[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[S griffin]

+1

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

If you really want drivers to fight each other, give them TCS and ABS so they can focus on fighting one another.

You missed refuelling..... *facepalm*

Selby

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Yup, so the best driver who is capable of driving the fastest with the fewest mistakes wins, I thought that was what motor racing was about, or should be anyway!

Exactly. Driver aids should reduce driver mistakes. That gives drivers more time to focus on an optimal lines (including defensive lines), etc. Given that the cars have already been lined up fastest to slowest, you can see where that goes. A parade.

Richard

[Pingguest]

Recently I watched the 1993 British Grand Prix and I saw Ayrton Senna fighting it out Alain Prost and Michael Schumacher, despite - or partly due to (?) - the driver aids that enable drivers to get more out of their cars.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by wnut

Yup, so the best driver who is capable of driving the fastest with the fewest mistakes wins, I thought that was what motor racing was about, or should be anyway!

Currently, he who arrives with the best computer wins even if he makes a bunch of mistakes and visits the paved run offs on multiple occasions.
Gravel traps at least trap the cars and penalize the mistakes!

If you run off a road driving a car at high you probably won't finish your journey, that is how it should be in racing!

The best way to have a WDC is a spec series, but that destroys the Constructors title. Currently, we don't know exactly how everyone compares, with Button and Alonso in back, and Mehri and Stevens in the barely 107% Manor-Marussia. Awkward, isn't it?

[TRuss]

Motorsport's beginnings were as a proving ground of the automobile. Of the technology. Naturally those piloting these machines became those daring young men. After a while it progressed to the point where having a particular driver could prove to be just as advantageous as the newest mechanical trick. Especially as formula of specific technical regulations came about that would place mechanical restrictions. This really allowed the talent, styles and personalities of the drivers to shine through and proper hero worship is the result. To the point that many fans don't care too much about the cars as long as they are loud. Me, I can easily see both sides and would say that is also imperative that the sport remembers it's complete heritage. The history is the answer.

[stripedcat]

I think one of the proposed rules changes is to get rid of the software start(which finds the bite point of the clutch) and go back to using a clutch for the starts. That does sound like a good idea - as it puts down more on the driver's talent - and I think it saves money.

[bjohnsonsmith]

It looks like the drivers like the return to fuel stops.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119071

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It looks like the drivers like the return to fuel stops.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119071

until one of them gets scorched during a fuel stop.........

[ECW Dan Selby]

Drivers usually like most things that are bad for the viewer.

Selby

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Driver aids should reduce driver mistakes.

Even with road relevant driver aids a great driver makes the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gwPzrb6M7w

[Sodemo]

Not that I'm belittling Senna's legacy in any way (I am and was a massive fan) however wasn't his car at Donington fitted with a full wet setup, whereas the other cars were either on a compromise or a dry setup? I did hear that his car didn't have active suspension but other cars did?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Not that I'm belittling Senna's legacy in any way (I am and was a massive fan) however wasn't his car at Donington fitted with a full wet setup, whereas the other cars were either on a compromise or a dry setup? I did hear that his car didn't have active suspension but other cars did?

And don't forget his wet drive at Monaco as well and no I wasn't a fan but I always regretted his career was cut short and he and Shumacher did not do battle together over more time as they both deserved each other in their do or die attitude.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Casper

And don't forget his wet drive at Monaco as well and no I wasn't a fan but I always regretted his career was cut short and he and Shumacher did not do battle together over more time as they both deserved each other in their do or die attitude.

The him and Schumacher feud would have been utterly cut throat racing. Then throw in Mika to the mix in the late 90's. Very, very tasty!

You have to wonder (sorry to go off topic):

Would the regulations have stayed similar from 1994 onwards if Senna hadn't been killed?

Selby

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Even with road relevant driver aids a great driver makes the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gwPzrb6M7w

Sure, but I don't want to wait another 20 plus years for the next Senna to arrive. In short a driver who is a step above everyone else is not the answer.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

You have to wonder (sorry to go off topic):

Would the regulations have stayed similar from 1994 onwards if Senna hadn't been killed?

Selby

not off topic at all given the recent anniversary of that tragic weekend just passed and not just for Senna but for Ratzenberger as well and almost for Barri. seems cynical to say but one death may have been looked over but 2, almost 3, necessitated change.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Sure, but I don't want to wait another 20 plus years for the next Senna to arrive. In short a driver who is a step above everyone else is not the answer.

Richard

The point I wanted to make is that with relevant technologies that are or do have an overlap with driver aids, drivers could still make a difference. Ayrton Senna did have an actively suspended car with traction control, anti-lock braking system and automatic gearbox, but so did Alain Prost and Damon Hill.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The point I wanted to make is that with relevant technologies that are or do have an overlap with driver aids, drivers could still make a difference. Ayrton Senna did have an actively suspended car with traction control, anti-lock braking system and automatic gearbox, but so did Alain Prost and Damon Hill.

I get what you are trying to say, and agree that drivers matter. I just don't agree with your conclusion that more driver aids will improve the racing.

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Not that I'm belittling Senna's legacy in any way (I am and was a massive fan) however wasn't his car at Donington fitted with a full wet setup, whereas the other cars were either on a compromise or a dry setup? I did hear that his car didn't have active suspension but other cars did?

Plainly you are too young to know that the McLaren that year was as active as any other car.The systems may even have been the best out there as Footwork/Arrows bought the technology to use on their car.

I noticed that Christian Horner added his voice to those who don't wish to see refuelling brought back,doesn't he have Bernie's ear?If it was a bad idea in the past its hard to see how it will be a better idea if all the previous objections apply and in addition you have a huge battery pack with the potential for a healthy spark located beneath the fuel tank.

The best solution to the present formula may well be to do nothing as with stable rules the cars tend to gravitate to a more equal level of performance.It might not hurt to have a "clarification" about the function of brake ducts as the present crop are sprouting all sorts of excrescences that have nothing to do with cooling and a lot to do with an extra 5Kg of downforce.Its costing a lot of money to achieve this small difference.

For the future it might be a good idea to consider Martin Brundle's suggestion of reducing the step under the car to create more consistent downforce.It might also be good to allow the return of active suspension since computer power is so much cheaper now than it was in the early nineties and a truckload of springs,dampers and inerters costs money.With a basic setup in the system and an analytical algorithm looking for the fastest settings a lot of rig work and simulation could be replaced by a handful of laps.I have suggested elsewhere that issuing a Raspberry Pi as a control module and allowing freedom in its use could be the way forward.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Regarding your very last sentence... I know budgets are potentially variable from one year to the next, but I wonder if there is much or any examples of budgets being reduced because they view the ROI is lacking WITHOUT a resulting exit from the series within a short period of time?

I know I am grinding away at this, but I think generally speaking year to year budgets are more likely influences by external factors (economy, etc.) and that if there are significant cuts due to perceived lack of ROI (i.e. lack of success), that the team is really circling the drain at that point.

Regarding being blind-sided, I think the solution that is really used is…

1. Change the rules to ban the new concept (most often)
2. Leave the series/change of ownership (less often)

Regarding changing the rules, it is due to political pressure being applied by those who are losing and its success is a measure of how much influence those who are pushing have. The history of F1 (and other series) is truly defined by #1 above.

Sorry, I haven't been by the F1 section for a while.

Sponsors can leave, but I agree, they don't drop their spend with a given team. Instead, they switch to a team which is offering them a better ROI as far as exposure vs fee. If a team is winning through innovation rather than megabucks (because the rules permit innovation), they can offer better exposure for reduced spend, and that has a knock-on effect on the megabucks teams.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think it is hard to extrapolate the WEC rules situation and decide how far down the path of open rules will be successful. And to be clear, I think WEC is doing a great job right now with their rules!

Let’s say the rules were virtual open (F1 or WEC, doesn't matter). There are plenty of interesting ideas on how to make a fast car, but you just don’t know what works until you try it on track. So you create the situation of a single team getting it right and winning all of the races and everyone else getting it wrong and maybe for many embarrassingly wrong. If that team is able to keep the secret sauce from getting out, they could potentially dominate year after year. This brings up your ROI point. For those who are in the sport for PR purposes, they will ask "Why they Hell are we doing this?" Notice, they are not asking what can they do to fix it, but rather that they doubt the entire thing. See my points above about what happens next. Either they tighten the rules to remove unpredictability and add stability, or there is an exodus.

The purist of us (and I have that side in me at times) would say... Ok, that is fine. Best man wins and the others just need to try harder next time. The problem then is that IMHO, that level of unpredictability can undermine the health of the series. Nobody who runs a business wants that level of unpredictability and something like F1 is a business. I can't imagine those in charge would let it get to that point, but if it did, I could imagine those with deep pockets (unhappy manufactures) would walk away and build an alternative series that would look very much like what we have today (i.e. very tight rules and mostly predictable results)

I think that at the moment, the WEC has more open rules than F1 and it allows just enough unpredictability to keep it interesting, but no so open that it risk the loss of close racing. Time will tell if the Nissan effort is revolutionary or a flop.

I think we can see the same effect either side-by-side now WEC vs F1, or we can see it historical F1 1960's version (adjusted for inflation) and F1 now. There is a clear relationship between the restrictiveness of the rules and the cost of winning. If F1 allowed only suspension angle, damper, and tire pressure adjustments (not even spring changes and everything else about the car is fixed) then the wealthiest teams would spend their million$ on the ultimate tire and damper models and simulate things to death, so when they showed at the track they would know just what their settings needed to be. You would have to go all the way to the IROC model (drivers are the stars, cars are owned and prepped by the series, and issued to drivers at random) to eliminate the effect of money.

As far as unpredictability and people taking their ball and going home, I would tell the teams "Deal with it!". We've lost many great names because they could no longer afford to complete, so I don't think the current model is really such a great model of a stable system. It's stable for the folks at the very top. For everybody else, not so stable.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Only Nissan knows how much they buy into the entire idea. I somewhat believe that while I am sure the technical team believes in the solution that the larger “Nissan” is less about “winning for less” than getting “more PR for less” (of which they are doing an awesome job). If they are lucky they can get both for not much money. Maybe they are the new Garagista?! However, I wouldn't bet money on them setting any type of trend regardless of the level of their success. My prediction... They succeed and the rules get tweaked to prevent repeat, or more likely they flop due to not having the budget to really do it right (i.e. reliability issues, etc.). Increase the budget to succeed and they become just like anyone else. Rinse and repeat.

I think they will suffer reliability problems due to lack of budget, but I don't think they then become like everybody else. They are playing with a very different concept and next year they can still be successful on a lower budget (just not as low as this year) which will allow them to have both speed and reliability.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

This sounds critical of the concept of trying something new. I actually am just critical of them potentially overselling the chances for winning "on a limited budget". I would rather see them do it right vs. potentially flopping and moving onto something else next year. They are clearly behind the ball and struggling to keep up. I wish them well (just as long as they don't beat Porsche! )

Richard

I think they are trying to do it too cheap, but I think they will be a good illustration that innovation can allow success for a lot less money IF the rules are open enough to regulate the car instead of describing it.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Sure, but I don't want to wait another 20 plus years for the next Senna to arrive. In short a driver who is a step above everyone else is not the answer.

Richard

The next Senna has arrived, his name is Max Verstappen

[Woolley]

Not sure, after this week-end I think he's just the next Jos Verstappen...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Not sure, after this week-end I think he's just the next Jos Verstappen...

And you would be just plain wrong in this instance!

[bjohnsonsmith]

I suppose this comes under Rules Future Rule Changes. Bernie wants to get rid of the F1 Strategy Group and have all future decisions made by the FIA and FOM.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119283

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I suppose this comes under Rules Future Rule Changes. Bernie wants to get rid of the F1 Strategy Group and have all future decisions made by the FIA and FOM.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119283

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