it's possible they would need to change it during a season. Because the engineers were more clever than expected so the cars were too fast, or maybe because the cars didn't turn out as fast as anticipated and the fans are complaining about lap times.

Changes between years would be healthy. It sort of shakes up the box and increases the chance a different team would be the best the following year. Changes during the season could be disruptive.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Standing restarts gone next year. Yipeeeeee.

Now how about getting rid of double points?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28622.html

How about getting rid of DRS as well?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

How about getting rid of DRS as well?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

How about getting rid of DRS as well?

No matter how you look at it BJ, DRS has improved F1.

The races were just finish in qualifying order parades.
Two words Alonso, Petrov.

Get rid of the aero and you can get rid of the DRS, until then it would be a bad mistake to dump DRS. It has made the racing much much better, the races were just parades prior to the introduction of DRS.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

No matter how you look at it BJ, DRS has improved F1.

The races were just finish in qualifying order parades.
Two words Alonso, Petrov.

Get rid of the aero and you can get rid of the DRS, until then it would be a bad mistake to dump DRS. It has made the racing much much better, the races were just parades prior to the introduction of DRS.

I don't think it's improved it at all wnut, it's so artificial. The thing I liked about the Hungarian GP and this is something other posters have commented on, was the shortened DRS zones and it made for a good race.

Anywy, I thought moveable aerodynamic devices were banned in F1, so why is DRS allowed?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Anywy, I thought moveable aerodynamic devices were banned in F1, so why is DRS allowed?

Because the cars are all clones?

I know I'm a broken record, but the truth is if they opened up the technical rules, the teams would go different ways on some stuff, and the cars would have different performance envelopes. So, even if they had virtually the same lap time at most places, they would make that lap time different ways and real racing would result.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Because the cars are all clones?

I know I'm a broken record, but the truth is if they opened up the technical rules, the teams would go different ways on some stuff, and the cars would have different performance envelopes. So, even if they had virtually the same lap time at most places, they would make that lap time different ways and real racing would result.

Apart from the different noses, I'd agree with you about F1. Of course it's not a Reynard or Lola etc., but the DW12, all be it a clone apart from the engine choice, has produced some excellent, close racing and better than F1 imo.

[Greem]

The DW12 has 'push to pass'.

Just saying.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

The DW12 has 'push to pass'.

Just saying.

Push to pass increses the turbocharger boost from 21.7 Psi to 23.2 Psi and gives an additional 200 RPM but it can only be used a total of 10 times at the driver's discretion and then only on road and srteet courses. A driver can adjust the boost on an F1 PU.

[Greem]

My comment was based on "artificial" aids to racing.

Without writing the whole essay again, all racing is artificial. The sooner people stop banging on about "pure" racing, the better off we'll all be.

DRS is a form of PTP, just not as brutal.

If F1 had the same tech as Indy Car, there would be the same outcry - likely from the same people.

It's 2014. It isn't *insert favourite era of F1 here* any more. Can we look forward rather than back, do you think?

[S griffin]

As long as double points go, I can put up(but despise) with things like DRS