F1 rule change 2017


No passing through my dirty air please
So word around F1 is that there is going to be a dramatic overhaul of its rules and regs in time for the 2017 season. The main crux of this appears to be 1000bhp engines although no one seems really clear on exactly what else its going to involve. It seems clear though that some parties are very keen for it. The most vocal appears to be Ron Dennis and for once himself and Mr Ecclestone are in agreement but what is this really about?

The regulation changes for 2017 are set to be the biggest overhaul ever of the regulations since the last biggest overhaul of the regulations ever in 2014 and the other biggest overhaul of the regulations in 2009. Are all these changes a sign F1 is unsure of what direction to go? Well lets look of the situation and see what its all about.

It appears the main people calling for this rule change are the team owners who are not at the front. So is this a case of sour grapes? Well possibly but its sour grapes with a reason. F1 has pretty much scrapped testing for cost reason but unfourtunatly what that means is that its hard for any team to make giant leaps forward, which in turn means that everything stays in pretty much a status quo. So how do you shake up a status quo? Dramatic regulation changes! That was the real reason for the 2014 rule change and we all know it. It wasn't good for the 'show' for Red Bull to be so dominant. But what do they do now the Mercs are way out front? Roll the dice again.

But is a dramatic very expensive rule change actually what F1 needs right now? It really isn't. Teams are falling like flies and the field is full of pay drivers. Isn't it bad enough that the teams have to build a brand new car every year? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to settle on one design and develop it for a few years? Does anyone remember the year Mclaren ran the same car two years running and it just got better and better? So wouldn't F1 be better having fixed regulations for 3-4 years and bringing back regular testing? I think so. Problem with that though is that its a slow burner. It doesn't bring about sudden dramatic changes and make a big impact in the press.

So I guess we're going to stick with the biggest overhaul of F1 regs ever ever ever.......and then wait for the next one in 2021.

Any thoughts?
Last edited:
And they've just spent hundreds of millions, probably in the billions, developing incredible efficient power units that unfortunately don't make a massive amount of noise. As if they didn't foresee this when they changed the rules the last time anyway.
I have said all along that I consider the hybrid power units to be a major mistake. They add huge expense but, IMO, contribute little or nothing to the competition.
I remain skeptical that stressing technology is the answer. It rarely leads to good head-to-head racing, which is what people really want to see.

When you contrast what is going on today, with teams failing because of costs, the influx of drivers that really have no business being in top-echelon races but have seats due to their bringing along bags of cash etc, with the Cosworth era, when costs were reasonable because a competitive power train could be purchased for reasonable sums, teams were being formed rather frequently (Tyrrell, Williams, McLaren (which started with BRM power but became front-line with Cosworth), March etc), to the point where pre-qualifying became necessary there were so many entries. It was arguably the most competitive era I have seen, and the rules were very stable for a protracted time.

Unfortunately, with so much discord among the teams, and with Bernie calling the shots based, seemingly, solely on his own whims, I really do not see any simple solutions.
Think you'll find F1 is between a rock & a hard place.

On one side are the elite teams, the ones with loads of cash, Sponsors, Dashing Hair Cuts and Bright Trousers, they of course want this income to continue, the perceived favouritism by F1 whether or not this also brings success. Money is king.

On the other side, you have the 'have nots' teams and any new team that wants to break into F1. They want a more even share of the F1 cash, hell Ferrari get millions for being Ferrari. They probably also fear for the future F1 too, how long are the fans and Sponsors going to put up with the same old same old?

In the middle with F1 are the fans, hoping common sense prevails.

Just I think these fans can see right through the planned 2017 changes as appeasement to all around them, but it'll still ensure the Status Quo with the elite teams remains but in a different shade.

Fans want racing with decent drivers in a F1 cars there through merit throughout the field. Unfortunately the elite teams know this would only happen if their revenue stream reduced

Never going to happen, and after 2017 the cycle will repeat.
Last edited:
Having developed expensive engines for the new regulations I believe they should stay, F1 has always been about power and skill, the hybrid engines have the power, what now is needed is to refine the engines, perhaps a bit of tweaking to reduce fuel consumption over the next few years,
To save money one needs a power unit that stays basically the same in construction for a few years, maybe even cylinder blocks that last a few seasons along with crankshafts perhaps. The hybrid side perhaps needs a bit of attention to make it more practical, but that will come as the regulations settle down and more power is developed from recovery systems.
Aero is the problem, millions are being spent trying to get that extra 10Kgs of downforce over the rival, perhaps reduce wings to single or two element only, no blown exhaust aero.
Stability is answer to cost, and lower cost is the answer to paid drivers, the harder the car is to drive the less skilled paid driver will be unable to perform at the top.Whether a car passes you at 200mph or 150mph actually visibly is not that detectable and even less so on TV, though from the drivers eye view it is , so in car shots on TV may be slightly more speed aware
. Go back to single dry tyre, you decide when to stop, one tankful of fuel, team decide the fuel, rules decide how much and how they use it and when is up to the team and driver.
If you look at it the engines are staying, they are just wanting to increase the fuel flow rate and maximum consumption as the engine manufacturers believe they are capable of producing the current unit with up to 1000bhp reliably. This is an evolution of the current rule sets and not a complete change.

The bigger changes will probably come next year with more freedom over aero design, wider tyres and changes around the restrictions over the way the car is made. What the bigger teams want is more freedom over car design to allow those people with the thirstier or less perfomant engines to find clever ways to make up the deficit in overall performance.
Quite apart from apart from everything else what I find nonsensical is the attitude of the FIA regarding the "drive towards cost-cutting" in F1

One one hand they effectively banned in-season testing and restricted winter testing. They introduced a limited allowance on engine and gearboxes per yea.
On the other they introduced a far more expensive engine formula in 2014 and are now talking of a measure which according to Renault will furthe increase the costs of running engines in 2017 or now possibly even next year..

Meanwhile teams at the back are droppng out like flies... something there just doesn't add up.
Whether a car passes you at 200mph or 150mph actually visibly is not that detectable and even less so on TV

As Formula E has shown.

I don't see why F1 needs another new set of regulations. What will probably happen is the other teams will catch up with Mercedes this season and some will be ahead next then the regs will change and we will see another team dominate for 2 seasons as everyone gets to grip with the new Formula.

Although the implementation was a bit ham fisted, Max's attempt to bring in Cosworth as a low cost supplier for smaller teams was a good one. I wonder if there is anyone who could make a serious hybrid engine for smaller teams.

Final point, I'm sure I saw something the other day about Bernie wanting a second division F1 series with old cars or am I dreaming?
I've always felt that one aspect F1 must keep is that things must be 'on the limit' - so it must be the fastest, or close to the fastest, series out there. It's more sophisticated than flat-out straight line speed though and must be a series where cornering speed and handling are also supreme. The cars must not be too 'easy to drive' and therefore the cream of drivers should rise to the top (pay or no pay - that doesn't really bother me too much). The technology and design must also be 'at the limit' - it should be a sreies that rewards technical and scientific advancement. The team plays a big part too, not just the driver (many will disagree with this, I know).
All this sounds obvious. I don't know if these things are enshrined in the rules - I feel the spirit of them are anyhow - but wonder whether it should be set in stone as many changes over the years seem to lose focus on what F1 is actually about.

Also the FIA isn't 100% to blame for all the bad changes. The more I look into it the more I realise it's the (big) teams that hold the real power. I believe the power unit changes were the teams idea originally wasn't it? I could be wrong on that, and I also don't think the current power units were necessarily a bad idea but any change to PUs should be a gentle evolution in order to avoid another spending arms race.
FB Bernie was touting an idea about 'Super GP' which would be GP2 cars running in the F1 races with slightly souped up engines.

I thought it was a bit naf.
Last edited:
Surely we all by now know that whenever Bernie pushes a particularly naff idea it's usually to deflect attention from whatever he is actually trying to implement?
I enjoy discussion about ideas to improve F1 because they vary so much. I love the idea of 1000 hp and big tires, as long as aero dependence is reduced. It seems to me that aerodynamics are a very expensive part of gains on track and they have zero to do with the skill of the driver or relevance to road cars. How much money would be saved and how much harder would the cars be to drive if there was a spec front wing for everybody to use? Also, when the current engine rules expire, Formula 1 could make things interesting by having a stock block rule that allows teams to run any engine that uses a production block.
My idea has always been that the FIA should have its own team that builds its own chassie. At the end of the season each team is given the chassie for the following season and a full month to do whatever they want with it. At the end of the month the teams then have to decide if they want to use the chassie or build their own. If they want to build their own then they get half their entry fee back. All teams can then develop them how they seem fit.

You'd still get the big teams building their own cars and maybe being dominant but the smaller teams could put their money into development rather than construction and due to the standard chassie there wouldn't be a huge difference between the teams at the back and we wouldn't get teams massively adrift from everyone else.
I don't like these stupid tonka toys they have now, Formula one isn't about engines that sip a minuscule amount of fuel ever lap or so it is about earth shattering noise, cars that are a handful do drive and power, much much much more power 1000bhp is a start but give me 15000bhp or more with so much torque that it rips the tarmac up from a standing start I want the cars to be so hard do drive that when the race is over a driver is out of breath and can barely stand from exhaustion not like he has just had a nice nap in a meadow full of buttercups, bring the driver back as the main component to the car not the car being the main component to a drivers success...
Last edited:
What if fuel limit and fuel flow limits were done away with, refueling was introduced but refueling had to be gravity feed through a 1" hose and only once tires are replaced?
Yes great Mephistopheles, but in this day and age of PC you will kill F1 quicker than Bernie could line his pockets from it,no one bothers about transportation pollution, just the on track wastage of resources which stupidly is public perception of F1 and that is what the green brigade will highlight. Just as they use fossil fuels to highlight their causes, if they were really green they would use sail and oar powered boats to protest in.
So unfortunately F1 must nod to the lobby and pretend to the world it is thinking green and develop apparently fuel saving devices at astronomic cost supposedly to help the car designers produce greener cars with less pollution, be it noise or CO2. It's called trade off.http://cliptheapex.com/members/mephistopheles.2183/
If Formula 1 just said "No more fossil fuels, it must be corn based alcohol" then they would only be burning a renewable resource that has low emissions plus an engine can make a great deal of power on alcohol
no matter what rules you implement the teams with the biggest resources will always come out on top in the end

now 2009 was great because instead of being Ferrari vs Mclaren and the grandees you had the minnows like Brawn, Force India and Williams able to compete at the front before normal service resumed...

the only problem with 2009 regulations was with no testing and engine freeze still in place the only areas of real significant performance was gained from aerodynamics which off course Newey is the best at it and hence Red Bull's the dominant force

The powertrain era - its just that Mercedes were so much better prepared for it than the others and massacred the opposition who are jumping for the next opportunity to make up the gap

The next set of rules is suppose to make the car turn back on relying on aerodynamic performance and Red Bull are keen for it in order to get Newey back apparently

There is always an element of sour grapes especially if one team manages to out smart the others... the key is to be able to interpret the rules better than everyone else - the clever engineers out thinking the not so clever engineers

The KERS era no long bothered looking at KERS being voluntary and that double diffusers were allowed because they did not ask the right questions apart from 3 teams
Top Bottom