The FIA's view on lap times and costs.

[Super Tourer]

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...240305-01.html

2005 FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
FIA PRESIDENT COMMENTS ON THE FIRST TWO
RACES OF THE SEASON
24.03.2005

“Malaysia was the first real test of the new rules: extreme conditions for tyres and almost all teams attempting a second race on the same engine. The large number of finishers was a tribute to the work of the tyre and engine suppliers.”

“The drop in performance predicted by the Formula One technical directors has been achieved in the first two races. Had the rules not been changed it is reasonable to assume that the reduction in lap times (increase in speeds) from 2004 to 2005 would have been about the same as it was from 2003 to 2004.”


“Thus assuming that normal progress would have been made had the rules not been changed, the cars were 5.2 and 3.5 seconds a lap slower in Australia and Malaysia respectively.”

“Cost savings are significant. We understand that the tyre suppliers are now taking 4 sets per car to a grand prix compared to 19 sets per car in 2004. Also, each team is now using two engines for two events. Had the rules remained the same as in 2002, top teams would now almost certainly be using 12 engines for two events (one practice engine, one qualifying engine and one race engine per car per event). Bearing in mind that an engine rebuild costs about $200,000 (approx. 150,000€) and remembering that these engines now last upwards of four times as long during private testing, the savings are enormous. There is also a significant saving on capital expenditure because each team’s stock of engines and wheels is smaller. With fewer engines and wheels to move around the world transport costs are also lower.”

“In summary, thanks to the efforts of everyone involved, the season has got off to an excellent start.”

[Super Tourer]

FIA Fastest Lap times comparison

Australia

2003 -1.27.7
2004 - 1.24.1 (-3.6 secs)
2005 projected without rule changes - 1.20.50 (-3.6 secs)
2005 with rule changes - 1.25.7 (+1.6 secs)

Malaysia

2003 -1.36.4
2004 - 1.34.2 (-2.2 secs)
2005 projected without rule changes - 1.32.0 (-2.2 secs)
2005 with rule changes - 1.35.5 (+1.3 secs)

[Logrence]

I wonder what costs will be saved when the manufacturers have to move to the new V8 formula?

Perhaps Max refers to the costs saved by BMW, where they had a new engine for this year already built and on the dyno, but had to re-engineer last year's engine for this year's rules.

Funny...

[Inigo Montoya]

Well, all the teams can do is hope that after the V8 change, and after they finally agree to testing limits, things will stabilize for a while. The idea is that, over the long term, significant savings will be realized.

[Pingguest]

Mosley seems to be insane and doesn’t have any knowledge of business economy. The new regulations increased the development costs structurally.

[Adam43]

The formula (excuse the pun) for the speeds and costs is a complex one. It involves cutting speeds, reducing expenditure, teams with big budgets, teams with small budgets, this year, next year, years ahead.

There are many things that act against one or more of the above, but for one or more against the others. Therefore, I suggest, it is the easiest thing in the world to find something wrong with any change - or indeed any consistency.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Mosley seems to be insane and doesn’t have any knowledge of business economy. The new regulations increased the development costs structurally.

Far too strong, and wrong. Costs for development have gone up, but only because the top teams and manufacturers have that money and will spend it regardless. They could have done it cheaper - use the same engine and take 15,000 or more revs off... but then another competitor would do it right by spending more money, so they go big on the budget too. Vitally though, costs for smaller teams must surely have gone down - and that is the factor that is vital for the survival of F1 with anything like its current complexion... ie with smaller teams getting into the mix.

[Testure]

Mosley seems to be saying that "the measures" were intended to cut lap times from what they would have been had those measure not been introduced. That's total arse. They were sold to us as being designed to cut times from what they were last year. They haven't done so.

[Kicking-back]

I think Max is right - they had to do something to cut lap times - but when you have a tyre war it becomes very difficult to peg speeds.

[garcon]

[pedant]Increase lap times, surely?[/pedant]

The thing with implementing cost cutting measures is that if they involve technical changes they're going to cost more at first, but the savings over the longer term will benefit. And that's without the big team budget factor Glen mentions...

[BootsOntheSide]

Times have increased from last year though Testrue, look at the times listed above. They would've certainly dropped by a fair amount were it not for these changes. Whether it's actually cheaper is unclear - it might be in the long term, but a lot of work fopr this eyar's cars was wasted because the decisions were made comparatively late. Long term effects will probably be beneficial to the smaller teams, and will make things more challenging (if not actually cheaper - the team with the most money will always find a way of spending it, and the other teams will always (to some extent) ahve to find ways to bridge the gap)

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Glen

Far too strong, and wrong. Costs for development have gone up, but only because the top teams and manufacturers have that money and will spend it regardless. They could have done it cheaper - use the same engine and take 15,000 or more revs off... but then another competitor would do it right by spending more money, so they go big on the budget too. Vitally though, costs for smaller teams must surely have gone down - and that is the factor that is vital for the survival of F1 with anything like its current complexion... ie with smaller teams getting into the mix.

According to Paul Stoddart the costs for the smaller teams didn't decreased. The one engine rule is only a rule for the top teams. The smaller teams changes engines often; they won't be dropped ten places back on the starting grid.

[Pingguest]

Mosley forgets on thing. Before this season the promised lower costs, slower cars and more excitement. On conclusion can be made: the races didn't become more exciting. The races are just boring.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Mosley forgets on thing. Before this season the promised lower costs, slower cars and more excitement. On conclusion can be made: the races didn't become more exciting. The races are just boring.

Could not disagree more. We've had one race marred by rainy qualifying, but still with a significant amount of passing, and the second race was fantastic. IMHO, the passing we saw in Malaysia was in large part due to the new tyre rules. I am not the first to defend Max, but in this case, I think he has gotten it right.

[Kicking-back]

Totally agree, Inigo.

The racing in Malaysia was good.

The new rules encourage the drivers to think of a Grand Prix in terms of its distance rather than a series of short sprints which by their nature mitigate against overtaking.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The one engine rule is only a rule for the top teams. The smaller teams changes engines often; they won't be dropped ten places back on the starting grid.

However the rule helps then in that they don't have to change and clearly don't all the time. If they want to change then fine, spend the money. The FIA can't stop them spending money (needlessly).

And Jordan have Toyota engines!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Could not disagree more. We've had one race marred by rainy qualifying, but still with a significant amount of passing, and the second race was fantastic. IMHO, the passing we saw in Malaysia was in large part due to the new tyre rules. I am not the first to defend Max, but in this case, I think he has gotten it right.

Why would the new tyre rule increase the number of overtakings? It just has the opposite effect. Drivers don't want to have the whole race with a flat point because of just one failed overtaking attempt.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

And Jordan have Toyota engines!

Sauber is using Ferrari engines since 1997.

[Kicking-back]

Sitting behind a car you are faster than is one of the easiest ways to knacker your tyres.

[Inigo Montoya]

And if your tyres go off (a la Fisichella in Malaysia), you slow down, and others might attempt a pass.

[Snrub]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Could not disagree more. We've had one race marred by rainy qualifying, but still with a significant amount of passing, and the second race was fantastic. IMHO, the passing we saw in Malaysia was in large part due to the new tyre rules. I am not the first to defend Max, but in this case, I think he has gotten it right.

Malasyia was a decent race because of the unusual temps which caused the tires to go off in a more extreme fashion. With the new rules, essentially the drivers toddle around until someone's tires go off and then try to get by when there is a 2+ second a lap differential. We have not seen a single traditional pass for position. No one pushes in the traditional sense anymore and I think it's unlikely that anyone would want to risk their tires by attacking the guy in front if they don't have a clear advantage. What is good about that?

[Logrence]

Of course we haven't seen a traditional pass for position yet - all the overtaking last year was done in the pits...thank goodness they've more-or-less been forced to do it on track.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the naysayers - I think it's been remarkably exciting so far this year...the RBR cars overtaking Ferrari will stick in the memory for a goodly while, and the little spat between the Williams and Ralf was a corker...what's not to like?

If you want tradition, I'd suggest the Euro Boss championship or whatever it's called.

[Testure]

It's been a couple of decent races, yes. However: was it more to do with a number of teams having a similar level of competitiveness or more to do with the new rules? I would say the former, rather than the latter. My thanks go to Bob Bell, Sam Michael and Mike Gascoyne, rather than Max Mosley.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Snrub

Malasyia was a decent race because of the unusual temps which caused the tires to go off in a more extreme fashion. With the new rules, essentially the drivers toddle around until someone's tires go off and then try to get by when there is a 2+ second a lap differential. We have not seen a single traditional pass for position. No one pushes in the traditional sense anymore and I think it's unlikely that anyone would want to risk their tires by attacking the guy in front if they don't have a clear advantage. What is good about that?

What the heck is a traditional pass for position? Slower cars are passed by faster ones... has it ever been any different?

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

According to Paul Stoddart the costs for the smaller teams didn't decreased. The one engine rule is only a rule for the top teams. The smaller teams changes engines often; they won't be dropped ten places back on the starting grid.

Paul Stoddart is a winging windbag who conveniently leaves out whatever information he likes in orer to grind his axe - those naive enough to believe him make matters worse. The current Minardi does change engines every race - because it is a 2004 car with 2004 engines that can't do two distances. The new Minardi will have 2005 engines and be able to halve their engine usage (roughly) just like Sauber, Jordan and Red Bull can right now.

Fortunately no small team is a Honda engine customer!