2008 regs

[Swiss]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

So you're allowed your opinion but I'm not to express mine


I hardly see how people saying "the series should be called FART, F1 will die" etc etc amounts to a "debate" or "learning new information".

Yes thats right is a democracy so long as you do what I say

Happy Christmas ....

[Pingguest]

A couple of teams have simulated the new 2008 regulations. According to these simulations the Formula 1 car will be about 15 seconds slower than the current GP2-cars! I think Mosley really has to reconsider his proposals or resign before he damages the Formula 1 even more.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

I support just about every measure announced here.

As with any proposal from the FIA half the forumers will simply criticise - often the same people who moan about teams pulling out/no overtaking etc.

True, the new regs have some potential, but the 'Tyre Wars' add a bit of spice, and we don't want F1 turning into CART.

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

why is F1 any different.

Because it is supposedly meant to be the 'Pinnacle of Motorsport'....

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Because it is supposedly meant to be the 'Pinnacle of Motorsport'....

To the casual viewer it looks no different to any other.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

To the casual viewer it looks no different to any other.

It will if no driver and manufacture will be interested in Formula 1. The only thing what will left is a Formula 1 with second class drivers and maybe one or two manufactures.

In that case, the Formula 1 will look different. Even, or especially, to the viewers.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Spritle

Merge with CART and call it FART because that what a spec series is.

I wish I had the power to dish out reputations... this has to be one of the points of the year :-) Great one man !

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by F.O.F.

that is quite possibly the most sensible thing iv heard on this forum.put in all the safety regs,limit the budget to lets say $m120 and assign all the teams an FIA accountant to make sure they stay below it.i know some teams will allready have certain things in place such as wind tunnels but just limit their use

Without moving closer to a spec. series, this is probably the most sensible solution to the problem. Over the years, the main differentiator between lower classes of single seater racing and F1 has been budgets. The more money people have at their disposal [in general] the more successful they can be, and that doesn't just apply to motorsport. Look at how Chelsea have been transformed with Russian money. Police the budget and force people to innovate within a reasonable set of boundaries... and let's get budgets to reasonable levels... $20M-$30M for a team, not $100M+

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Without moving closer to a spec. series, this is probably the most sensible solution to the problem. Over the years, the main differentiator between lower classes of single seater racing and F1 has been budgets. The more money people have at their disposal [in general] the more successful they can be, and that doesn't just apply to motorsport. Look at how Chelsea have been transformed with Russian money. Police the budget and force people to innovate within a reasonable set of boundaries... and let's get budgets to reasonable levels... $20M-$30M for a team, not $100M+

$100M+ would be more than reasonable considering that $300+ is not uncommon.

[davyboy]

The budget discussion's an interesting one. Those spending $300M+ are devoting most of it to development... and most of that development is taking everything to the nth degree of extremes. I think we've lost sight of reality over the past few years with F1 budgets. $100M to put two cars on a grid 16 times or so a year is nothing short of insane. $300M is beyond belief ! If you step back and think for a second, $30M is a monstrous amount of money. So much could be done with it. Think of how much a season of F3 costs, or a season of GP2 for that matter... a small fraction of $30M. A modest budget would not only stretch the best people in a team, but it would also open F1 up to a lot more teams, drivers and sponsors which would be better for everyone.

[slicktoast]

Away from the money issue...could the rev-limited engine rule mean that ANY engine configuration/capacity could be used? Could we see rev-limited: I4 turbos, NA V-12s, V-6 turbos, NA V-10s all racing together?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by slicktoast

Away from the money issue...could the rev-limited engine rule mean that ANY engine configuration/capacity could be used? Could we see rev-limited: I4 turbos, NA V-12s, V-6 turbos, NA V-10s all racing together?

No,it's got to be a V10.And only for the 2006/7 seasons.

[Pingguest]

About the budget cap: the FIA won't be able to police that rule. If the treasury isn't even 100% able to check the administration of companies, it's an illusion that the FIA will be able to monitor the teams' budgets.

[Marbot]

There's an interesting rule in the regs that allows any new technology to be used until the end of the season by the team that introduced it.But at the end of the season if said technology is found to be of no relevant use to F1 it will be prohibited and the banned technology will then have to be disclosed to the FIA.

So any team thinking of introducing anything too radical (and expensive) had better watch out.

[senna12]

I am against any regulation that would make an F1 car slower than any other type of racing, as it would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport. Speed TV, for example, takes great pains to point this fact out to its' audience during F1 broadcasts, and it is a large part of the appeal of F1 to less knowledgeable North Americans. Slowing the cars down is very counterproductive. Why not just use tire technology to try to "cap" things right around where they are now, since it is the most important part of the equation anyway? A control tire, for example, would have quite a trickle down effect on developement, since there would be a point, speed-wise, the cars could not exceed, grip-wise. Perhaps this point would eventually be reached by the teams sooner than later anyway if left to their own devices, and we should just let it happen. Tires already bond with the road surface at a molecular level. How much more is left?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by senna12

I am against any regulation that would make an F1 car slower than any other type of racing, as it would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport.

What do you mean by "slower".Surely both the IRL and CART have much higher average speeds.And drag racers are so much faster than either of those.

F1 is a racing series governed by a set of technical and sporting regs.If the regs say the cars have to weigh three tonnes and can only use 50cc lawnmower engines as propulsion,then that is what sets it apart from the rest.Not because it is the fastest,which it isn't anyway.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by senna12

I am against any regulation that would make an F1 car slower than any other type of racing, as it would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport. Speed TV, for example, takes great pains to point this fact out to its' audience during F1 broadcasts, and it is a large part of the appeal of F1 to less knowledgeable North Americans. Slowing the cars down is very counterproductive. Why not just use tire technology to try to "cap" things right around where they are now, since it is the most important part of the equation anyway? A control tire, for example, would have quite a trickle down effect on developement, since there would be a point, speed-wise, the cars could not exceed, grip-wise. Perhaps this point would eventually be reached by the teams sooner than later anyway if left to their own devices, and we should just let it happen. Tires already bond with the road surface at a molecular level. How much more is left?

I don't think the ethos of F1 was ever to be the fastest form of wheel driven projectile. As long as the series existed its been restricted by all sorts of regulations which were mainly driven by speed reduction and safety.

I personally think that restricting tyres is worst way forward for F1. I would go the other way altogether... allow a lot more freedom with compounds and introduce more tyre companies. Why not even allow teams to choose different tyres from different suppliers at different races ? The great thing about tyres is they only affect the performance of the car they're on... unlike aero which effects the following vehicle making it impossible to pass. Aero needs to be restricted... but other areas need to be freed up.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

A couple of teams have simulated the new 2008 regulations. According to these simulations the Formula 1 car will be about 15 seconds slower than the current GP2-cars! I think Mosley really has to reconsider his proposals or resign before he damages the Formula 1 even more.

Come on, F1 cars wil still be the quickest cars out there in terms of lap times, but not by the current 10-15 second margins.

Budget caps never work, its too easy to circumvent them with creative accounting, such as subsidising parts.

The cap on maximum downforce is sensible, a team could theoretically use an evolution of their car for 3 or 4 seasons and still be competitive.

[speedfreek]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

What do you mean by "slower".Surely both the IRL and CART have much higher average speeds.And drag racers are so much faster than either of those.

round a real track (not an oval) f1 cars are the fastest, IRL have a high average speed coz they go round in a circle and CART have less power and less downforce so are not faster, its true drag racers are fast but they dont have to brake and go round corners.

I think F1 should remain as the fastest series in the world, its part of being the number 1 formula, more technology, more speed, more expensive (but not as expensive as it is now) more etc

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by speedfreek

round a real track (not an oval) f1 cars are the fastest, IRL have a high average speed coz they go round in a circle and CART have less power and less downforce so are not faster, its true drag racers are fast but they dont have to brake and go round corners.

I think F1 should remain as the fastest series in the world, its part of being the number 1 formula, more technology, more speed, more expensive (but not as expensive as it is now) more etc

If you went to a Cart race and then to an F1 race (Canada for example) and didn't have a stopwatch you would find it difficult to tell which was the faster.Some might think that Cart was faster,simply because the cars are closer when racing.You could say the same about MotoGp,even though they are a good 20+ seconds a lap slower.Why does faster have to be better?

[mooneyda]

I know the speed of F1 is a huge attraction for its followers, myself included!!

But surely closer, more exciting racing is better value for the fans money, rather than 22 rocket cars all stuck behind the leader unable to overtake with the aero-packages currently in place??

I personally would rather watch a GP2 race last season for the overtaling manovers alone. Thats what racing is all about afterall..

[davyboy]

F1 is the pinnacle of the sport because its the world's greatest test of driver and machine... both in terms of development and operation. Its also been the only true world series over its 50 year history and as such the winners are deserved of the titles of 'world driving champion' and 'world constructors champion'.

Speed is important in any form of motorsport, but the differential between competitors is the real area of interest... over an above the absolutes drivers of a particular series achieve. Along with its pinnacle status, F1 needs to concentrate on ensuring that those differentials are minimal and that the racing entertainment is good.

[Marbot]

It would be quite easy for CART on a much lower budget and less technology to be much faster than F1(V8 turbo 2.65 ltr in relatively low state of tune).Technology does not equal speed.CART as is F1 is limited by safety,both to the drivers and spectators.It wouldn't do for either series to think it was inferior because it was slower.

[Pingguest]

I think it really is necessary to reduce the costs. But on the other hand, the FIA should recognize that Formula 1 is the pinnacle of motor racing. And it looks like the FIA, and particularly Max Mosley, has forgotten that.

I think the best way to reduce the costs to do something to the necessity of a powerful engine. This could be done by:
- Re-introducing a restricted form of ground effect. This will allow teams to keep the current amount of downforce with a reduced amount of drag. In that case a powerful engine will be less needed. The ground effect will also promote close racing and more passing.
- Banning refuelling and disallow drivers to use more than 175 litres per race (about 60 litres than drivers consume nowadays). This will reduce the need of a powerful engine as well and allow smaller teams to use a different pit stop strategy (remember the 2nd place of Ivan Capelli in France 1990). This will spice up the racing.
- Banning all driver aids, like traction control, tyre blankets and semi-automatic gearboxes.

But as the engine will loose some of its importance, teams will always need to have a powerful engine. From that point of view, the Formula 1 should go back to its roots. Once the Formula 1 was a racing class were new technologies were invited and developed. But the regulations are currently too restrictive. I think that’s not the way to go. The FIA should abolish all engine regulations and use restrictions for the fuel consumption to slow down the cars.

[Adam43]

and, of course, increase the weight of the cars

You have just pointed out how difficult it is. When you are considering engines and going back to it's roots and wanting a more powerful engine I can only assume you don't mean roots as 3.5l 400bhp engines? Or the 1.5l engines before that?

While I generally agree you should be careful as not to get to rose tinted. Capelli's second was good because it was rare - it didn't happen all the time in those days! And is no different to, say, the odd Sauber podium happeninging in the last couple of years.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

and, of course, increase the weight of the cars

Yep.

You have just pointed out how difficult it is. When you are considering engines and going back to it's roots and wanting a more powerful engine I can only assume you don't mean roots as 3.5l 400bhp engines? Or the 1.5l engines before that?

Hehe, no I didn't mean the 3.5 litre engines with 400bhp. But with "roots" I meant the room for technical innovations. Formula 1 was once the racing class were new technologies were invented and/or futher developed. Turbo-charged engines, ground effect, semi-automatic gearboxes, active suspension, traction control, etc. Not that all of these technologies were good for the racing, but that's another discussion.

While I generally agree you should be careful as not to get to rose tinted. Capelli's second was good because it was rare - it didn't happen all the time in those days! And is no different to, say, the odd Sauber podium happeninging in the last couple of years.

Of course, it has always been very rare that small teams like Leyton House got it to the podium. But I think in those days it happened more than nowadays that the underdogs defeated the topdrivers.