[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[wnut]

Off track a bit, but welcome to ROBORACE.

Sure it will be a big hit.


http://www.f1reader.com/news/formula...squs_container

[bjohnsonsmith]

According to this article, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122501, refueling could return in 2017.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

According to this article, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122501, refueling could return in 2017.

If you want to see a car change places then wait for the fuel stop. Been there seen that idea no thanks.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

If you want to see a car change places then wait for the fuel stop. Been there seen that idea no thanks.

I really want to be cynical and say "Pit fires really spice things up", but in reality WEC makes it work. But that is also not an argument for doing it in F1. Maybe they should include a driver change. Two cars, four drivers, two of the four are celebrity guest drivers. So Lewis gets out after running his maximum number of laps and then Elton John jumps in and finishes the race. Or something like that.

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

If anything from the past is to be introduced,I'd much rather see active suspension return then refuelling.Or ground effect.Or H-pattern gear shifters.

[bjohnsonsmith]

It's another, rather desperate way to spice up the ''action''.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

According to this article, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122501, refueling could return in 2017.

Ah, but there is an inherent danger in using refuelling in F1 which has to considered. Yes, they do refuel in WEC and other series, but they tend to be mostly endurance type races, where being stationary for 20 or 30 seconds is marginally insignificant in a race that is 6 hours or so long. But even so, how many times do we see a car leaving the "box" with part of the refueling jig still attached. In F1, the the whole refuel/wheel change process is accelerated by a factor of around 4 times, and so the danger factor likewise raises proportionally.

And, I'm afraid, Todt is talking out of his rear end about the costs of dragging all the refuelling rigs around the world. When they were in use previously, because of the ridiculous cost of the rigs themselves (which I am sure would be the same this time around), they had to be flown around between the fly-away races, adding yet another Boeing 747 freighter to the flying circus. That, Mr Todt, will cost one hell of a lot more than £50,000 for a whole year; I would guess that would cost more than that for each team, let alone 11 teams. And as they have to be transported empty, you are paying a huge amount of money for just moving a metal container of air around the world.

Basically, what Todt, et al are saying is that because they have messed up the regulations so much that the only way that they can think of re-introducing competition into a Grand Prix is by artificially "spicing up the show".

[wnut]

"F1 about to score another own goal", Mark Hughes of Motorsport Magazine

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1...ther-own-goal/

[fourWheelDrift]

Everywhere you look people are making dumb decisions, but at least someone is addressing the real issues facing F1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula-one/35322724

[S griffin]

Are they going to give the mechanics a pay rise to reflect the increased risk in pitstops? It's stupid refuelling is still being considered

[wolfhound]

Williams is not in favor of the reintroduction of refueling. I would agree with that. I cannot see any real advantage to its reintroduction.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/re...lliams-668264/

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Ah, but there is an inherent danger in using refuelling in F1 which has to considered. Yes, they do refuel in WEC and other series, but they tend to be mostly endurance type races, where being stationary for 20 or 30 seconds is marginally insignificant in a race that is 6 hours or so long. But even so, how many times do we see a car leaving the "box" with part of the refueling jig still attached. In F1, the the whole refuel/wheel change process is accelerated by a factor of around 4 times, and so the danger factor likewise raises proportionally.

And, I'm afraid, Todt is talking out of his rear end about the costs of dragging all the refuelling rigs around the world. When they were in use previously, because of the ridiculous cost of the rigs themselves (which I am sure would be the same this time around), they had to be flown around between the fly-away races, adding yet another Boeing 747 freighter to the flying circus. That, Mr Todt, will cost one hell of a lot more than £50,000 for a whole year; I would guess that would cost more than that for each team, let alone 11 teams. And as they have to be transported empty, you are paying a huge amount of money for just moving a metal container of air around the world.

Basically, what Todt, et al are saying is that because they have messed up the regulations so much that the only way that they can think of re-introducing competition into a Grand Prix is by artificially "spicing up the show".

You're right and that's what it will be if it goes a head just a way of spicing up the show. However, from a safety aspect, they've been using tyre and fuel stops in AOWR in whatever incarnation they decide to call it, CART/IndyCar, pretty successfully for decades. I think the last major incident was in 2009 at Edmonton, when Tony Kanaan got Ethanol in the cockpit. Aside from the safety aspect, it does add something to the racing, as drivers/teams have to figure out their strategies. They've made it work, without it being gimmicky.

[Mike Harte]

But, BJ, surely F1 is supposed to be man (i.e. a driver of any gender) and machine pitted against each other. It is not supposed a game of strategy using the combined forces of a huge computer with hundreds of technicians supporting it.

If that is the object, I am sure that there are plenty of software applications available to the public to satisfy that requirement. I know that I might be in the minority, but I would like to see the drivers put on the grid knowing that the fuel onboard and the tyres on the 4 cormers are there for the whole race, and we will let you know every lap where you in respect of the other cars and how many laps until the end of the race. I would be quite happy if the races were not always won by the fastest driver, but by the driver who managed his car best for the conditions - just like what it used to be like.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But, BJ, surely F1 is supposed to be man (i.e. a driver of any gender) and machine pitted against each other. It is not supposed a game of strategy using the combined forces of a huge computer with hundreds of technicians supporting it.

If that is the object, I am sure that there are plenty of software applications available to the public to satisfy that requirement. I know that I might be in the minority, but I would like to see the drivers put on the grid knowing that the fuel onboard and the tyres on the 4 cormers are there for the whole race, and we will let you know every lap where you in respect of the other cars and how many laps until the end of the race. I would be quite happy if the races were not always won by the fastest driver, but by the driver who managed his car best for the conditions - just like what it used to be like.

I agree with you Mike about driver and machine but they've successfully incorporated the tyre and fuel stops with that in AOWR and they've been refueling and pitting for tyres long before computers were used. It's always been an aspect of AOWR and it continues to work, despite the advances computer technology.

Putting a driver on the grid knowing that the fuel on board and the tyres on the 4 corners are there for the whole race, is the F1 that I grew up with in my teens. The attritional aspect of a race held as much fascination as seeing who was the fastest. I saw many race won by the driver who managed to keep it all together, rather than the fastest driver on the track. Unfortunately that's more or less gone, what with greater engine reliability. However, if they were to get rid of the tyre stops and just run on one set that would bring something back to the mix but they won't do it.

[Mike Harte]

Further to the various posts about the possible return of re-fueling, according to an article from the Autosport website, is that it was discussed at the Geneva meetings last week, and that the idea has been dropped yet again. It could well have been something to do with the following culled from the Autosport article (n.b. Todt quotes Euros, whilst Symonds talks in £ Sterling):

When the subject re-emerged this month, Todt dismissed the notion that refuelling would raise costs, suggesting a figure of €50,000 a year per team.

But speaking before the meetings in Geneva, Williams technical director Pat Symonds believed the cost would be significantly higher than that figure.

"One needs to be careful with disinformation," he told Autosport. "Refuelling is an expensive thing to do as well as its effect on racing.
"Jean Todt said it cost €50,000 a year. He's an order of magnitude out. That's worrying.

"Freight costs for shipping equipment is £175,000 and it's probably £200,000-250,000 to buy and service the kit in the first year and ongoing cost of servicing it.

"There is also one dedicated salaried person for looking after it so the costs are very significant."

[wnut]

Rules debate inconclusive - 1 March deadline.


http://www.racer.com/f1/item/125705-...e-inconclusive

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Rules debate inconclusive - 1 March deadline.


http://www.racer.com/f1/item/125705-...e-inconclusive

I expect of the next few days we will be hearing from various players as to where the conflict is and how "they" think it should be solved as they try to sway the court of public opinion.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I expect of the next few days we will be hearing from various players as to where the conflict is and how "they" think it should be solved as they try to sway the court of public opinion.

Richard

I think you are right Richard, particularly Mercedes, they seem to be holding up the changes.


http://www.f1technical.net/news/2022...88bd08980493ed

"The currently dominant Mercedes AMG F1 Team is particularly said to be rejecting some of the more radical modifications, in fear of giving away their current competitive advantage."

[wnut]

Gerhard Berger confirming where most of us think that F1 should go back to, driver skill!

http://www.f1reader.com/list/news/la...erested-137160

[Sodemo]

Nothing will change. They have endless meetings and "working group" discussions, but there will be nothing meaningful agreed and the status quo will remain.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Nothing will change. They have endless meetings and "working group" discussions, but there will be nothing meaningful agreed and the status quo will remain.

This man knows!

It has now become an exercise in protecting self interest above everything else and damn the consequences and they are blind to what is happening and think that the old days are still here.

The issue they have now is the internet which makes it so much easier to discuss and criticise what is going on unlike in previous decades where universal discussion was impossible. The F1 decision makers have yet to work out that they face direct and quick reaction from whatever decisions they make instead of silence apart from a bit of editorial criticism in the media if even that happened.

[wnut]

Or just keep shifting the goal pasts and then claim it is too late to change the regulations:

"The meeting proved inconclusive, to such a degree it was indicated to Autosport a delay until 2018 - as previously suggested by Williams technical chief Pat Symonds - was on the cards."


"The reason for the February 29 deadline is that from March 1 the implementation of new regulations, or changes to existing ones, require unanimous approval."

The end game all along!

Oh well, keep fiddling while F1 burns!

http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/deadl...lations-137271

[Casper]

Inmates and asylums spring to mind.

[Richard C]

It doesn't look good. Run out the clock for March deadline.

Richard

[chillibowl]

they have apparently agreed to do away with the token system although from the article i am not clear if it is from 2017 onward (so for the 2018 season) or starting with the 2017 season.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...m-2017-671488/

i like that (or so i say now).