No Tech changes until 2005

[Adam43]

From Autosport.com

http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=21412&s=5

Formula 1's team bosses have decided to hold off from radical technical rule changes for another two years, despite agreeing to a need for reducing costs and making grand prix racing more exciting.

The team principals convened at Heathrow airport yesterday (Wednesday) for the Technical Working Group meeting, which lasted for eight hours.

They ratified the changes to the sporting regulations that were announced in October, which includes the introduction of single lap qualifying for next season. These rules will now be rubber stamped by motorsport's governing body the FIA World Council next week.

But any chance of technical rule changes for 2004, which had been thought a possibility, were dismissed. The 10 F1 team bosses appear to be favouring two years of stability before agreeing what the future direction should be.

Yipee! A chance wasted?

Shame IMHO. It's also a shame that they haven't even outlined any research into possible changes...

[R]

A crying shame. F1 needs more than alterations to the qualifying procedure and point scoring system to make it exciting again (or as exciting as it should be). I had hoped for some rule changes for 2004 to provide closer racing. Especially doing something about the dirty air in order to increase the opportunities for slipstreaming again.

[SALEEN S7R]

I think that keeping the tech regs as they are can only be a good thing after all with time perhaps Ferraris advantage it keeps getting will be so minor because they are pushing the boundries of the regs that the other teams will have caught up, after all when ur at the limit its harder to keep getting the same level of progression going.

Hopefully the other teams will have caught up.

[Adam43]

For me it is not who is quickest or by how much that is the problem. That is just competition.

It is the lost chance, as R said, to improve slipstreaming and allow closer racing when cars are actually close.

[SALEEN S7R]

Simple solution, ban traction control and bring back slicks that should produce some overtaking oh and reduce the grip the cars have by having to have the front wing 50mm above the ground across the whole wing.

[dragon x]

Yeah, Saleen. And ban refuelling, too - then more stress would be put on the tyre manufacturers.
A couple of days ago I watched an "funny" accident in CART when a guy of the pit crew got burnt. Why are they so stubbornly sticking to methanol????!!!!!! And rely to extinguish a fire on a bucket of water???!!!!

[R]

Off topic, but to answer those questions: Because methanol is safer than other types of fuel? And water is by far the best remedy to extinguish a fire when methanol is burning? At least that's what I've heard.

[dragon x]

Yeah but its invisible flame causes some problems, isn't it. And the problem is not the water itself but the obsolete bucket they use(may be this is faster then using a hose or something, i guess)

[f1manoz]

Another reason why F1 will continue to fail. The owners and operators just don't care. As long as they keep making money themselves, who cares about the product delivered to us - the fans.

Once the viewing figures drop to unacceptable levels and Bernie notices the huge gaps in the grandstands, perhaps then they'll wake up and smell the maple-nut crunch.

[Glen]

Its got nothing to do with not caring! If they don't care about F1, why the hell do they work so hard and spend so much money at it? Obviously they care - but they want to win as well. This decision simply means that the teams feel that the best chance of getting to grips with things and getting on terms with Ferrari is to keep thins level, thus giving them the opportunity to reach a similar level of perfection. Conversely, Ferrari probably feel confident that they have reached a wining formula and can see no reason not to carry on winning.

[Hesketh]

Duuude...gimma some mechanical grip!! Ban TC, ban TC, damn it!!

[Super Tourer]

I think the main problem is that the FIA are so far behind the game in terms of policing the rules, that they don't know what to change.

I think everyone agree's that TC and LC should be banned, but remember the only reason it was legalised was because the FIA couldn't police it, and couldn't prove who was using it.

A return to slicks has been mentioned, but as Rory Byrne pointed out - in their current form the cars would be too fast for many of the circuits.

I know slicks ran with ground effect cars, but we forget that aero advances have made up the for loss of downforce the GE ban was intended for. The overall gain on downforce through aerodynamics has been enormous - merely bolting slicks onto 2002 spec cars would see massive cornering speeds possible, and all the ramifications that entails.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
I think the main problem is that the FIA are so far behind the game in terms of policing the rules, that they don't know what to change.

Max and Bernie have both given interviews recently saying that they would very much like to see fewer driver aids and less aerodynamic downforce. The trouble is, it aint up to them.

[R]

Dragon x: I agree the invisible flames are a worrying problem - they at least slow the reaction time of the crew, if nothing else. And, like you, I also think that the reason why they're using a bucket is that it's faster than using a hose.

But, that was OT, and any continuing discussion of this should take place in the ChampCar forum.

Super Tourer, I don't really see why the cars being to fast for many of the circuits should be a problem. Isn't that the driver's job? Finding the limit and not exceeding it? I want as much emphasis on the driver's input as possible, so if a return to slicks would test the drivers' skills more, then that's one more reason for me to be in favour of it.

After all, these guys are supposed to be the best drivers in the world.

[Glen]

Originally posted by R
I want as much emphasis on the driver's input as possible, so if a return to slicks would test the drivers' skills more, then that's one more reason for me to be in favour of it.

After all, these guys are supposed to be the best drivers in the world.

Grooved tyres are universally recognised as being harder to drive than slicks...

Cornering speeds will always need to be kept in check - the cars are already too fast for many circuits. Any return to slicks (possibly good because they would make the car easier to take to the limit, rather than harder) would definately have to be accompanied by a very drastic re-think of aero grip - like half the amount of wing and take out the diffusor. BTW this last suggestion (half-wing, no diffusor) has been recommended by Bernie very recently.

[R]

Originally posted by Glen
Grooved tyres are universally recognised as being harder to drive than slicks...

Yes, I know that. Which is why I've never understood why they were introduced with the aim of being a safety measure in the first place. Quote Max Mosley: "It doesn't matter if a driver loses control as long as he doesn't hurt himself." Well, pardon me for being naive, but in my book, if the chance of a driver losing control increases, then the chance of him hurting himself (or others) also increases.

Anyway, my post was in response to Super Tourer's regarding cars being too fast for many of the tracks, and that in that case it's a test of driver skill not to exceed the limits (as always). So I fail to see why the cars being too fast for the tracks should be a problem. Maximum speed in any given corner is the result of the combination of car and track layout anyway - and the driver must in all cases find that limit.

[Glen]

Sorry R, I know that you know that (!) - didn't mean to phrase it quite in that way.

Maybe it is just good luck, maybe just because they have these really strong cars now with high sides, but the rule changes have clearly worked and reduced the number of serious injuries/deaths.

[R]

Well, I didn't take it in the wrong way. You're right, the cars are very strong and safe nowadays, and the Ferraris look like they are running on rails. After all, everyone have now had 5 years to adapt to the grooved tyres. That doesn't change my opinion that there should be no place for grooved dryweather tyres at the pinnacle of motorsport, and that slicks (IMO) are ultimately safer as well, with the better grip that they provide.

[Snrub]

Gasoline is far more volitile and it is MUCH harder to put out. Invisible flames suck, but if you simply over react and put water all over the place you're fine. What would you rather, some minor burns or major burns and people dying? Watch some pre-fuel cell racing accidents and you'll understand. I'm surprised F1 doesn't use methanol.

I think methanol is also suppose to be well suited in a forced induction environment. (don't quote me) In that case, it would make sense in a high compression situation as well.

(I don't think the above is irrelivent to F1)

Why would groved tires be harder to drive on if they are gripping better than the old slicks?

F1 also outlawed aero tunnels for "safety."

[Adam43]

The grooved tyres. Harder to drive on?

My understanding is that, when they were first introduced, the limit wasn't a progressive thing. After the limit of grip had been exceeded the car snapped and was uncontrollable. This situation has been improved to a certain extent since, but I think that slicks are still considered to be more progressive. It is not just a case of how much absolute grip the tyres have.

A (small) transgression of the limit on slicks is punished with a loss in time, but is controllable. In certain circumstances drivers can use this to their advantage, perhaps promoting a small drift. This is harder to do on grooved tyres.

I'm not sure if this is actually due to the grooves, or whether it is due to the change in compound/structure to facilitate the grooves. I suspect the latter.

Oh and slicks look better. Surely this counts for something.


But hey, nothing is going to change anyway. Does anyone involved in F1 actually have a passion for it? Sometimes it seems they don't.


Aero tunnels, were indeed outlawed for safety (with, perhaps, a little politics thrown in). A car was great when on the flat track. Disrupt the perfect situation and then the tunnel stopped working and all grip was suddenly lost. This was totally uncontrollable and as has been said, the cars weren't as safe in those days and the higher corner speeds were too much.