2008 technical regs are looking interesting...
Discussion
Just been picking through this weeks issue of Autosport and good to read that some positive vibes coming out for the 2008 regs such as ban of all aero extrusions on bodywork (about bloody time) and slick tyres again, (hip hip hooray). What with the banning of TC from next year, it appears that finally the powers at the top have started to listen to what we the paying punters have been asking for so bloody long now.
I would also like to see a ban on refueling and that all qualifiying is based on low fuel loads and not the silly burn off to gain fuel credits as we currently have to wade through in the third section at present, though I really do like the drop out format, makes for tense watching through the whole hour.
I'd also like to see a return to gear stick changes, still linked to a semi auto box to protect the gears, but at least forces the driver to remove one hand from the wheel. Do you think the first glimpse of these new regs will increase the spectacle for us watching?
I would also like to see a ban on refueling and that all qualifiying is based on low fuel loads and not the silly burn off to gain fuel credits as we currently have to wade through in the third section at present, though I really do like the drop out format, makes for tense watching through the whole hour.
I'd also like to see a return to gear stick changes, still linked to a semi auto box to protect the gears, but at least forces the driver to remove one hand from the wheel. Do you think the first glimpse of these new regs will increase the spectacle for us watching?
TheOriginalGT40 said:
Just been picking through this weeks issue of Autosport and good to read that some positive vibes coming out for the 2008 regs such as ban of all aero extrusions on bodywork (about bloody time) and slick tyres again, (hip hip hooray). What with the banning of TC from next year, it appears that finally the powers at the top have started to listen to what we the paying punters have been asking for so bloody long now.
I would also like to see a ban on refueling and that all qualifiying is based on low fuel loads and not the silly burn off to gain fuel credits as we currently have to wade through in the third section at present, though I really do like the drop out format, makes for tense watching through the whole hour.
I'd also like to see a return to gear stick changes, still linked to a semi auto box to protect the gears, but at least forces the driver to remove one hand from the wheel. Do you think the first glimpse of these new regs will increase the spectacle for us watching?
I would also like to see a ban on refueling and that all qualifiying is based on low fuel loads and not the silly burn off to gain fuel credits as we currently have to wade through in the third section at present, though I really do like the drop out format, makes for tense watching through the whole hour.
I'd also like to see a return to gear stick changes, still linked to a semi auto box to protect the gears, but at least forces the driver to remove one hand from the wheel. Do you think the first glimpse of these new regs will increase the spectacle for us watching?
I think I agree with all of that except the semi auto box. I reckon sequential - yes, auto clutch - no.
Going back to old technology is counter-productive.
Why return to lever-actuated gear shifting when F3 and GP2 use paddles? You're asking drivers to re-use techniques they haven't used for years, for no particular purpose.
As already said, race gearboxes are effectively clutchless once rolling so that's also not a lot of use.
If you tried to enforce use of a clutch at launch, I can assure you as an engineer I'd find some way of optimising the launch if I possibly could, and taking the driver out of the list of variables.
But scrapping the fuel burn phase can only be good. It's a ridiculous notion at the best of times.
I'm also in favour of full slick tyres again. Grooved tyres look odd and it's again counter-intuitive that lesser formulae have slicks and the pinnacle of the sport doesn't.
Losing aero appendages is a good move too. Main concern is that the teams with the most windtunnels, the best aerodynamycists and most CAE analysts will still get the best results. It's always the same I suppose.
Just need to get rid of this nonsense one engine, two weekends rule and we can all relax and get on with F1 racing as it was 10-12 years ago before they started arsing around with it.
Why return to lever-actuated gear shifting when F3 and GP2 use paddles? You're asking drivers to re-use techniques they haven't used for years, for no particular purpose.
As already said, race gearboxes are effectively clutchless once rolling so that's also not a lot of use.
If you tried to enforce use of a clutch at launch, I can assure you as an engineer I'd find some way of optimising the launch if I possibly could, and taking the driver out of the list of variables.
But scrapping the fuel burn phase can only be good. It's a ridiculous notion at the best of times.
I'm also in favour of full slick tyres again. Grooved tyres look odd and it's again counter-intuitive that lesser formulae have slicks and the pinnacle of the sport doesn't.
Losing aero appendages is a good move too. Main concern is that the teams with the most windtunnels, the best aerodynamycists and most CAE analysts will still get the best results. It's always the same I suppose.
Just need to get rid of this nonsense one engine, two weekends rule and we can all relax and get on with F1 racing as it was 10-12 years ago before they started arsing around with it.
Maybe you lot are right?
I'm not interested enough in top end motorsports to mind one way or the other. What I do know is that in endurance racing, many of those who start don't make it to the finish. Whilst, say, F1 isn't endurance racing, it does have something in common with it.... Racing, and cars.
What it might mean to F1 for example is that someone at the back of the field who can actually drive, and perhaps isn't being paid a stellar salary, can actually get some points over the period of a year.
Why does loosing some cars due to mechanical failure, equate to a poor race? I wouldn't for me, but again, I'm not interested really!
Another thing I was thinking, was that it doesn't have to be the end for traction control, next year. I reckon it's going to be back further into the future. The same might be true for manual gearboxes, or even drivers knob massaging equipment.
If F1 technology has found a peak in terms of the types of technology that can be applied, why not change the rules regularly to keep everybody on their toes? At least then I wouldn't be in a position to predict after the first couple of races, how the season is going to end, within a group of say two to four people.
I'm not interested enough in top end motorsports to mind one way or the other. What I do know is that in endurance racing, many of those who start don't make it to the finish. Whilst, say, F1 isn't endurance racing, it does have something in common with it.... Racing, and cars.
What it might mean to F1 for example is that someone at the back of the field who can actually drive, and perhaps isn't being paid a stellar salary, can actually get some points over the period of a year.
Why does loosing some cars due to mechanical failure, equate to a poor race? I wouldn't for me, but again, I'm not interested really!
Another thing I was thinking, was that it doesn't have to be the end for traction control, next year. I reckon it's going to be back further into the future. The same might be true for manual gearboxes, or even drivers knob massaging equipment.
If F1 technology has found a peak in terms of the types of technology that can be applied, why not change the rules regularly to keep everybody on their toes? At least then I wouldn't be in a position to predict after the first couple of races, how the season is going to end, within a group of say two to four people.
dilbert said:
If F1 technology has found a peak in terms of the types of technology that can be applied, why not change the rules regularly to keep everybody on their toes?
Because frequent rule changes favour the big budget teams.
Continuity of rules tends to bring the gap between pole and last closer, and that tends to mean a driver has more influence over his starting position. When the gap between 5th and 17th is half a second, it mixes up the racing a bit more.
Bring out a new set of rules and generally, the bigger and more experienced teams get a faster car on track earlier. It's not uncommon to see cars lining up on the grid two-by-two unless one driver pulls a total blinder or drops a bollock.
Of course a mixed grid is only a lot of use if the cars can actually pass on track... time will tell this season whether that's the case. DC seemed to prove it is; however that may be an odd combination of track, setup, driver and conditions.
dilbert said:
At least then I wouldn't be in a position to predict after the first couple of races, how the season is going to end, within a group of say two to four people.
Accept that's your viewpoint, but TBH if there's a group of four drivers who might win a championship that generally makes for a great season. One from two, that's another matter.
It would be fantastic to see another manufacturer on the pace too, but at present that looks like BMW and means only Heidfeld would be added to the mix. Kubica is in his dip year, not uncommon for a rookie going into his second year.
This season looks already like we have three if not four championship contenders and I can't think of any series outside of Nascar (a situation that is artificially achieved anyway) where that ever happens.
FNG said:
dilbert said:
If F1 technology has found a peak in terms of the types of technology that can be applied, why not change the rules regularly to keep everybody on their toes?
Because frequent rule changes favour the big budget teams.
Continuity of rules tends to bring the gap between pole and last closer, and that tends to mean a driver has more influence over his starting position. When the gap between 5th and 17th is half a second, it mixes up the racing a bit more.
Bring out a new set of rules and generally, the bigger and more experienced teams get a faster car on track earlier. It's not uncommon to see cars lining up on the grid two-by-two unless one driver pulls a total blinder or drops a bollock.
Of course a mixed grid is only a lot of use if the cars can actually pass on track... time will tell this season whether that's the case. DC seemed to prove it is; however that may be an odd combination of track, setup, driver and conditions.
dilbert said:
At least then I wouldn't be in a position to predict after the first couple of races, how the season is going to end, within a group of say two to four people.
Accept that's your viewpoint, but TBH if there's a group of four drivers who might win a championship that generally makes for a great season. One from two, that's another matter.
It would be fantastic to see another manufacturer on the pace too, but at present that looks like BMW and means only Heidfeld would be added to the mix. Kubica is in his dip year, not uncommon for a rookie going into his second year.
This season looks already like we have three if not four championship contenders and I can't think of any series outside of Nascar (a situation that is artificially achieved anyway) where that ever happens.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'd counter it with the idea that we have never had a situation other than that where the front teams have had all of any technologies that might be appropriate. By comparison the back teams have had some, to perhaps all, of those technologies, at a lesser level of development.
I'm thinking more like, next year, everybody gets an auto box, over a totally manual car (whatever that is), and the year after, everybody gets traction control, over a totally manual car. Maybe not even that literally. My point is to try and get all of the drivers into simpler cars that all teams have a chance of developing to a similar standard, specifically with the intent of making a big budget mean less.
As it happens I'm not that keen on the FIA approach where the FIA provide engine management units to all the teams. I think that's too draconian. Give each team the chance to make their own mistakes for sure, but make it so that they can get it right if they are well organised. Not necassarily a level playing field, but at least one where the the back teams benefit more than just advertising credibility. Seems to me that some of those teams back there are just mobile advertising space.
If you change specific driver aids, on maybe a two year timeframe, you begin to get a picture of which drivers are benefiting from which technologies. If, as I suspect, some are better at some things than others, it'll also help avoid the situation where big teams pay megabucks for new talented drivers at the back of the field outbidding the poorer teams, because the teams with money will never quite know if it was the driver aid that did it last year or the talent.
Edited to add;
Dip year?
Good god, is it really that bad? It seems to me that we could do with a period where very little is common, and everything is unexpected.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 17th April 02:35
Agree a lot with FNG here.
What ever happened to those funny split rear wings?
2008 doesn't have shared ECU's does it? I like a little technical competition but when it comes down to 24/7 wind tunnel testing it's a bit silly. IIRC in the past the poorer funded teams could try a wild technology and have an edge but maybe those days are gone. Toyota isn't winning despite there budget.
Ron Dennis said he doesn't run a soup kitchen but I can't help but wonder if revenues should be handled in a more creative way to help smaller teams. In the long run Ron Dennis loses if viewer numbers decrease due to poor competition on the track.
What ever happened to those funny split rear wings?
2008 doesn't have shared ECU's does it? I like a little technical competition but when it comes down to 24/7 wind tunnel testing it's a bit silly. IIRC in the past the poorer funded teams could try a wild technology and have an edge but maybe those days are gone. Toyota isn't winning despite there budget.
Ron Dennis said he doesn't run a soup kitchen but I can't help but wonder if revenues should be handled in a more creative way to help smaller teams. In the long run Ron Dennis loses if viewer numbers decrease due to poor competition on the track.
Mclaren have recently updated all of there CAE computers and have recently doubled there CAE computing capacity.
If there are frequent rule changes then it will just aid the bigger teams with the bigger budget, so to develop more ideas on a computer model before testing in the wind tunnels and then onto the track.
If there are frequent rule changes then it will just aid the bigger teams with the bigger budget, so to develop more ideas on a computer model before testing in the wind tunnels and then onto the track.
I think the best way to sort out Formula 1 (in terms of technology development) would be to take an average of what the teams spent in one year - $3.9 billion in 2006 making a budget of about $350,000,000, or £175,000,000 - set that as a maximum budget and see what they can do.
It would even work well for the good manufacturers - if you can win when the no one has a 'daddy's got the biggest pockets' advantage, you have the proven-to-be-the-best engineers wearing a your badge on live TV.
You could use sponsorship money to pay driver's salaries.
It would even work well for the good manufacturers - if you can win when the no one has a 'daddy's got the biggest pockets' advantage, you have the proven-to-be-the-best engineers wearing a your badge on live TV.
You could use sponsorship money to pay driver's salaries.
Edited by MrKipling43 on Tuesday 17th April 19:51
dilbert said:
I'm thinking more like, next year, everybody gets an auto box, over a totally manual car (whatever that is), and the year after, everybody gets traction control, over a totally manual car. Maybe not even that literally. My point is to try and get all of the drivers into simpler cars that all teams have a chance of developing to a similar standard, specifically with the intent of making a big budget mean less.
You're moving towards a control formula. F1 has always been about pushing technological boundaries as well as fronting up the fastest cars amd highest calibre drivers in the world.
Bear in mind this is the FIA's jewel in the crown, and the FIA's remit is not limited to motorsport but encompasses all automobile-related issues. The FIA was the primary force behind EuroNCAP safety tests and star ratings, for example. The move towards energy recovering systems on F1 cars in a few years is to provide a clear flow-through of racing technology to road cars.
So supplying control equipment doesn't sit at all well with the FIA's overall remit and responsibilities, and I do believe would dilute F1's marketability sufficiently that it would be at serious risk of being usurped by a breakaway series formed by manufacturers who ultimately want to showcase their engineering talent as much as advertise their brand. Simply designing a chassis using supplied engines, ECUs, gearboxes, brakes etc is not attractive to a manufacturer, either.
dilbert said:
As it happens I'm not that keen on the FIA approach where the FIA provide engine management units to all the teams. I think that's too draconian. Give each team the chance to make their own mistakes for sure, but make it so that they can get it right if they are well organised. Not necassarily a level playing field, but at least one where the the back teams benefit more than just advertising credibility. Seems to me that some of those teams back there are just mobile advertising space.
Control ECUs go against all I've said above. But they are being introduced to prevent any recurrence of the traction control issues that have dogged the sport since Benetton had their infamous "testing only" traction control in 1994. There were rumours that other teams had traction control software that deleted itself whenever the engine stopped. Little wonder you saw cars being plugged into laptops to start them up. The only way to effectively police traction control is to provide an unhackable ECU to all teams. Whether Microsoft is the right company to provide a reliable and unhackable operating system is another matter!
I think there maybe is a case for a redistribution of wealth down the pitlane, unfortunately at present Ferrari are in the box seats on this one as part of the formula takes into account the length of time a team has been in the championship. They get more cash than anyone regardless of their results. TOCA believes this to be reasonable because Ferrari are such a marketable brand and raise awareness of F1 in key markets (Asia, Russia, US). I personally think this is reprehensible - Ecclestone is plenty rich enough not to worry quite so much on this score - and the teams at the back of the grid are just as essential as those at the sharp end. The 2005 US GP was a joke and that's where you end up if a few select teams get all the cash and all the exposure.
I recall with fondness the days where we had prequalifying just to get the qualifiers down to 32 entrants vying for 26 places. Wish that could happen again. Won't in the current financial climate, that's for damn sure.
dilbert said:
If you change specific driver aids, on maybe a two year timeframe, you begin to get a picture of which drivers are benefiting from which technologies. If, as I suspect, some are better at some things than others, it'll also help avoid the situation where big teams pay megabucks for new talented drivers at the back of the field outbidding the poorer teams, because the teams with money will never quite know if it was the driver aid that did it last year or the talent.
Don't worry. The teams know who are the good guys and who the average ones are. You can't tell on the TV very easily (although listen to Brundle commenting on car handling, driver inputs and racing lines over onboard shots - he picks up far, far more than I could dream of, and I'm heavily into vehicle handling analysis) but you can tell at trackside. The cream rises to the top regardless of the aids available at the time. The stars are the stars and you just know. You might not know how they're doing it or even what the difference is, but you know they are earning their corn.
dilbert said:
Dip year?
Lot of rookies come on the scene and make a splash, and in their second year they dip in form a bit. The pressure is on to match their more experienced team-mate, but they won't get the same leeway to bin it once in a while. If they last to season three they're often there for years and years... Second Year weeds them out.
stevieb said:
Mclaren have recently updated all of there CAE computers and have recently doubled there CAE computing capacity.
If there are frequent rule changes then it will just aid the bigger teams with the bigger budget, so to develop more ideas on a computer model before testing in the wind tunnels and then onto the track.
If there are frequent rule changes then it will just aid the bigger teams with the bigger budget, so to develop more ideas on a computer model before testing in the wind tunnels and then onto the track.
Nail. Head. Hit.
MrKipling43 said:
I think the best way to sort out Formula 1 (in terms of technology development) would be to take an average of what the teams spent in one year - $3.9 billion in 2006 making a budget of about $350,000,000, or £175,000,000 - set that as a maximum budget and see what they can do.
But it's impossible to police.
How much work could be farmed out to satellite areas within manufacturers' vast network of resources and then sneaked back in?
How much effort could be provided as a loss leader or through the back door by sponsors?
How many suppliers would pop up to do the donkey work or offer CAE stations free of charge or provide a wind tunnel or give teams thousands of labour hours for free, except they're not cos the sponsors are paying them and circumventing the team finances?
It would happen.
MrKipling43 said:
You could use sponsorship money to pay driver's salaries.
Yes but then the best teams with the biggest sponsors with the deepest pockets get the best drivers.
It's always going to be a battle where those who have try like hell to keep it, and those that don't strive to get it.
Ron Dennis is no mug and he knows his team's fortunes are largely reliant on them staying a top team and producing a good car, but not giving an inch to the competition. They'll only take money, and grid positions, away from him.
Or you get into the situation where the best driver gets paid $250m by the sponsor, but has to pay £230m to the team to secure his drive...
FNG said:
You're moving towards a control formula. F1 has always been about pushing technological boundaries as well as fronting up the fastest cars amd highest calibre drivers in the world.
There have been significant periods in time where F1 cars were not the fastest cars racing, a good example would be the 69-72 CanAm cars, they were much quicker than F1 cars of the period, for example Bruce McLaren was 15s a lap faster than the current F1 car when testing the M8 at Goodwood.
F1 has always been at the pinacle of technology, but the cars have always been stiffled by the rules to keep the formula internally competitive, thats why we've seen 1.5 litre, 3 litre, 1.5 turbo, 3.5 litre, 3 litre and now 2.4 litre formulas with huge variations in allowed chassis specs over the years. What is diferent is the limits being placed on what technology can be used on the cars, i personally dont like that at all from an engineering perspective, but i think the emphasis has shifted more towards entertainment and marketing than technology these days, most spectators dont care what is under the bodywork, they want to see a race. The manufacturers want to see their brand up the front, they dont care if anything from F1 comes down to the road car range, usually it's actually the other way round.
I don't disagree with any of that, but please bear in mind all three of those paragraphs are written together.
The FIA has made much of the link between F1 and road cars, and technology driving improvements in the man in the street's car.
It may just be the FIA justifying motorsport in an increasingly hostile political climate and no more than that, but the fact remains this is the sport's governing body and that is their attitude towards what F1 is and will continue to be, far as one can tell.
So allowing teams to continue to work within a certain set of rules, without stipulating control equipment in most cases, is what works in their business model and will continue to affect technical regs for the forseeable future.
I personally believe that if F1 cars became control cars with manufacturer engines and team-specific tubs and aero, which is to me the natural conclusion where you stipulate some control parts one season, then more the next and so on, manufacturers will lose interest and withdraw.
Manufacturers are there to come first, but when their major influence is aerodynamics and their secondary skill engine building, it's not really a marketing man's dream. It doesn't translate to the car buyer who's ultimately paying for the sport.
Personally I'd rather see maybe four or five manufacturers there as engine suppliers, and teams making their own chassis and gearboxes and ancills and so on, but that's not what the manufacturers think works for them and therefore probably not coincidentally it's not what the FIA believes is going to secure the future of the sport either.
The FIA has made much of the link between F1 and road cars, and technology driving improvements in the man in the street's car.
It may just be the FIA justifying motorsport in an increasingly hostile political climate and no more than that, but the fact remains this is the sport's governing body and that is their attitude towards what F1 is and will continue to be, far as one can tell.
So allowing teams to continue to work within a certain set of rules, without stipulating control equipment in most cases, is what works in their business model and will continue to affect technical regs for the forseeable future.
I personally believe that if F1 cars became control cars with manufacturer engines and team-specific tubs and aero, which is to me the natural conclusion where you stipulate some control parts one season, then more the next and so on, manufacturers will lose interest and withdraw.
Manufacturers are there to come first, but when their major influence is aerodynamics and their secondary skill engine building, it's not really a marketing man's dream. It doesn't translate to the car buyer who's ultimately paying for the sport.
Personally I'd rather see maybe four or five manufacturers there as engine suppliers, and teams making their own chassis and gearboxes and ancills and so on, but that's not what the manufacturers think works for them and therefore probably not coincidentally it's not what the FIA believes is going to secure the future of the sport either.
yep, some good points there. I think the current situation is confused, there apears to have been a big turnaround in what the FIA wants from F1, not so long ago they were trying to kill the manufacturer influence and support the likes of Williams, now they apear to be on the manufacturers side more.
It might become more interesting technically again when the regenerative energy rules kick in, it's a pity it took the FIA so long to recognise the potential of that as they banned that type of device just when it was one technology that could have been developed by F1 and filtered to the mass car market.
It might become more interesting technically again when the regenerative energy rules kick in, it's a pity it took the FIA so long to recognise the potential of that as they banned that type of device just when it was one technology that could have been developed by F1 and filtered to the mass car market.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff