PDA

View Full Version : F1 regulations to dumbed down and restrictive?



Knock-on
13th February 2009, 12:29
Newey believes so and it may encourage him to leave F1.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73261

BDunnell
13th February 2009, 12:41
It is one of the great conundrums in motorsport today - to allow freedom within the regulations, and thus risk someone stealing a march on everybody else, boredom in terms of the level competition and soaring costs as other teams try and catch up, or to be restrictive and keep costs down and the sport interesting. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing innovation within a restricted budget, which ought to be possible in some way. Cost has to be the major concern now and in the future if F1 is to remain relevant.

Dave B
13th February 2009, 12:56
It seems that even Max agrees that the rules may have gone too far. From the article linked above:


"It's a fault with the regulations," explained Mosley. "They have constricted the areas where they can work to keep speeds and costs under control to the point where you get the best returns by endlessly refining every single component of the car."

He added: "People like (Colin) Chapman, (John) Cooper or (Keith) Duckworth would be lost in modern F1. We have this culture of minimal innovation and endless refinement."

I'm all for reducing costs, but we're getting dangerously close to F1 becoming a spec series, which would be a disaster.

Newey's right to be concerned.

ArrowsFA1
13th February 2009, 13:23
This kind of discussion always brings to mind for me Colin Chapman's comment made after the 'twin chassis' Lotus 88 (http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/473) had failed to get through scrutineering at the 1981 Argentine GP, for the third race in succession.

"When this is over, I shall seriously reconsider whether or not grand prix racing is still what it purports to be: the pinnacle of sport and technological achievement. Unfortunately, this appears to be no longer the case, and if it is not cleaned up, Formula 1 will end up in a quagmire of plagiarism, chicanery and petty rule interpretation, manipulated by people for whom the word 'sport' has no meaning."

Knock-on
13th February 2009, 13:37
I have always had the utmost respect for CC (I am after all building his everyday sports car :) ) but I never realised he was a Prophet? How accurate his words are.

To be fair to Max, and as identified by Ben, he does have an almost impossible job but one of his own making to a degree.

How do you free up innovation while helping to control costs? How do you promote close racing while not creating a near spec series?

Lastly, is it possible to re-invent F1 in it's current form while still retaining it's identity.

Perhaps what is needed is a radical rethink of the regs. Put forward a few simple parameters and let the teams interperet them and innovate as they see fit.

Sure, one season, a team might dominate but so what. It will sonn equal out.

Where is the next Colin Chapman or Adrian Newey going to come from at the moment if they cannot shine?

BDunnell
13th February 2009, 13:45
I have always had the utmost respect for CC (I am after all building his everyday sports car :) ) but I never realised he was a Prophet? How accurate his words are.

But where does one draw the line? For instance, I believe that the inevitable onward march of technical development has wrecked world rallying twice, once with the Group B 'supercars' and again now. It will probably happen again unless very restrictive technical and cost rules are imposed on whatever replaces the current formula. I am sure the same will be the case for F1.

ShiftingGears
13th February 2009, 14:04
Where is the next Colin Chapman or Adrian Newey going to come from at the moment if they cannot shine?

Sportscars, it would seem.

ShiftingGears
13th February 2009, 14:08
But where does one draw the line?

That's the question where noone can agree on a common answer. The FIA has a hard job trying to make F1 survive through tough economic times without killing the essence of F1 which is technical innovation. And that's ignoring the safety aspect of it.

Knock-on
13th February 2009, 14:12
That's the question where noone can agree on a common answer. The FIA has a hard job trying to make F1 survive through tough economic times without killing the essence of F1 which is technical innovation. And that's ignoring the safety aspect of it.

Agreed.

However, I would rather that they concentrate their efforts on this rather than silly nit picking F1 race manipulation scandles.

There is a rule and spirit of those rules. Wouldn't it be nice if we could claw a little of the sport back into this business?

Mark
13th February 2009, 14:20
You have to ask yourself what F1 is? Is it an engineering excercise or a sport?

You have teams spending a fortune developing new technologies (*cough*KERS*cough*) just for all the teams to do the same and then end up idenitical again, nobody wins.

