Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Niki Lauda wants all rule changes from the past 10 years to be reconsidered


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 502 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 08:46

Niki Lauda:

 

"Wir sollten eine Liste mit den Regeln machen, die in den letzten zehn Jahren neu eingeführt oder umgeschrieben worden sind. Und dann müssen wir Regel für Regel prüfen, was uns das gebracht hat, welche Regel sinnvoll, welche sinnlos war."

 

"We should make a list with all rules which have been introduced or changed in the past 10 years. And then we should consider, which one was useful and which one was not."

 

http://www.auto-moto...en-8466302.html

 

All rules are listed in the article @ AMuS. So you can get an overview.

 

I think this is a pretty good idea from Niki and it is based on Montezemolo's criticism. Maybe this could help to make F1 at least a little bit better again.

 

Which rules do you think should be reconsidered? I will post my list later.


Edited by Tourgott, 17 July 2014 - 08:47.


Advertisement

#2 TheRacingElf

TheRacingElf
  • Member

  • 265 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 17 July 2014 - 08:48

Yes pleaseeee!



#3 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 412 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 17 July 2014 - 08:58

I think all rules changes since 2002 should be reconsidered. One piece of legislation I still oppose is the post-qualifying parc fermé.



#4 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,385 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 17 July 2014 - 09:30

Maybe go even dating back to 1994. A lot of knee-jerk reactions back then. Some of those rules from then have been undone, like grooved tires. IMO a good guideline would be, if a rule has improved safety, keep it. Otherwise if it made racing worse, ditch it. If the rule has been done for saving money, laugh about it and ditch it. There is no rule that help teams to spend less money. After all they are given money from various sides to be competetive.



#5 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 3,560 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 09:54

Clearly there are some safety related regs in car design that should probably stay, but otherwise, he's probably right. 2005 was when they decided on that dumb 'one set of tyres per race' rule, so maybe it did all start there. :lol:

#6 MAMBA

MAMBA
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 17 July 2014 - 09:55

The teams spend money to find ways of reducing money... Does not seem to be good idea!

 

MAMBA



#7 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 648 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 09:59

I think all rules changes since 2002 should be reconsidered. One piece of legislation I still oppose is the post-qualifying parc fermé.

 

isn't that why there was so much unreliabilty, though. tinkering with the car post qualy causing mistakes and errors in the car.



#8 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 529 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 17 July 2014 - 10:05

I agree with Lauda, but considering the amount of knee-jerk reactions in the last 10 years, I'm not sure whether anyone can single out which change was good and which isn't. I mean just think about it:

 

2005: Grooved Michelin/Bridgestone lasting the whole race, V10 NA, raised front wing, low rear wing, refueling, unlimited fuel, 1 engine for 2 weekends

 

vs

 

2014 Slick Pirelli built to wear, V6 Turbo Hybrid, MGU-K + H, low front wing, high rear wing, no refueling, fuel flow limit, DRS, 1 engine for roughly 4 weekends

 

And that's just a brief outline of technical changes.



#9 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 10:06

Including the ones which his team have maximised to the full this season?



#10 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 17 July 2014 - 11:34

Of the changes over the past 11 years that haven't been canned already (I know he said 10 but 2003 was a bit of a watershed): Personally I'd keep:

 

Refuelling ban

Slick tyres (although that change was merely correcting an error from even further back)

New-for-2014 engine formula

Knockout qualifying format (feel less strongly about this one but I do see its merits compared to the old free-for-all)

 

And get rid of:

 

Post-qualifying parc ferme rules

Rules on components life and associated grid penalties

Engine freeze

Spec tyre

Starting on the tyre you qualified on

Mandatory two compound rule

Any form of getting backmarkers out of the way on safety car restarts (either waving them through to unlap or putting them to the back)

DRS

Permanent driver numbers

Double points



#11 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 17 July 2014 - 11:54

I don't think there's much value in reconsidering individual rules, but taking a completely fresh look at the whole formula.

 

Happy for there to be spec parts, but there needs to be engineering and design effort allowed, but with a specific aim.

 

I would look to readdress the aero/mechanical balance of the cars.  If there are to be aero elements, let it be 'clean' aero.  In with low profile tyres and trick suspension, out with wings and winglets.  Provide a spec floor middle-section with venturi tunnels, which viewers won't see, but allow the teams to play with the outer edges which the viewers can see, to include freedom with the diffusers and skirts but with rules which prevent these from moving, but not preventing flexing, because it's too difficult.  I'm all for flexing.  To keep costs reasonable, the cars will be homologated with only two update points allowed per season, so we won't have Monza or Monaco specials.

 

Blah blah blah etc.  I just think that tweaking rules never really feels like they are really adding to the series, only to the complexity.



#12 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 12:06

What an awesome way to save money.....not.....

 

Having the committees running the sport rethink everything every couple of years "to improve the racing" is the reason the sport is where it is right now.

I don't see how having those same people go over the rules yet again will make anything better.

 

Aren't Mercedes part of the "Strategy Group"? Why isn't this part of the Strategy Groups remit already? They could have been doing this instead of making public polls which they completely ignore in favour of introducing double points, sparks and standing starts.


Edited by johnmhinds, 17 July 2014 - 12:15.


#13 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 848 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 12:15

They should go back to 1998, grooved tires and narrow cars and all that jazz...



#14 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 698 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 17 July 2014 - 12:19

I think all rules changes since 2002 should be reconsidered. One piece of legislation I still oppose is the post-qualifying parc fermé.

 

If we lifted parc ferme half the teams would leave the grid. It's the most effective cost cutting measure we have. I dont understand why people still don't get this.



#15 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 12:29

If we lifted parc ferme half the teams would leave the grid. It's the most effective cost cutting measure we have. I dont understand why people still don't get this.

 

It's only there to let the mechanics rest and not have to work on the car all night long.

 

It's not about cost cutting.

The teams will keep spending their money no matter what.

This whole cost cutting is just BULL***T


Edited by Gyno, 17 July 2014 - 12:35.


#16 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 17 July 2014 - 13:35

all 4 tyre types at every race

let the teams decide what to use when

split soft front with hard rears if that works on their car

or side to side

no limits on tyres let mr P spend or get SOME ONE WHO WILL

 

no wings at all = no wake = slipstream passing

 

esp in the first year of a new motor rule no limits on replacements

DEVELOP THE NEW MOTORS

 

privateers allowed we need more cars on track

 

get CVC and bernie out of the money pile :evil:

split the money between the tracks and teams not banks and investors

tracks should get income from races not be paying burnie millions to have a race

CHEAP TICKETS :clap:

RACE IN AUGUST when people are on va-ka and can travel EVERY WEEK IN AUGUST :rolleyes:



#17 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 14:18

Before working out which specific rules are good or bad, the underlying question needs to be answered

 

What is F1, what are it's aims, and what does it stand for?

 

It seems to me, F1 has lost it's way, or at least it's identity in what, at the core, it is. The rules then flow from that.



#18 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 17 July 2014 - 14:35

If we lifted parc ferme half the teams would leave the grid. It's the most effective cost cutting measure we have. I dont understand why people still don't get this.

 

It didn't save a dime. Instead of 30 engines for 300-400k a piece, we now have roughly 8 engines for 2m a piece/driver.

You saw the motorhomes expanding into movable fortresses, wet races are banned due to safety and no longer adjusting the car to the track, but the track to the car, get rid of all the tarmac everywhere, etc..

 

The 2k3 rule changes started it all if I remember well.



#19 Deluxx

Deluxx
  • Member

  • 2,174 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 17 July 2014 - 14:36

You guys are going to get mad but...

 

Cost leveling produces better racing. Its called parody me chaps. (This allows the lower teams to catch up to the Top-4; however, it does hinder development of new parts of course....)

 

And bitch all you want about the noise of the new engines, but we can't use V10's that get 2 mpg anymore. The polar ice caps are melting and that is a fact. New hybrids produce less emissions and with advancement in technology, they can create more horsepower per pound than their fossil-fuel burning cousins.

 

Okay. The parc-ferme rules are kind of dumb.... but it offers some consistency from quali to the race. It's kind of a push on that one.

 

Traction Control was dumb. It just becomes a technology race to see who can develop a better ECU. Glad its gone.

 

The aero reforms I think were great.... slick tires are pretty good (except for Pirelli cheese tires last 3 years....)

 

DRS is pretty shite, i must confess.

 

The wind tunnel rules are okay... allows team members to actually see their families during the season.

 

The tire sets are meh....

 

The D-DRS and Double diffuser ban was good. I loved the tech on it, but glad it's gone. It's pretty much bending the rules so close to cheating that it might as well be.

 

The double points are kind of dumb, but whatever we'll see how that turns out.

 

Bottom line is... lets say they change all the rules back. Who says the racing will get better? Maybe in 5 years we'll be looking back to now saying damn, I wish we still had that era of cars before we undid all the rules.

I like the idea of going back and sitting in a board room and reviewing all the rules in the past 10 years. But some of it kind of gives off a vibe that the current product is bad. 

This season has some of the closest racing that I've seen in years. I just dont understand all the hub-bub I suppose.


Edited by Deluxx, 17 July 2014 - 14:41.


Advertisement

#20 UPRC

UPRC
  • Member

  • 4,620 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 17 July 2014 - 14:44

Which rules do you think should be reconsidered?

 

DRS



#21 Sash1

Sash1
  • Member

  • 216 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 17 July 2014 - 14:48

 

Which rules do you think should be reconsidered? I will post my list later.

 

All engine, engine endurance and rpm limit changes and especially the hybrid and kers bullshit.

The rules that made the wings smaller and higher.

The DRS rule.

All rules making the tires slimmer.

Any weight change after 2011

Unlapping behind SC

All rules that apply to 2014.



#22 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 14:53

DRS

 

On some certain tracks, and in some places, 100% utterly yes. 

 

Some places, it does work well, problem is on plenty of places, it veers from completly pointless, to totally overpowered.



#23 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 15:15

All i can say is, why're people not nailing his balls to the wall, like they did with Monty in another thread? :p

 

Personally speaking, i've cringed and cringed more over the years as the changes were made one after another...



#24 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 841 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 15:23

Of the changes over the past 11 years that haven't been canned already (I know he said 10 but 2003 was a bit of a watershed): Personally I'd keep:

 

Refuelling ban

Slick tyres (although that change was merely correcting an error from even further back)

New-for-2014 engine formula

Knockout qualifying format (feel less strongly about this one but I do see its merits compared to the old free-for-all)

 

And get rid of:

 

Post-qualifying parc ferme rules

Rules on components life and associated grid penalties

Engine freeze

Spec tyre

Starting on the tyre you qualified on

Mandatory two compound rule

Any form of getting backmarkers out of the way on safety car restarts (either waving them through to unlap or putting them to the back)

DRS

Permanent driver numbers

Double points

 

Let me think about this...

Post-qualifying parc ferme rules - wouldn't this remove an element of excitement where a team compromised their quali set-up for good race-pace, and hence had a chance of coming through the field? Without parc ferme, you'll get the fastest cars at the front, the slowest at the back, and the quali order will be mixed up much less. Hence worse racing. 

Rules on components life and associated grid penalties - doesn't this just make the spend on engines and gearboxes much more? 

Engine freeze - doesn't this reintroduce the possibility of an all-out engine war which will cause teams / engine manufacturers to once again spend hundreds of millions on engine development, thus driving said teams and manufacturers out of the sport? 

Spec tyre - doesn't this just make the sport much more expensive? 

Starting on the tyre you qualified on - doesn't this reduce the excitement in the race as everyone will start on new tyres and on the optimum tyre for whatever strategy they pick, thus reducing the excitement in the races? 

Mandatory two compound rule - wouldn't this mean that all the cars would run on the optimum compound all race, thus vastly reducing overtaking as there would be no speed differential? 

Any form of getting backmarkers out of the way on safety car restarts (either waving them through to unlap or putting them to the back) - I like this idea? 

DRS - debateable

Permanent driver numbers - what difference does this make to anything, apart from maybe making it harder to tell which driver you are looking at? 

Double points - agree

 

I'll be honest, doing all of the above, you'll end up with a massively more expensive formula, which will allow bigger differential between the front to the back, and you will remove most of the features which allow excitement. The fastest cars qualify at the front and drive away into the distance. I think some people forget how excruciatingly boring some of the races were back a few years ago, with nary an overtake to be season for races at a time. 



#25 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 841 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 15:23

All i can say is, why're people not nailing his balls to the wall, like they did with Monty in another thread? :p

 

Personally speaking, i've cringed and cringed more over the years as the changes were made one after another...

 

Because his team is currently running away with the championship and thus there is no ulterior motive. 

 

With Luca I don't think that's the case. 



#26 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,079 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2014 - 15:24

I wonder how fast the pree 2009 cars would be with these current engines.



#27 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 841 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 15:26

The rules that made the wings smaller and higher.

 

These rules are believed to have had a massively positive effect on the over-taking, without anything artificial about it. 

In 2008, the cars struggled to run within 2 seconds of each other due to the aero-wash. Under the new rules, especially after the DDD went, they can run within a second without too much penalty. It's virtually impossible to overtake from 2 seconds back, but within a second, it's not so bad.



#28 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 15:31

Because his team is currently running away with the championship and thus there is no ulterior motive. 

 

With Luca I don't think that's the case. 

Monty has been complaining for a while... ever since 1.6 litre formula was announced.



#29 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 16:07

It didn't save a dime. Instead of 30 engines for 300-400k a piece, we now have roughly 8 engines for 2m a piece/driver.

You saw the motorhomes expanding into movable fortresses, wet races are banned due to safety and no longer adjusting the car to the track, but the track to the car, get rid of all the tarmac everywhere, etc..

 

The 2k3 rule changes started it all if I remember well.

 

It certainly did save dimes. The teams was on the verge of having a completely separate qualifying car and spent lot of development money in that area.

 

It did cut some cost, but does it still? I am not so sure. F1 development have since long disappeared into it's own ass and what they are doing there I do not really want to know. Clear is that much money is spent on getting both qualifying performance and race trim. They somehow manage that now, in spite of parc ferme. I am convinced it took dimes.


Edited by ardbeg, 17 July 2014 - 16:08.


#30 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,071 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 16:08

No one over 60 or under 40 should be allowed to decide anything.



#31 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,486 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2014 - 16:10

Monty has been complaining for a while... ever since 1.6 litre formula was announced.

 

I'm fairly certain Monty has been complaining about something or other since 2005, with a brief break during the 2007 season.



#32 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 16:12

You guys are going to get mad but...

 

Cost leveling produces better racing. Its called parody me chaps. (This allows the lower teams to catch up to the Top-4; however, it does hinder development of new parts of course....)

 

And bitch all you want about the noise of the new engines, but we can't use V10's that get 2 mpg anymore. The polar ice caps are melting and that is a fact. New hybrids produce less emissions and with advancement in technology, they can create more horsepower per pound than their fossil-fuel burning cousins.

 

I think you are gonna get mad when you find out that you been lied to about Global Warming and all that crap.

Infact Polar ice caps are growing not melting.

The globe has been cooling down for the last 17 years, even the global warming folks are admitting to this.

 

I am all for less pollution but to claim that the current PU produce less emissions is really BS.

Just do some research about the batteries used and how much they DESTROY the world before they are even installed into the cars...

V10 used more fuel but they still are greener then todays PU.



#33 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 526 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 16:15

Totally agree. I can't believe it has taken this long from someone in F1 to say this. 

 

The only thing that they should keep is the focus on simulator development, which is just flat out superior to the money wasted on track testing. 



#34 VolvoT5

VolvoT5
  • Member

  • 276 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 17 July 2014 - 16:22

I'm not mad keen on the knockout qualifying - although the old 1 hour free for all system would often disappoint as none of the big teams would run until the last 15 mins anyway.... but I do think we would get closer sessions if the drivers had more time to perfect a lap.  I think some drivers really do struggle to just go out and deliver on the first lap and it is a shame really.    I think overall 1 hour sessions were better. 

 

I have mixed feelings about DRS. Sometimes it is simply too powerful but overall it does encourage more overtaking.   Watching some of the 'classic' races that SKY tv broadcast  one thing that is very noticeable is how often a faster car just gets completely stuck 1-2 secs behind a slower one for lap after lap with no real chance to overtake at all. 

 

Refueling ban should stay in place.  Refueling just creates extra risk for the pit crew and doesn't add much to the racing IMO. 

 

Scrap the 2 compound rule, double points, unlapping under the saftey car,  limit on gearboxes and engines.  


Edited by VolvoT5, 17 July 2014 - 16:25.


#35 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 502 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 17:43

Refueling ban should stay in place.  Refueling just creates extra risk for the pit crew and doesn't add much to the racing IMO.  

 

I don't agree with you. Refueling added a lot to the races. Especially strategically. Remember how awesome it was when Schumacher knew exactly that he had to put qualifying lap after qualifying lap in a short 15 lap stint to catch Hakkinen at the end and when he delivered.

Ban of refueling is one of the worst rule changes in the last years, at least for me.



#36 Goron3

Goron3
  • Member

  • 665 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 17:55

The only things that needed changing in 2010 were:

-Awful modern track design which not only feature a LOT of run off area but also have too many slow corners and predictable layouts. Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, India, Korea, Singapore, Valencia...Not in the league as old school tracks.

-Too much aero vs mechanical grip.

 

Pirelli tyres and DRS were a huge over reaction to what happened in 2010 at Bahrain and Abu Dhabi which made the sport seem boring, however those races were terrible because the track layouts prevented great racing. Jean Todt said after the season had finished that tracks that provided poor racing would have to alter their track layouts but instead of that we've just gone from one gimmick to the next.

 

Just solve the above two issues and we'll be fine. In fact, I'd actually say the 2010 cars with DRS would have given us great races but that's just me.



#37 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 27,088 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 July 2014 - 18:25

Just make them wider again, it's been 17 years and the cars STILL LOOK too ****ing narrow. Jesus, just ****ing fix it. 



#38 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 18:31

lets not forget we already (for god knows how many years) have had the teams via devices like OWG making the rules not the FIA, who only rubber stamp what the teams decide.

See what they (the teams) have given us!!

So now the teams want to redo their previous mistakes to make it even worse for others better for themselves and certainly not better for us the followers and fans because only a fool thinks any team has any interest in making the sport better for the fans if it harms their own chances at glory no matter how shallow the glory is.

Its time the sports future was taken out of the selfish hands of the teams and given to the sport and its fans.

its time self interested groups like the overtaking working group were removed and instead informed impartial people allowed to take control only problem is the one group who could, the FIA are owned by the most selfish and self interested team in the sport.

The biggest and best change possible is not a reworking of the rules by teams to help themselves and hinder others but to remove the teams control of F1 and the FIA.

It may not be popular but the fact remains while the teams make the rules we will have rules designed to favour the smartest thinker (and biggest spender) not the fastest car and driver



#39 masa90

masa90
  • Member

  • 179 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 19:40

Niki Lauda talks a lot of crap but from time to time he really speaks out in interest of "majority" which is great.

 

Seems like he doesnt care too much about what others think about him, which is good in my opinion also.



Advertisement

#40 Tuxy

Tuxy
  • Member

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 17 July 2014 - 19:49

There's too many rules to remember, I wish their existence evaporated along with my memory of them.

 

I would LOVE to see mandatory running of both compounds removed from the regulations.

 

 



#41 SpartanChas

SpartanChas
  • Member

  • 793 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 20:21

Just less aerodynamics, more mechanical grip and no DRS or double points.

 

But then the cars will be too slow! Slower than GP2 cars! Unacceptable for F1 :cry:

 

How embarrassed  would we be as F1 fans if the lap times were even slower than this year, no matter how good the racing is?  :cry:


Edited by SpartanChas, 17 July 2014 - 20:22.


#42 Kenstate

Kenstate
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 17 July 2014 - 20:27

I think any of the rules made to "improve" the show can be thrown out (this includes, DRS, double points, mandated snowplow front wings). The cost cutting/engineering restrictions have really put a damper on F1 as well. keep the refueling ban, let the teams run the engines they want, (NA, turbo, v12, hybrid/no hybrid whatever. this alone i think would satisfy manufacturer interest in testing their own agendas in engine technology without forcing everyone participate in a bastardized halfway house to formula E)

 

restrict to max 4 engines a year, homolagated throughout after testing. Bring back testing (i think the cost of technology and windtunnels, extra engineers and technicians actually cost more than running a car on a track 24/7) when CFD, simulators and windtunnels become more reliable, feasible and efficient, teams will use it as a preference. Forcing them to do it is not the answer.

 

Let's face it: the big teams are going to blow money no matter how many regulations they impose. I like the idea of moving to 3 car teams, or customer cars/satellite teams. That would help the lower tier teams at least run competitively.


Edited by Kenstate, 17 July 2014 - 20:30.


#43 blub

blub
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 17 July 2014 - 20:53

I am not a fan of NL, in fact I kind of find myself an anti NL voice, but, in this case I like…

Right now we have a series which has made great efforts to equalize outcomes, you can only push this so far, what we have now is the result. The new engine and the fantastic imagination of the MB folks have completely upturned the goal of so many of the rules, more regulation has lead to the opposite of the regs goals. The FIA never seems to consider that for every rule the teams will react in a way that overcomes the rule, they wont walk away from a potential performance advantage even with a new rule in place. Its exactly like the folks who preach raising taxes because that will bring in more money to government, only to find that it brings in less money because everyone at every point of the income spectrum has changed their behavior, because of the rule.

Personally I don’t give a crap how much teams spend on anything. I have called for the billion dollar car many times, I want to see that car, I want it to race and fill my heart with joy. Who cares, its not my money, entertain me thats all I ask. Right now we have half the field well down from the leaders, as usual, so what, those teams want to play, there they are, playing in the game, just don’t ask me to care by changing rules for them which in the end will not change their position. My only concession to the endless cost of development is to consider that aero is one item, engines are a second item and hydraulics, electronics and suspension is a third item, each year there will be a rotation on the development of one of those items, the other two items will not change for two years. You want to save money, freeze aero for two years, or engines or electronics and hydraulics along with suspension. Spend weekly development money on one item per season, or spend on everything you just cant use any newly development items outside of the rule of just aero development or one of the other items.

During the era of Mosley many rules were created for political reasons, it was a reward spoils system which was deeply troubling. NL calling for a review so that each and every rule can be qualified as to its benefit is outrageously logical and right.

I nominate Ross Brawn to lead this bicameral FIA/Team group, take a few months for this review and at the end of a few months offer preliminary conclusions about each rule with specific reasoning to a potential change, offer a chance to debate and revise, then vote it up or down with a majority rule not the more typical everyone must agree BS.



#44 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 July 2014 - 20:58

Just make them wider again, it's been 17 years and the cars STILL LOOK too ****ing narrow. Jesus, just ****ing fix it.

so you would go back to the 1997 design looks for the cars? That isn't a bad idea. For me there should have been no grooves for the 1998 season until the 2008 season. I think the rules with the engines which changed in late 1995 which basically caused Ferrari to abandon the iconic V-12 engine did not help... I always wondered what a modern car with great aerodynamics such as F2002, with the V12, and slick tires would do...

#45 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 17 July 2014 - 21:42

It would be NSFW ;) Especially with the V12.



#46 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 2,038 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 21:54

Drs needs to go, Everything else is fine by me.



#47 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,147 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2014 - 22:07

Clearly there are some safety related regs in car design that should probably stay, but otherwise, he's probably right. 2005 was when they decided on that dumb 'one set of tyres per race' rule, so maybe it did all start there. :lol:

 

It clearly started with cars too narrow and grooved tyres.



#48 Logiso

Logiso
  • Member

  • 168 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 17 July 2014 - 22:22

Drs needs to go, Everything else is fine by me.

 

I used to agree, but seeing how aero dependent the cars are right now it actually is the right thing. IMO it gives a driver the chance to overtake if they are faster, and is just balancing out the problem that racing with high downforce cars produces.



#49 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,883 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 July 2014 - 22:50

DRS ejected or reduced, wider cars again by 10-20cm, big fat rear tyres.

 

allow more to be changed on the cars after qualy, im thinking spring/damper, ride height, things that require very little work or different parts

 

eject both tyre rule, and start on qually tyre rule, still end up with 3 of each type however (neither rule has worked well tbh)

 

2-3 engine upgrade options per year

 

limit aero upgrades perhaps?, id prefer the r&d money to go on the hybrid and ice side, as thats better for mankind than super complex aero.

 

more proactive and quick response to the broken noses and dildo disasters of the last few years...

 

going back to more simple aero might help too, the cars look so simple from the recent past..



#50 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 July 2014 - 23:36

The fact that each they have to spend more and more money to build a car that is slower than the one before is an indicator that something is wrong.

 

The fact that they still can not race close together is a sign that something is wrong.

 

The fact that development are frozen on non standard parts is a sign that something is wrong. What is the point of having a development race if you are not allowed to catch up? We will now have at least two years of Merc dominance and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

If the PU's in the current regs are something that is supposed to have a real value for the motor industry, why are they not allowed to develop that part rather than to spend equal  amounts of money, or even more,  on trying to find something that compensates for the PU shortage. Painfully stupid and money in the wind.