| erich_sc | 10-22-2004 12:20 PM |
F1 Rule Changes for 2005 & 2006
�
�
[QUOTE][B]2005 (to come into force on March 1, 2005)[/B]
Bodywork
Changes to the bodywork (aerodynamics) to raise the front wing, bring the rear wing forward, reduce the diffuser height and cut back the bodywork in front of the rear wheels.
Reason: it is estimated that these changes will result in the loss of 20% or more downforce with minimal loss of drag.
Tyres
One set of tyres must complete qualifying and the race.
Reason: a harder tyre will reduce cornering speeds.
Engines
Each engine must last for two complete Events
Reason: a two-race engine will give less power than a one-race engine.
[B]2006 (to come into force 1 January 2006)[/B]
Engines
The introduction of a 2.4 litre V8 engine together with a number of restrictions concerning design and permitted materials.
Reason: reducing capacity is a sure way to reduce power (as repeatedly requested by the TWG), while technical restrictions will limit the rate of power increase. It is estimated that power will drop to about 700 bhp compared to the 1000 bhp that existing engines will reach by 2006.
In order not to prejudice the smaller independent teams the existing 3.0 litre V10 engines may continue to be used in 2006 and 2007, subject to a restriction on revs to be determined by the FIA.
Reason: having reduced engine power, we need an inexpensive but competitive engine for the smaller independent teams, including newcomers. A rev-limited 3 litre can be adjusted to be competitive with factory 2.4 litre units, but will be far less costly.
[/QUOTE]
full article here...
[url]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/041022180354.shtml[/url]
I must admit I'm disappointed that they won't have tire changes during a race. I am so glad I witnessed these cars at their peak this year. I'm sure it will still be great, but this does sadden me a bit. I wasn't around for any other major rule changes to know how much it will change the sport. Any insights?
Bodywork
Changes to the bodywork (aerodynamics) to raise the front wing, bring the rear wing forward, reduce the diffuser height and cut back the bodywork in front of the rear wheels.
Reason: it is estimated that these changes will result in the loss of 20% or more downforce with minimal loss of drag.
Tyres
One set of tyres must complete qualifying and the race.
Reason: a harder tyre will reduce cornering speeds.
Engines
Each engine must last for two complete Events
Reason: a two-race engine will give less power than a one-race engine.
[B]2006 (to come into force 1 January 2006)[/B]
Engines
The introduction of a 2.4 litre V8 engine together with a number of restrictions concerning design and permitted materials.
Reason: reducing capacity is a sure way to reduce power (as repeatedly requested by the TWG), while technical restrictions will limit the rate of power increase. It is estimated that power will drop to about 700 bhp compared to the 1000 bhp that existing engines will reach by 2006.
In order not to prejudice the smaller independent teams the existing 3.0 litre V10 engines may continue to be used in 2006 and 2007, subject to a restriction on revs to be determined by the FIA.
Reason: having reduced engine power, we need an inexpensive but competitive engine for the smaller independent teams, including newcomers. A rev-limited 3 litre can be adjusted to be competitive with factory 2.4 litre units, but will be far less costly.
[/QUOTE]
full article here...
[url]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/041022180354.shtml[/url]
I must admit I'm disappointed that they won't have tire changes during a race. I am so glad I witnessed these cars at their peak this year. I'm sure it will still be great, but this does sadden me a bit. I wasn't around for any other major rule changes to know how much it will change the sport. Any insights?
| Ferg | 10-22-2004 04:12 PM |
It's absolutely rediculous that because the teams couldn't get it together and come up with a new rules package we get stuck with this lot...Thanks Max! I just don't see the point of having engines that need to last for [i]two[/i] race weekends. One weekend..okay fine, that makes sense...but to penalize a driver for an engine faliure...at the next race? I just don't get it.
Nigel Roebuck (autosport.com) had a great point on the engine regs...
[QUOTE]In the interests of financial commonsense, I think there has to be some restriction on engine development in F1, but I have to confess I don't understand the recent paranoia about the need to reduce from a 3-litre V10 to a 2.4-litre V8. True, power will come down from 900bhp+ to 700bhp+, but it seems to me that the manufacturers will merely throw money at the new engines, so as to get back to 900bhp+ as soon as possible. That is exactly what happened when capacity was cut from 3.5-litres to 3-litres.
The fact is, not too many accidents occur in a straight line. Even now we have nowhere near the horsepower of the turbo era, when drivers were racing with over 1000bhp, and qualifying with up to 1500, so I don't really understand the panic. Changing the regs in any major way - be it to do with engines or anything else - always sends costs through the roof, yet it doesn't seem very long to me since the FIA's overwhelming priority was cutting costs, rather than speeds.
No, if you really want to cut speeds, you need to attack the problem from other directions. It's pretty clear that the enormous increase in speeds this year has come almost entirely from tyres - and why? Because we have a tyre war, between Bridgestone and Michelin. First of all, I think we have really to hack into downforce; second, introduce a 'standard' tyre, produced by a single manufacturer - and do these things in conjunction with the introduction of a 'standard' ECU, thereby getting rid of the accursed traction control. You can have all the horsepower in the world, but if you can't get it to the road very efficiently, so what? [/QUOTE]
...and on the Manufactures feelings....
[QUOTE]Their problem is that they don't want 2.4-litre V8 engines - and I don't blame them! What they would prefer to do is carry on with the 3-litre V10s, perhaps with a rev limit of 18,000 or whatever, and I can't see what's wrong with that.
Frankly, I think the argument that we need to switch to smaller engines in the interests of safety is a somewhat fatuous one. First, in terms of horsepower we are still nowhere near the levels of the mid-late '80s, when everyone had turbocharged engines, the best of which gave close to 1500bhp on qualifying boost, and well over 1000 for racing.
Second, yes, it's true that in 2004 lap times have fallen dramatically, in some places by three seconds or so. But let's keep a sense of perspective here. This has little or nothing to do with
horsepower: this season, after all, has seen the introduction of the 'one engine per weekend' rule, obliging the manufacturers to concentrate on longevity.
At Hockenheim BMW's Mario Theissen put it rather well: "Because of the rule change, this year we had to double engine life, so on average we have seen the same engine power on the track as before - and yet lap times have come down by up to 3.5 seconds. That is 100% down to aerodynamics and tyres.
"If you really want to cut costs, and extend engine life," Theissen went on, "the engine has to become more robust than it is today, and this will favour a bigger engine - or stay with the displacement we have today - rather than make the engine smaller."
For a long time the emphasis in F1 has been on cutting costs, and quite right, too, but of late it has been all about cutting speeds, in the interests of safety. I have no quarrel with that, but I don't understand the FIA's angle of attack: what surely matters most, after all, is cutting
cornering, rather than straightline, speeds, and a more logical approach would be to go for the aerodynamics, really hack into downforce, and at the same time introduce a 'control' tyre. No one doubts, after all, that the huge reduction in lap times this year is largely the consequence of the tyre war.
If you want to talk costs, well, any major rule change is always expensive, and the proposed switch to 2.4-litre V8s would be no exception. Power would come down from around 950 to around 750, according to engine people to whom I have spoken, and at once the chase would be on to get back to former power levels. This is exactly what happened when the FIA reduced the capacity of the V10s from 3.5-litres to 3-litres in 1995.
"How do you get more power from a normally-aspirated engine?" one said to me. "You throw revs at it - and revs cost a fortune."[/QUOTE]
Nigel Roebuck (autosport.com) had a great point on the engine regs...
[QUOTE]In the interests of financial commonsense, I think there has to be some restriction on engine development in F1, but I have to confess I don't understand the recent paranoia about the need to reduce from a 3-litre V10 to a 2.4-litre V8. True, power will come down from 900bhp+ to 700bhp+, but it seems to me that the manufacturers will merely throw money at the new engines, so as to get back to 900bhp+ as soon as possible. That is exactly what happened when capacity was cut from 3.5-litres to 3-litres.
The fact is, not too many accidents occur in a straight line. Even now we have nowhere near the horsepower of the turbo era, when drivers were racing with over 1000bhp, and qualifying with up to 1500, so I don't really understand the panic. Changing the regs in any major way - be it to do with engines or anything else - always sends costs through the roof, yet it doesn't seem very long to me since the FIA's overwhelming priority was cutting costs, rather than speeds.
No, if you really want to cut speeds, you need to attack the problem from other directions. It's pretty clear that the enormous increase in speeds this year has come almost entirely from tyres - and why? Because we have a tyre war, between Bridgestone and Michelin. First of all, I think we have really to hack into downforce; second, introduce a 'standard' tyre, produced by a single manufacturer - and do these things in conjunction with the introduction of a 'standard' ECU, thereby getting rid of the accursed traction control. You can have all the horsepower in the world, but if you can't get it to the road very efficiently, so what? [/QUOTE]
...and on the Manufactures feelings....
[QUOTE]Their problem is that they don't want 2.4-litre V8 engines - and I don't blame them! What they would prefer to do is carry on with the 3-litre V10s, perhaps with a rev limit of 18,000 or whatever, and I can't see what's wrong with that.
Frankly, I think the argument that we need to switch to smaller engines in the interests of safety is a somewhat fatuous one. First, in terms of horsepower we are still nowhere near the levels of the mid-late '80s, when everyone had turbocharged engines, the best of which gave close to 1500bhp on qualifying boost, and well over 1000 for racing.
Second, yes, it's true that in 2004 lap times have fallen dramatically, in some places by three seconds or so. But let's keep a sense of perspective here. This has little or nothing to do with
horsepower: this season, after all, has seen the introduction of the 'one engine per weekend' rule, obliging the manufacturers to concentrate on longevity.
At Hockenheim BMW's Mario Theissen put it rather well: "Because of the rule change, this year we had to double engine life, so on average we have seen the same engine power on the track as before - and yet lap times have come down by up to 3.5 seconds. That is 100% down to aerodynamics and tyres.
"If you really want to cut costs, and extend engine life," Theissen went on, "the engine has to become more robust than it is today, and this will favour a bigger engine - or stay with the displacement we have today - rather than make the engine smaller."
For a long time the emphasis in F1 has been on cutting costs, and quite right, too, but of late it has been all about cutting speeds, in the interests of safety. I have no quarrel with that, but I don't understand the FIA's angle of attack: what surely matters most, after all, is cutting
cornering, rather than straightline, speeds, and a more logical approach would be to go for the aerodynamics, really hack into downforce, and at the same time introduce a 'control' tyre. No one doubts, after all, that the huge reduction in lap times this year is largely the consequence of the tyre war.
If you want to talk costs, well, any major rule change is always expensive, and the proposed switch to 2.4-litre V8s would be no exception. Power would come down from around 950 to around 750, according to engine people to whom I have spoken, and at once the chase would be on to get back to former power levels. This is exactly what happened when the FIA reduced the capacity of the V10s from 3.5-litres to 3-litres in 1995.
"How do you get more power from a normally-aspirated engine?" one said to me. "You throw revs at it - and revs cost a fortune."[/QUOTE]
| NapTown2.5rs | 10-22-2004 04:21 PM |
:huh:
what a shame...
what a shame...
| AndyRoo | 10-22-2004 05:08 PM |
im also a little disapointed.
the "one engine for two weekends" rule sounds like it could potentially make things very ugly.
i would hate to see an engine blow in the qualifying for the opening race...and then that driver has to sit out 2 races.
Kimi would have missed every race this year lol.
the "one engine for two weekends" rule sounds like it could potentially make things very ugly.
i would hate to see an engine blow in the qualifying for the opening race...and then that driver has to sit out 2 races.
Kimi would have missed every race this year lol.
| jslegacy | 10-22-2004 05:15 PM |
[QUOTE=AndyRoo]im also a little disapointed.
the "one engine for two weekends" rule sounds like it could potentially make things very ugly.
i would hate to see an engine blow in the qualifying for the opening race...and then that driver has to sit out 2 races.
Kimi would have missed every race this year lol.[/QUOTE]
i dont think they would have to sit out, i think it would be penalty like you have to start at the end of the pack that race and the next or something.
the "one engine for two weekends" rule sounds like it could potentially make things very ugly.
i would hate to see an engine blow in the qualifying for the opening race...and then that driver has to sit out 2 races.
Kimi would have missed every race this year lol.[/QUOTE]
i dont think they would have to sit out, i think it would be penalty like you have to start at the end of the pack that race and the next or something.
| StuBeck | 10-22-2004 07:02 PM |
Nigel Roebuck doesn't seem to know much. The standard ECU, standard tires were proposed, and everyone moaned. Cars also still use their engines in the turns. Having a smaller engines will mean that the cars can not be as fast through the turns. Having a rev limit of 18k would not help that much either, some engines are barely in the 18k range or not even.
They are also cutting downforce by 20% for next year as well as forcing the teams to use kevlar around carbon fibre suspension to keep the debris when the suspension brakes be decreased immensely. What he is saying should be done is already being done. The tires now have to last the entire qual and race. Which will mean that the tires have to last a HELL OF A LONG TIME, thus reducing speed.
They are also cutting downforce by 20% for next year as well as forcing the teams to use kevlar around carbon fibre suspension to keep the debris when the suspension brakes be decreased immensely. What he is saying should be done is already being done. The tires now have to last the entire qual and race. Which will mean that the tires have to last a HELL OF A LONG TIME, thus reducing speed.
| gtguy | 10-22-2004 07:54 PM |
Ach, those will change, also. Particularly once word gets fully out (I only saw a brief item on Planet F1) that Ferrari tested a hybrid car that meets next year's specs, and were about two seconds a lap slower than this year's car. I think they got it down to about 1.5 seconds, and Brawn indicated that this gap could be pretty easily made up.
Next will be "success ballast," as in other racing series. :lol:
We haven't seen the final proposal, and don't forget about the other F1 series, which is closer to actual reality, and a potential bargaining chip for the teams.
Kevin
Next will be "success ballast," as in other racing series. :lol:
We haven't seen the final proposal, and don't forget about the other F1 series, which is closer to actual reality, and a potential bargaining chip for the teams.
Kevin
| Ferg | 10-22-2004 08:04 PM |
Nigel Roebuck is one of the most respected motorsport writers in the world. He's been covering Formula One since the early seventies, and an avid fan since before the start of the World Championships...he knows plenty.
I should have dated those articles..both of which were written a few weks ago when the technical regulations were still being argued about.
More from Theissen...
[QUOTE]BMW, Mercedes and Honda long ago made it clear that they were not going to allow a change of engine rules to pass without a fight. Adam Cooper heard from BMW motor sport boss Mario Theissen on the day that the FIA announced that 2.4 litre V8 engines would be introduced from 2006.
In many ways the 2.4 litre V8 rules make a lot of sense. There has been no change of capacity since the drop from 3.5 to 3.0 litres in 1995, and since then power outputs have crept far beyond what anyone could have predicted at that time. It's a reflection of the massive increase in manufacturer involvement and expenditure.
At some point a change had to come, but what upsets the manufacturers most is the timescale. They signed up for regulations that were supposed to remain unchanged until the end of the Concorde Agreement in 2007, and now they've seen two years lopped off the lifespan of the technology they've invested in.
That's despite the fact that the new capacity wasn't chosen at random. It's not quite as easy as lopping two cylinders off the current engines, but a lot of R&D will carry over. But it's not just the downsizing, for the new rules package includes lot of detail changes that tie the hands of the engine designers. That's not why big companies go motor racing.
�We will sit down with Mercedes and Honda and discuss what to do next,� says BMW's Mario Theissen. �I cannot comment on this before we've decided what we'll do. It certainly is a change of the regulations laid down in the Concorde Agreement. In our view it doesn't meet the targets that were put forward by the FIA. The targets we support, which were cost reduction, enhancement of the show, and obviously safety, we think there will be better ways to achieve the target.
�That's why we will sit down and talk about this situation between the engine manufacturers � at least BMW, Honda and Mercedes. And then we'll decide what to do. At the moment I don't exclude anything. Like I said we will sit down and then decide how to go forward.�
Theissen says he had no objection to the short-term implementation of a longer engine life for the current V10s for 2005, but he simply wants to keep them beyond next season.
�All of us have agreed on engine life extension. We think we have a smarter idea on how to make use of engine life. But the main issue for us is the 3.0 litre V10.
�There are two reasons. One is cost reduction. If we want to reduce costs, we shouldn't change the engine concept. The second one certainly is the time frame. Also one of the targets was to enhance the show, and spectacular cars need a spectacular engine.�
An obvious question is this � if the engines aren't shrunk, what can be done to slow the cars down? Mario says there are other ways, although they won't have the long-term impact that Mosley is after.
�The FIA asked for a lap time increased of three-seconds a lap for next year. According to the expert view, this will be achieved by the tyre and aero restrictions already. In addition to that we offered a proposed package of materials and design restrictions, plus extending engine life. Together this should account for an even bigger increase of lap time that expected.�
Mario even claims that BMW would be prepared to run engines longer than the 2005 rules specify.
�We would be prepared to go beyond two races. I think we are the only manufacturer to go so far, but two races or 1500kms, I think a majority would support that.�
They may represent three of the current top five teams, but one disappointing aspect of all this for the �Gang of Three' is that Ferrari, Renault and Toyota are not kicking up a fuss. Cosworth is not really in a position to say anything.
�Maybe they have other objectives, or they are in a different situation. I cannot really comment on that, because I don't know their real motivation and the rationale behind their position. I think if there are three out of seven with the same view � and this view is not just accepting something but coming up with a joint own proposal � that means something.�
In China, Max Mosley made it clear that the manufacturers would be playing with fire if they take him on over this issue. The fact is that speed reduction and safety are his reasons for bringing in the smaller engines, and to challenge a safety improvement � however solid your case � is asking for trouble.
What if the smaller engine plan is cancelled or postponed, and there's a serious accident in 2006? When it came out that the manufacturers had vetoed a measure designed to make the cars safer, F1 would not look very good. It may sound a little contrived, but that's the logic.
�I think we should leave that to the legal guys and to the Court of Arbitration,� continued Theissen. �I know about this point, but as an engineer I would prefer to talk about safety and in terms of improving the situation you should look at the causes of the accidents. I think none of the recent accidents have to do with engine power, but there are other issues which have to be addressed.�
We haven't heard the end of this story.[/QUOTE]
I should have dated those articles..both of which were written a few weks ago when the technical regulations were still being argued about.
More from Theissen...
[QUOTE]BMW, Mercedes and Honda long ago made it clear that they were not going to allow a change of engine rules to pass without a fight. Adam Cooper heard from BMW motor sport boss Mario Theissen on the day that the FIA announced that 2.4 litre V8 engines would be introduced from 2006.
In many ways the 2.4 litre V8 rules make a lot of sense. There has been no change of capacity since the drop from 3.5 to 3.0 litres in 1995, and since then power outputs have crept far beyond what anyone could have predicted at that time. It's a reflection of the massive increase in manufacturer involvement and expenditure.
At some point a change had to come, but what upsets the manufacturers most is the timescale. They signed up for regulations that were supposed to remain unchanged until the end of the Concorde Agreement in 2007, and now they've seen two years lopped off the lifespan of the technology they've invested in.
That's despite the fact that the new capacity wasn't chosen at random. It's not quite as easy as lopping two cylinders off the current engines, but a lot of R&D will carry over. But it's not just the downsizing, for the new rules package includes lot of detail changes that tie the hands of the engine designers. That's not why big companies go motor racing.
�We will sit down with Mercedes and Honda and discuss what to do next,� says BMW's Mario Theissen. �I cannot comment on this before we've decided what we'll do. It certainly is a change of the regulations laid down in the Concorde Agreement. In our view it doesn't meet the targets that were put forward by the FIA. The targets we support, which were cost reduction, enhancement of the show, and obviously safety, we think there will be better ways to achieve the target.
�That's why we will sit down and talk about this situation between the engine manufacturers � at least BMW, Honda and Mercedes. And then we'll decide what to do. At the moment I don't exclude anything. Like I said we will sit down and then decide how to go forward.�
Theissen says he had no objection to the short-term implementation of a longer engine life for the current V10s for 2005, but he simply wants to keep them beyond next season.
�All of us have agreed on engine life extension. We think we have a smarter idea on how to make use of engine life. But the main issue for us is the 3.0 litre V10.
�There are two reasons. One is cost reduction. If we want to reduce costs, we shouldn't change the engine concept. The second one certainly is the time frame. Also one of the targets was to enhance the show, and spectacular cars need a spectacular engine.�
An obvious question is this � if the engines aren't shrunk, what can be done to slow the cars down? Mario says there are other ways, although they won't have the long-term impact that Mosley is after.
�The FIA asked for a lap time increased of three-seconds a lap for next year. According to the expert view, this will be achieved by the tyre and aero restrictions already. In addition to that we offered a proposed package of materials and design restrictions, plus extending engine life. Together this should account for an even bigger increase of lap time that expected.�
Mario even claims that BMW would be prepared to run engines longer than the 2005 rules specify.
�We would be prepared to go beyond two races. I think we are the only manufacturer to go so far, but two races or 1500kms, I think a majority would support that.�
They may represent three of the current top five teams, but one disappointing aspect of all this for the �Gang of Three' is that Ferrari, Renault and Toyota are not kicking up a fuss. Cosworth is not really in a position to say anything.
�Maybe they have other objectives, or they are in a different situation. I cannot really comment on that, because I don't know their real motivation and the rationale behind their position. I think if there are three out of seven with the same view � and this view is not just accepting something but coming up with a joint own proposal � that means something.�
In China, Max Mosley made it clear that the manufacturers would be playing with fire if they take him on over this issue. The fact is that speed reduction and safety are his reasons for bringing in the smaller engines, and to challenge a safety improvement � however solid your case � is asking for trouble.
What if the smaller engine plan is cancelled or postponed, and there's a serious accident in 2006? When it came out that the manufacturers had vetoed a measure designed to make the cars safer, F1 would not look very good. It may sound a little contrived, but that's the logic.
�I think we should leave that to the legal guys and to the Court of Arbitration,� continued Theissen. �I know about this point, but as an engineer I would prefer to talk about safety and in terms of improving the situation you should look at the causes of the accidents. I think none of the recent accidents have to do with engine power, but there are other issues which have to be addressed.�
We haven't heard the end of this story.[/QUOTE]
| srf | 10-22-2004 10:14 PM |
I wish they'd have aero that makes drafting/passing easier rather than just raising the front wing, which is just dorky. Yeah it doesn't make sense to reduce engine costs by changing the formula: smaller teams have to spend even more to keep up. It'd also be nice to see customer chassis. Steel rotors might be interesting too, then they might have to do some brake management (like us!) and those who don't, get passed.
| Ferg | 10-22-2004 10:27 PM |
[QUOTE=srf] Steel rotors might be interesting too, then they might have to do some brake management (like us!) and those who don't, get passed.[/QUOTE]
I remember back in 1999, Zanardi tried using steel rotors rather than carbon in an atempt to get more "feel" out of the brakes. Williams swore up and down there wasn't any loss in stopping power or fade, just the extra weight. Of course I think they had to say that to save face for Alex. :(
If the FIA is so concered with safety...ban refuelling! F1 did fine for decades without it, and I'd like to see today's drivers have to manage their fuel for an entire race. Push too hard early on...run out of fuel. Hang back and conserve for awhile, then turn up the mixture for the end. Guys like Prost were absolute masters at this...and just like shifting, it's become a lost art in F1.
I remember back in 1999, Zanardi tried using steel rotors rather than carbon in an atempt to get more "feel" out of the brakes. Williams swore up and down there wasn't any loss in stopping power or fade, just the extra weight. Of course I think they had to say that to save face for Alex. :(
If the FIA is so concered with safety...ban refuelling! F1 did fine for decades without it, and I'd like to see today's drivers have to manage their fuel for an entire race. Push too hard early on...run out of fuel. Hang back and conserve for awhile, then turn up the mixture for the end. Guys like Prost were absolute masters at this...and just like shifting, it's become a lost art in F1.
| StuBeck | 10-23-2004 12:05 AM |
[QUOTE=Ferg]Nigel Roebuck is one of the most respected motorsport writers in the world. He's been covering Formula One since the early seventies, and an avid fan since before the start of the World Championships...he knows plenty.
I should have dated those articles..both of which were written a few weks ago when the technical regulations were still being argued about.
More from Theissen...[/QUOTE]
Well that changes my viewpoint of Mr. Roebuck just a tad (:p) since he actually wrote something intelligent and not just knee jerk reactions
One thing I just realized is that having a single tire for the qual and race should make pit strategy more interesting. Since they won't be able to change tires I'm thinking they'll pit less during the race, which will help people deal with MS.
I should have dated those articles..both of which were written a few weks ago when the technical regulations were still being argued about.
More from Theissen...[/QUOTE]
Well that changes my viewpoint of Mr. Roebuck just a tad (:p) since he actually wrote something intelligent and not just knee jerk reactions
One thing I just realized is that having a single tire for the qual and race should make pit strategy more interesting. Since they won't be able to change tires I'm thinking they'll pit less during the race, which will help people deal with MS.
| KoneKiller | 10-23-2004 02:31 AM |
My suggestion:
The rules state that the car cannot develop more than 10% of its dry weight in downforce when placed in a windtunnel at 200 kph windspeed.
The rules state that the car cannot develop more than 10% of its dry weight in downforce when placed in a windtunnel at 200 kph windspeed.
| Chromer | 10-23-2004 09:49 AM |
That would be a HUGE reduction in downforce. IIRC the cars make over 4x of their weight in downforce at those speeds. It would also be almost impossible to police unless you had a windtunnel at each track and the top three qualifiers and finishers had to go through it as part of their impound procedure.
I can't help but think that banning tire changes is going to hurt saftey by encouraging a driver to stay out on a flat-spotted or otherwise damaged tire rather than take a tire-change penalty.
I can't help but think that banning tire changes is going to hurt saftey by encouraging a driver to stay out on a flat-spotted or otherwise damaged tire rather than take a tire-change penalty.
| gtguy | 10-23-2004 10:24 AM |
[QUOTE=Ferg]If the FIA is so concered with safety...ban refuelling! F1 did fine for decades without it, and I'd like to see today's drivers have to manage their fuel for an entire race. Push too hard early on...run out of fuel. Hang back and conserve for awhile, then turn up the mixture for the end. Guys like Prost were absolute masters at this...and just like shifting, it's become a lost art in F1.[/QUOTE]
I suspect that many redesigned 2005 cars will have larger fuel cells, to give teams the option of simply staying out. If you can't change tires, why bother pitting at all? The biggest advantage of a pit stop is fresh rubber. The fuel is a weight penalty, to be sure, but is it enough of a penalty where teams won't just stay out there? This year, carrying a lot of fuel is definitely a penalty, because of the extra weight. But cars haven't really been designed to compensate for that.
These next couple years are going to be interesting. My money is still on Schumacher. Montoya and Raikkonen, with their rather...erm...exuberant driving styles will have to learn to be smoother, to save their tires. Barrichello has to be LOVING the new tire rule. M. Schumacher is smooth, but Barrichello is almost like buttah.
The irony of these new rules, aimed at reducing costs and the gap to Ferrari (let's not kid ourselves) will be that they won't be any less expensive, and the gap to Ferrari will still be large as long as Schumacher and that Todt/Brawn team is still in place.
Kevin
I suspect that many redesigned 2005 cars will have larger fuel cells, to give teams the option of simply staying out. If you can't change tires, why bother pitting at all? The biggest advantage of a pit stop is fresh rubber. The fuel is a weight penalty, to be sure, but is it enough of a penalty where teams won't just stay out there? This year, carrying a lot of fuel is definitely a penalty, because of the extra weight. But cars haven't really been designed to compensate for that.
These next couple years are going to be interesting. My money is still on Schumacher. Montoya and Raikkonen, with their rather...erm...exuberant driving styles will have to learn to be smoother, to save their tires. Barrichello has to be LOVING the new tire rule. M. Schumacher is smooth, but Barrichello is almost like buttah.
The irony of these new rules, aimed at reducing costs and the gap to Ferrari (let's not kid ourselves) will be that they won't be any less expensive, and the gap to Ferrari will still be large as long as Schumacher and that Todt/Brawn team is still in place.
Kevin
| srf | 10-23-2004 10:41 AM |
I don't know they'd have a fuel tank that's 2 or so times as large which would be a significant weight penalty, and it'd probably effect aero as well since you'd probably have to make the mid section of the car larger, and you'd probably need heavier brakes due to that extra weight. Half a tank of gas supposedly costs between 1.6 and 2.4 seconds per lap: [url]http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-103572.html[/url]
| StuBeck | 10-23-2004 11:25 AM |
There is enough space in the car to put a bigger fuel cell. I know its possible with the current cells that some teams use to stop only once.
I don't really think that much of this is aimed at bringing down costs, but the one engine per weekend rule did bring down the costs for an engine simply because they're not using 8 of them in a weekend anymore. The tires should bring testing down because the sweet spot between changing the tires twice or thrice won't be so important. Testing is the huge thing right now that costs the team a ton of money and doesn't bring back any money.
Steve Matchett broughtt up a pretty good point, ban testing (or at leastt bring it downa lot, maybe 10 or 20 days during the season,) and force the teams to test during the friday of the GP. You would be allowed to switch out the engine for the running on the other two days so that teams wouldn't be nervous about doing testing.
I don't really think that much of this is aimed at bringing down costs, but the one engine per weekend rule did bring down the costs for an engine simply because they're not using 8 of them in a weekend anymore. The tires should bring testing down because the sweet spot between changing the tires twice or thrice won't be so important. Testing is the huge thing right now that costs the team a ton of money and doesn't bring back any money.
Steve Matchett broughtt up a pretty good point, ban testing (or at leastt bring it downa lot, maybe 10 or 20 days during the season,) and force the teams to test during the friday of the GP. You would be allowed to switch out the engine for the running on the other two days so that teams wouldn't be nervous about doing testing.
| srf | 10-23-2004 11:37 AM |
Exactly, if they make one stop then they'd still have to make the tank larger... unless I'm missing something. For aero, it'd be dumb to make a tank larger than you're actually going to use.
| Ferg | 10-23-2004 12:59 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]Steve Matchett broughtt up a pretty good point, ban testing (or at leastt bring it downa lot, maybe 10 or 20 days during the season,) and force the teams to test during the friday of the GP. You would be allowed to switch out the engine for the running on the other two days so that teams wouldn't be nervous about doing testing.[/QUOTE]
I was hoping that when the FIA announced the Friday testing option back in 2002 that it would catch on and we'd see all the teams opting to run a third car on Friday...but leave it the FIA to tweak the rule for 2003 and beyond. It's just stupid that the teams spend more money on testing than they do on racing.
So....
If Jordan and Minardi fold due to a lack of an engine deal, will we see three car teams...and who would you want to see in the third McLaren, Ferrari, Renault, Williams, and Toyota?
I was hoping that when the FIA announced the Friday testing option back in 2002 that it would catch on and we'd see all the teams opting to run a third car on Friday...but leave it the FIA to tweak the rule for 2003 and beyond. It's just stupid that the teams spend more money on testing than they do on racing.
So....
If Jordan and Minardi fold due to a lack of an engine deal, will we see three car teams...and who would you want to see in the third McLaren, Ferrari, Renault, Williams, and Toyota?
| Ferg | 10-23-2004 05:28 PM |
New qualifying format gets nod from FIA...sounds like it'll be interesting, if maybe a little hard to follow.
[QUOTE]A new aggregated Formula 1 qualifying system has been agreed for the 2005 season, following votes of both the FIA World Motor Sport Council and the F1 Commission.
The first session will be held from 1.00-2.00pm on Saturday and will be single lap qualifying, with the cars going out in the reverse order of their finishing position at the previous race. Fuel levels are unrestricted so the cars will run with light fuel.
After the session the cars will go into par ferme before a second session on Sunday morning, between 10.00-11.00am, which will be run with race fuel levels. Teams will be allowed to refuel their cars before this session but will not be permitted to refuel again before the race starts.
The times from the two sessions will be aggregated to determine the grid.
FIA president Max Mosley told autosport.com: �For the first time TV will be able to show all the cars doing a flat-out lap that counts for the grid with minimum fuel and then that will be combined with the other one on the following morning, so the complaint that we never see the cars with minimum fuel going flat-out is answered.
�At the same time, by making them go into Parc Ferme we stop them making qualifying specials, which is important. And on race day, we've still got what we've got now, which adds to the whole prospect. And, because you aggregate the times, you double the chance of somebody messing up and not being at the front of the grid. I was always against aggregated times because it complicates things, but I have to admit that this is a good plan.�[/QUOTE]
How is this going to affect Speed's coverage...they didn't bother to show both sessions this year.
[QUOTE]A new aggregated Formula 1 qualifying system has been agreed for the 2005 season, following votes of both the FIA World Motor Sport Council and the F1 Commission.
The first session will be held from 1.00-2.00pm on Saturday and will be single lap qualifying, with the cars going out in the reverse order of their finishing position at the previous race. Fuel levels are unrestricted so the cars will run with light fuel.
After the session the cars will go into par ferme before a second session on Sunday morning, between 10.00-11.00am, which will be run with race fuel levels. Teams will be allowed to refuel their cars before this session but will not be permitted to refuel again before the race starts.
The times from the two sessions will be aggregated to determine the grid.
FIA president Max Mosley told autosport.com: �For the first time TV will be able to show all the cars doing a flat-out lap that counts for the grid with minimum fuel and then that will be combined with the other one on the following morning, so the complaint that we never see the cars with minimum fuel going flat-out is answered.
�At the same time, by making them go into Parc Ferme we stop them making qualifying specials, which is important. And on race day, we've still got what we've got now, which adds to the whole prospect. And, because you aggregate the times, you double the chance of somebody messing up and not being at the front of the grid. I was always against aggregated times because it complicates things, but I have to admit that this is a good plan.�[/QUOTE]
How is this going to affect Speed's coverage...they didn't bother to show both sessions this year.
| gtguy | 10-23-2004 07:20 PM |
But wait, there's more...
F1 teams issue cost-cutting proposals without Ferrari
Less testing and 19 races per season
Ron Dennis wants radical changes
Nine Formula One teams issued proposals to dramatically reduce costs in the sport next year as they turned the heat on world champions Ferrari here Saturday.
All teams, with the exception of the current title-holders, issued a joint-statement of proposed changes, which include a significant reduction in testing. And if Ferrari, who are against the changes because of the limitation on testing, also agree to their demands next year's British and French Grands Prix will go ahead.
The nine teams met without Ferrari on Saturday morning, having failed to get the support of the world champions for their cost-cutting plans in two meetings on Friday.
The proposals will see costs substantially reduced with a cut in testing to 10 days per team with the Friday of Grand Prix weekends being made an unofficial testing day with two two-hour sessions. The scheme still needs the backing of Ferrari to go ahead in 2005, but could be put in place the following season without the Italian team.
"All teams, expect Ferrari, agreed the measures outlined, which will substantially and tangibly reduce, in both the short and long term, the teams' costs and significantly enhance the spectacle of the sport," the statement said. "At the meeting, Mr Ecclestone (the sport's commercial rights holder) proposed a 19-race calendar, which included the French and British Grands Prix as the 18th and 19th races respectively. The attending teams agreed that if the significant cost-saving measures could be instituted by 2005, this would allow the French and British Grands Prix to proceed."
Ron Dennis, the McLaren team boss, had earlier expressed the frustrations of the teams at Ferrari's failure to agree to change. "I think there is a lot of frustration at the transcendence of some people to embrace the necessity for radical change," Dennis said. "The majority of the teams are deeply frustrated."
Ferrari have their own test track at their Maranello headquarters in Italy and are reluctant to see their development time on track reduced having won the last six constructors' championships and last five drivers' crowns.
The statement from the teams added: "In order to bring these measures into force for the 2005 season, unanimous agreement is required. This is something it is hoped can be achieved over the coming weeks."
Source AFP
F1 teams issue cost-cutting proposals without Ferrari
Less testing and 19 races per season
Ron Dennis wants radical changes
Nine Formula One teams issued proposals to dramatically reduce costs in the sport next year as they turned the heat on world champions Ferrari here Saturday.
All teams, with the exception of the current title-holders, issued a joint-statement of proposed changes, which include a significant reduction in testing. And if Ferrari, who are against the changes because of the limitation on testing, also agree to their demands next year's British and French Grands Prix will go ahead.
The nine teams met without Ferrari on Saturday morning, having failed to get the support of the world champions for their cost-cutting plans in two meetings on Friday.
The proposals will see costs substantially reduced with a cut in testing to 10 days per team with the Friday of Grand Prix weekends being made an unofficial testing day with two two-hour sessions. The scheme still needs the backing of Ferrari to go ahead in 2005, but could be put in place the following season without the Italian team.
"All teams, expect Ferrari, agreed the measures outlined, which will substantially and tangibly reduce, in both the short and long term, the teams' costs and significantly enhance the spectacle of the sport," the statement said. "At the meeting, Mr Ecclestone (the sport's commercial rights holder) proposed a 19-race calendar, which included the French and British Grands Prix as the 18th and 19th races respectively. The attending teams agreed that if the significant cost-saving measures could be instituted by 2005, this would allow the French and British Grands Prix to proceed."
Ron Dennis, the McLaren team boss, had earlier expressed the frustrations of the teams at Ferrari's failure to agree to change. "I think there is a lot of frustration at the transcendence of some people to embrace the necessity for radical change," Dennis said. "The majority of the teams are deeply frustrated."
Ferrari have their own test track at their Maranello headquarters in Italy and are reluctant to see their development time on track reduced having won the last six constructors' championships and last five drivers' crowns.
The statement from the teams added: "In order to bring these measures into force for the 2005 season, unanimous agreement is required. This is something it is hoped can be achieved over the coming weeks."
Source AFP
| StuBeck | 10-23-2004 08:20 PM |
That would be great if that passed, but I doubt that Ferrari will do it.
What I'm saying with the fuel cells is they don't need to change the aero, they just make the cell larger.
I think what might happen with Speeds coverage for the change in Qual is that they'll just show the sunday coverage and practice. I'd hope they would show both qual sessions though.
What I'm saying with the fuel cells is they don't need to change the aero, they just make the cell larger.
I think what might happen with Speeds coverage for the change in Qual is that they'll just show the sunday coverage and practice. I'd hope they would show both qual sessions though.
| KoneKiller | 10-23-2004 08:33 PM |
[QUOTE=Chromer]That would be a HUGE reduction in downforce. IIRC the cars make over 4x of their weight in downforce at those speeds. It would also be almost impossible to police unless you had a windtunnel at each track and the top three qualifiers and finishers had to go through it as part of their impound procedure.
I can't help but think that banning tire changes is going to hurt saftey by encouraging a driver to stay out on a flat-spotted or otherwise damaged tire rather than take a tire-change penalty.[/QUOTE]
Random impounding of cars for testing off-site with draconian penalties for getting caught would do the trick.
Without significant aerodynamic downforce, these cars will be very hard to drive, suffer vicious tire wear if the driver is less than judicious with the right foot and will not suffer terribly by closing on a competing car. Imagine the excitement!!!!
I can't help but think that banning tire changes is going to hurt saftey by encouraging a driver to stay out on a flat-spotted or otherwise damaged tire rather than take a tire-change penalty.[/QUOTE]
Random impounding of cars for testing off-site with draconian penalties for getting caught would do the trick.
Without significant aerodynamic downforce, these cars will be very hard to drive, suffer vicious tire wear if the driver is less than judicious with the right foot and will not suffer terribly by closing on a competing car. Imagine the excitement!!!!
| kaos200 | 10-23-2004 08:52 PM |
Ive been watching formula one for years, and this is making it not worth waking up for in the morning.
Anyone know of any places petitioning against these rules and regulations? I know its a slim chance but it might be worth the try.
Anyone know of any places petitioning against these rules and regulations? I know its a slim chance but it might be worth the try.
| gtguy | 10-23-2004 09:58 PM |
I think that F1 is still going to be fast, and still the pinnacle of motorsports. And don't forget that Ferrari tested a 2005-spec car, and found that it wasn't much slower than this year's Ferrari. Give the engineers some time, and things won't be much slower, at all.
I'll still be a huge F1 fan, for sure.
Kevin
I'll still be a huge F1 fan, for sure.
Kevin
| NC2.5RS | 10-23-2004 10:14 PM |
Ughhh....I was hoping the teams would come up something other than this. Unfortunately, they didnt. So, we get stuck with small V8 engines (YAY NASCAR!). I dont agree with the engine size reduction, or the no tire changes rule. It seems F1 is taking evolutionary steps BACKWARDS each passing year.
| Ferg | 10-23-2004 10:19 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]That would be great if that passed, but I doubt that Ferrari will do it.[/QUOTE]
Which is odd considering the finacial shape Fiat is rumored to be in.
More on this from autosport.com...
[QUOTE]As Formula 1 politicking reached fever pitch in Sao Paulo, nine of the teams have taken steps to achieve substantial and tangible cost savings in F1 in time for the 2005 season.
The teams claim that substantial savings are needed if Formula 1 is to have a 19-race calendar next year and say that if the agreement of the 10th team (Ferrari) can be achieved, then the French and British Grands Prix, currently the 18th and 19th races respectively on the 2005 draft calendar, can go ahead.
The teams have taken part in a series of meetings over the Brazilian Grand Prix weekend, chaired by Bernie Ecclestone. The Friday meeting, a heated affair, was attended by all teams and, at one stage, it was forcibly pointed out to Ferrari that not just the small independents in F1 were hurting financially and that something had to be done.
There was a further meeting on Saturday morning, to which Ferrari's Jean Todt claims that he was not invited. It is significant that Peter Sauber, who through his commercial relationship with Ferrari is expected to toe the Maranello line, was a signatory to a document released on Saturday evening on behalf of the nine teams.
It read: �At the meeting Mr Ecclestone proposed a 19-race calendar, which included the French and British Grands Prix. The attending teams agreed that if the significant cost-saving measures outlined below could be instituted by 2005, this would allow the French and British Grands Prix to proceed.The proposals agreed are as follows:
Tyres
In respect of tyres, Mr Ecclestone agreed, on behalf of the teams, to progress this matter further with the tyre manufacturers and, in particular, to seal their assistance to eliminate the majority, if not all, requirements for tyre testing.
Testing
The teams have further agreed significantly to reduce the amount of testing that takes place in the course of the season. Under this proposal, the Friday format would consist of two two-hour free practice sessions. The proposal will also include the limitation of 10 testing days during the course of the F1 season. While the above measures represent a significant step forward we, the undersigned teams, feel this is only the first move towards achieving the goal of reducing the necessity to spend enormous sums of money in order to be competitive in F1. Such a course of action will ensure the continuing long-term health and prosperity of the sport and its participants.
The statement concluded: �In order to bring these measures into force for the 2005 season, unanimous agreement is required. This is something it is hoped can be achieved in the coming weeks.�[/QUOTE]
Which is odd considering the finacial shape Fiat is rumored to be in.
More on this from autosport.com...
[QUOTE]As Formula 1 politicking reached fever pitch in Sao Paulo, nine of the teams have taken steps to achieve substantial and tangible cost savings in F1 in time for the 2005 season.
The teams claim that substantial savings are needed if Formula 1 is to have a 19-race calendar next year and say that if the agreement of the 10th team (Ferrari) can be achieved, then the French and British Grands Prix, currently the 18th and 19th races respectively on the 2005 draft calendar, can go ahead.
The teams have taken part in a series of meetings over the Brazilian Grand Prix weekend, chaired by Bernie Ecclestone. The Friday meeting, a heated affair, was attended by all teams and, at one stage, it was forcibly pointed out to Ferrari that not just the small independents in F1 were hurting financially and that something had to be done.
There was a further meeting on Saturday morning, to which Ferrari's Jean Todt claims that he was not invited. It is significant that Peter Sauber, who through his commercial relationship with Ferrari is expected to toe the Maranello line, was a signatory to a document released on Saturday evening on behalf of the nine teams.
It read: �At the meeting Mr Ecclestone proposed a 19-race calendar, which included the French and British Grands Prix. The attending teams agreed that if the significant cost-saving measures outlined below could be instituted by 2005, this would allow the French and British Grands Prix to proceed.The proposals agreed are as follows:
Tyres
In respect of tyres, Mr Ecclestone agreed, on behalf of the teams, to progress this matter further with the tyre manufacturers and, in particular, to seal their assistance to eliminate the majority, if not all, requirements for tyre testing.
Testing
The teams have further agreed significantly to reduce the amount of testing that takes place in the course of the season. Under this proposal, the Friday format would consist of two two-hour free practice sessions. The proposal will also include the limitation of 10 testing days during the course of the F1 season. While the above measures represent a significant step forward we, the undersigned teams, feel this is only the first move towards achieving the goal of reducing the necessity to spend enormous sums of money in order to be competitive in F1. Such a course of action will ensure the continuing long-term health and prosperity of the sport and its participants.
The statement concluded: �In order to bring these measures into force for the 2005 season, unanimous agreement is required. This is something it is hoped can be achieved in the coming weeks.�[/QUOTE]
| NC2.5RS | 10-23-2004 10:28 PM |
The problem with their idea of cost saving is that in the end, they're just going to be spending the money they save, to find new ways to be faster. Also, the engine changes are going to cost more than staying with V10s. The teams are going to have to completely redesign a new engine, do tons of testing for it to last two race weekends. They're going to be spending more money on building a new V8 engine they would then just working with an evolution of this year's current V10.
| Ferg | 10-23-2004 10:34 PM |
Not to mention the very real possiblity of teams having to run a third car next season just to fill the grid. Williams have stated that it would cost at least 6 million dollars to run a third car for a full season. How will the teams feel about shelling out the extra cash for a car that may not even be elligible for constructor points?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét