wombat7

With the recent release of the BAR, Toyota and McLaren cars for the 2005 season, I have found myself questioning whether or not the new rule changes are going to have a positive or negative impact on the sport. Just looking at the cars you can see the drastic design changes that the manufacturers have had to take to comply with these new regulations. I personally am not too sure what effect these new rules are going to have. I would like to see closer competition between teams and drivers, but not at the expense of the research and development that Formula 1 has become known for.

I know we have some F1 fans on the board and I like to hear your opinons on this topic.

Dale Gribble

What are the new changes for the season?
In any case, i'm of the opinion that they go back to when the driver's did all the work. You can do whatever you want to the aero, motor, etc as long as there is no launch control, traction control, ABS and whatnot. The driver should have to start, run, corner, brake, and finish with his car all on his own co-ordination.

TMH

I'm not sure that many of the changes in F1 have been positive since the late 60's. Looking at Jim Clark's Lotus 49, I often wonder how a car could get any more beautiful, and how it would be if race outcomes were more dependent on driving skill as opposed to pit strategies.

O.K., skill is still important, but not to the level it used to be.

Tom

wombat7

F1 Rule Changes

P.Po

Well Dead-Eye you sorta get your wish. No launch control, no ABS, no fully automtaic gearboxes, no two-way telemetry. They couldn't police the traction control properly so they had to let that go...

So basically the drivers are doing everything except for the traction control....

Many street cars have more driving aids then an F1 car currently... yaw-control, traction control, stabili****, self adjusting dampers the list goes on and on. I think it is kind strange that the everyday street car has more electronic aids then the F1 cars. Remember the Bennetons of the early 90s?? Phew... that car was complicated...

ymmv,
Patrick

stefang

That link is for '04 changes

Basically the '05 changes are a reduction in downforce, engines that last 2 weekends and tires that last the whole race + qualifying.

The effect will be neither positive nor negative. It is what it is. F1 has rule changes every season and sometimes they're cataclysmic. These aren't really. Sometimes the changes increase the technology, sometimes they decrease it. F1 history is full of these swings.
The level of competition will depend on how well everyone did their job on this year's car - rule changes or not. They won't be as fast as last year, that's about all that's certain.

Here's hoping for a fun season.

runnin' on empty

I have attended F1 races since Detroit '85 and from my perspective this may be the last 'pure' year of F1 competition. By 'pure' I mean that the teams are able to build creatively; allowing for some variablility in design execution.

Most of the recent articles have the teams stating that the ~25% downforce loss due to 2005 regs. will be regained by the first race in Melbourne or shortly thereafter.

The two race weekend engines do not seem to be much of a concern either; and little if any horsepower will be lost; however I do wonder how much running the teams regular drivers will do on Friday. Teams that are allowed to run third cars will probably do so to the maximum to gain data for set-up of the main competitors.

I believe that the tire rule is dangerous from a safety aspect and will be recinded by the fourth race of the season. There is no allowence for 'flat spotted' tire(s), only for puntures. Would it have been so wrong to limit the teams to one dry compound, one intermediate compound, and one 'full wet' compound-all one set per day; with emergency spares for punture replacement only.

Please see this web article for what the FIA is thinking for 2006; reads like a spec series to me.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14152.html

wombat7

I really hope that they don't follow through with the rule changes that runnin' on empty posted. I also feel that the tire rule is ludacris. After all the F1 has done to improve the safety of the series after the tragic deaths of Ayrton Senna and Gilles Villeneuve it seems like the are taking a dramatic step backwards.

The reduction in downforce may do something to slow the cars down, but it won't do a lot. I personally think that the cars will be turning laps as fast if not faster than the ones they were turning last year.

The tire rule is the one that I really think is going to cause safety problems. It forces drivers to run on tires that in previous years the wouldn't have had to run on. It causes them to use tires that would normally be thrown out due to defects.

The engine rule is one of the few that I think actually makes sense. It does allow for the smaller budget teams to possibly compete better with the larger market teams, like McLaren and Ferrari. It will be interesting to see exactly how much difference this is going to make however.

All that I can hope comes out of these rule changes is a better, more competitive and exciting season then we had last year. While it was amazing to see Schumi's domination of the sport, and to witness possibly the best single season in F1 history, it did get old watching the races. I got sick of watching the Ferrari's run away from the field race after race. It seemed like the only time they weren't lapping everyone was when one of the drivers made a mistake, which we all know doesn't happen very often.

Dale Gribble

isn't this slowing of the cars contrary to the whole spirit of racing, to be the fastest person on earth? (the space shuttle doesn't count because its not on earth :P). i mean, back in le day, the whole point was to go as fast as possible, not jsut the speed needed to win, but to be the best, most uber, ultimate car jockey in the world.

there are obviously inherent risks that follow with this and i understand that driver deaths are always a tragidy but if the drivers want to slow down it shouldn't it be upto their left feet, not the series, thats just contrary to the whole point?

maybe i'm just rambling at this point, and if i am, i apoligise (and will stop posting after comming back from a pub). Good night rennlisters. *prays for more excitting f1 season*.

wombat7

I agree that the spirit of racing, especially F1 racing, is to be the fastest person on earth. I don't like the fact that the FIA is taking it upon itself to slow the cars down. I don't like it at all. I agree that the drivers should be responsible for slowing themselves down if they think the cars are going too fast. I hate the fact that all the racing series out there today are trying to slow the cars down for safety. I

carreracup21

I think what these teams are realizing is that people will still come out to watch, television will still cover the races, the cars will be almost as fast, and sponsors will still get involved even if they don't spend 300 million a year on full season racing budgets. Yeah, the super expensive techno marvels are amazingly cool to watch, but look at how popular NASCAR is with those ugly beasts running arond the track. For me it's more about the driving. As long as the best drivers get sperated out through driving skill and they continue to use all the great racing venues, I will find it entertaining to watch.

Rich Sandor

I don't think running harder compound tyres is going to be unsafe. I think it will lower the cornering grip levels enough to force drivers to slow down a bit.

if I am not mistaken, one of the goals of the F1 monarchy is to try to level the operating costs of all the teams. Ferrari blows $200 mil per year whereas Minardi scrapes by with $20 (and pay for play drivers...)

A single F1 tyre costs about $500usd (at least) and my rough estitmates put a seasons worth of tyres for one car to around $200,000 minimum. I'm sure that Ferrari spends well over $2 mill on tyres in a season including testing and everything. Requiring tyres to last the whole race could help some of the penny pinchers stay competitive between each other. (although I doubt it will make much difference to the top teams..)

Geo

I think they should do away with refueling. It has always been very dangerous. Go back to the cars having to carry a full fuel load and manage a single set of tires and there will actually be driver strategy and a lot more skill involved. Prost won many a race by conserving his tires going just fast enough the first 3/4 of the race to stay in striking distance and then pouring it on at the end.

What bothers me about F1 right now is we have the modern equivilent of the FISA/FOCA wars all over again. The manufacturers are talking split (and I hope they do), while Ferrari is trying to mess that up again (like they did in the FISA/FOCA wars). And the Bernie and Max show is so spastic they together remind me of Jean-Marie Balestre! The only difference is Bernie has a forever contract. So this time I hope the manufacturers split and Bernie ends up with a worthless contract.

Back to the rules, I'd love to see F1 go back to ferrous brake rotors. Sure the braking power would be less impressive. But with longer braking zones, outbraking would be more possible than today.

mitch236

I think the reason to keep it slowed is fan safety. If these teams ran as fast as possible and control was lost the car could really be airborn for quite a distance and fly into the crowds.

Rich Sandor

Geo: I'd have to double check my resources, but I think 100L is the max fuel tank size for modern f1 cars and I'm pretty sure it's not enough to last a race. I might be wrong. However, I'm pretty sure that running with a full tank of gas was a safety isssue in the past. Excess fuel during an accident means fuel all over the track and a fire hazard. With today's fuel cells, I don't know if this is still an issue though.

I would love to see F1 racing as follows:
No driver's aids: (ABS,Traction Ctrl, Launch Ctrl, etc..)
Slicks: (one set per race)
Fuel: One fill up per race.
Downforce: Unlimited wing and Groundeffects
Engine: 2L twin turbos (okay, 1L TT for those who want to slow it down a bit)

I think the cars should be slowed down by engine power, not by every other conceivable aspect. I'd presume this would allow the engineers to have more freedom designing the cars. (and make it infinately more interesting to watch!!!!)

This would make the cars stupid fast, and will separate the men from the boys for sure!