New rules thread (merged again)

[sr230772]

i thought the race was good and exciting but everytime the cars came down pit row it lost a bit of excitement with out the tyre change

[Vicki]

I might be in a minority here, but I think qually is better now. I mean, look what a mixed grid we had, you just wouldn't get that with the old qually. I like the new rules, although I'm still unsure what classes as an engine change.

[Red]

Yes, you are... Boooo

joking

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by FerrariFanatic

I might be in a minority here, but I think qually is better now. I mean, look what a mixed grid we had, you just wouldn't get that with the old qually. I like the new rules, although I'm still unsure what classes as an engine change.

2003 or 2004 qualifying would have produced much the same grid.

An engine change is taking the engine out and putting a new one in.

[pitcrew]

Originally Posted by FerrariFanatic

I think qually is better now. I mean, look what a mixed grid we had, you just wouldn't get that with the old qually. I like the new rules,

if the weather conditions were the same in last years style qual session the grid would have also been mixed

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by FerrariFanatic

I might be in a minority here, but I think qually is better now.

Make that a minority of two... I like it too.

I think it was only the freak weather conditions that has made it look silly. That, although less likely, could happen under any qualifying system. Just imagine if it was the old system and everyone had gone out on track when Fisi did. There would have be chaos when half of them got caught still out on track on dry's when the downpour arrived.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally Posted by FerrariFanatic

I might be in a minority here, but I think qually is better now. I mean, look what a mixed grid we had, you just wouldn't get that with the old qually. I like the new rules, although I'm still unsure what classes as an engine change.

The old (2002) system would've produced a mixed grid as well, but it would've produced a fair grid. There was a 10-minute window in which to get a fast laptime in, and that would've given everyone a chance to set a time in that, with a chance to get within 2-3 seconds of the ultiamte pace before that. As it was, the grid was almost entirely random, Button, DC and JV all did disappointing laps and weren't punished for it.

That race needed more than a mixed grid to be exciting anyway. Imagine what Malaysia could be like if a lot of teams have engine problems, or tyre problems as the track is more demanding on those. BAR could've cheated their way into an advantageous position, which is frustrating.

They can't really make wholesale changes to the rule sthis year, but a few things can be tidied up - one set of tyres for practice and qualifying, and then another for the race, is an idea. I'm dreading the 6-race engines for 2006 above all though.

[ralf fan]

If the teams are competitive it doesnt matter what the starting order would be....imagine in a normal qually session we'd have had the Macs,Ferrari and the Renaults all in front and fighting for a win...that surely wouldve produced good racing...It just depends on the level of competition between the teams....

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

BAR could've cheated their way into an advantageous position, which is frustrating.

They haven't cheated.

Anyway, in Bahrain they'll be on the second race with their engines, while the others have a new one.

[BootsOntheSide]

Technically they haven't cheated, but they've acted outside the spirit of the rules. Toyota, Sauber, Minardi and Jordan all had this opportunity, yet it's BAR who've chosen to test the waters first. As for Bahrain, that assumes that they score points in Malaysia and don't pull the same stunt again. At such an early stage in the season, with Malaysia being traditionally such a hot and reliability-tough race, this could be a big benefit.

[Kicking-back]

You can't have it both ways.

On one hand you say it could be a big benefit - on the other you're thinking of them not scoring points and doing it again.

Whatever the whys and wherefores, if you're going to score points regularly, you'll need an engine which lasts two races.

[Knowlesy]

BAR are so off the pace I doubt it will matter anyways.

[Dutton]

Reading that suggestion of Haug, of fresh engine for qualy and the race with that engine then used in practice the next weekend, it has the potential of an excellent compromise. However, were there to be a failure ofthe old engine in that practice, do they have to sit out the rest of practice and thus get no new uengine until qualy? If so, it would seem to the defeat the big potential benefit (a lot more running in practice).

So, were it to be done that if you had an engine failure in practice then the team could, if they wanted to, replace the engine with their new one (that would then have to last the qual, race and next w/e practice) and use it in said practice without penalty, then we would have a working situation. They would need to not take part in the same session as the engien failure, in order to keep things consistent with the past.

It could work out nicely.

[Marbot]

I like that,and if it were tied in with 12 lap qually on new tyres and the race also with new tyres it would be great.

The idea of using a seperate set of tyres for qually is that if they had to use that set in the race they wouldn't push them hard(like now).The teams also have the option of using a soft tyre to get pole but not be optimal for the race or go for a conservative qually with a harder tyre.

[mac]

Haug's idea takes them straight back to using two engines and "increased costs".

Michael Schumacher already went through more engines at the Australian Grand Prix in 2005 than he did in 2004.

So much for containing costs.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by mac

Haug's idea takes them straight back to using two engines and "increased costs".

Michael Schumacher already went through more engines at the Australian Grand Prix in 2005 than he did in 2004.

So much for containing costs.

A team will always find ways to spend money if they want to, however the rules must be fashioned to prevent this spending from gaining the team an advantage.

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by mac

Haug's idea takes them straight back to using two engines and "increased costs".

Michael Schumacher already went through more engines at the Australian Grand Prix in 2005 than he did in 2004.

So much for containing costs.

True, but that was a tactical decision from Ferrari, if MS had been on pole I'm sure he would have run with what he had.

Similarly, who could forsee that teams would deliberately retire cars in order to gain a fresh engine for the next race? I've not seen it mentioned until after the finish of the race, when BAR trundled into the pits before the flag.

[Pingguest]

The problem with the new tyre rule is that it made the aerodynamics even more important. The proportion between aerodyamical grip and mechanical grip has moved to aerodynamical grip.

In fact, the FIA made the same mistake as in 1998. It just made overtaking more difficult. A controlled tyre, which is argued by some forum members, would have the same effect. So, a controlled tyre won't improve racing.

[Sodemo]

Pingguest, you speaketh the truth!

I don't understand why people can't see this is the problem with modern F1.

The tyre war was good for racing as it made the tyres far softer and stickier.

A control tyre (or the current tyre situation) wouldn't necesarily be bad for racing if it was twinned with a massive reduction in downforce, say reduced by 70%.

Other measures that would improve the racing:

Heavier cars (say plus 100Kgs)
Less effective brakes.
Wider rear tyres.

[N I Tram]

Loads of people thought this would happen ST - look over the previous threads to see the idea mentioned. The only people who were too stupid or naive to see it coming were the FIA and yourself.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The problem with the new tyre rule is that it made the aerodynamics even more important. The proportion between aerodyamical grip and mechanical grip has moved to aerodynamical grip.

Has this ratio changed though, because we've had a loss of mechancial grip and a loss of aerodynamic grip (if you want to phrase it like that). I am unsure which has been the most dramatic. I might guess aero, but I don't know (difficult to measure anyway).

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by N I Tram

Loads of people thought this would happen ST - look over the previous threads to see the idea mentioned. The only people who were too stupid or naive to see it coming were the FIA and yourself.

Charmed, I'm sure - I stand corrected....

I guess we can add Toyota and Sauber to the dunce lists as well, they didn't retire their cars despite being out of the points......

[Big Mac]

Just grabbed the latest copy of Australian Motorsport News and felt compelled to post this:

Originally Posted by Comment. Mnews says…

Time for F1 to take a good look at itself?

Dear Mr Ecclestone, Mr Mosely...

...It was riveting stuff (not). Led by the appalling procedure for qualifying, which is a complete farce, Formula 1 has in our view reached low ebb. Where to start?

It’s about a sport where, in final qualifying, the first three drivers choose to drive around and park; where the fastest car in qualifying starts from grid three; where half of the grid openly didn’t try! ....

You can fix qualifying in a hurry ...but the rest may take a little longer.

What kind of motorsport encourages a team ot pull its cars in with a lap to go? In what other sport is non performance rewarded ...

And you made all these changes for 2005 under the guise of safety. Safety? Rubbish. The record suggests that F1 is now safer than it’s ever been ....

Less aero, more mechanical grip – big time! Everyone knows that. ...

I couldn’t agree more with what’s been said. To editor Phil Branagan (whom is a regular poster on the Australian and New Zealand forum) and all those involved with Australian Motorsport new, thankyou for standing up and calling it like it is.


http://tentenths.com/forum/faq.php?f..._rules_content

[JeremySmith]

Well no beating around the bush there then...He is right

[markysjag]

spot on I agree. We need to get rid of the dictatorship and Ferrari favouring political infighting and let people with leadership and vision who are not worried about how much money they can stuff into their pockets run a democratic and unified formula 1 into the future.