The FIA's rule plans. 2003, 2004 & 2005

[Asp]

I completely agree - F1 is suffering at the minute and needs some change while it's still at least standing. Times change, so therefore the F1 rules have to aswell.

The problem is that the FIA have not just tidied things up to ensure survival. It has been a knee-jerk reaction (how many as that been used in this post ) to Ferrari's domination, and has cut everything that makes F1 what it is. I can even see logic and potential cost-cutting measures in some of the proposals: but they have taken them a million stages too far and have given F1 the same technical status as some junior series.

We don't want F1 to be a CART-style formula where many things are simple. We want it to be the ultimate test of driver skill and engineering technology: which is what the FIA and supporters of the rules are letting us head towards, CART may be exciting, but it's nothing like F1.
But by the same token, we few who are against the chances obviously don't want F1 to go under. And if anyone suggests that by not allowing these changes to go through that we do, then you've got the wrong end of the stick. We need long term, effective changes. Not these instant remedies that the FIA have suggested.

*Gets down off soap box*

[Red]

Aye! I'll drink to that. (actually I do as we speak...)

[Super Tourer]

First of all, thanks to everyone who's contributed to the thread, I didn't think it would get this big!

There is a place for both privateers and manufacturers in F1, they have co-existed for many years, what we need is a framework that enables this to continue.

For the car makers to say that the new rules weakens the technological challenge is untrue. An F1 car will still require designing from the ground up and skilled aero people will still chip away at lap times. Car makers still link F1 technology to road cars as the excuse to pursue more high tech challenges. Yet even a basic mid range family car has: ABS Brakes, Traction Control some have paddle gearchange, even a family runabout is packed with electronics.

McLaren-Mercedes, BMW William's and Ferrari want to remain high tech to maintain their edge, and try and close/sustain the gap between them. Cost cutting also means different things to different people. For Eddie Jordan it's about surviving as a team, to Renault or Ford for example, it could mean pulling out of F1.

Spending $300M to run two cars in 17 races has clearly become ridiculous, and is totally unsustainable. Toyota have long been rumoured to have an unlimited budget, this is clearly an example of winning at all costs becoming both unpalatable and undesirable.

Let's not forget that in their way both Minardi and Jordan are high tech companies, the fact that they are able to compete at any level with car makers on a tenth of their budget is testiment to that.

F1 needs the EJ's and Frank William's - remember when Williams had one of their factory engine deals suddenly pulled, did they pull out - no they did a deal with Judd to use engines - just to stay in F1. Similarly, faced with Jordan's prospects for this year any car makers board meeting would have drawn a line through 2003 already.

It's a shame that Ron Dennis has taken the rule change's so badly, sadly Ron has been a bit over smug this winter, announcing new 'partners'seemingly on a weekly basis, whilst other teams are wondering which bill to pay first.

Yet McLaren faced a season having to resort to a Ford HB engine, after their works deal finished, Senna did a fantastic job in a nimble but underpowered car - so he should know what happens when car makers leave you 'in the lurch'.

The stark reality is that F1 needs privateers like Jordan & Minardi, sure it's had it's share of Adrea Moda's, but they couldn't even compete in relatively inexpensive times.

The writing on the wall is clear, currently there are no other car makers remotely interested in F1. Sauber have been courting VW/Audi for years and have recently spent £35M on a state of the art wind tunnel in order to establish themselves as a 'major player' - lets hope it was a wise investment.

Ford has been mentioned in several posts as an F1 stalwart, indeed they are, during the late 70's and into 80's large numbers of cars were powered by Ford cossies, bought by the teams, not supplied free by Ford.

In summary we need manufacturer involvement to provide interest and support, but we also need privateers who will stick with F1 no matter what, not because it happens to fit a short term marketing strategy. I believe the proposed rule changes provide the framework for them to co-exist again.

ST

[Bononi]

Taking a distant approach to all that has been written, - I like to work in silence and I like to see it happening before any reaction - I realize that we're in a critical time for our favorite sport. No, I know the perils are being highlighted everyday in the news and so on. I'm talking about the reason we are here, the need to post our opinions and why we watch it and why we want to keep following it. It looks to me like this is a question of if the medication is worst than the disease. If you stay this way you die, if you drink it you die too.

So, would we give it a shot ? Or let it be this way, and wonder how long it will take to die ?

There can be any middle terms ? Can we sit and talk this over and find the better route ?

To me, F1 is far away to die. Not while there's millions fans to watch it. The question is something has to be done, and those guys up there are doing something. I hope they prove right, I hope the fans get what they want. I can see that sometime in the future I'll see Inigo, Red and others debating how good things are going, or the ones who supported the changes applauding... It's not up to me to make it work, but it's up to me to support the sport I chose to cheer for.

Don't think it will die, have faith guys.


*Or what will you be doing this time of the day next year ?*

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by Bononi
I can see that sometime in the future I'll see Inigo, Red and others debating how good things are going

Where, in the 10-10ths GPWC forum?

[Bononi]

Inigo,







my 5 minutes per day of being serious, and you spoil it all !

[Inigo Montoya]

Seriously though, Bononi, my friend... I am worried. There is a safety issue here, beyond all the stuff about standardized parts... The last time they made big changes to the electronics, when they eliminated active suspension, they ended up with dangerous cars - all twitchy and stuff.. and two drivers *might* have paid the price.

I just hope that these cars are still drivable in a safe manner after they do all these changes under such short notice...

And thats my serious post for the day...

[Bononi]

Safety.

That's why I think some of the rules won't prevail...

[3state]

Slept on it and have a few ideas I thought I'd throw into the mix - hope I'm not going too far off topic. The reason why I've poted them here is that presenlty we're debating a number of rule changes and whether a) these dilute the sport we love, and b) they'll esnure F1's long-term survival.

The ideas I have are either complimentary or alternatives. I'm not sure if they've been posted before but I'd like to see what kind of debate these ideas stimulate, and maybe, just maybe, Bernie and Max are reading this too.

The first idea is a compulsory rule change which stipulates that cars last two seasons rather than one. This would immediately lead to a substantial reduction in development costs. Cars would still incrementally improve as the two seasons progressed, but as it stands, the millions needed to develop a car which runs only for a season is ridiculously and obsenely wasteful. Such a stipulation would work in conjuction with a few of the rule changes to make racing fairer such as no traction control et al and it may render others, particularly the less popular ones redundant. Such a stipulation would allow smaller teams to invest more in the development of one car and it would maintain the cutting edge aspect of F1.

The second is voluntary. For the time being at least, smaller teams should look to pooling their development resources and funds, and develop a joint standard car. The Ferraris and McLarens with their greaalmost unlimited budgets would still go on developing their own cars, but the minnows could joint-develop and produce a car, which is used by those teams. This reduces the cost tremendously for each team, and improves the quality an competitiveness of the result. A joint-car would also provide a viable entry level for small start-up privateers who could join the production. Once team believed theihad achieved the mass and wherewithal to produce their own car, they would simply go it alone.

Thoughts? Death-threats anyone

[Damon]

Essentially what most teams do is evolve their car from year to year with changes being made at the beginning of a new year as and when neccessary. The F2001 remember lasted a year and 3 races and it looks like the Mclaren MP4/17 will last about 1and 1/3 years.

With your second idea do you not think that the richest of the poor teams would feel a little aggreaved at giving the most money to the project but getting the same out put as the poorest of the poor teams? This idea is not currently against the rules but it would go well against the spirit of the sport as you'd end up with serveral teams running the exact same car and thats what we call F3000.

[3state]

Inigo, of course, nothing here is ever meant personally or taken as such. We're all motorsport fans and healthy and vigorous debate demonstrates a passion for it and for F1 in particular. Of course no one here wants to see F1 die, and no one here wants F1 to become another CART although I think it could certainly learn a few lessons from it. Many of CART's rule stipulations and extreme standardisations were forced upon it by necessity rather than being an outcome of philosophical stance although the philosophy behind it is quite different to that of F1.

All that being said, CART has been providing some interesting racing over the past few years, and I'm one of those who have found myself gravitating towards it, and turning F1 off due its sheer boredom factor, barring a few notable highlights. The cars in CARTS still it for me, even if they're largely standardised. The look and the sound of the turbos is so *sweet*, and I'd defy anyone to think otherwise ... F1 needs to be passionate and exciting again; it needs to have the flamboyance and the larger-than-life characters that made it such a spectacle in its glory days. The big money behind the factory teams has stifled the passion, making it cold and unfeeling imho. I'm all for technology but not at the expense of what its really meant to be all about, and that's racing.

[3state]

A fine example of an immensely unpopular implementation of tehcnology in F1 is launch control; itgoes entirely against the spirit of what F1 is all about in my opinion. One team implements it to get a slight advantage over other teams on the starting grid. Necessity forces other teams to implement it and all we end up with is higher costs and the fact that everyone is basically back to square one. The bigger teams can afford the better software implements to get slightly quicker and more reliable launches. Last year, launch control lead to so many starting grid fiascos. The start should be about driver response and skill.

If they continue along this path, they might as well put trained maonkeys in the driver seats, at they might be more interesting. I know a trained monkey would be a damn sight more interesting and charismatic that whiney Ralfey!

[Asp]

OK - making cars last 2 seasons. I've thought of this in the past, but was restricted with the same comments of Damon - new cars are in many cases an evolution anyway. We are seeing a movement towards cars lasting more than one season, thanks to Ferrari's start last year - and perhaps it could work, and it would reduce costs.
The inevitable problem is what justifies a 'new' car? There's nothing to stop a team effectively launching a new car and just calling it an evolution and a B-spec car. It could prove very difficult to police.

As regard standard cars shared between teams, that will get you the death threat As previously discussed, 'privateers' in the true sense of the word are no longer allowed in F1, and for a large number of years chassis sharing has been banned. I would say that this is completely against the grain of F1 - it's one of the key things in F1 that no other series in the world has - to design your own chassis. There are technical difficulties - the car is designed to accomodate the engine, so it would only work if teams shared engines as well. And would it increase competition? - with the rate of process assuming they buy a car a year old it will already be out of date and not with the new modifications. So I'd have to say a no to that one.

[3state]

hmmm, both valid points Asp, although in all seriousness I do think the extension of a car's life over two seasons could be feasible and would possibly be the most significant means of reducing costs without diminishing what many people see as quintessential tenets of F1. It could be policed and i'm sure that if a team was developing an entirely new car without authorisation to do so, it would become known. You simply can't hide something like that for too long. Possibly severe penalties could be put in place to dissuade any team from considering it, as well as logging all improvements and modifications on a car with the sanctioning body. I admit to not knowing how these things work well enough to give an adequate response. Simplky toying with options for cost reduction, which are, however you look at it, necessary in order for F1 to survive.

Regarding the joint design of cars by smaller teams; that wasn't me!!! I didn't say it! honest!!!

[KA]

Originally posted by Asp
As regard standard cars shared between teams, that will get you the death threat As previously discussed, 'privateers' in the true sense of the word are no longer allowed in F1, and for a large number of years chassis sharing has been banned. I would say that this is completely against the grain of F1 - it's one of the key things in F1 that no other series in the world has - to design your own chassis.

Although it's only 'against the grain' for F1 during the last 20 years or so- before that, the sale of year-old cars to privateers was common, as was the production of 'customer' versions of a team's current car.....

[Bononi]

Ooops. A rule for having the development on the car stopped for two seasons hurts F1 in his traditions... Basically it will secure the domination of one team or two ! Roll back the 70s and we'll see how a poor car package evolved from one season to another to become champion ! No, no, no.

[Red]

Originally posted by 3state
I do think the extension of a car's life over two seasons could be feasible and would possibly be the most significant means of reducing costs without diminishing what many people see as quintessential tenets of F1.

Rrrright. Let's see. Other the F1-2002 that Bononi already mentioned, might I bring to your attention the Jaguar that started last season?

[3state]

so...? I respectfully disagree with Bononi's assessment. Agree to disagree. The example you've cited aren't proof of anything. Besides, you say one or two teams will dominate? Possibly, but unless I'm sorely mistaken isn't that what's happening now? At least sruggling teams would seriously cut their costs in the worse case scenario.

So is there anything you'd like to see changed in F1? It seems to me that you see the f1 in its current incarnation as the only 'pure' version of the sport and that any suggestion of change is heresy. Otherwise, other than Bernie sharing more of the TV revenues, which will not sufficiently finance the smaller teams and ensure the viability of the sport, and which are in any case, declining, any suggestions from you guys that will save F1 in the long, because don't fool yourselves, F1 is haemorraging badly. Haven't heard any to date????

[Damon]

This option is open to all team now, they're not forced to continually develop cars, if a team was that poor they could quite easily run a car for 2, 3, 4 years, until the rules change. The thing is by not developing they get further and further of the pace and as others have said what constitutes a 'new car'.

[Damon]

For the record, I think most of us agree that the new changes are a great step for the sport (I certainly do), we just don't think your idea is a very good one!

[Inigo Montoya]

Well, 3state, I think that your suggestion about the smaller teams getting together basically amounts to them merging into one team. And maybe that ain't a bad idea.

[Bononi]

Originally posted by 3state
So is there anything you'd like to see changed in F1? It seems to me that you see the f1 in its current incarnation as the only 'pure' version of the sport and that any suggestion of change is heresy. Otherwise, other than Bernie sharing more of the TV revenues, which will not sufficiently finance the smaller teams and ensure the viability of the sport, and which are in any case, declining, any suggestions from you guys that will save F1 in the long, because don't fool yourselves, F1 is haemorraging badly. Haven't heard any to date????

Being new to the forum, I reckon you don't know fully my opinions... The others around know that I belong to the bunch claiming for changes, and it has been for years now. Watching F1 for 30 years, I can only be sad with the present situation. But I'm cautious as for any matter I deal with. I have been posting insistently that many of the rules would eventually suffer changes or even fall... and happened now ?

[Smokey 6 litre]

if the drivers cant set up the car by 'feeling it' then they shouldn't be in the top flight of motorsport,

let the drivers do more than turn the weel

[paddy]

I feel banning of driver aids is a step in the right direction, but aerodynamics are the main problem. Cars can't run close together because of dirty air, cornering speeds are so high that spectators can't see the track from the enclosures and braking distances are so short that overtaking is more or less impossible.
Drivers should have to change gear manually because it requires skill and can lead to mistakes and that leads to excitement. Also they should have to deal with backmarkers without the present ridiculous blue flag rules.
F1 cars simply do not RACE at the moment and the FIA need to legislate so that they do or else interest in the sport will continue to wain. We are on a slippery slope at present and the slide needs to be arrested for the sake of motorsport everywhere.