2009 Rule Changes

[mipuumal]

Shortening race distances would be the worst idea of all time in my opinion.

If anything I wouldn't mind longer races.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I'd like faster tracks and longer races. Won't happen though.

What exactly is mechanical tyre purging?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Surely they should be actively encouraging the use of CFD? Admitadley, Renault just invested £10million in a new centre, but a consortium could easily pool together on such a resource, and it has wide spread applications that can apply to road cars.

The lack of refuelling will be interesting. Will cars become bigger to accomodate more fuel (would restrictions allow) or (more hppefully) will cars become more fuel efficient?


Though I do have to wonder, was the refuelling supposed to help Ferrari after their mishaps?

 

[Sureboss]

Shortening race distances would be the worst idea of all time in my opinion.

If anything I wouldn't mind longer races.

The problem is, with F1 having been advertised for the UK audience for so long, any market research in Blighty will make people want shorter races because we've been used to have what is effectively about 6 or 7 races of about 15 minutes. That's what it was like watching it.

Shorter races? No thanks. Race distances are fine as they are, 1hr40 is a nice race distance for the premium motorsport on the planet.

 

[KSaiyu]

2009 Changes
-revs cut 18,000rpm
-No internal tuning - just trumpet and injector tuning
-No In-season testing except during practice
-dramatic aero development changes, as well, via regs over use of wind-tunnel and CFD

Beyond 2009 Changes
-tire warmers will be banned in 2010
-same engine, or supplied engines for independents
-refueling ban
-possibly shorter races...

Read more in-depth here from formula1.com

No thanks.

 

[fasj6418]

Thank you. Refueling needed to go. Everyrace had become a contest to see if you could steal a position or two on the pits. Strategy is good, but i rather have RACING than strategy.

Now if you want to overtake, do it on the track.

The only bad idea coming out of this is shorter races. Probably market reseach will show that this and medals are dumb, and shouldn't be implemented.

 

[Alex.]

I still cant believe they got rid of my 3 favourite tracks from the calendar, in descending order.
(Indy, Silverstone, Montreal)

 

[Ardius]

Thank you. Refueling needed to go. Everyrace had become a contest to see if you could steal a position or two on the pits. Strategy is good, but i rather have RACING than strategy.

Now if you want to overtake, do it on the track.

So now we will see no team strategy whatsoever. Great, thats exactly what we needed
I'd rather have some strategy involved in the racing thanks, if I wanted to watch just racing with no refuelling I can just go watch any other lesser race series.

Refuelling gives the chance for more racing imo, because when a rival pits a driver will likely push harder and will have more chance to catch up and race him.
People failing at their refuelling (e.g. Ferrari) just add to the excitement.

However, if no refuelling makes racing far cheaper, then I don't mind so much, at least not as much as spec engines or cars.

I still cant believe they got rid of my 3 favourite tracks from the calendar, in descending order.
(Indy, Silverstone, Montreal)

Indeed, and the fact they aren't replacing them with another track in each country (except Donington) is the key reason why manufacturers will leave more and more. Surely it will get to a point where the distances between each race make it more expensive than it was with mainly European races? Or perhaps its cheaper to have these new spread out races?

 

[Metar]

Surely they should be actively encouraging the use of CFD? Admitadley, Renault just invested £10million in a new centre, but a consortium could easily pool together on such a resource, and it has wide spread applications that can apply to road cars.

Or run SETI@Home during downtime.

Encouraging CFD seems like the way to go: The better, and the more precise these algorithms become, the more we all gain from it: Not just because car-companies that don't bother with tunnels that much will be able to run better simulations, but because computer analysis of everything depends on the top guys pushing it forward: And F1 are the top guys as far as engineering-simulations are concerned.

The lack of refuelling will be interesting. Will cars become bigger to accomodate more fuel (would restrictions allow) or (more hppefully) will cars become more fuel efficient?

Though I do have to wonder, was the refuelling supposed to help Ferrari after their mishaps?

With spec Cosworth mills next season, I suspect they'll have to increase the size of the tanks, and try to crank out as much KERS as possible.

And if anything... Ferrari's engine is supposedly one of the thirstiest on the grid.

The problem is, with F1 having been advertised for the UK audience for so long, any market research in Blighty will make people want shorter races because we've been used to have what is effectively about 6 or 7 races of about 15 minutes. That's what it was like watching it.

Shorter races? No thanks. Race distances are fine as they are, 1hr40 is a nice race distance for the premium motorsport on the planet.

The only bad idea coming out of this is shorter races. Probably market reseach will show that this and medals are dumb, and shouldn't be implemented.

Or, they'll do that research by asking the people who want change. "Statistics is the only field where two researchers with the same question can achieve two completely different results."

So now we will see no team strategy whatsoever. Great, thats exactly what we needed
I'd rather have some strategy involved in the racing thanks, if I wanted to watch just racing with no refuelling I can just go watch any other lesser race series.

It's not as if strategy is involved here... Two stops almost everywhere, and your computer calculates optimal pit-strategies.

Yes, it's slower (hence why Brabham started refueling in the first place), but it's not a terrible thing..

Refuelling gives the chance for more racing imo, because when a rival pits a driver will likely push harder and will have more chance to catch up and race him.
People failing at their refuelling (e.g. Ferrari) just add to the excitement.

He'll push harder, because it gives him the chance to leapfrog his rival without actually passing him - is that a good thing?

 

[Only_in_f1]

Thank you. Refueling needed to go. Everyrace had become a contest to see if you could steal a position or two on the pits. Strategy is good, but i rather have RACING than strategy.

Now if you want to overtake, do it on the track.

The only bad idea coming out of this is shorter races. Probably market reseach will show that this and medals are dumb, and shouldn't be implemented.

Wasn't it Bernie and Brabham that started mid race pit stop?

 

[Ardius]

Wasn't it Bernie and Brabham that started mid race pit stop?

Well, Brabham when Bernie owned it, I doubt he suggested it though he probably gave it the go ahead.

It's not as if strategy is involved here... Two stops almost everywhere, and your computer calculates optimal pit-strategies.

Yes, it's slower (hence why Brabham started refueling in the first place), but it's not a terrible thing..

He'll push harder, because it gives him the chance to leapfrog his rival without actually passing him - is that a good thing?

Well, strategy is involved because a driver in the middle of the field can choose to run 2 or 1 stop strategies. If we had some longer tracks back maybe the strategies would be more highly involved.

I'd much rather have the team involved in the race rather than just the drivers. I'd very much miss the drama of cars exiting the pits just as their rival is coming down the straight and then battling it out through the next lap. I recall this happening many times over the years, even in the Schumi years.

 

[wfooshee]

I agree that refueling added greatly to the racing. Granted, prior races were not without pit stops as tires would not last a race, but needing to add a fuel strategy adds greatly. How about Schumi's theft of a race by running 4(!) stops some years back?
Run light and fast for fewer laps, or heavy and slower but stay out longer? I still think that should be part of the race planning.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

- Engines will be available to the independent teams for less than €5 million per team per season. These will either come from an independent supplier or be supplied by the manufacturer teams backed by guarantees of continuity. If an independent supplier, the deal will be signed no later than 20 December 2008.

Well, looks like we've finally found out what the deal with spec engines is. After reading this, I'm actually warming to the idea because not everyone will be running the same engnie. They have the option to buy one in an effort to cut costs - should make the independent teams a little more competitive, especially amogst themselves - but there's no obligation for the established teams. I can see this as being an easier path into the sport, to reduce start-up costs, which I think was the intention all along.

 

[Ardius]

Well, looks like we've finally found out what the deal with spec engines is. After reading this, I'm actually warming to the idea because not everyone will be running the same engnie. They have the option to buy one in an effort to cut costs - should make the independent teams a little more competitive, especially amogst themselves - but there's no obligation for the established teams. I can see this as being an easier path into the sport, to reduce start-up costs, which I think was the intention all along.

Yup, I don't mind this either, if it means more privateer teams, even better. Hopefully it will only need to be a short-term fix because I would still prefer absolute variety.

 

[Metar]

The biggest cost to new teams isn't engines, it's infrastructure: You need a whole factory for production, a tunnel, CFD, suppliers for everything, and of course the personnel to match. The better, the more likely you are to be competitive - but a tunnel usually needs a few months until it's calibrated, the CFD systems need confirmation, and the car needs track-time to prove it's worth. And it might still be slow, or unreliable.


What we need is also a new feeder series: One with several constructors, or allowing modifications to the spec chassis. Yes, it'll be expensive - but we'll finally have "step-up" teams again: In the old days, F2 (and other series) teams would step up to F1 - this brought us Minardi, March, and more - but nowadays, the GP2/F2 teams usually have no tunnel or factory, because what use will they be?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Racing is racing. It starts at the start and it finishes at the finish.

Strategy is anti-racing.

Want pitstops? Go watch a pitstop event.

Want to watch a race? Go to a race event.

 

[nissan tuner]

you must be joking. shorter races? no pit-stops?

The IRL must love this

 

[peterjford]

Strategy is anti-racing.

You know there is strategy in all racing, even drag racing.

Strategy != anit-racing

 

[niky]

Strategy is part of racing. Whether it's running different tires from everyone else, running less or more aero-loads or running lighter with the possible penaltly of losing places in the pits.

I'd rather NOT see refueling banned... just make it so that people AREN'T forced to pit.

The only reason you need to pit, with the newer durable tires, is because 2008 regs required you to run at least two different sets of tires per race. Remove the tire rule. Remove any form of pit rules. You'll have people running one-stop strategies, people running two-stop strategies, and people running NO stop strategies, in an effort to out-think each other.

90% of the overtaking in 2008 F1 comes of having front-runners wind up behind chumps who got a few places up in the pits. Of course, new aero-regs will help increase overtaking, but we're taking away video ops, here, video ops that F1 will be losing... lowering marketability.

I'd say, spec chassis regs should specify body shape, fuel tank size, sidepod width and height, engine cover width and height, wing endplates and wing widths... leave everything else to the teams... including engines... ...if we're banning refueling, then there's a limit to what kind of engine each team can put into a car and still have running three races later, right?

 

[Metar]

Strategy is an aspect I'd kill to keep in F1.


Also remember, no refueling doesn't mean no pitstops. Even in the pre-refueling days, drivers pitted for fresh rubber, since it wouldn't last the distance. Assuming Bridgestone doesn't radically change the tyres, we'll go back to tyres-only stops: 3-4 seconds of wheel-changing frenzy.

At the moment, even the Bridgestone Hard compound can't last the whole race-distance, and fuel-tanks aren't big enough to last a whole race - around 2/3rds of it, tops. Also, there's no chance in hell that teams would, willingly and knowingly, built a zero-stop car without being forced to: It's slower, for many reasons:

A) No refueling at all is slower than one-stopping, which in turn is usually slower than two-stopping: The only reason teams try one-stopper strategies is when they hope to gain from some safety-car period, or from special circumstances. A one-stopping car usually laps around a second slower per lap - and teams have to think twice if that outweighs the time it takes to pit. With a no-stop strategy, tanks filled to the brim, we'll see them lap 3-4 seconds slower per lap at first, and near the end, they'll have tyres worn out to the canvas.

B) A car designed with no refueling in mind will be slower than a car that can't last more than half-distance on a single tank: It requires a larger fuel-tank, and that fuel-tank needs space and cooling: Which comes at the expense of aerodynamics and packaging. So, even when both are on fumes and fresh tyres (say, qualifying), the zero-stop car will be beaten by the car designed to stop: Less downforce, more drag, and more restrictions as far as cooling- and packing-options are, and less playroom with the ballast.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Even if there will be no refueling, that in itself will sport strategies. Teams will still want to run as light as possible, and still make it to the finishline. Thing is though, many may do some miscalculations and end up short. I´m pretty certain we´ll see cars stopping on the last lap, especially from teams at the lower end of the grid.

And Like Metar pointed out, tyres and aero will be crucial strategic points, if the cars will carry fuel enough to last the distance. Because of this, I think we´ll see three stops instead of two at most venues, since the tyres will take a beating in the early stages of every race.

 

[Metar]

Without refueling, a stop will take just three-four seconds - while there won't be the benefit of a light car, the drawbacks of an 8-second stop will be less. I think we'll see one-stopping, though - currently, the drivers can make the harder of the two given Bridgestones run half-distance without a problem (except for Lewis at Istanbul ), so apart from the more-blistering races, we might see less stops than currently.. Even though tyre-wear will increase with the heavier load. But then again, that's something for team-computers to calculate.


But miscalculations? That's something they only do in the US. Seriously, the number of times I've seen NASCAR and IRL cars lose a race by nearly running out of fuel, you'd think the computer wasn't invented yet.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Yeah, well, it certainly happens that teams miscalculate their fuelconsumption. I think, like I said, that it will occur among the backmarkers though, who are more proned to take chances.

You´re right about the tyres - I didn´t think about that - even the softer variant would see halfrace-stints sometimes!

 

[Ardius]

But miscalculations? That's something they only do in the US. Seriously, the number of times I've seen NASCAR and IRL cars lose a race by nearly running out of fuel, you'd think the computer wasn't invented yet.

/* remembers Murray Walker's commentary as Jean Alesi ran out of fuel */

F1 teams have made many "miscalculations" and will continue to, its one of the many highlights to see drivers and teams mess up every now and again its all part of the drama and spectacle. Though granted they barely ever make mistakes with fuel loads nowadays except when the fuel hose doesn't work properly.

 

[Metar]

Last time we had a proper running out of fuel was last year at Barcelona - the two Renault fueling-rigs malfunctioned, forcing both drivers for a late-race splash'n'dash, granting Sato his first point at Aguri.

True miscalculations are rare nowadays that computers run the whole race to consider strategies...

 

[Ardius]

I thought the last one was Honda at Silverstone 2008, which denied Barrichello 2nd place.

 

[wrcsti]

Without refueling, a stop will take just three-four seconds - while there won't be the benefit of a light car, the drawbacks of an 8-second stop will be less. I think we'll see one-stopping, though - currently, the drivers can make the harder of the two given Bridgestones run half-distance without a problem (except for Lewis at Istanbul ), so apart from the more-blistering races, we might see less stops than currently.. Even though tyre-wear will increase with the heavier load. But then again, that's something for team-computers to calculate.


But miscalculations? That's something they only do in the US. Seriously, the number of times I've seen NASCAR and IRL cars lose a race by nearly running out of fuel, you'd think the computer wasn't invented yet.

They don't allow the use of computers for calculating anything in nascar. They also don't allow in car telemitry besides throttle and brake applied and speed(this is used mainly for broadcast).

 

[Metar]

They don't allow the use of computers for calculating anything in nascar. They also don't allow in car telemitry besides throttle and brake applied and speed(this is used mainly for broadcast).

And none of the team-members ever thought along the lines of: "Huh, I've got fuel-data, I know the effects of fuel-loads on the car... Why don't I make me a couple of pretty spreadsheets and see the optimal amount of fuel?" It's something your laptop at home could calculate...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Luca di Motezemolo thinks KERS is a mistake. In other wods, Ferrari procrastinated too long on developing their unit - they recently said they may not run one right away - and now they're struggling with it and afraid it will cost them any competitive advantage they may have had.

 

[wrcsti]

And none of the team-members ever thought along the lines of: "Huh, I've got fuel-data, I know the effects of fuel-loads on the car... Why don't I make me a couple of pretty spreadsheets and see the optimal amount of fuel?" It's something your laptop at home could calculate...

They care mostly about the fuel run and extending this time with fuel milleage to win the race in the end. They always fill the cars untill the overflow is pouring out and calcullate how much went in by how much came out. From that they calculate the milleage at green flag conditions and maybe at some yellow flags using the simple 2 laps of yellow=1 lap of green formula.