FIA Formula One rules 2008
Discussion
[quote=GP.com]The FIA has issued a list of guidelines and justifications for them for F1 in 2008. The FIA says that F1 needs to cut costs and wants to reduce annual expenditure of the big teams from the current of $300m to around $30m. This is likely to cause much upset with the manufacturers. It will also mean that teams will have to have massive job cuts."[/quote]
Who from the teams is actually saying they want to cut costs, at least by that much. Minardi possibly, but I can't see Toyota or McLaren in the same group, unless this is more pandering to Ferrari who's parent company Fiat aren't financially well off at the moment and so are trying to drag everyone else down to that level so they can at least compete.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15043.html
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15044.html
There seems to be no freedom for design, all the cars will look even more like each other. The only one plus point I can see and I haven't read through it all is the return of a foot operated clutch and manual gear change and an onboard starter. But isn't F1 supposed to be the pinacle of motorsports technology?
Who from the teams is actually saying they want to cut costs, at least by that much. Minardi possibly, but I can't see Toyota or McLaren in the same group, unless this is more pandering to Ferrari who's parent company Fiat aren't financially well off at the moment and so are trying to drag everyone else down to that level so they can at least compete.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15043.html
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15044.html
There seems to be no freedom for design, all the cars will look even more like each other. The only one plus point I can see and I haven't read through it all is the return of a foot operated clutch and manual gear change and an onboard starter. But isn't F1 supposed to be the pinacle of motorsports technology?
Agreed.
They must not have paid much attention to the survey I filled out. The FIA has never been good at changing the sporting rules in small increments now they want to make a bunch of bad moves (some of which are corrective or overcorrective of their past mistakes). If these rules were to come together I doubt I would watch with much interest so I'm with the break away series of manufacturers, some of which (BMW at least) believe in the technological competition. In F1 Racing there was an article earlier this year that seemed to imply that amazingly money is not a problem in F1 and there was recently a video of Stoddard on crash.net of him gleefully carting around in a mobile kings chair and later discussing the pleasure of buying 3 737's!
More mechanical grip yes but standardized parts, no telemetry . . . don't be shown up by every other racing series!
They must not have paid much attention to the survey I filled out. The FIA has never been good at changing the sporting rules in small increments now they want to make a bunch of bad moves (some of which are corrective or overcorrective of their past mistakes). If these rules were to come together I doubt I would watch with much interest so I'm with the break away series of manufacturers, some of which (BMW at least) believe in the technological competition. In F1 Racing there was an article earlier this year that seemed to imply that amazingly money is not a problem in F1 and there was recently a video of Stoddard on crash.net of him gleefully carting around in a mobile kings chair and later discussing the pleasure of buying 3 737's!
More mechanical grip yes but standardized parts, no telemetry . . . don't be shown up by every other racing series!
Well I think it is all very interesting, the bit about reducing downforce by 90% and then making the cars wider to stop them going a bit fast makes me laugh.
www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33156&PO=33156
www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33157&PO=33157
www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33156&PO=33156
www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33157&PO=33157
I also agree that less downforce more mechanical grip and a standard "controlled" tire would be good but otherwise I like the technical war. What scared me was the previous talk of standardized ECU's.
One other thing. F1 needs to think about offering more High Definition broadcasting to the US because that is what all the others sports are doing but then again there is only one F1.
One other thing. F1 needs to think about offering more High Definition broadcasting to the US because that is what all the others sports are doing but then again there is only one F1.
I personally couldn't give a stuff if F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of technology. Why the hell does it HAVE to be? It's only the manufacturers that have made it that way in an effort to be fastest year on year.
I would sooner it be that F1 was the pinnacle of driving ability and competition, than technology.
Imagine the great races and scraps we could have if the current top line drivers were able to use talent rather than technology.
Slash the budgets and get drivers back again. Sod the trickery, its a waste of money.
I would sooner it be that F1 was the pinnacle of driving ability and competition, than technology.
Imagine the great races and scraps we could have if the current top line drivers were able to use talent rather than technology.
Slash the budgets and get drivers back again. Sod the trickery, its a waste of money.
I think F1 is the place for high technology and it shouldnt be watered down. If you really just want close racing then there are loads of other smaller formula which will give this. If these rules came in then what would be the point of formula 1. It would just be yet another race series and no the pinnacle of motorsport I beleive it should be.
Reducing downforce is essential for more overtaking - it's a joke that cars can't get within 1-2sec of the car in front. However, making the car wider doesn't exactly help passing.
A single tyre and manual gearboxes will make for closer competition as will the standard ECU.
I think there's still scope to design different cars, but some areas will be restricted.
It's always a tricky compromise between the pinnacle of technology and competition. If you consider downforce to be a driver aid then actually the less help you give a driver, the better they need to be. In that context it doesn't look so daft having lower formulae with wings and slicks and F1 with less downforce etc.
I think these regs would lead to a good spectacle and allow more teams to be competitive for a win.
A single tyre and manual gearboxes will make for closer competition as will the standard ECU.
I think there's still scope to design different cars, but some areas will be restricted.
It's always a tricky compromise between the pinnacle of technology and competition. If you consider downforce to be a driver aid then actually the less help you give a driver, the better they need to be. In that context it doesn't look so daft having lower formulae with wings and slicks and F1 with less downforce etc.
I think these regs would lead to a good spectacle and allow more teams to be competitive for a win.
The second GP.com link is fascinating. Whilt I may not agree with some of the resulting proposals, the noticeable feature is that they have set some overall objectives, then assessed each proposal against those objectives. This is absolutely the right way to approach the problem, and has been missing in all previous proposals.
However:
- I don't believe they have truly understood what constitutes spectacle and "a good race". I see three elements: a) One car on its own should be a spectacle (think Aston DBR1 being hung out in a four wheel drift by Peter Hardman) - this has to be considered for both live spectators and TV viewers (the camera foreshortens and flattens); b) overtaking should be possible, but not too easy (a good driver should be able to defend reasonably well); and c) the 'package' should be interesting - good TV production, scope for tactics (pitstops, nursing tyres, etc.)
- They have underestimated the value of a bit of variability. As an example, the WTCC (with the different handling characteristics of the BMWs and Alfas & SEATs) is much more interesting than the BTCC.
- They have also underestimated the value of the technical side of the sport to the manufacturers and road cars in general.
- I think they've got the budget too low. $100m would be more realistic. It's a $100m sport (not least with all the travelling), and there needs to be some scope for a team to develop a poor car, rather than just scratch the season.
- Has anyone realised that to maintain F1 as the pinnacle, the same principles will need to be applied all the way down all the series - LM, GP2, F3?
But it's a good start, and I hope many people (especially the teams) realise how important it is to build the new regulations within a logical framework of objectives.
However:
- I don't believe they have truly understood what constitutes spectacle and "a good race". I see three elements: a) One car on its own should be a spectacle (think Aston DBR1 being hung out in a four wheel drift by Peter Hardman) - this has to be considered for both live spectators and TV viewers (the camera foreshortens and flattens); b) overtaking should be possible, but not too easy (a good driver should be able to defend reasonably well); and c) the 'package' should be interesting - good TV production, scope for tactics (pitstops, nursing tyres, etc.)
- They have underestimated the value of a bit of variability. As an example, the WTCC (with the different handling characteristics of the BMWs and Alfas & SEATs) is much more interesting than the BTCC.
- They have also underestimated the value of the technical side of the sport to the manufacturers and road cars in general.
- I think they've got the budget too low. $100m would be more realistic. It's a $100m sport (not least with all the travelling), and there needs to be some scope for a team to develop a poor car, rather than just scratch the season.
- Has anyone realised that to maintain F1 as the pinnacle, the same principles will need to be applied all the way down all the series - LM, GP2, F3?
But it's a good start, and I hope many people (especially the teams) realise how important it is to build the new regulations within a logical framework of objectives.
NightDriver said:
I think F1 is the place for high technology and it shouldnt be watered down. If you really just want close racing then there are loads of other smaller formula which will give this. If these rules came in then what would be the point of formula 1. It would just be yet another race series and no the pinnacle of motorsport I beleive it should be.
F1 gave up on technology ages ago when they threw out active suspension.
Now with automatic gearboxes and traction control there is only one driver skill left, finding the braking point. So says Gerhard Berger. My Caterham needs more driver skill.
We could go retro and do 70s cars with modern safety aids! Actually this year's rules have made a vast improvement. We are getting exciting racing, everything is possible. Look at the way Rubens carved through the field in Canada. Maybe we should leave the rules alone except for getting rid of traction control and bringing back manual gearchanges.
I think it the rules should stay as they are for at least one season and then lets just see what happens. Formula 1 is constantly coming up with new developments but they keep getting banned before they get on the cars. If you want overtaking close racing all down to driver skill then watch F3 or F2 but if you want to see teams truly battling against each other, from the driver to the designers, then F1s the place to be. I also think there is slightly more to do than 'just pick a braking point'. What about all the diff/engine/traction adjustments being made constantly to get the car at its optimum for each seperate corner during the qualy lap and the race. What about trying to a single set of tyres to last race distant. They may not have manual gearboxes but there still working very hard as drivers. And also the fitness required nowadays. Back when the cars where manuals with a clutch the cars were slower, why should F1 take a step back it'd be like Ford releasing the Model T as its next car (ok maybe slight exageration but you get the point). Its crazy!!
pib said:
Agreed.
They must not have paid much attention to the survey I filled out. The FIA has never been good at changing the sporting rules in small increments now they want to make a bunch of bad moves (some of which are corrective or overcorrective of their past mistakes). If these rules were to come together I doubt I would watch with much interest so I'm with the break away series of manufacturers, some of which (BMW at least) believe in the technological competition. In F1 Racing there was an article earlier this year that seemed to imply that amazingly money is not a problem in F1 and there was recently a video of Stoddard on crash.net of him gleefully carting around in a mobile kings chair and later discussing the pleasure of buying 3 737's!
More mechanical grip yes but standardized parts, no telemetry . . . don't be shown up by every other racing series!
Why did I fill out that survey?
Has anyone else seen those t-shirts which have a picture of max mosley and say;
WANTED
For crimes against F1
Might just have to buy myself one.
edited to add: cheers for the pic of max mosley
>> Edited by peanutjb on Saturday 18th June 21:48
It isn't going to matter as nobody is going to watch it or spectate anyway.
Not running a full grid has killed the credibility of F1 not only in the USA but around the world.
F1 was heavily criticised for being a procession and not a race, and with dropping audiences changes were instigated to get them back.
Being treated to a procession of six cars makes me wonder if it is worth bothering watching the next 'race'. More importantly, sponsors will be to. Without viewer, there are no sponsors, without sponsors there is no funding, and before you know it F1 cars and Indy Cars will run at the same pace. However, Indy will at least be worth watching, because you're guaranteed to see a race, even if the grid is made up of F1 has beens and wanna bees.
Not running a full grid has killed the credibility of F1 not only in the USA but around the world.
F1 was heavily criticised for being a procession and not a race, and with dropping audiences changes were instigated to get them back.
Being treated to a procession of six cars makes me wonder if it is worth bothering watching the next 'race'. More importantly, sponsors will be to. Without viewer, there are no sponsors, without sponsors there is no funding, and before you know it F1 cars and Indy Cars will run at the same pace. However, Indy will at least be worth watching, because you're guaranteed to see a race, even if the grid is made up of F1 has beens and wanna bees.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff