New rules thread (merged again)

[Rick]

from someone who was there - well said Phil.

[Big Mac]

Just to clarify, Phil hasn't put his name to the opinion piece. It was just titled "MNews says". Make of that what you will...could have been Jo Saward, Phil or a group of the journos. Many of whom are (like myself and many fans at present) completely jacked off with the way this once great sport has self imploded in recent times.

[Kicking-back]

On the flipside - Formula One is more popular than ever...

[Gt_R]

Quote:"spot on I agree. We need to get rid of the dictatorship and Ferrari favouring political infighting."

I agree with you that F1 should stop meddling aimlessly with their rule changes, qualifying, regulations...the instability of which is bad...the worsening effect the new rules cause are worse.

But i disagree with you about "ferrari-favouring". A huge part of recent regulatory changes are done either to directly compromise Ferrari (ie change of points system), or indirectly because of stopping Ferrari (qualifying is constantly tweaked and race regulations changed for the purpose of "spicing up the show" because critics claim Ferrari's dominance is killing the show).

What i must agree with the article is that i do not like the route that Formula One is taking - which is the artificial means to influence the sports. Formula One is not WWF..where we have a script to run a nice show. So what if Formula One has a dominant winner? Keep to the same regulation and not have a knee-jerk reaction..because any ill-planned changes will only ruin the credibility of Formula One as the pinnacle of motorsports.

And the politics. I don't give half a damn if there are the politics. All sports have it. But what i think Formula One (and teams involved) has a responsibility to do is not to air the dirty politics in the open. At least keep 99% out of the media/fans so as not to corrupt Formula One as a sports instead of a political battle ground. I hope ALL teams would learn from Stoddart what not to do, as it basically bring sports into disrepute. Similarly, FIA should have a more independent and detached decision making process. They are there to regulate, not to film a movie.

[markysjag]

Wouldn't a cap on spending and testing be a better way of bringing Ferrari back to the field.Isn't it because of the amount of funds they have available made them what they are?Each team 50 million each no more, drivers costs not included may the smartest hardest working team win and not the richest.

[Big Mac]

K-B. Yes F1 is popular at present. Why? It has a lot to do with the increased involvement of the manufacturers in recent years, pouring billions of their global marketing budgets into the sport. This coupled with the growth of new medias and the pushing of the sport, on a business level in particular, into new markets has seen so many more people exposed to F1. Naturally the sport is going to be more popular if more people are aware of it.

The real issue lies, as GTR touched on, in the credibility of the sport. It’s loosing it hand over fist. For those whom have followed the F1 over the years, thru whoever happens to be dominating, it is sad to see the things that made this F1 one of the most exciting and enjoyable sports in the world to watch get eroded away. Take qualifying as an example. There was nothing overtly wrong with the hour system. 12 laps, balls out, low fuel. The fastest bloke would end up on pole. Simple. Then single lap qualifying...on race fuel...what a joke. Now we have aggregated qualifying!!! Anyone would think that the FIA are moving into stand-up comedy!

[Dixie Flatline]

The F1 fraternity tried to voluntarily limit testing over the winter break - only to have Ferrari refuse to agree to it.

The trouble is that Formula One is perceived as being the pinnacle of technical innovation, and for a long time it has been such a pinnacle.

Once you begin tinkering with rules to limit in any effective manner what the competitors might do, then you run the risk of ruining that perception, and for some that is the true attraction of Formula One.

[Dixie Flatline]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

K-B. Yes F1 is popular at present. Why? It has a lot to do with the increased involvement of the manufacturers in recent years, pouring billions of their global marketing budgets into the sport. This coupled with the growth of new medias and the pushing of the sport, on a business level in particular, into new markets has seen so many more people exposed to F1. Naturally the sport is going to be more popular if more people are aware of it.

The real issue lies, as GTR touched on, in the credibility of the sport. It’s loosing it hand over fist. For those whom have followed the F1 over the years, thru whoever happens to be dominating, it is sad to see the things that made this F1 one of the most exciting and enjoyable sports in the world to watch get eroded away. Take qualifying as an example. There was nothing overtly wrong with the hour system. 12 laps, balls out, low fuel. The fastest bloke would end up on pole. Simple. Then single lap qualifying...on race fuel...what a joke. Now we have aggregated qualifying!!! Anyone would think that the FIA are moving into stand-up comedy!

The old qualifying system, however, had its own flaws. First, the TV viewers would be confronted by images of an empty track as drivers tried to find exactly the right time to go out and set a quick lap and/or out-psyche each other. Secondly, the teams, unrestrained by the rules, specialised so much on qualifying set-ups that they were effectively building specialised qualifying engines, and making other tweaks to their cars in order to squeeze the last microsecond out of their cars. So, the TV viewers would be bored and the teams would spend horrendous amounts of money on qualifying.

