F1 future rule changes

TheNewBob · 8 Dec 2006, 15:02 (Ref:1785198)

http://f1.racing-live.com/f1/en/head...08151613.shtml

This interesting article shows the future of F1 changing over the next few years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1-Live.com

possible elimination of aerodynamic appendices (barge boards, winglets, chimneys, etc) forward of rear wheel centreline and behind front wheel centreline (subject to unanimous agreement of competing teams)

I sincerely hope this proposal is agreed upon!

Kieran20 · 8 Dec 2006, 16:32 (Ref:1785243)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

http://f1.racing-live.com/f1/en/head...08151613.shtml

This interesting article shows the future of F1 changing over the next few years.

I sincerely hope this proposal is agreed upon!

thats good. will make the cars look alot nicer, and also less downforce dependent i hope.

back to basics

Sodemo · 8 Dec 2006, 16:48 (Ref:1785248)

"Freeing up of all driver aids" - doesn't sounds too good on the other hand...

Marbot · 8 Dec 2006, 17:00 (Ref:1785252)

From the FIA web site.

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...081206-03.html

Interesting stuff eh!

Suze · 8 Dec 2006, 23:31 (Ref:1785453)

Was reading this earlier, is some interesting stuff. Does seem to be a lot of rule changes / updates etc at the moment and lots and lots of chopping and changing including some things that have already been released and now changed again!

FPV GTHO · 9 Dec 2006, 09:02 (Ref:1785741)

Just getting rid of all the barge boards etc could fulfill the teams and FIA's desire for less downforce and more on track action. Its all that crap the teams design to redirect the airflow back to the wings.

Pingguest · 10 Dec 2006, 12:50 (Ref:1786789)

It is interesting to see that the current 2.4 litre V8's are a pure wase of money, as the FIA already has plans to repace them. On itself, I agree that Formula 1 should concentrate itself on fuel efficient engines. But I don't really agree with the way the FIA wants to implent this.

And I don't understand why drivers aids will be re-introduced. From that point of view, the future ban on these aids are just a throw away of knowledge.

Marbot · 10 Dec 2006, 13:42 (Ref:1786818)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It is interesting to see that the current 2.4 litre V8's are a pure wase of money, as the FIA already has plans to repace them.

I don't understand this statement.Most money is spent on development,and over the next three years they'll be very little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

And I don't understand why drivers aids will be re-introduced. From that point of view, the future ban on these aids are just a throw away of knowledge.

I don't like this either.Hopefully the racing in the intervening years will be so good that the FIA will change their minds.

Sodemo · 10 Dec 2006, 13:51 (Ref:1786823)

What happened to the standard ECU idea?

Marbot · 10 Dec 2006, 14:01 (Ref:1786833)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monster

What happened to the standard ECU idea?

Unfortunately the rules change year on year.That's progress!

We should at least try to savour the next three years.

Pingguest · 10 Dec 2006, 15:28 (Ref:1786862)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I don't understand this statement.Most money is spent on development,and over the next three years they'll be very little.

The introduction of the V8's increased the costs significantly. But for what? From 2007 the engines will be 'freezed' and replaced by 2011. It would had been a lot cheaper to keep the V10's.

Marbot · 10 Dec 2006, 16:14 (Ref:1786882)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The introduction of the V8's increased the costs significantly. But for what? From 2007 the engines will be 'freezed' and replaced by 2011. It would had been a lot cheaper to keep the V10's.

I agree,but you can't blame the FIA for that one.The FIA gave the manufacturers the choice of producing a new V8 (on grounds of safety) or using a restricted V10 like the one used this season by STR.And now we have restricted V8s.So it's an own goal for the manufacturers really.

Pingguest · 10 Dec 2006, 16:33 (Ref:1786895)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I agree,but you can't blame the FIA for that one.The FIA gave the manufacturers the choice of producing a new V8 (on grounds of safety) or using a restricted V10 like the one used this season by STR.And now we have restricted V8s.So it's an own goal for the manufacturers really.

You can't blame the manufactures for the introduction of the V8's, as they didn't choose voluntary. And I disagree that a reduction of engine power was necessary.

**Adam43** · 11 Dec 2006, 09:51 (Ref:1787725)

Pingguest did specify cornering speeds. The packaging of the V8s helped this, although how much is unclear if you try to factor in the normal development of the car even if it stayed with V10.

On the engine Would the V10 have been that much more powerful than 2005? The rate of progress was slowing. I never thought them too powerful anyway.

I do think that the FIA partially acheived what they wanted to, despite resistence of the teams. The current V8s are OK. I wouldn't have done it and if I had a free hand I would change it, but it is so difficult to get changes and it isn't the most outrageous change!

FPV GTHO · 11 Dec 2006, 10:53 (Ref:1787790)

You guys might think its scary to think what would happen had the 2005 V10's continued. Well what about the 2003 V10's that only had to last the race?

Knowlesy · 11 Dec 2006, 18:51 (Ref:1788219)

I am amazed at the folk who are against tyre wars. Don't you realise this is the primary reason why the seasons have been pretty exciting? Advantages ebbed and flowed and changed every weekend, every session. It was great.

Mark Hughes wrote a wonderful column on this in Autosport a few weeks back that sums up my feelings on the tyre war perfectly. We have lost a wonderful, wonderful element of the sport.

The control tyre will make no difference to driver/car input either. It will just stifle variety and we will have rather more predictable race weekends.

Marbot · 12 Dec 2006, 00:45 (Ref:1788512)

Quote:

Originally Posted by knowlesy

I am amazed at the folk who are against tyre wars.

I wouldn't say that I was against a tyre war.Just the way in which they are used.For me the 2005 season (one tyre rule) was by far the best way to show how good or bad a tyre can be.It was however a little one sided to say the least (except for Indy of course).

I would have liked Michelin to stay and perhaps,along with other tyre manufactures,produced tyres that all the teams could use at all the races.They could be tested on Friday and each team would use the tyre it thought most suitable from all the makes.The best tyre will obviously win through,which means the others have to up their game.Fancifull I know,but at least there is competition.

Pingguest · 12 Dec 2006, 15:41 (Ref:1789017)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I would have liked Michelin to stay and perhaps,along with other tyre manufactures,produced tyres that all the teams could use at all the races.They could be tested on Friday and each team would use the tyre it thought most suitable from all the makes.

Hmm, they aren't doing that with engines and drivers, do they?

So, why should we have this idea implement specifically for tyres?

Marbot · 12 Dec 2006, 16:52 (Ref:1789053)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Hmm, they aren't doing that with engines and drivers, do they?

So, why should we have this idea implement specifically for tyres?

Because it only takes about six seconds to put a different set of bloody tyres on!

Pingguest · 12 Dec 2006, 20:26 (Ref:1789236)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Because it only takes about six seconds to put a different set of bloody tyres on!

Hmm, only if the mechanics make no mistakes. :P But it will take a couple of days to adapt the whole setup to the unknown tyres.

ss_collins · 12 Dec 2006, 16:09 (Ref:1789029)

If you read racecar engineering you will know tha I have forseen doom and gloom - fire and white cloud factories at the F1 circuits of the world in 2008.

The engines were all developed with a particular management system in mind many teams like, Toyota for example built the system around the needs of the engine so now swithching to a spec ECU could cause massive problems - they have not tested it and even if they can't make thier engine work well with it they can't change thier engine under the development freeze.

These frozen engines (designed to last 1500km) will also possibly have to do 3000km - though the teams should be a allowed a mild tinker if that happens other wise its a lot more boom bang a bang.

Teretonga · 20 Dec 2006, 09:04 (Ref:1795522)

From Adam Ashmore
"Out of curiousity, when was it last 70/30 driver/car?"

Probably the 70's, the kit car era.
During that time it was still possible for a superlative drive to hoist an undeserving car into a position that it didn't really deserve. The number of drivers who had unusual or exceptional (out of the ordinary) wins during that decade was better than at any other decade, due in large part to the availability of a competitive engine, and general mechanical unreliability compared with the last few years.
Examples of the first wins for people like Alan Jones (Shadow) Brambilla (March) Watson (Penske) ...all in Austria! But they are not the only ones. Many others... Clay Regazzoni for Ferrari and Williams, Scheckter in the P34 Tyrrell, Watson at Detroit for Mclaren (80's but DFV powered)

It could 'easily' happen...but not so now.

Teretonga · 20 Dec 2006, 09:19 (Ref:1795532)

F1 is now entertainment and it cannot survive without being entertainment.
it is also a major nechanical development exercise.

However limiting the effectiveness of aerodynamic appendages, tyre grip, driver aids, the number of tyres that can be used, the amount of fuel that can be carried, can all make the event more interesting and the outcome more unpredictable....
Much of the money spent on mechanical development is in nebulous areas that will never benefit any one or any thing outside F1.

And the teams are not making massive 'profits'. They apend most of what they get. If they have some left over at the end of a year it is because they underspent what they had at their disposal and the amounts are not great.

9 million profit on a turnover of 300 million is only 3 percent....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your fantasy F1 rule changes.	duke_toaster	Formula One	42	1 Aug 2006 23:07
F1 third driver rule	David1234	Formula One	4	21 Sep 2005 09:01
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged]	AMT	Formula One	74	12 Nov 2002 16:09
The dumbest rule in F1!!!	neutral	Formula One	12	30 Oct 2000 08:48