[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What a legendary poll there from JA. Insight at its best. Would you like ten pounds?

I took part in the poll but I didn't get ten pounds.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I took part in the poll but I didn't get ten pounds.

I think you'll find it's been added to the overall weight of the cars...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I think you'll find it's been added to the overall weight of the cars...

Oh....

[velly4]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

They don't need to increase the flow rate to enhance the racing. The problem is that using the maximum flow rate throughout the race, the race would be too long and the cars would run out of fuel before the finish.

By maintaining the flow rate, the Mercedes team are still able to claim the fuel savings to the Daimler Benz board of directors.

Don't 100% agree with that. At the end of the day with a fuel flow limit or not they still use the same amount of fuel over the course of a race.

Just adds another variable if someone wished to use more at a certain point.

My understanding was the main point of the fuel flow limit was to limit/control the HP levels of the engine.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by velly4

Don't 100% agree with that. At the end of the day with a fuel flow limit or not they still use the same amount of fuel over the course of a race.

Just adds another variable if someone wished to use more at a certain point.

My understanding was the main point of the fuel flow limit was to limit/control the HP levels of the engine.

This is nothing to do with the output of the power-units, but about their efficiency. And what has been determined is that the Mercedes PUs are far more efficient that their counterparts. In fact, so much so that all 4 Mercedes powered teams voted against the increase of the fuel allowance, but were out-voted.

This increase just means that some teams will be able to use more output per race than previously, and that is supposed to help them keep up with the Mercedes.

[Taxi645]

To illustrate why we are getting nowhere with the 2017 rules you simply have to look at the line of thought to defend the nature of the rule changes from McLaren racing director Eric Boullier:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mc...-fears-732388/

"I disagree with some comments in the media from my competitors," he said about the situation. "The change of the regulations have been drafted that the car will generate more [grip] from the tyres, so it is mechanical. This should not hurt the overtaking numbers.
"And on top of this, the aero, the influence of the front wing, will be less as the floor itself and the diffuser will be generating more downforce as well.
"All this normally allows more overtaking manoeuvres, but which may be only five percent more than today all the overtaking moves are driven by DRS and tyre degradation.”

So we have a major issue; for years cars aren't able to follow each other sufficiently and F1 rules makers “in their love of motorsport” had to revert to a gimmick like DRS because they misunderstood the quality of overtaking for the quantity of overtaking. Now we get a major and very expensive rule change and likely the only major one for several years to come. And they are satisfied with how much improvement? That's right, 5%!

So a mere 5% improvement, but mister Boullier thinks we shouldn't be worried. He doesn't have a clue what close racing means or what the fans want! Dear mister Boullier we don't want 5% improvement, we want such an improvement that we don't need DRS in the first place! And no, we shouldn't idealize races with three or four overtakes for a whole race, that's not what we are looking for. We want a reasonable amount of overtakes, roughly the current amount is fine. Bit less is fine as well, just make them worth watching. Reward the tactical racer even if it might take a few corners or laps in stead of one DRS-zone.

F1 rules makers should set themselves that goal. To design a car that allows good and close racing without DRS and we want it properly and scientifically researched and tested. Apparently it's too tall an order.

[S griffin]

In the world is a great way to get a new study for this one. I love for the rule makers of the sport to watch the old days of the same sport and I have to say that the only thing I would like to see if I could is the end of the gimmick that I have no idea what to say about. I love to see the end of DRS

[velly4]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This is nothing to do with the output of the power-units, but about their efficiency. And what has been determined is that the Mercedes PUs are far more efficient that their counterparts. In fact, so much so that all 4 Mercedes powered teams voted against the increase of the fuel allowance, but were out-voted.

This increase just means that some teams will be able to use more output per race than previously, and that is supposed to help them keep up with the Mercedes.

So stopping them from running much higher output in qualifying trim had nothing to do with the flow limit?

Remember the group c days at Le Mans? That was what they were preventing with the flow limit.

[Mike Harte]

velly4, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. The fuel flow rate was introduced by the FIA as part of their green agenda, and has never been about the power output of the ICEs; it's supposed to be all about efficiency, wrong in my opinion as that should be left to the WEC and the like.

And the thrust of both FOM and the FIA has been, in the last couple of years of these new power-units, to see the total power output increase to 1000 bhp. So, as I said, this is not to restrict output, this is designed to allow the less efficient PUs to run flat out for longer to try to keep up with the Mercedes.

[BSchneiderFan]

Fuel efficiency is all very well, and plays to the road car relevance agenda, but no-one has ever had a poster of a car on his wall and thought lustfully, "God, that's so *efficient*!"

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Fuel efficiency is all very well, and plays to the road car relevance agenda, but no-one has ever had a poster of a car on his wall and thought lustfully, "God, that's so *efficient*!"

True, but it means everything to the board at Daimler Benz, and it is the thing that won the argument when they were considering canning the F1 project a couple of years ago. The Mercedes team need to prove to the directors that the are now producing as much power as the old V8s, but are only using something like 60-65% of the fuel.

And I would imagine that the same considerations are important to Renault and Honda; maybe not Ferrari though, although I think that their days of producing multi-pot engines for their road cars is probably likely to be curtailed in the future.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

True, but it means everything to the board at Daimler Benz, and it is the thing that won the argument when they were considering canning the F1 project a couple of years ago. The Mercedes team need to prove to the directors that the are now producing as much power as the old V8s, but are only using something like 60-65% of the fuel.

And I would imagine that the same considerations are important to Renault and Honda; maybe not Ferrari though, although I think that their days of producing multi-pot engines for their road cars is probably likely to be curtailed in the future.

At which point you would have to wonder how much more efficient the F1 cars would be without the 40% plus weight increase for battery KERS and a corresponding reduction in drag due to not having to generate masses of downforce to get the overweight cars around the corners. The efficiency is due to turbocharging and lift and coast.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

At which point you would have to wonder how much more efficient the F1 cars would be without the 40% plus weight increase for battery KERS and a corresponding reduction in drag due to not having to generate masses of downforce to get the overweight cars around the corners. The efficiency is due to turbocharging and lift and coast.

I don't think they are listening.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Other reports are stating that there were too many absentees from the F1 Commission (mostly those from the various GP venues), so they will have to conduct an electronic vote by the end of the week.

It seems that the absence of all the race promoters and a sponsor was organized by a vested interest(s) so that a e-vote would have to take place. This was done in such a way as to ensure everything passed. Rumour has it that Bernie nominates all the promoters to the F1 comission.

The missing sponsor was Rolex who's name does not appear on any cars that I have noticed but can be found trackside. The other sponsor is Philip Morris who has one Sergio Marchionne on its board, not forgetting that Ferrari's team principle worked for Philip Morris not too long ago.

[Mike Harte]

wolfhound, I think that you may be looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Rolex is an official sponsor to F1 via FOM, whilst Philip Morris have long supported Ferrari but cannot be sponsors because of various bans against tobacco companies being involved in sports. It was their company that paid Michael Schumacher's salary all the time that he was with Ferrari, and they may now be picking up the tag for Vettel. And I believe that each circuit is entitled to attend and vote at F1 Commission meetings in their own right, and not by invitation from FOM.

And I cannot see the difference between holding the vote in person at the meeting, and conducting it electronically. If pressure was placed on certain individuals to vote in favour, the result would surely be the same whichever way the vote was conducted.

I am more interested in all the clauses that the four manufacturers managed to get included in the new PU deal. The full details would make fascinating reading.

[wolfhound]

Mike it seems one of them is called the 'red bull clause' which forbids teams from criticising their PU supplier in public.
There is more on the subject in the link below.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...e-deal-733356/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Mike it seems one of them is called the 'red bull clause' which forbids teams from criticising their PU supplier in public.
There is more on the subject in the link below.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...e-deal-733356/

And it appears to be fair in that the rule works both ways. The team can't slag the PU supplier and the PU supplier can't slag the team. These are somewhat forced marriages, and given the RBR/Renault drama, I can see why this came about.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

In yet another reverse ferret by the FIA, Charlie Whiting has now decided that drivers will not face sanctions for discarding tear-off strips from their visors on the tracks or in the pits.

Having now considered the matter further, he realises that it may be more dangerous for the drivers to place the strips inside the cockpit, and that overrides the concerns that he had had about the discarded strips compromising parts of other cars!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

In yet another reverse ferret by the FIA, Charlie Whiting has now decided that drivers will not face sanctions for discarding tear-off strips from their visors on the tracks or in the pits.

Having now considered the matter further, he realises that it may be more dangerous for the drivers to place the strips inside the cockpit, and that overrides the concerns that he had had about the discarded strips compromising parts of other cars!

I think it's a good idea to reverse the rule. If you have to think twice about something you've been doing automatically for years, especially around the streets of Monaco, it could potentially be dangerous.

How many tear-off related incidents have there been, in the history of F1?

[chillibowl]

top of my head i think Alonso threw one into his own brake duct last year.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

top of my head i think Alonso threw one into his own brake duct last year.

I remember that one but I can't think of anymore.

[BSchneiderFan]

Sensible volte-face by the FIA. Incidents are very rare, and the alternative - trying to stuff it in a bag in the cockpit while you're doing 200 mph - is much worse.

[Mike Harte]

I actually believe that it's happened twice to Alonso, once affecting the brakes and another occasion causing an overheating of a component.

Wasn't there also an occasion when a tear-off was picked up by one of the cars in the pit lane at a race.

[Mike Harte]

It appears that the cockpit halo concept will be introduced for 2017 season, although it will not be quite the design that has been seen so far. It is due to undergo further testing, and the final decision is to be made before July 1st, which has been the mandate of the FIA (unless, of course, they change their mind!).

Although the windscreen design is the preferred option for most F1 stakeholders, it has been felt that not enough time has given to consider that concept, nor sufficient testing. It is not being ruled out that it may be introduced for 2018 onwards after further consultation and testing.

More here: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...17-741118/?s=1

[S griffin]

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