FIA Nine Point Plan

[Mal]

Autosport.com are reporting a nine point action plan for revision to F1 as follows:

The nine points are:
1 Driver swapping drivers race every car on the grid during the course of a season.
2 Aggregated qualifying four half-hour sessions on Fridays and Saturdays at grands prix.
3 Bespoke tyres rubber suppliers can produce different tyres for each of their teams
4 Success ballast a penalty of 1kg in ballast weight per point scored during 2003.
5 Testing restrictions - limit testing during the 2003 season to just 12 days per car.
6 Aerodynamic freeze from 2003 only two sets of bodywork can be homologated at the start of the season.
7 Long-life engines one engine per weekend in 2003, one engine per four races in 2004, and one engine per eight in 2005.
8 Long-life gearbox gearbox assemblies to have requiered life for a number of races.
9 Standardised parts all teams would have to use standardised electronics, ECUs, brakes and fixed ballast.

What does everyone think?

My first thoughts are as follows:
1) Seems a bit far fetched and would be a contractual nightmare
2) I agree with this, although why two session each day - surely this will make TV coverage more difficult.
3) Interesting thought but I would think one tyre for all would be more even.
4) This a variation on the original statement and would have the effect of giving the lesser teams a chance as the season progresses. Although it is against the traditional ethics of F1 - but does that matter if we get proper racing.
5) I like the idea, but it would be difficult to police and could advantage the big teams who could spent huge sum on simulation technology. Also some teams may develop cars for other formulae eg sportscars just to use as a test bed.
6)Good idea if it can be monitored properly
7)I dont think this should go beyond one engine per weekend. What happens if an engine breaks in the first race - is the team penalised for the next 7 races?
8)Ditto
9)Definately agree with this to cut costs and level the playing field as long as it can be properly policed.

[DNQ]

Obviously the FIA is aware that Formula One is stale at the moment, it's good to see they are discussing these matters. We don't have to worry about the terrible ideas, the teams will NEVER agree to them.

Here are my opinions.

1 - Terrible idea, the teams wouldn't even consider it 1/10
2 - Good, but one hour + super pole is a better idea 5/10
3 - It's a reasonable idea I guess, nothing special 5/10
4 - One per point? That'd mean schu would carry 150kg 2/10
5 - Good idea, keeps costs down 6/10
6 - I like this idea, puts the emphasise on setup 7/10
7 - One per race is good, but per EIGHT? 5/10
8 - Why not, nothing wrong with this 7/10
9 - ECU Electronics...yes...steel brakes yes 9/10

[steve_r]

1 - See other thread on this subject.
2 - What would live TV companies have to say about this? I quite like qualifying as it stand and cannot really understand why it needs changing.
3 - Hmm..
4 - Poor old Jaguar had a great 1st race of the season, but then faded until the very end of the season. Doesn't seem quite fair. F1 needs somthing, but this creates artificial competitiveness and seems an unreasonable solution.
5 - We look forward to more cars breaking down in races then. Will this make F1 better? Will Minardi all of a sudden be as fast as the Ferrari? No & No.
6 - Something radical has to be done about aerodynamics, to allow overtaking.
7 - One per weekend maybe. Anything else is silly.
8 - Manual gearboxes please.
9 - Yes Yes Yes.

[Wrex]

A more detailed version from Planet-F1

The FIA have sent team bosses an advance copy of the nine point plan, set to shake up F1 and make it more watchable, that is due to be discussed at the FI commission on October 29th. A copy of the plan was leaked to Autosport magazine, presumably by one of the team bosses, and it reveals a breathtaking new approach to the sport.

The plan has had a good reception by the smaller teams, but come in for heavy criticism from McLaren, Ferrari and Williams, who believe it severely undermines their long-term investment plans.

The nine points are as follows.

1.Driver swaps
All drivers are free of all team contracts and individually picked for each season by the FIA. They rotate around all of the teams. driving one event for each. When all combinations have been fulfilled once, the drivers take turns to choose - in order of the points standings - which teams they race for in the remaining events.

2. Aggregated qualifying
In place of one Saturday qualifying session, the grid would instead be decided by the aggregate of four half-hour sessions - two each, separated by a five minute break on Friday and Saturday.

3. Bespoke tyres
Tyre companies may supply different compunds to each team - allowing every squad in the pitlane to have rubber tailored precisely for its own car.

4. Success ballast
To handicap cars for success in 2003 by introducing a penalty of 1kg in ballast weight per point scored after a threshold of 20 points is reached.

5.Testing restrictions
To limit testing during the 2003 season to just 12 days per car, all at tracks which do not host grands prix.

6. Aerodynamic freeze
From 2003 only two sets of bodywork - each with means of minor adjustment - may be homologated by a team at the start of the season. They may be changed only once, at mid-season.

7. Long life engines
The introduction of long-life engines would be accelerated to have one engine per weekend in 2003, one engine per four races in 2004, up to one engine per eight races in 2005.

8. Long-life gearbox
Gearbox assemblies to have required life for a number of races

9. Standardised parts
All teams would have to use standardised electronics, ECUs, brakes and fixed ballast.

[AllonFS]

I have been saying all season that things need to change, but most of these ideas are unbelievably bad.
1. A farce. Who exactly will pay the drivers? Who decides who gets which car at which race? The whole championship will become a lottery. If you are lucky you get a competitive car at the beginning of the season, a fast car for Monza and a good chassis for Monaco. If you are unlucky in the lottery, then even Schumacher won't stand a chance. This idea is almost too bad for words.
2. Overly complicated and confusing and therefore hardly likely to improve viewing figures. If they must mess around with qualifying then possibly a superpole type shootout like superbikes.
3. Agree with Mal, one tyre for all would be better. Why would a tyre manufacturer bother producing more than one tyre? If they do then it will only be for teams they think can win, is any tyre maker going to produce bespoke tyres for Minardi?
4. Horrible. Goes against 50 years of F1. I would rather Ferrari carry on dominating than see F1 reduced to this.
5. Mal is right again here, the rich teams will just simulate testing on computer and in their wind tunnels. And how will the lesser teams improve without testing? Quite like the idea of the sportscars though, it's about time Ferrari looked beyond F1. It would be great to see them return to Le Mans.
6. Ssh, don't tell anyone, but this might be the basis of a good idea.
7 and 8. Spot on again Mal. What happens if something breaks down, (as they will)? Will the penalty be for several races? If combined with the genius of part 1, will the driver or team be penalized? What about Brazil with all rubbish on the track, if an engine overheats due to plastic bag in the air intake do we really want to penalize a driver for that. The penalty is already there, the driver and team don't tend to score points when engines or gearboxes go bang!
9. Sounds good, but again needs monitoring so that we don't have complaints and intrigue marring every race.

So possibly 2 out of 9 are decent ideas. It doesn't really fill you with confidence for the future of this once great sport.

[AllonFS]

Doh! I've just got it. The FIA produce an unworkable and ridiculous set of ideas, which the teams will of course refuse to agree on. If the smaller teams do out-vote the big teams then the big guys will just refuse to take part until it is dropped. Or just decamp to their planned new championship earlier.

Whatever happens, the FIA will say they did their bit and blame the teams. So just remember, when F1 disintegrates, splinters or degenerates completely into farce; it wasn't the FIA's fault.

[Liz]

I think you've got it.

And the new motto of F1: "That wasn't a farce. THIS is a farce!"

And the new name for F1: "Wacky Races!"

[Valve Bounce]

I think the concord agreement requires unanimous agreement on changes of rules in F1. I cannot see unanimous agreement, for whatever selfish reasons any team may have on any one of the above points, despite the fact that some of the points seem to have been well supported here in previous discussions. The interesting part here is that the works companies who put in lots of money to develop their cars may pull out of F1. The sponsors will only see changing fortunes each week and could either reduce substantially their money, or pull out altogether.
My presonal opinion is that points 2on qualifying, 5regarding testing restrictions and 9 are good points.
Point 1 on driver swapping is silly, point 4 on success ballast is stupid, and points 7 and 8 on longevity will actually act against point 1.
I cannot see Ferrari paying SchM 35 million a year so that he can drive other cars for 15 out of 17 races of the season. On the other hand, if yoong can make it into F1, he should be deliriously happy. In fact, there is no incentive for any driver to drive well at all, let alone race anyone else. He may as well cruise around for the first half of the season, knowing full well that he will get his wins on handicap later on. This is a sandbaggers paradise.
In the final analysis, we may as well have one manufacturer supplying all the engines and cars. True, the WCC may take on some significance depending on the driver draw and who is handicapped before he reaches that car. The WDC will be meaningless.

[Wrex]

1.Driver swaps

This is clearly thrown in to grab headlines and make some of the other ideas look pretty good. Mission accomplished.

2.Aggregated qualifying

It's a little worrying, but they may be serious with this one. Super pole is a better idea.

3.Bespoke tyres

Hmmm, I can hear the 'conspiracy' screams already

4.Success ballast

Artificial racing. The reason I love Formula One and have no problem with Ferrari (or any other team for that matter) dominating is that it represents everything I believe in, capitalism at it's best - The strong survive and the weak perish. Nature of the beast unfortunately.

5.Testing restrictions

This is actually a good idea. While I agree the top teams will have incredible software to simulate things, this still must be cheaper than running a test team 8 days out of every fortnight.

6.Aerodynamic freeze

Another of the 'real' suggestions. As above, this will reduce costs and should bridge the gap a little.

7.Long life engines & 8.Long-life gearbox

I think they are being optimistic, but from an engineering perspective very interesting. This could however, work against the smaller teams that can't afford the developement.

9.Standardised parts

We need alot more information on this. The idea is obviously to reduce costs so it's a suggestion worthy of further discussion.



I really thought they could come up with more than this.

[Glen]

This pr exercise does at least help the fans focus our thoughts... when we're not getting confused and bogged-down that is.

Couple of points...

Bespoke tyres is good because it stops what is currently happening (ie Ferrari send Bridgestone in a particular direction which is focussed on the characteristics of their car) - One tyre is like what we've got now, only much worse (since this would end up as a more extreme version of the current situation).

Success ballast is as good a way as any, as far as I can see, of leveling the field later in the season. I honestly cannot see it making a great deal of difference - those red cars are so good.

Testing restrictions and bodywork freezes will make things worse, not better. The big money will get it right, the little teams will suffer. Jaguar and BAR would be virtually broke by now under this rule - they have both (esp Jag) pulled their car around dramatically and would not have been allowed to do that under this proposal.

[woodbine]

The best point here is point 9, because with standard electronics and ECUs the FIA would be able to police Drivers Aids. So goodbye traction control, automatic gearboxes, launch control, etc; hello driver skill

[Wrex]

For anyone interested, the full details of the plan can be found at Autosport.com. Whats really scary, is that they have put alot of thought into the really stupid ideas

[Wrex]

Just read the following in the FIA's statement regarding driver swapping.

It is beginning to be fashionable to criticise Formula One. Arguably, a change as radical as this is what Formula One now needs in order to re-establish its image and recapture the interest of the public.

I wonder why?

[Red]

"[...] to shake up F1 and make it more watchable [...]" it stupid in the first place. F1 is supposed to be a formula and the competitors have to build cars and win races. "Make it more watchable" actually means that it will become a showbiz.

As for the 9 points.

3) is not feasible. Simply because the tyre manufacturers cannot develop 9 separate tyre programs.

5) doesn't work, not even from a reduction costs point of view. Instead of taking the cars to the track they will invest far more money in simulators.

7 & 8) Yeah rrright. Actually some of them cannot ensure a 1 race engine/gearbox life.

1 & 4) are stupid.

9) should be further analyzed and 2) might actually work, but not in the desired direction: it surely will reduce the hazard elements like the 1 qualifying session in changing weather conditions. :confused:

Some guys have waaaay too much free time to kill.

[Lee Janotta]

5 and 9 are the only ones that aren't completely retarded.

They fed us again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Valve Bounce]

OK, I have posted two polls, and I hope all you guys will vote. Then we can have the results of this as a brainstorming session, and maybe the FIA can adopt the two best options. After all, that's what brainstorming sessions are for. The FIA can also see which points we consider the worst.

[Wrex]

They already know Valve, they're just blowing the wind up us

[Red]

... and it's working!! Now, I can see the "..to shake up F1..." line from a whole different perspective

[Lee Janotta]

And still almost no proposals for changes in the technical package.

That's it! I'm just not watching anymore! I've absolutely had it with these fing.... Businessmen!!!!

[Tristan]

#1 isn't real. I mean, it CAN'T be. I don't know why Autosport or anyone is even bothering to print this dross.

2. What's the ******* differance??

3. And how would this work then?? Bridgestone will still devote the majority of its investment to Ferrari as Michelin do with Williams an Mac. Big deal.

4. Schumacher will just have a two tonne car by the end of the year. There will be MORE race fixing as the fastest cars swap over at the end to avoid weight penalties. Stupid.

5. Possible. However it will mean Minardi won't have a chance in hell of scoring a point for the next three years.

6. Not even sure about this either. Where's the skill in devising a setup?? And what about tracks like Monza?? Surely this will restrict overtaking there as the cars get caught in the dirty air??

7. Better. Now we're talking. However, an engine will now be worth BILLIONS!!

8. Ditto.

9. Possible as a means of checking up on teams.

All in all, remain to be convinced. I've posted my list in "Bernie - there won't be...." thread. They make a lot more sense, if I say so myself!!

[Wrex]

More from www.autosport.com

1 Drivers and teams

Drivers competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship will no longer be contracted to a team. Drivers wishing to compete will submit an application to the FIA (ie to the Formula One Commission) which will select the drivers each year for the Championship on the basis of one for each car entered.

Assuming ten teams and thus 20 drivers, each driver will drive for a different team at each of the first ten races. The teams and races for each driver will be decided by lot. The driver leading the Championship after ten races will then choose the seven teams for which he wishes to drive in the seven remaining races. The driver lying second will have second choice and so on. Having chosen his seven teams, the race at which he will drive for any given team will be decided by lot.

At each Event a driver will wear the uniform of the team for which he is driving. While existing driver contracts last they will be honoured financially by the teams which made them. Drivers with a firm contract for 2003 will automatically be included in the 2003 Championship.

Each team will have a test driver, who will not participate in the Championship except to replace a scheduled driver in case of force majeure. However, the test driver will be well placed to have a future application to participate in the Championship accepted.

Subject to the necessary changes to the Concorde Agreement, drivers without a team contract (or whose contract has expired) will be paid out of a central fund - for example a fixed retainer plus an amount for each point scored in the current and previous season plus an amount for each World Championship and so on.

Hmmm and what about if Michael or JPM get their one drive in the Ferrari and thats the day it breaks down?

This is sooooooo stupid they'll probably do it.

[Valve Bounce]

Common Lee - look at the points, then vote in my polls. Hey everybody, Your votes are important to F1

[billyblister]

These are ridiculous!

I can see the weight penalties being implemented because it takes little effort but the others are too long term like the the driver swapping.

Its just to ruffle a few feathers

[Wrex]

More:

From Autosport

5 Testing

From 2003 no private testing on any circuit where a Formula One World Championship Event is run.

no more than twelve car-days of private testing per team between 28 February and 1 November.

Explanation

At present, each team maintains a separate test team. The above rule is intended to render this unnecessary. The twelve days could be accomplished with the race cars and would be insufficient to justify a separate team. But twelve days is enough to carry out genuine or emergency testing during the season.

Much current testing is unnecessary and contributes nothing to Formula One. Testing on the permitted GP circuits is mainly used to set cars up for the relevant GP and is a complete waste of time and money.

The cost of testing varies from team to team, but the savings would be very significant: up to $30 million or more for the bigger teams; perhaps as much as $250 million for Formula One as a whole. The rule would have the biggest impact on the largest and richest teams, because they have the best facilities and spend the most money, but it would be the same for everyone and might slightly reduce the gap between the front and back of the grid.

Teams would resort to simulation, but they already use simulation (rig testing) extensively for durability work. Accurate and useful simulation of chassis performance testing may still be some way off, but could be beneficial for the motor industry if developed successfully. In any event, research into simulation technology would be a far better use of resources than running round and round circuits at $2,000 to $3,000 per car per km with no television or public present.

Some good points here actually. I cant wait to hear what the teams think of this.

[Tristan]

Dross. Ignore it. Forget about it. Not going to happen. How it ever reached print is beyond me.