Do we really need new regs?

[Marbot]

After seeing the spa race does f1 still need a shot in the arm? or is the show ok? Off you go.

[Logrence]

One race an exciting season doth not make. Did you watch the other 13 races before this one?

The new regs are not about a 'shot in the arm,' however. The new regs are about slowing down the speed of Formula One cars because they are rapidly becoming too fast for their own good.

[Marbot]

I raised the point because team principles will use spa as an excuse to do nothing at all or drag their feet for as long as possible.

[Chucky]

In a word. No.

The only thing killing the "show" is the Schuey/Brawn/Byrne axis of evil.

[neilap]

F1 or open wheel racing on a whole will never be as exciting as touring cars. It is impossible to race that closely. Also the fact that budget is the greatest factor in this sport only makes things harder. I would love to see more passing or closer competition but F1 has never been that way.

If they want to make the sport safer thats fine with me, but to dumb it down for the sake of the show is pathetic. I know for a fact that companies like Honda would be the first to exit it the "IRL" the sport.

[Slippy Diff]

Originally posted by Chucky
In a word. No.

The only thing killing the "show" is the Schuey/Brawn/Byrne axis of evil.

Rubbish! The only thing killing the show is the other teams inability to take the fight to Ferrari. Just because they have a clear No.1 who takes preference in everything over the No.2 does not mean they are to blame for F1's dullness. Mick Doohan may have been a multiple champion on 2 wheels, but the racing was exciting most of the time. Rossi may dominate MotoGP at the moment but it is anything but dull with ALL the manufacturers and riders fighting for wins.
Ther is just no scope in the F1 rules to allow for an ingenious designer to make a difference anymore and when they do find an edge the other teams complain and it is immediately banned WTF!!!!!

[Wrex]

Well Spa was different to Hungary for 3 reasons, all of which the new rules wont really address.

1. Its Spa. This is a track where overtaking is more than possible, as opposed to Hungary. Also that first corner is always going to be a cracker.

2. We had mixed weather during the weekend, and some had to make a compromise on set-up.

3. We had a mixed grid. When the cars are starting in order of speed, clearly overtaking will be to a minimum.

F1 does need some changes, but the fact we here cant agree on what they should be, it should be no suprise the guys that have to pay for them cant.

[Mal]

James Allen for once made an intelligent comment in saying that it is not the cars that need changing but the tracks. We have had great races this year at Spa and Hokenheim, but so many of the modern racetracks are impossible for F1 cars to put on a good show - You would probably have to regulate the cars down to Formula Ford levels to make Hungary exciting

The trouble is the choice of racetrack seems to about money and not entertainment value.

[Led ZeppF1]

Ron Dennis claims the new rules had been "quite deliberately" set up to favour Ferrari.

The fact that rules demanding longer-life engines and tyres will benefit Ferrari explains why the teams have not yet agreed the changes, Dennis said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/moto...ne/3609826.stm

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Logrence
One race an exciting season doth not make. Did you watch the other 13 races before this one?

The trouble with this is that everyone cried that F1 was dull after Hungary yet all forgot the race before Hockenhiem.

There is a lack of perspective (or short term memories) in either case.

Generally the season hasn't been a classic (in some ways) because one man has done all the winning.

[1200Datto27]

It is not the cars, but the TV directors that need to be changed, we really need a good director that actually knows what motorsport is, and where to look to be driving the footage. The directors in Bahrain, Germany (Hockenhiem) and Spa have been my standouts this year, mainly because they followed the REAL action, instead of just focusing on the one driver.

The strange thing is that most of these directors would have come out of directing other sporting events, but the seem to forget that if you are covering a soccer match, you do not just remain focused on the one player all of the game, you follow the action, which they do not do, either because they can not recognise it, or have directions not to.

[1200Datto27]

Having a read of the above link, Ron Dennis really should have a look in his own backyard before having a whinge like that. It is not the FIA or Ferrari's or Bridgestones fault that his tyres and engine are not reliable enough, he should be saying to Mercedes and Michelin to get their game up and match the challenge given them. All this does IMHO, is lower my opinion of RD lower.

[BootsOntheSide]

The tracks definitely have a major effect on the quality of the races. Spa's seen about 3 dull races in 20 years, whereas the Hungaroring's seen about 3 exciting races in the same period (1987, 1992 and 1998 come to mind).

All the same, there's a lot to be said for altering the cars to emphasise mechanical grip. F1 declined noticably as soon as the narrower cars with grooved tyres were introudced (meaning that a higher % of grip was generated aerodynamically and thus affected by 'turbulent air' behind another car.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Logrence
One race an exciting season doth not make. Did you watch the other 13 races before this one?

I don't think you can have watched them yourself if you are so ready to tar them all with the same brush. are you saying Bahrain, Monaco and Silverstone were dull like Hungary?

[Lotusonpole]

I do think some rule changes are needed, but not as many as some circles suggest.

I'd be happy with a refueling ban or a one stop per race only allowance. A few trimmings of areo-aids and I'd love to see the electronic driver aid ban enforced.

The thing is Ferrari and MS will continue their way no matter what the rules are, until other teams match them or surpass them. At least KR and McLaren showed positive steps in that direction at Spa. Williams were improved also overall.
So next season looks potentially promising.
It'll be interesting to see if KR/McL's performance will continue over the remaining GP's....I hope so.

But thats just me...

Cheers
Peter

[Mattracer]

If any proof was needed about how good the racing can be on REAL circuits, then the latest GP should attest to that. You just can't beat a fabulous circuit with a variety of corners, elevation changes, real character, one of the ballsiest corners in world motor racing, a decent length circuit, it has it all, and the proof was in the actual race, it was a good race from start to finish and had something for:

the couch potato-come-latelys- a lap 1 "prang" (Oh dear!)

the purists- a win from the hitherto struggling McLaren team and their champion-in-waiting.

Everyone else in-between- OK, so Schumacher, the name everyone knows, wins the championship again, and gasp, won't be retiring for a while yet, gasp!

[shiny side up!]

I think F1 would benefit from a few strategic rules changes. Safety needs to be paramount, while 'the spectacle' would be helped by a tweak or two as well. Below is the Shiny Manifesto:

F1 is, has been, and needs to be near the pinnacle of motorsport technology. But above that, even if there are other cars out there with more electronic gizmos on them, F1 cars need to be the fastest, most awe-inspiring open-wheeled circuit cars in the world to keep the audience and drivers that they currently enjoy. That being said, I'm not sure some of the rules that many say are a 'dumbing-down' are contrary to the F1 ideal. Many argue that making engines last longer or banning some electronic driver aids or any of the other proposals are artificially limiting the technology in F1. That may be true, but any rules at all are artificial limits to what engineers would / could do if given 100% freedom to design what they'd like. So where do you draw the line between freedom and formula and keep the F1 spirit alive and prosperous?

1. I don't care what you do with qualifying. I prefer the old, 12-lap hour in which the fastest car at that moment in time starts first, even if it is a Sauber that in race trim is 1.3 seconds off the pace. But really, short of drawing lots for starting position, any format which puts all the cars out in roughly the same time span with the qualifying results dependant solely on how well the driver/car get around the circuit is good enough. Push as hard as you can for a lap(s) under whatever conditions you are given, and you start where you deserve based on your performance. If you get different track conditions, too bad... it will come back around sooner or later.

2. Tires - keep it open. Teams have historically dominated due to budget, engine manufacturer, a great driver, a superior chassis designer... why would it be any different if someone was winning because of tires? It doesn't really matter if it is 1 set of tires for a race or 50, 1 compound of dries or 4, but a control tire is as good as a control engine or control chassis or even control driver - defeats competitive spirit. From the safety standpoint, if the performance of the tires needs to be curtailed, introduce a minimum durometer measurement. Seems like a dumbing-down at first glance, but really is no different that reducing engine capacity or maximum wing surface area or chord.

3. Refueling - whatever. As long as all the cars play by the same rules, it doesn't really matter.

4. Aero / grip / the passing debate - what a mess. I cannot see the harm in more reliance on mechanical grip and a little less on aero, until you get to the point that the car's performance falls off to levels of other formulae. Take away a little wing (as long as you don't introduce 'standard' wings!), widen the car a bit, take away those stupid grooves and let the drivers exploit the full range of tire slip angles.

5. Engines - if they are too fast, cut some capacity. I like the idea of multiple geometries allowed (V-8, -10, -12, whatever), but the sport wouldn't suffer much if one was mandated. As far as lifespan, I think any rule that requires them to live for more than one race weekend is just a logistical headache, and am not sure it even benefits cost all that much.

6. Electronics / Aides - The fun one. I think if the technical formula allows for enough engine capacity and downforce to make the cars faster than any other cars, then you don't lose any perceived technical superiority of F1 vs. other formulas by banning electronic shifts, traction control, etc. I would not argue against requiring a mechanical throttle linkage and a spec ECU that limits the inputs that drive the fuel injection system. I would hope that the teams would be free to do whatever they want with other engine electronics (data acquisition, multiple fuel maps, whatever). I don't really care what they do with electronic diff control. The tranny should be operated by a mechanical linkage, wouldn't that be great!

Kinda long, innit?

[Logrence]

Originally posted by Glen
I don't think you can have watched them yourself if you are so ready to tar them all with the same brush. are you saying Bahrain, Monaco and Silverstone were dull like Hungary?

Yes.

I don't want to watch little girls scrabbling around in the sand for points - I want racing and people challenging for wins. Spa has been the only race where someone other than Schumacher has been capable of winning - I've no doubts Schumacher would've won Monaco if Montoya hadn't punted him off the track.

[Cadete]

Good circuits really improve overtaking chances, no doubt about that, but the reason why overtaking is difficult in other circuits can be related to the rules.

Aero dependance has been discussed, but another problem that is as big, or perhaps even bigger, are the marbles left by the ultra soft tyres that only need to last a small number of laps. This means that no matter how wide the track is, the cars must stick to the ideal line and it costs them a lot to move out of it just to try an overtaking that can be done in the next pit stop.

A way to correct this? Ban refuelling, the number of stops will drop drastically and the tyres will have to last longer.

[Glen]

Racing is racing, Logrence - mid-pack battles for points are very bit as skill-packed and important a race wins. Is Kimi a little girl unless he wins then? Or Trulli? (actually Trulli is a bit of a girl, but nevermid). BTW, I can't see how Schumacher could have won Monaco - Renault were just too good for them that day.

[tyrrellf1]

How about the following:

1. Double the thickness of the underbody plank (to cut the ground effect)
2. Keep the cars in current "narrow" trim but return to big fat width slicks (a narrow car should be easier to get past than a wide one but wider tyres will mean much smaller area available for diffusers)
3. Single plane rear wing and no winglets, turning vanes, appendages etc
4. Low profile tyres (to match the look of most modern road car tyres and reduce tyre side wall compliance. Hopefully with the effect of introducing some suspension movement.
5. Manual gear changes and clutch action(missed gears always used to produce overtaking opportunities and mechanical sympathy was an important part of a drivers skill)
6. Use practice (balls out, low fuel) to set the grid for a sprint race (say about 30 mins) and the results of the sprint race to set the grid for the "Grand Prix". (Should mix things up a bit without the ridiculous need to practice at race fuel loads and would also provide additional TV opportunity)
7. No pit stops in the race (unless to change to rain tyres). Different car/ engine combinations with different fuel consumption and tyre wear etc should mix things up a bit as drivers have to battle with cars that handle differently with changing fuel load and tyre wear as the race progreses.
8. No testing at any Grand Prix venue (should prevent the optimisation of cars a la Barcelona where every car is completely dialled in)
9. No in race car to pit or pit to car telemetary or communication of any sort. (The driver can sort out his own strategy and there should be no chance of any "electronic tweaking" of performance parameters in response to race performance.

[Gt_R]

The racing we had in Germany, then in Spa, suggest that what F1 needs is not a MEGA restructure which could destablize F1, but rather, just some minor tweaks to finetune and correct known problems.

and as it's so obvious, the track could easily be the single most influential factor to whether we have a good race or not. Bahrain, Silverstone, Germany, Spa vs Hungary

[Glen]

The thing that everyone is missing is that the reasons for MS and Ferrari domination have nothing to do with the regulations! Unless you do something radical with the rules like have success ballast or start the race in reverse Championship order. The plain (obvious) fact is that if you arrange the cars in order of performance at the start of the race then they will tend to get further and further apart as the race goes on with very few exceptions. The only thing that will consistently stop that effect is surprises: luck and mistakes - the science of F1 is so good, the driving so flawless (well, close to) that that just cannot happen.

All this dreaming about big fat slicks and the like will make no difference - a faster car is still a faster car with slicks on. Etc.

[Red]

And the reason that qualyfing (that means arrange the cars in order of performance at the start of the race) was to avoid precisely that kind of situations: slow cars helding up faster cars. I didnt understand FIA when they wanted to keep that, on one hand, on the other to negate the entire idea by that "we shuffle the grid" new qual system.

As for new technical rules each season, that's not going to work. Firstly you want to close the gap between the cars, and that's done by keeping the regs as stable as possible. FIA tries to remove the gap hoping that somehow Minardi will understand new rules while Ferrari won't and screw the design, but that's not going to work, I'm afraid.

[ASCII Man]

I feel that the FIA should allow more room for innovation.
You never see something new or innovating these days... (Oh, WOW! A big nose! )