[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[321Go]

After having no luck with Charlie, I spoke to James Allen and put to him my idea on losing your best time. HERE is what he had to say.

[Mike Harte]

With all due respect to posters on the qualifying incident, but why do you now want to introduce more rules/regulations/penalties when we already have more than enough, especially when they will artificially alter the grid.

Qualifying has always been fraught with potential problems for all the competitors, well certainly for as long as I can remember. What teams, at least the well organised ones, did was to send out their drivers at the beginning of the session to put in a banker. This was done to ensure that, no matter what happened later in the session, they would have a reasonably good starting position on the grid. You did it if it was pouring with rain at the start of qualifying just in case the weather deteriorated even if the weather forecast had promised it to be bettter.

Nowadays, the trend is for drivers to always leave their final attempt to improve their times to the very last second, which so often leaves to "traffic jams" for some of the competitors. Yes, I know that the excuse is that the track becomes faster as the session progresses, but is that always the case, or is it just the story that they like to spin to explain why they stay in their garages until the last moment.

In the Monaco incident, I think that the only reason that the Stewards reviewed it was because Hamilton had spat out his dummy, and the media did their very best to wind him up to try to get him to make a public scene. The Stewards acted in an effort to defuse the situation that was really of the making of the media.

The Stewards review showed that both Rosberg and Hamilton had braked 8 metres later at the same corner, but that Rosberg had turned in fractionally too tightly which unbalanced the car and what happened after was the consequence. It was a classic racing incident that probably happens a couple of hundred times a year in the various stratus of motor racing, and as such, it should not be punished. This was not a Schumaker "incident", which should certainly be penalised.

Next, somebody will be calling for penalties if a car has a technical fault bringing out the yellows! And would you punish a driver or team if their car suddenly developed an oil leak in the closing moments of qualifying, thereby denying all those cars behind a faster lap? As they say, there's nothing to see here, so please, all move along to the next meeting.

[321Go]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The Stewards acted in an effort to defuse the situation that was really of the making of the media.

Quite the opposite. By investigating the 'off', the stewards were in fact throwing fuel to what was a small flame at the time. The investigation started the fire. When most of the F1 media thought they were investigating an unsafe re-join by Rosberg, the stewards were actually investigating a potential cheating incident which did nothing but escalate what most believed was a driving error by Rosberg. It raised the question if Rosberg had indeed cheated. It is then that the media went wild with cheating accusations.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Quite the opposite. By investigating the 'off', the stewards were in fact throwing fuel to what was a small flame at the time. The investigation started the fire. When most of the F1 media thought they were investigating an unsafe re-join by Rosberg, the stewards were actually investigating a potential cheating incident which did nothing but escalate what most believed was a driving error by Rosberg. It raised the question if Rosberg had indeed cheated. It is then that the media went wild with cheating accusations.

You may choose to take that view; however, I would disagree. And after having read the article from by James Allen that you linked in an earlier post, Derek Warwick, who was one of the FIA Stewards at Monaco, doesn't mention unsafe return to the track as you say, I maintain that it was the media frenzy that drove the Stewards to investigate so as to pacify Hamilton.

[VIVA GT]

I certainly don't see the point of adding another 60 seconds to the session. Not only would this not be long enough for the track to be cleared so that delayed drivers could have another go. There would also be insufficient time for them to add fuel or nip down to Pirelli and buy another set of 'emergency use only' tyres because they'd now taken the edge off the set they were using!
If there are to be any rule changes regarding this, I think the most workable solution would be to delete the best qualifying time set in that session by the driver who caused the yellow flags in the first place. This could still be classed as unfair and in certain circumstances could 'rob' someone of their best qualifying time, but at least it should discourage a driver from causing a yellow flag incident in the first place (unless he'd managed to already set two blindingly quick times anyway!)
No that I'm suggesting that Rosberg did what he did deliberately, I'm just adding my thoughts about the possible rule change.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

With all due respect to posters on the qualifying incident, but why do you now want to introduce more rules/regulations/penalties when we already have more than enough, especially when they will artificially alter the grid.

CART took away the fastest lap.

If you spoil everybody else's playtime, you should get a penalty.

It was good for imposing some discipline.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by miatanut

CART took away the fastest lap.

If you spoil everybody else's playtime, you should get a penalty.

It was good for imposing some discipline.

But, this wasn't a case of a lack of discipline. The Stewards, having analysed all the data from their own sources, plus the telemetry from both Hamilton and Rosberg, found that both drivers were on almost identical times at the same point, and both had braked 8 metres later at the same corner. The only difference between the two was that Rosberg turned fractionally more tightly than Hamilton.

As long as one accepts that Rosberg didn't go down the slip road intentionally to sabotage anyone else's qualifying, and the Stewards on the day made it clear that they found no evidence of that having happened, then you can't punish a driver for what can only be described as a racing incident. Otherwise, you have to start penalising other drivers who also nearly do the same thing, because they might have caused the same problems for other competitors due to their "implied" lack of discipline.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But, this wasn't a case of a lack of discipline. The Stewards, having analysed all the data from their own sources, plus the telemetry from both Hamilton and Rosberg, found that both drivers were on almost identical times at the same point, and both had braked 8 metres later at the same corner. The only difference between the two was that Rosberg turned fractionally more tightly than Hamilton.

As long as one accepts that Rosberg didn't go down the slip road intentionally to sabotage anyone else's qualifying, and the Stewards on the day made it clear that they found no evidence of that having happened, then you can't punish a driver for what can only be described as a racing incident. Otherwise, you have to start penalising other drivers who also nearly do the same thing, because they might have caused the same problems for other competitors due to their "implied" lack of discipline.

I always saw the CART rule as a deterrent, making drivers think twice before doing anything untoward.

[Paradise City]

I've no problem either way. But I 'm utterly opposed to regulations passed to simply to duck a media storm. Passing regulations for political reasons or to avoid media storms has emasculated a number of series.

You pass regulations for serious reasons.

It depends whether they anticipate future "Piquet Jr" style tactics from teams or individual drivers in which the races and results are thrown using very subtle methods. Disallowing the "best time" in qualifying would at least help close off one area where results could be thrown. It would be an indictment of the sport if it was felt needed to resort to that of course.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But, this wasn't a case of a lack of discipline. The Stewards, having analysed all the data from their own sources, plus the telemetry from both Hamilton and Rosberg, found that both drivers were on almost identical times at the same point, and both had braked 8 metres later at the same corner. The only difference between the two was that Rosberg turned fractionally more tightly than Hamilton.

As long as one accepts that Rosberg didn't go down the slip road intentionally to sabotage anyone else's qualifying, and the Stewards on the day made it clear that they found no evidence of that having happened, then you can't punish a driver for what can only be described as a racing incident. Otherwise, you have to start penalising other drivers who also nearly do the same thing, because they might have caused the same problems for other competitors due to their "implied" lack of discipline.

I think you are correct, in spite of what some drivers thought about Nico's actions.
Looking at possible scenarios.....
Would you also take a drivers fastest time if they had an oil leak in the closing stages and that caused a yellow?
Or if someone touched someone and the victim had to stop and it caused a red or a yellow? Would you take their time?
Or if people were said to have caused a yellow that in fact had been unnecessary, would they lose their time?

It is what it is. Leave it alone.
We are getting to the point where the sport is becoming so 'over - scrutinised' and there is so much bickering over minute 'possibilities' the entire sporting aspect of F1 is being lost.

Right now we have people lauding it as a way of promoting interest, but it is also undermining the credibility of F1 as a sport, and ultimately people will tire of it, lose interest and turn their backs or step away from it.

Compared to what it was 25 years ago F1 is like a decapitated chicken, in it's death throes, but running in circles and attracting attention for amusements sake.
But it is only temporary, and if F1 cannot take a more mature hold of its financial and sporting future then what it becomes will be attractive to no one.
I am not predicting a doomsday scenario, only that the really serious issues are not being addressed and if they aren't addressed now, the effects will be dire.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Looking at possible scenarios.....
Would you also take a drivers fastest time if they had an oil leak in the closing stages and that caused a yellow?

If your team didn't put the wheel on right and it fell off, you lose your time. Anything you do that creates an unsafe condition on the track, you lose your time.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Or if someone touched someone and the victim had to stop and it caused a red or a yellow? Would you take their time?

In qualifying these are normally one car incidents, but if it was caused by a car running into another car and booting that car into a guardrail or something, the stewards have to determine who was at fault. Because the drivers are trying to get a clear track for their lap, this is an unlikely scenario.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Or if people were said to have caused a yellow that in fact had been unnecessary, would they lose their time?

It's up to the flaggers to determine if there is an unsafe condition, but certainly the call could be subject to review later and a driver might not lose a time they think they are going to lose.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

It is what it is. Leave it alone.
We are getting to the point where the sport is becoming so 'over - scrutinised' and there is so much bickering over minute 'possibilities' the entire sporting aspect of F1 is being lost.

It worked quite well in CART. The elegant thing about it, is the drivers are making the decision about how hard they want to push and how much they want to expose themselves to risk. A bit like the old days when any accident could have significant consequences for a driver.

[Teretonga]

I asked the questions because I wanted people to think about whether or not they wanted F1 run like that.

I know what the regulated answers would be but I don't think that sort of regulation is what F1 needs right now.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I asked the questions because I wanted people to think about whether or not they wanted F1 run like that.

I know what the regulated answers would be but I don't think that sort of regulation is what F1 needs right now.

CART was great fun. I think F1 could learn a thing or two from 1990's CART.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

CART was great fun. I think F1 could learn a thing or two from 1990's CART.

F1 has already learnt and borrowed a fair bit from AOWR in general over the years, for example the mandatory pitstop and more recently the option tyre.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by miatanut

CART was great fun. I think F1 could learn a thing or two from 1990's CART.

1990's CART was some the best open wheel racing in the world in the early 9o's and I have always wondered if Mr E wasn't instrumental in encouraging TG toward the IRL split (and giving him a GP) to serve his own interests....

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

F1 has already learnt and borrowed a fair bit from AOWR in general over the years, for example the mandatory pitstop and more recently the option tyre.

The option tire was a CCWS thing, which to me was a gimmick. I kind of thought CCWS was desecrating the corpse of CART. For me, there is a big distinction between CART & CCWS. CART had Firestone vs Goodyear tire wars!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

1990's CART was some the best open wheel racing in the world in the early 9o's and I have always wondered if Mr E wasn't instrumental in encouraging TG toward the IRL split (and giving him a GP) to serve his own interests....

Never thought of the split in this light before.

It certainly ruined a good competitor!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The option tire was a CCWS thing, which to me was a gimmick. I kind of thought CCWS was desecrating the corpse of CART. For me, there is a big distinction between CART & CCWS. CART had Firestone vs Goodyear tire wars!

For sure option tyres were a gimmick to try and keep a dying series, from dying; it was the corpse of CART.

Firestone vs Goodyear, Lola vs Penske vs Reynard vs Swift etc.

[321Go]

For all those people saying F1 has no relevance to road cars, you all need to build a bridge and get over it.

[wolfhound]

There is a meeting of F1 teams, FIA, FOM and others involved in F1 today to hammer out rules for next year and beyond.

Among the proposals hidden in the agenda is one that teams will no longer have to produce their own survial cell for the car. What makes up the survial cell? Well its piece that the driver sits in plus the fuel tank. That to me sounds very like the chassis to me. The result teams will no longer have to produce their own car. Customer cars could be only a year or two away. Bye bye one part of F1's DNA.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...ls-fall-short/

I know the reference is abehind a pay wall but is the only one I am aware of.

