[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

also increase the number of PUs allowed...

its never one thing in F1, but how much was overtaking hurt due to the conservative use of engine power and the 3 PU allotment rule?

Lulu says he was already conserving the engine at Albert Park: Gotta get 7 races out of this thing
Whilst I get that the "three power unit" requirement is about trying to manage cost etc, to me it goes against good racing and with the development needed to achieve the reliability, could increase cost rather than reducing.

I tend to subscribe to the Colin Chapman approach of a car winning the race and falling apart just after crossing the finish line. F1 cars should be edgy, wild broncos that only the very best can control and hang out over the edge. Once they start restricting usage, it effectively becomes endurance racing (nothing wrong with endurance racing but it's not F1).

The current rules have given us long, porky, ponderous cars that rarely race each other hard due to aero shadow, sound terrible and now hide the drivers down under a coloured cage - F1 has absolutely lost its way.

Mr Brawn has a big job to do but in my humble view, wholesale change is needed - the comparison with MotoGP is a telling one and Damon Hill's comments ring true too - if rules that are right for the sport and the competition mean that a manufacturer or 2 leave, that may actually be of benefit to the future of the game.

[wnut]

Then add this to the problems:

"So Hamilton – rightly proud of a stunning lap – didn’t want that attributed to a mode he didn’t use. From Wolff’s perspective, playing that down and sending an impression of the full mode having been used but without quite specifying what he meant by that, was perhaps trying to divert attention from the fact that with the full ‘party mode’ Hamilton might’ve been on pole by 0.8sec. Which is not a good message going into F1’s new season."


https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/o...-vs-party-mode

Turns the whole show into a farce.

Vettel's victory was just "pure dumb luck" and the inability of the cars to race.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Then add this to the problems:

"So Hamilton – rightly proud of a stunning lap – didn’t want that attributed to a mode he didn’t use. From Wolff’s perspective, playing that down and sending an impression of the full mode having been used but without quite specifying what he meant by that, was perhaps trying to divert attention from the fact that with the full ‘party mode’ Hamilton might’ve been on pole by 0.8sec. Which is not a good message going into F1’s new season."


https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/o...-vs-party-mode

Turns the whole show into a farce.

Vettel's victory was just "pure dumb luck" and the inability of the cars to race.

"pure dumb luck"? Dumb luck with the VSC being deployed. However, Ferrari realised they could capitalise on the VSC rules and Vettel not having pitted.

[Compromised]

I think the "dumb luck" more refered to what happened after Ferrari's risky, but successful strategy - the best driver in the best car had nearly half a race to overtake the second best driver in the second best car and couldn't.

Follow this to it's logical conclusion.

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Lulu says he was already conserving the engine at Albert Park: Gotta get 7 races out of this thing
Whilst I get that the "three power unit" requirement is about trying to manage cost etc, to me it goes against good racing and with the development needed to achieve the reliability, could increase cost rather than reducing.

I tend to subscribe to the Colin Chapman approach of a car winning the race and falling apart just after crossing the finish line. F1 cars should be edgy, wild broncos that only the very best can control and hang out over the edge. Once they start restricting usage, it effectively becomes endurance racing (nothing wrong with endurance racing but it's not F1).

The current rules have given us long, porky, ponderous cars that rarely race each other hard due to aero shadow, sound terrible and now hide the drivers down under a coloured cage - F1 has absolutely lost its way.

Mr Brawn has a big job to do but in my humble view, wholesale change is needed - the comparison with MotoGP is a telling one and Damon Hill's comments ring true too - if rules that are right for the sport and the competition mean that a manufacturer or 2 leave, that may actually be of benefit to the future of the game.

Completely agree, while acknowledging that Mr Chapman's timing was sometimes off.

In a sport of teams with casts of literally thousands and hundred million dollar budgets, is not building more copies of engines really making a difference? It certainly does for fans when cars sit in garages to keep miles off them.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The current rules have given us long, porky, ponderous cars that rarely race each other hard due to aero shadow, sound terrible and now hide the drivers down under a coloured cage - F1 has absolutely lost its way.

Mr Brawn has a big job to do but in my humble view, wholesale change is needed - the comparison with MotoGP is a telling one and Damon Hill's comments ring true too - if rules that are right for the sport and the competition mean that a manufacturer or 2 leave, that may actually be of benefit to the future of the game.

i would have to take a look back but i believe it was Ferrari that refused to talk about relaxing the PU allotment for 2018...Hill's comments rings very true to me as well.

RB certainly has a difficult road ahead.

Originally Posted by johnh875

In a sport of teams with casts of literally thousands and hundred million dollar budgets, is not building more copies of engines really making a difference? It certainly does for fans when cars sit in garages to keep miles off them.

from my past posting history im very clearly a big believer in budget caps/resource restrictions but even i have to admit that certain allowance need to be made. allowing for more testing is one area that is seemingly against a budget cap ethos and i also think engine usage restrictions are another area.

i would rather see simpler engines being made and finding the savings there rather then complex and expensive engines being conserved over the course of the season.

but if they insist on more complicated engines then i suspect (and all things being equal and with no numbers to back anything up) there is an economic (economies of scale) argument to be made for producing more units...rather, each additional engine made (and sold) theoretically should reduce the marginal cost of every engine made as the R&D and sunk costs are shared across a greater number of built units.

or to put it another way, it is possible that the price of engines are artificially being inflated as a result of restricting their usage and therefore production.

from there, there are sensible precautions that can be taken (parc ferme/reduce the number of race team staff/cap the number of hours they can work over the weekend) in order to prevent the big teams from installing a new PU for every session.

as an aside to that, whats the point of spending money on massively improved thermally efficient engines if they cant actually showcase what they can do on any given weekend?

while i dont like the amount of money they are spending....if they are going to spend it them at least let them use it!

a side benefit to this could lead to a faster development/catch up cycle for Renault and Honda.

easier said then done of course!

[Peter Mallett]

I'm of the opinion that budget caps are not the way to go. They will simply lead to what we have now, because the large organisations will find ways to cram more manhours into a shorter time by using more technology. A good example of this is the fracking boom in the USA. OPEC thought that if the price of oil dropped below $50 pb the frackers would die. They were right initially but all that did was remove the small fish. The major players developed drilling techniques that are far more efficient and now the break even is somewhere near $30 pb.

Hybrids are becoming less and less road relevant so the only other way to go is electric and that's already being tried.

For me the solution lies in less technology; and the freedom to design or buy your own engine which must be naturally aspirated and fueled by good old petrol.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I'm of the opinion that budget caps are not the way to go. They will simply lead to what we have now, because the large organisations will find ways to cram more manhours into a shorter time by using more technology. A good example of this is the fracking boom in the USA. OPEC thought that if the price of oil dropped below $50 pb the frackers would die. They were right initially but all that did was remove the small fish. The major players developed drilling techniques that are far more efficient and now the break even is somewhere near $30 pb.

Hybrids are becoming less and less road relevant so the only other way to go is electric and that's already being tried.

For me the solution lies in less technology; and the freedom to design or buy your own engine which must be naturally aspirated and fueled by good old petrol.

I thought the purpose of budget caps, was to prevent the road car manufacturers like Ferrari, from pouring in the vast amounts of money they have, which the smaller teams don't, into their F1 projects and level up the field, or attempt to?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought the purpose of budget caps, was to prevent the road car manufacturers like Ferrari, from pouring in the vast amounts of money they have, which the smaller teams don't, into their F1 projects and level up the field, or attempt to?

Yes that's apparently the idea, but look at my example above which was, in effect, a budget cap. All that will happen is the manufacturers will find more efficient ways to make the same things, leaving those without the facilities to struggle.

[Akrapovic]

Budget caps are too easy to work around. Red Bull already did it.

Red Bull energy drinks form a new company called Red Bull Technology. Not an F1 team, just a random company. The new Red Bull Tech spends a LOT of money developing an F1 car, but they aren't bound by the budget gap as they aren't an F1 team. Red Bull Tech sell that car to Red Bull Racing for £20, which keeps the Red Bull Racing budget low and allows them to invest money elsewhere.

That example is quite simplified, but we know it's been happening.

[JHamilton]

How about they let the teams have different title sponsors on their cars?

[S griffin]

BAR tried that and weren't allowed

[karting]

Originally Posted by S griffin

BAR tried that and weren't allowed

I can see that rule being relaxed in the near future, NASCAR does it and it works well.

[bjohnsonsmith]

IndyCar have been doing this for years but I like the corporate team liveries in F1, it's part of F1.

[wnut]

Ross Brawn says he finds it "personally offensive" when people such as Sergio Marchionne accuse him of "dumbing down" Formula 1.
http://www.f1reader.com/list/news/la...iticism-193070

I feel that that this issue is being deliberately confused.

Most of us feel that F1 has been dumbed down in a racing sense, the cars do not sufficientlr reward good driving skills, the above statement is trying to shift the goal posts to the technical input and complexity of an F1 car.

F1 has been dumbed down in a racing sense Mr. Brawn, there is NO racing, most of us want racing and this is what simpler and cheaper cars will deliver, do not confuse eye wateringly complicated aerodynamics and PU specs with “dumbed down F1”,the fact that these cars simply cannot race or pass one another, and that is the reason F1 is “dumbed down”.

Do not “dumb it down” any further, the lack of racing is the problem you are supposed to be addressing.
“Simplificate and add lightness” [Colin Chapman] . He knew what he was talking about!

[S griffin]

All Ross wants to do is a new set of regulations that allow cars to race closer. Hardly dumbing down

[justracing]

When are we likely to hear the 2021 announcement from Ross Brawn? I thought we were going to get some information this weekend from Bahrain?

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by justracing

When are we likely to hear the 2021 announcement from Ross Brawn? I thought we were going to get some information this weekend from Bahrain?

Read here for some information...

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/h...-for-2021.html

[S griffin]

He's already looking to make the racing better for 2019, which is quite right, we can't wait till 2021 for racing to be exciting again

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

IndyCar have been doing this for years but I like the corporate team liveries in F1, it's part of F1.

It could also be keeping teams from securing major sponsors that cannot justify the cost to support an entire team. As viewership drops, I think this will get continually more difficult.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

It could also be keeping teams from securing major sponsors that cannot justify the cost to support an entire team. As viewership drops, I think this will get continually more difficult.

I don't see why that would detract from attracting major sponsors? Many F1 teams already have a major sponsor as well as associate sponsors/partners, whose logos are incorporated into the livery.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Read here for some information...

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/h...-for-2021.html

I look forward to reading the finer detail, especially the bit about making the cars more raceable to increase overtaking opportunities.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't see why that would detract from attracting major sponsors? Many F1 teams already have a major sponsor as well as associate sponsors/partners, whose logos are incorporated into the livery.

Because the cost could be split in half.

[Richard C]

It will be interesting to see the details. The items listed are clearly "goals" (and are pretty much listed as such). The difficult task for Liberty is...

1. Achieve their goals, which I think also implies successfully wrestling some significant amount of power away from the current players such as Ferrari and Mercedes. These goals effectively looks to take away their largest advantage... money.
2. Making it enticing enough to convince enough of that same group to sign the next version of the Concorde Agreement. They need critical mass to survive. I think the sport can survive loosing someone like Ferrari, but will Liberty "have the balls" (for a lack of a better expression) to risk doing that.

Richard

[justracing]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Read here for some information...

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/h...-for-2021.html

Fundamentally, that statement says nothing, it's a wish list. The bones of the points made could have been extracted from a quick read through this thread. I find very that disappointing, as must the competing teams, there is no detail as yet. Admittedly Ross Brawn's position in not an envious one but with the considerable team of personnel that he has on board I think we were all really hoping for some definite plans. One could argue that if anyone can pull back F1 from the doldrums, Ross can. Better a thorough considered approach rather than some of the ridiculous knee jerk suggestions put forward by some of F1's previous(and still present in some cases) esteemed hierarchy.