2022 Regulations, Did it deliver on its promise?

When the F1 Management body proposed the new car layout, they promised closer racing and a broadly harder contest for wins with top midfield teams possibly having regular podium finishes. For many of us, we thought this was the end of having one team run away with the championship. This has not been the case by the evidence of the season. We still have a huge gap between the leading team and the next-best team. The status quo in the midfield remained more or less the same for teams within the same band of performance. The 2021 season with the old regulation was more exciting than the 2022 season; maybe not so for Redbull and Verstapenn supporters. From my perspective, the new regulation did not change much from the patterns of the preceding Hybrid era. It was same-mo same-mo with a new leading team with a similar performance advantage to the Mercedes glory days.

Many people that l have been talking to about this seem to agree that the 2022 regulation failed to deliver on its promise of a closer and harder fight for race wins. The midfield teams seem to be the most disenfranchised by the regulations. As this is where the closer and harder position fight seem to be happening. It has become even harder to fight for championship points in the midfield. And the gap between the sharp end of the grid and the midfield remains more or less the same as it was in the prior Hybrid era. It has become even more crucial to have quality drivers in the midfield cars to guarantee good points haul by the end of the season, as driving errors and car damage are doubly punished by the more competitive environment of the midfield.

The cost cap has had very little effect on the top teams, it seems. Even with the problems faced by Mercedes and Ferrari, they managed to out-develop their cars relative to the midfield teams, where progress was slower.

That said, all teams would have learnt a great deal from the 2022 season. Hopefully, we would see the positive effects of the 2022 regulations kick in during the coming 2023 season. One would hope that Mercedes and Ferrari get their act together and turn up with cars on a similar performance to Redbull. Then we would be best placed to see who is the real best driver (or drivers) of this new era. Luckily for Verstappen, he did not get any real challenge this season; not even from his teammate in the same car as we did with Hamilton and Rosberg for instance.

For Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz Jr sake, it is good there is a change going on at the top at Ferrari. They were very questionable on a number of occasions. The very British rivalry brewing in Mercedes would also be very exciting to watch, as the coming-of-age young racer in Russell, takes on the mature seven-time F1 champion in Mercedes Cars on level performance with the Redbull. There is plenty to look forward to in 2023. Hopefully, the FIA would do an equal or better job than they did this 2020 season.

By the way, l got this from this publication https://medium.com/motor-racing/2022...r-1ebf0a0e2022

Nitro , nice to see you back .
I've missed your input .

I think the new formula worked , as it allowed many more close battles .

I think many of the teams will be working hardest on the budgetary issues more than anything , as it seemed to me that that was what hobbled the competition near the end of the year .
Wadding up the car hurts financially enough to lose a guy a drive , as Mick can testify .

It's a different world .

But , at the same time , it's just the same as it's always been , with some getting it wrong at first , and learning along the way , in full view of the public .
"You've got tame the porpoise before you can teach it to go fast ." is an old saying that was coined just this year .

It'll be closer next year , and every year until they change it again .

I still hope for a few changes , though .
Dump the tire warmers .
Dump the DRS .
Never remove any back markers under the safety car .

Good to see you're still watching at least some Nitro, I hope all is well.

Overall I think the new regs worked. We have seen closer following, more extended battles, bigger battles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCcA6c0v93c&t=96s five cars battling in Austria!), and more tire limited drives based on pace rather than trashing the tires trying to attack. Being the first year of new regs, only a couple teams really got it right from the start. In reality though, Ferrari drivers and poor strategy trashed their standings, when in a well managed team they should have been closer in the hunt at the front. Merc got it wrong, but made good improvements through the year.

I don't think we can even compare to the Merc glory days. Merc won by a more substantial margin out of the gate, and it took years for any team to decrease that margin to that which RB took the WCC this year. But that was in a time with unrestricted budgets, without the wind tunnel and CFD restrictions, etc. The new format will allow the slower teams to gain ground quicker than it took place back then, and even though some of the lesser teams still aren't operating at full budget, it should be enough to help them forward. This in turn should have a domino affect.... quicker car, easier to attract sponsors as well as good drivers you can now afford due to the sponsors helping more.

I think we will still always see 2-3 teams at the very top. By nature even if all the cars and drivers were equal, those with the slight edge to start at the front are at a great advantage in terms of running their own races rather than adapting the race being run. Those very small margins add up to a big advantage, and even more so as the field tightens up.

As for driver comparisons, just like in the past we can only really compare them to whoever else is on that team driving that car. Unless all the cars come together really closely, it's hard to see where the real driver talent lives. And to some extent, even then the best drivers will work through problems, and the lesser drivers will be crushed by the pressure. Just look how badly Albon and Gasly did when promoted to RB, vs how well George did at Merc. But the trick is you can't really know for sure who is ready for the fastest cars until you put the driver in it. And at some point, the budget restrictions might keep us from seeing the really tight teammate battles at times. If you take the Lewis/Nico Spain 2016 incident as an example, they could afford for that to happen, as they had a huge budget and WCC advantage over other teams. Though that might be a freak example, I suspect that few real inter team battles will be allowed tight fighting when there are constraints with budget, and the car advantages hopefully smaller.

I'm hoping the gradual fuel changes and increased electrical energy changes don't mess with things too much for the next few years. I think we have a chance to see some real progression on tightening up the pack for a change.

I think the real intra team battles will be in qualifying. Among teams, the races will depend on first lap results absent other issues like mechanical failures.

Hmmm IMO no, its the SAME THING since DRS was introduced.
not saying I dont enjoy tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Nitro , nice to see you back .
I've missed your input .

I think the new formula worked , as it allowed many more close battles .

I think many of the teams will be working hardest on the budgetary issues more than anything , as it seemed to me that that was what hobbled the competition near the end of the year .
Wadding up the car hurts financially enough to lose a guy a drive , as Mick can testify .

It's a different world .

But , at the same time , it's just the same as it's always been , with some getting it wrong at first , and learning along the way , in full view of the public .
"You've got tame the porpoise before you can teach it to go fast ." is an old saying that was coined just this year .

It'll be closer next year , and every year until they change it again .

I still hope for a few changes , though .
Dump the tire warmers .
Dump the DRS .
Never remove any back markers under the safety car .

---

Hi Baggie, thanks. I have been travelling a lot for work of late. Hence my absence. The close battles you talk about are mostly in the midfield where the performance of the cars is a lot closer than in previous years due to the 2022 regulations. Not so much at the sharp end of the grid where Redbull dominated with considerable ease. And yes, the budget cap may mean lesser places for rookies, as teams with smaller budgets would be more interested in the capable hands of experienced drivers who are unlikely to damage to car often. As Mick Schuimacher gives way for Hulkenburg, l would not be surprised if this becomes the trend going forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Hi Baggie, thanks. I have been travelling a lot for work of late. Hence my absence. The close battles you talk about are mostly in the midfield where the performance of the cars is a lot closer than in previous years due to the 2022 regulations. Not so much at the sharp end of the grid where Redbull dominated with considerable ease. And yes, the budget cap may mean lesser places for rookies, as teams with smaller budgets would be more interested in the capable hands of experienced drivers who are unlikely to damage to car often. As Mick Schuimacher gives way for Hulkenburg, l would not be surprised if this becomes the pattern going forward.

---

Well , stick around this time .
One can post from almost anywhere , ya know .

Merry Crimbo , dude .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Good to see you're still watching at least some Nitro, I hope all is well.

Overall I think the new regs worked. We have seen closer following, more extended battles, bigger battles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCcA6c0v93c&t=96s five cars battling in Austria!), and more tire limited drives based on pace rather than trashing the tires trying to attack. Being the first year of new regs, only a couple teams really got it right from the start. In reality though, Ferrari drivers and poor strategy trashed their standings, when in a well managed team they should have been closer in the hunt at the front. Merc got it wrong, but made good improvements through the year.

I don't think we can even compare to the Merc glory days. Merc won by a more substantial margin out of the gate, and it took years for any team to decrease that margin to that which RB took the WCC this year. But that was in a time with unrestricted budgets, without the wind tunnel and CFD restrictions, etc. The new format will allow the slower teams to gain ground quicker than it took place back then, and even though some of the lesser teams still aren't operating at full budget, it should be enough to help them forward. This in turn should have a domino affect.... quicker car, easier to attract sponsors as well as good drivers you can now afford due to the sponsors helping more.

I think we will still always see 2-3 teams at the very top. By nature even if all the cars and drivers were equal, those with the slight edge to start at the front are at a great advantage in terms of running their own races rather than adapting the race being run. Those very small margins add up to a big advantage, and even more so as the field tightens up.

As for driver comparisons, just like in the past we can only really compare them to whoever else is on that team driving that car. Unless all the cars come together really closely, it's hard to see where the real driver talent lives. And to some extent, even then the best drivers will work through problems, and the lesser drivers will be crushed by the pressure. Just look how badly Albon and Gasly did when promoted to RB, vs how well George did at Merc. But the trick is you can't really know for sure who is ready for the fastest cars until you put the driver in it. And at some point, the budget restrictions might keep us from seeing the really tight teammate battles at times. If you take the Lewis/Nico Spain 2016 incident as an example, they could afford for that to happen, as they had a huge budget and WCC advantage over other teams. Though that might be a freak example, I suspect that few real inter team battles will be allowed tight fighting when there are constraints with budget, and the car advantages hopefully smaller.

I'm hoping the gradual fuel changes and increased electrical energy changes don't mess with things too much for the next few years. I think we have a chance to see some real progression on tightening up the pack for a change.

---

Hi Shifter, thanks. Considering the tight budget and development restrictions; such as wind tunnel time and limitation on design scope, the Redbull gap this season is proportional to the Mercedes glory days. Mercedes and Ferrari clawed back some time by the end of the season. But l fully expect Redbull to make another step forward next season as both Mercedes and Ferrari would be aiming to match or better Redbull's time of the 2022 season. The limited budget may well facilitate Redbull maintaining its lead for a number of seasons. Verstappen may well match Vettel's four driver's titles at least before they are caught by the opposition.

All the closer following were in the midfield with occasional tussles at the front. The point of the regulation was to make the sharp end busier and hard-fought. With the midfield teams regularly in the mix. We may see that in the 2023 season, but l have some doubts. The 2022 season, certainly failed to produce that. What we saw was similar to the preceding 3 years at least.

I agree that. if they give this regulation a good number of seasons to be properly understood by the teams, we may end up with just that scenario; where Redbull or Mercedes would find themselves fighting on similar performances for race wins with Haas or Williams. Then again, pigs will fly one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Well , stick around this time .
One can post from almost anywhere , ya know .

Merry Crimbo , dude .

---

Merry Xmas buddy! Watch your tummy this festive fest approaching :-)

Formula one is a highly technical sport where differences of milliseconds translate to millions of dollars for drivers and teams. Hence all aspects of it are observed from a purely scientific perspective. Hence, when there is an objective-inspired change in regulation, we should take a scientific view to access its effectiveness and measure its success in achieving its objective.

There has been open debate about this topic. For many, the racing is familiar because it is similar to what we are used to in the past; tough duelling in the midfield and one team beating the rest of the grid by 30 seconds or more and waltzing off to win the championship with ease. This 2023 season has started off with all the hallmarks of just that scenario. What can be perceived from the immediate outlook is that the 2022 regulation and its variant in 2023 is clearly highly effective in the midfield where the racing is more intense than at any time in F1 history; but, no discernable effect can be seen at the sharp end of the grid. The status quo remains, meaning a dominant team can still emerge to win titles with zero competition from the nearest rivals. The net result is the F1 competition is for all other positions bar the championship-winning positions.

While l am mindful that l am commenting too early in the season, the season opener always gives a good indication of how the season would turn out. It tells us who is dominant and the extent of the dominance and how close the nearest rival is to the dominant team. This gives us an indicative measure of the level of competition for the titles we should expect this season.

By jove, Redbull has turned up with a car that is even more dominant than the 2022 car. Verstappen finished the race 38.637 seconds ahead of Alonso in the Aston Martin and he wasn't even pushing to the limit. That car probably has a full minute gap of race pace to the Aston if pushed to the limit.

The question is, what are the criteria for stating that the 2022 regulation is effective in the sharp end of the grid?

I think the following should manifest:

1. All cars racing at the sharp end of the grid should be within 5 seconds from the leading car at all times during the race.
2. The race should finish with the top two or three cars within two seconds of each other. Think of Jedda 2022, Verstapenn versus Leclerc. Now that is racing.

Of course, this scenario may not manifest itself at all races due to many factors that may produce a maintainable gap for the leading car. But in the above scenario, these factors should not produce a regular occurrence that manifests a clear untouchable dominance of racing.

To be fair, this last point is what should be proven by the next four races at least to put this criticism at bay. We could say therefore that we should revisit this discussion in four race time, l think. Though, l am not holding my breath, l expect Redbull to be miles ahead in four races time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Formula one is a highly technical sport where differences of milliseconds translate to millions of dollars for drivers and teams. Hence all aspects of it are observed from a purely scientific perspective. Hence, when there is an objective-inspired change in regulation, we should take a scientific view to access its effectiveness and measure its success in achieving its objective.

There has been open debate about this topic. For many, the racing is familiar because it is similar to what we are used to in the past; tough duelling in the midfield and one team beating the rest of the grid by 30 seconds or more and waltzing off to win the championship with ease. This 2023 season has started off with all the hallmarks of just that scenario. What can be perceived from the immediate outlook is that the 2022 regulation and its variant in 2023 is clearly highly effective in the midfield where the racing is more intense than at any time in F1 history; but, no discernable effect can be seen at the sharp end of the grid. The status quo remains, meaning a dominant team can still emerge to win titles with zero competition from the nearest rivals. The net result is the F1 competition is for all other positions bar the championship-winning positions.

While l am mindful that l am commenting too early in the season, the season opener always gives a good indication of how the season would turn out. It tells us who is dominant and the extent of the dominance and how close the nearest rival is to the dominant team. This gives us an indicative measure of the level of competition for the titles we should expect this season.

By jove, Redbull has turned up with a car that is even more dominant than the 2022 car. Verstappen finished the race 38.637 seconds ahead of Alonso in the Aston Martin and he wasn't even pushing to the limit. That car probably has a full minute gap of race pace to the Aston if pushed to the limit.

The question is, what are the criteria for stating that the 2022 regulation is effective in the sharp end of the grid?

I think the following should manifest:

1. All cars racing at the sharp end of the grid should be within 5 seconds from the leading car at all times during the race.
2. The race should finish with the top two or three cars within two seconds of each other. Think of Jedda 2022, Verstapenn versus Leclerc. Now that is racing.

Of course, this scenario may not manifest itself at all races due to many factors that may produce a maintainable gap for the leading car. But in the above scenario, these factors should not produce a regular occurrence that manifests a clear untouchable dominance of racing.

To be fair, this last point is what should be proven by the next four races at least to put this criticism at bay. We could say therefore that we should revisit this discussion in four race time, l think. Though, l am not holding my breath, l expect Redbull to be miles ahead in four races time.

---

The criteria is that the teams are closer together than before.. which they generally are.
Yes Red Bull are perhaps the exception to the above trend, IMO they just got it right last year, successfully evolved the car for this year and have probably just been far more efficient and successful in making the correct upgrade choices going forwards.
That said, I still feel that the fact that all the midfield teams are generally much closer together proves that the new regs are achieving what they set out to achieve.

Red Bull will be affected more than the others with reduced CFD/wind tunnel time later on in the season, yes it will probably be far too late to affect the championship outcome but unless they start putting literal success ballast on the cars on a race by race basis, (which I wouldn't feel comfortable with and also find very contrived) This is about as fair as it can be.

Red Bull will probably go on to dominate this season but by 2024 they are going to start being affected by their budget and CFD reduction success ballast. It will just take a bit of time to show that it works, I very much doubt Red Bull will continue to dominate for the next 5 years to the same degree that Merc previously did.

If you think the new regs are not working fast enough, what new rules would you suggest that is going to guarantee your (unrealistic IMO) results criteria on a regular basis?

Would you still be as concerned that no one was challenging Merc if THEY were still dominating?

I think the only way you could get your desired deltas on a regular basis would be if F1 became a single chassis/engine series to put everyone on the exact same performance baseline..

So , Red Bull has already won it all ?

I guess I don't need to watch then .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

The criteria is that the teams are closer together than before.. which they generally are.
Yes Red Bull are perhaps the exception to the above trend, IMO they just got it right last year, successfully evolved the car for this year and have probably just been far more efficient and successful in making the correct upgrade choices going forwards.
That said, I still feel that the fact that all the midfield teams are generally much closer together proves that the new regs are achieving what they set out to achieve.

Red Bull will be affected more than the others with reduced CFD/wind tunnel time later on in the season, yes it will probably be far too late to affect the championship outcome but unless they start putting literal success ballast on the cars on a race by race basis, (which I wouldn't feel comfortable with and also find very contrived) This is about as fair as it can be.

Red Bull will probably go on to dominate this season but by 2024 they are going to start being affected by their budget and CFD reduction success ballast. It will just take a bit of time to show that it works, I very much doubt Red Bull will continue to dominate for the next 5 years to the same degree that Merc previously did.

If you think the new regs are not working fast enough, what new rules would you suggest that is going to guarantee your (unrealistic IMO) results criteria on a regular basis?

Would you still be as concerned that no one was challenging Merc if THEY were still dominating?

I think the only way you could get your desired deltas on a regular basis would be if F1 became a single chassis/engine series to put everyone on the exact same performance baseline..

---

If you read my post carefully, you would notice that we are talking here about the objective of the 2022 regulation as openly proclaimed by the F1M. The expectations stated were merely in line with the closer racing criteria presented when the new chassis architecture was introduced to the F1 world in 2021.. The midfield was already very close before the 2022 regulations and did not require any changes. Hence using the midfield to defend the regulation is accepting that the regulation is not working as stipulated. The real ethos for the 2022 regulation was to prevent teams like Mercedes, Redbull and Ferrari from dominating the racing in such a way that there is no real competition for the championship at the front of the grid.

The current racing is familiar to you such that anything else is unusual and unreasonable. But, something else is just what the 2022 regulation promised and is failing to deliver. My post is simply pointing that out, it is not for me to dictate what the regulation should be. But as a fan of F1, l am entitled to review and comment on the regulation where it appears to be falling short of its promise. But you are also entitled to accept the outcome that produces racing that is similar to the pre-2022 regulations. Samemo samemo, who would notice eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

If you read my post carefully, you would notice that we are talking here about the objective of the 2022 regulation as openly proclaimed by the F1M. The expectations stated were merely in line with the closer racing criteria presented when the new chassis architecture was introduced to the F1 world in 2021.. The midfield was already very close before the 2022 regulations and did not require any changes. Hence using the midfield to defend the regulation is accepting that the regulation is not working as stipulated. The real ethos for the 2022 regulation was to prevent teams like Mercedes, Redbull and Ferrari from dominating the racing in such a way that there is no real competition for the championship at the front of the grid.

The current racing is familiar to you such that anything else is unusual and unreasonable. But, something else is just what the 2022 regulation promised and is failing to deliver. My post is simply pointing that out, it is not for me to dictate what the regulation should be. But as a fan of F1, l am entitled to review and comment on the regulation where it appears to be falling short of its promise. But you are also entitled to accept the outcome that produces racing that is similar to the pre-2022 regulations. Samemo samemo, who would notice eh?

---

Due to the nature of the changes, it's just going to take time. Red Bull aren't going to ve affected until the end of this season and beginning of 24.

If they brought in success ballast on a race by race basis to achieve your desired time deltas between the teams it would probably take away and stunt development... ie what is the point of developing the fastest car if its just going to be immediately knobbled... and I think that would also take away a lot of appeal for the manufacturers. I think the element of doing a better job than the others and not getting immediately equalised has to remain.

If that is not what you are thinking... what else could be done that isn't so acutely contrived and wouldn't devalue the sport?

I'm fine with it as it is, maybe it helps that I'm not a fan of any particular team. We are only 1 race in, so I'm not yet fully convinced that Red Bull are as dominant as they first appear to be.

I've watched since around 1968 when the only race I could catch was Monaco , on Wide World of Sports , and , it seems to me there has pretty much always been a team that gets it right , and everybody else grumbles about it .

But , I'm enjoying the new formula , as it has tightened the mid-field by making the cars capable of following much more closely .

The first race showed us a lot , but it showed the teams the relative strengths they have against their rivals .
So , the next two races should give us a clearer picture of what the season has in store .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

Due to the nature of the changes, it's just going to take time. Red Bull aren't going to ve affected until the end of this season and beginning of 24.

If they brought in success ballast on a race by race basis to achieve your desired time deltas between the teams it would probably take away and stunt development... ie what is the point of developing the fastest car if its just going to be immediately knobbled... and I think that would also take away a lot of appeal for the manufacturers. I think the element of doing a better job than the others and not getting immediately equalised has to remain.

If that is not what you are thinking... what else could be done that isn't so acutely contrived and wouldn't devalue the sport?

I'm fine with it as it is, maybe it helps that I'm not a fan of any particular team. We are only 1 race in, so I'm not yet fully convinced that Red Bull are as dominant as they first appear to be.

---

Applying ballast to the winning car has been tried before. I vaguely remember it was used in F2 not too long ago. I personally do not like the concept as it is artificial and punishes success rather than reward it. I thought the point of the new chassis and its control sections of it was to ensure that the performance of the competing cars was not too broad such as to produce vast gaps in performance at any part of the grid. It is fair to say that there would always be at least two tiers to the grid due to financial effect and inherent technical capabilities of the top teams. But the regulated chassis should ensure the performances in each tier are always very close. I think they could reign in more sections of the chassis to bring about closer racing. There is clear enough flexibility in the chassis to allow one team to dominate in such a way as to remove any real hard-fought competition for the title. But to be fair, l agree that we should see a few more races before any criticism is made.

I think the idea of the reverse grid from F2 may help mix things up a bit and give midfield teams a chance to win races. If the race was split into two, with the point-scoring positions reversed for the second race. Or something of that nature.

I've never seen any promises from F1M about midfield teams on the podium on a regular basis, nor that the top teams would all change, nor that the margins would grow significantly smaller through the entire pack. Not even close. Maybe someone has some links showing otherwise?

What they did clearly state was major changes to car design to allow for closer racing for extended periods, reduction of "dirty air" to allow this, and hopes of more passing on track. The budget caps and aero limits allowed a means for lesser teams to develop more than the better teams and give them a chance to catch up vs the previous regs, which would tighten the field strength.


And in my opinion, the regs worked just fine. On track passing increased by about 30% through the year, and many of those passes involved multiple cars in close proximity for a number of laps. Cars on differing strategies could finally fight when they didn't have the pace advantage for a DRS fly by pass. Though the top teams remained the top teams, the order in WCC standings changed. The largest gap was 1-2, and the 2-3 fight was tight and fighting until the end. The rest of the field shuffled completely with only a single team (AM) finishing in the same position as the previous year. The bottom several teams also scored more points than the previous year, so the spread of points through the pack was not as great as with the old regs.

Now in only the second year, the lowest ranking teams will benefit even more, and the highest ranking teams will have stiffer penalties. I seriously doubt if that is going to allow things to get nearly as spread out as the previous regs, money is now in the picture along with the aero and CFD caps.

If the first race is any indication, the WCC deck will shuffle once again. We've already had a team ranked 7th last year on the podium, as well as a 10th ranked team score a point.



I'm not for gimmicks and restrictions in F1. They make a box and make the constructors stay within the box. The constructor that does it best wins, and their drivers benefit from better cars. If it reaches a point of reverse grids, ballast, and other such nonsense they may as well just make it a spec series. The spec series already exists in Indycar, and with budgets similar to F1 they would probably be almost as fast. But even with their current series which is essentially a spec car, the racing is only but so close, and a good part of that is due to strategy calls and luck of refueling windows vs track accidents and such. Certain teams still rise to the top even though in theory they should not.

Maybe they should ballast on each stop and then apply a formula to allow cars and drivers to be more equal. After all, they could just regulate it until everyone gets a trophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I've never seen any promises from F1M about midfield teams on the podium on a regular basis, nor that the top teams would all change, nor that the margins would grow significantly smaller through the entire pack. Not even close. Maybe someone has some links showing otherwise?

What they did clearly state was major changes to car design to allow for closer racing for extended periods, reduction of "dirty air" to allow this, and hopes of more passing on track. The budget caps and aero limits allowed a means for lesser teams to develop more than the better teams and give them a chance to catch up vs the previous regs, which would tighten the field strength.


And in my opinion, the regs worked just fine. On track passing increased by about 30% through the year, and many of those passes involved multiple cars in close proximity for a number of laps. Cars on differing strategies could finally fight when they didn't have the pace advantage for a DRS fly by pass. Though the top teams remained the top teams, the order in WCC standings changed. The largest gap was 1-2, and the 2-3 fight was tight and fighting until the end. The rest of the field shuffled completely with only a single team (AM) finishing in the same position as the previous year. The bottom several teams also scored more points than the previous year, so the spread of points through the pack was not as great as with the old regs.

Now in only the second year, the lowest ranking teams will benefit even more, and the highest ranking teams will have stiffer penalties. I seriously doubt if that is going to allow things to get nearly as spread out as the previous regs, money is now in the picture along with the aero and CFD caps.

If the first race is any indication, the WCC deck will shuffle once again. We've already had a team ranked 7th last year on the podium, as well as a 10th ranked team score a point.



I'm not for gimmicks and restrictions in F1. They make a box and make the constructors stay within the box. The constructor that does it best wins, and their drivers benefit from better cars. If it reaches a point of reverse grids, ballast, and other such nonsense they may as well just make it a spec series. The spec series already exists in Indycar, and with budgets similar to F1 they would probably be almost as fast. But even with their current series which is essentially a spec car, the racing is only but so close, and a good part of that is due to strategy calls and luck of refueling windows vs track accidents and such. Certain teams still rise to the top even though in theory they should not.

Maybe they should ballast on each stop and then apply a formula to allow cars and drivers to be more equal. After all, they could just regulate it until everyone gets a trophy.

---

Sorry mate, l don't buy that for a moment. Vettel won a race with a midfield car in 2007. So what we are seeing in the midfield is nothing unusual and not necessarily attributable to the new regulations. I would admit that the cars are racing closer than before with less debilitating effect of dirty wake from ther cars ahead.

NO, the F1M did not in clear terms state that "midfield teams shall be on the podium on a regular basis, nor that the top teams would all change, nor that the margins would grow significantly smaller through the entire pack". They did allude to closer racing for the championship not closer racing in the midfield where the racing is not for the championship.

Maybe we should take another view to this question. What was the point of the changes introduced by the 2022 regulation in the first place? If we go back to the 2019, 2020 and 2021 seasons, the racing was already very close and exciting. The battles in the midfield were particularly fierce and very interesting and not dissimilar to what we are seeing in the 2022 era. The net change is a swap at the top of the grid with gaps similar to racing prior to 2019.

The pattern is similar to the characteristics of the Ferrari and Mercedes era of dominance where they were untouchable for a period of time then towards the end other teams caught up and the racing got fiercer as a change at the top transpired. This does not properly translate to Mercedes's case as it seemed manufactured rather than organic.

The bottom line is, the general expectation from the 2022 regulation was for there to be a proper fight for the championship from a cluster of teams. The F1M did allude to gaming console F1 type racing where there is a clear level playing field for all cars. The reality is they are a million miles away from this picture painted by Ross Brawn. By the looks of the cars, they are unlikely to achieve that also. The net changes to the car has produced the same type of racing we have seen in the past. And I see your point that we should not set the bar higher than what is realistically achievable.

To be honest, l hoped for much more than what has transpired.

I was under the impression that the point of the new regs was to allow for closer racing .

As they were before , the regs had everyone complaining that they couldn't follow closely .
The ironic result of previous diffuser development had added the responsibility to make sure nobody could follow closely .

The working group came up with this formula to increase the air pressure directly behind the cars , and it seems to have been very effective .




I did hear of some fiddling they are considering , for some reason .
I read that they may have teams , in a sprint race trial this year , use only the hard tire in Q1 , medium tire in Q2 , and soft in Q3 .

I'm not sure what that gives us , other than some scrambling to figure out all the compounds in practices , but it seems like it might be a good step forward in environmental terms .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I was under the impression that the point of the new regs was to allow for closer racing .

As they were before , the regs had everyone complaining that they couldn't follow closely .
The ironic result of previous diffuser development had added the responsibility to make sure nobody could follow closely .

The working group came up with this formula to increase the air pressure directly behind the cars , and it seems to have been very effective .




I did hear of some fiddling they are considering , for some reason .
I read that they may have teams , in a sprint race trial this year , use only the hard tire in Q1 , medium tire in Q2 , and soft in Q3 .

I'm not sure what that gives us , other than some scrambling to figure out all the compounds in practices , but it seems like it might be a good step forward in environmental terms .

---

To be fair, they have achieved the target of closer racing. However, it has made the fight in the midfield closer and fiercer. The entertainment of F1 racing has been mostly in the midfield for many years now, and the entertainment they produce is not rewarded according to the level of entertainment they produce. Maybe the teams that produce the most entertaining racing of wheel-to-wheel duelling should be paid the most, regardless of where in the grid that racing is occurring. Not necessarily the team that won the race if they won it without engaging in any battle to win the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I was under the impression that the point of the new regs was to allow for closer racing .

As they were before , the regs had everyone complaining that they couldn't follow closely .
The ironic result of previous diffuser development had added the responsibility to make sure nobody could follow closely .

The working group came up with this formula to increase the air pressure directly behind the cars , and it seems to have been very effective .




I did hear of some fiddling they are considering , for some reason .
I read that they may have teams , in a sprint race trial this year , use only the hard tire in Q1 , medium tire in Q2 , and soft in Q3 .

I'm not sure what that gives us , other than some scrambling to figure out all the compounds in practices , but it seems like it might be a good step forward in environmental terms .

---

If they make everyone use the same tires for qualification, it almost ensures less passing during the race. As it stands now, the lesser teams can use a softer compound to qualify higher, and the possibility of VSC/SC conditions timed correctly suddenly gives them the chance for a second (or third) stop free or almost free.

I personally like that they have options within the limits given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If they make everyone use the same tires for qualification, it almost ensures less passing during the race. As it stands now, the lesser teams can use a softer compound to qualify higher, and the possibility of VSC/SC conditions timed correctly suddenly gives them the chance for a second (or third) stop free or almost free.

I personally like that they have options within the limits given.

---

The use of only the hard tire in Q1 , medium tire in Q2 , and soft in Q3 could work if they impose it on the cars that finished in the top ten in the previous race. That would shake up the grid. But l fear it would not stop the dominant car from winning the race, considering Hamilton has won races starting from the rear of the grid. But it would nonetheless produce some very exciting overtaking which may produce unexpected dramas. Whatever the case, the F1M have to try something else soon or this season is going to bum out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

To be fair, they have achieved the target of closer racing. However, it has made the fight in the midfield closer and fiercer. The entertainment of F1 racing has been mostly in the midfield for many years now, and the entertainment they produce is not rewarded according to the level of entertainment they produce. Maybe the teams that produce the most entertaining racing of wheel-to-wheel duelling should be paid the most, regardless of where in the grid that racing is occurring. Not necessarily the team that won the race if they won it without engaging in any battle to win the race.

---

I cannot see any way to quantify exactly how "entertaining" a team is , and how to fairly reward this .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If they make everyone use the same tires for qualification, it almost ensures less passing during the race. As it stands now, the lesser teams can use a softer compound to qualify higher, and the possibility of VSC/SC conditions timed correctly suddenly gives them the chance for a second (or third) stop free or almost free.

I personally like that they have options within the limits given.

---

I completely agree on the sporting side .
I'm not seeing it quite as detrimental , though , as it might spur some backmarker teams to make more use of the hard tire strategy , and push the frontrunners to pay attention to the hards as well .
With these cars so finely tuned , using all three compounds might be really disruptive for everyone .

Or , it could be just a stupid idea , as you suggest .


In environmental terms , though , which is a focus for F1 , it seems to make for a smaller and more predictable number of tires needing to be available for the cars over the course of the season .
A lot of tires go unused , and they are transported to venues all over the world , to go unused .
Choosing compounds in advance helped a lot with this , and this may be another attempt at the same problem .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

In environmental terms , though , which is a focus for F1 , it seems to make for a smaller and more predictable number of tires needing to be available for the cars over the course of the season .
A lot of tires go unused , and they are transported to venues all over the world , to go unused .
Choosing compounds in advance helped a lot with this , and this may be another attempt at the same problem .

---

You could always make them use a single spec, single set of tyres for the season (say Michelin X - they were pretty long lasting) and give grid penalties for using a new tyre. That would be good for the environment & give pretty close racing, but it wouldn't be what F1 is about.

I don't like any of these artificial constructs to make the racing closer. Traditionally if one team spotted a loop-hole, got the design and set-up spot on and made the others look daft then good for them (until the rules were changed to knobble them - remember the Brabham fan car).

Why do we need all of these qualifying races, reverse grid suggestions and other complications to confuse what should really be simple - these guys got it right, the others didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Boyd

You could always make them use a single spec, single set of tyres for the season (say Michelin X - they were pretty long lasting) and give grid penalties for using a new tyre. That would be good for the environment & give pretty close racing, but it wouldn't be what F1 is about.

I don't like any of these artificial constructs to make the racing closer. Traditionally if one team spotted a loop-hole, got the design and set-up spot on and made the others look daft then good for them (until the rules were changed to knobble them - remember the Brabham fan car).

Why do we need all of these qualifying races, reverse grid suggestions and other complications to confuse what should really be simple - these guys got it right, the others didn't.

---

I can't argue with that. That argument also goes for Mercedes when they were unbeatable. So why did they go out of their way to knobble them? Clearly, the regulations were not doing a good job of slowing them down. As it would not do a good job of slowing Redbull; as a new run of multiple championship wins by one team ensues.

Let's be clear, we are not talking about stopping Redbull from winning, we are talking about them winning in situations of a real competitive fight to win the title. Either between the two Redbull drivers in the spirit of Hamilton-Rosberg or across a number of teams. The situation at Redbull is they do not allow proper competition between their drivers. They run a number one and number two driver setup. Hence, if none of the teams takes the fight to them, it becomes a procession at the front that showcases how dominant the Redbull cars is. Not necessarily a demonstration of driver skill that brings about skill domination. This is where the argument really lies. The car wins the driver and constructors championship in this case.

The hope was that the 2022 regulation would redress this issue to ensure that the driver's championship is won by the driver's wheel-to-wheel skills and not by how fast the car is in one drivers hands.

So , Nitro , you're OK with one team running away with it as long as they let the two team mates race ?

What happened to wanting the regs to stop a team getting a run on all the others ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

So , Nitro , you're OK with one team running away with it as long as they let the two team mates race ?

What happened to wanting the regs to stop a team getting a run on all the others ?

---

Not really, the next best thing is to see two capable teammates slug it out for the title Rosberg style. That is certainly better than a boring parade at the front. If Perez fights Verstappen and wins the Jeddah grandprix, that would certainly get everyone talking don't you think? But pigs would fly.