[JeremySmith]

If it's one way to *control* costs I am not sure that will be a bad idea...

[Formulahistory]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Customer cars could be only a year or two away. Bye bye one part of F1's DNA.

Costumer cars were part of F1 over centuries...

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Customer cars could be only a year or two away. Bye bye one part of F1's DNA.

Why not think of it as being a positive, if it's true. It could well be the salvation of Formula 1.

Although not part of Grand Prix racing for centuries, the ability for teams to buy a chassis, sometimes with suspension and sometimes without went on for years; likewise the inclusion of engine and running gear or not as the case was.

Some of the most respected names in motor-racing history operated in such a way. There was John Cooper, Ken Tyrell, Frank Williams and Jack Brabham. I think that I am right in saying that Jackie Stewart's first F1 Championship came when he drove Tyrell's Matra-Ford.

Then we have Hesketh, who purchased a March chassis For James Hunt to drive. He also brought a brilliant young engineer from March, Harvey Postlewaite who transformed the original chassis, and which became the basis for the first in-house chassis that Hesketh built; and didn't Hunt go on to win a few races in that.

But these are all fairly ! recent; go back to Moss era, or so, there was no loyalty amongst the teams about the cars they ran. If one was a real dog, they would buy another from a different source mid-season. Something in my mind is trying to tell me that Ferrari even ran a Maserati at one time!

I won't go on, but think of the potential races we could have if Caterham were running full spec Mercedes Toro Rosso running full spec Ferraris, and both beating the works teams. It happened in the past, and it could happen again. Bring it on, I say

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Why not think of it as being a positive, if it's true. It could well be the salvation of Formula 1.

Although not part of Grand Prix racing for centuries, the ability for teams to buy a chassis, sometimes with suspension and sometimes without went on for years; likewise the inclusion of engine and running gear or not as the case was.

Some of the most respected names in motor-racing history operated in such a way. There was John Cooper, Ken Tyrell, Frank Williams and Jack Brabham. I think that I am right in saying that Jackie Stewart's first F1 Championship came when he drove Tyrell's Matra-Ford.

Then we have Hesketh, who purchased a March chassis For James Hunt to drive. He also brought a brilliant young engineer from March, Harvey Postlewaite who transformed the original chassis, and which became the basis for the first in-house chassis that Hesketh built; and didn't Hunt go on to win a few races in that.

But these are all fairly ! recent; go back to Moss era, or so, there was no loyalty amongst the teams about the cars they ran. If one was a real dog, they would buy another from a different source mid-season. Something in my mind is trying to tell me that Ferrari even ran a Maserati at one time!

I won't go on, but think of the potential races we could have if Caterham were running full spec Mercedes Toro Rosso running full spec Ferraris, and both beating the works teams. It happened in the past, and it could happen again. Bring it on, I say

Jackie Stewart did indeed win his first WDC in Ken Tyrrell's Matra-Ford in 1969 and as their was no Matra works team that year, the team was known as Matra International.

I didn't know about Ferrari buying a Maserati, so I did a bit of research and it turns out that after a terrible season in 1955, with only one win at Monaco, Ferrari purchased Lancia's D50 chassis. Fangio won three races the following season in it and the WDC.

Former Mexican F1 driver Hector Rebaque had an arrangement with Lotus, who supplied Team Rebaque with a Lotus '78 for the 1978 season and a Lotus '79 in the 1979 season.

Customer cars are very much part of F1's DNA.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I didn't know about Ferrari buying a Maserati, so I did a bit of research and it turns out that after a terrible season in 1955, with only one win at Monaco, Ferrari purchased Lancia's D50 chassis. Fangio won three races the following season in it and the WDC.

Thanks for the correction.

The brain is a wonderous thing, how it retains these little nuggets which can be retrieved, possibly, quicker than any computer. Unfortunately,especially as we get older, the little grey cells don't always get all the details exactly right.