[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

These are already amongst a number of exemptions in the regulations. Plus others such as allowing the team to notify the driver if he needs to pull off the track or return to the pits immediately if there is a possibility of a serious PU failure.

The point about the rules is that the driver must be in control of his car, not being run, via instructions over the air, by faceless technicians hidden away in their bunkers. Otherwise they might just as well dispense with the drivers, and permit the teams to develop robots to manoeuvre the cars around the circuits. It would save a fortune in the top teams, not having to pay their prima donna drivers.

Funny that Mike, I read very similar comments on another forum recently.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bauble

[/B]
Funny that Mike, I read very similar comments on another forum recently.

True, Bob, and apologies; it is really a case of great minds thinking alike. I had been intending to write a similar response when I was preempted by another scribe.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The point about the rules is that the driver must be in control of his car, not being run, via instructions over the air, by faceless technicians hidden away in their bunkers.

I visited Mercedes at Brackley recently during FP2 for the Spanish GP. I can assure you, the technicians (and engineers, and strategists, and design folks) in the bunker there all had faces. Some stony, some sour, some concentrated, some grinning - but they all had faces

[chillibowl]

BE talking about a more equal distribution of prize money...

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ec...ucture-792130/

Ferexit???; )

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

BE talking about a more equal distribution of prize money...

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ec...ucture-792130/

Ferexit???; )

I wonder how much of CVC's share and that of FOM Bernie is willing to chuck in the "new" pot!

[Mike Harte]

The FIA seems to be finding it's spherical objects, and has issued further clarifications on the use of radio messages. This means that, from this weekend, the type of conversation that took place between Rosberg and his pit-crew would no longer be be allowed. They could only have told him to return to the pits, where they could instruct him on the necessary procedure or retire the car.

The drivers are going to need to brush up on the technical manuals!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...nication-rules

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The FIA seems to be finding it's spherical objects, and has issued further clarifications on the use of radio messages. This means that, from this weekend, the type of conversation that took place between Rosberg and his pit-crew would no longer be be allowed. They could only have told him to return to the pits, where they could instruct him on the necessary procedure or retire the car.

The drivers are going to need to brush up on the technical manuals!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...nication-rules

I am only basing this upon what is said in the Autosport article, but it sounds like radio communications are free once the car is in pitlane. So when will we see the first occurrence of a team asking a driver to pit, but not pull into the box and do a slow speed limiter drive down the pitlane while they talk on the radio to receive instructions on how to adjust knobs to address a potentially terminal, but driver correctable issue with the car. It would be the same as a drive through penalty, but not as long as a full pit stop.

Richard

[djinvicta]

If the FIA are intent on keeping this radio chat ban, at least, as you say, the slow roll down the pit lane for instructions, is better than, "will be investigated after the race" and later changing the results.

[chillibowl]

will wait to see it in action first of course but must say i like that the FIA made it both easier and harder in a way.

if you want to help your driver out then bring him into the pits....basically its like the timeout/substitution rules in many other sports.

[Mike Harte]

It's taking it back, somewhat, to how it used to be. The driver drove his car, and if something mechanical required attention, then the driver would pull in to the pits where a technician/engineer/mechanic/grease monkey/friendly helper (delete as appropriate) would attempt to resuscitate the car.

I promise that I am not a Luddite (modern technology fascinates me even if I don't truly understand it), but this seems to be a good idea.

[VIVA GT]

I agree, for once the FIA have come up with what appears to be a sensible and more workable solution that doesn't seem to be open to other interpretations of the meaning. (Having said that, as I typed, I started thinking "what about when a driver has a drive through penalty anyway, could they give him instructions when he's in the pitlane on that occasion too?")

[chillibowl]

the sky must really be falling if the FIA came up with a sensible rule!

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It's taking it back, somewhat, to how it used to be. The driver drove his car, and if something mechanical required attention, then the driver would pull in to the pits where a technician/engineer/mechanic/grease monkey/friendly helper (delete as appropriate) would attempt to resuscitate the car.

thats a great point. there is very much an old school mentality to this rules clarification.

also impressed that the FIA did not completely cave under pressure from team sentiment in the same way that they did earlier this year with the quali format. now do the same with track limits!

[stripedcat]

Hmmm, how about this as a rule change - limit the amount of times that a driver can use DRS? Like in IndyCar - only have a certain amount of DRS(or in IndyCar's case "push-to-pass")charges - that might take away some of the artificiality of it. Also, perhaps not allow for when overtaking lapped cars - and also on that point, not allowing the lapped cars to make use of it if following the leader.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts. I know that perhaps it has problems - what with the "dirty air" problem of F1 - and this year, the cars seem especially difficult to follow one another into corners making it even more difficult to overtake.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am only basing this upon what is said in the Autosport article, but it sounds like radio communications are free once the car is in pitlane. So when will we see the first occurrence of a team asking a driver to pit, but not pull into the box and do a slow speed limiter drive down the pitlane while they talk on the radio to receive instructions on how to adjust knobs to address a potentially terminal, but driver correctable issue with the car. It would be the same as a drive through penalty, but not as long as a full pit stop.

Richard

A self imposed drive through penalty?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

A self imposed drive through penalty?

I guess. But how it will likely play out just shows the absurdity of the rule. Someone is going exit an on track battle to pit at some point and it will leave fans grumbling. Similar to someone having a puncture. It may prevent retirements and allow someone to get some vs. zero points but it is not going to help the quality of the racing. It is odd the things that F1 rule makers decides is important to focus upon.

I suspect that in general the likelihood of it happening is going to be slim. Given how quick tires can be changed, you would think they might also just change tires vs. drive through. So I can only see the "drive through" version happening if the tires are very recent and they are looking for the minimal amount of time being lost. So unless the issue appears and is quickly going badly, it's likely to be put off until a pit and the conversations will be mostly invisible to fans. Drivers will still be getting help from their engineers.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I guess. But how it will likely play out just shows the absurdity of the rule. Someone is going exit an on track battle to pit at some point and it will leave fans grumbling. Similar to someone having a puncture. It may prevent retirements and allow someone to get some vs. zero points but it is not going to help the quality of the racing. It is odd the things that F1 rule makers decides is important to focus upon.

i feel the exact opposite to be honest.

of course it only takes a small percentage of fans to lose their minds on social media to create the impression of widespread failure though.

my hope is that every time a driver incures a 'pit penalty' it reinforces upon viewers that the quality of a driver matters. not just in terms of raw speed but also technical aptitude and understanding. i would hope those are qualities that the majority would take enjoyment from and would reward those who exhibt those skills

personal opinion but i feel this is exactly what they should be focusing on and promoting.

time will tell of course if im being overly optimistic or naive.

[wolfhound]

I suspect we will see the teams getting their software engineers beavering away to come up with, in car info so that the drivers can make adjustments without the need to pit.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I suspect we will see the teams getting their software engineers beavering away to come up with, in car info so that the drivers can make adjustments without the need to pit.

They could get the car to talk to the driver. The team receives the data from the car and then sends the required instructions, to sort the car out to the car's on board computer, which in turn tells the driver what to do.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i feel the exact opposite to be honest.

of course it only takes a small percentage of fans to lose their minds on social media to create the impression of widespread failure though.

my hope is that every time a driver incures a 'pit penalty' it reinforces upon viewers that the quality of a driver matters. not just in terms of raw speed but also technical aptitude and understanding. i would hope those are qualities that the majority would take enjoyment from and would reward those who exhibt those skills

personal opinion but i feel this is exactly what they should be focusing on and promoting.

time will tell of course if im being overly optimistic or naive.

Time will tell. If we all agreed on this stuff there would be nothing to discuss! As I mentioned above, I suspect it will be mostly transparent to viewers outside of the drive through scenario which I suspect will be very rare.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I suspect we will see the teams getting their software engineers beavering away to come up with, in car info so that the drivers can make adjustments without the need to pit.

One thing that puzzles me is that there is not much happening on the display in the car to tell the driver what to do. I am not sure why that doesn't happen more now. Such as "Problem X, turn knob A to 3, B to 6 and C to 2". The system could even be good enough to know what it had suggested and give feedback if it worked or not, and if not alternative solutions to try. My best guess is that...

1. They already do this today, but the permutations of scenarios is so high they can't catch all of them.
2. The effort to crank through all of the failure scenarios in advance and generate proscribed actions may be larger than I think and maybe not worth the effort (time and money) to do on the chance it might occasionally help.
3. Given usage of and limitations of a standard ECU, they may not have the ability (compute, or memory) to implement this "in the car" to the level that I am talking about.

The large teams that have direct factory support for PUs likely have this mostly automated either directly at the circuit or combo of the circuit plus whatever is going on back at the team HQ (contrary to my point #2 above). So it should be hypothetically possible to cover many scenarios inside the car.

Lastly, as I think I mentioned a few pages ago, I put it on the drivers to really learn about the cars. Apparently Nico was on the right track to figure out the solution anyhow. I think what this is going to promote is those who are more technical minded and may cause those who are more natural drivers to suffer (on the assumption it's hard to be excellent at everything).

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They could get the car to talk to the driver. The team receives the data from the car and then sends the required instructions, to sort the car out to the car's on board computer, which in turn tells the driver what to do.

Not sure how that would differ than what they just outlawed. It would basically be a text system instead of voice. Even if it was to trigger pre-established messages, it wouldn't be very different than direct help via the radio.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Not sure how that would differ than what they just outlawed. It would basically be a text system instead of voice. Even if it was to trigger pre-established messages, it wouldn't be very different than direct help via the radio.

Richard

I was being facetious but I couldn't find the appropriate emoticon.

With these future rule changes, like self imposed drive-throughs and now the FIA's decision to use electronic detection technology to monitor track limits, which they are going at this weekend's Hungarian Grand Prix,

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/125385,

I'm beginning to wonder if F1's solution to every problem is to make things even more complicated. What ever happened to the racing?

[Richard C]

I saw that news earlier. That article doesn't mention it, but I think they are put in part of a special timing loop off track to be triggered by the transponder in the car.

I know we talked about geofencing as a solution months ago in a thread here somewhere. The pros and cons of that idea. I know some concerns was to accuracy? I assume it is placed far enough that you can get two wheels off without false positives. I assume that also means there will be some false negatives (those going four off and not getting caught).

Is there a standard location specified for transponders in the cars? I assume centerline up front. Maybe someone will mount theirs slightly off center to give their driver that extra edge (extra room before it triggers).

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I saw that news earlier. That article doesn't mention it, but I think they are put in part of a special timing loop off track to be triggered by the transponder in the car.

I know we talked about geofencing as a solution months ago in a thread here somewhere. The pros and cons of that idea. I know some concerns was to accuracy? I assume it is placed far enough that you can get two wheels off without false positives. I assume that also means there will be some false negatives (those going four off and not getting caught).

Is there a standard location specified for transponders in the cars? I assume centerline up front. Maybe someone will mount theirs slightly off center to give their driver that extra edge (extra room before it triggers).

Richard

According to the article on motorsport dot com, the loop will be 1.6 mtrs from the track edge, which I would have thought overly generous.

I must admit that I cannot understand why they could not devise a curbing that would stop cars abusing the track's limits, but which could be removed for the circuit's use for motorcycles. I am sure that they could come up with suitable fixings for the purpose, and this would solve the problem instantly.

And I would have thought that the transponders would be installed in a prescribed position on all the cars so as not to give any team an advantage.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I suspect we will see the teams getting their software engineers beavering away to come up with, in car info so that the drivers can make adjustments without the need to pit.

I would hazard a guess that this would be covered in the regulations that prohibit pit-to-car telemetry.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I would hazard a guess that this would be covered in the regulations that prohibit pit-to-car telemetry.

I am aware of that but I was thinking more of the cars' on board computers knowing what the problem is tell the driver and give him possible solutions. This could be voice activated to avoid scrolling through menus.

Usually when a new rule appears the teams go searching for ways to work around it, I suspect this is no different.