I've always thought that F1 cars should be simple beasts at heart, not much aerodynamics, not that much grip, but engines so powerful that if you press the throttle too hard it sends you back in time :s mokin:

ioan
13th February 2009, 14:41
To be fair to Max, and as identified by Ben, he does have an almost impossible job but one of his own making to a degree.

How do you free up innovation while helping to control costs? How do you promote close racing while not creating a near spec series?

It would be easy if you would have the full cooperation of the teams on applying a spending cap.
However this is not possible in such a corporatist, success and money driven environment, cause someone will always try to get one over the others using some dirty tactics.

Money is the root of all evil in F1 at this moment.

To be able to change things in better they need to start making the sport self sustainable. This means that the teams should get at least as much money back as they are pouring into it, and this isn't the case right now.

If they managed this than there will be no more need for sponsors that pay in accordance to your finishing position, which pushes you to the limits, or over them, of the regulations!

This is how I see it.

ioan
13th February 2009, 14:43
You have to ask yourself what F1 is? Is it an engineering excercise or a sport?

You have teams spending a fortune developing new technologies (*cough*KERS*cough*) just for all the teams to do the same and then end up idenitical again, nobody wins.

I've always thought that F1 cars should be simple beasts at heart, not much aerodynamics, not that much grip, but engines so powerful that if you press the throttle too hard it sends you back in time :s mokin:

NA motorsport leagues are doing just that. ;)
Do we need to have a European counterpart to that?

Bagwan
13th February 2009, 14:46
Newey is a twit .

We know it's broken .

I want to hear how he'd fix it all , not hear him whining about how broken it is .

And , I don't give a damn where he'll go after he's finished , until he is done .

He just did the sport a huge dis-service , as one of it's most well-known designers , by saying it's dying .
This sport made him who he is , and he should be a little more respectful of that fact , as he appears as a rat talking about leaving a sinking ship .

Was it a threat or a promise ?


Come up with a plan , Adrian , or shut the hell up .

trumperZ06
13th February 2009, 15:05
;) Well said, Bagwan !!!

:dozey: Formula One has been drowning in MONEY and all the players spent every dime.

Max & Bernie showed no regard for the "Sport" concentrating on raking in the CA$H...

It's all been about the "Show" !!!

Now the teams need to refocus... maybe FOTA will show some leadership...
if they don't fall apart pushing selfish agendas.

:s mokin:

wedge
13th February 2009, 15:12
Newey is a twit .

We know it's broken .

I want to hear how he'd fix it all , not hear him whining about how broken it is .

And , I don't give a damn where he'll go after he's finished , until he is done .

He just did the sport a huge dis-service , as one of it's most well-known designers , by saying it's dying .
This sport made him who he is , and he should be a little more respectful of that fact , as he appears as a rat talking about leaving a sinking ship .

Was it a threat or a promise ?


Come up with a plan , Adrian , or shut the hell up .

Agreed

He's part of the Technical Working Group that came up with the rules so what's there to complain about?

The new regs is another challenge to overcome.

Newey threatened to leave F1 before. He's done everything achievable. Go right ahead to America's Cup or whatever, you won't be missed.

The design office has grown over the years. It's a team effort working with aerodynamics and so forth.

What innovation has there been in F1 over the past years? It's come from electronics and aero. That's why I'm in favour of hybrid technology. It's new, fresh and open for different ideas.

Tallgeese
15th February 2009, 12:27
Personally I think that the idea to bring back grooveless tyres & the tighter aerodynamic regulations should work well, although it's a shame somewhat as it removes the competitive element. As for KERS, I think that it was introduced at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Safety issues aside, I support it long-term.

Testing limitations should help to narrow competition but to remove in season testing is silly because it means less ground is covered by both drivers & test-drivers, many of the latter aspiring to be F1 racers. If you ask me, 20,000km of testing is reasonable.

Tallgeese
15th February 2009, 12:51
Renault or Williams won Grand Prix titles without the mammoth budgets that Ferrari or McLaren had, & often pioneered smart technology over muscle. Same applies to Lotus or Brabham in their days. It is interesting to remember that Williams' FW14B (1992) was developed with far less money than the MP4-5/6 that McLaren-Honda dished out. Naturally cost-structures vary from constructor to constructor, but the Williams product pioneered technologies that had matured by 1992 (after narrowly missing on the title in 1991) that the big budgets of McLaren or Ferrari were still at pains to catch up on.

Among other things TCS, semi-automatic transmission, active suspension, topped off by Renault-power meant that the (in theory more powerful) Honda engine couldn't compete at the corners & (eventually) the main straight. Renault's R25 & R26 were able to (in the hands of Alonso) end Schumacher's reign at less than what Ferrari or McLaren-Mercedes could cough out of their budgets. It's true that tyre regulations & some bad luck (not least on McLaren's side) aided Renault, but there it is.



If you ask me, narrowing the competition can done by producing paddock regulations that do not required huge budgets but also to ensure that there is more done for the drivers to compete. For example, 10-6-4-3-2-1 pointing will make winning count, & I don't dismiss giving 1pt for FL & 1pt for pole to spice up the show.

The standard front/rear wings (ugly as they are) & limitations on aerodynamic development & testing (& even inseason practice) will probably narrow the competition & separate the 'talented' from the 'not so talented' drivers. In the end, costs may tumble, but in the end competition will only narrow when the stakes justify the risks. I say that the pointing system should be overhaulled to give fewer drivers more points so that they do more fighting.

speeddurango
16th February 2009, 01:28
While people complain about restrictions being too much, they do have a point, and I do agree, it's also a fact that when the gap between the top and bottom team widens up again, people would still complain.

punter_S14
16th February 2009, 10:57
Couldn't agree more! I do not like the direction @ all. F1 has been degenerating for some time. I've realised that it has become another popular sport high-jacked by the money gods & as such I am losing interest faster than an Andrea de cesaris "moment".
Why we have to put up with the dodgy Max & Bernie show is beyond me. Apparently F1 is politically impotent other than these two snake-charmers. I have never bought that they made F1 great as it could always sell itself. I will concede though that thay made it what it is today (expensive crap). On the car side, the constant emasculation of the cars to make them more like an arcade game for the idiot TV gods makes me dry-reach. And for mine, the biggest restriction on "passing" that everyone with an attention span of less than 5 minutes gets in a lather over are outdated tracks & gutless inaction over a long period regarding blocking. I was saddened by the demise of the breakaway group, as it offered hope.

punter_S14
16th February 2009, 11:15
And, as I am getting things off my chest, speaking of wrong directions, why not have expensive things like Aero common, as they are almost totally irrelevant. This would do two things; ensure there is at least some consideration for looks (ask girls if it is important) & place emphasis on creative artwork, which is another market. For the manufacturers that wish to participate they can show their worth in what is under the skin. Getting precious about their presence simply feeds an insatible animal called business that divides sport.

ioan
16th February 2009, 12:46
To be honest I think that the difference between a top engineer and a standard level one will show when the rules are more restrictive.

Knock-on
16th February 2009, 12:54
To be honest I think that the difference between a top engineer and a standard level one will show when the rules are more restrictive.

It depends on what the level of a top engineer is.

I suggest that the Chapmens of this world are not only superb engineers but great innovators. Give them a blank canvas and see what they come up with.

However, then you have the problem with what gets spent on such Blue Sky design.

My guess is that if you freeze engine and downforce regulations, teams will spend what they have on everything else which will allow innovation.

ioan
16th February 2009, 13:21
It depends on what the level of a top engineer is.

I suggest that the Chapmens of this world are not only superb engineers but great innovators. Give them a blank canvas and see what they come up with.

However, then you have the problem with what gets spent on such Blue Sky design.

My guess is that if you freeze engine and downforce regulations, teams will spend what they have on everything else which will allow innovation.

Well, I agree. IMO the huge amounts of money spent in F1 is what reduces the differences between an exceptional and innovative engineer and a shelf one.

Daniel
24th February 2009, 14:45
But where does one draw the line? For instance, I believe that the inevitable onward march of technical development has wrecked world rallying twice, once with the Group B 'supercars' and again now. It will probably happen again unless very restrictive technical and cost rules are imposed on whatever replaces the current formula. I am sure the same will be the case for F1.

Agreed.

I simply can't fathom this whole "F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport" argument, what the hell does that have to do with it? That's simply something that big headed drivers, wet behind the ears fans, engineers and marketing people can brag about. What they should be focusing on is making F1 spectacular and worthwhile for teams.

I don't care whether the cars from this year are technically better than the ones from last year or from 1995, all I care about is whether it's good racing and at present F1 runs the risk of becoming a bit of a boring series. Sure slicks and new aero rules will mix things up a bit but fundamentally it's the same (boring) formula is we've had for a long time.

Hands up who wants an exciting series to watch?
OK now hands up who wants to watch the (boring) pinnacle of motorsport where technology is king and where the drivers impact is minimalised? Well at least when someone at work says F1 is boring you can do that bearded nerd voice Richard Hammond does and say "But it's the pinnacle of motorsport! Let me show you this wishbone, look it's carbon fibre and look at the direction of the weave... this is done for such and such reason" by which time the person will either

A) tell you to **** off
B) feign interest and then admit that you're right just to shut you up
C) fall asleep
D) punch you in the face for supporting gratuitous pointlessnessicity.

Think of it like this, Mt Everest is the tallest peak in the world but it's not the most challenging, that would be K2 which is the most challenging even though it's not the tallest.

I don't care whether motorsport is the most sophisticated as long as it's exciting to watch and brings the driver to the fore rather than technology which I'm probably never going to see on my car.

P.S Ben, don't use rallying arguments in this forum, people simply don't understand the relevance and significance of what's happened in the WRC in the past and simply view rallying as something that involved going out into a forest and getting muddy while watching cars which aren't technically perfect or as advanced as F1 cars. People react rather blankly when you point out that the WRC has gone from hero to zero due to spiralling costs and increased technology since about 2003/2004. Woo yeah pinnacle!.......


Woo!

Knock-on
24th February 2009, 14:56
Although I agree with your arguement, F1 SHOULD be the pinnacle of Motorsport.

Best drivers
Fastest cars
Biggest thrills
and ultimatly the most entertaining form of Motorsport.

Technology is there to facilitate this, not to destroy it as it currently does.

Daniel
24th February 2009, 16:38
Although I agree with your arguement, F1 SHOULD be the pinnacle of Motorsport.

Best drivers
Fastest cars
Biggest thrills
and ultimatly the most entertaining form of Motorsport.

Technology is there to facilitate this, not to destroy it as it currently does.

Best drivers. Technology has done its best to remove the driver from the equation.

Biggest thrills? F1 is less thrilling to watch than it was in the past!!!!!

Fastest cars? As in top speed? This matters very little. Of course the cars should be fast but fastest? Does it really matter that much?

Technology can make things better but more often than not it just ruins things. See the WRC for a prime example.

Knock-on
24th February 2009, 17:32
Best drivers. Technology has done its best to remove the driver from the equation.

Biggest thrills? F1 is less thrilling to watch than it was in the past!!!!!

Fastest cars? As in top speed? This matters very little. Of course the cars should be fast but fastest? Does it really matter that much?

Technology can make things better but more often than not it just ruins things. See the WRC for a prime example.

You obviously didn't notice that Should was in bold.

Technology has been allowed to dumb down F1 by the people in charge. The pursuit of 1/100th of a second through technology is more important than seeing the best drivers duke it out.

There is no arguement from me. However, I think innovation is important otherwise we might just as well have a spec series.

BDunnell
24th February 2009, 17:55
Although I agree with your arguement, F1 SHOULD be the pinnacle of Motorsport.

Best drivers
Fastest cars
Biggest thrills
and ultimatly the most entertaining form of Motorsport.

Technology is there to facilitate this, not to destroy it as it currently does.

Respect your view, but can you think of a series in which the onward march of technology has actually improved the competition while remaining sustainable in terms of costs?