FIA will they ever stop ruining the Sport with new rules?

[m7ammed]

I was thinking the other day how will they control teams wind tunnels ? and CFD computations?

 

[Metar]

I assume a few teams will start giving powerful computers to their top aerodynamicists, and let them work some "in their free time". For extra wages, of course.

 

[Flerbizky]

Agreed. The rich teams will always dominate the sport regardless of where you stop them spending money. It's completely stupid in a sport that has technology as a main attraction. I don't know why the FIA doesn't save the paper its wasting printing all these regulations on and just buy 22 cars from Lola / Reynard, stuff 600bhp in them, then hand those out to the teams. That's where it's going, one way or another.

The funny thing is, though, I thought all this daft FIA interference was a relatively new thing, but I was watching a load of classic races from the '60s and '70s on TV a few weeks ago. The racing certainly was more exciting back then, particularly in the '70s when they used to overtake like they were driving Formula Fords... which, considering they were mostly Cosworth powered, I suppose is not that far from the truth.. anyway what surprised me is that even back then, in the '70s and '60s, the FIA was habitually throwing stupid rules and regulations at the teams, often in mid season. So nothing's really changed. They've spent at least 45 years trying to screw Formula 1 up, and can't even manage that competently, so there's no reason to expect anything to change in the future.

Invisible +rep for that last sentence - That put a huge smile on my face :-)

(Not to dismiss the rest of the post of course!)

 

[Alfaholic]

That defeats the whole purpose of Formula One because F1 has always been constructors competing against each other.

Glad to see you're paying attention

Based on what? Seeing the best races of two decades of racing? Of course when you watch a highlight reel of Grand Prix it looks more exciting than it is now.

Based on the fact that I watched it and found it more interesting than the modern races of last season that I watched, of course

It wasn't "the best of". It was a few documentaries on some races in the '60s, then just about every British GP of the '70s as well as the Race Of Champions and International Trophy events. The British ones were an hour long each in most cases so showed a lot of the race.

Things that made it more exciting: The cars were sliding around a lot more. Drivers followed eachother more closely and made more attempts to overtake, many successful. Sure, in '78 the Lotus 79 was dominant and ran away at the front but the racing going on behind was great. And the Lotus didn't win. It was like watching A1GP but with cars that looked different to eachother. Someone mentioned the finishing times but the commentators expressed surprise when the leader got his gap to over ten seconds. That was really dominating. The reason there was such a wide spread at the end was because more cars had mechanical problems, and pitstops were rubbish back then. It wasn't uncommon to try go a whole race on a single set of tyres because if you had to change all four, it would easily be a half a minute stationary in the pits. If you had a puncture, you changed one tyre only because it took too long to change all four. They hadn't even started timing pitstops yet. This also meant that the driver behind couldn't just wait for the guy in front to make his pitstop, then floor it, put in two qualifying laps and overtake the opponent while stationary. If you wanted to pass the guy ahead of you, you had to do it on the road. They were doing things back then that they just don't do now.

But that's all moot anyway in this thread. The point of my '60s and '70s reference wasn't that it was better in the old days, but that in fact the FIA were interfering and changing the goalposts as much back then as they do now, which a) surprised me and b) means they're unlikely to stop messing about with the formula any time soon.

 

[Danoff]

NASCAR gentlemen! NASCAR!!

That's what formula 1 is well on its way to becoming. And we all know how completely and totally uninteresting NASCAR is. This last season was the last season of formula 1 that I will watch. I can't stand the constant bickering, the soap opera-like drama queens, the arbitrary and ludicrous intervention from the FIA, the absurd regulations on what is supposed to be a competitive engineering competition.

The sad part is that formula 1 is probably still one of the best motorsport shows around. But I can't sit by and support it while the regulating authority defecates all over the very soul, the very concept of the sport.

I got to watch formula 1 for 2 good years. 2 years before it was completely ruined. I'll have to settle for that. Last season is a good one to go out on.

 

[Appie]

NASCAR gentlemen! NASCAR!!

That's what formula 1 is well on its way to becoming. And we all know how completely and totally uninteresting NASCAR is. This last season was the last season of formula 1 that I will watch. I can't stand the constant bickering, the soap opera-like drama queens, the arbitrary and ludicrous intervention from the FIA, the absurd regulations on what is supposed to be a competitive engineering competition.

The sad part is that formula 1 is probably still one of the best motorsport shows around. But I can't sit by and support it while the regulating authority defecates all over the very soul, the very concept of the sport.

I got to watch formula 1 for 2 good years. 2 years before it was completely ruined. I'll have to settle for that. Last season is a good one to go out on.

Have a good then and bye

 

[mipuumal]

NASCAR gentlemen! NASCAR!!

That's what formula 1 is well on its way to becoming. And we all know how completely and totally uninteresting NASCAR is. This last season was the last season of formula 1 that I will watch. I can't stand the constant bickering, the soap opera-like drama queens, the arbitrary and ludicrous intervention from the FIA, the absurd regulations on what is supposed to be a competitive engineering competition.

The sad part is that formula 1 is probably still one of the best motorsport shows around. But I can't sit by and support it while the regulating authority defecates all over the very soul, the very concept of the sport.

I got to watch formula 1 for 2 good years. 2 years before it was completely ruined. I'll have to settle for that. Last season is a good one to go out on.

F1 has always been changing year after year, especially since '94. No matter what the FIA does to the regulations, the teams will still design something amazing that will go pretty much just as fast as before.

Have faith.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

NASCAR gentlemen! NASCAR!!

That's what formula 1 is well on its way to becoming. And we all know how completely and totally uninteresting NASCAR is. This last season was the last season of formula 1 that I will watch. I can't stand the constant bickering, the soap opera-like drama queens, the arbitrary and ludicrous intervention from the FIA, the absurd regulations on what is supposed to be a competitive engineering competition

Can you blame them though when all you read about are fans bitching and moaning about how there isn't enough close competition and lots of passing in F1... regardless of how true it is.

Just look at this forum, and look over the threads on each of this year's F1 races. You'll find the races that were largely proclaimed to be great by the majority of the responses, were ones that involved lots of bad luck, misfortune, and crashes... which sounds very much like your typical NASCAR fan.

If the F1 series was just a competitive engineering competition then you must conceded that in a given year, if a car is engineered to be superior to the other cars, it wont like get passed, and will win most races... and then the bitching and moaning begins about how "boring" the races are.

Personally, the reason I like F1 is I think they have found a nice balance between an engineering competition and a driving competition, something many race series lack.

That said, I also suspect the majority of complainers are going to complain no matter what. It's probably just the way they are and will likely always be, and no matter how much or how little the regulations change, or even the type of racing that occurs, and the various results change, they'll always find something to bitch about and likely look to the FIA and anyone else they feel deserves to be blamed.

 

[Danoff]

F1 has always been changing year after year, especially since '94. No matter what the FIA does to the regulations, the teams will still design something amazing that will go pretty much just as fast as before.

Have faith.

At some point it won't be possible. Tires? Standardized. Engine? Standardized. Weight? Standardized. Size? Standardized. Seriously, what innovations are being made at this point? Aerodynamics, that's about it. I'm asking myself why I'm interested in seeing what kind of aerodynamic fins Ferrari can come up with.

Can you blame them though when all you read about are fans bitching and moaning about how there isn't enough close competition and lots of passing in F1... regardless of how true it is.

Close competition and passing are a bit exclusive of each other. If your car isn't much faster than the car in front of you, how are you going to pass? Disparity is really what fans want to see.

Just look at this forum, and look over the threads on each of this year's F1 races. You'll find the races that were largely proclaimed to be great by the majority of the responses, were ones that involved lots of bad luck, misfortune, and crashes... which sounds very much like your typical NASCAR fan.

Yes, well, they can go watch NASCAR. That's not supposed to be what formula 1 is about.

If the F1 series was just a competitive engineering competition then you must conceded that in a given year, if a car is engineered to be superior to the other cars, it wont like get passed, and will win most races... and then the bitching and moaning begins about how "boring" the races are.

It's not impossible to have engineering leapfrogging between races, or engineering that gives advantages over different portions of the track - leading to passing and re-passing.

That said, I also suspect the majority of complainers are going to complain no matter what. It's probably just the way they are and will likely always be, and no matter how much or how little the regulations change, or even the type of racing that occurs, and the various results change, they'll always find something to bitch about and likely look to the FIA and anyone else they feel deserves to be blamed.

Yes, the more formula 1 was regulated, the more I complained. But at some point I lose interest. That point was reached with standardized engines.

 

[Blake]

Seriously, what innovations are being made at this point?

Will you start watching again when KERS are allowed?

 

[Muzaffar]

Just look at this forum, and look over the threads on each of this year's F1 races. You'll find the races that were largely proclaimed to be great by the majority of the responses, were ones that involved lots of bad luck, misfortune, and crashes... which sounds very much like your typical NASCAR fan.

Yes, i have to agree on that. The European GP was almost like watching a typical NASCAR race. But the difference is that F1 has 22 of the best drivers in the world (well, almost all of them) driving on a very modern demanding circuit (or supposed to be) while NASCAR has 43 drivers (i think, and some F1 rejects there as well) on an oval track, driving over and over again for miles!!!! So which do you think is more boring?

At some point it won't be possible. Tires? Standardized. Engine? Standardized. Weight? Standardized. Size? Standardized. Seriously, what innovations are being made at this point? Aerodynamics, that's about it. I'm asking myself why I'm interested in seeing what kind of aerodynamic fins Ferrari can come up with.

Well there is the Ferrari hub caps
But the innovations just seems to be stuck there. I wonder if the FIA would allow NOS/ Power Boost in F1 for an added advantage? Or if there is any team who is brave enough, they can put a hybrid engine in their F1 cars...

Yes, well, they can go watch NASCAR. That's not supposed to be what formula 1 is about.

Well its technically more Indy Car than NASCAR. The IRL has more things in common with the F1 car ( both being open wheel racers) But I find IRL more entertaining than NASCAR. Maybe the Indy Car drivers have guts than NASCAR drivers, going over 240mp/h instead of going 240kp/h 👎

 

[Alfaholic]

Close competition and passing are a bit exclusive of each other. If your car isn't much faster than the car in front of you, how are you going to pass?

Watch A1GP, or Formula Ford or something like that, to see how to pass the car in front if it is closely matched or even identical to yours. Closely matched cars make for very exciting races because one driver will have an advantage in one particular corner, or has set up his car to be faster on the straight but slower in the corners, or has looked after his tyres better. It all makes for a great battle.

I haven't bothered to quote the rest of your post because I agree with it all. In fact, despite my enjoyment of close racing, I agree with your ideal that in F1, which I also see as a technology showcase, I also want to see disparity between the cars, and technology winning races, and F1 evolving naturally as the others catch up. It will never happen though. F1 already has too much at stake to risk turning back into a sport instead of the business it now is.

 

[Metar]

But that's because they're regulated sports using spec-everything. The company designing the cars can choose to design a car with lots of drag, to improve draft-advantages, or with little aerodynamics, so even "high" levels won't be overly affected by drag.

As soon as you allow free choice, the competitively fast will prevail over the more "overtaking-friendly".

Take Formula Masters (some people will kill me for referring to them again every time such an argument arrives). Spec cars, spec engines, and tyres. Cars produce lots of drag and little downforce, and are therefore very overtaking-friendly. A driver swapped positions at least 3-4 times every lap, with the pole-sitter falling to 6th place after just 7 laps at Monza (Despite being a capable driver - he was just hopeless on the straights compared to his drafters).

Take Formula 1. Cars are basically evolving freely, even if they've been spec-ified in the last few years. Overtaking is far rarer - because fast doesn't necessarily include overtaking-friendly.

Look at it this way. In a world of zero downforce, cars would be made as slippery as possible. Streamliners, basically. Drag will be reduced to a minimum, right? Now assume two almost-equal drivers, with almost-equal skill. The two won't be able to pass, simply because they're equal. At the same time, take Kimi Raikkonen, Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton, give each a Dacia Logan, and let them race. Chances are there will be occasional overtakes - Dacias aren't exactly streamlined, so the drafter will get an advantage - but when cars aren't designed to actively promote overtaking, there won't be much of it, between equal drivers. And that's before we mention the fact that, in F1, there are no two teams of exactly the same speed.

 

[Danoff]

Watch A1GP, or Formula Ford or something like that, to see how to pass the car in front if it is closely matched or even identical to yours.

Well sure, when you're not using so much downforce, it's easier to overtake. But F1 cars do and should use a lot of downforce, and so they need a greater amount of disparity between car performances to be able to overtake. Listen to the post-race interviews in F1 and all the guys complain about is that their car is too similar to the guy's car in front of them to be able to overtake.

F1 already has too much at stake to risk turning back into a sport instead of the business it now is.

The sad part is that what they're doing is bad for business. The more they choke down of the regulations, the less interested the constructors will be in participating or putting money into the sport.

 

[CAMikaze]

I wonder if the FIA would allow NOS/ Power Boost in F1 for an added advantage?

IIRC, Champcar has something like it called "Power 2 Pass" When the driver presses a button on the steering wheel, the engine gets more horsepower so that the car can make the pass. However, the driver only gets a set amount of time for it to be used during the race. And I don't believe NOS is used to make the car more powerful in that instance.

Sorry if I made this go off topic, but I thought I'd try to answer his question.

 

[nitro_2005]

Personally, I am against the idea. The reason being is because I think it will cause certain suppliers to keep and therefore use any advantage they gain from building a quick and reliable powerplant. OK, so the 10 year freeze will be able to cut costs and make it easier for customer teams to buy engines, but I feel that if, let's say, Toyota or BMW manage to build the best engines on the grid, then for 10 years, their engines will be the best and everyone will go for them. I would have thought that the FIA has a limit as to how many teams a certain manufacturer can supply engines to, so that limit will get reached and the best engines taken. This would mean that the smaller teams would have to look elsewhere for other suppliers whose engines are not as powerful, reliable or both. This would make them less competitive, and therefore they would not score as many points and become slower. This would then upset the sponsors, who would look elsewhere to the better teams, so the less successful teams would then lose money and eventually, by the end of the freeze, we could have lost one or even two teams from the grid.

Some people may disagree with what I have said, but there is some logic. Why not impose a set budget to every single team of, let's say £5m or £10 and with that, over the course of the season they can spend as much or as little of that budget as they see fit on engine development. Also, if there are any engine customers (STR, Super Aguri, Spyker, Red Bull, etc.), then a rule must be passed which states that they must conduct their own R&D on their given engines and in no way can they use or copy any improvements made by their supplier. This would give the teams more of a feeling of individuality as they are the ones putting the work into THEIR engine, not waiting on their supplier to come out with an update which could take some time and hinder the teams near the middle or back of the grid from making progress. Also, it could allow smaller teams to come up with ingenious and unique upgrades which can help them make progress.

 

[Metar]

The solution is already there. Engines are homologated, and are nearly identical - with the power-differences, at best, around 30-40HP.

 

[Muzaffar]

IIRC, Champcar has something like it called "Power 2 Pass" When the driver presses a button on the steering wheel, the engine gets more horsepower so that the car can make the pass. However, the driver only gets a set amount of time for it to be used during the race. And I don't believe NOS is used to make the car more powerful in that instance.

Sorry if I made this go off topic, but I thought I'd try to answer his question.

Well thats what Power Boost exactly does in A1GP. But they are given several chances to use this (like 4 power boost and each would last for a few seconds) The NOS thing was not very realistic anyways. Nitrous does have a similar way of providing horsepower, but its not going to make the engine last.....you can find out how nitrous work here

Back into topic.....

I do have to agree with nitro_2005 on the budget part and separate R&D on engines for all the teams. I think the top teams do always run away with their development of their cars. The lower end teams don't really have a chance of catching up with the front running teams. But the sponsors do play a big part in developing a team. Red Bull did have a big budget and the team just gets better and better with each season. However, there are teams who spend their budgets wisely and some just simply wasting their budget.......you know what I mean.....

