F1 back to basics finally...
Discussion
www.sport.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;$sessionid$RPQEGLOHKCMB1QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/sport/2004/05/05/smgars05.xml&_requestid=31018
F1 drivers will have to rely on skills again
By Kevin Garside in Monte Carlo
(Filed: 05/05/2004)
Formula One has given birth to a new form of revolutionary doctrine. Maxism. Monaco is an unlikely setting for the overthrow of old regimes. Nevertheless, that is what Max Mosley achieved in the Principality yesterday when he persuaded F1's disparate forces to unite behind a radical set of proposals that will change the nature of grand prix racing.
Maxism rules: Max Mosley uniting F1's disparate forces
The president of FIA, motor sport's regulatory body, was the architect behind the raft of changes voted in without a hint of dissent from the feuding barons that own the 10 grand prix teams. As a result, from 2006, F1 ought once again to be a compelling spectacle, a sport worth watching for the inherent drama that made it great in the first place.
Out will go the electronic driver aids that have done so much to emasculate F1's gladiatorial thrust. No more power steering, traction control or semi-automatic gearboxes. And only one tyre company will supply the teams, drastically reducing the need to test.
Engines will be required to last more than one race, though the teams have been given a month to decide whether to stick with the three-litre V10 power units or change to 2.4-litre V8s. Effectively, the rest of the teams have eight weeks to convince Mercedes and BMW of the merits of down-shifting.
In total, the cost to the seven manufacturers who supply engines to the teams stands at £600 million a year - an unsustainable level of involvement even for the richest car companies.
"We agreed that costs should be cut by 50 per cent," Mosley said. "The manufacturers involved were starting to think that cost-cutting was necessary. It all comes off their bottom line in the end. The monies involved were simply unsustainable."
Mosley acknowledged the role of commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone in pushing through the changes. Ecclestone's deep pockets proved a powerful tool to Mosley. As a result of accepting the changes wholesale, the teams will benefit from an extra handout of £100 million this year, courtesy of Ecclestone increasing his television and advertising revenues.
The amount is broadly in line with that agreed between Ecclestone and the big manufacturers in the Grand Prix World Championship, the breakaway group that included Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Daimler Chrysler (Mercedes) and Ford, before their deal broke down.
Having satisfied the GPWC's cash demands, a breakaway series is now firmly off the agenda . . . another Mosley masterstroke. "Everything the GPWC set out to get, they have got," Mosley said. "Their raison d'etre has disappeared."
Mosley deserves huge credit for delivering in one sitting an outcome that the teams have failed to achieve in many meetings in the past two years. Through Mosley's deft handling of a group of self-centred millionaires, F1 now has an opportunity to be itself again.
He had hoped that the sport's elders could do this for themselves, but that proved impossible. "They couldn't even decide on what sandwiches to have," Mosley said famously after yet another failed summit at a Heathrow hotel.
As ever in sport, timing is all. Mosley, in typically self-deprecating manner, said he had been lucky because circumstances for change just happened to be right. "I was not so much me setting the agenda. I just think things came together in such a way as to create an atmosphere for change.
"I think people realised that something had to be done to resurrect the sport and they grasped the opportunity. This has been a wake-up call for Formula One. All the things I wanted to achieve in the meeting happened. And remarkably quickly with no real dissent.
"Now the sport has a real chance to move on and gain some of the ground it has lost with the public. The drivers will have to control the cars again. They won't have enormous downforce any more, braking distance will go up and there will be less grip, all of which create the potential for overtaking."
Or, in other words, outmanoeuvring the opposition. At that none is better than Mosley, as his quiet revolution proved yesterday. Maxism. You can't beat it.
So, sounds like Max has done the impossible and brought through most of the changes, I suspect that Mercedes and BMW will acceded to the rest of the teams too and allow the 2.4l V*s in too.
What do you all think - personally I can't wait to see how today's crop of driver's handle the rather more lively cars in 2006.
Phil
F1 drivers will have to rely on skills again
By Kevin Garside in Monte Carlo
(Filed: 05/05/2004)
Formula One has given birth to a new form of revolutionary doctrine. Maxism. Monaco is an unlikely setting for the overthrow of old regimes. Nevertheless, that is what Max Mosley achieved in the Principality yesterday when he persuaded F1's disparate forces to unite behind a radical set of proposals that will change the nature of grand prix racing.
Maxism rules: Max Mosley uniting F1's disparate forces
The president of FIA, motor sport's regulatory body, was the architect behind the raft of changes voted in without a hint of dissent from the feuding barons that own the 10 grand prix teams. As a result, from 2006, F1 ought once again to be a compelling spectacle, a sport worth watching for the inherent drama that made it great in the first place.
Out will go the electronic driver aids that have done so much to emasculate F1's gladiatorial thrust. No more power steering, traction control or semi-automatic gearboxes. And only one tyre company will supply the teams, drastically reducing the need to test.
Engines will be required to last more than one race, though the teams have been given a month to decide whether to stick with the three-litre V10 power units or change to 2.4-litre V8s. Effectively, the rest of the teams have eight weeks to convince Mercedes and BMW of the merits of down-shifting.
In total, the cost to the seven manufacturers who supply engines to the teams stands at £600 million a year - an unsustainable level of involvement even for the richest car companies.
"We agreed that costs should be cut by 50 per cent," Mosley said. "The manufacturers involved were starting to think that cost-cutting was necessary. It all comes off their bottom line in the end. The monies involved were simply unsustainable."
Mosley acknowledged the role of commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone in pushing through the changes. Ecclestone's deep pockets proved a powerful tool to Mosley. As a result of accepting the changes wholesale, the teams will benefit from an extra handout of £100 million this year, courtesy of Ecclestone increasing his television and advertising revenues.
The amount is broadly in line with that agreed between Ecclestone and the big manufacturers in the Grand Prix World Championship, the breakaway group that included Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Daimler Chrysler (Mercedes) and Ford, before their deal broke down.
Having satisfied the GPWC's cash demands, a breakaway series is now firmly off the agenda . . . another Mosley masterstroke. "Everything the GPWC set out to get, they have got," Mosley said. "Their raison d'etre has disappeared."
Mosley deserves huge credit for delivering in one sitting an outcome that the teams have failed to achieve in many meetings in the past two years. Through Mosley's deft handling of a group of self-centred millionaires, F1 now has an opportunity to be itself again.
He had hoped that the sport's elders could do this for themselves, but that proved impossible. "They couldn't even decide on what sandwiches to have," Mosley said famously after yet another failed summit at a Heathrow hotel.
As ever in sport, timing is all. Mosley, in typically self-deprecating manner, said he had been lucky because circumstances for change just happened to be right. "I was not so much me setting the agenda. I just think things came together in such a way as to create an atmosphere for change.
"I think people realised that something had to be done to resurrect the sport and they grasped the opportunity. This has been a wake-up call for Formula One. All the things I wanted to achieve in the meeting happened. And remarkably quickly with no real dissent.
"Now the sport has a real chance to move on and gain some of the ground it has lost with the public. The drivers will have to control the cars again. They won't have enormous downforce any more, braking distance will go up and there will be less grip, all of which create the potential for overtaking."
Or, in other words, outmanoeuvring the opposition. At that none is better than Mosley, as his quiet revolution proved yesterday. Maxism. You can't beat it.
So, sounds like Max has done the impossible and brought through most of the changes, I suspect that Mercedes and BMW will acceded to the rest of the teams too and allow the 2.4l V*s in too.
What do you all think - personally I can't wait to see how today's crop of driver's handle the rather more lively cars in 2006.
Phil
I kind of agree with Eric, lets wait till 2006. Although I for one like the changes proposed I think the folks who believe the current technology filters down to road cars won't like it.
But if it does happen, you never know, I may be tempted back and may even be tepmted back to watch it live.
But if it does happen, you never know, I may be tempted back and may even be tepmted back to watch it live.
I think it will be interesting to see what some slightly less sycophantic reports have to say about it. When the journo started spouting stuff like this, it shows up the tremendous bias.
Telegraph Hack said:
Through Mosley's deft handling of a group of self-centred millionaires, F1 now has an opportunity to be itself again.
OK - I'm confused.
On the one hand, the FIA are saying that they want a single tire supplier to increase lap times, and on the other they are advocating a return to slicks for more mechanical grip and better overtaking.
Can anyone explain how increasing the grip of the tires is going to increase the lap times
On the one hand, the FIA are saying that they want a single tire supplier to increase lap times, and on the other they are advocating a return to slicks for more mechanical grip and better overtaking.
Can anyone explain how increasing the grip of the tires is going to increase the lap times
So the manufactureres will have to spend loads more money to design and develop new 2.4 litre engines. The teams will have to design and develop new manual gearboxes and ancillary systems.
Can't this as a cost cutting measure. Besides the rich team will spend just as much as they are now in developing these systems further. What it will mean though is severe money problems for the teams further down who will have to incure these added expenses which they can't afford then end up with woefully underdeveloped systems that they can't compete at the same level......just like now. Status Quo.
Even though it is also an expensive route my plan would be to stay as it is, but.
Reduce front and rear wings to standardised single element surfaces, limited adjustability.
Re-introduce fat slicks, increase mechanical grip for overtaking, increase drag for slower speeds.
And try to get as many circuits as possible to widen the tarmac in corners to allow overtaking manouveres to be tried. (Anyone ever seen a Champ car race at Cleveland, the first corner is incredibly wide often 4 or 5 a breast though it)
Simple, I only charge a small consultancy fee Max. Payable to C.A.S.H
Can't this as a cost cutting measure. Besides the rich team will spend just as much as they are now in developing these systems further. What it will mean though is severe money problems for the teams further down who will have to incure these added expenses which they can't afford then end up with woefully underdeveloped systems that they can't compete at the same level......just like now. Status Quo.
Even though it is also an expensive route my plan would be to stay as it is, but.
Reduce front and rear wings to standardised single element surfaces, limited adjustability.
Re-introduce fat slicks, increase mechanical grip for overtaking, increase drag for slower speeds.
And try to get as many circuits as possible to widen the tarmac in corners to allow overtaking manouveres to be tried. (Anyone ever seen a Champ car race at Cleveland, the first corner is incredibly wide often 4 or 5 a breast though it)
Simple, I only charge a small consultancy fee Max. Payable to C.A.S.H
I find it quite sad that they are having to make an effort to make a sport more simple
If ALL the new rules are put in then it will almost definetly be better.
But...
The time they're proposing the rules to be put in is the time Michael Shumacher is leaving the sport probably. Which I think is their main problem now, or Ferrari maybe?
If they are going to put these rules in it must be soon, T.V. audiences are dropping rapidly...
If ALL the new rules are put in then it will almost definetly be better.
But...
The time they're proposing the rules to be put in is the time Michael Shumacher is leaving the sport probably. Which I think is their main problem now, or Ferrari maybe?
If they are going to put these rules in it must be soon, T.V. audiences are dropping rapidly...
FourWheelDrift said:
So the manufactureres will have to spend loads more money to design and develop new 2.4 litre engines.
New crank, new cams, ditch two cylinders, voila, a 2.4l V8.
(OK, so maybe there's more to it than that, but I'm sure it's no coincidence that 3.0 * 8 / 10 = 2.4)
Yawn.. same old, same old.
This will never happen because they've all been talking about it for years.
Traction control can't be banned because it can't be policed, similarly most other 'driver aids'. Reducing the engine capacity will make feck all differenece to the racing because everbody will be affected in the same way.
When will they realise that there will never be any serious overtaking whilst every car has a standardised engine, giving out similar power figures, fitted cars with similar drag, downforce and grip!
Why can't some teams have 2.4 V8s and run at a lighter weight? Then you'll have V10 (why not back to V12s?) Ferraris streaking down the long straights and super-lightweight nimble V8 Jordans making it all back up under braking and driving around the outside of bends, only to be gobbled up again on the next straight?
This is what used to happen and it was great!
What we currently have is such restrictive rules to make the cars 'equal in performance' that no car will ever have a great enough advantage in any one area to actually get past another car.
It's all b*llox.
This will never happen because they've all been talking about it for years.
Traction control can't be banned because it can't be policed, similarly most other 'driver aids'. Reducing the engine capacity will make feck all differenece to the racing because everbody will be affected in the same way.
When will they realise that there will never be any serious overtaking whilst every car has a standardised engine, giving out similar power figures, fitted cars with similar drag, downforce and grip!
Why can't some teams have 2.4 V8s and run at a lighter weight? Then you'll have V10 (why not back to V12s?) Ferraris streaking down the long straights and super-lightweight nimble V8 Jordans making it all back up under braking and driving around the outside of bends, only to be gobbled up again on the next straight?
This is what used to happen and it was great!
What we currently have is such restrictive rules to make the cars 'equal in performance' that no car will ever have a great enough advantage in any one area to actually get past another car.
It's all b*llox.
"Slowing cars down" has been behind many rule changes in F1 for decades -
the move from 2.5 litres ti 1.5 litres in 1961
the banning of sliding skirts in 1981
the introduction of flat bottoms in 1983
the various limits on turbo boost pressures in the 80s
the fuel restrictions on turbo cars
the banning of turbo engines from 1989
the cutting of a hole in the air box for 1994
the reduction from 3.5 litres to 3 litres in 1995
the intoduction of narrower grooved tyres in 1997
In fact, many drivers, including Schumacher, are now publicly stating that cars really are too fast.
I agree that a reduction to 2.4 is not that imaginative. I'd love to see engine capacities reduced to 1.5 litres or less. Some of the best racing in F1 was in the 1.5 era from 1961 to 1965.
the move from 2.5 litres ti 1.5 litres in 1961
the banning of sliding skirts in 1981
the introduction of flat bottoms in 1983
the various limits on turbo boost pressures in the 80s
the fuel restrictions on turbo cars
the banning of turbo engines from 1989
the cutting of a hole in the air box for 1994
the reduction from 3.5 litres to 3 litres in 1995
the intoduction of narrower grooved tyres in 1997
In fact, many drivers, including Schumacher, are now publicly stating that cars really are too fast.
I agree that a reduction to 2.4 is not that imaginative. I'd love to see engine capacities reduced to 1.5 litres or less. Some of the best racing in F1 was in the 1.5 era from 1961 to 1965.
Following on from what groomi said, some other race series seem to work fairly well with a limit on power/weight ratio allowing the teams to choose whether to go the lightweight, low power or heavy, huge power routes or somewhere in between.
Plus, as they want to limit the speeds, surely power/weight would achieve that as if you've only (
) got 750bhp/tonne then there's a limit as to how fast it's going to go, no?
Policing it would be difficult, but lets face it, policing anything is becoming ever more difficult. Perhaps test data ought to be made available to the FIA at any request, with the possibility of the FIA turning up unanounced to monitor testing of the cars or bench testing of the engines to check they're not having the wool pulled over their eyes.
Plus, as they want to limit the speeds, surely power/weight would achieve that as if you've only (
) got 750bhp/tonne then there's a limit as to how fast it's going to go, no? Policing it would be difficult, but lets face it, policing anything is becoming ever more difficult. Perhaps test data ought to be made available to the FIA at any request, with the possibility of the FIA turning up unanounced to monitor testing of the cars or bench testing of the engines to check they're not having the wool pulled over their eyes.
LexSport said:And how would the powers that be know the dyno's were accurate? If you want to limit power, then just have all the engines breath through a restictor.
Following on from what groomi said, some other race series seem to work fairly well with a limit on power/weight ratio allowing the teams to choose whether to go the lightweight, low power or heavy, huge power routes or somewhere in between.
Plus, as they want to limit the speeds, surely power/weight would achieve that as if you've only (
Policing it would be difficult, but lets face it, policing anything is becoming ever more difficult. Perhaps test data ought to be made available to the FIA at any request, with the possibility of the FIA turning up unanounced to monitor testing of the cars or bench testing of the engines to check they're not having the wool pulled over their eyes.
Max and Bernie are pathetic!!
All that is really needed is to remove the wings and give them back slicks.
Everytime the wing comes off these cars they are finished, but if everyone has no wings and the body is not in the shape of an upside-down wing then we will see a lot more ACTION, spinning, sliding, hard opposite lock, etc and all at lower speeds (relatively) which is what the FIA "say" they want.
Overtaking would be a lot more fun and we'd see who really has the balls to race!!
Apart from the w*nkers on the road who needs a spoiler on their car ?
Mine does 250kph and has no spoilers (but it is a bit wedge shaped
)
All that is really needed is to remove the wings and give them back slicks.
Everytime the wing comes off these cars they are finished, but if everyone has no wings and the body is not in the shape of an upside-down wing then we will see a lot more ACTION, spinning, sliding, hard opposite lock, etc and all at lower speeds (relatively) which is what the FIA "say" they want.
Overtaking would be a lot more fun and we'd see who really has the balls to race!!
Apart from the w*nkers on the road who needs a spoiler on their car ?
Mine does 250kph and has no spoilers (but it is a bit wedge shaped
) I think wings will stay, mainly due to the sponsorship space available on the car. Perhaps less elements or more rules about the elements or gurney flaps would be the future. Having NO wings would make F1 cars stupid-fast down the straights.
The idea of breathing through the air restrictor could be the way to go, as is having all the cars classed against the same power to weight ratio...but why not combine both of the above ? With air restrictors, FIA would have control over the engine power. As stated previously, teams could then choose what type of engine (V8/V10/V12) to go for; what power and restrictor to go for and what weight to build the car to. Perhaps FIA will use the standard ECU rule, to even up power levels too. I think that the use of a single tyre supplier, will really even things up. A bit like a 'control tyre' rule, really.
I think the engine manufacture's have gained alot out of this. A fifty percent reduction in costs of engines, with all the engine manufactures talking to each other about reducing the costs. That has to be good news for the sport. Also the engine supliers look as if they will get voting powers on relevent changes which is also good for them. Lastly, the possibility of an engine constructers championship is also very interesting for them and us fans.
Regards John S
The idea of breathing through the air restrictor could be the way to go, as is having all the cars classed against the same power to weight ratio...but why not combine both of the above ? With air restrictors, FIA would have control over the engine power. As stated previously, teams could then choose what type of engine (V8/V10/V12) to go for; what power and restrictor to go for and what weight to build the car to. Perhaps FIA will use the standard ECU rule, to even up power levels too. I think that the use of a single tyre supplier, will really even things up. A bit like a 'control tyre' rule, really.
I think the engine manufacture's have gained alot out of this. A fifty percent reduction in costs of engines, with all the engine manufactures talking to each other about reducing the costs. That has to be good news for the sport. Also the engine supliers look as if they will get voting powers on relevent changes which is also good for them. Lastly, the possibility of an engine constructers championship is also very interesting for them and us fans.
Regards John S
Gazboy said:
If that is what you want, watch historic GP racing
As far the w*nkers comment, mine has one on the front, and one on the back, and is also wedge(ish) shaped, and tops 250kph. It also looks very crap without them.
well Gaz, didn't mean to ruffle the feathers but the comment regarding removing the wings for F1 is what most people would want as it would see a return to some PASSING, something the younger brigade may have heard about but never actually seen.
Think of the improvements that would happen to most road cars if the pinnacle of motorsport were forced to think outside the square (wing) for a change, instead of just changing the angle of the wing for different tracks, my God they may have to improve the dynamics of the car instead of just the aerodynamics alone which only come into effect above ridiculously high speeds.
The only reason they will keep the wings is due to advertising.
Road cars do not need wings unless you are travelling on the autobahns on a regular basis or some other unrestricted road system and the last time I drove in the UK the limit was 70mph or has that changed ?
I've always advocated the complete removal of wings. The idea of 800 bhp Formula Ford cars somehow appeals to me. The notion that the wing area is needed for sponsors is pathetic in my opinion.
However, the big problem with the removal of wings would be the effect it has on the design of cars used as the feeder series into F1. Once a young driver has graduated from a series like karting or Formula Ford - wings and the expoitation of downforce becomes an integral part of their craft. Having moved through (say) Formula Renault, Formula Nissan, Formula 3, Formula 3000 and then suddenly find themselves in an 800 bhp wingless monster would be a bit of a shock to the system.
It's no surprise that the best car racing around in the UK - TVR Tuscans and Caterhams, are no downforce series.
However, the big problem with the removal of wings would be the effect it has on the design of cars used as the feeder series into F1. Once a young driver has graduated from a series like karting or Formula Ford - wings and the expoitation of downforce becomes an integral part of their craft. Having moved through (say) Formula Renault, Formula Nissan, Formula 3, Formula 3000 and then suddenly find themselves in an 800 bhp wingless monster would be a bit of a shock to the system.
It's no surprise that the best car racing around in the UK - TVR Tuscans and Caterhams, are no downforce series.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff