ltc

I can never quite seem to figure out what they are thinking...

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlin...0/6/10935.html

Land Jet

I don't get them either. You would think they would get driver feedback to determine some of these rules. Most of the changes can appear arbitrary. I think they should let F1 be a high tech, high performance series that pushes the envelope, but on the contrary it seems they want to cripple performance and competition.

Maybe F1 should declare itself independent of the FIA and Bernie Eclestone even if they have to change their name. I'd like to see a more unlimited CanAm approach, plus the safety regulations for the drivers.

APKhaos

As I read it, you can dump downforce [and drag] when in a proscribed passing zone BUT you then have to adjust it back to a high downforce BEFORE the next braking zone OR suffer with the low downforce setting until you next encounter an FIA proscribed passing zone AND are within one second of another car. Only then will the adjustment lock be disabled, but only until the next braking zone.

Only an idiot of the highest order could conceive of such a thing. Someone please tell me its not as I'm reading it.

Veloce Raptor

..

Larry Herman

That is all true, but Tony you fail to realize that it only applies to night races and tracks with less than 5 right hand turns.

Veloce Raptor

PPo

I love it... Let's control costs by adding KERS, removing KERS, allowing the F-duct, not allowing the F-duct etc. Now we have a moveable rear wing controlled by the FIA... can't wait until one of these fails, and doesn't go back to high downforce setting going into Eau Rouge or something similar... Ouch!! too risky for me...

Bob Rouleau

The adjustable wing rule is bizarre and grossly complicated.

9.5 Degrees

Sounds kind of like a DE to me. Where is the paragraph for passing only in designated areas of the track?

Let them have the choice of having KERS or not. Or as as much as they want, not a 6 second burst if they can hold such a charge, moveable wings, on all laps, not just after the 2nd lap. Let them go out with low fuel, full fuel, etc. Give the teams all this and let them figure out the best way to get to the finish line first. But please don't put them in a box and dicate what they can and can't do within a certain area, or time period. This is supposed to be the top of the food chain in terms of technology and racing.

Porsche917K

Just let everyone do whatever the hell they want and regulate safety only. I like the old Can Am model personally.

JHowell37

They change the rules in the interests of cutting costs, but in the end they only wind up raising it.

In '09 they banned or restricted a bunch of aero stuff like barge boards, chimneys, turning vanes, viking horns, etc. They changed the dimensional limits on the rear wing and devised the semi-standardized front wing. And then there was KERS. In '09 every single team had to start out with a brand new car from the ground up.

This year they banned refueling and KERS was dropped. Again, last years cars get thrown in the trash, and new cars must be built from the ground up.

Next year we get this bizarre rear wing that will cost $$$ to design, but have very little effect on the race outcome. Rarely is there less than a second of gap between two cars when the brakes aren't being applied. KERS will be making a return and many teams will struggle with the reliability and extra weight of the system just like they did last year. They may not have to totally scrap this year's car next year, but they'll come close.

The engine freeze went into effect when there were 7 engine constructors. The goal was lowered costs. Since the freeze went into effect, 3 engine constructors have since departed. Mercedes is clearly the dominant engine. Ferrari edges out Renault for second place but has been plagued by reliability. And Cosworth... well it's Cosworth. The FiA could have put a price freeze on the cost of engines with adjustments for inflation. They could have put a freeze on the configuration (i.e. 2.4L V8) and prohibited "b-spec" downgraded engines, but grant complete freedom in terms of development. Let them do what they want with that configuration as long as they don't raise the prices for the teams they supply, and provide those teams with the same engines they use for their own cars. This way, when a reliability issue arises it can be dealt with promptly and without the hassle of seeking permission. There will be modest performance gains, but no team will retain a clear advantage for long. But the FiA couldn't do that. They would rather stifle creativity.

The new rule on the rear wing is clear evidence that the FiA is changing rules for the sake of changing rules. A brief glance tells me it was not only written by a lawyer, but conceived by one as well. The excuse each year is that the rules will cut costs, but time and again this is proven false. The other excuse is overtaking. The biggest deterrent to overtaking are Tilke designed circuits. Every circuit he designs requires high down force PLUS aerodynamic efficiency. Everyone can get the needed down force, it's the aerodynamic efficiency that people struggle with.

Tilke+stifled development+rules for the sake of rules=F1 today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow...

ltc

All except Adrian Newey ...

chris walrod

Adjustable rear wings are DANGEROUS! Like mentioned above, all it would take is one that 'stuck' at low DF incidence entering perhaps Eau Rouge; yard sale!

Larry Herman

Hey guys, I just found a picture of the F1 technical committee who have been devising the regulations for the last few years.

A.Wayne

Wrong pic larry !


Dats Ray, Pete and Lewis at there last F1 roundup ....