I think they are looking into the wrong areas in F1 to make it better.

[DKGandBH]

This is what they are concentrating on:

1) reducing costs
2) reducing engine power

What they should be concentrating on

1) increasing overtaking
2) increasing field size

Now, I know that these things are inter-related, but they just seem to be starting from the wrong end.

Reduce downforce (1 wing with less curvature)
Reduce braking efficiency (to increase stopping distances)
Introduce a rev limit (this would also make the engines more reliable)
Have chassis purchase as an option (like engines)

Slow the cornering speeds, not necessarily the straight line speeds.

My 2c worth...David.

[gttouring]

you me and the rest of the non Max And Bernie world

1) reducing costs will be increasing field size

2) reducing engine power may be increasing overtaking


i like one element wings, and slicks or one tyre per quali and race- this will drastically cut speed and increase over taking as sliding now can happen all the time the limit will be lower but a a larger envelope to play in and a broader limit to dance on...

an open engine rule would be nice, chassis purchase options and any type of nonturbo 3.0 or turbo 1.5 again...

[Kicking-back]

All the things you suggest in the first post are being looked at.

Without cutting costs you won't increase the field.

[Paarma]

I tend to agree. There are a billion consturctos who would want to race in F1, but do not see it as a realistic possibility, because of the money involved. F1 should be about doing the best job all-around, not about being the richest. Althouh money will always continue to be an issue.

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
All the things you suggest in the first post are being looked at.

There's a mouthful. "Being looked at" seems to be as far as they get when it comes to meaningful change. It's obvious to me that the time for "looking at" has long since passed. It is time for action. Maybe the potential emergence of a winter series and the manufacturer series will light the fire under their butts. One can only hope. I'd hate to see F1 go the same route as the fragmented situation of open wheel racing in NA.

[DKGandBH]

I think I have somewhat confused myself (an a lot of others) by the Reduce Costs statement.

Money spent will never be reduced by artificial rules placed on the constructors.
Money spent will always = Revenue from sponsors etc.
It WILL be spent SOMEWHERE.

A private team with a budget of $20M can never compete at the same level with a constructor with a budget of $400M

They are trying to artificially close the gap. It will never happen.

David.

[Wrex]

Who are 'they' exactly?

If your talking about Max and the FIA, they have no say over these things. He can only introduce rule changes on safety grounds.

Talk to the teams, they are the ones with the votes (and for the last time, more votes than Bernie and Max combined)

[DKGandBH]

If that is so, and no teams want to go to the V8 engine, why are we still talking about it ?

D.

[Gt_R]

To me, 2.4l V8s are always a step back..and shouldn't be considered.

I agree with the doubts over so-called cost-cutting measures. Reducing testing is one of the most inaccurate way to handle this issue. Firstly, small teams struggling with budget rarely does 10 full days of testing anyway. And top teams like Mclaren and Toyota would always spend the excess bucks on simulations, lavish motorhomes and new facilities. And still, they would gain an advantage over the small teams, spending money researching on new aids and technology.

If anything, a standard electronics unit would be more appropriate. It slashes the cost now that top teams have no new aids to research on. Yes, the money may still be re-directed, but now, at least in terms of drivers aids and fancy electronics, small and top teams would start basically on the same footing.

And with the removal of aids, demands on driver skills increase tremendously. Look at how the Minardi drivers always jerk the wheel and counter-steer and look so busy..then look at the relative ease top drivers with good aids like Ferrari, Mclaren and Williams enjoy in comparison.

Furthermore, look at what happen this year..Mclaren and Williams tripping all over with bad cars. Limit Testings would effectly make any comeback almost impossble (testing is important to evaluate), and what happens would be worse quality racing. Add to that, Mclaren and Williams would spend even more money on simulations etc to pull back.

Track testing may cost money, but every too often, teams did admit that it is still a cheaper alternative than investing money in all the technology which becomes obsolete after a few years.

[Super Tourer]

it's clear that tyres are the main factor in the fall in lap times.

As Brazil showed, the Minardi's were under the 2003 pole time a gain of 3 seconds per lap in performance. With respect to Minardi their aero and engine are not front comparable to the front running teams, so virtually all the gain had to come from the tyres.

It will be interesting to see what the harder tyre does to times.

[Glen]

Originally posted by DKGandBH
This is what they are concentrating on:

1) reducing costs
2) reducing engine power

What they should be concentrating on

1) increasing overtaking
2) increasing field size

You seem to have forgotten to mention that "they" are also introducing rules for tyres to last up to four times longer and a big cut in aero downforce (which should give more passing opportunities). Also, you don't realise that cutting costs is the only way to stop a reduction in field size, let alone increase numbers.

[Kicking-back]

Having just read the full rules for the 2.4l V8 engines, I'm positive about it.

A lot of thing are set out in the rules which should make "customer engines" potentially competitive.

Remember - in the 70s/80s/early 90s you could buy a Ford Cosworth V8 off the shelf - and win races with it.

[Super Tourer]

As I've said in another thread, I think the intention of the engine rules is to make it easier for independent engine builders (like Judd for example) to build and develop an F1 engine.

This is with an eye to the future, should more car makers pull out and there be an engine supply problem.

Remember when Williams lost the Honda deal at the end of 1987 (Honda putting all their weight behind McLaren), they had to go to Judd for a stop gap engine supply for 1988.

If a couple of car makers did take their ball home there could be a serious engine supply issue, it would be good to see some independent engine builders back in again.

[DougK]

Thinking back..... IMO Jordan's best years were when they were running the hart engines.... I agree V8's are a good thing for future developments.
Surely anything can be argued as safety if in some way it slows the cars down? Changing the tyre compound also seems good but they should make them half the width so it slows them down more (less grip) and makes the cars slide more (for spectator value!)

[Marbot]

Anthony Davidson recently described driving on the new for 2005 tyre as "like driving a big formula ford" the tyre gripped like hell for a couple of laps(nessersary for both parts of qually)and then lost grip quite dramatically thereafter,could be interesting viewing next year!

[Red]

Isn't this ironic. Basically the same people who loathed grooves when they were introduced 6 years ago (meant to decrease grip) are now applauding the new tyre regs who will reduce grip even more than the grooves. Strange.

As for engines, ok, if they really-really have to reduce the engines' capacity to 2.4 liters, fine, but why V8? The simple math (cut 2 cylinders of a V10 and you get a 2.4 liters V8) is rather childish. Make it 2.4 liters, ok, but let them decide if V8 is better than flat 4 or V59 configuration. (Besides, I "vaguelly" remember that they decided to froze the V10 configuration till 2007)

[Glen]

The V8 bit is just part of the standardisation to reduce costs. There are rules concerning minimum weight, cylinder spacing, materials... all that stuff. All designed to encourage sensible spending and longer-life engines. longer life engines are already giving jordan a life-line (supposedly) by making them far cheaper. If you open up the rules to exotic configurations and materials the costs will sky-rocket yet again.

[Super Tourer]

Toyota say that compared to 2004, they will only have to make half the amount of engines in 2005, hence their new found capacity to supply customer engines.

[Red]

I disagree. Quite indeed the title of the thread "they are looking into the wrong areas" is extremely well put. Their main goal is to "but the cost". This is so wrong. Who cares if Minardi is coming last but saves (if they'll save anything) 1 million in budget? How does that changes a thing? Right now they want only presence on the grid, they don't give a dime on competition.

PS: And the engines might become cheaper, and Jordan and Minardi will be ok. If they survive. Because in near future the engines will be more expensive than they are now.

PS: Yes ST, they can build more engines than they need. However they have to design new ones. What was wrong with 3 liter V10 who should last 2 races, like it was planned?

[Glen]

The issue for Minardi is not saving a million here or there, but being able to afford the absolute MINIMUM to compete - which currently thay cannot. Some teams and manufacturers are not only spending a fifth of a billion dollars per year on their engine programme, but are also unwilling to alter that programme to accomodate building extra units for other teams. At that level Minardi or Jordan couldn't buy half a dozen engines, let alone the number they need to complete a season.

Minardi can't afford to even come last - now that is silly, and that makes cost cutting imperative.

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Wrex
Who are 'they' exactly?

If your talking about Max and the FIA, they have no say over these things. He can only introduce rule changes on safety grounds.

Talk to the teams, they are the ones with the votes (and for the last time, more votes than Bernie and Max combined)

And herein lies the main problem. F1 needs a REAL governing body, with real power. All the top teams are typically and shamelessly self serving.

[Alex Hodgkinson]

I think that the move towards smaller engines is a good one, as it could probably/possibly/maybe increase overtaking. However I cringe at the V8 bit of the proposal. I think that the number of cylinders and the configuration of them should be a rule which is relaxed.

A 2.4 litre Flat, W or, V12 would be just beautiful; a gift to the ears, and surely a real crowd puller. I think they should allow more imagination into this part of the regualtions, any agreers?

hrug:

[DKGandBH]

I still think that no matter what rules are changed, the money available will be spent in other areas.

I don't particularly want to see a Minardi racing for the lead with a Ferrari (well I do, but it is not realistic). If the less funded teams could win races, we would lose the upper end teams as they would have to justify being beaten by the backmarkers.

I want more teams in F1.

There is a need for engine deals for the lower budgeted teams. If each manufacturer were "forced" to supply engines (even lower spec ones) to lower teams, for a nominal price, this would put them on a better playing field.

The top teams then can spend $$$ on whatever they like to gain an advantage around the corners. Essentially everyone would have similar straight line speed due to the engine.

I also agree, there also needs to be a chance for the backmarkes to come up with something imaginitive to get up the grid.

David.

[oziengineer]

More teams is definitely a good idea. Gone are the days when there were 30-40 cars trying to quali for a race and it is a real shame.
I'd like to see it again. Could revive some of the old teams, too.

[Adam43]

Reviving the old teams would (n most cases) be in name only. Lets have new teams that may invent their own new history, rather than live off the memories of a team that is not associated with them in real terms.