On rules and regulations

[Mikey_s]

I find myself perched on the horns of a dilemma…

On the one hand I feel that F1 should be all about the best package, innovation and a generous helping of luck from time to time. On the other hand I like to see a good scrap and close wheel to wheel racing. Therefore I find it hard to rationalise my feelings about single tyre manufacturer racing and the continuous drive to cut costs.

Speaking as a devoted Ferrari fan I found the last two seasons difficult to live with. OK, even though some of the issues were undoubtedly down to Ferrari, I think it was clear to most that Michelin comprehensively trounced Bridgestone in adapting to the one set of tyres rule (Indy excepted!). Then again, in 2004 Ferrari never looked like they could lose… but I was still a little unsettled – it shouldn’t be that easy!

Now we look ahead to 2006 – on paper it seems like we should have the most closely fought season for a few years, but ultimately I think my main problem is this; The recent seasons seem to be about who adapts most quickly to the rule changes and not about who has the best package overall. In recent years the championship is more or less decided by mid season, thereafter everyone is racing for the minor positions. In my view what the teams need is stability in the rules so that we can witness the extraordinary capacity for the engineers to adapt to the regulations and develop cars which are capable of challenging each other in the early parts of the season.

Then there is this desire to cut costs… whilst this is an admirable sentiment I think the stable door is being shut long after the horse has bolted. Any team, as with any business, will spend the budget that it has. Think of it like a balloon; Max (the FIA) squeezes the balloon in a particular place (engines), any savings made will be spent elsewhere. And that’s another thing… My instinct (and experience in product development) tells me that the majority of costs are sunk in the development of a new engine, thereafter it’s more or less material and labour costs to assemble the kit. So tell me, how does changing the engine size and configuration, or lifespan every season really contribute to serious cost reduction? It’s beyond me!

Single tyre rule; serious potential to reduce costs here because the majority of testing revolves around tyre development… but back to my dilemma; there is no doubt that innovation is a necessary step in a competitive environment. So by removing competition you remove the necessity to innovate, which is against the general principle of F1.

Like most fans I would like to see close racing, but I want to see the best of the best, I want to see the highest technology. I don’t want to see people killed or injured, so safety is a key requirement in the sport, but I don’t want to see single class racing, nor do I want to see the cars reduced to tractor technology. I loved the turbo era, I loved active suspension (and I loved the V12 and V10 too!) – but another dilemma; I didn’t much like launch, or traction control – which took the skill away from the drivers. I happened to watch some vintage footage of Monza a few weeks back and saw the awesome skills employed by having to use a gearstick to change gear, rather than the paddle shift – great to watch, but technology changed that for ever. So what to do…..?

Mikes Rules for good racing;
1. Leave the rules alone for a while
2. stop tinkering about with engine lifespan – we don’t want bullet proof engines, we want to see 1300HP monsters in qualifying!!! (and nice long flames out the tailpipe on the overrun!! Yippee!!!)
3. If you’re worried about safety/cornering speed, set a maximum speed limit, but give the guys slick tyres. That way the engineers can work on braking systems and bottom end power development and the drivers can use their skill to put the power down earlier.
4. Stop trying to cut costs, let the market decide when enough is enough
5. See rule 1.
6. See rule 1.
7. Ditto... ad infinitum!

Discuss…

[RH1300S]

Eloquently put (hope I spelt it right )

That is the dilemma in a nutshell. Some features are debated long and hard often because that's where the focus is placed. Take cutting costs - cutting testing will cut costs (or will it? see your balloon analogy ) and a single tyre will reduce the need for testing. So, people will argue for a single tyre on that basis (and so-on). I think that's the wrong way to look at the problem. It's like the long life engines and the V8 nonsense. These money saving devices have surely cost huge amounts of money in R&D. Max says that having V8's means fewer parts, so it cheaper! Rubbish (see balloon analogy again ).

I would have thought that a testing limit would be easy to police - why can't they have data loggers in the cars to limit the mileage per team? It would be easy to figure out a tamper-proof system. Limiting testing days (as we have seen) just encourages people to do more car miles in a day.

If they could find a cast iron way to trim downforce, the speed issue would be less of a problem (leave a corner slower and need to arrive at the next slower will limit top speed). I don't think trimming engine power is a way to reduce speeds, eventually you will have F3 cars running around on rails. With big horsepower engines you become traction limited in many corners (more if you cut downforce) - this plays into the hands of the more skilled drivers (just as long as driver aids vanish too ).

I would like to see tyre wars, powerful engines and the best drivers in the world managing the horsepower by themselves AND have the best engineers battling for a technical advantage with room to innovate.

It seems to me that the rules package is so tight that winning is all about optimising tiny details - something that a big budget can do better than a small budget. Where's the room for a Colin Chapman (Gordon Murray, Forghieri - make your own list) to strut his stuff these days?

[manchild]

When you compare result of FIA survey - demands of fans on which FIA called upon for the future of F1 and when you compare demands of fans with what FIA suggested for 2008 than it is obvious that FIA asks fans to bend over and fill up the survey while it does some naughty things to them from behind.

Just compare result of the survey with FIA regulations for 2008 than you’ll see “pig farm in Teheran” kind of compatibility. It is like fake democracy - dictator organizes referendum under pressure from international community just to give impression of his own fairness and than several months later continues as before...

[RH1300S]

Manchild - just as you post this, the FIA announces plans to cut costs; do you think they are scared?

Have a read of the proposals (try not to hate them too much) there is some interesting stuff in there. I won't post a link as this site seems pretty quick to get news in place.

[manchild]

Manchild - just as you post this, the FIA announces plans to cut costs; do you think they are scared?

I’ve read it and all I can say is that if Colin Chapman was alive he’d be on top of FIA’s banned things list.
This is turning F1 into monotonous uninteresting merry-go-round, designed by big brother with no place for inventiveness or any progress.

Max Mosley, FIA President "The real argument in Formula One is not about sports governance or even about how much money FOM gives the teams. It's all about costs…”.

Now we know why Ferrari recently insisted on limiting costs.

Max Mosley, FIA President “The World Championship must remain financially viable for independent teams. Against this, two (possibly three) manufacturers want to win by spending unlimited amounts of money. This approach has caused great damage to motor sport, most recently to IRL in America. We don't want it in F1.”

What he doesn’t want in F1 is exactly how it used to be in F1 since the beginning. That is the whole point of my dislike for FIA moves – they are turning F1 into something that has no resemblance to F1.

In general, I expect huge counterstrike from GMPA regarding this latest version of “Mein Kampf “.

Have a read of the proposals (try not to hate them too much) there is some interesting stuff in there. I won't post a link as this site seems pretty quick to get news in place.

There are many interesting things at the city dump too - like lost jewelry or money but when you look at it from a distance it is just a pile of crap.

[manchild]

- The minimum weight is reduced from 605 to 550kg (Article 4).
Reason: To eliminate the cost of purchasing 55kg of very expensive high density ballast for each car and transporting it all over the world. Cars will also be safer without this extra weight.

- weight penalties for early replacement of engine or gearbox;

Hehe.. check out these two

Weight is reduced to reduce “cost of purchasing 55kg of very expensive high density ballast for each car and transporting it all over the world” but if team needs to replace engine or gearbox than it will be obliged to add that same “very expensive high density ballast”. HOW If no one will purchase ballast and carry it around the globe than what will be used as ballast?



What about safety than? Penalized cars will be less safe because they are penalized by FIA...

[GuestAgain]

Manchild:

RH1300S wrote:
Have a read of the proposals (try not to hate them too much) there is some interesting stuff in there. I won't post a link as this site seems pretty quick to get news in place.


There are many interesting things at the city dump too - like lost jewelry or money but when you look at it from a distance it is just a pile of crap.

havent laughed as much in a while. Just what the doc ordered for xmas.

Mcdenife

[GuestAgain]

Imagine having to dig thru a city dump to try to find something useful or of value.

[manchild]

I hope RH1300S didn’t misdirect my sarcasms – they are as always at Mosley’s account only.

I agree that there are interesting things in FIA proposals but just as in city dump–jewelry case, if I’d praise those tiny bits of good stuff than someone might get under impression that I also like remaining 99% of crap FIA suggests.

I like democracy (not as much as technocracy ) so I talk about majority and majority of proposed regulations look like s***, smell like s*** than they must be s*** (they probably taste like s*** too but I’d rather not taste that).

[Mikey_s]

Thanks for all the responses, it got me thinking some more... (uh oh!!)

I just took a look on the FIA website and I couldn't actually find a proper definition of what they thought F1 was all about... you know, what is the actual purpose of F1?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan and probably won't stop watching whatever they do to my beloved sport, but I think that would help a lot in deciding whether changes to the rules were in the right direction or not.

Max wants to cut costs... but as I said in my original post I don't want to see a tractor race. And as RH1300 wrote, the big advances are done for by the regs, so it's in the sum of the tiny stuff that the race is won... that costs. IMO stifling market forces always comes back and bites you on the ass in the end... I'm not sure how many people watched the races for Minardi and Jordan (of course there will be fans and I don't wish to insult them), but my guess is that most people watch it to see technological excellence, combined with skill to beat the opposition. Max can squeeze the baloon in as many places as he likes - if Ferrari, or McLaren, or Renault have $300 million rest assured they will spend it and cost cutting (even if it doesn't necessarily cut costs!!) in one place will just focus the teams on where they have room to innovate....

[DaveKillens]

The current situation in Formula One is where we have Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Renault, and Ferrari, as serious factories willing to win the title, willing to spend huge amounts of money for the glamour and prestige. Being that they are international car manufacturers, this is a big bucks game, where sadly, minor teams without serious factory backing have little prospect but fighting for the rest. It's become a two class system, clearly defined. That's why Minardi and Jordan, and even Arrows are now gone, run out of town by the lack of big bucks.
The current climate of constantly changing rules does harm to all, from the TV companies to the fans, to the teams. It is an indication of the uncertain and troubled climate within the high ranks of F1.
This time, there is no escape from max Mosley being held directly acccountable for all these changes. His tenure does not welcome an environment where everyone knows what the rules are, or what they will be in two years.
I want to see the most exciting cars with the best drivers ripping up the tracks, racing each other hard, with passing possible.

[manchild]

I know I’m repeating myself but F1 started becoming two-class system after the cost cutting policy got underway many years ago. It is absurdity to look at some F1 history book and see that prior to FIA’s F1 salvation policy teams like Lotus, Tyrell, Brabham, Ligier, Tyrell, Benetton, Arrows, Minardi, Jordan, BAR… managed to survive and died after begining of treatment which is now obvious they never needed. We had cost cutting policy in 2005 and we lost 3 teams - 3 out of 10. Whoever was in charge of this operation should face consequences for what happened instead of prolonging it own dictatorship trough announced changes whose purpose is to washout someone’s dirty hands.

I like idea of wider cars and wider slicks but I’m not buying basket full of rotten apples just because there is one good apple at the top of it. FIA was never in its history designing any vehicle as it does now. Their business should be safety and specification of materials, characteristics and dimensions safety-vise only. If they want to pursuit current policy than they might as well abolish constructor’s championship and build their own plant that will manufacture cars for F1. Situation with pneumatics is already such…

[Mikey_s]

The more I think about it the more clear my thoughts are starting to become... so called cost cutting is hurtng the sport in one major way;

The reason the small teams were successful in the past is that when serious innovation was permitted if they had a great idea they could beat the big guys - at least for a while. If there is scope to apply an innovative solution, get it onto the car win a race or two (then, if it's too good, the FIA steps in and bans it - suction cars for example), they scored points and, to paraphrase a game show, points mean prizes - hey presto they're still in business.

I think RH1300S said early on nowadays the victories result from optimisation of tiny gains in performance.... this costs serious money, and the little fish have a customer engine (never going to be as good as the works one) and no room (coz of the strict confinement of the rules) to innovate their way out of the conundrum. QED they can't compete an end up at the back of the grid... lower places = less sponsorship = less money = downward spiral = exit F1

The way for the little guy to participate is to have a great idea and outwit the competition, the current rules preclude this by limiting the scope for serious innovation. Result; the teams ain't happy, the true fans ain't happy and the little guys are forced out of the game...

Lose - lose situation....

[RH1300S]

There was a curious part of the statement that effectively said.....if anyone comes up with a startling innovation and performance gain, it will probably be banned for next year. The supposed idea is that smaller teams (maybe not just the small ones, but you get the idea) might innovate their way up the grid, but then it MAY be banned next year to stop everyone jumping on the band-wagon and restoring the status quo. I sort of follow this, but smell a problem I can't quite put my finger on (mixed metaphor?).

I think the idea of limiting bodywork changes during the season has to make sense (that, I hope would include all "wetted" surfaces - like wings). It won't stop the big boys spending the development time, but it least the march of change won't strain a smaller budget so badly (I think Williams went through over 100 aero iterations in 2005!).

One thing I don't want to see is dumbing down technology - that is a big part of the fascination of F1. It is a technical marvel and the cars are the fastest thing on the planet around a closed circuit - that should remain. BUT - I do think there is merit in the standard ECU, it goes against the grain, but it seems to be the only way to get rid of driver aids (which i would love to see go). A standard ECU might seem like dumbing down, but for sure the engineers will (balloon effect again ) spend time optimising elsewhere.

Standard chassis materials I am not so sure about, if we had standard chassis material rules 20 or so years ago we would still have aluminium tubs.

The weight penalty idea - yes, Manchild well spotted! BUT, on another level it seems to be a better way to find a way to penalise an engine change and surely better than the current system (new debate on the merits of long life engines? )

BTW - cutting cost has it's merit, and the idea is that while you won't stop teams spending money, you make it easier for a lower budget to compete. If this becomes a truism, then surely it will be harder for bigger to teams to find budget (imagine a car manufacturer's team trying to justify to the board why they spend $200M more than another and sometimes get beaten?) - this might at least bring a slow down in the rise in spending.

Final thought - some teams have been driven out of F1, but the gaps have been filled; so we must conclude that, for now at least, there a people in the world who are prepared to find the money needed to compete in F1.

[USAF1FAN]

GPMA-online.com was asking for suggestions from the public. I asked why FIA doesn't simply limit budgets and this was their response:

"This idea has indeed discussed, following detailed suggestions by Jaguar Racing in 2004. Unfortunately, the (majority of the) other teams could not support its implementation so it was taken off the agenda."

If the limit was $100 million dollars can anyone reasonably argue that it's not enough money to run two cars? The only arguement one could make is that it could hinder inovation, but FIA is doing that now, especially with the 2008 proposal that includes, "Banning new technologies that give teams a clear performance advantage..." I don't even understand that.

A limit on a team's budget would be easy to enforce simply by installing auditors. FIA polices everything else, why not budgets?