[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[ASCII Man]

I see what you mean, but I don't want even more of this toxic manufacturer involvement than there already is, we should definitely be reducing their involvement.

[chillibowl]

Definitely see the point that the current manus have driven up the price as well as driven it up to a point where independent and or smaller manus can't afford to get in...

I wonder (obviously) if the problem is not more related to an unequal financial distribution and FOM taking the lions share of the profits.

If the smaller teams had more money they could afford nicer things.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Definitely see the point that the current manus have driven up the price as well as driven it up to a point where independent and or smaller manus can't afford to get in...

I wonder (obviously) if the problem is not more related to an unequal financial distribution and FOM taking the lions share of the profits.

If the smaller teams had more money they could afford nicer things.

What ever happened to spending caps? I just wonder if the money spent by smaller teams on PUs, goes straight back to the OEM....?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What ever happened to spending caps? I just wonder if the money spent by smaller teams on PUs, goes straight back to the OEM....?

Spending caps don't work. They just find creative ways around it, like Red Bull did. Mercedes are up to similar in Formula E as well. Building purpose built test tracks, but filing it under a different part of the company so as not to have an impact on the FE budget.

Ironically, spending caps work on small teams. They don't work on big teams with multiple companies.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

I see what you mean, but I don't want even more of this toxic manufacturer involvement than there already is, we should definitely be reducing their involvement.

Ah, right - we are on the same page, just in different paragraphs.

In my view, a really radical rule change (that's R3C rules, [tm] me!) would obviously force the hand of some of the manufacturers but could just as easily see some small shop with a really ridiculously radical idea (R3I) step up and produce a work of genius.

I'm just thinking out loud, but in my view we need that radicalism and someone willing to shake the tree or the status quo will remain.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Greem

In my view, a really radical rule change (that's R3C rules, [tm] me!) would obviously force the hand of some of the manufacturers but could just as easily see some small shop with a really ridiculously radical idea (R3I) step up and produce a work of genius.
.

Spot on.
Most of the suggestions here seem to be for some form of glorified Historic Racing.
Great fun and a marvelous spectacle but hardly the pinnacle of motorsport.
If you bring back 3ltr multi cyl. NA engines, limited wings or ground effects with great big wide tyres the results would still be dominated by those who could spend most money on the even more irrelevant details within those rules. And F1 would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport.
Drive out the Manufacturers and the sport would again become the domain of a breed of garageists probably funded from even more unlikely sources that we have in F1 now. And F1 would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport.
Certainly there is a needto get costs under control, and to ensure a more equitable distribution of the money, but the racing is pretty good, the vast bulk of fans, outside the Bernie influenced group inhabiting blogs, seem to be enjoying the racing.
If we have to change rules to something more radical lets make it something that will attract more manufacturers.
If that means we loose a few heritage teams too bad. It's a very competitive sport not a socialist old boys club. It has survived the loss of Vanwall, Maserati, Cooper, Lotus, Brabham et al. It could survive the loss of Williams, Mclaren and probably even Ferrari.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What ever happened to spending caps? I just wonder if the money spent by smaller teams on PUs, goes straight back to the OEM....?

If anyone ever thought Ferrari was going to open their book for scrutiny they were on the best drugs money can buy. The whole idea that any of the front running teams would do it is a joke but Ferrari would be the biggest hurdle.

[Casper]

I think the fairest thing that could happen and would level the playing field as well as it could be done is no participating team should be allowed to manufacture motors. The motors should be supplied by as many independent manufacturers as want to be involved but of course the fly in the ointment there is Ferrari. Doing this could potentially lower costs but don't bet on it while F1 insists on using bespoke power plants thought that will end when the ICE is phased out I guess but I won't be around to see it.

As for the rule changes changing things and upsetting the pecking order, you are all dreaming if you think that a rule change will do that. There is a truism in racing, he who spends the most money and puts in the most work with the best technical support always wins. The top three or four will still be the top three or four come 2021. Once a team falls behind, McLaren is the obvious example along with Williams they NEVER recover. Granted some teams might lose their way occasionally such as Ferrari or even Red Bull did but that is not the same as what has happened to McLaren & Williams.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Casper

I think the fairest thing that could happen and would level the playing field as well as it could be done is no participating team should be allowed to manufacture motors. The motors should be supplied by as many independent manufacturers as want to be involved but of course the fly in the ointment there is Ferrari.

I like this idea, but ultimately this will just lead to it becoming a spec series. After the first season every team will pick the best engine and the others will have to quit.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Greem

Or say "you can have X megajoules of energy at the start of the weekend" - whether precharged electrical storage or a set weight of known RON fuel.

And that's it.

Some designers would go for the long game, some for variable power output, some for regeneration, some for aero efficiency, some for outright power at the expense of economy.

That would unlock F1 to be a properly relevant series again.

Just re-read this in terms of the current regs/power units and it makes sense. Would be interesting to see if anyone was brave enough to go against the flow.

[V8 Fireworks]

I'm baffled why some fans cannot accept 18" wheels... It's commonsense to align with LMP, GT3 and all other series which use 18" tyres, while they at it, mandate a inboard coilspring and oil filled damper at each corner, instead of the overly elaborate F1 specific suspensions.


=


:up:

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

For Renault, it had to be relatively small capacity ICE for them to stay, and for Merc, it was a prerequisite of the main board that the PU had to demonstrate a considerable fuel saving (something like 25%, I seem to remember) to show that the technology was "green" or they wouldn't fund any further involvement in F1 beyond the end of that period - which was eventually extended by a year because Renault weren't ready.

It's a pity Mercedes and Renault dictacted that..... an F1 with simplified engine regulations based on independent engine makers plus Ferrari would have been a treat. Shame...

[V8 Fireworks]

Ground effect?

Sadly, difficult to see F1 teams giving up their self interest

[NaBUru38]

I'm ok if the 12th driver gets a point, but not ok if the 17th driver gets a point.

Also the top 3 finishers should still get 25-18-15 points.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

I'm ok if the 12th driver gets a point, but not ok if the 17th driver gets a point.

What does it matter? They are all racing as hard as possible regardless.

[S griffin]

I agree, why just award points for turning up, when they all fight for position?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

I like this idea, but ultimately this will just lead to it becoming a spec series. After the first season every team will pick the best engine and the others will have to quit.

It is already a spec series in comparison to what it was it is just that no one will admit it. Every attempt to introduce a new idea to make a car go faster is outlawed and the rule book just gets thicker. Some would say the suspension has some freedom but even that in reality has no freedom because of constraints so all the designs finish up going down the same tunnel or near enough. To ensure a budget cap is not exceeded the promoters should design the car and let the teams supply the motor. It annoys me that a clever engineer is not allowed to think and develop an advantage in what should be the epitome of race car design motor racing. No wonder Newey left and got involved in the America's Cup, it saved him from the boredom of F1.

The promotors have got the problem arse about, what they should do is restrict the ability of the teams to manage the car at the race circuit and kill stone dead any data feed back to the factory thus ensuring that they have to selectively decide what tricky stuff they are going to run on the cars because too much will be unmanageable. Doing that will mean they have to make trade offs and educated guesses. If the wall of engineers looking at screens was not there they have a huge problem with what can be done to the car. Loosen the rules, let the engineers come up with some tricky ideas but at the track they have very limited support to manage what innovation they put in the car. All of a sudden you will have teams going down different design tracks and racing will be less predictable.

No data feed from the track to base
No live telemetry from the car to pit
No radio at all except for messages concerning accidents etc from the tower
A maximum number of channels to be logged, what those log is up to the team

Let them design all the high tech stuff they want but they have to be able to manage it at the track. We were logging 30 channels on a Superkart, they are logging hundreds, stop that and you put the teams in a box as to what they can do. I love high tech and good design from innovative think and that is what F1 is all about or should be but letting the designers loose with unfettered resources is madness, been there and done that. Letting an engineer loose with an open cheque book is an interesting thing to watch.

[chillibowl]

brought this quote over from the race thread. thought it would be better to not clutter up the race thread with this topic but as it is relevant for the race, then feel free to move it back.

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Ricciardo to start from the back of the grid.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news with the first post of the thread, but they just have to, and must find a better way. Penalise the team instead of the driver. It's just plain stupid.

surely the team has also been penalized by virtue of having to buy a new engine/PU component which depending on how many parts have to be replaced can add to up to a considerable amount.

granted some teams can afford the financial costs of replacements so short of putting their car at the back of the grid im not sure what sort of team penalty would work.

a greater financial fine/penalty for a switch or a loss of constructor points...both strike me as a fine that the rich can afford while disproportionately affecting the smaller teams.

even a loss of constructor points and the financial implications of that may not deter the fatter teams from using more than their agreed upon allotment.

heck, even putting a Merc, Ferrari, or RB at the back isnt much of a penalty these days as they will still easily make the top 10 and/or its not unusual to still see them able to make it to the podium.

simpler/cheaper/more affordable engines with no limits on number used would be my ideal but good luck with that one really!

a random out of the box idea...allow for a free swap provided that car did not finish the previous race in the points/podium. 10 places if you had scored points and 20 places if you had scored a podium type of thing. still not ideal though.

[Richard C]

It's been talked to death, but I don't think punishing the teams (WCC points) and letting the drivers (WDC points) alone will work. Because that system would still be gamed by teams to promote and manipulate WDC results.

I think the simple solution is to not be so draconian with respect to longevity requirements. If you want to blame anyone... blame the manufactures as they keep those requirements in place. Right now it seems to be a generic "someone" is at fault. So those who are at fault don't feel the heat.