 

[Boundary Layer]

Yes, the more formula 1 was regulated, the more I complained. But at some point I lose interest. That point was reached with standardized engines.

That statement seems just a little incongruous given that you've only been watching for two seasons. I'm a little dissapointed about it also, but it's a step the FIA had to take to keep the sport developing in the same direction that the rest of the world is moving.

There's little left for automakers to learn from engine's that hum along at 20000 rpm, blow up after 600 or 700 km, and whose fuel efficiency is measured in litres per second instead of per kilometre - there's no relevance at all to 99% of today's production cars.

You'll notice, if you look at the technical regulations, that there is still plenty of wiggle room in transmission system development (...except for with CVT's), which is an area where that still has plenty in common with passenger vehicles and where there have been significant advances in the last decade or so.


Regarding the limit on wind tunnel and CFD personnel and software usage though, I think that's a pristine example of the FIA putting it's hands where they don't belong. Sporting and technical regulations should only restrict the end product you bring to the circuit, and how it is operated there. In my opinion they have no right to restrict the acquisition and usage of resources and staff acquired for the very purpose of improving their car's performance to the absolute limit attainable within the technical regulations.

Really, all that I see this new limit doing is maintaining the status quo in aero efficiency. The top running teams already have pretty good aero, and under these new rules they will continue to get good results without drastic developments over last years parts. The teams running at the back now have a very limited timeframe test fullscale parts and develop a balanced package. I just don't see how the FIA figures they can catch up...


I'm starting to think the overall spending limit that nitro_2005 and mnm_bmx mentioned makes a little more sense. There'd be some kinks to work out, but set a monetary figure not to be exceeded for the combined sum of all testing, development, and manufacturing costs, and facility overheads, and let them run wild.

 

[Danoff]

There's little left for automakers to learn from engine's that hum along at 20000 rpm, blow up after 600 or 700 km, and whose fuel efficiency is measured in litres per second instead of per kilometre - there's no relevance at all to 99% of today's production cars.

Is that what this is supposed to be about? Benefiting production cars? Or is it supposed to be about racing?

 

[Boundary Layer]

Is that what this is supposed to be about? Benefiting production cars? Or is it supposed to be about racing?

ahem...

...what is supposed to be a competitive engineering competition.

An engineering competition at this level of sophistication and investment with no applicable trickle down of technology is, as George Costanza says, "just masturbation"


Why can F1 not be about developing technology to benefit production cars as much as it is about racing? It keeps the interest of car manufacturers that bring money and spectacle to the sport, it looks good on Formula 1 and the FIA, and the driver's would probably go out there and race Lada's if you asked them to. Everybody is happy.

How can forcing teams to develop totally new technologies to go faster more efficiently detract at all from competition between teams or drivers?

 

[Danoff]

An engineering competition at this level of sophistication and investment with no applicable trickle down of technology is, as George Costanza says, "just masturbation"

I totally disagree.

How can forcing teams to develop totally new technologies to go faster more efficiently detract at all from competition between teams or drivers?

Agreed. In fact, that's what I'm wishing Formula 1 would be - instead of restricting them to the exact same technologies so that they all go the same speed.

 

[superberkut]

A small suggestion, but maybe the FIA lost sight of the cars and focused on the drivers. Now the drivers are challenged more than ever, even in the wrong ways, but there is no degree of real originality or innovation.

Mind you, most F1 fans come for the drivers, contradicting Bernie Ecclestone's opinions.

 

[Blake]

Really, all that I see this new limit doing is maintaining the status quo in aero efficiency. The top running teams already have pretty good aero, and under these new rules they will continue to get good results without drastic developments over last years parts. The teams running at the back now have a very limited timeframe test fullscale parts and develop a balanced package. I just don't see how the FIA figures they can catch up...

There are big aero changes for 2009 so it won’t really maintain the status quo for long. Anyway, the best teams generally hover near the top for a few years, regardless of regulations.

 

[Pupik]

F1 Teams will just spend more money on banquets, displays, hospitality suites, and luxurious motorhomes to attract sponsors.

Seriously, the only way the FIA can "control spending" is to be a central bank that doles money to teams to spend. What's the point in that? Every attempt of controlling spending is a silly joke that provides no laughter, just lies.

 

[nitro_2005]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64361

Basically Mosley's saying "Cut the aero or the grooves stay"

 

[Alfaholic]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64361

Basically Mosley's saying "Cut the aero or the grooves stay"

That's awesome! tell the teams to design slow cars or else

Hey, it's not about the winning, it's about the taking part of course!

Well sure, when you're not using so much downforce, it's easier to overtake. But F1 cars do and should use a lot of downforce, and so they need a greater amount of disparity between car performances to be able to overtake. Listen to the post-race interviews in F1 and all the guys complain about is that their car is too similar to the guy's car in front of them to be able to overtake.

As far as I know, using ground effects to generate downforce creates more force and less drag and turbulence, which would mean that high cornering speeds and close following distances would be obtainable. Of course, flat underbodies are mandatory, effectively banning extensive use of ground effects. I know people go on about the safety issues, but if you look at what circuits were like in the early '80s compared to now, and car construction, it's hardly surprising that there were so many serious accidents back then. The ban was probably a good thing at the time until safety caught up, but I think it's outmoded now. Champ cars seem to be using it perfectly well.

 

[Metar]

But Champcars is highly regulated again. In the competitive world of Formula 1, it won't be long before the limits are reached once more.

Basically, if twin-chassis concepts like the Lotus 88's were allowed, we'd have a pretty solid base. At the same time, however, we still must remember that Ground Effects, while very constant while following, are very twitchy over bumps, curbs and elevation-changes. It's on/off, and very dangerous. Yes, cars are safer now - but what would you rather watch? 15 cars crashing safely with 7 nursing the car home, or 22 drivers attempting overtakes?

 

[Pupik]

Oops, double post when logging on.

 

[Alfaholic]

Yes, cars are safer now - but what would you rather watch? 15 cars crashing safely with 7 nursing the car home, or 22 drivers attempting overtakes?

Either would be more interesting that what I see in F1 now to be fair. But in F1 specifically I'd rather see innovation. If I want to watch 22 drivers attempting overtakes I'll watch something else. Like A1GP or moto GP or something. And I do.

Building a car that crashes wouldn't be in the best interests of the team so they would put effort into designing cars that can finish races. I don't see 15 crashes and 7 struggles in Champcars, and I didn't see that in Group C.

F1 will never be what it was when I got interested in it. The last 5 or 6 years, if I've watched a race at all, I've spent most of that time sitting in view of the TV but reading a book. Even this season, which started off with more interest for me once it became apparent that I might witness the once-in-a-lifetime occurence of a rookie winning the championship, I didn't find the racing itself particularly interesting. Then the whole Stepneygate thing was the last straw. After that, it didn't matter if Hamilton won or lost, it would have been an empty victory. I now understand that the teams are no better than the governing body and I haven't watched a race since. But the FIA's interfering, goalpost moving and general kneejerk fumbling, which is the subject of this thread and has been in evidence throughout their existence, is a constant irritation for me too. Sure, they can pile restrictions on the cars until they get 22 guys lapping within 0.01 seconds of eachother and 42 leadchanges per lap, but that's not what separates F1 from the rest. When F1 was an obvious battle between designers, I found it interesting. Nowadays it's more of a battle between lawyers.

I don't care if the new rule makes the racing closer or not. It won't, because rule changes favour the big budget teams who have the money to react more quickly. Even if it's a restriction on testing. The big budget teams can afford to hire more experts armed with slide rules, cotton wool and strong lungs. Or they can hire more experts to examine the competitors cars and a) think up new ways to get them disqualified, b) get cleverer at stealing their data. If you want the small budget teams to close the performance gap, you need stability in the rules. Not a different formula every season. What I want to see in F1 is the FIA stand back, leave things alone until further notice, give the designers a chance to come up with something brilliant, and give the small teams more time to perfect their own interpretation of the rules with the budget available. That would still leave the problem of there being too much money at stake in F1 to promote fair racing though, but I can't really think of a decent solution for that yet without adding more rules....