[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Interesting article. Especially the bits at the end that read as if the teams clearly know they can't make decisions as a group. Especially anything that requires a strong majority or 100% agreement.

What would be the mechanics of putting this into place? I assume how this all works is bound up in the Concorde agreement? Wikipedia tells me that the current agreement runs through 2020? So the implication is that when the next agreement is presented to the teams, it would have something like this FIA + FOM process? I assume they could all agree to make this change earlier, but again... could they all agree to implement this prior to 2020?

Richard

In reality, no-one outside of FOM and the individual teams can answer your conundrum. The Concorde Agreement was a three side "contract" between all the teams, FOM and the FIA. This finally ended, if my memory is correct, in 2013 when the current arrangements came into force, which means that each team has an individual contract with FOM, whilst FOM then has a contract with the FIA. And, like most of the commercial arrangements in F1, the details of all of those contracts is a dark secret except for the known fact that each team has agreed to continue in the FOM sanctioned series until 2020.

I would imagine that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that new arrangements/contracts could be drawn up that supersede the existing contracts providing that there were a meeting of minds. It would be that meeting of minds that would be problematic.

[mikuni]

I think it has merit, if properly governed. The current turkey voting for Christmas scenario has it's own very obvious short falls, so actually giving someone decision making ability (someone that isn't crazy old Bernie that is) sounds like a good idea to me.

[wnut]

S.ome interesting commentary on F1s conundrum regarding rules here:

http://mag.gpweek.com/#folio=1

Pages 15 to 18

[wnut]

Bring it on I say!

"The easiest thing is to make a tyre that last 10 races, a season. Technologically speaking that's the easiest solution." Privera of Pirelli



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119124

The current tyres just lead to the same tyre deltas, only changed on the basis that you may undercut somebody with a pit stop!


This bothers me!

"Tronchetti Provera said the Strategy Group's proposal that teams get free choice from the four tyre compounds at each grand prix - rather than Pirelli selecting two itself - from 2016 was unacceptable."

IMO the teams should absolutely be given the choice, and Pirelli's tyres should all be capable of being raced on.

[wnut]

"Using a perfectly legal interpretation of the regulations, Ferrari – through its association with the new Haas team that will enter F1 next year – has potentially given itself almost unlimited combined wind tunnel/CFD resource in 2015, while all its rivals are bound to the strict limitations laid down in the regulations."

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1...nd-a-loophole/


Roll on resource restriction agreements!

[Mike Harte]

wnut, although it might be nice to allow the teams to make their own tyre choices, experience shows that the current crop of teams cannot be trusted to make these choices. One only has to cast one's mind back to the embarrassing GP at Silverstone when some of the teams were wilfully ignoring Pirelli's advice on wheel cambers and tyre pressures which led to multiple tyre failures.

The problem about tyres is tied into the whole matter that should be concerning those in charge of F1. Somebody in authority has to make a decision on whether Formula 1 is a sport or just a very expensive entertainment show that is dragged around the world including to some places where the huge majority of the general population have absolutely no interest in the event.

The tyres are the way they are because that is mandated by the FIA, no doubt at the behest of FOM. I don't actually believe that Pirelli are producing the tyres that they would like to showcase, and this is evidenced by the number of press statements that they make to remind the world that they are just fulfilling the brief in their contract with the FIA.

[bjohnsonsmith]

The teams have unanimously rejected the refueling plan.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119318

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The teams have unanimously rejected the refueling plan.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119318

At least that is another one of those stupid rules/ideas from the strategy group has gone.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The teams have unanimously rejected the refueling plan.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119318

Good news, although the teams should not be making the rules..

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Good news, although the teams should not be making the rules..

The only problem that is being overlooked, is that when FISA and Mr. Balestre were making the rules most of the resulting rules were both beyond horrible and stupid.

So don't think that FISA will solve any problems!

[wnut]

http://www.pitpass.com/53979/A-Strategic-Mess

"The FIA has formed the Formula One Strategy Group which proves the adage that a committee has the intelligence of the dimmest present minus one point of IQ for every member. When you make a movie you do not leave the script to the stunt chief, or the person in charge of CGI, you appoint a director. "


"'Racing Improves The Breed' is a 1930s MG advertising slogan and it has never applied to F1 unless you think that the paddle gear change is a remarkable step forward. All the main advances have come from sports car racing, or from road cars. The Strategy Group lives in a little world of its own."


"Jordan is one of only two teams that have entered F1 in the last quarter of a century to have won a Grand Prix, the other being Toro Rosso."

[littleman]

F1 regs should allow for flat out racing with as few rules as possible. The cars should be ridiculously fast, the drivers knackered at the end of the race.

1: 3 litre naturally aspirated engines or 1.5 litre turbos/hybrids. Any engine configuration you like with no attempt at equalizing performance. Natural selection will decide which is the best option.

2: Limited number of tyres per weekend but you can select what you like. Do the entire race on one set or change them as often as you like. Let the teams work it out for themselves.

3: Any team that hasn't scored a podium finish can test as much as it likes.......because it needs to. Once you've scored a podium.....no more testing that season.

4: Use as much fuel as you want to, refuel if you like, it's simply up to the various teams to decide. The fuel used by a couple of dozen F1 cars over the course of a season ain't going to save the planet!....there are other categories for efficient technologies (WEC, FE etc).

5: Bring back qualifying tyres so we can see how stupidly fast an F1 car can be over the course of one flying lap.

This would be a good start.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

http://www.pitpass.com/53979/A-Strategic-Mess

[

"Jordan is one of only two teams that have entered F1 in the last quarter of a century to have won a Grand Prix, the other being Toro Rosso."

No mention of a team formed by a triple Scottish world champion and his son that won GP's and has since morphed into a multiple world championship winning team. There is also a team formed by a Swiss race fan that has won a GP.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

No mention of a team formed by a triple Scottish world champion and his son that won GP's and has since morphed into a multiple world championship winning team. There is also a team formed by a Swiss race fan that has won a GP.

There is also a tenuous arguement that you could add Brawn GP to the list as well. Although they morphed out of BAR via Honda, BAR really only purchased Tyrrell for their entry in F1 and set up a completely new organisation in a new factory. I must admit I am not aware if any of the staff or designs were brought across from Tyrell, although I do believe that most of the top engineers/designers were brought in by Pollock.

[Paradise City]

Red Bull (Stewart), Jordan RIP, Sauber are the three teams. STR (Minardi) is applicable if you extend it to...well...I guess 31 years if you start from its race debut in April 1985.

[Richard C]

The statement is flawed, but the idea it is trying to convey is real (and shouldn't be new to anyone who has been following F1 for any length of time).

Richard

[wnut]

BMW 1 (But they were Sauber)

Jordan 4

Stewart 1

STR 1

So let us agree no significant competition outside the "cartel"


25 years @ say 15 GPs per year 375 GPs 7 outsider victories i.e. 1.87%.

[Taxi645]

For me racing is positioning your car in relation to the opponents car through a sequence of corners in order to, at a certain point, be able to overtake.

Modern F1 cars generally don't allow that. Overtaking nowadays is a function of straights, horsepower differences and artificial DRS systems. Generally, no amount of racecraft is needed.

I would like to hear proposals from engineers how to reduce aerodynamic vulnerability when driving behind others cars, while still maintaining current or slightly faster lap times. Any F1 engineer with any love for motorsport should see it as their responsibility to think about and put forward (in the proper way) ideas how to makes this happen.

[wnut]

Think of DRS as drafting, they are pretty well synonymous, actually one of the few things that work in F1!
Or, we go back to the parades of recent times, current times with DRS!

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by wnut

Think of DRS as drafting, they are pretty well synonymous, actually one of the few things that work in F1!
Or, we go back to the parades of recent times, current times with DRS!

The mistake with DRS is that it is based on the misconception that it is the change of position that is exciting. It isn't. What is exciting (well not in F1) is the racecraft displayed to manage an overtake which, due the aerodynamic nature of modern F1 cars is, hardly possible and why bother if you got DRS.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The mistake with DRS is that it is based on the misconception that it is the change of position that is exciting. It isn't. What is exciting (well not in F1) is the racecraft displayed to manage an overtake which, due the aerodynamic nature of modern F1 cars is, hardly possible and why bother if you got DRS.

Without DRS and with aero, passing is pretty well impossible!

So then it is just a parade, DRS is the best new feature of F1, anti wake turbulence. Until someone sees the writing on the wall and ditches aero it is the only solution that has worked.
F1 with FF aero would be epic!

[chillibowl]

with so many threads sort of discussing a similar topics im not sure where to post this but Red Bull has decided to start the Austrian GP at the back of the grid instead of using a fifth engine for both drivers.

instead they will see what they can get out of the existing ones and save the fresh ones for the Hungarian GP, a track where they feel more suited to. a smart move given the circumstances but hardly inspiring for any fans hoping to see the home team do well.

other than this being another reminder of the state of f1, the linked James Allen article suggest that Wolff and Merc might be open to having discussions about engine development for next year...which is either great news or just more rhetoric.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/0...id-in-austria/

[bjohnsonsmith]

Some interesting comments from Kimi Raikkonen, on how the rules have affected F1 and thinks F1 should be a little more dangerous.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119426

[wolfhound]

Gary Anderson has been writing about his proposals for changes to F1 to improve it.
On the technical side he would change some of the details of the fuel consumption rules, reduce aero grip to 40% of what it is now, restrict the number of upgrades used in a season with time penalties where broken.
On the sporting side he would leave the first three practice sessions as they are except for allowing for possible upgrades on Fridays.
Instead of qualifying there would be a short race based on the previous races fastest laps. The Sunday grid would be set by reverse championship order.
The Saturday race would have about half points awarded down to 8th place. Sundays points would stay the same as now.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...594.1432368537

His proposals should surely produce better racing with the engineers having to put a much greater emphasis on overtaking in their designs. It would eliminate the fastest drivers starting first and therefore less boring races.

[Mike Harte]

Although I have no objection to his technical proposals, his sporting ones are just introducing yet more artificial elements to the sport.

In pretty well all major competitive speed events, the fastest qualifyers always start from the prime positions. So, for example, in athletics and indeed swimming, the fastest start in the middle lanes which are considered to be the most advantageous lanes from which to start.

Next, somebody will suggest that the Manors start first and be allowed to swerve all over the track in order to stop anyone else passing them.