18 replies to this topic

[Boing 2]

Thinking about McLarens lack of ability to develop their way out of their problems and the penalties they are picking up the though struck me that, rather than tackling budgets and tech regs to keep the sport competitive why not use sporting regs?

 

For example you could tie in-season test mileage with constructors points so the top three have a certain testing limit then the next three are given more mileage, the next three more again etc, this could be re-assessed (and allotted)  on a quarterly basis. That means a team like Mclaren having big problems can get lots of test mileage to close the gap quickly without allowing Mercedes and Ferrari to pull away at the front, it would also allow new manufacturers to catch up quickly thus making the sport more attractive to them.

 

On the penalty front, simply impose a simple place drop for an engine/gearbox change, if you're at the front you lose 5 places if you're at the back you lose nothing. This means the smaller teams have the luxury of running more engines without substantial qually losses so they can turn the wick up on them and help themselves to run a hotter pace. However, once they start getting furter up the grid in qually the penalty for changes begins to hurt more and the incentive to turn up the engines and change then frequently drains away.

 

That way you avoid budget caps and two tier tech regs but still balance the financial disadvantages out, obviously the TV money stil needs to be addressed though.

 

 

[V8 Fireworks]

The simplest system is used in BTCC - simply ballast.  It works.

[phoenix101]

They should implement the seasonal fuel allowance system, and make adjustments based upon championship points and/or other metics like driver points, podiums, wins, engine tokens, etc.

 

19 races x 100L = 1900L

 

1st = -20L

2nd = -10L

3rd = -5L

 

Look back 5 years for cummulative adjustments. Losing 1L per race per championship may not seem like much, but the handicap is actually double. The smaller teams won't want to share a PU with the perennial front-runner, which will shift more engine revenue to the other manufacturers.

[smitten]

 

 

if you're at the front you lose 5 places if you're at the back you lose nothing.

 

And if you're a works team already at the back, you can replace all other components without penalty because you can afford to?  

[KingTiger]

F1 racing has always been about an even playing field. Some cars being forced to run heavier or with less fuel is against the nature of F1 racing.

 

The testing suggestion might have more merit, but teams don't want the extra costs of testing. Nobody expected Honda and Renault to be this terrible when they were making up the rules either, so usually the only teams that would get the extra testing time are backmarkers that can't afford to use it.

[P123]

Not sure about that Boing. It sounds as convoluted as the current penalty regime.

F1 needs a wholesale rethink on it's 'money saving' rules with limitations for gearboxes, engines and testing not actually saving them any money but instead pushing them to spend in other areas. They are restrictive and harmful in terms of on track competition (although I don't think the token system is as restrictive as some present it to be) and have been for going on 10 years now.

[Boing 2]

The simplest system is used in BTCC - simply ballast.  It works.

 

Yes but ballast interferes strongly with the on-track side of things which F1 needs to avoid, this simply gives teams at a disadvantage a chance to develop their way out of it.

[Boing 2]

They should implement the seasonal fuel allowance system, and make adjustments based upon championship points and/or other metics like driver points, podiums, wins, engine tokens, etc.

 

19 races x 100L = 1900L

 

1st = -20L

2nd = -10L

3rd = -5L

 

Look back 5 years for cummulative adjustments. Losing 1L per race per championship may not seem like much, but the handicap is actually double. The smaller teams won't want to share a PU with the perennial front-runner, which will shift more engine revenue to the other manufacturers.

 

It's still a handicap system though, I'd rather give the guys at the back a  way to catch up rather than hamstring those at the front, I'd also rather everyone raced on as level a playing field a possible.

[Boing 2]

And if you're a works team already at the back, you can replace all other components without penalty because you can afford to?  

 

Sure, why not? if you're at the back of the grid the performance advantage of new parts will be outweighed by awful track position.

[KingTiger]

Sure, why not? if you're at the back of the grid the performance advantage of new parts will be outweighed by awful track position.

 

But if the penalty is not enough, teams will use it as way to get an advantage, and that would turn it into a farce. 

[Boing 2]

F1 racing has always been about an even playing field. Some cars being forced to run heavier or with less fuel is against the nature of F1 racing.

 

The testing suggestion might have more merit, but teams don't want the extra costs of testing. Nobody expected Honda and Renault to be this terrible when they were making up the rules either, so usually the only teams that would get the extra testing time are backmarkers that can't afford to use it.

 

The beauty is that teams can turn their engines up more and live with more frequent engine changes but they are fundamentally racing within the same engine and chassis regs as the guys at the front. Also, the advantage quickly disappears once you get near the midfield, it only really makes sense for the guys right at the back.

 

If Reanult or Honda wanted to fix their problems by giving a free engine deal to Marussia and using them to test out the bugs wouldn't that be a net benefit? Free engines, lots of mileage to prep rookie drivers and develpo parts etc, maybe the engine guys could help cover test costs too as they are primarily benefitting from it.

[Boing 2]

But if the penalty is not enough, teams will use it as way to get an advantage, and that would turn it into a farce. 

 

It would depend on the performance gains of being able to run new parts and redline them, I'd imagine starting from the back row at every race wouldn't be worth the gains for a front runner over another front team starting on pole with more conservative limits.

[pdac]

They should (or could) do lots of things. But someone has to propose those things and then they have to be voted through. The amount of sensible ideas are not the problem.

 

Personally, I'd like to see major changes to the regs rather than little tweaks to (try to) fix a couple of specific issues.

[phoenix101]

F1 racing has always been about an even playing field. Some cars being forced to run heavier or with less fuel is against the nature of F1 racing.

 

The testing suggestion might have more merit, but teams don't want the extra costs of testing. Nobody expected Honda and Renault to be this terrible when they were making up the rules either, so usually the only teams that would get the extra testing time are backmarkers that can't afford to use it.

 

The driver was a much bigger part of the performance equation during the bygone era. If you're not going to roll back all of the electronic aids, and eliminate the aerowash problem (via means other than DRS), the FIA will have to do something.

 

Hoarding championships is about as useful as hoarding specie. It actually kills the sport. When you force the teams to innovate and diversify, they'll be much better off, just like when the US government busted up Standard Oil. Rockefeller became even more wealthy.

Edited by phoenix101, 20 June 2015 - 20:30.

[trogggy]

The driver was a much bigger part of the performance equation during the bygone era.

When are you thinking of?

[phoenix101]

It's still a handicap system though, I'd rather give the guys at the back a  way to catch up rather than hamstring those at the front, I'd also rather everyone raced on as level a playing field a possible.

 

Virtually everything is identical. Fuel flow. Fuel tank size. Tires. Aero regs. Etc.

 

The only difference is the seasonal allotment of fuel, which changes the race strategy and helps the teams with poor aero/cooling efficiency. Giving the backmarkers a chance to catch up doesn't really help them because they don't have the money. When the teams can't put together a decent campaign, it hurts Mercedes as much as it hurts the bad teams. It hurts Mercedes even more if everyone withdraws.

 

There is no option. If a team doesn't want to spend Mercedes money, they still have to be able to put pressure on Mercedes. It makes people watch, it makes Mercedes innovate, and it makes F1 championships much more valuable.

[oetzi]

Yes but ballast interferes strongly with the on-track side of things which F1 needs to avoid, this simply gives teams at a disadvantage a chance to develop their way out of it.

You wouldn't countenance this option if it would be of most benefit to Ferrari.

Fan-based rules are sure to work...

[OO7]

Would the smaller teams even be able afford the amount of testing they'd be entitled to?

[chhatra]

Even though the penalty system may not be the best and one I don't agree with, I do agree that right there is not a better solution to keep things fair and keep costs low.

I like the idea of more testing. Even if it just a few more days throughout the year. Top 3 get 4 days. 4-7 get 6 days and Bottom 3 get 8 days.

Also, I remember in 05 certain teams could run one more car in FP. Why can't they allow the same for testing?

Edited by chhatra, 21 June 2015 - 09:36.