F1 rule change 2017

canis
To me, speed is not the important thing, it's good racing, so to sacrifice speed in exchange for overtaking possibility by simplifying aero suits me just fine. I want drivers to actually be able to push each other to race, instead of having to hang back to stay in clean air so they can coax a lame horse to the finish line. As F1 is currently unwilling to feed my addiction for racing, I've found a new supply in Formula E.
 
I'm in two minds. Racing is important, but so is speed. F1 has had the honour of being the fastest circuit racing series on the planet ever since Can Am collapsed in the early 70s. The current generation of F1 cars still hold that honour, but there are several other categories that are perhaps a bit too close in performance, with Super Formula, LMP1 and GP2 all being fast enough to qualify within the 107% rule. The current cars can't be slowed down much further or else the other series will start genuinely matching them, and other series might become close enough to qualify too, with IndyCar and perhaps Super GT being the most obvious candidates.

So I would prefer it if future F1 seasons had faster cars than now, but the racing this season is already pretty bad so increasing downforce levels is hardly going to help matters.
 
I have an idea for an interesting new rule, any driver competing in F1 who doesn't win a GP in a 3 year period has to retire and let a new driver in.
 
If that rule was applied at the start of 2014, and Mercedes dominate again next year, there will only be around 4-5 drivers from the current grid retained. LOL
 
ive just seen that the rule makers are back giving us things we dont want because according to bbc sport, Refuelling is back on agenda for chiefs & could be introduced as early as 2017 if it receives support in Monday's F1 strategy group meeting as Key figures in F1 are keen to find ways of making the sport more exciting

F1: Refuelling is back on agenda for chiefs

now i dont get why they want refuelling to return because team bosses dont want it, fans in the GPDA survey had a slight 50/50 55/45 yes spilt & it makes no sense on 3 grounds because as it says in the bbc article
  • Refuelling was banned at the end of 2009 on cost and safety grounds.
  • Teams conducted an extensive investigation last season into the effects of a return of refuelling and concluded it would have a negative effect on the sport's spectacle.
  • They looked at data that showed the 1994 to 2009 period - when refuelling was part of F1, had the fewest number of on-track overtaking manoeuvres since 1980.
 
Screen Shot 2016-01-15 at 14.26.18.png & Screen Shot 2016-01-15 at 14.26.38.png
 
F1 manufacturers agree engine cost cap

So this appears to basically extend the status quo until 2020. I haven't read anywhere that the power supplies the manufacturers sell have to be the same spec as the home team. If that isn't required, the result is a de facto, two-tier system, basically making it impossible for the manufacturer teams to ever be challenged.

Just what F1 needs--even less competition.:rolleyes:
 
The FIA has increased the number of tokens each engine manufacturer has hopefully we will get to some sort of level playing field on the motors.
 
The thing that confuses me about the tokens is when you get the Ferrari situation. They have openly said they will provide 2015 spec engines to some teams, but they are a single engine manufacturer so only get one set of development tokens.

Are they saying they will provide customer engines which will get no development over the season as they want to keep that development for their latest engine which only the works team gets access to? Are they splitting their tokens between the engines making improvements that will benefit one or the other in a balanced way? Or are they tying their hands and one foot behind thier back by only making changes to the engine that can be applied to both spec engines?

If I was a Ferrari customer I would be asking these questions and paying very close attention to the answers before I found myself with last years engine and no chance to improve it over the season so falling further behind.

Are other manufacturers doing this and running a customer spec engine and a works spec? If so are we locked back into the days of manufacturer teams having the huge advantage of power and efficiency gains through a season while everyone else is stuck with what they had from day 1?

Under the old engine rules it was specified that each engine manufacturer could only have one spec of engine in operation so customers had the same as the works team, but as siffert_fan has said this sadly seems to be missing from the current regulations, and as one manufacturer has openly said they will be running 2 specs I am guessing this is definitely something that is going to happen going forward...
 
I would presume Ferrari customers will get the final version 2015 engine for 2016 and then the 2016 engine for 2017. We do know that customers don't get exactly the same info as the factory teams get as the works Mercedes cars have/had a different turbo installation to the customer teams which was more efficient and allowed great design freedom around the engine compartment.

The engine manufacturers, if they enter cars as well, have to have some sort of benefit for the investment they make in the motors surely? It's also down to the team management at Sauber, Manor etc. to negotiate a better deal.
 
Toro Rosso is the only team on the grid that will be running a previous-spec (Ferrari 059/4) engine and this is out of necessity due to the RBR/Renault kerfuffle which took forever to sort out. They are quite happy with this situation though.

FB said:
The engine manufacturers, if they enter cars as well, have to have some sort of benefit for the investment they make in the motors surely?
Click to expand

Quite right, and where Mercedes benefits most on track is the Software. They are running identical Power Units to their customers, but naturally their overall package will be more harmonized.
 
Putting aside the fact that the links you keep posting in this thread are completely off topic, and that they are old re-tread articles conjured out of nowhere by a nearly useless drivel churning website like GPupdate. Your cure-all for everything is for F1 minds to forget everything they've learned in the past 20+ years, or as I've said in jest before, procure a (reverse) time machine.

With the technology available nowadays it's completely ludicrous to suggest that cars should be running out of gas in order to add a bit of spice to the proceedings. And as usual the spectacles on Berger are quite rose-tinted. Back in my day........:friends:
 
Well, surprise, surprise, making the tyres wider with a wider track as well, then upping the aerodynamics will create so much lateral force on the tyres that the only way Pirelli could make tyres which would be sturdy enough would also mean upping the tyre pressures to a level where they would be less grippy, thus reducing cornering speeds (although they would still be quicker than at present).

So why not reduce the aero whilst going with the increased mechanical grip? Oh, sorry, RBR would vote against as would Toro Rosso (surprise), Mercedes and Ferrari.

You can't please everyone but you should be trying to increase the spectator experience; the teams have forgotten about this.
 
Why is it the everyone can see the obvious solution apart from the FIA.

Jacque Villeneuve saying what everyone is thinking. (apart from the FIA)

"F1 tries to be everything, and that's wrong," the 1997 world champion argues. "It tries to be an endurance car, it's some form of hybrid ... and hybrid technology weighs around 100 kilos and that's four seconds a lap of weight. It's not F1, it's not extreme, it doesn't make sense.

"F1 has to be out there, extreme, unattainable, stupid, crazy -- that's what it's always been. It's a laboratory where the sky's the limit.

"There are a lot of things that are making F1 a lot less appealing to the public. A bunch of things like (overtaking aid) DRS. We don't have those things in Formula E."
Click to expand
 
Yeah, but no one likes him, so his opinion doesn't count :). Anyway, Jacques, didn't you just leave the series for being a bit err, rubbish?
 

Similar threads

Brogan
When is a rule not a rule?
    • Like
Replies
5
Views
293
Hamberg
Hamberg
F1Brits_90
  • Article Article
Grand Prix 2024 Mexico City Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
4 5
Replies
80
Views
1K
Christoon
Christoon
S
Netflix fans and Mick Schumacher
Replies
3
Views
302
shouxana
S
F1Brits_90
  • Article Article
Grand Prix 2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Brogan
Brogan
M
Formula One Case Study
Replies
1
Views
117
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
Back
Top Bottom