Idea for changing the way F1 development works

[KaraK]

Now this might be a stupid/crazy idea (delete as appropriate) but here goes:

With the season now clocking in at 21 races (assuming no drop outs) would it work to have formalised update points through the year - say after race 7 & 14 to split it evenly where teams and engine suppliers can effectively "re-homologate" their packages and essentially forbid any non-safety related changes between those windows.

Development can still occur, just not be used in qualifying/races. So you could bring development parts for use during free practices (essentially cheap testing - the "cost" of doing so would be that obviously it could hurt set up process for the race). This would be supplemented but a "proper" test session carried out on the Monday after the race before re-homologation to allow the final spec of the car for the next 7 races to be properly tested and set up. Engine/gearbox allocations would be for those 7 races as well - say two of each?

So would it work? I've come up with some pros& cons from what I can think of...

Pros:

• A team that gets it "right" ala Mercedes, Brawn etc still gets a good pay off for doing so - they can enjoy that advantage for 7 races but it's not a shoe-in that they will keep that the whole season. Allows the championship to stay alive longer along with keeping it interesting for the fans

• A team that gets it "wrong" still suffers some pain but doesn't have to write off the whole season and gets a nice useful chunk of time they can really work on understanding it and getting it better for the next homologation window. And this might allow them the time to fix even quite fundamental mistakes in an initial design.

• After race 14 there would be no point in developing the current year's car so all teams would have a natural point to start development for the following season. So smaller teams that can't afford two design/development teams aren't as disadvantaged

• With the spreading of the engine/gearbox life it would mean an unreliable PU still has consequences but doesn't ruin the whole season, which would mean less instances of insane penalties ala Honda this year which aren't popular with fans. You'd get less of "we had a couple of bad blow ups near the start of the year now you can't turn the engine up for the rest of the season" as well so drivers/teams would be freer to push harder all year

• Not being right on the ragged edge of developing parts would mean that teams wouldn't have to choose which driver got the "only new front wing" (think Red Bull at Silverstone a couple of years back) so fairer on the drivers and the fans always know that two team mates have equal equipment.

• Knowing that a car spec was fixed for 7 races might help teams plan production better and reduce wastage/costs?

• Depending on the spread of tracks through the year it might be possible for teams to make less-compromised cars as they don't have to try and make something that works everywhere and, at least in my head, that would be simpler and cheaper and allow more teams to be competitive at more circuits.

• Each "re-homologation" point would hopefully generate a mini version of the pre-season buzz which would help keep F1 fresh and interesting for the fans and keep them paying attention. If you went as far as mini car-launches (cheap to do as you could do them online or whatever) then that's more opportunities to showcase sponsors, teams could even have their sponsors "title sponsor" a mini-launch which would mean you could charge them more or use it to attract new sponsors mid-season.

Cons:

• Not sure how you'd handle things like Monza/Monaco wings - maybe allow for a high downforce / low downforce version of the aero package?

• "Safety reasons" changes might be difficult to police - you'd have to have the FIA control whether a change truly was a safety impact. In the event where something was picked up as being potentially "unsafe" but before anything had actually happened they'd have to show that they was hard data backing up the request and that any performance gains were incidental.

Anyway, am I crazed lunatic or does any of that make any sense?

[mycool]

I like this idea, however I guess there will be someone along soon to point out why it's unworkable, that, and the fact you have applied common sense and logic to a problem in F1 which instantly discounts it!

[StevieBee]

Not a bad ideas but the problem is that Mercedes began development of their engine three (possibly four) years before it first raced and they were the only one to cotton on to the benefits splitting the inlet and outlet turbines, which in very simple terms, is what gives them their advantage. That and the Petronas fuel.

To re-engineer an engine to this degree in the time frame your idea affords is highly unlikely and still doesn't counter the Petronas factor.

[anonymous-user]

The cars change from race to race. Aero is much different at e.g. Monza compared to Monaco, Spa or Silverstone.

It would be impossible to homologate 1 spec for each third of a season. It would be possible to make them have all the specs homologated for each third but that would massively disadvantage the smaller teams as you wouldn't want to sign off the final specs until late in each period, thereby benefitting from the track experience as much as possible.

The final weeks of each period would be manic, similar to the over Xmas period is now, and only manageable, if at all, by the big teams. The others would have to spread the load and guess their direction.

I'm being simplistic but that's of necessity because it's a vastly complex issue.