Pulled from the 2nd part of this release
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/160605-02.html
======================================

Today the FIA announced that they would make public the proposed changes to the regulations for the 2008 Formula One World Championship. The folowing is a the second part of a press release from the sports governing body, the FIA.

Some suggested objectives
We have prepared a first draft of the 2008 rules with the following objectives:


the rate of increase in performance of the cars should not exceed the rate of improvement in measures to protect the public, marshals and competitors;
the rules and the means of enforcing them should be clear so that everyone competes on the same basis;
the rules and methods of enforcement must be sufficiently flexible to deal with unforeseen technical innovation;
costs should be contained in order to (i) decrease the likelihood of a manufacturer leaving after poor results (ii) enable a private team to be competitive without the support of a major manufacturer and (iii) reduce the performance deficit of the less well-funded teams;
expensive technology which is invisible to the public and known only to a tiny band of specialist engineers should be eliminated where possible;
expensive materials or designs should not be used as a substitute for good engineering;
driver aids should be eliminated as far as possible. In particular the use of electronic devices should not be allowed to replace driver skills;
downforce should be drastically reduced and “mechanical” grip increased substantially for closer racing.



This, then, has been our approach to 2008. Criticism, constructive or otherwise, is welcome. All comments received during the July consultation period will be carefully considered when the FIA technical department finalises its proposals, which it will do in consultation with those teams and race organisers which have indicated their intention to participate in the Formula One World Championship from 2008 onwards. We will also take full account of the results of the FIA/AMD survey of public opinion. Once finalised and approved by the World Motor Sport Council and FIA General Assembly, the rules must be published before the end of 2005 as required by the Concorde Agreement. Thereafter the 2008 technical regulations cannot be changed without the agreement of everyone concerned.

Changes for 2009 will still require two years’ notice (ie publication before 31.12.2006). Thereafter notice of changes which affect the design of the car (sporting or technical) will be announced no later than 30 June to come into force for the next-but- one season (ie a change for 2010 will be announced before 30.6.2008).

Summary of the main changes proposed for 2008

ENGINES

All components of the engine will be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators as specified by the FIA
All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA
The control system wiring loom connectivity will be specified by the FIA
A 3 litre V10 engine will remain an option for teams unable to obtain a 2.4 litre V8, but subject to similar strict performance limitations as in 2006 and 2007

Reasons

to eliminate the use of driver aids such as traction control
as teams will not be able to develop their own ECUs, expenditure on electronics will be considerably reduced
to allow the FIA to check testing mileage and other elements
to keep engine costs low for the smaller independent teams

GEARBOXES

All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification
Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox
Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism

Reasons

to restore control over the clutch and gear changing to the driver
the use of standard gearbox internals will result in a very significant reduction in expenditure

BODYWORK

Downforce will be reduced to approximately 10% of current levels
Drag will be maintained at current levels
Overall car width will be increased
By stipulating maximum and minimum dimensions cars will be “cleaned up” with devices such as barge boards, flip ups, winglets and other small add on parts removed
Total advertising area on the car to remain unchanged

Reasons

to reduce the reliance upon downforce as a means of improving performance
by increasing mechanical grip the likelihood of one car being able to follow another closely in corners, and hence be in an attacking position at the end of the following straight, will be increased
eliminating winglets, bargeboards, etc, will reduce costs as well as the danger of debris on the circuits
drag should remain unchanged in order to ensure straight line speeds do not increase significantly

WHEELS AND TYRES

Tyres will be supplied by one manufacturer appointed by the FIA after an invitation to tender. Such an appointment will be conditional upon :
a suitable supplier being available ;
a suitable system to ensure tyre testing is carried out in an equitable manner ;
no team being disadvantaged by the appointment of a single supplier (detailed regulations will be written to ensure this would not be the case) ;
there being no legal impediments during the process of appointing a supplier
Slick tyres will be introduced for use in dry weather
Lower profile tyres will be introduced
Significantly larger wheels with minimum and maximum sizes stipulated for front and rear will be permitted
Tyre blankets and other heating devices will be prohibited
All tyre regulations will reside in the Technical Regulations

Reasons

a single supplier would allow a bigger safety margin
the absence of competitive tyre testing would reduce costs
as relatively small differences in tyre compound and construction can have a significant effect on lap times, a single tyre supplier would simply ensure that no team would be adversely affected by being contracted to the “wrong” supplier
slick tyres would be re-introduced as a part of the low- downforce and high-mechanical-grip package
lower profile tyres would be introduced in order to give the wheels and tyres a more modern look and also permit more freedom on brakes and suspension
a ban on tyre heating devices would eliminate this significant but unnecessary expenditure

CHASSIS

The minimum height of the centre of gravity of the chassis will be specified
The minimum weight for a chassis will be specified
Energy of all impact tests will be increased
Loads for all static tests will be increased
Side intrusion test requirements will be increased
Ballast will be reduced to minimal levels

Reasons

to ensure that weight is distributed throughout the chassis
the centre of gravity requirement should result in less pure ballast being used, the minimum weight will have to be achieved by the construction of a stronger chassis
by raising the impact test speeds, the static load criteria on structures such as roll hoops and increasing the penetration resistance, drivers will be even better protected than they are at present

BRAKES

All cars will be fitted with brake discs, pads and callipers which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification

Reason

to reduce the cost of continual development of new materials and designs, the FIA specified products will be designed to work on all types of track and last an entire Grand Prix weekend

DATA ACQUISITION AND TELEMETRY

With specific exceptions, any data acquisition system, telemetry system or associated sensors additional to those associated with the ECU will be physically separate and completely isolated from the control electronics
Pit to car telemetry will be prohibited

Reasons

to ensure that any data acquisition system used by a team cannot interfere with the FIA specified ECU and sensors
to ensure teams are unable to send messages to a car and potentially affect its performance

MATERIALS

Limitations, similar to those within the 2006 engine regulations, will be imposed on all parts of the car

Reason

costs will be reduced as research into exotic materials will be unnecessary

STARTER

All cars will be equipped with a driver operated starter which is capable of starting the car without outside assistance a minimum number of times

Reasons

to simplify the operation of starting a car, at present it is massively complex
to give the driver a chance of starting a car unaided in the event of it stopping on the track
to reduce the number of personnel needed at an Event and hence reduce costs

NOTICE OF CHANGE

Notice periods for changing the rules will be related to the effect (if any) of a change on the design of a car rather than an artificial distinction between “sporting” and “technical” regulations. There will no longer be a distinction between changes to the engine, transmission or chassis.

Reason

to ensure that changes may be made to the regulations in a timely and more realistic way

SPARE CARS

Spare cars will be prohibited, i.e. no team may have more than two built-up cars available at an Event at any one time. Spare chassis will be permitted but precisely what constitutes a car in this context will be clearly defined

Reason

by taking one car less to races teams will be able to save considerable sums of money as, apart from the cost of the car itself, fewer personnel will be needed

TESTING

Testing will be limited to 30000km per team between 1st January and 31st December, subject to a single tyre supplier being appointed

Reason

To reduce the enormous amounts of money currently being spent on testing

CAR ACQUISITION

Teams will be free to buy a complete car or any part of a car from another constructor
How constructor’s points are to be allocated will be clearly defined after further discussion

Reason

to enable a team to buy a complete car, or any part of a car, from another constructor. As a result teams will be able to save considerable sums of money on the design and development of their cars.

E.A.
Source FIA

All spec'ed parts :(

So some major changes are in store. Most of these are proposed, but as it looks most teams will agree other than Ferrari perhaps ;)

summary for the impatient/ADD peeps:
- FIA spec ECU (and control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors etcc), brakes, SLICK tires.
- no telemetry, no driver aids
- Testing will be limited to 30000 km per team per year
- Fully manual gearboxes operating with a clutch. Spec gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials.
- 2.4 litre V8 engines
- cars will be equipped with a driver operated starter
- Downforce will be reduced to approximately 10% of current levels :eek:

Yes a lot of spec parts. But the cost of competing is killing racing. Im torn both ways about this issue. Innovation will suffer.

I have no problem with alot of that stuff, I don't quite understand how to reduce downforce to 10% of current while maintaining drag unless they make the front a big rectangle. Alot of the spec stuff is wrong, I'm OK with the spec ECU, that would be enough to limit traction control and the like, they should let them build their own transmissions as well as control ratios.

Well they will let them build their own trannies

it's spec gears and LSD

So they can choose whatever gear ratios they want..but the gears themselves are spec

this is crap, its not even racing anymore... its like indy or nascar where its pretty much everyone running the same exact car and leaving no room for future innovations, which i'm sure there will be because they will all try to find that edge to get them ahead of the others. idk... just having an all around bad day.

Well they will let them build their own trannies

it's spec gears and LSD

So they can choose whatever gear ratios they want..but the gears themselves are spec
Oh, OK, I read that as gearbox=transmission, not final drive/differential.

why don't they just supply them with Formula Atlantic Cars :rolleyes:

why don't they just supply them with Formula Atlantic Cars :rolleyes:

Not enough room on the cars for the sponsors' names.

All this spec stuff is crap if you ask me. So much for the pinnacle of motorsports.

*My* opinion:
http://www.volny.cz/nascar/images/bigmass.jpg

What a load of !"£$%^&*

Another nail in the F1 coffin. Lets hope the teams do setup their own championship.

I read this earlier today :mad: The Bernie and Max Show is looking like a spin off of NASCRAP. Technology is what makes F1, well F1. If I want to see 40 year old race cars I know I can see that on the other 20 hrs of programming on SPEEDTV.

CN: lame

Money this money that, who said racing was cheap? If you wanna play in the big leagues you gotta pay the big bucks. The only changes I like are the less driver aids and slicks.

Hmmm... The teams look across the ocean and see the TRUCKLOADS of cash that NASCAR brings in and the relatively low budgets of the top NASCAR teams, then they look at their own multi-hundred-million dollar team budgets...

Just from that perspective I can't see why Williams/Sauber/BAR/Ferrari etc. would be against this, really...

Some of the stuff about cost savings I don't get though. Not having a spare car at the track means that when a driver stuffs a car during practice or qualifying, you need to have enough spare mechanics and spare parts with you to build a car out of a chassis and a box of parts overnight, or pay overnight freight to fly in a car from the team HQ.

Also, having two tire manufacturers has really improved their tires over the past couple years.

Add me to the list of people not getting how you cut downforce by 90% but keep drag the same without putting giant "air brakes" on the car. Maybe they're planning on bolting NASCAR bodies over the body tubs...

Even with this level of spec parts, innovation will still happen, it'll just be more subtle (and probably more expensive). Fancy electromagnetic clutches or brake controllers to implement traction control, for instance... WRC-derived active differentials to help the cars turn, maybe...

Still:
CN: lame
1234

By removing the paddle shifters, they are actually making it more dangerous because the driver will have to take one hand off of the wheel to shift, and one foot will be busy with the clutch and therefore have a greater reaction time before the brake can be depressed.

Along with the above comments about the gearbox, more trannies will be destroy'ed due to missed shifts and improper clutch use, INCREASING the cost. The teams went over that proposal a few years back, no one liked it. Besides, I can get an M3 with a clutchless manual, why not keep it in the F1 cars? I can't be that much more expensive.

The aero part is easy to do. Take away the endplates from the front and rear wings. Limit the wings to a certain geometry (I.E. flat). Make underbody diffusers illegal. Make the risers that controll flow over the tires illegal. There you have it- horribly inefficient downforce. Spec cars are boring to watch. I might have to build my own A-mod car just to see what is possible if these regulations go into effect.

By removing the paddle shifters, they are actually making it more dangerous because the driver will have to take one hand off of the wheel to shift, and one foot will be busy with the clutch and therefore have a greater reaction time before the brake can be depressed.
Nope. Left foot braking and no clutch between gearchanges.

I'm sorry but I really miss the days of watching the incar cameras with the driver manually shifing gears. I can't wait for this to come back, along with the elimination of traction control! Let the real driving begin, again!

Another important thing to realize is that without all that downforce, F1 cars can get sideways again, ala Jaques Villenueve!

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com

the days of watching the incar cameras with the driver manually shifing gears.

Mmmm, makes me think of Senna's pole position lap at Monaco in 1990. :eek:

With all this talk of F1 turning into Nascar, should I put a "whistling dixie" horn on my STi?;)

F1 is big $$$. Fact. Accept it. If it wasn't for all this big $$$, Bernie or Max wouldn't be standing on top of their mountain of $$$. To me it feels like they're biting the hand that fed them. Who knows, maybe I got a wrong perspective.


Mika(me thinks F1 should be unlimited budgets with the highest technologically advanced parts on the cars, sans driver's aids)

While I don't necesarily agree with all the spec parts, I like what I see here. In my opinion, F1 has been becoming far too focused on the kind of technology that simplifies the job of the race car driver, effectively marginalizing his input into the equation. To me, racing is about technology AND skill. When a race car starts to resemble a stealth bomber in both technology and cost, you have to wonder where the skill is going. When the US builds something that can drop a bomb into a garbage can from 50,000 ft, it is impressive, yes, but the amount of skill the pilot exhibited was equivelent to that of what you and I might show when playing the first level of Duck Hunt.

Even with these spec parts on the way, there is a tall order on the table for the engineers. It is much harder to come up with mechanical grip than just add downforce. I think this will spur some great changes in the suspension, since this seems to be the only place left for them to play. Remember that "technology" is not carbon fiber, computers, and space-aged materials. Technology is defined simply as a way of accomplishing a task with the practical application of knowledge. This won't kill tech in F1, it will only force the best and brightest minds to pursue it in other areas.

This will not make F1 into NASCAR. There is plenty of room left for builders to play. Bring back the clutch. Bring back the mechnical shifter. Bring back the skills!

Chris Lock

It would seem the cars would get really heavy since they have to use all the cheap/heavy metals and spec this and that.
I've got it, why don't they pull out the motor and let them race Fred Flinstone style...

i do like having 2 engine types. i do like more mechinical grip/ less downforce. i do like fewer (or no?) driver aids. i dont like the rest.

so what's gonna make a Ferrari a Ferrari, or a BMW a BMW...they all have the same brakes, gears, ECU, ect...whoppy.

looks like F1 is gonna suck in 08, so enjoy it while it lasts.

so what's gonna make a Ferrari a Ferrari, or a BMW a BMW...they all have the same brakes, gears, ECU, ect...whoppy.

looks like F1 is gonna suck in 08, so enjoy it while it lasts.
That's ridiculous. You basically just ticked off the only things they are going to share. Everything else will remain custom and built in-house. Besides, you don't identify a BMW by it's brakes or it's gearset, but by how the engineers packaged the entire vehicle. This remains unchanged.

It would seem the cars would get really heavy since they have to use all the cheap/heavy metals and spec this and that.
I've got it, why don't they pull out the motor and let them race Fred Flinstone style...
Not a chance. The current F1 cars are significantly lighter than their minimum weight requirements. All the F1 cars must be ballasted up to the minimum weight and the engineers put that ballast where they want to improve the cg of the chassis. Trust me, Ferrari isn't building a cast titanium and carbon panel gearbox because their car is overweight...

As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be that difficult to build the entire car out of conventional materials and still meet the current minimum weight requirements.

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com

That's ridiculous. You basically just ticked off the only things they are going to share. Everything else will remain custom and built in-house. Besides, you don't identify a BMW by it's brakes or it's gearset, but by how the engineers packaged the entire vehicle. This remains unchanged.


Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com


Understandable, i was generalizing a bit. But I still think this is wrong (not that my opinion is of much importance to F1). To me, the beauty of F1 is in it's innovation. For example,

"costs will be reduced as research into exotic materials will be unnecessary"
Those exotic materials are the future for cars, and F1 is an awesome testing grounds for new materials.

Going to one manufacturer for parts also seems like a bad idea. What if EVERY car has a msifire in the same cylinder becasue they are running the same ECU. What if everyones 2nd gear blows up becasue they all have the same manufacturer?? I can understand imposing limitations, but I would like to see the teams develop their own products, based on those limitations.

BUT
I can totaly understand where the FIA is comming from here. 2008 is a long way away, and these are just proposals. All drivers said, "no comment" when asked about the new clutch rule...hopefully FIA, the drivers, and the teams can come to a middle ground on some of these new rules.

Imposing these rules does make it much more affordable for the teams with less money to compete. F1 has been won by only a select few over the years, and those teams who keep losing may decide to stop racing. The grid is already fairly empty, imagine if jordan toyota (which i think is on sale again) drops out, or if toyota and honda both leave. That leaves F1 with even less cars. They need to make it appealing and economically feaseable for other teams to race.

My concern with these rules is that it will put a massive damper on innovation, and that innovation is what trickles down into consumer vehicles to make them better/safer.

And i don't think i agree AT ALL with letting some teams run V8s and others V10s....imagine how that would affect both low end torque and top end speed.

seems weird to me, but lets see what comes of it.

I guess you can call this a "NASCAR-ization of F1" ...trying to make the sport more about the driver then the vehicle.

Keep in mind these are only FIA proposals, they come out with this outlandish stuff every year. Very little actually sticks. In most cases, they have to get the approval of the teams.

I don't see how spec parts will save money. Any money saved there will be put into more aero (which won't go away, if for no other reason than sponsorship dollars, like how they've speced the larger engine covers).

Personally I'd like to see it legal to sell chassis to teams who are finding it difficult to develop their own. That and some good 'ole iron rotors.

[QUOTE=srf]Keep in mind these are only FIA proposals, they come out with this outlandish stuff every year. Very little actually sticks. In most cases, they have to get the approval of the teams.QUOTE]

I thought the FIA would never enforce Grooved tires, one engine for two races, or one set of tires for qualifying and the race.

When they banned "On the fly telemetry changes" what was this really costing the teams when they had engineers on the pit wall anyhow.

well it seems well-intentioned at least...


Why are they making the cars wider? Wouldn't this make it harder to pass? Is it just for more sponsorship space?


I guess im just gonna see where this is going and accept it.

The only one I like is low profile tires. And that's simply so more people will go "ooooh" and think it looks better. That would have all sorts of suspension design ramifications, though, so maybe is not feasible.

ECU - not so bad, it will serve the purpose they say.

Mech shifting - there goes F1's claim to be the most technologically advanced racing series, I really hope that one doesn't fly :(

Mech grip - no problems with it

Why are they making the cars wider? Wouldn't this make it harder to pass? Is it just for more sponsorship space?

More mechanical grip to make up for the loss of aero.

Were not in the 80s anymore, we shouldnt have to shift with a knob. The fact is there is still plenty of driver skill in F1, did Zsolt Baumgardner do well last year? No because he didnt have the skill. Im watching Scott Speed practice right now around Indy and hes 3 seconds off the pace in a red bull which isnt that bad of a car. All these advances in F1 cars, like electronic shifting and TC just give the driver more time to focus on the lines and other basic racing skills, not who can shift the fastest or not spin the tires.

Like everyone has said, its useless to equip F1 cars with parts that are worse than cars on the road right now. Whats going to be Ferraris next F1 style supercar? A manual shifter with no traction control and spec tranny? Thats rediculous.

I can see where costs effect the number of cars on the grid and i can understand that. Watching F1 decade seems to be a little more fun because there were almost 30 cars on the grid back then. I just dont agree with getting rid of most of the technology in F1.

And the 10% decrease in aerodynamics? Wasnt that what they said about this year, too? They are still given a bit of freedom on this and will still get it back to some extent so they are wasting their time on this rule.

My dream of working in F1 is about to end

Well, assuming Ferrari has a 300 million budget divided evenly among the various parts of the car. If the transmission, tires, brakes, electronics all now cost 75% less, won't that money just move to areas where they don't have spec parts, like the chassis, engine and suspension? I have a hard time believe that these teams would reduce their budgets, even if initial costs went down.

That being said, I like the spec ECU, no traction control. Was never a big fan and it adds the element of uncertainty that makes racing so exciting. Spec transmission, not such a big fan there. Slick tires? Yes! although F1 cars do lose a little of their distinctive look.

As far as aerodynamics go, I would like to see the FIA impose a Surface Area limit. I, you have 20 square feet in body work to put on, that's it. I think car designs would vary more. Unforunately, this wouldn't reduce cost.

Oh, one final thing, in my view there is one very simple argument against spec parts, and its kind of been touched on above, but there are already PLENTY of spec or near spec races all over the world. The closer it gets to a spec race car, the close it gets to just being another spec series.

And the 10% decrease in aerodynamics? Wasnt that what they said about this year, too? They are still given a bit of freedom on this and will still get it back to some extent so they are wasting their time on this rule.


It didn't say 10% decrease in aero. It says 10% of current downforce, which is 90% decrease. :eek:

Well, assuming Ferrari has a 300 million budget divided evenly among the various parts of the car. If the transmission, tires, brakes, electronics all now cost 75% less, won't that money just move to areas where they don't have spec parts, like the chassis, engine and suspension? I have a hard time believe that these teams would reduce their budgets, even if initial costs went down.

That being said, I like the spec ECU, no traction control. Was never a big fan and it adds the element of uncertainty that makes racing so exciting. Spec transmission, not such a big fan there. Slick tires? Yes! although F1 cars do lose a little of their distinctive look.

As far as aerodynamics go, I would like to see the FIA impose a Surface Area limit. I, you have 20 square feet in body work to put on, that's it. I think car designs would vary more. Unforunately, this wouldn't reduce cost.
Yes, but the money they spend in those other areas will net less of a gain for the teams that have the money compared to having everything wide open the way it is today.

It's not a spec transmission, it's spec gears, final drive and diff. Teams will still be able to choose which gear ratios and final drive and diff settings they want to run at any given track.

Probably wouldn't reduce downforce, either, which is the main reason F1 is relatively boring from a RACING point of view because it's so hard to pass.

A modern F1 car is the ultimate time trial car, but not the ultimate RACING car because you can have a faster car and be an equal driver and it is impossible to pass.

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com

Oh, one final thing, in my view there is one very simple argument against spec parts, and its kind of been touched on above, but there are already PLENTY of spec or near spec races all over the world. The closer it gets to a spec race car, the close it gets to just being another spec series.
I am having a hard time accepting this point of view. The engine, suspension, chassis and aero package will all be designed in house to the maximum extent of the rules. These cars will continue to be drastically different.

The only thing I really don't see the purpose of is spec gears and final drive. I get the differential, but not the other two.

In my eyes this is all good news. The best drivers in the world will continue to gravitate to F1 and we will get to see them actually battle each other.

Getting rid of traction control is one of the biggest parts of this. Someone belittled the skill it takes to efficiently put down 900+ horsepower (called "spinning the tires"). If you don't think this is one of the most important skills of a racing driver, you don't understand what's required to drive a race car.

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com

Probably wouldn't reduce downforce, either, which is the main reason F1 is relatively boring from a RACING point of view because it's so hard to pass.

A modern F1 car is the ultimate time trial car, but not the ultimate RACING car because you can have a faster car and be an equal driver and it is impossible to pass.

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com (http://www.teamSMR.com)If FIA allowed modifications to the car after qualifying the teams could still innovate like they always have.

So during qualifying they can put on whatever aero package they want, brakes, etc. But then during the race they must go to the spec parts. My imagined situation would allow this for some spec parts but not all.

Ex: some innovative team can get really good grip so they qualify well. But during the race the driver has no other advantages over anyone else, and actually must possess greater skill than before since he has to drive two vastly different setups the same weekend. It will require strategy to decide if it's better to qualify midpack and hope to pass (which is easier with the lower downforce specs) or qualify pole and trust your driver can adapt well.

If FIA allowed modifications to the car after qualifying the teams could still innovate like they always have.

So during qualifying they can put on whatever aero package they want, brakes, etc. But then during the race they must go to the spec parts. My imagined situation would allow this for some spec parts but not all.

Ex: some innovative team can get really good grip so they qualify well. But during the race the driver has no other advantages over anyone else, and actually must possess greater skill than before since he has to drive two vastly different setups the same weekend. It will require strategy to decide if it's better to qualify midpack and hope to pass (which is easier with the lower downforce specs) or qualify pole and trust your driver can adapt well.
Uh?! Why would you want a different car for qualification than for the race? It completely defeats the purpose and would increase costs everywhere.

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com

I am starting to see why Gary is not so worried. We don't even know how strict the specs will be (or is that info available?)

It could say that the final drive just has to be "xxx." How they obtain that drive is up to them. Same with the diff. A team could maybe invent some sort of brand new diff that's drastically different than current designs but has the same net result and therefore meets spec.

If the specs specify materials and parts required then yeah it's going to turn into something bland. But so far the only thing that sounds strict is tires. I doubt they'll hold the teams to a single manufacturer for anything else. The rest of that company's industry would then sue for monopoly and FIA for conspiring with the manufacturer (I'm curious how they're planning on doing the single tire manufacturer without legal issues).

Uh?! Why would you want a different car for qualification than for the race? It completely defeats the purpose and would increase costs everywhere.

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com (http://www.teamSMR.com)But only if the teams choose to do so. My hope is just to keep F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport. If you put all these limitations on the cars there will be third parties coming out and setting the lap record at tracks around the world and the technology will not continue to develop. If you put a plug on design possiblities, the team's engineering departments will become unimportant and the marketing departments will take lead. I know it's already pretty much there, but why make it worse?

Providing an allowance for super-spec parts during qualifying gives the teams an opportunity to spend money and innovate if they so choose. I didn't use the word "incentive" becuase I don't really know if it's an incentive... that's where the stragerizing :p comes in.

Realistically I know this will never happen, but to me it's sort of a "best of both worlds" idea.

Sorry Andrman, but that's the dumbest thing I've seen today (and I've been to OT today).

The only way that would be interesting would be if before the race they flipped a coin to see if the grid was going to be reversed or something.

I LOVE THE NEW RULES!!!!

All that tech was useless, expensive, and boring. It's only useful when it gives a team an advantage, as soon as it becomes standard it is nothing more than an expensive diversion from real racing. I never once turned on the tv to see a tire warming blaket, or a paddle shifter.

Wide track cars, slick tires, no tire war, no ridiculous aero do-dads, no bloody f-ing traction control, I love it, love it. Back to real racing. Drafting, missed shifts, blown engines, let these guys earn their millions!

Maybe teams will finally be able to afford to compete in this series, instead of steadily dwindeling down to nothing like it is at the moment.

I think a lot of people are missing the facts of spiraling budgetes, dwindling grids, spectators complaining about boring racing and the fact that F1 cannot remain the same and continue to exist.

Many of you are reading too much into these rules changes. The level of innovation in F1 will not be effected at all. It just will no longer be applied in ECU computer hardware/software (actual tuning will be up to the teams), gear materials and manufactureing, driver tunable differentials and brake rotor materials/manufacturing.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS OPEN!

Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
www.teamSMR.com

I LOVE THE NEW RULES!!!!

All that tech was useless, expensive, and boring. It's only useful when it gives a team an advantage, as soon as it becomes standard it is nothing more than an expensive diversion from real racing. I never once turned on the tv to see a tire warming blaket, or a paddle shifter.
That's where I am different I guess. I eat that stuff up. It's never been about M Schumacher's victories or the driver's championship. I find it interesting and have my favorite drivers, but I was originally attracted to the sport because of the technology.

The level of innovation in F1 will not be effected at all. It just will no longer be applied in ECU computer hardware/software (actual tuning will be up to the teams), gear materials and manufactureing, driver tunable differentials and brake rotor materials/manufacturing.

If you say so then I won't get my panties in a bunch. I'd like to hope that teams will still do a little R&D on things that may presently be "illegal" just in case the rules are changed again (which is almost a guarantee in F1).

And please don't call me dumb, I'm just killing time on the internet making up general ideas and thinking about what would result. It's called creativity. Like I said before, I know it would never fly nor do I want it to.

I think it would be advisable for the FIA to look closely at how teams are spending money these days. For one, I find it hard to believe that building an engine that lasts 2 events is cheaper than several engines that last much shorter times. I recall reading something where Ferrari essentially said that they make 4 parts for every 1 part they use. This is because the parts HAVE to be perfect, the stakes are too high to have any problems. So, 80% of engine parts of completely discarded, how is that saving money?!

They've limited the aero from last year and you know what, the big teams simply ran their wind tunnels 24/7 to regain the lost downforce. How is that saving money? How is it improving safety? The cars run just as fast if not faster than last year!

What happened when they banned launch control? Renault came up with a very clever way to simulate launch control without an electronic system in place to control the engine. So, was banning launch control effective? It sure was if you're Renault!

I think the real solution is to make the rules more flexible. It wasn't too long ago that the cars were all pretty different from one another. The key there is that a smaller team can come up with something very clever and eclipse the larger teams. Right now, a lot of money is spent on perfectly optimizing the current formula as much as possible. There aren't many optimal solutions. With more flexible rules, the teams would have more potentially optimal solutions to choose from. Some solutions will be more expensive while others will be less expensive. At this point, the solutions have been so highly refined that teams are only left with doing things such as experimenting with exotic materials.

Did I read correctly that they are going to have to actually shift with a clutch?!!!


Hallelujah. :D

Once on the move you dont have to use the clutch, you still would to help reliability in a 200 mile race though. Why is this a good thing removing fly by wire gearboxes? These devices save the teams vast sums of money and increase reliability in the races so you get more finishers. Back in the 80's before these devices the finish rates at GP's was apauling due to blown engines and destroyed dog rings, having just a few cars running isnt much of a show for todays TV audiences.

To a certain extent we already have some spec parts as most teams use the same brake and clutch components (AP racing) for example so the money saving there wont happen. This wont save any significant money, in motor racing the teams will always spend the available budget, the haves will still win and the have nots will still lose, that has always been the case and always will be.

I am all for more mechanical grip and less aero, i have always said that, but the rest i am not a fan of at all, not for F1 where inovation should be the aim.

My favourite race series is 1966-1974 Can Am, because it was based around zero rules that brought masive inovation, it lost its way near the end when they started to impose technical regulations that stiffled the engineers, in it's heyday it was just awesome and made the F1 cars with their spec engines (DFV) and spec gearboxes (hewland DG300) look pedestrian, it looks like we may be heading back to that era again with the sports cars being far more interesting technically than the "pinacle of motoracing" that will be F1 2008.

I am having a hard time accepting this point of view. The engine, suspension, chassis and aero package will all be designed in house to the maximum extent of the rules. These cars will continue to be drastically different.



I am starting to see why Gary is not so worried. We don't even know how strict the specs will be (or is that info available?)

It could say that the final drive just has to be "xxx." How they obtain that drive is up to them. Same with the diff. A team could maybe invent some sort of brand new diff that's drastically different than current designs but has the same net result and therefore meets spec.

If the specs specify materials and parts required then yeah it's going to turn into something bland. But so far the only thing that sounds strict is tires. I doubt they'll hold the teams to a single manufacturer for anything else. The rest of that company's industry would then sue for monopoly and FIA for conspiring with the manufacturer (I'm curious how they're planning on doing the single tire manufacturer without legal issues).

you guys are completely off. if you read it again it says all the spec parts will be manufactured by an FIA approved maunfacturer. All the ECUs and transmissions will no longer be Ferrrari or BMW parts, itll be some outside company that the FIA choses to design, so the teams will have no control over the design of these things, all teams will be EXACTLY the same (hence the word spec). The only innovation they are left with is a little bit of aerodynamics and suspension and the rest of the drivetrain.


I think the real solution is to make the rules more flexible. It wasn't too long ago that the cars were all pretty different from one another. The key there is that a smaller team can come up with something very clever and eclipse the larger teams. Right now, a lot of money is spent on perfectly optimizing the current formula as much as possible. There aren't many optimal solutions. With more flexible rules, the teams would have more potentially optimal solutions to choose from. Some solutions will be more expensive while others will be less expensive. At this point, the solutions have been so highly refined that teams are only left with doing things such as experimenting with exotic materials.

i have to agree completely on this. The problem with the racing today is everyone is basing things off everyone else. No one looks to innovate as widely as they used to except for maybe BAR. They all seem to, like todd said, maximise the current formula, or take what works and just put it to the test. They shouldnt be regulated into one specific setup and should be allowed to innovate to the fullest and come up with something completley different hence giving them the edge.

That might not be the best "racing" on a race by race basis, but itll set up a very interesting championship as everyone will be continuously changing things to give them an edge