Richard

[Casper]

Here is a novel idea, if the motor in a customer's car does not last a contracted number of races then it has to be replaced FOC. The system as it stands is the customer teams have nothing to do with the motors, that side of the equation is handled entirely by the supplier so if the supplier is not running & managing the motor properly they should fix it. No grid penalties applied or needed. The whole idea of a team car...let's say Force India copping it in the neck for a failing they had nothing to do with seems less than a good idea to me.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

Here is a novel idea, if the motor in a customer's car does not last a contracted number of races then it has to be replaced FOC. The system as it stands is the customer teams have nothing to do with the motors, that side of the equation is handled entirely by the supplier so if the supplier is not running & managing the motor properly they should fix it. No grid penalties applied or needed. The whole idea of a team car...let's say Force India copping it in the neck for a failing they had nothing to do with seems less than a good idea to me.

I think you are focusing on the cost to the teams (pay for replacement engines), but fixing that AND not giving out point and/or grid penalties creates a loophole to exploit.

So in this scenario with Honda as a supplier to both RBR and STR (and not a team owner itself and I think your special exception is for “customers“ only), they are free to create powerful engines at the risk of longevity with the teams or drivers not experiencing any points or grid penalties when a “failure” occurs? I quote failure as what make something a failure could be gamed by the teams. For example, I think some of the STR Honda engine swaps have been proactive or to pull engines early for analysis. Some of those pulled could be reused if needed (probably used in FP1 to reduce mileage on race engines?). Anyhow, my point is imagine a string of failures happening in 2019 on a regular basis in FP1 so that RBR and STR can run races with fresh engines on a regular basis and with no consequences other than Honda having to foot the replacement bill (which they may gladly do!)

It’s my understanding that most limited use special performance modes of the current engines is governed by a balance of abuse vs longevity. Meaning they can extract extra performance at the risk of reducing the expected longevity. So if you don’t expect to run to the desired total mileage, then turn the knob to eleven more often. So with a loophole like this teams would run the engines into the ground and replace them when convenient. Ultimately making a mockery of the rules. Mercedes and Ferrari as team owners (who I assume could not take advantage of this as they are not customers and would experience grid penalties) would oppose this allowance.

Richard

[Casper]

I don't envisage the car team (not the engine team) to suffer any penalty, in fact when the two are looked at separately as they should be why should the car team suffer when it has nothing (in most cases) to do with them. The only issue I can see here is that the car team designed in a system installation issue which might throw a curve ball into the whole scenario. The car and engine team are in fact two separate entities which may not have occurred to a lot of people.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Casper

I don't envisage the car team (not the engine team) to suffer any penalty, in fact when the two are looked at separately as they should be why should the car team suffer when it has nothing (in most cases) to do with them. The only issue I can see here is that the car team designed in a system installation issue which might throw a curve ball into the whole scenario. The car and engine team are in fact two separate entities which may not have occurred to a lot of people.

I feel that is a simplistic few, with all respects. (I do note you say in most cases). There are several installation and cooling issues that are more the chassis builder / designer than engine manufacturer. Red Bull for instance are well known for their 'size zero' installations, which in turn have shown to compromise or marginalise cooling over the wish to divert more air to aero efficiency. McLaren are also known to be guilty of this. With McLaren last year it is now known that many of their Honda issues were of an installation matter, blame for which was handballed to Honda.

Other factors are that many customer teams (Red Bull being one) choose to use their own transmission rather than taking the complete power drain from the supplier.

Furthermore Red Bull choose to use a non Renault approved lubricant and fuel supplier, a point often overlooked, but mentioned by Renault of late. The engines are built to use specific lubricants and fuel.... Red Bull choose for commercial reasons to use an alternative fuel/oil supplier which I understand minimises their use of Renault dynos/ data for obvious reasons. There was a recent case of Red Bull being compromised with a fuel update other Renault customers enjoyed. (Red Bull are the only customer of any team that chooses to not use the engine manufacturer approved fuel / lubes.)

I guess my point is one of difficulty in apportioning blame for failures solely on the engine supplier when there are so many peripheral influences beyond their control.

[Casper]

Ok, let's look at a component failure, for instance a dropped valve due to manufacturing defects, who should cop it in the neck, the car team or the engine team, why should that failure cause the car to be relegated to the rear of the grid. I simply don't think it is fair for the car to suffer a penalty when it had nothing to do with them or the installation.

[Peter Mallett]

If we accept that the penalties are there to try to ensure reliability then I'm afraid we have to accept that the team will suffer as a whole.

However that's the beautocratic approach. The sporting approach is to ignore these failures and accept that the team has suffered in terms of results and costs.

Sadly it's all about someone's warped view of fairness. Or to use a legal term, Complete ********.