Slick tires to return to F1?

[Lord Blackadder]

So, if I read this right, slick tires are coming back in '08, and a mandated single tire supplier.

But more apropos the article's title, an engine tech freeze too? I'm not sure if I like that. Coupled with the stiffer aerodynamic rules we'll end up with NASCAR plus corners. Or am I over-reacting here?

I like the idea of a weight penalty for an engine change instead of the 10-spot grid penalty (I doubt the weight would hurt as much), not so sure about the gearboxes having to last four races though.

 

[alexstein]

I don't like all this engine development restriction!! NONESENSE! The Teams are complaining on spending to much, who says you have to spend that much money to compete.

What the FIA should do regulate the spending of the Teams to make it more competitive. If each team is only allowed to spend a certain amount per saison, lets say100.000 US Dollar (or whatever the cap would be) for development, testing, racing whatsoever.(Let the team decide where they want to spend the budget) Personnaly I think that would lmake it a little more competitive. But don't restrict the development of engines, chasis,...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I like the idea of Formula One as a constantly changing technology showcase - and the driving forces are team engineers, not the FIA or Max. If the latter two become too involved in car design through regulations they will turn the sport into A1 or NASCAR....ther fact that some teams can barely afford to play is part of the game, although it certainly could get out of hand.

But with Toyota spending 150+ million a year and accomplishing jack squat, it is demonstrated that spending parity would not necessarily make things any more even.

I like the idea of slick tires though...sounds old-school.

 

[bursty]

I never understood the engine change rule. Who cares if they have to change an engine? I want to see some competitive racing, not just Kimi having to dodge traffic just because he had to change an engine and had to start in the back of the pack.

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports. They should be pushing the limits developing faster and lighter cars. They shouldnt be too concerned with saving a little money here and there by adding more restrictions. If you cant afford to build a competitive race car, get the hell out.

 

[whooleytoo]

I never understood the engine change rule. Who cares if they have to change an engine? I want to see some competitive racing, not just Kimi having to dodge traffic just because he had to change an engine and had to start in the back of the pack.

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports. They should be pushing the limits developing faster and lighter cars. They shouldnt be too concerned with saving a little money here and there by adding more restrictions. If you cant afford to build a competitive race car, get the hell out.

I think the purpose of the rule change was to encourage reliability, as too many teams were pushing the engines to the limits and there were too many retirements.

It might actually lead to more reliability in high-performance engines, if any of what the engine manufacturers learn can be translated to road vehicles.

 

[Le Big Mac]

I don't like all this engine development restriction!! NONESENSE! The Teams are complaining on spending to much, who says you have to spend that much money to compete.

What the FIA should do regulate the spending of the Teams to make it more competitive. If each team is only allowed to spend a certain amount per saison, lets say100.000 US Dollar (or whatever the cap would be) for development, testing, racing whatsoever.(Let the team decide where they want to spend the budget) Personnaly I think that would lmake it a little more competitive. But don't restrict the development of engines, chasis,...

How do you police that, though? Ferrari says they're developing a new street-legal car that just happens to use the same engine, de-tuned, as their F1 team. And then they claim the development costs are not covered by the F-1 budget.

It does seem a bit bizarre to say that something has to last X races. I understand doing that to cut costs, but it seems oddly inflexible. Why not give them 5 transmissions (or engines, etc.) per season if you're going to do it that way?

 

[R.Youden]

Building an engine to last 2 races does not save moey. It increases as they have to spend more on R & D. If an F1 team has money they WILL spend it.

Forumla 1 is not about bringing technology into road cars. It is about advertising. Why do all the big manufacturers and sponsors do it? To make money. F1 airplay is very cheap advertising (about 10 times less per minute than normal advertising) so that is why they spend so much money, to get to the front of the field and get more TV minutes, therefore sell more cars.

 

[Platform]

Finally, take away engine restrictions as well, and we'll have our old cars from the 80's....1000hp+

 

[Counterfit]

But with Toyota spending 450+ million a year and accomplishing jack squat, it is demonstrated that spending parity would not necessarily make things any more even.

Fixed that for ya. Your number had them spending less than the NY Yankees do on their player payroll.
I'm for the slicks and single tire manufacturer, but the three year freeze should only apply to the formula of the engines (#L, I/V/F/R-#), not the encompassing technology, or the specific design of one engine.

 

[alexstein]

How do you police that, though? Ferrari says they're developing a new street-legal car that just happens to use the same engine, de-tuned, as their F1 team. And then they claim the development costs are not covered by the F-1 budget.

It does seem a bit bizarre to say that something has to last X races. I understand doing that to cut costs, but it seems oddly inflexible. Why not give them 5 transmissions (or engines, etc.) per season if you're going to do it that way?

That's Ferrari's business. How long do you think can a company sustain like that. Who do you think sells more cars Toyota or Fiat? It does not have to be governed that close in my opinion.

Second of a lot of teams know exactly how long an engine or transmission is going to last plus minus a couple of km. That's why they do testing.

 

[idea_hamster]

Fixing F1

I don't think that F1 has ever really recovered from openning the pandora's box of refueling.

Without refueling things were much better. There was a real art to driving, especially with the driver-adjustable turbo boost, since drivers couldn't simply drive as fast as possible all the time. Knowing and reproducing the perfect line for 50 laps wasn't enough. They had to balance speed with efficiency.

There was real pressure on the pit crews. Today, the longest part of most stops is refueling, which takes all the pressure off of the tire changers.

And there was real incentive for the teams to research and build in fuel efficiency. Lots of technology that we have in cars today started in racing. And I think that it would send a good signal to the world if F1 acted like they were concerned about how much gas they burn.

Personally, I must admit that I am greatly relieved that no one has been killed under the no-tire-changing rules. [touches wood] After all, if a car runs out of gas, it slows down gradually in a straight line. If a car runs out of tire, it goes sideways at full speed.

I just think that if they took away refueling, all these other issues of engine use, tire changing, two qualifications, etc. would become non-issues.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Fixed that for ya. Your number had them spending less than the NY Yankees do on their player payroll.

Shoot, missed that little typo...damn number pad. Suffice to say, they need to sell a LOT of Corollas for each F1 season...

I'm for the slicks and single tire manufacturer, but the three year freeze should only apply to the formula of the engines (#L, I/V/F/R-#), not the encompassing technology, or the specific design of one engine.

I'm against the idea of freezing any technology in F1 - that sounds so antithetical to Formula One as I know it. There needs to be a modicum of control but I think they are going to far with the engine freeze.

 

[Counterfit]

I don't think that F1 has ever really recovered from openning the pandora's box of refueling.

Without refueling things were much better. There was a real art to driving, especially with the driver-adjustable turbo boost, since drivers couldn't simply drive as fast as possible all the time. Knowing and reproducing the perfect line for 50 laps wasn't enough. They had to balance speed with efficiency.

There was real pressure on the pit crews. Today, the longest part of most stops is refueling, which takes all the pressure off of the tire changers.

And there was real incentive for the teams to research and build in fuel efficiency. Lots of technology that we have in cars today started in racing. And I think that it would send a good signal to the world if F1 acted like they were concerned about how much gas they burn.

Personally, I must admit that I am greatly relieved that no one has been killed under the no-tire-changing rules. [touches wood] After all, if a car runs out of gas, it slows down gradually in a straight line. If a car runs out of tire, it goes sideways at full speed.

I just think that if they took away refueling, all these other issues of engine use, tire changing, two qualifications, etc. would become non-issues.

I disagree, simply because refueling existed before it wasn't allowed. One of the best laps ever came after Fangio pitted for tires and gas.

I'm against the idea of freezing any technology in F1 - that sounds so antithetical to Formula One as I know it. There needs to be a modicum of control but I think they are going to far with the engine freeze.

I'm not advocating a technology freeze, just a formula freeze (#liters, # cylinders) so that teams don't have to redesign their engine every 5 years, and let them push the technology of that engine formula as far as they can.

 

[iGav]

I don't think they should be freezing the engine specs at all... I'd like to see them open them up more. Look at Audi's win the other week with the V10 oil burner.

What's the chances of this tech every being used in F1 now??? what about employing electrical motors and capacitors (as being developed by BMW) which can significantly boost torque and power for several seconds meaning that overtaking would become easier.

With fozen engine regulations... none of this type of stuff will be even considered, let alone implemented.

 

[Le Big Mac]

Fixed that for ya. Your number had them spending less than the NY Yankees do on their player payroll.

that's the fundamental problem. I don't have a problem with free markets, adn spending as much as you want on anything. But, if you're going to have a league, to make it interesting you need some amount of competitive equality. If everyone can spend limitless amounts, you'll end up with one or two teams that have huge budgets and win most of the time, and a bunch of teams that don't spend the money and never win. At that point, they drop out and there's no more league.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't think they should be freezing the engine specs at all... I'd like to see them open them up more. Look at Audi's win the other week with the V10 oil burner.

I watched a little of that race - very cool. The US really needs public exposure that kind of diesel tech, because most people 'round my parts equate diesel with big pickup trucks that spew more black smoke than all the Trabants in the world.

I don't mind freezing the displacement and # of cylinders. But I think that Max and Bernie are edging too close to a spec engine - In their perfect world every team would probably get an engine from the same supplier, as they will with tires. But that would be really boring.

 

[idea_hamster]

I disagree, simply because refueling existed before it wasn't allowed. One of the best laps ever came after Fangio pitted for tires and gas.

I respectfully refer you to Rossini's assessment of Wagner: "Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour."

When refueling was originally allowed, there was a far greater difference between the various cars on the track. The tale of how Enzo Ferrari got the "Prancing Horse" badge stemmed from an upset win in an Alfa Romeo that was underpowered compared to the field, but he drove brilliantly.

Today, much of the sport is regulated (by F1) and researched (by the teams) into near equality compared to what it was when refueling was allowed before. Refueling turns driving into a formulaic science -- just drive as fast as you can and we'll add more gas. Without refueling, driving is an art -- and on any given day, one artist may come up with something prettier than another. I really believe that Schumi's dominant phase would never have happened without refueling.

That said, I'm for anything that puts more rubber under the cars. It can only make things safer, given the current tire-change rules.

 

[Counterfit]

Refueling turns driving into a formulaic science -- just drive as fast as you can and we'll add more gas. Without refueling, driving is an art -- and on any given day, one artist may come up with something prettier than another.

I still disagree. The driving has to be done, and not everyone can pull off qualifying pace laps for 15 laps on end (France '04!). Then you have to figure in probelms and tires. Not all tires are made equal, even wihin the same batch.

I really believe that Schumi's dominant phase would never have happened without refueling.

Well, I really think you're off your nut now. When he was driving fer Mercedes in their sports cars, the cars ran faster and more efficiently when he was driving. You could see that when he finished 2nd n the '94 Spanish GP while being stuck in 5th gear for 2/3 of the race

 

[idea_hamster]

I still disagree. The driving has to be done, and not everyone can pull off qualifying pace laps for 15 laps on end (France '04!).

Look, I may be alone, but I think a system that rewards robotic repetition doesn't help the spectator value of the sport. The more that the rules push drivers to go flat out all the time, the closer this all comes to drag racing. High speeds in F1 are not the most important part. I want to see overtaking and lead changes. If you ever watch those races where everyone uses the exact same car, you'll know bordom worthy of Dante. NASCAR cars are so close in construction, the only excitement is crashes.

Then you have to figure in probelms and tires. Not all tires are made equal, even wihin the same batch.

Well, if they have their way, all tires will be made equal. And I have to say that I'm always disappointed when a race is decided by a breakdown. (Consider Kimi's tire failure and resulting crash on the final lap last year. ) Problems shouldn't be the deciding factor -- or I should probably say that we shouldn't rely on car problems to determine the standings.

Well, I really think you're off your nut now. When he was driving fer Mercedes in their sports cars, the cars ran faster and more efficiently when he was driving.

Fair enough -- I'll have to take your word since my cable provider has spotty coverage of F1 (and has dropped WRC -- Nooo!) and very limited coverage of anything else. Honestly, I'm at all surprized to hear this -- he is an amazingly talented driver. My point is that driving on a single tank of gas requires a different (and I think more entertaining) skill set than driving with fuel stops. You have to be quickest, but you can't press all the time. You have to drive a balanced race, rather than 50 carbon-copy laps. I think that without refueling, Shumacher would have had just as many poles, but fewer wins, and it was his dominance that prompted all these new rules about two qualifying days and can't change tires.

I mean, c'mon, you have to admit that no tire changing isn't the safest policy. Right?

You could see that when he finished 2nd n the '94 Spanish GP while being stuck in 5th gear for 2/3 of the race

Thought about this for a minute more. REALLY? Fifth gear for 2/3 of the race? Was he on pole and ran out a huge lead in the first 1/3? You know what -- don't answer that: I'll admit that's impressive, no matter what the circumstances.

 

[Counterfit]

Well, if they have their way, all tires will be made equal.

Well, as equal as hand-built tires can be. There will still be good sets and bad sets. Of course, most teams now run each set for a couple laps in practice to check them out.

I mean, c'mon, you have to admit that no tire changing isn't the safest policy. Right?

Oh absolutely. I was against it from the start.

Thought about this for a minute more. REALLY? Fifth gear for 2/3 of the race?

Yup, right after his second pit stop, which might make it a little less than 2/3 exactly. It was more than half though.

Was he on pole and ran out a huge lead in the first 1/3? You know what -- don't answer that: I'll admit that's impressive, no matter what the circumstances.

In true Schumi style, yes, he did exactly that. That was his second pole of the season, having started the first 3 second to Senna, with Monaco being the first race without him.


Anyways, from Formula1.com:

The two-event engine requirement will remain, but gearboxes will have to last four Grands Prix. Unscheduled changes of either item will lead to a 15kg weight penalty for the car concerned. This will replace the existing system of ten-place grid penalties. Spare cars will be banned.

Testing outside races will be limited to 30,000 km per year. At races, parc ferme conditions will be extended to run from 18.30 on Friday evening until the start of the race. Currently, cars do not enter parc ferme conditions until after qualifying

How exactly to they plan on enforcing a four race tranny? Don't most teams change the ratios for each GP anyway? And I can't wait for the first guy to have to sit out a GP because someone brake tested him in practice. He won't be a happy driver.
And parc fermé from Friday evening? WTF is the point of Saturday practice then? GAH!

 

[iGav]

(Consider Kimi's tire failure and resulting crash on the final lap last year. ).

That was Kimi's mistake though that caused the flat spot, that caused the suspension failure (the tyre itself didn't actually fail). He could have come in to change that tyre with no penalty, they took a calculated risk that failed, albeit only just.

Problems shouldn't be the deciding factor -- or I should probably say that we shouldn't rely on car problems to determine the standings.

That has always been the case though.

My point is that driving on a single tank of gas requires a different (and I think more entertaining) skill set than driving with fuel stops. You have to be quickest, but you can't press all the time. You have to drive a balanced race, rather than 50 carbon-copy laps.

I understand you point... the thing is... how many potentially exciting races never materialised back in the '80's because of people running out of fuel or that it was so marginal that they couldn't push, only cruise in the hope they'd have enough fuel to make the finish?

We encountered a similar set of circumstances with the introduction of the revised points system that rewarded consistantly, and thus reducing the possibilities of drivers risking all for only 2 points. The same for 1 set of tyres and 1 engine for 2 races rule, many drivers in many races opted to preserve their rubber and cars at the expense of actually racing for position and possibly points.

I don't think that refuelling is/the problem... I think that the problem lies elseware, mainly that overtaking is still far too difficult with the current regulations. Fix that and reward the drivers with a more fair points system (getting rid of the endurance engine rules too) and we'll see drivers going flat out, racing for position and points.

The current regulations have turned F1 into an endurance formula, I want to see them on the limit fighting for position EVERY lap, not having to essentially nurse their car to the finish.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The current regulations have turned F1 into an endurance formula, I want to see them on the limit fighting for position EVERY lap, not having to essentially nurse their car to the finish.

I agree - but Max and Bernie seem to be hellbent on reducing cost, especially by preventing the top few teams from spending so much. But all their cost cutting reulations seem to de-emphasize racing and car performance over race tactics and reliability, so we end up with a very expensive game of chess.

This may be a silly idea (I haven't thought it through), but if they want to reduce costs why not just institute a spending cap rather than screwing around with the race cars? At one stroke they would reduce the amount of testing, the budget disparity, etc.

Policing that might be difficult, of course. Enforcement is the toughest part of any regulation and measuring spending would be a big headache...so maybe it wouldn't be a winner. But it seems to me that attacking the "problem" directly would be more effective.

 

[takao]

hmm i don't know did the costs actually drop through one of the measures and regulation ?.. i think not ..

i'm all for regulations for stuff like crash safety etc. but what's the point in demanding reliability... ? so the engines have to last 6 instead of 3 hours ? sorry if i think that's pointless

and those testing reglementations gonna fail as well since all those car companies are throwing the money out of the window for more computer simulated testing which isn't cheaper.. or are they gonna regulate that as well ?

i want to see engine performance at the highest level they can achieve today with 8/10/12 and 2,4 liters

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I wonder, has the need for inceased lifespan of engines actually resulted in a greater number of failures in practice/quali/race situations? It would be interesting to see the numbers on that...

 

[idea_hamster]

That was Kimi's mistake though that caused the flat spot, that caused the suspension failure (the tyre itself didn't actually fail). He could have come in to change that tyre with no penalty, they took a calculated risk that failed, albeit only just.

Fair enough -- thank you for reminding me. Although the new rule has made both not changing *and* changing calculated risks. If you bring a driver in and they decide the tire wasn't bad enough, there's a penalty for that too.

I don't think that refuelling is/the problem... I think that the problem lies elseware, mainly that overtaking is still far too difficult with the current regulations.

Without refueling, drivers have no incentive to run out huge gaps. In fact, they wouldn't want to. No refueling will close up the gaps and lead to more opportunities for overtaking, since the driver behind still has the incentive to open up and drive faster, but the driver in front has an incentive to let up slightly and conserve.