F1 Rule Changes imposed for 2005/6
Discussion
Crash.net said:
The World Motor Sport Council has ended lingering uncertainty about the future rules by confirming that ‘Package Two' of the three options offered to teams will come into effect.
This is despite the fact that the teams failed to agree by the required majority of 8:2, even at the most recent meeting of the Technical Working Group on October 15.
All three of the packages on offer included the 2.4-litre V8 engine for 2006, plus reduced downforce and new tyre rules. Of the three ‘Package Two' gave slightly less aerodynamic freedom, but slightly fewer engine restrictions.
All the teams agreed on the ‘Package Two' aero and tyre details, but could not agree on the engine rules. This led the WMSC to exercise its right to impose its own measures.
The whole point of the exercise is to cut speeds and address the safety issue sooner rather than later.
The essence of ‘Package Two' for 2005 is as follows:
- Approx 20% less downforce through raised front wing, rear wing mounted further forward, reduced diffuser height, cut back bodywork in front of rear wheels.
- One set of tyres for qualifying and the race.
- Engines to complete two events.
The 2.8-litre V8 rule, which has been vehemently opposed by the likes of BMW and Honda, will come into force for 2006. It remains to be seen what action they may take, as Max Mosley has clearly indicated that they ill-advised to take on the FIA on matters of safety.
As promised for the first two years of the rule old V10s will be available to the smaller teams with a rev restriction designed to equate them with the V8s.
New rules "Imposed" on teams.
The bit that worries me is "One set of tyres for qualifying and the race." Surely that compromises saftey, if a tyre is badly worn in qualifying or damaged during a race or punctured surely they shoul dbe allowed to change the tyre during the race. Which means anyone can change tyres during a race by saying they have a slow puncture in order to get some grippy new rubber on and go quicker (with a helpful jab with a sharp screwdriver during the tyre change it can be made to look flat.
Complete garbage.
Just how easy would it be to shift the whole Formula One infrastructure - teams & circuits out from under Max & Bernie and run it under a different racing body. MotoGP (DORNA) & World Superbikes (FIM) run under different governing bodies as do CART and IRL and they all race around the world. I think it would be very easy especially when circuits not currently hosting races are offered a slot and the F1 rules are stabilised and sensible in cutting costs.
and what if Honda and BMW decide to follow Ford?
then you are left with just Ilmore/Renault/Toyota/Ferarri...
so, you have 20+ cars with only 4 engine makes, of which only one suppies customer cars?
whist I am all in favour of aero changes and bringing back proper tyres etc, if we go back to V8's, you might as well all run F3000 cars...
then you are left with just Ilmore/Renault/Toyota/Ferarri...
so, you have 20+ cars with only 4 engine makes, of which only one suppies customer cars?
whist I am all in favour of aero changes and bringing back proper tyres etc, if we go back to V8's, you might as well all run F3000 cars...
BMW and Mercedes are quite right when they point out that engine output has remained basically static this year (becuase of the logevity rules), but lap times have come down by several seconds at some tracks, The majority of that is in tires. So why the need to change the engine regs? Just move to a control tire and your problem is sorted, also you will need less testing so costs will be cut...
I think the engine rule is ridiculus too. V8's? Why not just run air restrictors or downsize the V10 a little? It's a shame they have already mandated V10's now!
Tire rule sounds fine except for the safty issue mentioned. Bernie and the FiA had a perfect oppertunity when goodyear left to just have one tire manufacturer with a controlled spec tire they could make less and less grippy as required. Move back to slicks and . . .
The aero reductions are good too and go hand and hand with a less grippy tire. In terms of safety (which is always a race car concern) the manufacturers will have to test and make extra safe tires at first. Could be interesting.
At least they havn't issued ECM's. Back in 99 or 00 or whenever they put grooves on the tire they did exaclty what would make passing disappear. I was surprised how little passing was in China. I thought that track would be perfect! New surface prolly didn't help. And I will say I was WRONG about JV but I do look forward to seeing him this weekend and next year.
Tire rule sounds fine except for the safty issue mentioned. Bernie and the FiA had a perfect oppertunity when goodyear left to just have one tire manufacturer with a controlled spec tire they could make less and less grippy as required. Move back to slicks and . . .
The aero reductions are good too and go hand and hand with a less grippy tire. In terms of safety (which is always a race car concern) the manufacturers will have to test and make extra safe tires at first. Could be interesting.
At least they havn't issued ECM's. Back in 99 or 00 or whenever they put grooves on the tire they did exaclty what would make passing disappear. I was surprised how little passing was in China. I thought that track would be perfect! New surface prolly didn't help. And I will say I was WRONG about JV but I do look forward to seeing him this weekend and next year.
More news:
The World Motor Sport Council has ended lingering uncertainty about the future rules by confirming that a whole new raft of changes designed to make F1 more boring will come into effect.
This is despite the fact that the teams failed to agree by the required majority of 8:2, even at the most recent meeting of the Technical Working Group on October 15.
All three of the packages on offer included the introduction of a poxy 2.4-litre V8 engine for 2006, plus reduced downforce and new tyre rules. Of the three ‘Package Two' gave slightly less aerodynamic freedom, but slightly fewer engine restrictions.
The whole point of the exercise is to cut speeds and make F1 even more yawn-worthy than before.
Max Moseley, commenting on the new changes, remarked 'We think we have almost completely eliminated overtaking now, and are taking steps to actively stamp out any form of racing whatsoever. We think we will achieve this goal by no later than 2007 when we will have introduced GATSo cameras on every overtaking straight in our quest to make F1 a safer sport'.
In other news, Bernie Ecclestone has surprised many by buying Silverstone race circuit and selling off 95% of the land to housing developers and erecting a giant gold-plated statue in the remaining 5% of land. A small picture of this appears below:
The World Motor Sport Council has ended lingering uncertainty about the future rules by confirming that a whole new raft of changes designed to make F1 more boring will come into effect.
This is despite the fact that the teams failed to agree by the required majority of 8:2, even at the most recent meeting of the Technical Working Group on October 15.
All three of the packages on offer included the introduction of a poxy 2.4-litre V8 engine for 2006, plus reduced downforce and new tyre rules. Of the three ‘Package Two' gave slightly less aerodynamic freedom, but slightly fewer engine restrictions.
The whole point of the exercise is to cut speeds and make F1 even more yawn-worthy than before.
Max Moseley, commenting on the new changes, remarked 'We think we have almost completely eliminated overtaking now, and are taking steps to actively stamp out any form of racing whatsoever. We think we will achieve this goal by no later than 2007 when we will have introduced GATSo cameras on every overtaking straight in our quest to make F1 a safer sport'.
In other news, Bernie Ecclestone has surprised many by buying Silverstone race circuit and selling off 95% of the land to housing developers and erecting a giant gold-plated statue in the remaining 5% of land. A small picture of this appears below:
Hold it Gaz, Ferrari are minnows in the engine dept compared to Merc/BMW/Honda and they turn up with whatever they are (or have agreed to under the table to) "told" to by MM and BE.
You're going to tell me that a company that builds about 5,000 cars a year can swap to a smaller engine size but Merc can't!
No, this is a marketing squeal from BMW as they were building a V10 for the 8 series or something and now the FIA have scuttled their marketing link from F1 to the road...bad luck.
As much as FWD letter from Max is a joke it does cut to the bone of the argument....just build a better car and shut up and get on with it, at least they don't have to build the engines, they get someone else to do that for them, Ferrari/Renault/Toyota all build their own, seems a bit rich the ones bitching are the ones who are only supplying engines ??
You're going to tell me that a company that builds about 5,000 cars a year can swap to a smaller engine size but Merc can't!
No, this is a marketing squeal from BMW as they were building a V10 for the 8 series or something and now the FIA have scuttled their marketing link from F1 to the road...bad luck.
As much as FWD letter from Max is a joke it does cut to the bone of the argument....just build a better car and shut up and get on with it, at least they don't have to build the engines, they get someone else to do that for them, Ferrari/Renault/Toyota all build their own, seems a bit rich the ones bitching are the ones who are only supplying engines ??
308gt4 said:
Hold it Gaz, Ferrari are minnows in the engine dept compared to Merc/BMW/Honda and they turn up with whatever they are (or have agreed to under the table to) "told" to by MM and BE.
You're going to tell me that a company that builds about 5,000 cars a year can swap to a smaller engine size but Merc can't!
No, this is a marketing squeal from BMW as they were building a V10 for the 8 series or something and now the FIA have scuttled their marketing link from F1 to the road...bad luck.
As much as FWD letter from Max is a joke it does cut to the bone of the argument....just build a better car and shut up and get on with it, at least they don't have to build the engines, they get someone else to do that for them, Ferrari/Renault/Toyota all build their own, seems a bit rich the ones bitching are the ones who are only supplying engines ??
I know Fiat are in trouble, but they build a lot more then 5,000 cars a year- not including Lancia, Alfa Romeo, Maserati and those cars with the wilting donkey on the front.
I do agree, however that its upto the others to build a quicker car, rather then slow the race winner
I think it's completely justified for the engine manufacturers to make a fuss. After all, isn't marketing the only reason they're in F1 in the first place? Seems strangely similar to Ferrari's complaint about paddle changes.
As for Williams and McLaren getting someone else to build their engines for them, oh, if only it were that simple.
Speeds have got to drop again in Formula 1. What the teams oppose is the way this is implemented. Ferrari will not stay top dog for much longer, as is they way of the world.
As for Williams and McLaren getting someone else to build their engines for them, oh, if only it were that simple.
Speeds have got to drop again in Formula 1. What the teams oppose is the way this is implemented. Ferrari will not stay top dog for much longer, as is they way of the world.
Frik said:
I think it's completely justified for the engine manufacturers to make a fuss. After all, isn't marketing the only reason they're in F1 in the first place? .
Ferrari have always raced for the sake of racing as anyone who knows their history will tell you, Enzo only sold cars so he could go racing.
When you only build 5,000 cars a year AND they are ALL sold before they are made you don't need marketing wank, when was the last advertisement you saw for Ferrari ?
308gt4 said:I agree that Enzo saw road cars as a necessary evil in order to go racing, although I reckon times have changed slightly since the 1940's. I also agree that I can't recall seeing a Ferrari advert.
I think it's completely justified for the engine manufacturers to make a fuss. After all, isn't marketing the only reason they're in F1 in the first place? .
Ferrari have always raced for the sake of racing as anyone who knows their history will tell you, Enzo only sold cars so he could go racing.
When you only build 5,000 cars a year AND they are ALL sold before they are made you don't need marketing wank, when was the last advertisement you saw for Ferrari ?
OTOH, if they don't need "marketing wank", why the tacky gimmicks such as LED change lights and traction control knobs on the steering wheels? Oh, and the "F1 gearchange" - they weren't too happy when it was suggested paddle changes might be outlawed...
EddyB said:
Since when are LED change lights "marketing wank" ?
if they are on a truck (or Ferrari Daytona
just kidding 
) You see them a lot these days on race cars so why not on an Enzo ?
And I don't know why Honda would be bitching about chopping off 2 cylinders to make a 2.4l engine when they have done this before with their road engines back in the 60s. They use to sell S600 and S800 sports cars which had engines that were just half of the GP engine of the day, it even had the roller bearing crankcase and was still on a 45 degree slant with 4 Keihin carbs and revved to 9500 rpm redline!
Now 40 years later it is too hard ?!
As for the paddle shift, I think you'll find that most owners prefer the gated shifter to the F1 shift as it is too harsh at the moment but is getting smoother and faster each generation but I'm told not as good as the BMW SMG shift
308gt4 said:Sunday Times Driving section this week, and every other week that I can remember.
when was the last advertisement you saw for Ferrari ?
Sure, Ferarri don't need to advertise this week to sell cars tomorrow, but they do need to keep the brand exceptionally strong in order to command Ferarri prices into the future.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff