FIA propose radical rule changes


Manual gearboxes, 2.4 litre V8s and control tyres?

The FIA dropped a bombshell in the Formula One paddock on Friday morning, when they released details of the proposed rule changes which would take effect from January 1 2008.

Engines would be 2.4 litre V8s with a maximum of four valves per cylinder and would have to be used for two races not one. There would be a list of prescribed components made from specific materials using a specified manufacturing process. Variable geometry inlet and exhaust systems would be banned, together with ultra high pressure direct injection fuel systems, and a standard ECU, something FIA president Max Mosley has always been particularly keen on.

Semi-automatic gearboxes would be banned, so manual operation of both clutch and gearbox would be mandatory. Electronically controlled differentials would also be banned, while brake discs, pads and callipers would be standardised. Power-steering would not be allowed.

Throughout the chassis there would be a general reduction in stiffness via the maximum modulus of elasticity, and the weight limit would rise at least 50 kg to eliminate the need for ballast. A combined tyre and aerodynamic package would be published no later than December 31 2004 to achieve specific targets for cornering speeds, straight-line speeds, grip and braking performance, and the front tyre width would be reduced while the rears would be increased to increase drag.

The proposed sporting regulation changes are equally far-reaching. Teams would no longer be allowed to use spare cars, and the race cars would be held in parc ferme throughout the weekend. There would be only one tyre supplier, eliminating the way that has so dramatically reduced lap times this season. There would be a drastic restriction on private testing, limited by mileage not number of days.

There would be two identical sets of tyres for qualifying the race, together with a new package to make sure all cars run on Friday (possibly with a return to a qualifying session) and a new Saturday qualifying system to be discussed with the commercial rights holder, broadcasters, teams and race promoters.

If qualifying continues to be with race fuel; (which is not yet decided), consideration would be given to whether the amount of fuel in the refuelling rig before a race should be fixed annually.

Tyre changes in a race would be banned (except in damage situations), but refuelling would stay.

Consideration would also be given to whether a maximum of four specified cars (two teams) per constructor should count for points, to encourage major teams to make information available to teams coming into Formula One racing. To facilitate this there would no restriction on loan, exchange or sale of chassis and components between teams or to new entrants in the championship. There would be 12 entries per years, instead of the current 10.

Finally, all future technical and sporting rule changes would require majority voting rather than the unanimity currently necessary.

The package is extremely controversial, and as is Mosley's modus operandi the FIA is asking for a great deal in the expectation that many of the proposals will fall by the wayside as the essential points they want to see agreed get ratified.

There will be a meeting with the teams to discuss the proposals on May 4 in Monaco.

Overall, the intention is to improve racing while eliminating electronic driver aids altogether and drastically reducing costs and encouraging new teams.

As one might expect, the proposals have met with widely varying reactions in the paddock.


:eek:

Meh. It's all proposals at this point.

F that. I want high rev world class engines. Not small NASCAR V-8s.

Some of the ideas they come up with are ridiculous. The grooved tires they run now are a good example.

I have no trouble with them taking away things like traction control, and perhaps "dumbing down" the motors a bit to make money less of a factor, but "no tire changes during the race"? What the hell are they smoking?

Holy smokes. Those are some radical changes. Even if it does get watered down a bit from the initial statement it still would be rather different.

Max Mosely must die. As we all must. Only in his case, I hope more or less immediately.



Hell, why not just put them all back in karts...no, wait!
2-horse CHARIOTS! 4 horses are way too fast, and too expensive. Plus the smell.

That's a shame. I want F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsports evolution. I want to be in awe of the cars.

I read something on Ananova a little while ago that quoted Mosley saying that he is suprised that F1 hasn't suffered a huge decline in interest with the domination of Ferrari in the last 5 yrs. He admitted they hadn't done enough to level the playing field and keep the lower budget teams interested and viable.

Guess they are going to try?!

<checks calendar to make sure it's not April 1st>

Oh boy. IRL with right turns.

:rolleyes:

I don't think the changes could be any more drastic. Unreal.

In its worst case, where all these rules were to be initiated:
Say Goodbye to F1 as we have all known it. It will basically become a new formula series and fall by the wayside a couple of years fron invocation.

No way the manufacturers are going to all get together and agree on all these rules....

Formula 1 : FROM SHOWCASE TO NO PLACE.....:mad: :furious: :mad: :furious:

Why don't they just bite the bullet and put out for bid a contract to build 100 (for example) spec (to be decided by FIA) chassis? Then put out a second contract for X engines. Then a third for tyres. Leave transmissions and brakes free.

If they want a level playing field, then level the field. I wonder how long F1 would last.

We were wondering what Mosley was thinking, and now we know. There is no way they are going to get all of those changes, as that would reduce F1 to a shadow of its no-holds-barred self.

We still don't know what the FIA/Mosley has planned ultimately, but we know that cost reductions are paramount. I suspect that the elimination of driver aids, long-life motors and technology sharing by way of getting manufacturers to supply other teams will be at the crux of any goals.

The negotiations will be interesting. I don't think that Mosley wants to emasculate F1 any more than we want to see F1 emasculated. The real question is, what does he really want?

Kevin

Tyre changes in a race would be banned (except in damage situations), but refuelling would stay.

You have got to be kidding me!:furious:

I'm all for manual gear boxes, no traction/launch control and non-grooved tires (not a part of the proposal, but it's what I want), the rest of this proposal is crap. I think getting the driver back in the business of driving will reduce costs plenty.

If Max Mosley was in charge of NHL...

"Hey, I have a great idea. Why don't we take hockey players and put them in sumo-esque fully padded suits. That should help prevent injuries. Those skates are awfully sharp, maybe we should put them on rollerblades instead or better yet, running shoes. Why not instead of a hockey puck, they just use nerf balls. Hmmm, now what can we do about that stick problem... Maybe we should give some of the best teams strategy books to the lesser teams to try and make them more competetive. Hey why don't we just force the best teams to give their star players to the crappy teams, that would increase viewers I'll bet!"

geez...thats a little much Max

wow

they already banned suspension innovation back in the 80s when they banned active suspension

now they want to ban engine innovation too?

lol

From GrandPrix.com:

GPWC pulls out of Formula One agreement
The GPWC has cancelled the Memorandum of Understanding which was signed with the Formula One Group before Christmas.

"Despite all reasonable efforts to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between GPWC Holdings BV and the shareholders of SLEC Holdings, the GPWC has decided to end negotiations on the future structure of Formula 1," the GPWC said in a statement, adding that this was "due to SLEC shareholders' failure to comply with key points agreed in the MOU."

In a private letter to the teams GPWC chairman Jurgen Hubbert went further, saying that "due to continuing delays and a lack of commitment, particularly from FOA Ltd, GPWC had has to come to the conclusion that pursuing the negotiations would not lead to the implementation of the MoU."

The GPWC refuses to admit defeat however and informed the team owners that the GPWC "will not compromise its strategy of securing a stable and transparent platform for the sport. Significantly increasing payments to teams through a fairer division of the revenues, identifying opportunities for cost-saving and ensuring a transparent platform remain priorities for the GPWC."

The problem however is that there does not seem to be that much support for the GPWC and with the new FIA proposals for the rules in 2008, there is little interest for the manufacturers to stay in the sport. They know that Max Mosley's proposals are not actually proposals because if Mosley chooses not to negotiate there is not need for the FIA to ask the teams about the rules after the Concorde Agreement ends. The federation can simply produce a set of regulations and ask the F1 teams if they wish to be part of the World Championship. The engine manufacturers may think that they are essential to the sport but that is not actually the case because customer engines can be made available fairly easily but those who do wish to take part.

For some months there have been questions being aksed about what Mecachrome is doing hiring F1 design engineers and investing heavily in Heine Mader's old factory in Switzerland and it does not take a genius to work out that within a couple of years this could be tunring out cheap customer engines for all the teams that want to be involved in F1.

The problem for the GPWC is at least six of the current teams will support the new FIA series on the grounds of cost. They cannot survive if current trends continue and do not see the GPWC's offers as offering them a much better deal. In addition a cheaper version of F1 will allow new teams to come in. Setting up a new GPWC series in such circumstances is not going to be easy. The details of the MoU, leaked to the teams some weeks ago, revealed that the big teams were going to take most of the available cash and leave the little teams with not a great deal. This drove them into the arms of Ecclestone at a meeting in Bahrain. In order to create a rival championship, the GPWC needs cars and there are doubts about a number of the GPWC members' commitment to F1, particularly if F1 has 2.4-litre engines and common ECUs.

What is also interesting is that Mosley's proposals are more than just a technical story because hidden away in the small print are what amounts to a mini-Concorde Agreement, outlining how decisions will be made in the future. This means that in the future there will probably be not one all-encompassing document governing the sport but two separate deals: one based on the way the sport operates and the other on the commercial arrangements which Ecclestone will make with the teams.

The next few weeks are likely to be lively.

Some of the suggestions are good, such as a single tire supplier, and the exchange of technology. Lesser teams can buy the good stuff. Though it might not be as good as the real stuff (Sauber/Ferrari) it's still better than what they could come up with.

I also like the no tire changes, except for damage. Let's see who can really drive, and part of that is tire conservation. As a sidelight, this rule would play even MORE into the hands of Ferrari, who have the car that is widely acknowledged to be the easiest on tires, because of its stability.

The majority rule vs the current unanimity is the serious shot across the bow. I think that everybody knows that Ferrari is the only team resisting a testing reduction, as they have two tracks on 24/7 call for them. Currently, Mosley can't institute any sort of testing reduction (a first-class way to reduce costs) because Ferrari won't go for it. With the majority, it can be voted in without Ferrari having to sign on for the program.

What I think Mosley wants is for drivers to have to drive their cars. Shift, clutch and control the things themselves, with any ancillaries (launch, traction control) banned. I think if he can get that, plus a spec tire and testing reduction, which will reduce costs per team significantly, he'll be happy.

But who the heck knows?

Kevin

Obviously a spec tire will reduce costs.
But it would be an end to tire innovation :(

Originally posted by gtguy
Some of the suggestions are good, such as a single tire supplier, and the exchange of technology. Lesser teams can buy the good stuff. Though it might not be as good as the real stuff (Sauber/Ferrari) it's still better than what they could come up with.

I also like the no tire changes, except for damage. Let's see who can really drive, and part of that is tire conservation. As a sidelight, this rule would play even MORE into the hands of Ferrari, who have the car that is widely acknowledged to be the easiest on tires, because of its stability.

The majority rule vs the current unanimity is the serious shot across the bow. I think that everybody knows that Ferrari is the only team resisting a testing reduction, as they have two tracks on 24/7 call for them. Currently, Mosley can't institute any sort of testing reduction (a first-class way to reduce costs) because Ferrari won't go for it. With the majority, it can be voted in without Ferrari having to sign on for the program.

What I think Mosley wants is for drivers to have to drive their cars. Shift, clutch and control the things themselves, with any ancillaries (launch, traction control) banned. I think if he can get that, plus a spec tire and testing reduction, which will reduce costs per team significantly, he'll be happy.

But who the heck knows?

Kevin

One thing that has always set F1 apart from other series is the fact that each constructor had to build everything and it led to tremendous innovations. I think that with this little freedom that they may as well drive champ cars. Most F1 fans (real fans not casual) will tell you that the cars are a lot of the attraction. I like all the drivers but personally I am more interested in the technology. I htink htat htere will be some major problems with this.

It will be the end to alot of innovations....all innovation.

Also, I disagree with those that say returning to clutch + sequential shifters vs. semi-automatics will somehow level the playing field by putting more of it back in the driver's hands. The reason I say this is thus: these are the best drivers in the world. Every single one of them can and have long, long since been able to master dbl clutching, revmatching, downshifting upshifting, etc,etc....this is an academic, baby step type ability for all top caliber professional driver's...they could care less about anyone that thinks this is what separates them from other drivers....

The only thing this would accomplish, is making the cars marginally slower than they were before...so if that's the intent so be it......

Traction control, semiauto gear changes, tires, chassis design, and a hundred other innovations which have trickled down to the cars we drive on roads every day have come directly from the sport....F1 is the Dominant R&D test bed for automotive technology......

I think they are MORE worried about speed than cost right now.

Frankly, I see F1 as we have known it coming to an end with the end of the concorde agreement anyway.....

At some point, it has to end anyway....an analogy would be to look at the advances in aviation technology...they have now surpassed the abilites of a human to control they're potential envelopes...endgame is pilotless aircraft..........

BriDrive

get rid of traction control and semiautomatics sure.

One tire brand heck no. Without competition, tires won't improve. A standard coefficient of friction or other spec, sure.

No tire changes would be good to see.

Open up suspension regulations. Let them play. F1 is about innovation. But this adds in cost again. Give each team a limited processor. They can either do crazy things to the engine or crazy things to the traction control or mess with an active suspension, but give it limited processing power so they can't do all three or more than 1 even.

Go to a majority vote for changes.

Reduce testing, sure.

If people wanted all the cars to be the same they'd watch NASCAR :p or some other spec series.

Given a max displacement and only so much air without FI what can be done? Engines need something to allow creativity, but level things out and that's the trouble with any of the rules.

Engine layout should be up in the air. v2, v8, inline 10, whatever they want. Maybe put a max intake valve area (or volume) instead of a max throttle body size? What would that do?

On the chassis side, I don't think that a limit on chassis stiffness would be great or easy to enforce, but I'm sure it would help the driverrs. They should implement a standard cockpit. This would improve driver safety and create a certain starting point for all chassis.

ok, I'm rambling. Enough is enough.

Dump the grooved tires and go back to slicks, then seriously limit aerodynamic downforce. Make the cars more dependent on mechanical grip. This would bring speeds down, and would make for more passing. As it is now, a driver can't stick his nose under the tail of the car in front through a turn because without air on the front wing, it's understeer city.

Levelling the playing field pretty much means the end of cutting edge technology. So, if the cars aren't the stars, the drivers better put on a good show. More passing, less parades!

If the technology of F1 falls behind what I can buy on the open market and drive around town, I'm going to lose a lot of interest in what will esentially be a spec car series. If spec cars were more what I wanted (and the world wanted), F3000 would bring in a lot more spectators. I like F1 the way it is, so what if one team dominates, Mclaren has done it, Williams has done it, why do things have to change so much because Ferrari is doing it. They have the best cars and besst drivers. I think it's fun watching everyone else try to catch up.

Its for the 2008 season, not the 2005. And its only suggestions, to bring about discussion.

Michael

Relax....these ridiculous rule change proposals come out every few years. F1 will stay at the top of the pile. Heck, I remember a time way back in the day that they proposed getting rid of turbo engines and replace them with normally aspirated 3.5 liter motors. People were screaming "What, no more 1,200hp cars?!" F1 will be ruined!" Obviously, reports of F1's untimely death were greatly exaggerated.

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com

What's funny is that in 1994, 10 years ago, Mosley proposed another set of wild-eyed, far-reaching proposals to "improve competitiveness" in F1. The more things change... :lol:

Kevin

I like the spec tire, one thing that is annoying right now is the fact that a lot right now of speed is down to which team has the better tires. That's bad in my book because it isn't an even playing ground that the teams have to try and get around.

I don't smoke weed, but if I did I would want Max's personal stash.

I don't like the spec tire idea. Think about this: How much quicker would the red cars be going if they were riding on the "good" tires?

still...i just dont want tires to be the reason a car is the fastest, even if it makes it faster then the ferraris. And if it makes the ferrari's even faster, so be it, this way the other teams wont be able to make that excuse.

"common ECU" have they gone from mad to out-right crazy?

Originally posted by speedyHAM
If the technology of F1 falls behind what I can buy on the open market and drive around town, I'm going to lose a lot of interest in what will esentially be a spec car series.

We are already there.

WRC cars are more advanced technically than F1, high end road cars are more technically advanced than F1. What F1 has now is advanced aerodynamics which is more on a par with the aerospace industries than the car industry, in a lot of areas that could be compared to a road car, they are held back by the rules, Just look at the size of the tyres and brakes, your STi has a better setup there size wise than F1.

Originally posted by johnfelstead
We are already there.

WRC cars are more advanced technically than F1, high end road cars are more technically advanced than F1. What F1 has now is advanced aerodynamics which is more on a par with the aerospace industries than the car industry, in a lot of areas that could be compared to a road car, they are held back by the rules, Just look at the size of the tyres and brakes, your STi has a better setup there size wise than F1.

But performance-wise, they're pretty incredible, even though short-lived. I can never get over, seeing F1 cars live, how late they brake for a corner.

Kevin

i have said it befor ill say again

187 Max Mosely

if y'all think that stupid fia proposals won't make it to competition .. look at miles piste

Dump the grooved tires and go back to slicks, then seriously limit aerodynamic downforce. Make the cars more dependent on mechanical grip. This would bring speeds down, and would make for more passing
bingo. forget this other crap. mechanical grip is the way to go.