F1 shake up........probably not.
Discussion
From Autosport this morning.......
EXCLUSIVE! The FIA's nine-point plan
Teams ready for full-scale battle over future rules
Thursday's issue of AUTOSPORT magazine reveals details of the nine-point plan that motorsport's governing body, the FIA, has sent to the Formula 1 teams with the aim of transforming the sport's 'show' and slashing escalating costs to compete.
AUTOSPORT has obtained a copy of the controversial secret FIA document, which will be discussed at the next meeting of the F1 Commission at the end of this month.
The nine points are:
1) Driver swapping drivers race every car on the grid during the course of a season.
2) Aggregated qualifying four half-hour sessions on Fridays and
Saturdays at grands prix.
3) Bespoke tyres rubber suppliers can produce different tyres for each of their teams.
4) Success ballast a penalty of 1kg in ballast weight per point scored during 2003.
5) Testing restrictions - limit testing during the 2003 season to just 12 days per car.
6) Aerodynamic freeze from 2003 only two sets of bodywork can be homologated at the start of the season.
7) Long-life engines one engine per weekend in 2003, one engine per four races in 2004, and one engine per eight in 2005.
8) Long-life gearbox gearbox assemblies to have requiered life for a number of races.
9) Standardised parts all teams would have to use standardised
electronics, ECUs, brakes and fixed ballast.
For more details, see this week's AUTOSPORT magazine.
EXCLUSIVE! The FIA's nine-point plan
Teams ready for full-scale battle over future rules
Thursday's issue of AUTOSPORT magazine reveals details of the nine-point plan that motorsport's governing body, the FIA, has sent to the Formula 1 teams with the aim of transforming the sport's 'show' and slashing escalating costs to compete.
AUTOSPORT has obtained a copy of the controversial secret FIA document, which will be discussed at the next meeting of the F1 Commission at the end of this month.
The nine points are:
1) Driver swapping drivers race every car on the grid during the course of a season.
2) Aggregated qualifying four half-hour sessions on Fridays and
Saturdays at grands prix.
3) Bespoke tyres rubber suppliers can produce different tyres for each of their teams.
4) Success ballast a penalty of 1kg in ballast weight per point scored during 2003.
5) Testing restrictions - limit testing during the 2003 season to just 12 days per car.
6) Aerodynamic freeze from 2003 only two sets of bodywork can be homologated at the start of the season.
7) Long-life engines one engine per weekend in 2003, one engine per four races in 2004, and one engine per eight in 2005.
8) Long-life gearbox gearbox assemblies to have requiered life for a number of races.
9) Standardised parts all teams would have to use standardised
electronics, ECUs, brakes and fixed ballast.
For more details, see this week's AUTOSPORT magazine.
Strikes me that most of the proposed measures still favour those teams with the most money to invest in development (more reliable, longer lasting engines etc.).
Where are the ideas to move back towards a greater emphasis on driver skill and encourage more overtaking?
- no auto gearboxes
- no traction control
- less grip
- no pit stops
Where are the ideas to move back towards a greater emphasis on driver skill and encourage more overtaking?
- no auto gearboxes
- no traction control
- less grip
- no pit stops
What a load of cack!
If they want to make it more interesting they could start by introducing rev limiters to stop the cars revving over say 16k rpm. A success ballast also works well in sports car racing.
Also, how about introducing a budget cap on teams to stop them spending so much money? Could be introduced with the additional condition that no job losses should ensue.
If they want to make it more interesting they could start by introducing rev limiters to stop the cars revving over say 16k rpm. A success ballast also works well in sports car racing.
Also, how about introducing a budget cap on teams to stop them spending so much money? Could be introduced with the additional condition that no job losses should ensue.
quote:You're right of course
Jeremy - the thing is IMO that we really do not want technological regression in F1.
The automotive industry relies on F1 for a lot of new technologies which 'trickle down' just as IT relies on technological breakthroughs driven by militray requirements..
, but if this is the case then don't sell it to me as entertainment but rather as a gee-whiz showcase of what cars can be made to do (a bit like a motor show I guess) - the racing seems irrelevant these days. In common with many PHers, I am much more excited by the prospect of seeing hoardes of Caterhams, TVR Tuscans, superbikes or similar battling it out on the track where I can appreciate the difference a driver can make.
This is the full version of the FIA's proposal on driver and team changes. It wouldn't be F1 as we know it but I think it would be a fantastic spectacle and great for TV ratings. We really would find out who the best drivers are.
1 Drivers and teams
Drivers competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship will no longer be contracted to a team. Drivers wishing to compete will submit an application to the FIA (ie to the Formula One Commission) which will select the drivers each year for the Championship on the basis of one for each car entered.
Assuming ten teams and thus 20 drivers, each driver will drive for a different team at each of the first ten races. The teams and races for each driver will be decided by lot. The driver leading the Championship after ten races will then choose the seven teams for which he wishes to drive in the seven remaining races. The driver lying second will have second choice and so on. Having chosen his seven teams, the race at which he will drive for any given team will be decided by lot.
At each Event a driver will wear the uniform of the team for which he is driving. While existing driver contracts last they will be honoured financially by the teams which made them. Drivers with a firm contract for 2003 will automatically be included in the 2003 Championship.
Each team will have a test driver, who will not participate in the Championship except to replace a scheduled driver in case of force majeure. However, the test driver will be well placed to have a future application to participate in the Championship accepted.
Subject to the necessary changes to the Concorde Agreement, drivers without a team contract (or whose contract has expired) will be paid out of a central fund - for example a fixed retainer plus an amount for each point scored in the current and previous season plus an amount for each World Championship and so on.
From a sporting point of view, both the drivers' championship and the constructors' championship are flawed because a mediocre driver can win in an outstanding car and vice-versa. However, Formula One (indeed motor sport generally) has always been like this.
The proposed new system would eliminate this unfairness. It would also add a new element to each race and would fascinate the public, giving the press and commentators an endless source of stories and speculation. What will Schumacher do in the Jordan or Webber in the Williams or Montoya in the Minardi, Villeneuve in the Ferrari, etc, etc?
It is beginning to be fashionable to criticise Formula One. Arguably, a change as radical as this is what Formula One now needs in order to re-establish its image and recapture the interest of the public.
Further reasons for adopting this system are:
all teams would be able to offer the same outstanding driver line-up, at least for the first ten races. This would help the smaller teams attract sponsors;
by separating the drivers from the teams, public interest in the participating manufacturers would increase;
we would no longer have drivers in the Championship who bring more money than talent;
the team-order problem would be eliminated
1 Drivers and teams
Drivers competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship will no longer be contracted to a team. Drivers wishing to compete will submit an application to the FIA (ie to the Formula One Commission) which will select the drivers each year for the Championship on the basis of one for each car entered.
Assuming ten teams and thus 20 drivers, each driver will drive for a different team at each of the first ten races. The teams and races for each driver will be decided by lot. The driver leading the Championship after ten races will then choose the seven teams for which he wishes to drive in the seven remaining races. The driver lying second will have second choice and so on. Having chosen his seven teams, the race at which he will drive for any given team will be decided by lot.
At each Event a driver will wear the uniform of the team for which he is driving. While existing driver contracts last they will be honoured financially by the teams which made them. Drivers with a firm contract for 2003 will automatically be included in the 2003 Championship.
Each team will have a test driver, who will not participate in the Championship except to replace a scheduled driver in case of force majeure. However, the test driver will be well placed to have a future application to participate in the Championship accepted.
Subject to the necessary changes to the Concorde Agreement, drivers without a team contract (or whose contract has expired) will be paid out of a central fund - for example a fixed retainer plus an amount for each point scored in the current and previous season plus an amount for each World Championship and so on.
From a sporting point of view, both the drivers' championship and the constructors' championship are flawed because a mediocre driver can win in an outstanding car and vice-versa. However, Formula One (indeed motor sport generally) has always been like this.
The proposed new system would eliminate this unfairness. It would also add a new element to each race and would fascinate the public, giving the press and commentators an endless source of stories and speculation. What will Schumacher do in the Jordan or Webber in the Williams or Montoya in the Minardi, Villeneuve in the Ferrari, etc, etc?
It is beginning to be fashionable to criticise Formula One. Arguably, a change as radical as this is what Formula One now needs in order to re-establish its image and recapture the interest of the public.
Further reasons for adopting this system are:
all teams would be able to offer the same outstanding driver line-up, at least for the first ten races. This would help the smaller teams attract sponsors;
by separating the drivers from the teams, public interest in the participating manufacturers would increase;
we would no longer have drivers in the Championship who bring more money than talent;
the team-order problem would be eliminated
That won't make the racing any more exciting.
How about....
Just having the choice of 2 chassis
the choice of 2 tyres
Just like the exciting US racing- Indy and CART.
In order to keep the car manufacturers happy, we could still keep different engines. Thus Ferrari would have the same chassis as the Jaguar (for example) but different engines.
Oh, and how about changing the engines from a 3 litre V10 to a 2.5 litre V6.
Less power, but most engine manufacturers have a 2.5 litre V6 in their range and the publicity would be huge-
Think of how much publicity Ferrari had with their F50, even though that engine had NOTHING to do with an F1 engine, other then 10 cylinders....
How about....
Just having the choice of 2 chassis
the choice of 2 tyres
Just like the exciting US racing- Indy and CART.
In order to keep the car manufacturers happy, we could still keep different engines. Thus Ferrari would have the same chassis as the Jaguar (for example) but different engines.
Oh, and how about changing the engines from a 3 litre V10 to a 2.5 litre V6.
Less power, but most engine manufacturers have a 2.5 litre V6 in their range and the publicity would be huge-
Think of how much publicity Ferrari had with their F50, even though that engine had NOTHING to do with an F1 engine, other then 10 cylinders....
Nice idea, but I cant see Ron, Ross or Frank wanting one bit of it.
Personally I think there should be financial limitations, everyone should compete with an amount that the poorest can afford. The big problem with F1 is the cash, Montezemolo and that arab chap that owns TAG will throw money at F1 with almost no bounds. Budgets are now way way way over $100 million for the big boys and poor old Minardi have to make a show on something like $8 million.
If we limited all teams to $8 million then they would have to make decisions about which features the car should have and which features it shouldnt and indeed whether the driver or the technology would make more impact.
Matt.
Personally I think there should be financial limitations, everyone should compete with an amount that the poorest can afford. The big problem with F1 is the cash, Montezemolo and that arab chap that owns TAG will throw money at F1 with almost no bounds. Budgets are now way way way over $100 million for the big boys and poor old Minardi have to make a show on something like $8 million.
If we limited all teams to $8 million then they would have to make decisions about which features the car should have and which features it shouldnt and indeed whether the driver or the technology would make more impact.
Matt.
I didn't lose interest in F1 because of Ferrari's dominance, it is simply the lack of "racing". Even when 1 team has dominated in the past, they have been able to race/overtake eachother.
The current F1 car, with almost total reliance on aerodynamics, makes close racing a thing of the past. As others have said, wide slicks and smaller wings would be a good start. Banning carbon fibre brakes would increase braking distances, leaving more room for the "demon late braker" to make a difference.
There have been enough technological advances already banned from F1 for this one to make sense.
Track design would also play its part. Get rid of the chicanes (designed to keep cars nicely in line while they follow the car in front). Give them a tight corner to allow cars to get close together, followed by a decent straight leading into a hard braking area, is that too much to ask?
The current F1 car, with almost total reliance on aerodynamics, makes close racing a thing of the past. As others have said, wide slicks and smaller wings would be a good start. Banning carbon fibre brakes would increase braking distances, leaving more room for the "demon late braker" to make a difference.
There have been enough technological advances already banned from F1 for this one to make sense.
Track design would also play its part. Get rid of the chicanes (designed to keep cars nicely in line while they follow the car in front). Give them a tight corner to allow cars to get close together, followed by a decent straight leading into a hard braking area, is that too much to ask?
Why not have a community chest?
Each team pays 5% of their budget for the year in. The chest is divvied up between all the teams in proportion to their relative total budgets?
Or radio controlled Joker?
Using telemetry each team can play a joker on any other car on the grid, sending a signal to reduce the rev limit. Team can play their joker once per race/weekend
Each team pays 5% of their budget for the year in. The chest is divvied up between all the teams in proportion to their relative total budgets?
Or radio controlled Joker?
Using telemetry each team can play a joker on any other car on the grid, sending a signal to reduce the rev limit. Team can play their joker once per race/weekend
quote:
Or radio controlled Joker?
Using telemetry each team can play a joker on any other car on the grid, sending a signal to reduce the rev limit. Team can play their joker once per race/weekend
WTF? - It's a Knockout!.. Will Stuart Hall be taking over the commentary? Will all the drivers have to wear enormous foam heads?
I think most of the drivers would jump at the chance of racing other cars even if they had to race a Minardi once or twice. They would get to race a Williams, a Ferrari, a McLaren as well. As things stand, how many drivers at the start of the year have a realistic chance of winning the Championship, or even a race? This would be a great showcase for real driver talent.
Harry
Harry
What a pile of cack. How can anyone who is into F1 think this proposal is a good idea? It would change F1 so much that it would no longer be F1 any more.
God knows what it would be, but I doubt I'd watch it.
A definite case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", in my opinion.
God knows what it would be, but I doubt I'd watch it.
A definite case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", in my opinion.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff