Why the need for stringent regulations?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I have grappled with this for some time now, and I appreciate that most people approve of some regulation, as do I.
What I'd like to see discussed is why regulations came about in the first place?

Was it due to safety?
To see closer racing?
Or any other reason?

[myurr]

I have grappled with this for some time now, and I appreciate that most people approve of some regulation, as do I.
What I'd like to see discussed is why regulations came about in the first place?

Was it due to safety?
To see closer racing?
Or any other reason?

To enforce safety standards, to control costs, to keep performance within adequate levels (related to safety), and in my opinion (and somewhat shamefully) to exert political control.

Taking it a step backwards as to why they need any regulations at all, then you have to have at least some rules such as racing a certain number of laps, or it would be anarchy. The question is how far from the bare minimum should we be, and that is very much a subjective things based on what each individual wants to get out of F1. Even then there will always be unintended consequences of too much or too few rules.

[Absolutelee]

To me it seems it was uniform competitiveness, as in separating F1 from F2 etc. Then safety for safety reasons, outlawing things like the crazy hesketh airbox, or keeping speeds down, skirts etc. Then, more recently it became about keeping costs down and keeping the field more or less even. That's how I've viewed it anyway

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I agree it's in all likelihood set to make performances uniform. The "formula" is a set of rules which all participants' cars must meet.

But who set these from the outset, and what is the specific goal in coming up with new regulations? This is where I'm hitting my head against a brick wall.

Politically motivated as Myurr says? (as in the favouritism shown to Ferrari during the Schumacher years?) But how is this in the interest of any other participant? Keep the FIA onside and they'll throw you a bone down the road?

Why for instance, can regulations not have full transparency when being dreamt up?
And for me, a big issue with F1 today is how it's missing a huge opportunity by implementing eco rules that could generate a test bed for future technologies. Cost is an argument, and I appreciate this. But how can costs be held up as basis for not trying something when teams spend 100s of millions(some cases each), year on year to fine tune a 3 element front wing and its prevaling wake?

I'm probably in a minority, but I feel that by loosening mechanical regulations such as engine, gearbox chassis to enable these facets to directly compete with the aero dominated Formula we have today would be a massive boost to prospective entrants, fans and participants.

[SeijaKessen]

You know what's interesting Johnson?

Have you read the rules for the LMP1 class for 2014?

You can use whatever engine you would like.

All the gloves are off.

Fuel consumption must be reduced by 30% though.

I'm a little disappointed they are doing away with open cockpits...but that aside, I am looking forward to June 2014 tremendously.

I actually really have come to the belief LM has surpassed F1 as the place to go for technology since F1 has stagnated.

There is supposed to be a hydrogen car in next year's race.

[SeijaKessen]

Here is the PDF file discussing regulations for 2014....

http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/1/1 ... n_2014.pdf

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Why can this not be F1

The rules for LMP1 look fantastic. Could be a precursor to great things, but you see what they're doing?
Making rules lax on one end of the scale, and heightened at the other in keeping with modern trends.

Can only hope it succeeds.

[Ganxxta]

+1 to that.

Thats how its supposed to be. FIA can learn something.
Just compare
F1 2014:
1.6l V6 + 6,7secs Kers

LMP1 2014:
Everything open, only fuel consumption limited/reduced =D>

Now, where is the "leading Technology" F1?

Has someone seen the fight between the Audi and the Toyota for the lead after 5h in race?
Close battling with over 300kmh, no need for DRS or such crap

I think after 2014 I will only watch Le Mans and ALMS.

[Absolutelee]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the regs were set democratically by the teams. Then the people designing the cars could decide what areas to restrict and what areas to put time into. Might alter the focus just enough to allow some brilliant ideas.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

You know the crazy thing is ganxxta, F1 will probably spend 10 times the amount to extract every last possible ounce of performance from the 1.6 litre turbo than what is being achieved in LM class competition.

There is a very real danger, that come 2014 F1 will be "old hat" in comparison to the very advanced Sportscar series.
Sure the F1 car will have far more advanced Aero, but who gives a monkey's nut about this?
A car is a car, not an upside down aircraft.

I dont get hard for winglets, I get hard for the oily bits. A shame F1 refuses to move away from this.

[SeijaKessen]

Why can this not be F1

The rules for LMP1 look fantastic. Could be a precursor to great things, but you see what they're doing?
Making rules lax on one end of the scale, and heightened at the other in keeping with modern trends.

Can only hope it succeeds.

I feel they have a much better feel for how to explore new technologies.

I loved seeing the Delta Wing this past weekend. Was such a bizarre design, but it reminded me a lot of another radical design; Tyrrell P34.

F1 has become risk adverse and unwilling to take chances.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Agreed Seija,

And therein lies the problem. People can argue that F1 doesn't need to be relevant.
But it's not so much about relevance as pushing the envelope for new technologies to flourish.
Technologies that can be allowed for reasonable sums if the rules made aerodynamics less important.

It's almost like the leadership is paralysed to do anything about it.

[Ganxxta]

I dont get hard for winglets, I get hard for the oily bits. A shame F1 refuses to move away from this.

Yes, same here. I mean if the Manufacturers can test new technologies/systems/fuels etc. while racing and then can introduce it to the normal cars, I'm all for it.
But what possible features can be brought from F1 to normal cars? Drs? Exhaust blown Diffusers? limited Hybrid Power (Kers)? 1% better aerodynamics? How to save tires over a specific lifetime?

I would certainly go for the improvements in Engine development...

F1 is getting more and more into a money business than racing, it always was, but racing was more prominent.

[gato azul]

Why for instance, can regulations not have full transparency when being dreamt up?

perhaps for similar reasons that " tax regulations" in most countries are rather complex, while the concept of taxation is
rather simple to grasp.
Many good points have been raised already here, and at different times (history) some factors where perhaps more of an driving factor then others (safety, costs, political interests etc. etc.).

JET, you used the word "stringent", maybe I misinterpret this into "complex" - apologize if this is the case.
The main reason for this IMHO, lays in the "creative energy" of the opponents, which gives the parallel to the "tax code". ( to not use the term "criminal energy", because it would not apply to F1 )

I'm reasonable sure that most people will understand the motivation between a rule like "no hole in the floor", but it does not stop them, to come out with something that is not perfectly circular and argue, that this is not a hole, that it is a slot or a opening or whatever. And then the whole thing takes off from there.

In complex technical systems, it is just difficult "to dream up" all possible scenarios and interpretations.
The guy who "dreamed up a rule" had surely a clear understanding, what he wanted to achieve, but he may has underestimated the "creativity of interpretation" of his opponents.
When it dawns on him, that people have found a way around the (his) "intention/spirit" of his rule, he may feels compelled to enhance the rules (clarification/appendixes etc.), to achieve what he intended to achieve in the first place.

I think, it is rather telling that even in "lower" forms of racing (not F1), teams employ "regulation experts" (often lawyers or people with a legal training/background), which then go on, and find possible beneficial "interpretations" of the "written rules".

Scrutineering then often has some resemblance of a "court room" with people arguing about the "meaning/interpretation" of the written rules. (e.g. when is a hole a hole, and is a slot the same as a hole etc.)
And just as in real life, sometimes you get away with things, just because you had a "better lawyer" then the opposing party, even that most people are in conses that it was "wrong/illegal etc." according to "their interpretation" of the same rules.

[SeijaKessen]

You know the crazy thing is ganxxta, F1 will probably spend 10 times the amount to extract every last possible ounce of performance from the 1.6 litre turbo than what is being achieved in LM class competition.

There is a very real danger, that come 2014 F1 will be "old hat" in comparison to the very advanced Sportscar series.
Sure the F1 car will have far more advanced Aero, but who gives a monkey's nut about this?
A car is a car, not an upside down aircraft.

I dont get hard for winglets, I get hard for the oily bits. A shame F1 refuses to move away from this.

Pretty much my thoughts.

Would love to see reduced aero, because I don't think it is particularly relevant to most people.

People want to see the cars go like hell so to speak.

Sad that we've gotten cars that are now slower than the F2004.

If I had to venture a guess in 2004, I would have assumed the cars in 2012 would be at least as fast as the 2004 cars, not slower.

That's a total scam if you ask me.

All done in the name of "safety"...safety has become an all-encompassing excuse in F1 for not doing anything or adding more idiotic rules restricting cars.