The problem for Formula One's qualifying system is that there are few teams who can properly compete. If there were more competitive teams on the grid, then I would be in favour of a V8 Supercar-style hour of free-for-all qualifying (with limitations on what the teams can do with their cars in terms of specialising them) then followed by a top-ten shoot-out to determine pole position.

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by mac

Haug's idea takes them straight back to using two engines and "increased costs".

Only one engine per race, however the use of the engine is split over two consecutive races (instead of practice-qual-race it is qual-race-prac). Very sensible however monitoring it is the same engine appearing at the next meeting may prove problematic.

[Adam43]

Big Mac's Australian Motorsport News Comment is a media comment that fits the new rules thread perfectly. Merged. Thanks

[Gt_R]

markysjag.. i think many fans are misled into thinking that what made Ferrari superior (or any other teams for that matter) is (i) amount of funds (ii) testing.

Look at the past few years and you'd realise that if FIA works purely on this two factors, they'd barely help improve the show. Ferrari's budget isn't significantly greater than the likes of Toyota and Mclaren. And in recent years, Ferrari's testing mileage is not the top of the list. It is in fact usually hogged by Mclaren, while Williams does similar level of testing as Ferrari (in fact more over the winter season). But what does that achieve?

Dixie, i'd like to inform you that Ferrari did not refuse to cut track testing, but rather they have their own opinion on how testing ought to be cut.

IMO, i have read and thought about on the current engine rule, and i believe that there is a better way than what we have now.
(1) Team can use a new engine from qualifying and race. However, that engine is to be used for Friday and Saturday Practice session of the following race. If an engine blows, then the team has no choice but to sit out of the practice session (this could see some top teams end up at the mid-field in qualifyings). If a team crashes in qualifying and damage the new engine, they are either forced to retire (DNQ) or use the engine they had from the previous race.

(2) Each car is limited to a practice engine, which is to be used for 4-race worth of practice sessions. A blown engine in one of the practice sessions meant that the driver have to sit out of the remaining practice sessions. However, each car is entitled an engine per race(qualifying and race).

This two ideas would be better as it does not create controversy as what BAR had done in Melbourne, and doesn't hurt the RACE itself as teams do not have to worry about another race. It also ensure all teams start on a level field (everybody use a new engine), while the regulations which affect the practice sessions would not confuse casual fans who only follow qualifying/race, while easily understood by any fan who are interested to find out more.

Formula One is technically a complex sports, but it shouldn't make it more complicated for casual fans to follow on the TV, which doesn't usually explain how the complex regulations work. Take a leaf out of games such as Grand Prix 4 and Gran Turismo 4. Hardcore enough for the enthusiast...but casual enough to be watched by anyone.

And maintain the credibility of the sports. Do NOT change regulations just as a reaction to domination. Stability of regulations would nurture more loyal followers of Formula One who could understand the beauty of the whole game.

[Big Mac]

Due to the thread merge (and my lack of experience!!) the full text of the Motorsport News comment has been cut my the mods but it can be found here:

www.mnews.com.au

[Adam43]

Thanks Big mac

[Pingguest]

Well, the problem of the old qualifying system as used before 2003 was also caused by the FIA. The motor sport authority introduced a limit of 12 laps. Drivers didn't get out, because they didn't want to waste any lap.

What the FIA should have done was easy. First, it had to abolish the limit of 12 laps. Second, the FIA should have introduced an unlimited amount of the qualifying tyres.

[Kicking-back]

Pingguest - that suggestion shows an ignorance of why qualifying tyres and unlimited laps were banned in the first place.

[Marbot]

All they need to do is make sure that each car does 1 lap(whatever the weather)in each 15 minute period.

And to make sure that all the flying laps are commited ones,the driver with the lowest aggregate time gets pole.

I know we don't like aggregate times but it's the only way you will get the drivers to commit to 4 fast laps.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Pingguest - that suggestion shows an ignorance of why qualifying tyres and unlimited laps were banned in the first place.

As far as I know, the FIA banned qualifying tyres in order to reduce the costs. Well, I'm not sure this was really needed and had the expected result.

And as far as I know, the FIA introduced the limit of 12 laps to make it drivers impossible to block others intentional. But for that problems other solutions would have been better.

[Kicking-back]

Qualifying tyres were banned primarily on safety grounds.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Qualifying tyres were banned primarily on safety grounds.

Lol. Drivers only had two sets of qualifying tyres. They just actually had to laps to qualify. If the FIA would allow more sets, safety wouldn't have been an issue.

[Snrub]

I'm glad some people see it the way I do and can get past the minor issues of qualifying and can see that there are much bigger problems with the new regs. The racing and ability to pass has gotten progressive better over the last couple of years (until now) because the tires have gotten a LOT stickier. In the past few years the cars have gotten like 10 seconds a lap faster than before, primarly due to the tires.

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Has this ratio changed though, because we've had a loss of mechancial grip and a loss of aerodynamic grip (if you want to phrase it like that). I am unsure which has been the most dramatic. I might guess aero, but I don't know (difficult to measure anyway).

Recall that a couple of the teams have said that they've clawed back every bit of downforce. The tires are clearly not as grippy as before. I also wonder if the relocation of the wings has made the dirty air problem more prominant. Undertrays are not drastically effected by dirty air, is this because they're close to the ground, away from turbulance? It seems to me that when air comes off of a rear wing it is going to be more turbulant closer to the height of the rear wing rather than closer to the ground. Now that the front wings are higher up, are they more susceptable to turbulance which makes unfavorable mechanical:aero grip ratio even further out of wack?

[Adam43]

Good point about clawing back aero grip. Generally though I still wouldn't like to say which has had the biggest relative loss. I guess I'd plump for tyres though.

Also we should be a little careful of using Melborne as an example. A one off with the corners that are not ideal for overtaking. Although maybe that is an idication of the problem!

Everyone knows the mechanical/aero (indeed type of aero too) conundrum. Generally I go along with it too, but lets go away and get everyone to agree on how to reduce it and when!

[Testure]

I thought the one-lap idea was pretty good in 2003 - a session on Friday and a session on Saturday. Why did they change it for 2004? Having both sessions beside each other just made everyone ignore the first. And why did they change it again this year? Having the final session on Sunday means few people get to see it at all.

[dtype38]

I fully understand the mechanical/aero ratio thing, but I think the FIA are going about it all wrong. We should be moving the sport forward, not dumbing it down. Let me explain...

The race long tyres have definitely lost mechanical grip, probably more than when grooves were introduced (which are no longer required). This is a good thing. The harder compound tyres don't shed bucket fulls of marbles on every bit of the track except the racing line. That makes it much more likely drivers can use different parts of the track to overtake. You may have noted that MB commented on just that during the Melbourne race.

It's been argued by many, including Damon Hill, that you need more mechanical grip than aero or you can't get close enough to another car in a bend to pass them on the following straight. The problem is that this is true only if you think only in tems of the stupidly limiting rules on aerodynamics. This is where the dumbing down is creeping in. I mean, what's the point in teams spending zillions on wind tunnels and aero experts, just to tune a few percent out of a virtually standard set wings and bodywork? Might be rocket science, but it ain't gonna lead to anything radical

What we need is Active Aero.

Then all those clever engineers will soon sort out how to make those hard tyres stick like glue half way round a slow bend then let them fly down the straights. And if that pulls the lap times down too much, only let them have one set of tyres for the whole weekend. Even cleaner track!

And please don't tell me that the smaller teams couldn't afford to compete, because I firmly believe that the systematic tightening of the rules squeezes out the chances of a small team inovating their way up the grid rather than just having to spend the whole budget fine tuning an undertray to gain 2% more downforce.

Neither do I think it would be dangerous so long as a reasonable set of limits for structural strength and projections were introduced.

The only reason I can see that the FIA wouldn't go active aero is that there's a risk that Paul Stoddart might, just might, have more ingenious engineers than Ferrari or McLaren. And that might just rock their boat way too much.

[Sodemo]

As I have said all along, the simpler you make the aero, the less gains you get from it through developement.
They should keep the current tyres, there is nothing wrong with them as such.
But what they STILL need to do is make a massive slash in downforce (around 70%), this has been the case for years and years, but especially post 1998.
Although I would love to see slicks and wide rear tyres return.

Actually I approximate that the downforce produced by the cars is around the 1000Kg mark, it might be more, it might be less, but it has to be at least 600Kg as everyone says that an F1 car could drive upside down - an F1 car weighs 600Kg etc.

So I say, slash the aero so the cars are only producing 250Kg of downforce, using the most racing - friendly methods possible.

[dtype38]

Monster...

Much as I agree with your logic and sympathise with the idea, I think it would do nothing for the quality of F1. I think if you limit the downforce available to some arbitary figure, say 250kg, then you may as well just issue a standard set of wings and bodywork that give that figure and let the cars compete on driver ability and engine power. But then it logically follows that engine power should be limited as well, to say 800hp so that overtaking comes down to just setup and driver ability. I completely agree that it would make for a genuine "driver" championship. Trouble is that I think that a) it would be processional because the cars would be so similar that the worlds best drivers could keep them on the limit all of the time, and b) that there are any number of similarly controlled formulae out there. So F1 wouldn't be anything special at all!

My argument is that F1 should be special because it pushes the limits of racing car design, not the accuracy of the calibration of a wind tunnel. It should have cars with different strengths and weaknesses, not just a homogenous mass all circulating a the same (if incredibly high) speed.

All hail the days of ground effect when cars could go round corners faster than straight lines