38 replies to this topic

[glorius&victorius]

Why not introduce in f1 a weight-penalty, meaning that the last winner carries some 40 kilos extra in the next race?

This way the championship would be more interesting. And I am sure thatMichael wouldn't be handicapped completely:
-pit strategies would be more interesting too, more fuel, less fuell.
-all sorts of considerations would come into play
-more downforce, less downforce.

Other series are doing this like ITC, Nascar, and IRL.

[Vagabond]

Why don't they put 40kilos per each race won by a driver during a whole season. MS would carry 280 kilos by now. That would be fair.

[Bruce]

I see why this would be a tempting solution, but it completely goes against the spirit of what F1 has been about in the past 50 years - the survival of the fittest. I'd love to see another team catch up with Ferrari (though I don't see it happening this year) but I'd hate to see Ferrari, or any other team, "penalised" for winning.

[keithb]

Wouldn't introducing a "penalty" for having the best car for a particular race kinda go against what the F1 fraturnity stands for. Why bother with developing cars and engines if instead of a slap on the back and a good job you get to carry around an extra sack of **** in the car. The idea has merit of a penalty but a time penalty may be more acceptable. RB went from last place and up the field quite quickly in the last race so it can be done.
I'm not sure the risk of an accident with a slower car, as the driver has to move up the field ,would be greeted with much warmth either.
Would a time penalty imposed at the end of the race make more sense. You could finish first in the race but be third overall! The excitement would be there as all drivers would bust their balls to the finish.

[tinman]

I think I've read a similar post a while ago.

[glorius&victorius]

OK I understand.....it seems a little unfair to penalise one car.
Why not penalise the whole grid?
Meaning this:
-take the championship standings as a reference
-the car with the most points gets the most weight
-the car with the least points is the lightest
-the cars in the middle would also be progressively be "penalised"

This way the cars in the middle cannot laugh and say to Ferrari: "ha ha we were not penalised".

So the Williamses and McLarens would also be penalised with respect to Renault and Sauber...and they in turn would be penalised against Jaguar and Minardi. In the end it wouldn't be a penalty anymore but just a rule that applies to all!

I mean think of it: Minardi having a chance at points! It's a cheap and easy solution!

And regarding it going against the spirit of F1: the engineers would be challenged to work around this weight problem. Would be reaaally interesting to see what they'd come up with.

[Liam]

F1 is not, and should not every be, a handicapped series. It's just not what F1 is or has been about.

[Wouter]

That's a bad idea. F1 should be about having the best car/driver/tire combo, not about artificially levelling the whole field. What's the point of building a good car when you are going to have to tow a caravan?

[Bruce]

Why don't McLaren and Williams get off the stick and beat the red machines?

Trust me, Frank Williams wants no favours from the FIA to equalise...

Forget it, glorious, any sort of equalisation is not going to happen in F1 - and thank god... If the series isn't close, the other teams have to do something about it. There was a time that Williams looked completely invincible - ditto McLaren, Ferrari, Lotus, Tyrrell, Cooper, even Alfa Romeo, if you go back far enough. The series survived single team domination in the past. it will survive it in the present.

[mikedeering]

If you want fair racing, why not simply get one make chassis-engines-tires? Everyone has a fair chance!

Oh wait, that's F3000 isn't it?

More seriously, how about a budget cap? It is not directly be handicapping anyone on the race track and force teams to make the most of equal resources.

Each year Bernie hands out $100m to each team - they spend it how they like. If Jaguar want to give $12m of it to Eddie Irvine, who are we to stop them?

Nice ideal, but unenforcable me thinks!

[glorius&victorius]

Again, don't get too attached to negative words like "penalties" and "handicapped"..... I guess I choose wrong words here.

And I never said anything about fairness, it will still be that the one who's better, smarter, would be best at this. It would contribute to a more equal field, for sure, but it's still down to the teams themselves how smart they'd go about and make the car faster.

Think of the engineering challenge at hand here. The whole issue of weight-adding (that's a more positive word) would become an integral part of the design of the cars.
It would not be a matter of "we are fast and we are penalised for that" rather a matter of "how can we adjust and distribute the added weight in a smart way to still win with the car". Everybody would be getting added weight here, so one rule applies to all.

Maybe at the end of the season we'd get a situation that the championship leading team would sacrifice a win to be lighter for the next championship deciding race. It would add a whole new dimension to tactics and strategies. I challenge you guys to not stick to the old formula.

Resorting to one-chassis for all is something we are against, because we say that F1 would not be the pinnacle of engineering etc etc. Weight-adding would give the same extra dimension to F1 as refuelling has brought us.

ps. MikeD, imposing a budget celing would be good too. I like that idea, however some strict accounting controlling should be imposed as well. I am interesting in how the FIA would be able to control every penny a team spends? I'm not saying it would be impossible, but I guess it could result in many "dirty allegations" and scandals.

[Clatter]

First thing that springs to mind is that depending on the amount of wieght, it could actually be an advantage as they would have more to play with in balancing the car.

The other aspect would be the possible extra danger in the case of an accident. more wieght=more inertia which would be harder to stop in an off course excursion.

[ForzaF1]

This an absolutley terrible idea IMO. This is the exact opposite of what F1 is all about. All the cars whould conform to the same tech regulations. THis is not NASCAR, this is the pinnacle of motorsports and as such it should not be dumbed down to appeal to people with attention spans so short that they cannot undestand/appreciate F1 as it is now.

[Alfisti]

You tend to peeve manufactuirers when you do this too. Alfa totally dominated the AWESOME DTM series of the 90's (almost F1 engines they revved so hard) ...... so they gave the Alfa's a weight penalty the next season .. the team packed up and left.

[Ross Stonefeld]

weight penalties are stupid because they punish performance and usually end up not doing anything. They throw 40kgs on some 1300kg touring car and it's still on pole. What I love about F1 more than anything is that its 'natural' No weight penalties, no mandatory stops, etc. When the lights go out its open season.

[Scudetto]

I couldn't support this idea. You're essentially forcing the best car to carry the baggage of the others cars' collective failure to mount a challenge.

[EdwRom]

This reminds me of the Rush song, The Trees: "...and the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw." Artificially keeping the field bunched up is equal to castrating the series. It has no place in F1.

[iago]

Originally posted by Scudetto
I couldn't support this idea. You're essentially forcing the best car to carry the baggage of the others cars' collective failure to mount a challenge.

I agree absolutely . Why should Ferrari be penalised just because teams like Jaguar and Minardi aren't as good. Ferrari have worked hard to get where they are at the moment. Same goes for Williams, McLaren et al. The best teams shouldn't be disadvantaged due to the fact that some teams are plain crap.

Not a good idea, sorry. The best solution is for all the non-Ferrari teams to work their collective asses off and make cars/tyres/engines that match Ferrari. There are plenty of good drivers in the field in non-Ferrari teams: JPM, Ralf, Kimi, DC, Fisi, Button, Panis, Webber, Frentzen, etc, etc. Imagine it if Minardi were allowed a 300kg car and Alex Yoong wound up on pole. That would be a travesty!

[917k]

Bad idea

Further,neither NASCAR nor the IRL have weight penalties.Its even too bush for them.

[PraetorAAV]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius
Why not introduce in f1 a weight-penalty, meaning that the last winner carries some 40 kilos extra in the next race?

This way the championship would be more interesting. And I am sure thatMichael wouldn't be handicapped completely:
-pit strategies would be more interesting too, more fuel, less fuell.
-all sorts of considerations would come into play
-more downforce, less downforce.

Other series are doing this like ITC, Nascar, and IRL.

Let's have another penalty then... Declare Ferrari champions (they did it themselves anyway), put their car in a glass case and present the car at every race ? (don't let it race, mind you)

What's this idea that the winner should be penalised ? They've won fair and square - no need to punish them for this. Why do we need to level out the field ? That's plain stupid and will lead to yet another cart.

Oh, you also say other formulae have this policy and you give examples from US racing. Why aren't they popular on other continents then ? Well, my opinion is because they artificially limit the possibilities of the teams, they try to give everyone a chance, etc. This is just soap opera - why does it have to be on the edge until the end ? I personally like this season, in spite of being won by Schumacher with such an uncontroversial margin. Ferrari built an almost perfect car and I praise them, even if I would have liked it otherwise. I'm literally tired of all this crap about making races more competitive- most often it's because the one who complains about it supports another team. Care to guess if one would suggest such measures if one's favourites were winning ?

Cheers

[mclarensmps]

Without reading any replies, all i have to say is that it is an effective techinique uesd in the JGTC to keep the competition stiff at all times. Weight penalties on any cars that score points.

[Ali_G]

Oh Lord.

This isn't the BTCC we're talking about. its the pinacle of motorsport.

You can't hold someone back just for the fact that they are faster than other people.

Ridiculous suggestion.

Niall

[Peter]

Any clever manufacturer would just use the weight penalty to boost some other aspect of the car - e.g. "if we have to carry 40Kg extra, lets put in a more robust engine".

Since many cars are actually underweight and add ballast anyway, you could not just say that they have the penalty in the form of a lump of lead, they can still recover some of the weight elsewhere.

IMHO this would be the start of a very slipery slope and the end of F1.

[revvhead]

why dont we catch the winning driver and give him slaps!

No seriously, i know you mean well glorius but thats more or less what this does to the winner.

What is needed is to correct the economic environment, so that the smaller teams have a chance to be competitive, after that its up to them if they achieve it or not.

The winner needs to be applauded, not penalized. by thisratinale, jag would gain an adavntage by having built such a shitty car. or suppose in a freak race a jordan or renault win a race and then suudenly find themselves +40 kilos and -50bhp on the ferraris for the next race.

[Mammoth]

How about a progressive (or regresive? ) weight-penalty not necessarily to the winners, but to the wealthiest???

Ferrari would have the greatest weight penalty, then mclaren and williams, etc... Minardi would have no penalty at all....

I´m even sure that not too many would share a tear when Jag won´t make the 107% rule.

[Menace]

Originally posted by Bruce
I see why this would be a tempting solution, but it completely goes against the spirit of what F1 has been about in the past 50 years - the survival of the fittest. I'd love to see another team catch up with Ferrari (though I don't see it happening this year) but I'd hate to see Ferrari, or any other team, "penalised" for winning.

Couldn't have said it better my self!

[tifosi]

Originally posted by 917k
Bad idea

Further,neither NASCAR nor the IRL have weight penalties.Its even too bush for them.

Agreed, I don't follow NASCAR but I do the IRL, they definately dont do anything this silly (please dont now list all the silly things you may think they do, at least they don't have mandatory pit stops ala CART).

Heck if you wanna make it exciting for each race, forget the weight thing,, just do away with qualifying and reverse the grid from the results of the previous race, so at Magney Cours, Ferrari would start from P21 and P22, with JPM in P20. Plenty of excitement watching those guys fly through the field, and as long as Minardi makes sure they suck in Imola and finish last they will be on pole at Monte Carlo and could therefore possibly pick up a win every season.


MINARDI -- MASTERS OF MONACO.

[Super Canadian Man]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius
Why not introduce in f1 a weight-penalty, meaning that the last winner carries some 40 kilos extra in the next race?

This way the championship would be more interesting. And I am sure thatMichael wouldn't be handicapped completely:
-pit strategies would be more interesting too, more fuel, less fuell.
-all sorts of considerations would come into play
-more downforce, less downforce.

Other series are doing this like ITC, Nascar, and IRL.

Nascar does no such thing, they do not penalize a winner by making his car heavier the next race. This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I am also certain that IRL does no such thing. What would be the point in this, to make sure that each race someone different wins. Who cares, may the best team win, not may the lightest car on a particular day win.

[BMW FW22]

this idea works by cupracing

not f1

[Clatter]

I know, lets make ferrari start a lap down on everyone else. With their current performance advantage I bet they would still win.

[BMW FW22]

i take the bet they don't

[AndreasNystrom]

ETCC limited the revs instead of the Alfas who was dominant in the races.
Thats a better idea i think.

[CONOSUR]

Anything that changes the specifications for one car, or team, and not all cars, or teams, on a race-by-race basis, is a foolish idea dreamt up by fools whose only desire is to manipulate races' outcomes.

Doing so thereby negates the definition of racing. Instead, you now have nothing but pure entertainment.

So, it seems that glorious would rather have entertainment than racing. If so, there are numerous other series where the emphasis is on entertainment. Go watch those. F1 is the last bastion of real, unmanipulated, automobile racing. Run what'cha brung and win by a mile. That's the name of the game... and the game is F1.

[AndreasNystrom]

Ok, lets get some new rules!.

No Pitstops
-Limited Fuel races - No refueling allowed.
-No Tirechanges

Just those 2 things should probably slow down F1 a lot.
You need to save tires and fuel. Now it gets more exciting to see who runs out of fuel on the last lap

More engine configurations. V4->V12. V4 1.5l turbo?, V12 2.5l NA?

Teams can choose from Bridgestone AND Michelin tires on each race.

Let teams by cars from other manufactors. If someone can afford to by last years F1 2001, let them do that.

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by AndreasNystrom
No Pitstops
-Limited Fuel races - No refueling allowed.
-No Tirechanges

No pitstops effectively takes the racing out of the race. Instead you get a... uh... something else, but certainly not a race!

More engine configurations. V4 -> W16.

Teams can choose from Bridgestone AND Michelin tires on each race.

Let teams buy cars from other manufacturers. If someone can afford to buy last year's F2001, let them do that.

The rules have always required that each team must build a chassis of their own design. Personally, though, I think it'd be a good idea as far as using other teams' old cars, as long as that team wasn't still using them (as Ferrari did at the start of this year).

A better new rule would be to extend the race distances from the current 305km (@ 195 miles) to 300 miles. This would add more pitstops (potential for teams to make mistakes - even the top teams) and force the manufacturers to build less powerful, less fragile, more reliable machines. The race distance alone would slow the cars down (except maybe the current Ferraris ;) ).

[Clatter]

Originally posted by CONOSUR


No pitstops effectively takes the racing out of the race. Instead you get a... uh... something else, but certainly not a race! Why wouldnt it be a race?








The rules have always required that each team must build a chassis of their own design. Personally, though, I think it'd be a good idea as far as using other teams' old cars, as long as that team wasn't still using them (as Ferrari did at the start of this year). The rules havnt always required this. It used to be the case that you could buy a chassis from someone else. Thats how Williams started.

A better new rule would be to extend the race distances from the current 305km (@ 195 miles) to 300 miles. This would add more pitstops (potential for teams to make mistakes - even the top teams) and force the manufacturers to build less powerful, less fragile, more reliable machines. The race distance alone would slow the cars down (except maybe the current Ferraris ;) ) I'd happily see the race distance increase, but the TV bosses wouldnt like it and in its them that call the shots on that one..

[AndreasNystrom]

Well, since the teams can buy engines from other teams? Ferrari - Sauber, Bar and Jordan gets their engines from Honda. Why not also have chassi-suppliers.

Anyway. I think its a good idea do decrease the racedistance too.

And no pitstops mean no racing?. I always thought the eras of F1 with no pitstops where the best
Just look at Ralf at Silverstone. His whole race destroyed cause of the fuelrig.
Its should be about the racing that you win or loose, not some fuelrig in the pits.

Formula 3000 doesnt have pitstops, but they overtake lots of times in a race, and fight for position, it doesnt stop them.

It should be ok to go into pits to change to raintires ofcourse, but other then that no.

[Liam]

I think it was '82 when they changed the rules to make entrant's build their own cars.
The catch is the pride of the teams. All of them, even Minardi, Arrows, Jordan etc are very proud of building their own car's I don't know that they would want to buy an ex Ferrari or Willaims even if they could. Also, unlike the 60's where the engine was unstressed, or the 70's when it was invariably a Cosworth DFV, the current car's rear's are designed around their engines. Buying the chassis might also mean buying the engine and that's expensive, also, just how much would a second hand Willaims be worth? Could the teams improve/modify it? What about all the R/D departments, the wind tunnels, the staff? I wonder if the teams have too much invested in building their own car that buying a chassis simply would not be possible.

I'd like to get rid of refuelling, provided the current safety technology could allow a Burti(GER) /Brundle(Oz) style crash without a fire. The current cars do it, if they could still do it with enough fuel for the whole race then I'd go with that. It would turn the races into proper 200 mile races rather than the 70-100 mile sprint's they are now. The weight difference's between 200 miles and 70 miles are significant. This would mean that your setup cannot be as good over the whole race as it is now as the weight difference is larger. This means you will have more time with a bad setup, some at the start of the race, some in the middle, some at the end. I think it would add a lot to the racing.

[masterhit]

F1 is a meritocracy. If you don't have what it takes to reach the top, then I'm sorry but that's just life. It would be like saying to your boss "some of your employees are more talented than me and earning more money, this is unfair..." F1 is a business just like any other.

I think the more likely scenario is that the more dominant teams will sell their older technology/chassis to lesser teams, thus making more money for themselves and for Bernie, who will negotiate a fair percentage for getting the deal done Also, sadly, the three car teams scenario is looking more likely with each passing race.