| TimStevens | 01-15-2003 01:54 PM |
More major F1 rule changes
�
�
*Placing cars in parc ferme between final qualifying and the race (teams will be unable to work on them, except under strict supervision)
*Elimination of traction control, launch control and fully automatic gearboxes (possible derogation for all or part of 2003, to be followed by absolute enforcement in 2004, if necessary by standard ECUs)
*Elimination of pit to car and car to pit telemetry
*Elimination of all radio comminucation between car and driver
*Allowing only two cars per team (ie: no spare cars)
Full article here:
[url]http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=21678&s=5[/url]
So... no more traction control... telemetry... and it seems there will be no qualifying engines or setups allowed. Plus, no spare cars? That kinda stinks... qualifying is going to become a bit of a parade as nobody wants to wreck their cars...
-tim
*Elimination of traction control, launch control and fully automatic gearboxes (possible derogation for all or part of 2003, to be followed by absolute enforcement in 2004, if necessary by standard ECUs)
*Elimination of pit to car and car to pit telemetry
*Elimination of all radio comminucation between car and driver
*Allowing only two cars per team (ie: no spare cars)
Full article here:
[url]http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=21678&s=5[/url]
So... no more traction control... telemetry... and it seems there will be no qualifying engines or setups allowed. Plus, no spare cars? That kinda stinks... qualifying is going to become a bit of a parade as nobody wants to wreck their cars...
-tim
| TimStevens | 01-15-2003 02:06 PM |
More info here:
[url]http://www.itv-f1.com/news/news_story/13899[/url]
[QUOTE]
The FIA is also hoping to secure the agreement of the teams to a ban on the use of exotic materials in any part of the car, including the engine.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: x 9,999,999
[url]http://www.itv-f1.com/news/news_story/13899[/url]
[QUOTE]
The FIA is also hoping to secure the agreement of the teams to a ban on the use of exotic materials in any part of the car, including the engine.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: x 9,999,999
| gtguy | 01-15-2003 02:08 PM |
Wow...that's heavy stuff. I figured they would move toward the elimination of driver aids...of course, when Schumacher drives away from everyone else, they'll begin to re-think that. :lol:
I'm unclear about the first rule, about not being able to work on cars except under strict supervision. This would seem to imply that the teams are allowed one car, and short of a major shunt, that car is it for the race, as well?
I like the telemetry elimination, but the car to driver radio...explain?
I still think that the guys will go all out during qualifying. Pole position is still quite critical on many of the F1 courses.
Kevin
I'm unclear about the first rule, about not being able to work on cars except under strict supervision. This would seem to imply that the teams are allowed one car, and short of a major shunt, that car is it for the race, as well?
I like the telemetry elimination, but the car to driver radio...explain?
I still think that the guys will go all out during qualifying. Pole position is still quite critical on many of the F1 courses.
Kevin
| gtguy | 01-15-2003 02:12 PM |
<<From 2004, car manufacturers involved in Formula 1 will also be ordered to supply engines to all competing teams, possibly obliging the likes of Mercedes, BMW and Honda to provide power units to a second team.>>
Hmmmm. I like this rule. It will enrich the "little sisters". But wouldn't Ferrari also..oh, wait...they already provide engines to a team or two.
Kevin
Hmmmm. I like this rule. It will enrich the "little sisters". But wouldn't Ferrari also..oh, wait...they already provide engines to a team or two.
Kevin
| TimStevens | 01-15-2003 02:13 PM |
The impound has me confused too... I'm assuming this is so they won't be able to swap engines, but I'm not sure. No radio communication is just idiotic, IMHO.
Anyone think that a separate, competing F1-like series could appear out of all this crap, somewhat like the split between CART and IRL a few years back?
Anyone think that a separate, competing F1-like series could appear out of all this crap, somewhat like the split between CART and IRL a few years back?
| Fred Zaplitny | 01-15-2003 02:47 PM |
Why don't they just run F-3000's?!
:lol:
Maybe we will get some closer racing, but this sort of seems like a step backward. Then again F-1 has sort of priced itself out with all the latest technology so few teams can really compete. Hmmm, this will all be pretty interesting. Just another phase of F-1 I guess. Maybe we'll see wider tracked cars with slicks soon.
:lol:
Maybe we will get some closer racing, but this sort of seems like a step backward. Then again F-1 has sort of priced itself out with all the latest technology so few teams can really compete. Hmmm, this will all be pretty interesting. Just another phase of F-1 I guess. Maybe we'll see wider tracked cars with slicks soon.
| AlanO | 01-15-2003 03:36 PM |
[quote]Anyone think that a separate, competing F1-like series could appear out of all this crap, somewhat like the split between CART and IRL a few years back?[/quote]
Maybe that ACEA consortium will go ahead with a series of their own.
BTW, anyone know if this group is still alive and kicking? If so, I'd be careful if I were the FIA - I wouldn't want to alienate a large number of key F1 manufacturers that have discussed organizing something amongst themselves.
Maybe that ACEA consortium will go ahead with a series of their own.
BTW, anyone know if this group is still alive and kicking? If so, I'd be careful if I were the FIA - I wouldn't want to alienate a large number of key F1 manufacturers that have discussed organizing something amongst themselves.
| GarySheehan | 01-15-2003 03:55 PM |
My guess is that the elimination of radio communications is an effort to limit the effectiveness of team orders and eliminate late race tactics.
I'm very happy to see the elimination of driver aids. I don't understand how the top form of auto racing doesn't require the drivers to use the skills it was necessary to learn to get there in the first place. Did that sentence make sense?
I don't like that the two car rule. $hit happens. Each team should be allowed 1 spare car to be used after a crash.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
I'm very happy to see the elimination of driver aids. I don't understand how the top form of auto racing doesn't require the drivers to use the skills it was necessary to learn to get there in the first place. Did that sentence make sense?
I don't like that the two car rule. $hit happens. Each team should be allowed 1 spare car to be used after a crash.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| johnfelstead | 01-15-2003 07:30 PM |
One of the reasons they are banning pits to car radios is to eliminate any chance of cheating by hiding telemetry download data in the audio systems. It's very easy using encoded digital transmisions to transfer command data over a suposedly pits to car radio transmision.
It wouldnt be too hard to build a laser based transmision system into the car and have a laser transmitter on the pit wall. :D
Impounding the cars post qualifying. :eek: Thats a big change!! Sure will stop grenade engines.
It wouldnt be too hard to build a laser based transmision system into the car and have a laser transmitter on the pit wall. :D
Impounding the cars post qualifying. :eek: Thats a big change!! Sure will stop grenade engines.
| 6 Stars | 01-16-2003 09:46 AM |
Steve Matchett indicated on the Speed TV F1 Year in Review that we were coming to a point in F1 where teams would build one car for the race (designed for durability) and another for qualifying (a car that would only last 12 laps). This would dramatically drive up costs. Eliminating spare cars prohibits teams from going down this route.
F1 is also getting to a point in technology where the teams can adjust via computer settings on the car midrace and transmit those changes to the car. Renault is rumored to already have this available. This technology also dramatically increases costs due to the technology.
Veteran teams Sauber, Jordan and Minardi may not last the season. It's time to make some changes.
F1 is also getting to a point in technology where the teams can adjust via computer settings on the car midrace and transmit those changes to the car. Renault is rumored to already have this available. This technology also dramatically increases costs due to the technology.
Veteran teams Sauber, Jordan and Minardi may not last the season. It's time to make some changes.
| TimStevens | 01-16-2003 09:50 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 6 Stars [/i]
[B]F1 is also getting to a point in technology where the teams can adjust via computer settings on the car midrace and transmit those changes to the car. Renault is rumored to already have this available. This technology also dramatically increases costs due to the technology.[/B][/QUOTE]
Just about everyone could do this last year. McLaren basically saved DC's Monaco victory thanks to pit to car telemetry.
-tim
[B]F1 is also getting to a point in technology where the teams can adjust via computer settings on the car midrace and transmit those changes to the car. Renault is rumored to already have this available. This technology also dramatically increases costs due to the technology.[/B][/QUOTE]
Just about everyone could do this last year. McLaren basically saved DC's Monaco victory thanks to pit to car telemetry.
-tim
| StuBeck | 01-16-2003 03:15 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TimStevens [/i]
[B]
Just about everyone could do this last year. McLaren basically saved DC's Monaco victory thanks to pit to car telemetry.
-tim [/B][/QUOTE]
I also think that is why Ferrari was so dominant, once they got so far ahead they were able to just turn down the engine, hopefully it will be more competative this year.
[B]
Just about everyone could do this last year. McLaren basically saved DC's Monaco victory thanks to pit to car telemetry.
-tim [/B][/QUOTE]
I also think that is why Ferrari was so dominant, once they got so far ahead they were able to just turn down the engine, hopefully it will be more competative this year.
| gtguy | 01-16-2003 04:59 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by StuBeck [/i]
[B]
I also think that is why Ferrari was so dominant, once they got so far ahead they were able to just turn down the engine, hopefully it will be more competative this year. [/B][/QUOTE]
Dude, Ferrari was so dominant because they had the best car, best driver and best overall package. It's easy enough for a driver to shift earlier, get on the gas later... It's easy enough to conserve a car. What you saw last year was something that might never be seen again...
It is too bad that Austria and Indy tainted such a brilliant season.
Kevin
[B]
I also think that is why Ferrari was so dominant, once they got so far ahead they were able to just turn down the engine, hopefully it will be more competative this year. [/B][/QUOTE]
Dude, Ferrari was so dominant because they had the best car, best driver and best overall package. It's easy enough for a driver to shift earlier, get on the gas later... It's easy enough to conserve a car. What you saw last year was something that might never be seen again...
It is too bad that Austria and Indy tainted such a brilliant season.
Kevin
| ShockWave | 01-17-2003 11:25 AM |
I thought the most interesting change of all was the move to a spec rear wing. So much of the expense of F1 comes from wind tunnel aero work, it's really mind boggling.
| Dr. WOT | 01-17-2003 03:47 PM |
Re: More major F1 rule changes
�
�
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TimStevens [/i]
[B] if necessary by standard ECUs[/B][/QUOTE]
Does this strike anyone else as impossible?
[B] if necessary by standard ECUs[/B][/QUOTE]
Does this strike anyone else as impossible?
| TimStevens | 01-17-2003 03:48 PM |
Re: Re: More major F1 rule changes
�
�
Not necessarily impossible... just a really, really bad idea :)
| gtguy | 01-17-2003 03:59 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShockWave [/i]
[B]I thought the most interesting change of all was the move to a spec rear wing. So much of the expense of F1 comes from wind tunnel aero work, it's really mind boggling. [/B][/QUOTE]
:eek: Wow. But when you look at the wings as part of the overall aero package, by the time the air gets there, it should be fairly easy to design around the spec rear wing.
I wonder if the teams are sorry now that they couldn't agree to cost-cutting measures on their own?
Kevin
[B]I thought the most interesting change of all was the move to a spec rear wing. So much of the expense of F1 comes from wind tunnel aero work, it's really mind boggling. [/B][/QUOTE]
:eek: Wow. But when you look at the wings as part of the overall aero package, by the time the air gets there, it should be fairly easy to design around the spec rear wing.
I wonder if the teams are sorry now that they couldn't agree to cost-cutting measures on their own?
Kevin
| prost893 | 01-17-2003 04:07 PM |
Geeez, I thought that there was already a series with these rules.. The IRL! Ha. I have to agree with Gary on some points. Impounding the cars between qualifing and race and no spare cars seems a little ridiculous. And there are ways to make sure that only voice comm is availible over radio. And a standard ECU, good like trying to get that one over. I do think it is an awesome idea to make a rule that if you supply a works engine, like Merc, BMW, that you must also supply at least one customer team also. If they want to make the show exciting then ban any exchange of information between teams and the tire companies. That is the real advantage Ferrari had last year. They co-developed the car and tires all season long to suit each other. If they make a standard spec tire then the team that best figures that tire and the correct suspension geometry will win. And for goodness sake get rid of the silly looking grooves. I say make every car meet the specs of F1 in 1989!
| Clegg | 01-18-2003 12:49 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gtguy [/i]
[B]
Dude, Ferrari was so dominant because they had the best car, best driver and best overall package. It's easy enough for a driver to shift earlier, get on the gas later... [/B][/QUOTE]
Ferrari Fan Boy :) heheheh j/k They did have a killer car, and Michael is NOT a slacker driver. the man is DAMN FREAKING GOOD. and as someone said earlier, with the driver aids gone, Mike may walk away even faster from some of the other drivers.
[B]
Dude, Ferrari was so dominant because they had the best car, best driver and best overall package. It's easy enough for a driver to shift earlier, get on the gas later... [/B][/QUOTE]
Ferrari Fan Boy :) heheheh j/k They did have a killer car, and Michael is NOT a slacker driver. the man is DAMN FREAKING GOOD. and as someone said earlier, with the driver aids gone, Mike may walk away even faster from some of the other drivers.
| Raxy | 01-18-2003 01:37 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Clegg [/i]
[B]and as someone said earlier, with the driver aids gone, Mike may walk away even faster from some of the other drivers. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. I'm sure everyone has seen Michael's utter dominance in the rain. Well imagine that every single race, rain or shine. :eek:
[B]and as someone said earlier, with the driver aids gone, Mike may walk away even faster from some of the other drivers. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. I'm sure everyone has seen Michael's utter dominance in the rain. Well imagine that every single race, rain or shine. :eek:
| donjuan | 01-20-2003 11:07 AM |
Max Mosley... :rolleyes: The man thinks he's saved F1. Mr Overreaction.
| gtguy | 01-20-2003 12:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by donjuan [/i]
[B]Max Mosley... :rolleyes: The man thinks he's saved F1. Mr Overreaction. [/B][/QUOTE]
I dunno DonJuan, I that in a sense, the new rules are punitive. The constructors had the opportunity to come up with their own cost-cutting measures, and they didn't. So it's "Welcome to the Kingdom of Draconia!" :lol:
It will be interesting to see how things shape up as time goes on.
To me, the FIA needs to do something to help the little sisters of F1, be it a group wind tunnel for them to use, or changing the way that travel money is apportioned. After all, what's more important...a full grid, or making sure that the already-rich big three get even more schwag?
Kevin
[B]Max Mosley... :rolleyes: The man thinks he's saved F1. Mr Overreaction. [/B][/QUOTE]
I dunno DonJuan, I that in a sense, the new rules are punitive. The constructors had the opportunity to come up with their own cost-cutting measures, and they didn't. So it's "Welcome to the Kingdom of Draconia!" :lol:
It will be interesting to see how things shape up as time goes on.
To me, the FIA needs to do something to help the little sisters of F1, be it a group wind tunnel for them to use, or changing the way that travel money is apportioned. After all, what's more important...a full grid, or making sure that the already-rich big three get even more schwag?
Kevin
| StuBeck | 01-20-2003 06:50 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gtguy [/i]
[B]
Dude, Ferrari was so dominant because they had the best car, best driver and best overall package. It's easy enough for a driver to shift earlier, get on the gas later... It's easy enough to conserve a car. What you saw last year was something that might never be seen again...
It is too bad that Austria and Indy tainted such a brilliant season.
Kevin [/B][/QUOTE]
I know that they had such a dominant car, I never said anything about that. Also, F1 drivers didn't shift last year, at least not on the top teams. but it is still hard for a driver to conserve in F1, it is much easier if you simply take away 5% of their horsepower to make them slower.
[B]
Dude, Ferrari was so dominant because they had the best car, best driver and best overall package. It's easy enough for a driver to shift earlier, get on the gas later... It's easy enough to conserve a car. What you saw last year was something that might never be seen again...
It is too bad that Austria and Indy tainted such a brilliant season.
Kevin [/B][/QUOTE]
I know that they had such a dominant car, I never said anything about that. Also, F1 drivers didn't shift last year, at least not on the top teams. but it is still hard for a driver to conserve in F1, it is much easier if you simply take away 5% of their horsepower to make them slower.
| TimStevens | 01-21-2003 01:03 PM |
Looks like many of the changes have been rescinded... or delayed at least:
[url]http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=21742&s=5[/url]
Spare cars are now available, but will have to start at the back of the grid. Seems like a very good compromise. Also, radios are allowed, but commentators must be able to tune in, which I think is also good :)
-tim
[url]http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=21742&s=5[/url]
Spare cars are now available, but will have to start at the back of the grid. Seems like a very good compromise. Also, radios are allowed, but commentators must be able to tune in, which I think is also good :)
-tim
| gtguy | 01-21-2003 01:28 PM |
<<Launch control will also be banned from that point, provided the teams can operate their current clutches manually.>>
This one is my favorite. Who will be the first team to claim that they can't? :lol:
Kevin
This one is my favorite. Who will be the first team to claim that they can't? :lol:
Kevin
| gtguy | 01-22-2003 11:06 AM |
Sanity returns...
�
�
From the InsideF1 site...
<<A compromise is found
The meeting of the Technical Working Group yesterday in London finally hammered out a working set of regulations for the season ahead with both the FIA and the F1 engineers accepting compromise in an effort to things forward. The FIA has achieved a lot of the goals that were set but has had to give way on others. This was not unexpected and indeed some measures dropped were probably only put into the package so that they could later be sacrificed. This is almost certainly true of car-to-pit radio which is not costly and which the teams feel they need. This will remain but only if access to the system is accessible to the FIA and to TV broadcasters. In addition the FIA will look at providing the radio to the spectators at the circuits as well.
Pit to car telemtry is gone with immediate effect and car-to-pit telemetry will follow next year, the teams having proved that to get rid of such systems this year would have added to costs.
The use of the spare car remains limited but teams will be allowed to use a spare if the race car is damaged beyond repair. The cars can also be used in the car fails before the start or there is a race stoppage in the first two laps of the Grand Prix. The logic behind this is that the loss of cars during qualifying would reduce the spectacle, particularly if a top driver was the victim of misfortune.
The parc ferme regulation has also been relaxed to allow teams to have the cars in their own garages although any work on them will be done under FIA supervision to ensure that no major components are changed. Work on the cars will be severely restricted.
The main aim of the FIA's redefining of the regulations was to get rid of electronic systems once again and this has been achieved with traction control, automatic gearboxes and launch control being banned from the 2003 British Grand Prix onwards. There is a slight question mark over launch control as it is yet to be seen whether or not teams can all operate their current clutch systems manually. The FIA says that it is confident that these rules can be policed successfully and so it has said that it will not be necessary to issue a standard electronic control unit in 2004.
The teams will still be allowed to use common components and the FIA retains the intention of introducing standard braking systems, a standard rear wing and long-lasting components in 2004 and in 2005 to extend the life of the engines from one race to two, to extend the life of major components and introduce penalties for engine and component changes. For the moment at least the FIA retains its desire to have engines that will be used for six races in 2006.
Both sides have won enough to be able to claim victory in the dispute and so it is fair to say that the best result has probably been achieved.
<<A compromise is found
The meeting of the Technical Working Group yesterday in London finally hammered out a working set of regulations for the season ahead with both the FIA and the F1 engineers accepting compromise in an effort to things forward. The FIA has achieved a lot of the goals that were set but has had to give way on others. This was not unexpected and indeed some measures dropped were probably only put into the package so that they could later be sacrificed. This is almost certainly true of car-to-pit radio which is not costly and which the teams feel they need. This will remain but only if access to the system is accessible to the FIA and to TV broadcasters. In addition the FIA will look at providing the radio to the spectators at the circuits as well.
Pit to car telemtry is gone with immediate effect and car-to-pit telemetry will follow next year, the teams having proved that to get rid of such systems this year would have added to costs.
The use of the spare car remains limited but teams will be allowed to use a spare if the race car is damaged beyond repair. The cars can also be used in the car fails before the start or there is a race stoppage in the first two laps of the Grand Prix. The logic behind this is that the loss of cars during qualifying would reduce the spectacle, particularly if a top driver was the victim of misfortune.
The parc ferme regulation has also been relaxed to allow teams to have the cars in their own garages although any work on them will be done under FIA supervision to ensure that no major components are changed. Work on the cars will be severely restricted.
The main aim of the FIA's redefining of the regulations was to get rid of electronic systems once again and this has been achieved with traction control, automatic gearboxes and launch control being banned from the 2003 British Grand Prix onwards. There is a slight question mark over launch control as it is yet to be seen whether or not teams can all operate their current clutch systems manually. The FIA says that it is confident that these rules can be policed successfully and so it has said that it will not be necessary to issue a standard electronic control unit in 2004.
The teams will still be allowed to use common components and the FIA retains the intention of introducing standard braking systems, a standard rear wing and long-lasting components in 2004 and in 2005 to extend the life of the engines from one race to two, to extend the life of major components and introduce penalties for engine and component changes. For the moment at least the FIA retains its desire to have engines that will be used for six races in 2006.
Both sides have won enough to be able to claim victory in the dispute and so it is fair to say that the best result has probably been achieved.
| donjuan | 01-22-2003 02:25 PM |
Yes sanity returns. I'm happy with what they've done now. (Like my seal of approval means jack :) ) I figured the original regulations were just laid down so that PART of the list would actually happen.
--I'm still under the impression that long-lasting engines won't do anything to significantly reduce costs. The initial and ongoing development of those engines is what costs, not the material and effort to assemble one for each race. It may INCREASE costs, as teams will have to not only develop a powerful motor, but also make it last.
--I'm still under the impression that long-lasting engines won't do anything to significantly reduce costs. The initial and ongoing development of those engines is what costs, not the material and effort to assemble one for each race. It may INCREASE costs, as teams will have to not only develop a powerful motor, but also make it last.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét