335 replies to this topic

[sabjit]

How about 3 compounds. 2 sets of each for quali and the race so no extra cost (it might mean more tyres for practice but that means more running in practice so yay!). And have the rules state you must use all 3 compounds. Try and design the compounds so that the softer compounds are soft enough so they are really quite fast but not too durable but the harder compounds are hard enough for flat out racing.

 

Get a lot of diverse strategies with that one.

[redreni]

I have absolutely no idea why they're trying to limit the maximum running time, if a team wants to attempt it, why not?

Maybe it‘s because of all the complaints about people doing mega-long stints, nursing the tyres rather than pushing, just in order to save a pitstop? Apparently a lot of people want the drivers to push rather than conserve. Taking away the option to conserve and run long would achieve this, wouldn‘t it?

And it‘s not altogether clear how else the FIA can achieve its objective of continuing to have pitstops in the post-refuelling era without continuing to enfuriate the extreme wing of "cheese-tyre" haters who think that any tyre that doesn‘t last the whole race no matter how hard you abuse it, and therefore needs to be changed periodically and/or treated carefully by the driver to avoid unnecessary extra stops, means the death of real motor racing.

In my opinion they should have admitted defeat while they still had time and reintroduced refuelling for 2014.

[sabjit]

reintroduced refuelling for 2014.

 

...or reintroduce refuelling 

[Rinehart]

I actually like the idea of a pole trophy because it doesn't effect the points table.

As it doesn't affect anything, I'm not against it, but I think its pointless.

 

As we all know, qualifying is a hugely strategic and therefore compromised affair where the cars/tyres aren't risked in terms of their race performance - some cars only use 1 set of tyres, some 2, most are trying to deliver a quick lap without taking too much life out of the tyres and others don't run at all. So I don't know what "competition" a trophy is being handed out for exactly. If they were all given one set of tyres exclusively for qualifying but they could start the race on new tyres then game on.

[redreni]

...or reintroduce refuelling 

It‘s far too late for that now.

[SenorSjon]

2015 then. Ditch the fuel flow limit as well and let there be beasts again.

[ZionLH]

As it doesn't affect anything, I'm not against it, but I think its pointless.

 

As we all know, qualifying is a hugely strategic and therefore compromised affair where the cars/tyres aren't risked in terms of their race performance - some cars only use 1 set of tyres, some 2, most are trying to deliver a quick lap without taking too much life out of the tyres and others don't run at all. So I don't know what "competition" a trophy is being handed out for exactly. If they were all given one set of tyres exclusively for qualifying but they could start the race on new tyres then game on.

This mimics my thoughts exactly, i really dont know why they haven't gone down this route. Just typical F1 not making any sense i guess 

[SenorSjon]

Pirelli had proposed that. But as usual, they could not reach consensus.

[FerrariV12]

I'd like to see how a no stop race panned out.

 

Me too. Let them sort it out on the actual race track. Shame we won't get to.

 

It's funny how when we had refuelling people would bemoan the fact that due to all the pitstops, we got the situation of drivers "waiting for the stops" and not bothering to try and pass, but now without pitstops, actually even if we have "only one" then somebody has decided that that makes "boring races".

 

Personally I don't mind the strategic element so long as it comes naturally, if someone wants to run a softer faster tyre and bet themselves against someone running the whole race non-stop on slower, harder rubber, then great, I find that interesting, but I don't see what all these regulations that essentially force people to go a certain way achieve.

 

This isn't even about the old "purist vs. entertainment" thing anymore, I know I mentioned this in a previous post but I honestly don't see what's entertaining, even to a casual fan, about knowing that the driver who has made one stop less and has taken the lead has to pit (or his under-engineered tyres are inevitably going to "fall off the cliff" no matter how much he looks after them).

[sabjit]

I could think of a fair number of ideas. But I think the FIA would deem them to possess to much common sense.

 

That reminds me about another thing I am angry about.

 

How difficult can it be to make a set of rules which doesn't involve ugly looking cars. With these stupid noses for next year with the stupidly thin front part of the nose means its now the second time in as many years the FIA have made rules which means that the cars look ugly with the previous stepped noses. It is not difficult and its infuriating.

[Timstr11]

Brawn sums up the arguments fore and against mandatory pitstops nicely:

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111756

[Kalmake]

Brawn sums up the arguments fore and against mandatory pitstops nicely:

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111756

Agree with him, but he doesn't offer any solution either.

 

Autosport claims that 50-30 rule would "significantly reduce opportunities for strategic variation". If the tyres are really bricks, the rule would bring more strategic variation. Otherwise bricks would lead to two strategies: one stop near the start or the end.

[Timstr11]

Agree with him, but he doesn't offer any solution either.

 

Autosport claims that 50-30 rule would "significantly reduce opportunities for strategic variation". If the tyres are really bricks, the rule would bring more strategic variation. Otherwise bricks would lead to two strategies: one stop near the start or the end.

There is no simple solution.

Unless Pirelli can design a tyre that degrades, but without the drivers having to restrain themselves severely to keep them alive.

 

With hard tyres that hardly degrade, teams will stay out as long as possible. Not much strategic variation in that, because stopping early more likely puts you back in traffic as the field is still close together. And you may want to be ready to take advantage of a possible Safety Car.

[dau]

There's a nice new article up at F1Technical, summing up the aero changes for 2014:

 

http://www.f1technic.../features/19020

[Exb]

Not sure where to post this but as its to do with a change and probably because of all the regulation changes I will put it in here (Mods please delete if not appropriate)

From Adam Cooper
http://adamcooperf1....ing-jerez-test/

It seems that the date of the first winter test may be changed as some teams (he mentions Lotus) won't have their car ready in time for it. Even Newey was joking at the autosport awards that they were behind "Somewhere between mild panic and crisis management," says Newey as he discusses the regulation changes for 2014. "The engine regulation changes are a challenge for everyone," continues Newey. "We are about six months off being prepared for the start of the season."

However I can't see all the teams being willing to move the date if they are capable of getting their car ready on time.

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

The planned Formula 1 Superlicence penalty points system, which could lead to drivers getting bans, has been incorporated into the sporting regulations for the 2014 season.

 

Article 4.2 of the newly-released sporting regulations confirms that any driver who earns 12 penalty points during a 12-month period will be given a one race ban.

This plan was ratified at June's meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council and for the first time creates a rigid system to allow the banning of drivers.

AUTOSPORT understands that a driver would have to commit multiple infringements to build up 12 points, meaning that only regular repeat offenders would be banned.

"In accordance with Article 16.3 [which covers driving standards], the stewards may impose penalty points on a driver's Superlicence," states Article 4.2 of the sporting regulations.

 

"If a driver accrues 12 penalty points his licence will be suspended for the following event, following which 12 points will be removed from the licence.

"Penalty points will remain on a driver's Superlicence for a period of 12 months after which they will be respectively removed on the 12-month anniversary of their imposition."

 

The sanctions on unsafe releases from pitstops have also been toughened up.

Drivers will incur grid or time penalties if their car is released from the garage or a pitstop in a manner deemed unsafe by the stewards.

If a car is deemed to have been released in an unsafe manner during practice sessions, the stewards may impose a grid penalty for that race if they find it necessary.

If the incident occurs during the race, the driver will get a 10-place grid penalty for the next event, but can also be penalised during the current event if he can continue racing after the incident. Possible sanctions for that case are drive-throughs and 10-second penalties.

 

ENGINE PENALTIES CONFIRMED

The new sporting regulations also detail the way that grid penalties will be applied in 2014 for the new 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged engines.

In 2014, the 'power unit' is divided into six separate modules, with a maximum of five examples of each permitted to be used.

 

These elements are the internal combustion engine, the motor generator unit-kinetic, the motor generator unit-heat, the energy store, the turbocharger and the control electronics.

On the first occasion a sixth example of any of the six parts is used, it will trigger a 10-place penalty, although five-place penalties will be given for any subsequent use of a sixth element.

 

This pattern will continue for the seventh and any subsequent elements, with the first use earning a 10-place penalty and the subsequent ones five places.

 

If a complete power unit is replaced at any time, the driver must start the race from the pits.

The rules also confirm that should a driver be too far down the grid to serve a full penalty, the remaining grid slots will be carried forward into the next race.

 

In another tweak, gearboxes must now be used for six consecutive events.

[DaddyCool]

Great, let's punish drivers even more harshly for things that are out of their control 

 

 

 

The rules also confirm that should a driver be too far down the grid to serve a full penalty, the remaining grid slots will be carried forward into the next race.

 

Jesus fricking Christ, really??

[Burtros]

Great, let's punish drivers even more harshly for things that are out of their control 

 

 

Jesus fricking Christ, really??

 

We could see the Marussia and Caterham drivers carrying penalties for 2 or even 3 events!

[boldhakka]

Great, let's punish drivers even more harshly for things that are out of their control 

 

 

Jesus fricking Christ, really??

 

Webber picked a good time to retire. 

[Fastcake]

Good they are finally bringing the penalty point system into operation. Do we have any information on the offences and points?

 

Surprised they are making grid penalties apply over multiple races. I had thought the stewards had solved the issue of non-penalties for backmarkers by introducing drive-throughs ahead of the race, but I presume this is for things like engine penalties where the rules allow them no discretion.

 

Great, let's punish drivers even more harshly for things that are out of their control 

 

Do the teams get a free pass if the drivers make mistakes?

[DaddyCool]

Do the teams get a free pass if the drivers make mistakes?

 

My point is if you want to punish bad releases you could always sanction bigger cash penalties or the team to lose WCC points, I don't see why drivers always have to take the blame.

[kimister]

We could see the Marussia and Caterham drivers carrying penalties for 2 or even 3 events!

 

No, just for once it can be applied.

 

 

 

Unlike the current regulations, from 2014 onwards grid penalties will be carried over to the next event. So if a driver has a ten-place grid penalty but only qualifies 18th, the remaining five will be served at the next race. However it only carries over once.

 

http://richlandf1.com/?p=17414 

[kimister]

I couldn't understand this part also. It's a bit confusing...

 

 

Should a driver use more than five of any one of the elements a grid place penalty will be imposed upon him at the first event during which each additional element is used.

Penalties will be applied according to the following table and will be cumulative:

• Replacement of a complete power unit – The driver concerned must start the race from the pit lane.
• The first time a 6th of any of the elements is used – Ten grid place penalty.
• The first time a 6th of any of the remaining elements is used – Five grid place penalty.
• The first time a 7th of any of the elements is used – Ten grid place penalty.
• The first time a 7th of any of the remaining elements is used, and so on – Five grid place penalty.

 

 Does this mean that any of these six elements of power unit can be changed only five times during whole season ?

[charly0418]

Why are peope still pushing for refuelling in F1? Its never coming back, not safe at all

[Fastcake]

My point is if you want to punish bad releases you could always sanction bigger cash penalties or the team to lose WCC points, I don't see why drivers always have to take the blame.

 

It's a team sport, even if the driver is also competing in his own championship. The team suffers from drive-throughs caused by the driver, so it's hardly unfair the driver suffers if the team makes a mistake. You win and lose together.

[scheivlak]

I couldn't understand this part also. It's a bit confusing...

 

 

 Does this mean that any of these six elements of power unit can be changed only five times during whole season ?

You can change them more often - but only if you re-use the elements you used before.

[dav115]

Why are peope still pushing for refuelling in F1? Its never coming back, not safe at all

Yeah, much safer having 100kg onboard at all times. Not to mention the *significant* number of loose wheels we've seen since refuelling was banned.

[Al.]

It will be interesting to see how the stewards interpret unsafe releases, in the context of 'toughening up the rules'

By and large thus far an unsafe release that doesn't impede a competitor (i.e. because the released driver backed off and dropped behind) generally led to a fine for the team and no sanction to the driver.  However unsafe releases that impede another competitor generally led to a driver through.

[William Hunt]

FIA came with even more rules, check them out here :

https://pbs.twimg.co...ERKfd.jpg:large

[uffen]

I believe that the fundamental problem with the "new direction" of F1 is this: it once was that you wanted your road car to be more like a race car. Now the FIA thinks that people want the race cars to be more like road cars. Who the hell wants that? Not me. Road cars are becoming (have become) very boring.

[redreni]

Great, let's punish drivers even more harshly for things that are out of their control 

 

 

Jesus fricking Christ, really??

 

The drivers won't be punished specifically, the whole team will be. They stand or fall together. That's exactly as it should be.

[redreni]

Why are peope still pushing for refuelling in F1? Its never coming back, not safe at all

 

I disagree. From 1994-2009 I seem to recall injuries due to refuelling accidents were extremely rare and there were no serious, lasting injuries or fatalities. The worst fuel-related incident in F1 since 1994 actually occurred at Barcelona in 2012 despite the fact that in-race refuelling had beeb banned by then. In addition, prior to the latest refuelling ban it was much rarer to see cars released without all the wheelnuts fastened because the time taken to change the wheels wasn't the determining factor in overall pitstop times.

 

If the manufacturers want to promote F1 on the basis of energy efficiency, they should bear in mind that the amount of energy required to complete the race would be reduced if the cars didn't have to carry so much excess fuel around with them all the time. It's dead weight, especially in the early laps, and it's easily avoidable if you allow in-race refuelling.

[purplehaireddolphin]

 

 

 

Jesus fricking Christ, really??

Yeah, why not - It's something I've been calling for for ages. If Webber (or Ricciardo now) got a 5 place penalty for a gearbox change, they drop 5 places, if hilton got a 5 place penalty, he dropped, er, nowhere. Hardly fair

[Exb]

New regulation for dealing with yellow flags
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113153
Drivers must slow 0.2 seconds for a yellow and 0.5 seconds for a double waved yellows and this will be measured from the drivers' previous best sector time between one of the 20 individual light panels.


It will mean trying to put a lap together in qualifying if double yellows are out will be very difficult, but will maybe remove the factor that some drivers slow for the yellows and others seem not to (as long as they show they lifted).

[alfa1]

The way the rule was described, it seems much like they were doing last year.

That is, just because you did a good (or even purple) sector time didn't seem to mean anything for yellow flags, because the general consensus here was they were only looking at that specific yellow flag corner to see if the driver had slowed down there.

Maybe its more formalised this year with more sensors.

 

Having said that, slowing down only 0.2 seconds doesnt seem like much. I would have thought it would be more. You could lose that much in 1/20th of a circuit while TRYING to set a record time.

Edited by alfa1, 29 March 2014 - 07:20.

[Clatter]

Slow down by 0.2 or 0.5 sounds utterly ridiculous to me. I cannot understand how such a small amount can in anyway aid safety.