[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I hope they take the windshield concept in time, as it still seems a better solution to me, especially considering Fred's accident in Melbourne. It would have been a bit tricky with the halo on top

I like the aeroscreen concept, it seems less obstructive, though I'm interested in seeing what improvements will be made to the Halo.

[chillibowl]

so i actually found the radio ban provided some much needed entertainment in the race but did it add to the competitive nature of the sport or was it more just silly entertainment possibly even taking away from the quality of the race?

a number of drivers/teams are now questioning the logic of the ban but are they sincere in their comments that the ban doesnt serve any purpose or is everyone just afraid to be embarrassed like LH was?

for me i think they should keep it the way it is. both NR and LH apparently had the same issue and for NR he was able to figure it out more quickly so credit to him.

and essentially, according to Wolff, the issue was a configuration issue stemming from a difficult friday as opposed to an inherent problem with the rule itself. rather if a team has a difficult friday, setup issues are a potential for sunday...this is how it has always been.

[bella]

the no complaints helpline thing caught several drivers with their pants down - those who are old school type guys who rely exclusively on their talent and their engineering team to get the job done and who don't necessarily pay any attention in briefings and what have you came out of it looking a bit silly.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by bella

the no complaints helpline thing caught several drivers with their pants down - those who are old school type guys who rely exclusively on their talent and their engineering team to get the job done and who don't necessarily pay any attention in briefings and what have you came out of it looking a bit silly.

Lol, love that!!

[Peter Mallett]

It wouldn't be a problem with proper cars and no gizmos. I listened to it on 5 live by the way.

[Compromised]

Was a little annoyed by it mid-race, but hearing Lauda's comment that both mercs had the issue and nico just solved it quicker... without chucking a tantrum, lead me to stand firm on the radio ban

[Tourer]

The article on Autosport about Lewis complaining had a quote from the Wolfman - the gist was that Lewis' problem lay not in the cars being too complicated (as in the Wolfman's view that is a good thing) but in the radio ban which should be lifted.

I reckon he's got that 100% wrong - the cars ARE too complicated when they can't be raced for the length of a GP without substantial re-setting beyond the driver's knowledge base and the radio ban should probably be stronger than it is in reality.

[bella]

how do you know one drivers knowledge base is the same as all the drivers knowledge base?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bella

how do you know one drivers knowledge base is the same as all the drivers knowledge base?

I'm talking about the knowledge base that any particular driver has about the car they're driving and what adjustments they can make themselves during a race.

Once the wheel is covered in knobs, dials, buttons etc and the driver can't work though a process to rectify an issue then the cars are too complicated. Credit to NR that he seemed to be able to do this more readily to LH but it still feels to me that the need for either of them to do so at all is indicative of the cars being too complex.

[smellysocks]

I seem to remember reading at car launch time frame that Lewis has a simplified steering wheel with 9? switches and dials removed at his request.

Maybe his steering wheel doesn't have a direct switch for the function that was in the wrong mode and uses a menu instead.

[BertMk2]

Keep the ban - maybe if the drivers struggle to manage the cars settings without radio input from the engineers the teams will have to make the cars easier to manage (so less settings for the drivers to remember / forget ). That should mean less optimised cars and therefore better racing - or just more intelligent cars that manage the settings themselves and leave the meat sack to concentrate on not crashing into a 12th Century castle that someone has put on the racetrack.

[Richard C]

Only the team knows the full details, but the complaints from Lewis to me just sounded like a lack of preparation on his part. Maybe Nicos's problem was just easier to solve, or maybe it was as difficult and he just knew how to fix it!

If I was a current F1 driver I would know the car inside and out and that includes what all of the knobs do on the wheel. And what about time in the simulator? I know they use it to do virtual testing of various bits, but are the drivers not using them like airline pilots would be in that they would be testing various emergency scenarios? So dealing with something e-brake issues, or unexpected behavior (with something giving you direction on the wheel display) should be eminently solvable by a driver. If it is unsolvable I expect the pits can say so without breaching the rules?

I know they are under pressure in the car and driving takes a lot of concentration, but if they can complain to their engineers on the radio, they probably have the extra brain cells to solve it on their own "if" they had previously done their homework.

Richard

[chillibowl]

there is of course a line between too complicated and too simple but surely as all things in the world progress there should be an expectation that the skills set a driver needs to be successful should be progressing at the same time.

as Bella mentions the 'old school' mentality may play a part here. is it a generational thing or just an approach to racing issue (willingness to attend briefings, design meetings, simulator work -as Richard says to work on emergency scenarios etc).

in a recent blog post by Saward (here), he comments on Jackie Stewart's question why drivers in F1 do not use sports psychologists to help them with the mental aspects. building on that question, why dont drivers have driver coaches to help them with the technical aspects of racing that do not come to them naturally?

in response to the radio ban issue, Alonso referred to the cars as 'spaceships' and in some ways its an apt analogy but surely as technology progresses if a driver (or any athlete) feels that they are falling out of their element there should be an expectation that they learn the new skills necessary to compete or find a less 'complicated' formula to participate in rather than requiring the sport to become more simple.

not to be harsh, but making the cars simpler for the drivers just feels like, imo, the wrong direction to move in

[S griffin]

I prefer the days when a steering wheel was a steering wheel instead of all those buttons and switches on there. That was when driving was more simpler and the drivers knew more about what to do with the car instead of asking the team

[chillibowl]

i understand that sentiment but cant say i share it because you cant go backwards in sports.

the sport has become more complex with age (arguably though it has always been complex relative its own era) but today are we seeing too much complexity or a failure of some drivers to match the era they are driving in?

this may be neither here nor there because the drivers whose quotes make the headlines are the drivers who have been around the most (rather have the most experience) so when a LH, FA, or SV say something we should listen and often in this thread there have been discussions about the drivers having more input in the rules and cars.

add to that, the drivers with the most experience are usually the ones driving for the top teams and the top teams usually have the most complex cars and being on a top team means you have a much larger support network so their is more lost when such a driver cannot rely on those resources.

that said, one would think that the drivers with the most experience should be the ones having the least amount of trouble with the complexity of the cars. kind of saw the opposite of this at Baku.

anyways i feel like i can go around and around on this but at the same time if one is getting paid 30odd mil a year then perhaps the onus should be on them to figure it out.

[bella]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in a recent blog post by Saward (here), he comments on Jackie Stewart's question why drivers in F1 do not use sports psychologists to help them with the mental aspects. building on that question, why dont drivers have driver coaches to help them with the technical aspects of racing that do not come to them naturally?

lots of them do, they just don't talk about it. it's only been romain grosjean who has actually been candid about having outside assistance.

sports psychologists aren't necessarily the best people to be advising a driver though, it depends what their issues are. aki hintsa's "the core" is a fascinating read if you're curious about the topic, particularly in both real life and f1.

[VIVA GT]

The cars were also complicated back in the day when compared to 'normal' road cars.
I'm thinking of things like adjustable roll bars (front & rear), brake bias, things like that, and the good drivers had to cope with that. They also had to watch the rev counter needle so they know when to (manually) change gear, there were no lights, and they had to check oil & water temperature and oil pressure on real gauges with needles so that they didn't ruin their engines.
It's just that in this modern electronic age, the complexities have become more complicated, (another example of this is what we call a mobile 'phone, they can do far mote than simple telephone calls). If it is part of the car, a good driver should be able to work everything to his advantage and make sure he capitalises on the potential performance, just loke they should do with the steering wheel & throttle pedal.

[S griffin]

I would also like to see them get rid of telemetry that way the driver would have to identify the problem from the car, that's one thing is missing. Maybe though make it so only officials can have access to it in case of racing incidents

[bauble]

Originally Posted by S griffin View Post

If you want to be a good driver of a new one for this weekend and next year, you will be a good one and only one, who is a great driver of a new one for this weekend, is going to be a good one for the next few drivers and the rest of the field to beat.

With all due respect SG I only hope that you are mot involved in writing any new rules.

[TwoSheds]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

snip

in response to the radio ban issue, Alonso referred to the cars as 'spaceships' and in some ways its an apt analogy but surely as technology progresses if a driver (or any athlete) feels that they are falling out of their element there should be an expectation that they learn the new skills necessary to compete or find a less 'complicated' formula to participate in rather than requiring the sport to become more simple.

snip

Using the 'spaceship' analogy, even highly trained astronauts need help over the radio sometimes, there are just too many combinations of things for someone to know everything they can do. Think Apollo 13 and all the help they needed from the ground when things went wrong.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by TwoSheds

Using the 'spaceship' analogy, even highly trained astronauts need help over the radio sometimes, there are just too many combinations of things for someone to know everything they can do. Think Apollo 13 and all the help they needed from the ground when things went wrong.

true true.

but it is an odd analogy though. if one was to extend it, could it validate an argument for allowing the engineers back at race headquarters to have remote control over a car during a race?

obviously there is a line here (constantly moving) between what level of input the pit wall should have over its car during the race. i suspect most of us are in agreement that a balance needs be found (a better one even) and that it is always moving as the tech changes.

for me though that line was not crossed at Baku as NR had the same problem and sorted it on his own and far more quickly then his team mate.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by TwoSheds

Using the 'spaceship' analogy, even highly trained astronauts need help over the radio sometimes, there are just too many combinations of things for someone to know everything they can do. Think Apollo 13 and all the help they needed from the ground when things went wrong.

Those are to help guarantee success of a task which is not the goal in F1. I think fans don't want it to be hard for the drivers just to "be hard", but rather to open the door for mistakes which may impact the race order. To a degree the issues Hamilton had are exactly the outcome that the recent changes hoped for?

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I would also like to see them get rid of telemetry that way the driver would have to identify the problem from the car, that's one thing is missing. Maybe though make it so only officials can have access to it in case of racing incidents

What about cases where something dangerous is developing on the car?
If engineers notice a deflation, or brake temperatures at a dangerous level, should they be able to inform the driver - or let him found out for himself (when he leaves the track at speeds above 200mph)?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

What about cases where something dangerous is developing on the car?
If engineers notice a deflation, or brake temperatures at a dangerous level, should they be able to inform the driver - or let him found out for himself (when he leaves the track at speeds above 200mph)?

Maybe they can already? It'll depend on the detail in the FIA restrictions.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

What about cases where something dangerous is developing on the car?
If engineers notice a deflation, or brake temperatures at a dangerous level, should they be able to inform the driver - or let him found out for himself (when he leaves the track at speeds above 200mph)?

These are already amongst a number of exemptions in the regulations. Plus others such as allowing the team to notify the driver if he needs to pull off the track or return to the pits immediately if there is a possibility of a serious PU failure.

The point about the rules is that the driver must be in control of his car, not being run, via instructions over the air, by faceless technicians hidden away in their bunkers. Otherwise they might just as well dispense with the drivers, and permit the teams to develop robots to manoeuvre the cars around the circuits. It would save a fortune in the top teams, not having to pay their prima donna drivers.