| cvalle-sd | 05-05-2004 10:21 AM |
F1: The end of an era - Teams fall in line with new rules for '06!
�
�
[COLOR=darkred]From Autosport, naturally - I started a new thread because it's essentially a done deal now, the only question is how badly the technology of the sport will be gutted.[/COLOR] :mad:
Formula 1's team principals have fallen into line over Max Mosley's proposals for a revolution in the sport at a summit called by the FIA in Monaco today.
The rules aimed at reducing costs and making the sport more entertaining have been met with widespread acceptance by the teams and 95 percent of them are expected to be ratified in time for 2006, two years earlier than expected.
However Formula 1's engine manufacturers must attend further meetings starting with one at the Spanish Grand Prix this weekend in order to thrash out a definitive set of technical regulations.
At present the choice is between a long-life six-race 3.0-litre engine based on current specifications or an all-new 2.4-litre V8. Either way they have tasked to reduce costs by 50 percent. They also have to decide whether they will resist the introduction of standard ECUs until 2008, automatically banning traction control, or whether this will become part of the 2006 regulations to be ratified at the World Council meeting on June 30.
In summary the meeting decided:
ENGINES
Discussions to take place over size of engines, with change expected to take place from 2006
Standard ECUs will be mandatory from 2008 and discussions are now taking place about whether these can be introduced for 2006
TRANSMISSION, BRAKING AND STEERING
Agreement that the �least expensive solutions' to be implemented as soon as possible for braking, steering and transmission
The return of manual gearboxes has been rejected because the current semi-automatic units are more economical
Standard brake discs, pads and callipers will be introduced as soon as possible
CHASSIS
The weight limit reduction could be greater than the proposed 50kg because of the increased weight loss caused by the loss of heavy electronic systems
Discussions have taken place about reducing the number of electronic sensors on the cars and the possibility of introducing a standard data logger
SPORTING
No spare car as it is currently known will be allowed � only a spare monocoque in a pre-packed box
Cars will be held overnight in parc ferme and teams will be allowed to adjust the car but not rebuild it
The creation of new championships, like engine manufacturer or constructors with more teams is open for discussion
A ban on tyre changes in races could happen by 2005
A dramatic reduction in testing will be imposed � to the extent that teams will no longer need to run second test teams alongside their race outfits
The FIA has instructed the teams and Bernie Ecclestone to come up with a better qualifying system to replace the current format
Tender to go out to tyre manufacturers for a single tyre supplier by 2006. The tyre width will be reduced at the front and increased at the rear � with slicks most likely returning
GENERAL
The teams are open to the idea of no restriction on the sale, loan or exchange of chassis and components between teams or new entrants, but require certain guarantees about not devaluing Formula 1 or their own teams' financial situation
Unanimous voting on short term technical rule changes to be replaced by majority voting
There will be no new Concorde Agreement to replace the current one, which runs out at the end of 2007
For the full story on F1's rule revolution read this week's Autosport magazine on sale Thursday.
[COLOR=darkred]I guess if it helps make the sport more viable AND more competitive, I'd be optimistic...but none of the other major changes they've made recently have done what they were supposed to. Certainly it will cost less to run teams. My cynical 2/3rds say that the timing is also intended to spare Schuey from having to lower himself to the new spec. Surely he'll be out of the cockpit by '06.[/COLOR]
Formula 1's team principals have fallen into line over Max Mosley's proposals for a revolution in the sport at a summit called by the FIA in Monaco today.
The rules aimed at reducing costs and making the sport more entertaining have been met with widespread acceptance by the teams and 95 percent of them are expected to be ratified in time for 2006, two years earlier than expected.
However Formula 1's engine manufacturers must attend further meetings starting with one at the Spanish Grand Prix this weekend in order to thrash out a definitive set of technical regulations.
At present the choice is between a long-life six-race 3.0-litre engine based on current specifications or an all-new 2.4-litre V8. Either way they have tasked to reduce costs by 50 percent. They also have to decide whether they will resist the introduction of standard ECUs until 2008, automatically banning traction control, or whether this will become part of the 2006 regulations to be ratified at the World Council meeting on June 30.
In summary the meeting decided:
ENGINES
Discussions to take place over size of engines, with change expected to take place from 2006
Standard ECUs will be mandatory from 2008 and discussions are now taking place about whether these can be introduced for 2006
TRANSMISSION, BRAKING AND STEERING
Agreement that the �least expensive solutions' to be implemented as soon as possible for braking, steering and transmission
The return of manual gearboxes has been rejected because the current semi-automatic units are more economical
Standard brake discs, pads and callipers will be introduced as soon as possible
CHASSIS
The weight limit reduction could be greater than the proposed 50kg because of the increased weight loss caused by the loss of heavy electronic systems
Discussions have taken place about reducing the number of electronic sensors on the cars and the possibility of introducing a standard data logger
SPORTING
No spare car as it is currently known will be allowed � only a spare monocoque in a pre-packed box
Cars will be held overnight in parc ferme and teams will be allowed to adjust the car but not rebuild it
The creation of new championships, like engine manufacturer or constructors with more teams is open for discussion
A ban on tyre changes in races could happen by 2005
A dramatic reduction in testing will be imposed � to the extent that teams will no longer need to run second test teams alongside their race outfits
The FIA has instructed the teams and Bernie Ecclestone to come up with a better qualifying system to replace the current format
Tender to go out to tyre manufacturers for a single tyre supplier by 2006. The tyre width will be reduced at the front and increased at the rear � with slicks most likely returning
GENERAL
The teams are open to the idea of no restriction on the sale, loan or exchange of chassis and components between teams or new entrants, but require certain guarantees about not devaluing Formula 1 or their own teams' financial situation
Unanimous voting on short term technical rule changes to be replaced by majority voting
There will be no new Concorde Agreement to replace the current one, which runs out at the end of 2007
For the full story on F1's rule revolution read this week's Autosport magazine on sale Thursday.
[COLOR=darkred]I guess if it helps make the sport more viable AND more competitive, I'd be optimistic...but none of the other major changes they've made recently have done what they were supposed to. Certainly it will cost less to run teams. My cynical 2/3rds say that the timing is also intended to spare Schuey from having to lower himself to the new spec. Surely he'll be out of the cockpit by '06.[/COLOR]
| donjuan | 05-05-2004 11:09 AM |
I know they have to control the spending, but I hate to see this. I understand that if things continue the way they are there would soon only be 3 or 4 teams. But at the same time I don't wanna see spec racing. To me, seeing the top drivers in the world lapping the most advanced racing machines on the planet is the allure. I don't care if there's only 2 lead changes and they both happen in the pits. It's worth it to see those guys driving those cars at the speed that they do. And the technology is part of that. I want to see them lapping at speeds that look like they should fly off the track but don't. Not crawling around like Champ Cars.
My $.02
My $.02
| kfoote | 05-05-2004 11:54 AM |
What they don't seem to get is that the budgets of the big teams will not change. They'll just find other ways to spend the money. So, you reduce the cost of the cars by $200, bringing then down to the $1.3 mil each range and cut some of the tech staff that no longer have positions because they are no longer needed because of the standard parts and reduction of testing (teams will still find a way to do on track testing, even if it's not on tracks that are on the F1 calendar). For private testing, the teams can still run all the sophisticated data analysis and data gathering electronics even if they're not allowed on race weekends (Common practice in NASCAR), so no money is saved there, and the list goes on. Not being able to change tires is a safety issue, and I don't see that happening.
The net result of these changes is that it allows the teams with bigger budgets an edge because they have the resources to adapt to the new rules packages quicker. If you look at the results of the championships after major technical changes over the last 20 years or so, McLaren, has won every champoinship that I can think of.
The net result of these changes is that it allows the teams with bigger budgets an edge because they have the resources to adapt to the new rules packages quicker. If you look at the results of the championships after major technical changes over the last 20 years or so, McLaren, has won every champoinship that I can think of.
| cvalle-sd | 05-05-2004 12:05 PM |
They need to mandate dumber engineers, maybe.:huh:
| StuBeck | 05-05-2004 12:09 PM |
Testing is going to be something they'll talk about in the future...they're going to put limits on it so teams like Ferrari can't have 4 drivers testing their cars at the same time.
Reducing the costs will bring more teams in, which is a good thing. Having privateer teams with nothing to lose (ala arrows) will help the sport. The top teams will still spend a lot of money, but not as much as they are now. The one engine a weekend rule has meant that people engine manufactuers have saved a ton of money in just the material costs.
And I don't understand why people keep on thinking that these are the most advanced cars in the world. They aren't. The F1 cars from 93 where, with active suspension, abs, etc.
Also, with the decreased weight, I think speeds will stay where they are. Taking 50kg out of a 600 kg car is huge, losing more will help things along much better.
Reducing the costs will bring more teams in, which is a good thing. Having privateer teams with nothing to lose (ala arrows) will help the sport. The top teams will still spend a lot of money, but not as much as they are now. The one engine a weekend rule has meant that people engine manufactuers have saved a ton of money in just the material costs.
And I don't understand why people keep on thinking that these are the most advanced cars in the world. They aren't. The F1 cars from 93 where, with active suspension, abs, etc.
Also, with the decreased weight, I think speeds will stay where they are. Taking 50kg out of a 600 kg car is huge, losing more will help things along much better.
| donjuan | 05-05-2004 12:19 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kfoote[/i]
[B] What they don't seem to get is that the budgets of the big teams will not change. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree completely. The money will still be spent. Just elsewhere.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by StuBeck[/i]
[B] And I don't understand why people keep on thinking that these are the most advanced cars in the world. They aren't. The F1 cars from 93 where, with active suspension, abs, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes they were more advanced in those aspects. Because it was allowed. If it were allowed today they would be amplified that much more. Those cars were no where near as aerodynamically efficient as the modern machines. But it makes the same point, taking away technology. I'll revise my statement to: most advanced racing machines currently in action on the planet.
I don't think changing the machinery will change who is at the front, or the level of competitiveness in the smaller teams. Not in the slightest.
[B] What they don't seem to get is that the budgets of the big teams will not change. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree completely. The money will still be spent. Just elsewhere.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by StuBeck[/i]
[B] And I don't understand why people keep on thinking that these are the most advanced cars in the world. They aren't. The F1 cars from 93 where, with active suspension, abs, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes they were more advanced in those aspects. Because it was allowed. If it were allowed today they would be amplified that much more. Those cars were no where near as aerodynamically efficient as the modern machines. But it makes the same point, taking away technology. I'll revise my statement to: most advanced racing machines currently in action on the planet.
I don't think changing the machinery will change who is at the front, or the level of competitiveness in the smaller teams. Not in the slightest.
| Chromer | 05-05-2004 12:22 PM |
...especially when 50kg is seen as the "lower end" of what the weight reduction could be. If they really do go to the 2.4L engines, it could be quite a bit more.
| gtguy | 05-05-2004 12:26 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kfoote [/i]
[B]What they don't seem to get is that the budgets of the big teams will not change. They'll just find other ways to spend the money. So, you reduce the cost of the cars by $200, bringing then down to the $1.3 mil each range and cut some of the tech staff that no longer have positions because they are no longer needed because of the standard parts and reduction of testing (teams will still find a way to do on track testing, even if it's not on tracks that are on the F1 calendar). For private testing, the teams can still run all the sophisticated data analysis and data gathering electronics even if they're not allowed on race weekends (Common practice in NASCAR), so no money is saved there, and the list goes on. Not being able to change tires is a safety issue, and I don't see that happening.
The net result of these changes is that it allows the teams with bigger budgets an edge because they have the resources to adapt to the new rules packages quicker. If you look at the results of the championships after major technical changes over the last 20 years or so, McLaren, has won every champoinship that I can think of. [/B][/QUOTE]
I wonder, however, if there is going to be some mechanism in place, like the salary cap in other sports, that fixes total per team cost at a set amount. There will also a testing reduction agreement in the new setup.
Oh, and in 1994, a major technical change ("stripper" F1 cars) saw the ascendancy of one Michael Schumacher in a Benetton, who ruled the roost for two years. :D
Kevin
[B]What they don't seem to get is that the budgets of the big teams will not change. They'll just find other ways to spend the money. So, you reduce the cost of the cars by $200, bringing then down to the $1.3 mil each range and cut some of the tech staff that no longer have positions because they are no longer needed because of the standard parts and reduction of testing (teams will still find a way to do on track testing, even if it's not on tracks that are on the F1 calendar). For private testing, the teams can still run all the sophisticated data analysis and data gathering electronics even if they're not allowed on race weekends (Common practice in NASCAR), so no money is saved there, and the list goes on. Not being able to change tires is a safety issue, and I don't see that happening.
The net result of these changes is that it allows the teams with bigger budgets an edge because they have the resources to adapt to the new rules packages quicker. If you look at the results of the championships after major technical changes over the last 20 years or so, McLaren, has won every champoinship that I can think of. [/B][/QUOTE]
I wonder, however, if there is going to be some mechanism in place, like the salary cap in other sports, that fixes total per team cost at a set amount. There will also a testing reduction agreement in the new setup.
Oh, and in 1994, a major technical change ("stripper" F1 cars) saw the ascendancy of one Michael Schumacher in a Benetton, who ruled the roost for two years. :D
Kevin
| donjuan | 05-05-2004 12:27 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gtguy[/i]
[B] I wonder, however, if there is going to be some mechanism in place, like the salary cap in other sports, that fixes total per team cost at a set amount. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good in theory, but not remotely possible.
[B] I wonder, however, if there is going to be some mechanism in place, like the salary cap in other sports, that fixes total per team cost at a set amount. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good in theory, but not remotely possible.
| donjuan | 05-05-2004 12:30 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gtguy[/i]
[B] Oh, and in 1994, a major technical change ("stripper" F1 cars) saw the ascendancy of one Michael Schumacher in a Benetton, who ruled the roost for two years[/B][/QUOTE]
There was one other event early in the 94 season that contributed to that immensely...
[B] Oh, and in 1994, a major technical change ("stripper" F1 cars) saw the ascendancy of one Michael Schumacher in a Benetton, who ruled the roost for two years[/B][/QUOTE]
There was one other event early in the 94 season that contributed to that immensely...
| ShockWave | 05-05-2004 12:56 PM |
Change is good. Things will shake up for at least a little while. I think it's bold and exciting that F1 is willing to change up the rules every so often, unlike another roundy-round series that has been using the same formula for 30+ years.
| erich_sc | 05-05-2004 01:00 PM |
Well, I'm glad I'm going to Montreal this year to see the cars at their peak. End of an era... :(
| kfoote | 05-05-2004 01:01 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by StuBeck [/i]
Testing is going to be something they'll talk about in the future...they're going to put limits on it so teams like Ferrari can't have 4 drivers testing their cars at the same time. [/quote]
The problem is that there is no way to logistically do this. FIA can put limits on the number of test days [I]on F1 tracks[/I], but there is no way to stop testing on non-FIA tracks, especially at somewhere like Fiorano or Mugello, both of are owned by Ferrari
[quote]Reducing the costs will bring more teams in, which is a good thing. Having privateer teams with nothing to lose (ala arrows) will help the sport. The top teams will still spend a lot of money, but not as much as they are now. The one engine a weekend rule has meant that people engine manufactuers have saved a ton of money in just the material costs.[/quote]
The issue is that it doesn't reduce the total amount of money spent. You will still need a $100 million+ budget to be anywhere near competitive.
[quote]And I don't understand why people keep on thinking that these are the most advanced cars in the world. They aren't. The F1 cars from 93 where, with active suspension, abs, etc. [/quote]
I'll agree to a point. there were more gadgets on the 1993 cars, but for perspective the pole lap time at the last race at Imola was faster than the '93 cars ran [U]without[/U] two of the chicaines. And this is lap time, not speed. The track is longer now, too. The big improvements have come in aerodynamics, as mentioned earlier, tires, brakes, and transmission.
[quote]Also, with the decreased weight, I think speeds will stay where they are. Taking 50kg out of a 600 kg car is huge, losing more will help things along much better. [/QUOTE]
Personally, the weight reduction is a rule change I don't get. If they want to slow the cars down, they should make the cars heavier, not lighter. The cars will always have ballast in them, because the engineers design the cars to be as light as possible so they can use the ballast to lower the center of gravity of the car, and have it as another handling adjustment if necessarry.
I'm all for change every once in a while, but change to reduce costs simply doesn't work.
Testing is going to be something they'll talk about in the future...they're going to put limits on it so teams like Ferrari can't have 4 drivers testing their cars at the same time. [/quote]
The problem is that there is no way to logistically do this. FIA can put limits on the number of test days [I]on F1 tracks[/I], but there is no way to stop testing on non-FIA tracks, especially at somewhere like Fiorano or Mugello, both of are owned by Ferrari
[quote]Reducing the costs will bring more teams in, which is a good thing. Having privateer teams with nothing to lose (ala arrows) will help the sport. The top teams will still spend a lot of money, but not as much as they are now. The one engine a weekend rule has meant that people engine manufactuers have saved a ton of money in just the material costs.[/quote]
The issue is that it doesn't reduce the total amount of money spent. You will still need a $100 million+ budget to be anywhere near competitive.
[quote]And I don't understand why people keep on thinking that these are the most advanced cars in the world. They aren't. The F1 cars from 93 where, with active suspension, abs, etc. [/quote]
I'll agree to a point. there were more gadgets on the 1993 cars, but for perspective the pole lap time at the last race at Imola was faster than the '93 cars ran [U]without[/U] two of the chicaines. And this is lap time, not speed. The track is longer now, too. The big improvements have come in aerodynamics, as mentioned earlier, tires, brakes, and transmission.
[quote]Also, with the decreased weight, I think speeds will stay where they are. Taking 50kg out of a 600 kg car is huge, losing more will help things along much better. [/QUOTE]
Personally, the weight reduction is a rule change I don't get. If they want to slow the cars down, they should make the cars heavier, not lighter. The cars will always have ballast in them, because the engineers design the cars to be as light as possible so they can use the ballast to lower the center of gravity of the car, and have it as another handling adjustment if necessarry.
I'm all for change every once in a while, but change to reduce costs simply doesn't work.
| donjuan | 05-05-2004 01:10 PM |
Good points already in this thread.
On a lighter note, this thread makes me think about what the F1 teams could produce if they just let them go wild. Slicks, abs, active aero and suspension, all the traction gadgetry. It would be impressive. Of course you'd have to have g-suits on the drivers :)
On a lighter note, this thread makes me think about what the F1 teams could produce if they just let them go wild. Slicks, abs, active aero and suspension, all the traction gadgetry. It would be impressive. Of course you'd have to have g-suits on the drivers :)
| gtguy | 05-05-2004 01:23 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by donjuan [/i]
[B]There was one other event early in the 94 season that contributed to that immensely... [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm as much of a Senna fan as anyone, but straight up, Schumacher beat him every race that season, until Imola. It was mostly to correct the McLaren wins after every major technical change statement.
Your salary cap thing is a good point. Hell, they can't even police in sports that play along. This is why I hope they don't start outlawing exotic materials for engine construction, etc.
Kevin
[B]There was one other event early in the 94 season that contributed to that immensely... [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm as much of a Senna fan as anyone, but straight up, Schumacher beat him every race that season, until Imola. It was mostly to correct the McLaren wins after every major technical change statement.
Your salary cap thing is a good point. Hell, they can't even police in sports that play along. This is why I hope they don't start outlawing exotic materials for engine construction, etc.
Kevin
| gtguy | 05-05-2004 01:26 PM |
Oh, I think what people mean with F1 cars being so technologically advanced these days is that even though they don't have all the active suspension, etc, that they had in 1993, they are revving higher, shifting faster and making more power per liter (normally aspirated) than at any other time in the sport's history. Braking is more impressive, as are aerodynamics and ultimate speeds.
Kevin
Kevin
| donjuan | 05-05-2004 01:51 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gtguy[/i]
[B] I'm as much of a Senna fan as anyone, but straight up, Schumacher beat him every race that season, until Imola. It was mostly to correct the McLaren wins after every major technical change statement.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes he did, and obviously it would have been a great battle. I just meant that had Senna been there, one or both of those championships could have been different. But you could argue that forever and there's no point :)
Agreed about McLaren.
[B] I'm as much of a Senna fan as anyone, but straight up, Schumacher beat him every race that season, until Imola. It was mostly to correct the McLaren wins after every major technical change statement.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes he did, and obviously it would have been a great battle. I just meant that had Senna been there, one or both of those championships could have been different. But you could argue that forever and there's no point :)
Agreed about McLaren.
| jmott | 05-05-2004 02:05 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShockWave [/i]
[B]Change is good. Things will shake up for at least a little while. I think it's bold and exciting that F1 is willing to change up the rules every so often, unlike another roundy-round series that has been using the same formula for 30+ years. [/B][/QUOTE]
...
change is only sometimes good
[B]Change is good. Things will shake up for at least a little while. I think it's bold and exciting that F1 is willing to change up the rules every so often, unlike another roundy-round series that has been using the same formula for 30+ years. [/B][/QUOTE]
...
change is only sometimes good
| StuBeck | 05-05-2004 02:19 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kfoote[/i]
[B] The problem is that there is no way to logistically do this. FIA can put limits on the number of test days [I]on F1 tracks[/I], but there is no way to stop testing on non-FIA tracks, especially at somewhere like Fiorano or Mugello, both of are owned by Ferrari
[/B][/QUOTE]
That is why the FIA is going to have mandated ECU's, you can only run your car at certain times, otherwise it won't work.
[B] The problem is that there is no way to logistically do this. FIA can put limits on the number of test days [I]on F1 tracks[/I], but there is no way to stop testing on non-FIA tracks, especially at somewhere like Fiorano or Mugello, both of are owned by Ferrari
[/B][/QUOTE]
That is why the FIA is going to have mandated ECU's, you can only run your car at certain times, otherwise it won't work.
| ForceFed4 | 05-05-2004 03:03 PM |
I posted the spirit of my thoughts in the other thread.
Maybe I'm being dumb about it, but I still don't see how you can possibly have a "standard" or "universal" ECU for a series that has a dozen different motors in it, with a dozen different designs.
Are we going to get spec motors too?
Boy won't that be fun.
Why bother having F1 be separate from F3000. Looks like these cars will have spec tires (close enough), spec motors (close enough), no high-tech materials in the important places (bakes).
About the only place allowed innovation is aero, and if the cars keep getting faster that'll be sabotaged too (more than already).
Seriously, why not take an F3000 car, give it twice the HP, and paint it different color for each team. If you really want to save costs, that's the only way to do it. It will be lame and weak, but at least honest.
Maybe I'm being dumb about it, but I still don't see how you can possibly have a "standard" or "universal" ECU for a series that has a dozen different motors in it, with a dozen different designs.
Are we going to get spec motors too?
Boy won't that be fun.
Why bother having F1 be separate from F3000. Looks like these cars will have spec tires (close enough), spec motors (close enough), no high-tech materials in the important places (bakes).
About the only place allowed innovation is aero, and if the cars keep getting faster that'll be sabotaged too (more than already).
Seriously, why not take an F3000 car, give it twice the HP, and paint it different color for each team. If you really want to save costs, that's the only way to do it. It will be lame and weak, but at least honest.
| donjuan | 05-05-2004 03:15 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by StuBeck[/i]
[B] That is why the FIA is going to have mandated ECU's, you can only run your car at certain times, otherwise it won't work. [/B][/QUOTE]
If Max Mosley personally came and took the ECU out of the cars after the race...it would not in the slightest stop Ferrari from having their car on track at Mugello or Fiorano on Monday.
[B] That is why the FIA is going to have mandated ECU's, you can only run your car at certain times, otherwise it won't work. [/B][/QUOTE]
If Max Mosley personally came and took the ECU out of the cars after the race...it would not in the slightest stop Ferrari from having their car on track at Mugello or Fiorano on Monday.
| Arioch | 05-05-2004 03:25 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by StuBeck [/i]
[B]That is why the FIA is going to have mandated ECU's, you can only run your car at certain times, otherwise it won't work. [/B][/QUOTE]
That doesn't mean that you can't run the car without an FIA approved ecu though...
Most of these changes are a joke, IMO. Glad I'll be at the USGP the next 2 years to see them in all their (current) glory before the series becomes spec, like F3000...
[B]That is why the FIA is going to have mandated ECU's, you can only run your car at certain times, otherwise it won't work. [/B][/QUOTE]
That doesn't mean that you can't run the car without an FIA approved ecu though...
Most of these changes are a joke, IMO. Glad I'll be at the USGP the next 2 years to see them in all their (current) glory before the series becomes spec, like F3000...
| kfoote | 05-05-2004 04:23 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arioch [/i]
[B]That doesn't mean that you can't run the car without an FIA approved ecu though...
Most of these changes are a joke, IMO... [/B][/QUOTE]
Chances are if some of us on a Subaru message board have come up with ways around the potential rules changes, you can bet that at least one of the 100+ each employees at McLaren, Ferrari, Reanult, BAR, Toyota and Williams have come up with similar ideas. In theory, it's a great idea, but it's impossible to police. Say that the FIA states that you can't test an F1 car anywhere and they have the means to police it (very bigh theoretical jump), you may suddenly find these top teams building SCCA Regional unlimited formula cars that resemble their F1 cars remarkably closely. They probably will never make it to sale because they still won't have worked all the bugs out and want to make sure it's perfect for sale in the US, but they will keep developing them until they get them right.
[B]That doesn't mean that you can't run the car without an FIA approved ecu though...
Most of these changes are a joke, IMO... [/B][/QUOTE]
Chances are if some of us on a Subaru message board have come up with ways around the potential rules changes, you can bet that at least one of the 100+ each employees at McLaren, Ferrari, Reanult, BAR, Toyota and Williams have come up with similar ideas. In theory, it's a great idea, but it's impossible to police. Say that the FIA states that you can't test an F1 car anywhere and they have the means to police it (very bigh theoretical jump), you may suddenly find these top teams building SCCA Regional unlimited formula cars that resemble their F1 cars remarkably closely. They probably will never make it to sale because they still won't have worked all the bugs out and want to make sure it's perfect for sale in the US, but they will keep developing them until they get them right.
| johnfelstead | 05-05-2004 04:37 PM |
every time you get a major technical change you get statements like "glad i can go see them in all their glory this year". I remember saying the same myself when Ferrari ran a V12 for the last time. Dont worry, the sight and sound of an F1 car is going to blow you away despite all these changes, they always have and they always will. The only certainty right now is things have to change, otherwise there will be no F1 in a few years.
The reduction in weight is being made for safety reasons, because there is a lot of concern right now about what happens to the balast during a crash. Most balast is placed in the floor plank that is bolted to the bottom of the tub, so there is big potential for injury, especially in the spectator areas with this quantity of heavy material bolted into place in that plank.
Semi auto box retention was always going to be the case, because manual shifter boxes cost more to maintain and reduce reliability. A computer doesnt round off dogs or miss gears that could potentially blow the engines.
Standard brakes doesnt mean they get steel brakes, it just means they all get the same kit from either AP or Brembo, who are the only two suppliers. The fact that AP and Brembo are now owned by the same company means its no loss to marketing for this company should a spec brake become part of the rules. Carbon brakes are safer, especially in failure situations, so i expect carbon carbon will be retained.
Spec Tyres are the big contentious issue here IMHO, because tyre companies dont want a spec tyre series. The only time tyres get mentioned in a spec tyre series is when they fail, bridgestone and michellin have nothing to gain from a contract to supply F1, they both may pull out.
Engines wise, i can see them retaining the V10 as its the most reliable config, going to a V8 introduces poor harmonics, plus all the current R&D on the V10's would be wasted. It's not a case of just chop 2 cylinders off the V10 to get a good V8, which is where the FIA's 2.4 V8 comes from. We already have a ban on advanced materials in the engines, Ilmores (Mclaren Mercedes) loss of performance can be pretty much atributed to this because they were the most advanced users of berillium alloys in their engines, which was banned a couple of seasons ago because it's carcernagenic when in dust form, which it turns to when an engine expires or whilst machining.
Spec ECU's is a piece of cake to introduce, all they have to do is ask the engine manufacturers what input and output requirements they have and produce the hardware and software around that.
Testing bans are a piece of cake to police, all you need is a tracker system asigned to each chasis, and each chassis produced has to be FIA inspected. It's harder than you think trying to hide an F1 car, cheating on the testing ban should recieve a 2 season ban, that will stop it dead in its tracks.
If they do ban tyre changes, i am sure they will write into the regs an allowance for changes in certain circumstances such as blow outs. The tyres being run will have to be fairly hard anyway to last a race distance and with a spec tyre they could make it twice as strong as is needed, performance drops down the priority list, which again is why a spec tyre series isnt what the tyre manufacturers want.
I wouldnt be all doom and gloom, F1 is still going to be awesome to watch and certainly wont be anything like a spec series in the same way NASCAR and CART virtually is.
For me it's all pants anyway after CanAm died a death, now they were proper race cars with proper engines. ;):D
The reduction in weight is being made for safety reasons, because there is a lot of concern right now about what happens to the balast during a crash. Most balast is placed in the floor plank that is bolted to the bottom of the tub, so there is big potential for injury, especially in the spectator areas with this quantity of heavy material bolted into place in that plank.
Semi auto box retention was always going to be the case, because manual shifter boxes cost more to maintain and reduce reliability. A computer doesnt round off dogs or miss gears that could potentially blow the engines.
Standard brakes doesnt mean they get steel brakes, it just means they all get the same kit from either AP or Brembo, who are the only two suppliers. The fact that AP and Brembo are now owned by the same company means its no loss to marketing for this company should a spec brake become part of the rules. Carbon brakes are safer, especially in failure situations, so i expect carbon carbon will be retained.
Spec Tyres are the big contentious issue here IMHO, because tyre companies dont want a spec tyre series. The only time tyres get mentioned in a spec tyre series is when they fail, bridgestone and michellin have nothing to gain from a contract to supply F1, they both may pull out.
Engines wise, i can see them retaining the V10 as its the most reliable config, going to a V8 introduces poor harmonics, plus all the current R&D on the V10's would be wasted. It's not a case of just chop 2 cylinders off the V10 to get a good V8, which is where the FIA's 2.4 V8 comes from. We already have a ban on advanced materials in the engines, Ilmores (Mclaren Mercedes) loss of performance can be pretty much atributed to this because they were the most advanced users of berillium alloys in their engines, which was banned a couple of seasons ago because it's carcernagenic when in dust form, which it turns to when an engine expires or whilst machining.
Spec ECU's is a piece of cake to introduce, all they have to do is ask the engine manufacturers what input and output requirements they have and produce the hardware and software around that.
Testing bans are a piece of cake to police, all you need is a tracker system asigned to each chasis, and each chassis produced has to be FIA inspected. It's harder than you think trying to hide an F1 car, cheating on the testing ban should recieve a 2 season ban, that will stop it dead in its tracks.
If they do ban tyre changes, i am sure they will write into the regs an allowance for changes in certain circumstances such as blow outs. The tyres being run will have to be fairly hard anyway to last a race distance and with a spec tyre they could make it twice as strong as is needed, performance drops down the priority list, which again is why a spec tyre series isnt what the tyre manufacturers want.
I wouldnt be all doom and gloom, F1 is still going to be awesome to watch and certainly wont be anything like a spec series in the same way NASCAR and CART virtually is.
For me it's all pants anyway after CanAm died a death, now they were proper race cars with proper engines. ;):D
| GarySheehan | 05-05-2004 04:59 PM |
How are you guys seeing this as a spec series?!
Everyone will be designing and building their own engines. Whether V8 or V10, the engineers will still be working on the same things; power, weight, longevity and profile.
Spec ECU's is hardly an issue. Lot's of us have been complaining about traction control and launch control. Standard ECU's are the only way to ensure you get rid of these two things. These ECU's will be configurable to support any engine design, just like off the shelf stand-alone ECU's like Motec do today. What's the issue here?
Aerodynamics are still open. Huge R&D is involved here and it will become even more important as power drops.
Decreasing front tire width and going back to slicks is fantastic. A smaller front tire contact patch will increase braking distances, allowing more passing. Hey, what a novel idea!
No tire changes during a race means harder compounds means less grip. Combined with no traction control, lighter weight and less downforce, we might be able to see these guys fling their cars around the racetrack again!
Most of what has been accepted will be good for the sport. This is nothing like a spec series proposal. I'm looking forward to the changes.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Everyone will be designing and building their own engines. Whether V8 or V10, the engineers will still be working on the same things; power, weight, longevity and profile.
Spec ECU's is hardly an issue. Lot's of us have been complaining about traction control and launch control. Standard ECU's are the only way to ensure you get rid of these two things. These ECU's will be configurable to support any engine design, just like off the shelf stand-alone ECU's like Motec do today. What's the issue here?
Aerodynamics are still open. Huge R&D is involved here and it will become even more important as power drops.
Decreasing front tire width and going back to slicks is fantastic. A smaller front tire contact patch will increase braking distances, allowing more passing. Hey, what a novel idea!
No tire changes during a race means harder compounds means less grip. Combined with no traction control, lighter weight and less downforce, we might be able to see these guys fling their cars around the racetrack again!
Most of what has been accepted will be good for the sport. This is nothing like a spec series proposal. I'm looking forward to the changes.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| ForceFed4 | 05-05-2004 06:53 PM |
I guess the problem is that many of the changes are as of yet still so ill-defined.
My earlier posts are a bit over the top, I admit, but I'm still not happy to see all these changes.
Spec ECU can mean almost anything. There's a range from what Mr. Sheehan described (I'd have no problem with) to "locked" boxes handed out before each race, manditory rev limits, etc... which I would not be at all in favor of. Luckily I think the later is almost technically impossible with the engine diversity in F1, but I don't know enough about engine tuning to really make that evaluation for sure (or confidence that the FIA wouldn't try it anyway).
I could really care less if it's a v8/v10/v12/W37/whatever actually powering the car. I don't, however, like the idea of engines that have to last multiple races. Single motor for the whole weekend is already pushing i, though I can deal with that.
Aerodynamics is open, yes... but only to a certain extent. The FIA's intention was to cripple the cars aerodynamically. This had the unexpected effect of forcing the aero engineers to get REALLY good at what they do, and they're actually aerodynamically better now than before the restrictive rules. This was good. In the end though, I'm afraid the FIA will eventually introduce more "spec" parts, which will eliminate that process entirely, to acheive the desired results if the cars keep getting faster.
I'm happy to see the cars back on slicks, narrower or no. I have doubts about no tire change races though. I'd rather see no fuel stops, but with tire changes. OTOH, tires that have to last an entire race could lead to some crazy tire development, but that only seems likely if competition between 2 (or more) companies is allowed, in order to foster it.
The brake issue seems unclear, I've now heard two versions of the story. The first is that carbon brakes WILL be outlawed, and restriced to standard steel materials. The second is that, no, carbon brakes will be allowed, but as a spec system that all teams must use (presumably unmodified). Can't say I particularly love either of these possibilities.
Lighter cars sound good to me.
Those are just my feelings as a fan. There are plenty of series out there with carefully regulated rules to control costs and ensure equality. And many of them have damn good racing.
But I want one series that is the shrine of innovation and high technology, where the speeds are fast as humanely (materially?) possible. The more rules the FIA makes, the further F1 seems to go from that, especially when their goal is "cost cutting".
Maybe what I want just isn't economically viable anymore/right now. Maybe I'll just have to accept that; but I can still want it.
My earlier posts are a bit over the top, I admit, but I'm still not happy to see all these changes.
Spec ECU can mean almost anything. There's a range from what Mr. Sheehan described (I'd have no problem with) to "locked" boxes handed out before each race, manditory rev limits, etc... which I would not be at all in favor of. Luckily I think the later is almost technically impossible with the engine diversity in F1, but I don't know enough about engine tuning to really make that evaluation for sure (or confidence that the FIA wouldn't try it anyway).
I could really care less if it's a v8/v10/v12/W37/whatever actually powering the car. I don't, however, like the idea of engines that have to last multiple races. Single motor for the whole weekend is already pushing i, though I can deal with that.
Aerodynamics is open, yes... but only to a certain extent. The FIA's intention was to cripple the cars aerodynamically. This had the unexpected effect of forcing the aero engineers to get REALLY good at what they do, and they're actually aerodynamically better now than before the restrictive rules. This was good. In the end though, I'm afraid the FIA will eventually introduce more "spec" parts, which will eliminate that process entirely, to acheive the desired results if the cars keep getting faster.
I'm happy to see the cars back on slicks, narrower or no. I have doubts about no tire change races though. I'd rather see no fuel stops, but with tire changes. OTOH, tires that have to last an entire race could lead to some crazy tire development, but that only seems likely if competition between 2 (or more) companies is allowed, in order to foster it.
The brake issue seems unclear, I've now heard two versions of the story. The first is that carbon brakes WILL be outlawed, and restriced to standard steel materials. The second is that, no, carbon brakes will be allowed, but as a spec system that all teams must use (presumably unmodified). Can't say I particularly love either of these possibilities.
Lighter cars sound good to me.
Those are just my feelings as a fan. There are plenty of series out there with carefully regulated rules to control costs and ensure equality. And many of them have damn good racing.
But I want one series that is the shrine of innovation and high technology, where the speeds are fast as humanely (materially?) possible. The more rules the FIA makes, the further F1 seems to go from that, especially when their goal is "cost cutting".
Maybe what I want just isn't economically viable anymore/right now. Maybe I'll just have to accept that; but I can still want it.
| GarySheehan | 05-05-2004 07:28 PM |
Personally, I'd rather see iron rotors back on the cars. Carbon rotors are incredibly expensive and the technology doesn't carry over to production cars. Let's get the F1 engineers back designing brake systems with traditional materials to improve what hits the street.
Tires that last a whole race would also be a huge cost savings.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Tires that last a whole race would also be a huge cost savings.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| StuBeck | 05-05-2004 07:40 PM |
Yea, I'd like to see iron rotors too. Everything seems to think that carbon brakes are somehow better...they aren't. The only benefit is that they weight less, nothing else.
| GarySheehan | 05-05-2004 07:44 PM |
They also handle much higher temperatures, shed heat much faster than iron and don't conduct the heat into the bearings.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| johnfelstead | 05-05-2004 07:49 PM |
i'll have to disagree with you on the brakes Gary. I dont want to see an F1 spec cast iron disk slice through a tub or worse still a spectator when it fails at 200MPH. When steel brakes fail they make a hell of a mess, carbon carbon just turn to dust. Carbon brakes arnt that expensive these days either, they are in common use on lots of race series plus the aero industry. We even have mainstream manufacturers making cars with ceramic brakes now such as porsche with the GT2, in the big scheme of things carbon brakes are peanuts. By all means cut costs where practical, but not at the expense of safety.
