FIA says progress is bad

[Blake]

I was reading through the key details of the FIAs proposals for 2008 and one paragraph in particular got me really irked.

Banning new technologies that give teams a clear performance advantage (and which are subsequently adopted by other teams) after one season – this will allow the teams to benefit from the innovation, but prevents out-of-control spending on trying to develop it.

So F1 cars will basically be “reset” after each season – without any major technological advances. Sounds exciting! Really makes me want to watch as no major innovations will be kept beyond the end of a season.

The cost excuse is total crap, too. It means teams will spend money on a technology for an entire year which will be useless the year after. And the FIA are trying to stop useless spending? Well done!

Damn, it annoys me that progress will be completely stopped until the next set of regulations.

 

[Tornado]

So this is in addition to the other "final" rule changes for '08 (there's no way a few of them will actually happen)?

 

[Brett]

Does this really surprise you at all though? The FIA have constantly said they want to reduce costs and improve safety. But they end up imposing regulations that do the exact opposite. How about the one year of no tire changes? It was definitely a safety concern at times, but was imposed because it was supposed to reduce speeds and thus improve safety. Not only that, but I am sure the cost to both Michelin and Bridgestone to have to develop an entirely new program for a new set of regulations was probably pretty steep.

 

[Blake]

So this is in addition to the other "final" rule changes for '08 (there's no way a few of them will actually happen)?

They are just proposals at the moment. To be honest I think some of it the FIA just throwing around a bit of muscle, showing that they are in charge of the show – not the teams.

Does this really surprise you at all though? The FIA have constantly said they want to reduce costs and improve safety. But they end up imposing regulations that do the exact opposite. How about the one year of no tire changes? It was definitely a safety concern at times, but was imposed because it was supposed to reduce speeds and thus improve safety. Not only that, but I am sure the cost to both Michelin and Bridgestone to have to develop an entirely new program for a new set of regulations was probably pretty steep.

Suprise me? No.

But it definatly annoys me. This backwards thinking, and constant rule changing, is driving costs up and destroying the ability for privateer teams to survive.

It’s constantly happening – all of these changes that only last a season (or less) before they are reverted, or changed yet again.

The tyre rule lastest 1 season and now it’s changed back, again. High costs for the R&D last season and now they have to start developing tyres with a short life-span once again.

Consistantly increasing engine life has, from what I’ve read, cost more in R&D than it cost to build the engines that the long-life rule has saved.

The V8 rule, too, has cost huge amounts of money in R&D that would have been saved if engines rules had just stayed the same.

The FIA is always *****ing abouts costs, but all they seem to do is drive the costs up. What they don’t seem to understand is that stability will save the teams money. The FIA is making a reason for teams to spend more – if they just left the rules alone costs would fall, probably quite dramatically.

 

[Brett]

The FIA is always *****ing abouts costs, but all they seem to do is drive the costs up. What they don’t seem to understand is that stability will save the teams money. The FIA is making a reason for teams to spend more – if they just left the rules alone costs would fall, probably quite dramatically.

I don't really know if the rules didn't really need to changes anyways, but I do agree that stability will save money. I just wish the FIA would make up their mind and stick one set of rules. This constant changing of rules is a bad idea. It wouldn't be so bad if it were just one or two things here and there, but it dramatic and a good number of changes.

 

[zoxxy]

What a pile of ****. This ain't anything but total crap. To have a rule that, in clear, says that "You are prohibited to develop the car" is like... it's just retarded.
I mean, the tyre rule was stupid as it was but you could live with it. But this is...

Hell, I don't know what to say.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

The proposals are just propasals at this point, but however, I believe the current concorde agreement states that ten teams have to give their thumbs up to any major rulechanges, and that is why these rules are set for ´08, since the current concorde agreement is off by then. This means, that if not all teams agree on the new concordeagreement, the FIA can pretty much do what ever they like for ´08.
My guess is, that this is just a way to force GPMA to give up their plans of a breakaway from F1. They will have to, since their only other option is to simply buy F1 from the current owners - the banks - and 3 billion dollars are alot of money...

 

[Blake]

their only other option is to simply buy F1 from the current owners - the banks - and 3 billion dollars are alot of money...

Did you miss the fact that the banks nolonger own F1?

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Did you miss the fact that the banks nolonger own F1?

No. SLEC do not own F1 any longer, but it was bought by another banking coalition, IRC.

 

[Slick Rick]

I was reading through the key details of the FIAs proposals for 2008 and one paragraph in particular got me really irked.

So F1 cars will basically be “reset” after each season – without any major technological advances. Sounds exciting! Really makes me want to watch as no major innovations will be kept beyond the end of a season.

The cost excuse is total crap, too. It means teams will spend money on a technology for an entire year which will be useless the year after. And the FIA are trying to stop useless spending? Well done!

Damn, it annoys me that progress will be completely stopped until the next set of regulations.

Im sure the members in GTP could do a better job than the FIA. How can they be sooo blind?!
Someone needs to overthrow these cenile old men before they damage the sport even more.

 

[Omnis]

One step closer to Formula Zero.

 

[niky]

One step closer to Formula Zero.

Or NASCAR...

 

[Brett]

Im sure the members in GTP could do a better job than the FIA. How can they be sooo blind?!
Someone needs to overthrow these cenile old men before they damage the sport even more.

I wouldn't say they are blind and here is why. They read everything we post here at GTP and do the exact opposite just to piss us off.

No, but seriously, what the heck are they thinking?

 

[F1GTR]

Wooosh.

Did you hear that?

The FIA just missed the point of F1.

 

[Omnis]

Seriously, though. F1 is going to rebel against the FIA and become F-Zero. This will eventually lead to the technology presented in the F-zero videogames.

 

[Blake]

No. SLEC do not own F1 any longer, but it was bought by another banking coalition, IRC.

CVC Capital Partners bought F1. From their website: “CVC Capital Partners is an independent investment and advisory company dedicated to private equity. We buy companies to build businesses in partnership with management.”

So no, the banks no longer own F1 and the new owner is not a bank.

Im sure the members in GTP could do a better job than the FIA. How can they be sooo blind?!
Someone needs to overthrow these cenile old men before they damage the sport even more.

I do not understand the motives behind the decisions the FIA makes. The reasoning behind many of their decisions makes no sense. Sure, slow F1 down – but do it once and do it right. Slow it down and leave the rules stable, that way costs will go down and then other teams can afford F1.

Mind you, IIRC, a few years ago Mosley wanted to drive costs up so only manufacturors could compete in F1. Go figure.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

CVC Capital Partners bought F1. From their website: “CVC Capital Partners is an independent investment and advisory company dedicated to private equity. We buy companies to build businesses in partnership with management.”

So no, the banks no longer own F1 and the new owner is not a bank.

Thank you for clarifying that! I must have read a prebuyout guess somewhere, that thought banks was the buyers! Sorry if I caused any confusion!

I do not understand the motives behind the decisions the FIA makes. The reasoning behind many of their decisions makes no sense. Sure, slow F1 down – but do it once and do it right. Slow it down and leave the rules stable, that way costs will go down and then other teams can afford F1.

Mind you, IIRC, a few years ago Mosley wanted to drive costs up so only manufacturors could compete in F1. Go figure.

As I said before, many of the propasals are simply made to scare GPMA to sign the new Concorde agreement. FIA has done this several times before, although never this drastic. But I bet 100 to 1 that GPMA will race under FIA flag in one way or another by 2008. F1 will endure in some form, Bernie will make sure of that!

 

[somebody]

Many of the rule changes, both adopted and proposed, are designed to cut costs. Many , if not most of the top motorsport formulas have been trying to do this for many years. The one thing that everybody has noticed is that the costs don't change, they just shift focus. A team that has the ability to spend money on developing their car will still spend the money, even if it is something as small as redesigning a certain bolt.

Even in A1GP, where the entire formula is strictly designed to stop teams spending money on development, have the engineers and R&D guys found places to spend serious money. Yes, progress is bad for the wallet - it always has been. The smart rule makers should look to areas in which progress is good and try to force development dollars there.

Road tyre technology, car safety cells, fuels and oils, and suspension components have all been applied to everyday use after being developed in motorsport. Surely there is still room for progress in areas that can benefit the everyday public?

 

[Brett]

Road tyre technology, car safety cells, fuels and oils, and suspension components have all been applied to everyday use after being developed in motorsport. Surely there is still room for progress in areas that can benefit the everyday public?

Any development in motorsport could potentially be used for road cars. Any progress made in any area could be used to improve something for the every day public. But limiting development will not allow for any progress to be made.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

And progress will be very haltered with the "ban-all-new-components-that-give-advantage" rule.

I read that the FIA had come up with these rules in collaboration with the teams and and a fanbased survey, with more than 90 000 participants. Is that a joke? Is there 90 000 F1 fans who really wants this??

 

[Blake]

I doubt this is what the fans want. However, this will, according to the FIA, lead to what the fans want: more on-track action.

 

[Omnis]

pshh....F that. What makes more track-action is the presence of titanic cojones. Giles and Arnoux weren't on a level playing field as far as their cars were concerned. Giles still had muy grande cojones.

 

[Brett]

Grande cojones definitely help on track action. But so does the ability to follow behind the car easily without the car getting all loose and unstable. I don't really think the two piece wing is the answer though, as I still see that as causing problems. I think the FIA should go with aerodynamics similar to the underbody of the Champ cars. They generate most of their downforce with the underbody that does not require clean air and they are just as safe as any thing currently in F1.

There may be 90,000 fans who like the new proposals, but they are outnumbered by I would think at least 9-to-1.

 

[Blake]

I dunno. Generally, I think the vast majority of people who watch F1 just wanted more passing at the expense of everything else. Also, the survey did not say anything about standardising equipment, placing rev limits on the engines etc. That is just how the FIA thinks it can create closer competition.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I think FIA has taken a wrong aproach on the whole deal. They should look at other motorsports and try to learn something from that, ie champcar, GP2, DTM, FIA GT, and maybe even WTCC. (weightpenalties excluded)
The qually system should be looked over and perhaps a superpole would be something for F1. Also races should be two shorter races (ex. Monaco is now 78 laps. Split it for 30/48)with the top ten reversed for the second one. I think that works great in GP2, and I can not see why it wouldn´t work for F1.

 

[Blake]

F1 isn’t a sprint race championship…

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I know that, but I feel it would be better off being that, than the totally restricted crap it´s going to be as it is.

 

[[FPV]Rusty]

Seriously, though. F1 is going to rebel against the FIA and become F-Zero. This will eventually lead to the technology presented in the F-zero videogames.

I can imagine that
F-Zero commentery - "And this is turning out to be an enthralling battle for the lead between Alonso and Captain Falcon"

 

[Appie]

what kind of technigue do they use in A1, because they can stay really close in the slipstream of the car in front of him

 

[somebody]

what kind of technigue do they use in A1, because they can stay really close in the slipstream of the car in front of him

The A1 cars were designed specifically to minimize the "dirty air" behind them thus allow the car behind to slipstream better. It's all in their body and wing shape.