2022 Regulations, Did it deliver on its promise?

[airshifter]

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.

[Nitrodaze]

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.

[Bagwan]

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 .

[Bagwan]

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 .

[Steve Boyd]

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.

[Nitrodaze]

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.

[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 ?

[Nitrodaze]

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.