Carbon brakes are not new either, they have masses of R&D behind them now, i remember doing some testing on Carbon rotors back in 1987. Either way you have to throw the pads and rotors away after each race, so the cost saving will be tiny as top quality disks are not cheap. There is also a falacy in a lot of peoples minds about the increased braking distances you would get with steel rotors. Williams did some testing at Donington a few years ago with back to back carbon/steel brakes and there was about 0.5s a lap diference, the engineers noted the only real disadvantage with steel was safety.
The carbon brake system technology doesnt carry over to road cars yet, but as weight becomes more important to car manufactures as fuel costs rise, hybrid/electric cars take over it will, thats one of the reasons why the aircraft industry uses them now.
Carbon brakes are not new either, they have masses of R&D behind them now, i remember doing some testing on Carbon rotors back in 1987. Either way you have to throw the pads and rotors away after each race, so the cost saving will be tiny as top quality disks are not cheap. There is also a falacy in a lot of peoples minds about the increased braking distances you would get with steel rotors. Williams did some testing at Donington a few years ago with back to back carbon/steel brakes and there was about 0.5s a lap diference, the engineers noted the only real disadvantage with steel was safety.
The carbon brake system technology doesnt carry over to road cars yet, but as weight becomes more important to car manufactures as fuel costs rise, hybrid/electric cars take over it will, thats one of the reasons why the aircraft industry uses them now.
| GarySheehan | 05-05-2004 09:31 PM |
John,
I'll have to disagree with your disagreement :)
I've been hearing that the cost of carbon rotors in F1 are up over $20k per rotor. Iron rotors don't even come close to that. The process for creating carbon rotors takes an incredibly long time and huge effort. A timeframe of months to create a rotor.
I know that a carbon rotor won't slow a car down faster than an iron rotor. You're still limited by the contact patch of the tire.
I don't see how carbon rotors will make it to production vehicles as they require significant heat to generate efficient cf numbers. An aircraft can use them because they generate a lot of heat slowing down from landing and they don't do a heck of a lot of stop and go driving when cold.
If the cost comes WAY down and cold driveability is improved they can make their way onto street cars.
I don't see a lot of iron rotors coming apart at speed. Have I been missing something?
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
I'll have to disagree with your disagreement :)
I've been hearing that the cost of carbon rotors in F1 are up over $20k per rotor. Iron rotors don't even come close to that. The process for creating carbon rotors takes an incredibly long time and huge effort. A timeframe of months to create a rotor.
I know that a carbon rotor won't slow a car down faster than an iron rotor. You're still limited by the contact patch of the tire.
I don't see how carbon rotors will make it to production vehicles as they require significant heat to generate efficient cf numbers. An aircraft can use them because they generate a lot of heat slowing down from landing and they don't do a heck of a lot of stop and go driving when cold.
If the cost comes WAY down and cold driveability is improved they can make their way onto street cars.
I don't see a lot of iron rotors coming apart at speed. Have I been missing something?
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| johnfelstead | 05-05-2004 10:08 PM |
Cool, i love a good discusion. :)
No you havnt seen lots of failures Gary, they do happen though. The big problem is that F1 cars run 13" wheels at over 200MPH, they have very small disk diameteres to work with and disipate the energies from. If they are going to make steel brakes safe for F1 they are going to have to change the wheel size regulations to get these things stable or use very expensive steel alloys which arnt going to be cheap either.
The carbon brake systems are designed to work within a small operating range for F1 and dont really work until 300C, you can quite easily make carbon carbon work at ambient temperature too though, it's all in the materials design, hence why you can buy a carbon carbon clutch assembly that works from cold, another inovation from F1 that is filtering down the chain.
you may find these interesting [url]http://www.sglcarbon.com/ir/press/press/news/031114.html[/url] [url]http://www.sglcarbon.com/sgl_t/brakedisc/index.html[/url] It ilustrates fairly well how F1 carbon brake technology is being adapted and working its way down to the roadcar market. I dont have the costs and time to hand for carbon carbon but you can certainly make them for a lot less than you sugest and a lot quicker, imagine a DTM car with $80K worth of brake disks on it, not gonna happen and it certainly isnt going to be cost efective, even for F1 when you consider they go through 8 disks per race weekend.
No you havnt seen lots of failures Gary, they do happen though. The big problem is that F1 cars run 13" wheels at over 200MPH, they have very small disk diameteres to work with and disipate the energies from. If they are going to make steel brakes safe for F1 they are going to have to change the wheel size regulations to get these things stable or use very expensive steel alloys which arnt going to be cheap either.
The carbon brake systems are designed to work within a small operating range for F1 and dont really work until 300C, you can quite easily make carbon carbon work at ambient temperature too though, it's all in the materials design, hence why you can buy a carbon carbon clutch assembly that works from cold, another inovation from F1 that is filtering down the chain.
you may find these interesting [url]http://www.sglcarbon.com/ir/press/press/news/031114.html[/url] [url]http://www.sglcarbon.com/sgl_t/brakedisc/index.html[/url] It ilustrates fairly well how F1 carbon brake technology is being adapted and working its way down to the roadcar market. I dont have the costs and time to hand for carbon carbon but you can certainly make them for a lot less than you sugest and a lot quicker, imagine a DTM car with $80K worth of brake disks on it, not gonna happen and it certainly isnt going to be cost efective, even for F1 when you consider they go through 8 disks per race weekend.
| cvalle-sd | 05-05-2004 10:09 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GarySheehan [/i]
[B]
No tire changes during a race means harder compounds means less grip. Combined with no traction control, lighter weight and less downforce, we might be able to see these guys fling their cars around the racetrack again!
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
well...I guess it'd be OK if they get sideways;)
[B]
No tire changes during a race means harder compounds means less grip. Combined with no traction control, lighter weight and less downforce, we might be able to see these guys fling their cars around the racetrack again!
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
well...I guess it'd be OK if they get sideways;)
| StuBeck | 05-06-2004 09:12 AM |
Carbon disks don't just turn to dust, they explode as well. Look at Nick Heidfelds brake failure at the A1 Ring two years ago, it goes flying. And even if the iron disks do fail, its not like they're going to be a flying into spectator areas.
| donjuan | 05-06-2004 09:49 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GarySheehan[/i]
[B]
Tires that last a whole race would also be a huge cost savings.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Not trying to be argumentative, but no it won't. The money will just be spent in making the tire perform just as well and STILL last the whole race. Yeah they won't have to bring nearly as [i]many[/i] tires to the track, but you can bet each one will cost that much more to develop. The one-engine/weekend rule this year is a perfect example of that. Other than Mercedes badged engines ;) the engines are lasting the weekend, and still turning just as fast if not faster and making just as much if not more power. In no way whatsoever was that cheaper for the teams.
Again, if the rules say "You have to use this part and can't spend any money here" the money will just go elsewhere.
MHO=Slow them down in the name of safety, when they're getting faster than they are safe, fine. Slow them down to reduce costs...will never work.
[B]
Tires that last a whole race would also be a huge cost savings.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Not trying to be argumentative, but no it won't. The money will just be spent in making the tire perform just as well and STILL last the whole race. Yeah they won't have to bring nearly as [i]many[/i] tires to the track, but you can bet each one will cost that much more to develop. The one-engine/weekend rule this year is a perfect example of that. Other than Mercedes badged engines ;) the engines are lasting the weekend, and still turning just as fast if not faster and making just as much if not more power. In no way whatsoever was that cheaper for the teams.
Again, if the rules say "You have to use this part and can't spend any money here" the money will just go elsewhere.
MHO=Slow them down in the name of safety, when they're getting faster than they are safe, fine. Slow them down to reduce costs...will never work.
| [email�protected] | 05-06-2004 10:33 AM |
I am finally seeing my first Grand Prix races live this year( going to Montreal and Indy) and thankfully I will see real Grand Prix cars and not a Spec Mazda race. What a joke. The beauty of Formula 1 is that teams have the pinnacle of motorsport racing cars and use the technology from these race cars to filter down to the street vehicles we all drive. I do not want to see the same engines, ecu, etc etc etc....... I watch the series to see who is the best driver, who has the better car on the day, can the underdog win and to see the spectacle and technology these cars offer.
I am disgusted that they will no longer have tire changes. ***? No refueling is next I take it? Lately most of the drama is in the pit stops, or M Schumacher driving Montoya off the road. Why not call Skip Barber and see if he can supply the 2006 grid with his instructor cars. Or perhaps just put a 600cc engine in the back of the new cars to keep speeds down. Very sad.
Hopefully some of these changes will not happen and the rumored second Formula 1 series will move forward with real cars at the forefront of design and technology. That's why car manufactures such as Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota and Ford race Formula 1. It is not only is a halo for their car division and advertising, but accelerates development for their production cars.
Is anyone old enough on this board to rember the turbo days, or when in one race you could see a V-8, V-10 and V-12 all in the same race? The classic battle of lighter, torquier Cosworth V-8 against the more powerfull top end Ferrari V-12. I do and Formula 1 was all the better for it.
Brett.
I am disgusted that they will no longer have tire changes. ***? No refueling is next I take it? Lately most of the drama is in the pit stops, or M Schumacher driving Montoya off the road. Why not call Skip Barber and see if he can supply the 2006 grid with his instructor cars. Or perhaps just put a 600cc engine in the back of the new cars to keep speeds down. Very sad.
Hopefully some of these changes will not happen and the rumored second Formula 1 series will move forward with real cars at the forefront of design and technology. That's why car manufactures such as Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota and Ford race Formula 1. It is not only is a halo for their car division and advertising, but accelerates development for their production cars.
Is anyone old enough on this board to rember the turbo days, or when in one race you could see a V-8, V-10 and V-12 all in the same race? The classic battle of lighter, torquier Cosworth V-8 against the more powerfull top end Ferrari V-12. I do and Formula 1 was all the better for it.
Brett.
| donjuan | 05-06-2004 11:14 AM |
Agreed wholeheartedly.
I want to see cars on the limit of technology.
I want to see cars on the limit of technology.
| kfoote | 05-06-2004 11:56 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by donjuan [/i]
[B]...
Again, if the rules say "You have to use this part and can't spend any money here" the money will just go elsewhere.
MHO=Slow them down in the name of safety, when they're getting faster than they are safe, fine. Slow them down to reduce costs...will never work. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree totally here. The cars are at the point where they are getting faster than they are safe, and more for the safety of spetators than the cars and drivers themselves. IMO, I think the 2.4L engine is a good idea to help slow the cars down (though not necessarily restrict it to a V8), make them run a standard aluminum alloy block material (I'm not up on my metallurgy enough to reccommend which one), and give them a rev limit of, say, 18,000 RPMs.
My favorite example of a measure to cut costs gone bad was the transition from the IMSA GTP cars to the WSC cars in 1994-95. Cost of a competitive IMSA GTP car was in the neighborhood of $750k, and to buy a Ferrari 333SP was $950k. The cars did slow down, but they didn't get less expensive.
[B]...
Again, if the rules say "You have to use this part and can't spend any money here" the money will just go elsewhere.
MHO=Slow them down in the name of safety, when they're getting faster than they are safe, fine. Slow them down to reduce costs...will never work. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree totally here. The cars are at the point where they are getting faster than they are safe, and more for the safety of spetators than the cars and drivers themselves. IMO, I think the 2.4L engine is a good idea to help slow the cars down (though not necessarily restrict it to a V8), make them run a standard aluminum alloy block material (I'm not up on my metallurgy enough to reccommend which one), and give them a rev limit of, say, 18,000 RPMs.
My favorite example of a measure to cut costs gone bad was the transition from the IMSA GTP cars to the WSC cars in 1994-95. Cost of a competitive IMSA GTP car was in the neighborhood of $750k, and to buy a Ferrari 333SP was $950k. The cars did slow down, but they didn't get less expensive.
| StuBeck | 05-06-2004 12:01 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by [email�protected][/i]
[B] I am finally seeing my first Grand Prix races live this year( going to Montreal and Indy) and thankfully I will see real Grand Prix cars and not a Spec Mazda race. What a joke. The beauty of Formula 1 is that teams have the pinnacle of motorsport racing cars and use the technology from these race cars to filter down to the street vehicles we all drive. I do not want to see the same engines, ecu, etc etc etc....... I watch the series to see who is the best driver, who has the better car on the day, can the underdog win and to see the spectacle and technology these cars offer.
[/B][/QUOTE]
They won't be using the same engine. They are already using the same brakes. We might actually see MORE innovation in brakes since they won't take 6 months to make.
And right now pit stops aren't going to go away. They are still going to have refueling. Didn't they only allow pit stops again in the early 90's?
[B] I am finally seeing my first Grand Prix races live this year( going to Montreal and Indy) and thankfully I will see real Grand Prix cars and not a Spec Mazda race. What a joke. The beauty of Formula 1 is that teams have the pinnacle of motorsport racing cars and use the technology from these race cars to filter down to the street vehicles we all drive. I do not want to see the same engines, ecu, etc etc etc....... I watch the series to see who is the best driver, who has the better car on the day, can the underdog win and to see the spectacle and technology these cars offer.
[/B][/QUOTE]
They won't be using the same engine. They are already using the same brakes. We might actually see MORE innovation in brakes since they won't take 6 months to make.
And right now pit stops aren't going to go away. They are still going to have refueling. Didn't they only allow pit stops again in the early 90's?
| GarySheehan | 05-06-2004 01:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by [email�protected] [/i]
[B]I am disgusted that they will no longer have tire changes. ***? No refueling is next I take it? Lately most of the drama is in the pit stops, or M Schumacher driving Montoya off the road. [/B][/QUOTE]
Personally, I'd rather see drama on the track than in the pits. What's the point of a race if, even though you are in a faster car, the only way you can pass someone is by pitting 0.5 seconds faster?
F1 needs aero-grip reduction and the banning of driver aids.
I remember the turbo era. I also remember seeing the a$$ of a car step out if the driver got on the throttle too hard exiting a corner. I also remember the days of outbraking another driver into a corner.
I think the new rules are going to go a long way to bring those things back into F1.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
[B]I am disgusted that they will no longer have tire changes. ***? No refueling is next I take it? Lately most of the drama is in the pit stops, or M Schumacher driving Montoya off the road. [/B][/QUOTE]
Personally, I'd rather see drama on the track than in the pits. What's the point of a race if, even though you are in a faster car, the only way you can pass someone is by pitting 0.5 seconds faster?
F1 needs aero-grip reduction and the banning of driver aids.
I remember the turbo era. I also remember seeing the a$$ of a car step out if the driver got on the throttle too hard exiting a corner. I also remember the days of outbraking another driver into a corner.
I think the new rules are going to go a long way to bring those things back into F1.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| GarySheehan | 05-06-2004 01:17 PM |
johnfelstead,
Thanks for the links. I haven't had the chance to check them out yet, but I'm very interested to see how this tech might trickle down.
Good point on wheel diameter. I'd imagine that if they do go to an iron rotor they would take a hard look at increasing front wheel size.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Thanks for the links. I haven't had the chance to check them out yet, but I'm very interested to see how this tech might trickle down.
Good point on wheel diameter. I'd imagine that if they do go to an iron rotor they would take a hard look at increasing front wheel size.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| AndyRoo | 05-06-2004 01:24 PM |
its not really a spec series...we were all overreacting a little bit.
they are NOT all gonna use the same motor. its just a new size. that is all.
i will give the new formula a chance.
they are NOT all gonna use the same motor. its just a new size. that is all.
i will give the new formula a chance.
| donjuan | 05-06-2004 02:15 PM |
I'm not calling it spec racing at all, and I will of course watch. I just don't like the idea of stepping backwards in the technology of the cars. And it's not even stepping backwards, it's just applying all of the engineering genius to a different set of rules.
I will always be a fan.
I will always be a fan.
| GarySheehan | 05-06-2004 02:32 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by donjuan [/i]
[B]And it's not even stepping backwards, it's just applying all of the engineering genius to a different set of rules.[/B][/QUOTE]
EXACTLY!!!
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
[B]And it's not even stepping backwards, it's just applying all of the engineering genius to a different set of rules.[/B][/QUOTE]
EXACTLY!!!
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| [email�protected] | 05-06-2004 03:06 PM |
Why make these cars slower? Why use iron rotors when I can go to my local Porsche dealer or Ferrari dealer and buy ceramic or carbon discs? This is a step backwards as far as I am concerned.
Brett.
Brett.
| johnfelstead | 05-06-2004 03:47 PM |
Pleasure Gary. I have been out all day so not had chance to find any info on the carbon carbon costs. Incidentaly, carbon carbon doesnt mean carbon disk and pad, its a description of the manufacturing process to make the disks where they use carbon fibre pre-pregs for the initial construction and then base carbon in the final forming, which is how they can speed the manufacture process to sensible time scales. They are physically diferent to early carbon disks. It takes about 1 week to make a carbon carbon disk these days [url]http://www.sintec-keramik.com/sintec-en/carbon_products.html[/url]
| driggity | 05-06-2004 04:10 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by donjuan[/i]
[B] Not trying to be argumentative, but no it won't. The money will just be spent in making the tire perform just as well and STILL last the whole race. Yeah they won't have to bring nearly as [i]many[/i] tires to the track, but you can bet each one will cost that much more to develop.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'd agree with this if there were still multiple tire manufacturers but with a single manufacturer I don't see the development costs shooting up as there won't be a need to squeeze every last bit of performance out of a tire. Unless there were multiple groups within a single tire manufacturer that were firewalled off from each other and each group was working with a single F1 team. I doubt that would happen though.
[B] Not trying to be argumentative, but no it won't. The money will just be spent in making the tire perform just as well and STILL last the whole race. Yeah they won't have to bring nearly as [i]many[/i] tires to the track, but you can bet each one will cost that much more to develop.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'd agree with this if there were still multiple tire manufacturers but with a single manufacturer I don't see the development costs shooting up as there won't be a need to squeeze every last bit of performance out of a tire. Unless there were multiple groups within a single tire manufacturer that were firewalled off from each other and each group was working with a single F1 team. I doubt that would happen though.
| donjuan | 05-06-2004 04:22 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by driggity[/i]
[B] I'd agree with this if there were still multiple tire manufacturers but with a single manufacturer I don't see the development costs shooting up as there won't be a need to squeeze every last bit of performance out of a tire. Unless there were multiple groups within a single tire manufacturer that were firewalled off from each other and each group was working with a single F1 team. I doubt that would happen though. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good point and you're right. My comments were assuming there was still a tire war going on.
[B] I'd agree with this if there were still multiple tire manufacturers but with a single manufacturer I don't see the development costs shooting up as there won't be a need to squeeze every last bit of performance out of a tire. Unless there were multiple groups within a single tire manufacturer that were firewalled off from each other and each group was working with a single F1 team. I doubt that would happen though. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good point and you're right. My comments were assuming there was still a tire war going on.
| johnfelstead | 05-06-2004 04:42 PM |
you can bet your bottom dollar those spec tyres will suit one car more than the others. Development on tyres wont stop, it will just be steered in a certain direction. I wonder which one. ;)
| ForceFed4 | 05-06-2004 04:55 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead[/i]
[B] you can bet your bottom dollar those spec tyres will suit one car more than the others. Development on tyres wont stop, it will just be steered in a certain direction. I wonder which one. ;) [/B][/QUOTE] Maybe they can mold them in matching red ... for durability reasons of course
:p
[B] you can bet your bottom dollar those spec tyres will suit one car more than the others. Development on tyres wont stop, it will just be steered in a certain direction. I wonder which one. ;) [/B][/QUOTE] Maybe they can mold them in matching red ... for durability reasons of course
:p
| kfoote | 05-06-2004 05:22 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GarySheehan [/i]
[B]...
I remember the turbo era. I also remember seeing the a$$ of a car step out if the driver got on the throttle too hard exiting a corner. I also remember the days of outbraking another driver into a corner.
I think the new rules are going to go a long way to bring those things back into F1.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think these will come back with the new rules. As far as the brakes go, if the cars get 50kg lighter and the cars are slower down the straights, then the braking zones will actually get shorter rather than longer.
The days of throttle on oversteer are pretty much over for aerodynamic reasons. The way the aero on these cars is, if they get the airstream more than about 15 deg off the centerline of the car, they will spin. The amount of aero grip in modern downforce cars (Same goes for ALMS Prototypes and OWRS cars among others) is heavily dependent on the direction of the airstream, and going off the ideal airtream significantly reduces the total downforce.
[B]...
I remember the turbo era. I also remember seeing the a$$ of a car step out if the driver got on the throttle too hard exiting a corner. I also remember the days of outbraking another driver into a corner.
I think the new rules are going to go a long way to bring those things back into F1.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think these will come back with the new rules. As far as the brakes go, if the cars get 50kg lighter and the cars are slower down the straights, then the braking zones will actually get shorter rather than longer.
The days of throttle on oversteer are pretty much over for aerodynamic reasons. The way the aero on these cars is, if they get the airstream more than about 15 deg off the centerline of the car, they will spin. The amount of aero grip in modern downforce cars (Same goes for ALMS Prototypes and OWRS cars among others) is heavily dependent on the direction of the airstream, and going off the ideal airtream significantly reduces the total downforce.
| NC2.5RS | 05-06-2004 06:33 PM |
I think these changes are a complete joke. They're gonna lose any fans the sport had by implementing these changes.
| Snowphun | 05-09-2004 03:01 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NC2.5RS[/i]
[B] I think these changes are a complete joke. They're gonna lose any fans the sport had by implementing these changes. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm amazed at how many people have decided this is all final, and read into it the worst interpretations possible. If you've been watching F1 for more than a few months you know that change is constant. Sometime for the better, sometimes not, but it's part of the sport.
[B] I think these changes are a complete joke. They're gonna lose any fans the sport had by implementing these changes. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm amazed at how many people have decided this is all final, and read into it the worst interpretations possible. If you've been watching F1 for more than a few months you know that change is constant. Sometime for the better, sometimes not, but it's part of the sport.
| Dr. WOT | 05-10-2004 11:34 AM |
I think the new regulations have been suggested in the best (if misguided) intentions by the FIA. What concerns me is how some teams have reacted to it, such as Toyota saying the changes should be drafted as soon as possible. I read that as them knowing they are completely lost in the current formula, so let's change it and THEN maybe we'll have a chance. :rolleyes:
| mbiker97 | 05-10-2004 01:18 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ForceFed4[/i]
[B] Maybe they can mold them in matching red ... for durability reasons of course
:p [/B][/QUOTE]
That's what I was thinking too.:lol:
Yesterday when I was watch the GP of Spain the anouncer was saying something about these proposed new rules. He said that Maz mentioned it at the end of the team meeting ,and none of the team managers were even thinking/talking about it. The enthusiats are blowing it up into something it isn't.
[B] Maybe they can mold them in matching red ... for durability reasons of course
:p [/B][/QUOTE]
That's what I was thinking too.:lol:
Yesterday when I was watch the GP of Spain the anouncer was saying something about these proposed new rules. He said that Maz mentioned it at the end of the team meeting ,and none of the team managers were even thinking/talking about it. The enthusiats are blowing it up into something it isn't.
| SubaruCO | 05-11-2004 10:03 AM |
Maybe this was mentioned already but during the Spanish GP, the announcers said that while interviewing team bosses in the paddock prior to the race, most said that the Monaco meeting really wasn't a meeting as much as it was a lecture. The FIA got all the bosses together and told them what's up, they didn't ask for suggestions or for discussion, it was a lecture. Apparently there are some good changes and some not so good ones, but the decisions are very far from final.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét