2008 F1 Rule Changes
 

Has anyone else gotten a chance to look at these yet?? Proposed rule changes for F1 in 2008 It seems to me after this Concorde Agreement is up the FIA is going to make F1 a spec series. I realize that the cost is getting slightly out of hand but still, F1 is about the best technology in the world, and having the best engineers in the world design it. It is about having the fastest cars on the planet and seeing the differences between the teams, not about having cars with spec ECUs and transmissions. After seeing these suggestions, I really hope all the teams who have threatened to leave, actually follow through with it and create a real series.

I'm not a fan of the proposed changes either. It is being discussed on Pelican here:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...hreadid=226833

I may be in the minority here, but I personally welcome a shake-up within the world of F1, nothing as catastrophic as the IRL/CART split but a major rules revision involving most components currently utilized.

Even after the Indy GP debacle, I consider myself a big fan of F1. I have always liked the technology, sophistication, exclusivity, and the international flavor the F1 circus has provided. I have not always been a fan of the racing or actually, lack thereof in years past. This year has brought some relief to the lack of on-track competition, but at budgets that certainly cannot be sustained indefinitely or at the very least, justified by the bean-counters, shareholders, and corporate heads whose responsibility is for long term growth and profitability.

I personally would like to see budgets curtailed sharply, with perhaps spec tires, reduction in the type and ability of ECU's (including electronic driver aids, telemetry, etc...), reduction in wind tunnel testing, and make each team use the same chassis design for two seasons.

If the racing is boring or at least predictable, what reason would fans have to watch? If the costs of F1 were more affordable, perhaps it would attract more teams, maybe even bring back some independents, which would broaden the appeal overall because the on-track racing might benefit from more teams and cars on track.

If the cars were simpler, perhaps more of the race outcome could be determined by the drivers on-track and less by who has the most money to spend on the machinery.

Thanks for the opportunity to express my humble opinion.

Scott Foremaster/1985.5 I class 944/#909/Half-Shafted Racing

Over the past winter our region sponsored a night with Brock Yates. I found his perspective on racing in general quite refreshing. I got a chance to spend a few minutes with him and he made a statement which has stayed with me. What he said was that aerodynamics have killed road racing. While a spec series might distribute the points more, it is unlikely, at least by this threory, that it will make for more on track action. Interestingly, while he wasn't complimentary to the spectacle that is NASCAR, he was complimentary to the driver skill and the closeness of the racing, which of course largely relies on mechanical grip.

I suspect that Mr Yates may be right. I just finished watching a tivo of the Speed Glen race. Incredibly tight, exciting action, great passing, race craft and driver skill. Perhaps F1 should go back to wingless 1.5-3.0L normally aspirated motors. Then perhaps we'd get the kind of wheel to wheel action we had back when F1 was at the Glen.

Interesting take on aero as well.

Take a quick look at Moto GP and Superbike. Bike can't use aero in the way cars can. Look at how close the racing is and how muuch passing occurs.

The other plus side of no aero down force is the reduction in speed everyone talks so much about.
Cars will need to corner much more slowly if they don'y have 5000 lbs air pressure pushing them down. You can still have complex engines and mechanical bits, but now you can run right up on the next car since 90% of your grip is not lost in a turblent wake.

You'll never get rid of the wings. The team owners would fight to the death since they are prime sponsor ($$$$x10^8) space.

Interesting to hear others comment on reduction of wings/aero aids. My favorite era of F1 was the 1960's, specifically mid to late 1960's, just as wings were beginning to be explored and developed into F1 cars. I have always been a proponent of reducing wing size or eliminating wings altogether, but thought that would never fly because of the aforementioned sponsor to dollar relationship wings add as backdrop for sponsor visibility.

If aero aids were reduced or eliminated, there would be an element of car control skills needed that has not been seen in years because of lack of downforce in corners and in the wet. Emphasis would be back on a driver's ability to handle a car's HP vs. grip.

If a car carved a smaller pocket thru the air, no longer needing to overcome the aerodynamic drag created by the wings, the cars could have smaller displacement, be lighter in weight, get better fuel economy, place less demands on the tires, and as was mentioned earlier, allow cars to run closer together. All of this could allow teams to have smaller budgets, perhaps making F1 more accessible to more teams and driver's.

In regards to B. Yates' comments, I had the opportunity recently to ask Janet Guthrie which form of racing she preferred, the oval racing she did with the Indy cars or sports car racing on road circuits. I found her answer insightful. She said that in sports car racing or road racing in general, the driver/team is mostly battling the track, looking for the setup that allows the car to most quickly navigate the different turns while retaining as much straightline speed as possible. In oval racing, and she included Nascar in her answer, she said that the driver's/teams are mostly battling each other and not the track because rules usually dictate most of the setup allowed on a car. She never did tell me which she actually preferred!

Scott Foremaster/1985.5 I class 944/#909/Half-Shafted Racing

Aero is way out of hand IMHO... and yes I am a creaking relec of the pre-wing era, and yes I drool on myself when I am not paying attention... but the turbulance issues virtually prevent wheel to wheel racing... aero really adds nothing to the racing except, as Geo points out...excellent advertizing space :roflmao: It would be very easly to legislate it back... prety hard to put an illegal wing on a car and not get caught.

CART in the pre-IRL days was IMHO the absolutely best racing in the world...maybe some of the best ever... in cars that were both faster (straight line at least) and a fraction of the cost of F1... there is a better way

I completely agree with your comments. There is a better way and the CART cars of mid nineties are the example. Who can forget the closeness of racing we all witnessed?
For sure the advert size will not diminish, its money and noone will go for a wingless F1 car.
I think the rules proposed are great and I would only do a couple of changes on them:
1. The gearbox should be team individual with their own gears, limited amount of gears ( ie 6 or 7).
2. I would go even further on the tires proposing the use of 17" or 18" low profile tires, much like the present club racing slicks. These tires should be publicly available for sale and at a max cost per tire compared to what is available now ( up to $500 per tire for example). I dont see a problem with the manufacturers competing, this technology will pass directly into compounds we also use and keep the costs very low.

In general I look forward to seeing again close action and incredible driving skill. F1 used to be technology that passed directly to road cars. The exotic materials used now can only pass on cars like the Enzo and who can afford it really?
Something else interesting...We all know how Berrilium was banned because of the carcenogenic agents... now we have Mika Salo with carbon brake dust deposits in his lungs...
I say, lets go back to the future!

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33219

What I found quite interesting is that Ferrari apparently participated in the drawing up of the statement. Given that a key proposal was having a single tire supplier, could it be that Ferrari is on the verge of dropping their long term relationship with Bridgestone? Or are they expecting to renew it with Goodyear?

Non aero, been to an HSR event and seen any F5000 cars? Those would be fun to watch with the current crop of drivers.

So the FIA has started hiring marketing students to write its Technical Regulations?
What is proposed is less advanced than GP2 in many ways, and far behind the prototypes at Le Mans.
Its an incompetently drafted document, confused and ill informed.
To take two proposals at random - ban tyre warmers because of expense and ban car to pit telemetry.
Well if the muppet who drafted this proposal finds tyre warmers expensive then he hasn't spent much time at the races, and telemetry data is what the fans want, as well as the pit crew. Frankly watching races without telemetry is no fun.
R+C

Nobody has said they are getting rid of the wings. The amount of downforce they produce will be reduced or eliminated.

I miss standing outside of turn 3 at Road America when 28+ Champ Cars came screaming down the hill on the opening lap.

I welcome the new rules for F1. We will still see teams trying to find an advantage one way or ther other. This will not make F1 a "low tech spec series".

The idea if eliminating wings was never on the table by the FIA. Lest not that I know of. It was somthing we here came up with. (along with others too). Pure speculation.

It seems to me that there are 3 problems in F1 (among other too)

1) Lack of on track passing. This has nothing to do with money the teams spend and alot to do with the show. It really seems like too much aero downforce makes it hard to pass. There are other things too, but I am certain that with no wings there would be more passing.

2) Speed and Safey. The cars are going fast and have been going fast. It is constant challenge to keep the some level of safety while also having good show and fighting the natural desire for the teams to develop cars that are faster and faster. Again no wings or very limited down force would mean cornering speeds would be predominantly from mechanical grip. So in slow corners not much change, but in the fast ones like 130R at Suzuka the cornering speeds come way down. Thus any crash would be lower speed one and therefore safer.

3) Operating and design Costs. F1 is expensive. Spec parts often times mean less design work and therefore fewer engineers at home and fewer testing miles. However F1 needs the innovation to be F1. It is the thing that seperates F1 from other forms of motorsport. Lack of wings might however reduce the cost a small ammount. Reason is lest time/effort spent on aero downforce vs drag experiments, analysis and testing. However I would thing that money/effort would be placed in to the remaining aero drag work and mechanical grip efforts.

Perhaps you missed that suggestion?

One of my solutions for the technology problem in F1 would be to eliminate chassis ECUs - all electronic data gathering devices beyond engine management. That would ensure the elimination of all driver aids except a simple algorithm that limits the ramp-up of rpm.

Driver's would have to learn to communicate with engineers about what the car is doing instead of looking at data acquisition plots.