[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[bella]

...which is like suggesting that a new f1 team could come in and give the entire grid a good seeing to in their first race. a nice idea but the reality is just unbelievably unlikely.

[S griffin]

A new team would not blow away everyone else, but could be up there on occasion. That is more likely to happen

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am not sure how that would work. I agree with the prior comments that tire manufactures will end up optimizing tires for larger teams and everyone else will get screwed. Given that is how things has seemed to work in the past?

Richard

I don't recall the team but I do recall the story that Bernie E, when he owned Brabham, refused to permit a privateer team to use the latest slicks and thus they qualified and raced on worn rubber.

[F1Guy]

So.... F1 cars are going to have indicators in the near future??

[S griffin]

Nothing wrong with that, worth a try in my view

[Aysedasi]

I can just imagine the video of Ricciardo behind Verstappen at Baku, with indicators going on and off all over the place......

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

When does their contract expire? do any other tire companies even want to deal with F1?

Pirelli will remain Formula 1's sole tyre supplier until at least 2019.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/124...fia-until-2019

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

when does their contract expire? do any other tire companies even want to deal with F1?

At the last tender process, the only two tyre manufacturers who applied were Pirelli and Michelin.


Michelin's bid was only half-hearted, and was dependant on F1 changing to 19 inch wheels. This proved to be unpopular with the teams, the FIA and the public.


I don't believe that much has changed since 2015/16 when this current contract was signed, and, in my opinion - for what it's worth - the next bidding process will be the pretty much the same. I think that if you ask Pirelli about being the supplier, they would tell you that it's a thankless job providing tyres to teams that are never happy with what they get.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

At the last tender process, the only two tyre manufacturers who applied were Pirelli and Michelin.


Michelin's bid was only half-hearted, and was dependant on F1 changing to 19 inch wheels. This proved to be unpopular with the teams, the FIA and the public.


I don't believe that much has changed since 2015/16 when this current contract was signed, and, in my opinion - for what it's worth - the next bidding process will be the pretty much the same. I think that if you ask Pirelli about being the supplier, they would tell you that it's a thankless job providing tyres to teams that are never happy with what they get.

If it is such a thankless task, the only reason for them not bailing must be the money. Otherwise, has their involvement in F1 increased their tyre sales?

[bella]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I think that if you ask Pirelli about being the supplier, they would tell you that it's a thankless job providing tyres to teams that are never happy with what they get.

i think if you ask pirelli they'd be too busy counting the increase in sales to notice. it's been well worth the investment for them, apparently.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bella

i think if you ask pirelli they'd be too busy counting the increase in sales to notice. it's been well worth the investment for them, apparently.

Possibly, even maybe probably, that may be true. However, I was only considering the actual supply side to Grand Prix racing.



I don't think that you will find many people, whether they be the teams or just F1 followers, who have had many good words to say about them over the last 5 years or so. Unjustifiably so, IMHO, as they were only producing the products that the FIA and/or FOM told them to, and had to provide them to the teams with minimal testing, and most of that on cars that were no longer being raced.


I think that they got the short end of the stick!

[S griffin]

They certainly have benefited for being the sole supplier and have certainly done well to provide all the teams. I think their tyres have been good the last few seasons

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Michelin's bid was only half-hearted, and was dependant on F1 changing to 19 inch wheels.

Men are known to add an inch or two when talking about the size of their.....

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11...ls-in-the-past

[S griffin]

I think Michelin could be back in the near future. And who knows what size tyres will be in the near future

[bella]

i don't think they will, unless there's a big shift in what f1 wants from the tyres, and it's something that's achievable for a relatively low amount of r&d money.

the conference call by the ceo is him setting out his negotiating stall to f1 - he knows the ball is in the fia's court and he has the upper hand (and all the other contract negotiation cliches). at this point nobody else is in a position to supply at the end of this season. you can talk in terms of what you'd like to see as much as you want, but that's the reality of the situation.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I don't think that you will find many people, whether they be the teams or just F1 followers, who have had many good words to say about them over the last 5 years or so.

don't know about that. especially outside the little f1 bubble. the evidence for that is the sheep-like migration to pirelli in the lower series, both in bikes and cars. they'll grumble about the tyres being more expensive but they'll also not take a punt and risk trying something else. it must be good if the big boys use it, right?

i work in series with open tyre markets and really, it doesn't do anything for competition. everyone sticks with the main brand except the guys who are given tyres free from other manufacturers, and even when those work better and they're free to buy a set they still don't try them. just in case.

[F1Guy]

Mercedes have asked the FiA to clarify if Ferrari are cheating.

The questions in writing were from Chris Jilbert, Head of Product Engineering Capability, Mercedes HPP Brixworth, in which he asked...


Chris Jilbert: "With the exception of transformer oils used within ERS cooling circuits, and hydraulic oils used for PU actuators (both of which should have zero consumption in operation), do all oils (and specifically, any oil used in the pressure charging system) used in the Power Unit need to comply with Article 20?"

Charlie Whiting: "All oils used in the engine must comply with Article 20 of the F1 Technical Regulations. The turbocharger is considered part of the engine."

Chris Jilbert: "If the answer to Q1 is 'yes', does it therefore follow that the combined oil consumption of all the Power Unit oils must respect the 0.6lts/100km limit referenced within TD/012-17?"

Charlie Whiting: "Yes."

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/m...ebate-1040317/

[S griffin]

I think that's a very bad move on Merc to check if Ferrari are cheating. But then it's not from the top staff.

Really I think these PUs cause more trouble than they are worth. I think they have had their day. I think Charlie is just doing his job though.

[Adam43]

Well their day may end in 2021, or maybe not.

More trouble than they are worth? From a rule clarification perspective? Is it different to J dampers, double diffusers, TC, mirrors, fuel tanks, f ducts, etc...

[S griffin]

I am not sure if they are worth hanging on to. Go back to simpler engines. They seem to not be worth it. But we all love bending the rules, like with the double diffuser or the silly little F Duct

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Mercedes have asked the FiA to clarify if Ferrari are cheating.

Except they haven't mentioned Ferrari - yet alone cheating. Clearly you are letting your agenda get in the way of the truth again!






The smoke seen during the Ferrari start-up (which is the connection the journalist makes) is caused by spent oil that has already been expelled from the engine accumulating under the rear light - so no performance gain.

It's a bit of a stretch to claim cheating at the moment - although there may be a case for the Ferrari PU not conforming to regulations.

Perhaps a more objective approach might be taken when it comes to Ferrari one day?

[S griffin]

Well that’s what I guessed, I think Merc are too classy for that. However it is clear the Ferrari’s smoke needs looking at, as that it is an area of the rules that could be better looked into. It shows the problem with these PUs

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Well that’s what I guessed, I think Merc are too classy for that.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Except they haven't mentioned Ferrari - yet alone cheating.

In the world of Twitter... wouldn't it be called... Subtweeting? Nobody is mentioned by name, but everyone also clearly understands who is specifically being called out.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The smoke seen during the Ferrari start-up (which is the connection the journalist makes) is caused by spent oil that has already been expelled from the engine accumulating under the rear light - so no performance gain.

I assume you mean oil that accumulates under the "red light" at the start. Clearly the oil has to come from somewhere. And I expect it doesn't stop somehow working it's way into the engine as soon as the light goes out! I think questions about the Ferrari smoke cloud is fair game.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with Mercedes asking for a clarification. I know nothing about this part of the request, but I find it interesting that the question included the exclusion of two types of oils from the clarification question.

With the exception of transformer oils used within ERS cooling circuits, and hydraulic oils used for PU actuators (both of which should have zero consumption in operation)

If I wanted to put on my Tin foil hat, I would ask if the zero consumption of those are by "regulation" or just the fact that nobody expects those oils to be consumed? Who then might be burning hydraulic oil!

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with Mercedes asking for a clarification. I know nothing about this part of the request, but I find it interesting that the question included the exclusion of two types of oils from the clarification question.

I agree, although there is a subtle difference which F1Guy is hoping nobody notices.

Mercedes are asking for clarification on the rule. They didn't ask clarification on what Ferrari are doing. The statement of "Mercedes have asked the FiA to clarify if Ferrari are cheating" is not only clickbait, it's actually completely incorrect - that's not what was asked at all.

You could have a situation where it is clarified, but the FIA are perfectly happy with Ferraris explination on why they are not violating that rule

Sorry, forgot to add -

[S griffin]

I think someone has stirred something up. Merc are right to clarify what Ferrari are doing. I don’t know if it was a misleading headline, teams are always asking what is right or wrong