2008 sporting regulations - Page 2

Nicholosophy · 23 Mar 2006, 04:52 (Ref:1558021)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The FIA

All applications will be studied by the FIA and accepted or rejected in its absolute discretion. The FIA which
will publish the list of cars and drivers accepted together with their race numbers on 28 April 2006 1
December (or the following Monday if 1 December falls on a weekend), having first notified unsuccessful
applicants as set out in Article 41. Out-of-time applications will be considered separately.

So does this mean we'll be going back to static numbers for each of the teams? Since there is no way to determine the positions of the 2007 championship by April this year...

Dutton · 23 Mar 2006, 05:08 (Ref:1558026)

I imagine the race numbers will just be what they are this year, just for the sake of cataloguing.

I am sure that, come 2008, they will just change them on the basis of the 2007 championships.

Nicholosophy · 23 Mar 2006, 05:43 (Ref:1558035)

Seems all references to tyre warmers have been removed too. No longer allowed, or allowed under another section?

The Snout · 23 Mar 2006, 05:58 (Ref:1558039)

I think F1 has become too over-regulated, and these 2008 regs don't help. It's supposed to be the pinnicle of the sport, but with Weight Ballast it's becoming a episode of 'The Biggest Loser'.

Sorry, been a F1 follower and fan for decades now, and it keeps moving away from some of the simple purity that captured my interest in the first place.

Dutton · 23 Mar 2006, 05:58 (Ref:1558040)

Probably scrapped, seeing as Max is against them as I recall.

ralf fan · 23 Mar 2006, 15:36 (Ref:1558639)

AFIAK tyre blankets have also been banned for 2008.

I hate this ballast penalty..... I mean with the grid penalty atleast you have soome chance to recover in the race, with this ballast penalty you will be at a handicap throughout the race.... it really is not going to achieve anything IMO

slicktoast · 23 Mar 2006, 16:12 (Ref:1558663)

Blankets banned but nothing about that tire sauna in the back of the garage. I think the ballast penalty is better than 10 grid spots. It's still not better than no penalty. I'd like to see an actual two race monetary balance sheet comparing the costs of x-life engines to what we had in the past.

dcp2685 · 23 Mar 2006, 16:26 (Ref:1558671)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Not on topic,but the new qually is about to be tweaked again,with the first two periods being lengthened by five minutes and the last one cut down to ten minutes.Much better IMO.

I'm sure that these new regs will get tweaked as well.

Yea hopefully they'll leave it alone for a while now.

Nice signature btw Martyn

Marbot · 24 Mar 2006, 08:34 (Ref:1559419)

Here is a handy summary of the main changes.http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=35362

**ScotsBrutesFan** · 24 Mar 2006, 13:12 (Ref:1559549)

Here's an off the wall idea instead of weight ballast or 10 place penalties:
multiply the current points scoring by 3 making it 30, 24, 18, 15, 12, 9, 6 and 3

If an engine or gearbox has to be changed then the driver will racing for 2/3s championship points ( ie 20, 16, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4 and 2) and if both Engine and gear box have to be done then they are racing for 1/3 points (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1).

Draven · 24 Mar 2006, 13:32 (Ref:1559556)

I think a if a penalty is to be incurred it should be by the team not the driver, they are responsible for the engine/gearbox etc that failed.

Why not award constructors points all the way to last place, and if an engine change happens then that teams race finishing position is moved moved down by 10 places for constructors points, and the drivers points are left alone.

I just dont agree with the idea of 10 place grid or balast ruining a drivers race (and also denting their championship). Make the teams pay for it not the drivers.

(Idea above would need some tweeking sure, but I think It might even make the back of the field battles more interesting.)

**ScotsBrutesFan** · 24 Mar 2006, 13:57 (Ref:1559571)

The penalty system I mentioned could work for constructors as well.

As for penalising only the constructors, Drivers have to be aware of their cars and if a warning light comes on during practice/qualifying, it's up to the driver to ensure that the car is kept in one piece if possible.
If the drivers aren't penalised then in this situation they might take the risk and try for one more lap in the knowledge that it's the team taking the hit and not his chances of driver championship points.

Nicholosophy · 24 Mar 2006, 15:14 (Ref:1559674)

If it is just for the constructors champ, then the big teams will just go for the driver's champ and do whatever gearbox/engine changes they like.

The smaller teams might win the constructors championship if they don't do any changes, but at the end of the day your "general" fans remember Michael Schumacher winning the world champ in a Benetton in 1994, not Williams-Renault winning the constructors championship.

Speed · 24 Mar 2006, 16:16 (Ref:1559710)

In 10 years or so, every driver will have a Hummer to compete the entire season!!!

Dutton · 24 Mar 2006, 18:26 (Ref:1559801)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn's link

* Drivers whose cars stop on the circuit during qualifying will not be allowed to take any further part in the session

How is that a change?

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn's link

* Major car manufacturers will be not be able to supply engines to more than two teams

Unless permission is given by the FIA.

Pingguest · 25 Mar 2006, 10:24 (Ref:1560207)

I'm looking forward to the first GPMA-season in 2008.

Alex Hodgkinson · 25 Mar 2006, 10:32 (Ref:1560263)

Ha.. this is a load of rubbish!!

The real problem with F1 is that it's a place for multinational corporations to pitch their products and spending power against those of other multinational corporations. Not about racing..

It's f****d!

ggreen29 · 25 Mar 2006, 17:07 (Ref:1560418)

If they really want to enforce these durability rules, then enforce 'em. If an engine is supposed to last two races, then if it breaks in the first race, the driver/car doesn't race in the next race. Harsh, but it actually enforces the penalty...everything else is half-stepping and backing away.

But if we're going to half-step the penalties, I'd go with the constructors' penalty idea, but I'd say don't give 'em any points...points for driver only. If a driver keeps breaking engines/trannies, then the team will eventually deal with it, either in the contract, or by getting rid of the driver. Continued breakage by a driver would also reduce his value to a team.

Marbot · 25 Mar 2006, 17:16 (Ref:1560421)

Interesting stuff here and here.

Marbot · 27 Mar 2006, 17:11 (Ref:1562493)

And some more interesting stuff here. Five year engines and all!

Also here.

Draven · 27 Mar 2006, 17:20 (Ref:1562497)

Lets face it, cost saving is a noble aim, but major technology freezes like this will only disrupt the sport in the long term. I'm starting to get very angry with the way the new agreement is heading, Max of 12 teams (biggest mistake in F1 history), and now long term engine designs. Well the pre season build up is going to be nicly killed off, no new teams, and no new engines to look forward too. Lets hope liverys change regularly so that we have somthing nice and meaningless to talk about in january.

Marbot · 27 Mar 2006, 17:30 (Ref:1562503)

The only regular topic about the new V8s over the winter,was how regularly Mclarens (Mercedes) blew up.They are certainly different from V10s but not that different from each other.

Twelve teams is pretty much limited by the number of garages at each track.

pforrester · 27 Mar 2006, 17:39 (Ref:1562514)

Taking from the ITV site:

"Several manufacturers have complained that it will diminish the sport’s high-tech appeal and freeze relative performance levels, ensuring a big inbuilt advantage for teams that are ahead at the time of the initial homologation."

Am I missing the point? I assumed it would be possible to continue developing the engine within the frozen regulations, ensuring that eventually everyone would be on a virtually level playing field. Did anyone else assume this, or is the article misleading?

Marbot · 27 Mar 2006, 17:40 (Ref:1562515)

From the horses mouth.FIA

Point 2 answers the above i think.

And point 5 is very interesting!

Matski · 27 Mar 2006, 17:42 (Ref:1562519)

F1 is a joke. I was hoping BMW Sauber would pull out so I could stop following the sport.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sporting Regulations For A1 Gp	mbathshah	A1GP	1	21 Sep 2005 17:41
the sporting news	brihev	IRL Indycar Series	3	16 Jun 2005 21:10
Sporting art galleries	alesi95	Motorsport Art & Photography	1	3 May 2004 16:53
Any Sporting Questions	Craig	Touring Car Racing	22	23 May 2002 16:17
F3 sporting rules	Vrooar!	National & International Single Seaters	3	20 Jun 2001 19:02