Rules WMSC meeting tomorrow, tyre deal up for grabs + rule changes

duke_toaster · 22 Jun 2010, 18:16 (Ref:2716456)

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84678

So, Autosport are reporting

A tyre deal that could be done, or failing that a tender - we'll see
Junking the movable front wings and going to movable rear wings - a good move that maybe should have been done for 2009.
Finally banning F-Ducts for 2011 - hooray!
Tweaking the safety car regs over Schumi's incident - presumably meaning clarifying that it isn't legal.
Possible punishment for USF1 - don't know if they could get any, but I'd like it to be Pain Train levels.

Knowlesy · 22 Jun 2010, 21:36 (Ref:2716576)

Why should USF1 be punished and why should F-Ducts being banned be celebratory?

wnut · 22 Jun 2010, 22:20 (Ref:2716600)

I hope the rumour about banning moveable front wings, DDDs and f-ducts is correct!

I don't think they should have moveable rear wings either.
Single element spec wings with a full length plank would be a good start.
Take a hammer to all the trim tabs on the bodywork

The less aero the better the racing!

6157 · 22 Jun 2010, 22:45 (Ref:2716611)

Punishing USF1 only serves to increase the ego and self-importance of the FIA.

Who are they going to punish? The two janitors and secretary that work there now? If that.

Unless they're bound by the contract, this is one time I'd like to see Windsor and Anderson tell the FIA to stick it.

**Bononi** · 22 Jun 2010, 22:51 (Ref:2716617)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Why should USF1 be punished and why should F-Ducts being banned be celebratory?

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6157

Punishing USF1 only serves to increase the ego and self-importance of the FIA.

Who are they going to punish? The two janitors and secretary that work there now? If that.

Unless they're bound by the contract, this is one time I'd like to see Windsor and Anderson tell the FIA to stick it.

Someone has to kick Windsor and Anderson for that mess...

Marbot · 23 Jun 2010, 00:10 (Ref:2716632)

According to this article: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22356.html, KERS will not be compulsary or of any more benefit than it was previously, plus it will also still disadvantage heavier drivers.. There will be more reinforcement to the chassis and a doubling up of wheel tethers.

If that isn't a recipe for more exciting races, then I don't know what is!

neiltb · 23 Jun 2010, 00:19 (Ref:2716634)

if right marbot, wow, they're really pushing the envelope there.

Marbot · 23 Jun 2010, 00:27 (Ref:2716637)

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltb

if right marbot, wow, they're really pushing the envelope there.

To be fair, they are technical regs. But I don't hold out too much hope for the 'sporting' side of things either.

I certainly hope that the WMSC can come up with something that's a bit radical. Particularly as Valencia isn't going to be anywhere near as good as Montreal was, regardless of what compound tyres they use.

6157 · 23 Jun 2010, 04:34 (Ref:2716695)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Agreed.

Someone has to kick Windsor and Anderson for that mess...

They're shut down, out of business, no assets to speak of.

What would be the purpose of punishing them?

Sodemo · 23 Jun 2010, 07:03 (Ref:2716720)

Surely there is a crossover between sporting and technical regs though?

If they think banning double diffusers is going to be some "miracle cure" for the racing they are sorely mistaken. It will be a total drop in the ocean, and the cars will still probably have more overall downforce next year.

ECW Dan Selby · 23 Jun 2010, 10:06 (Ref:2716773)

I agree Sodemo. That's not to say "oh well what's the point in doing anything at all", but I think this double diffuser thing will make little to no difference. Teams will be already be finding ways of salvaging that lost grip that was produced by the extreme diffusers.

Selby

Marbot · 23 Jun 2010, 12:11 (Ref:2716814)

Deffo adjustable rear wing for 2011.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84682

duke_toaster · 23 Jun 2010, 12:14 (Ref:2716816)

I'm waiting for details on the implementation of the movable rear wing.

Marbot · 23 Jun 2010, 12:27 (Ref:2716820)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I'm waiting for details on the implementation of the movable rear wing.

It seems quite clear cut from the Autosport article what they are, but I guess it won't hurt to wait for the WMSC hearing to conclude.

Pingguest · 23 Jun 2010, 12:37 (Ref:2716827)

The rules allowing adjustable rear wings are very artificial and far from what's needed.

Marbot · 23 Jun 2010, 13:00 (Ref:2716836)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The rules allowing adjustable rear wings are very artificial and far from what's needed.

Agreed. A clear reduction of overall downforce is what's needed, but then you'll have the complaints that F1 is only fractionally faster than GP2 despite all the technology.

The inconvenient truth here is that aero is the Holy Grail of F1 and the biggest differentiator between it and other similarly powered open wheeled series.

duke_toaster · 23 Jun 2010, 13:22 (Ref:2716850)

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...sc_230610.aspx

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84688

We have decisions

Pirelli boots next year
Considering requiring all competitors have licences
Uneccessarily slow driving banned
107% rule next year, based on fastest Q1 time
Movable rear wings next year, frozen out for first two laps, after that can be used if a driver is within 1 second. It will be disabled when a driver hits the brakes, but I'm not exactly sure how this will work. I'll have a look and see if the full rules are up
No F-ducts next year
640kg minimum weight
Cars have to get pack to the pit lane under their own steam in qualifying.
Ho-Pin Tung being given a superlicence. That will get its own thread shortly.

Knowlesy · 23 Jun 2010, 13:53 (Ref:2716863)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

[*]Unecessarily slow driving banned.

Once again a completely over the top reaction from this so called governing body.

Schumacher must feel the world is against him.

Pingguest · 23 Jun 2010, 14:14 (Ref:2716871)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Agreed. A clear reduction of overall downforce is what's needed, but then you'll have the complaints that F1 is only fractionally faster than GP2 despite all the technology.

The inconvenient truth here is that aero is the Holy Grail of F1 and the biggest differentiator between it and other similarly powered open wheeled series.

A massive reduction of downforce is indeed necessary. Formula 1 would become ceteris paribus marginally faster or even slower compared to its feeder series. But why wouldn't the feeder series follow suit?

Alfaholic · 23 Jun 2010, 14:46 (Ref:2716884)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

We have decisions
[*]Uneccessarily slow driving banned
.
.
[*]Ho-Pin Tung being given a superlicence

Who said the FIA didn't have a sense of humour!

Sodemo · 23 Jun 2010, 16:36 (Ref:2716940)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Agreed. A clear reduction of overall downforce is what's needed, but then you'll have the complaints that F1 is only fractionally faster than GP2 despite all the technology.

The inconvenient truth here is that aero is the Holy Grail of F1 and the biggest differentiator between it and other similarly powered open wheeled series.

I disagree totally.

If you changed the chassis rules you could have cars that were easily faster than GP2 cars with minimal downforce.

Say if F1 cars had; 2200mm wide wheel track, much wider rear tyres, slightly wider fronts, with "Monza" spec downforce levels, I think the cars would be faster than GP2 at every track.

What really gets me when I watch old footage of F1 cars say from 1990-1993, its how quick the cars are in slow corners, its not the fast stuff, but the slow - medium speed corners where the speed is.

Marbot · 23 Jun 2010, 16:54 (Ref:2716948)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I disagree totally.

If you changed the chassis rules you could have cars that were easily faster than GP2 cars with minimal downforce.

Say if F1 cars had; 2200mm wide wheel track, much wider rear tyres, slightly wider fronts, with "Monza" spec downforce levels, I think the cars would be faster than GP2 at every track.

What really gets me when I watch old footage of F1 cars say from 1990-1993, its how quick the cars are in slow corners, its not the fast stuff, but the slow - medium speed corners where the speed is.

High cornering speeds are a big no-no in F1 these days, and I still think that aero would make more of a difference to grip, regardless of the 'size' of the tyres.

neiltb · 23 Jun 2010, 19:09 (Ref:2717010)

moveable rear wings are laughable, how many cars have lost so much rear grip while following a car that the back end has gone? I thought the drivers complained of a lack of front grip when in the tow! more rear grip will put the centre of pressure further to the rear, away from where it's needed.

they'e so blind to the issues it's unbelievable.

Sodemo · 23 Jun 2010, 19:32 (Ref:2717019)

Yep, I remember Ross Brawn came out and said (probably a year or more now) that there really is no need for the vast downforce levels in F1.

chillibowl · 23 Jun 2010, 19:37 (Ref:2717024)

Saward also reported that an Extraordinary Meeting of the World Motor Sport Council has been called for Sept. last line.

any ideas what thats about?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lakeside Race Meeting Tomorrow 6 April!!!!	richie17	Australasian Touring Cars.	17	10 Apr 2008 10:12
New Tyre Rule, who will benefit/lose?	Kirk	Formula One	15	23 Jan 2005 19:53
Moto GP: A control tyre rule?	SALEEN S7R	Bike Racing	7	15 Oct 2004 17:02
It is a time to bring one tyre supplier rule	Blue	Formula One	16	8 Mar 2004 12:47