FIA will they ever stop ruining the Sport with new rules?

[Metar]

But again - Champcars is highly regulated, and Group Cs were heavy prototypes built 20 years ago.

Formula 1 drivers already experience dizzy-making G-forces at, say, Istanbul. Even if you half the regular downforce, ground-effects are incredibly effective. Already half the downforce in a modern Formula 1 car is generated by a variety of it. I like the idea of ground-effects, and it seems a genuinely fascinating idea for the average physics-nut like me (especially since it's a field last explored over 25 years ago, hence a huge place of ingenuity and improvements) - but Formula 1 teams won't listen to restrictions that easily. Already in the first incarnation of ground-effects, Brabham bypassed the minimum safe rideheight in order to gain a competitive advantage - and I just can't see proper ways to restrict it, unless the FIA uses unified underbodies with standartized suspensions, which aren't adjustable to unsafe heights. And if an FIA member is reading this - don't you dare do this! I want Formula 1, not Champcars 1.

At the same time, I can't see drivers enjoy feeling every single bump on their spine.

 

[Alfaholic]

The regulated nature of Champcars bears no relevance to the effective use of ground effects or their impact on close racing, which is why they were mentioned in the first place.

You then speak about the difficulty in regulating ground effects in F1, suggesting either that the heavy regulations in champcars don't control ground effects, or are not effective in governing them. Either way, you're suggesting more restrictions to improve F1 and saying that Champcars is also highly regulated, then asking the FIA not to make F1 like Champcars!

You also mention regulations as though it goes without saying that they are needed. I agree in so much as a formula would be pointless if there were no guidelines whatsoever to promote a basic template, but you don't have to microregulate every dimension, rate and pressure in the car. there should be no need to regulate "safe ride height", or the level of bumpiness a driver should experience. The designers role is to give the driver a car they can consistently win in. That means a car that they can last a race distance in without passing out from lateral G, a car that doesn't make them a cripple after 6 races by breaking their back, and a car that doesn't try put the driver in orbit every second corner. Besides, the only reason ground effects cars had such hard suspension in the first place is because the FIA banned sliding skirts and aerodynamics acting on unsprung mass.

It should be up to the designers to supply the driver with the best tools to complete the job, and then up to the FIA to say that the particular tool is dangerous and will not be allowed to compete. They don't need to control every inch, rate and pressure in the car to do this.

 

[Metar]

You missed my point. I said it needs regulations - only if ground-effects are brought back.

You mention it's the team's job to built a safe, reliable race-distance car. But how long until a team decides that a bigger risk is worthy? Until a backmarker dumps the rideheight a little more, ups the ante, and promptly kills a driver over a crest? Or makes him retire to a hospital after a single season?

One could say that teams should built safe cars. But when the points aren't coming, you turn desperate. That's what brought us X-wings. Or dangerous contraptions.

 

[Alfaholic]

Not quite. I said it's in the team's best interest to build safe cars on the premise that killing or maiming your driver does not benefit your championship. It's up to the FIA to decide if a car is too dangerous to be allowed to compete, but they don't need millions of regulations to do that.

I also disagreed with your point that regulations are neccessary in the presence of ground effects specifically when disagreeing with the current widespread use of regulations in general.

Driver deaths have been reduced by improvements in circuit protection and car passive safety features far more than they have been reduced by slowing the cars down.

 

[Metar]

So a team needs to bring 4-5 cars to each race, hoping one or two will be allowed? Of course, after sufficient testing proved their lack of safety?

I agree that some restrictions need to be lifted, but at the same time, new things allowed require new regulations. Because yes - a wing on the suspension is dangerous, no matter how solidly built.

At the same time, a car touching the floor is very dangerous - having those means street-circuits, or fast, bumpy corners such as Eau Rouge will need to be scrapped. You've seen what happened at Tamborello - even though Ayrton's death was just bad luck (the wheel stuck his head after impact, which doesn't happen nowadays with tethers). One scrape, zero ground-effects for a moment, and you're out. Or, as in modern F1, one moment and you're safely cruising a runoff. Which, if I recall correctly, was also something you didn't like.

 

[Blake]

One scrape, zero ground-effects for a moment, and you're out. Or, as in modern F1, one moment and you're safely cruising a runoff. Which, if I recall correctly, was also something you didn't like.

That’s a problem with all cars, though. As soon as the floor touches the ground the tyres become unloaded and you’re in a spot of trouble.

 

[Metar]

But that didn't happen this year, apart from the Nurburgring - which really was a different matter.

With the plank, teams won't consider having too low a rideheight, because assuming they don't crash when the tyres are unloaded, they will be disqualified. On a ground-effects car, you can't have a plank, or any other way to set a minimum rideheight.

 

[Alfaholic]

So a team needs to bring 4-5 cars to each race, hoping one or two will be allowed? Of course, after sufficient testing proved their lack of safety?

I agree that some restrictions need to be lifted, but at the same time, new things allowed require new regulations. Because yes - a wing on the suspension is dangerous, no matter how solidly built.

At the same time, a car touching the floor is very dangerous - having those means street-circuits, or fast, bumpy corners such as Eau Rouge will need to be scrapped. You've seen what happened at Tamborello - even though Ayrton's death was just bad luck (the wheel stuck his head after impact, which doesn't happen nowadays with tethers). One scrape, zero ground-effects for a moment, and you're out. Or, as in modern F1, one moment and you're safely cruising a runoff. Which, if I recall correctly, was also something you didn't like.

I never said the car has to be declared safe at the race only. That would be a restriction. Nothing's stopping the teams, even now, from checking the legality / safety of new parts with the FIA while it's still even on the drawing board, if they really want to. Then, normal scrutineering, with the power to throw a car out of the race, can be enforced at the race as it is now. Cars get banned after a race or whatever right now if the FIA don't like the new part, so I don't see any difference from the team's point of view.

There's already a restriction banning wings from being attached to unsprung parts of the car, so a new restriction would not be needed for that.

Tamburello was a badly designed corner. I was surprised after Burger's accident there that there was still an exposed concrete wall available for Senna, or anyone else to crash into. Two marshalls have been killed by loose GP wheels since tethers were introduced.

Fast bumpy corners would not need to be scrapped. Any designer who enters a car that cannot negotiate all the corners on the track without crashing needs to be replaced.

I don't remember saying anything about not liking runoffs. Personally I've got no problem with tarmac runoff. If you want to enter that into the equation, start a new thread or dig up the old one containing my views on runoff if you wish to challenge them.

Ground effects aren't the big evil in motor racing. With enough imagination, an engineer can make any aerodynamic aspect of the car dangerous. The new restrictions on testing new aero bits actually encourages teams to put untested or minimally tested aero bits on their race cars for Sunday's event.

What are the chances of someone introducing a new nose that produces positive lift when the wing gets knocked off, and the driver finding out about this at the end of the next straight when he realises he can't brake for the corner because his front wheels aren't touching the ground? I'd say about the same as Michelin providing a tyre to its teams that can't last a race. Or a ground effects car being unable to negotiate Eau Rouge because someone's got their calculations wrong and set the ride height half a cm too low. When ground effects first arrived on the scene, people had crazy crashes because so much testing was done in the car. People didn't know if the new part would work or not. They didn't have the money or equipment to find out. Now, a new part's performance is checked on a computer before it's even manufactured. Then it's checked again and again, before it gets anywhere near the car. Mistakes are still made, but reducing testing time is hardly going to make things safer.

 

[Metar]

I've been beaten, your arguments seem unbreakable to me. Even though I prefer the visibility of a wing to some invisible force below the car

Two marshalls have been killed by loose GP wheels since tethers were introduced.

Might be, but many more would've been killed without it. Including a certain Finn who recently became world champion - in his Monza visit to the wall, a wheel came charging right at him, but was stopped by the tethers.

 

[Alfaholic]

I've been beaten, your arguments seem unbreakable to me. Even though I prefer the visibility of a wing to some invisible force below the car .

That's a pity, I was looking forward to reading your view about the new restriction on aerodynamic testing possibly making the sport more dangerous.

Might be, but many more would've been killed without it. Including a certain Finn who recently became world champion - in his Monza visit to the wall, a wheel came charging right at him, but was stopped by the tethers.

I'm not even sure about that. Don't get me wrong. I'd never try to argue that a wheel attached to a car is on average less safe than a wheel that breaks free, and yet, apart from Senna's accident, I can't think of any pre - tether crashes where driver fatality was put squarely on the blame of a wheel detaching from the car... even when the detached wheel itself was the cause of the accident. So I'm not so sure loose wheels were ever a huge problem. Probably just bad memory on my part. The only thing I can remember about loose wheels from the old days are Mansell's pitstop and that Kenny Rogers song (You picked a Fine Time to Leave me Loose Wheel). On the other hand, cars being launched into the air when their front wheel rode up the rear wheel of the car in front has been an infrequent but repeating danger in F1 since forever, and ruined the careers / lives of Pironi and Gilles, yet nothing seems to have been done to reduce the chance of this happening, as far as I know.

As I said, I'm not saying tethers should be discarded. I wouldn't attempt to argue their potential to save lives. I'm just making a curious observation. Also, when I think of tethers, I remember reading of an isolated incident in '89 or '90 when a driver - I forget who - went off the circuit and ended up sliding along a concrete barrier. The front wheel's tyre got removed at some point before or during the accident, the wheel folded back and got trapped between the car and the wall. It kept rotating, or was forced to rotate, by the relative motion of the car and was being pressed against the side of the cockpit. Its rims acted rather like a buzzsaw and cut through the side of the monocoque, creating the first F1 car with a door. The driver was not injured by the wheel. I also remember Raikkonen's suspension failure in the McLaren in the season when no tyre changes were allowed during the race. The suspension collapsed, and instead of bouncing clear of the car (and perhaps into the pits and wiping out 12 mechanics), the tethered wheel bounced on the nose of the car then got whipped around under the nose, lifting the front of the car off the ground and possibly robbing Kimi of any braking effect he may have enjoyed from the other front wheel. Which was probably none anyway.

A tether would have saved Senna though. No doubt about that.

I think at this point I've gone irritrievably off topic....

 

[CAMikaze]

The only thing I can remember about loose wheels from the old days are Mansell's pitstop and that Kenny Rogers song (You picked a Fine Time to Leave me Loose Wheel).

Also, when I think of tethers, I remember reading of an isolated incident in '89 or '90 when a driver - I forget who - went off the circuit and ended up sliding along a concrete barrier. The front wheel's tyre got removed at some point before or during the accident, the wheel folded back and got trapped between the car and the wall. It kept rotating, or was forced to rotate, by the relative motion of the car and was being pressed against the side of the cockpit. Its rims acted rather like a buzzsaw and cut through the side of the monocoque, creating the first F1 car with a door. The driver was not injured by the wheel.

That sounds like something out of a old-styled cartoon show. At least the driver wasn't hurt.

I also remember Raikkonen's suspension failure in the McLaren in the season when no tyre changes were allowed during the race. The suspension collapsed, and instead of bouncing clear of the car (and perhaps into the pits and wiping out 12 mechanics), the tethered wheel bounced on the nose of the car then got whipped around under the nose, lifting the front of the car off the ground and possibly robbing Kimi of any braking effect he may have enjoyed from the other front wheel. Which was probably none anyway.

Yeah, that no tire change rule was a really bad idea back then.👎 And IIRC, that incident happened on the final lap when the tire was losing pressure and eventually blew up braking the suspension bars. Oh, what would have been if the tire did not blow up...

 

[mipuumal]

Yeah, that no tire change rule was a really bad idea back then.👎 And IIRC, that incident happened on the final lap when the tire was losing pressure and eventually blew up braking the suspension bars. Oh, what would have been if the tire did not blow up...

It didn't blow up, Kimi had flatspotted it during the race and it was creating unbelievable vibrations. Under braking for the first corner of the last lap the suspension finally broke.

Thank goodness that memory has been surpassed by another much happier one.

 

[CAMikaze]

It didn't blow up, Kimi had flatspotted it during the race and it was creating unbelievable vibrations. Under braking for the first corner of the last lap the suspension finally broke.

Thank goodness that memory has been surpassed by another much happier one.

Ah, now you tell me. My bad...

 

[Metar]

new restriction on aerodynamic testing possibly making the sport more dangerous.

As you said, FIA can ban it. X-Wings FTL!

I've just thought of a problem with these regulations. Together with those prohibiting major changes in the car, it means this:
Top teams, who are already fast, will keep finding small changes that add a little bit of time. Meanwhile, slower teams who found improvements, can't use them because they're a radical change. I don't know exactly how it works, but that's my theory.

 

[Alfaholic]

Two good points. 👍

 

[Appie]

sorry for bumping the thread, but i saw this

Engine freeze shortened to five years

By Jonathan Noble Sunday, January 13th 2008, 14:10 GMT

Formula One teams have agreed to shorten the freeze on engine development to five years and are actively considering further radical plans like budget capping, autosport.com has learned.

Moreover, the teams have accepted calls from the FIA to further cut costs in Formula One as soon as possible.

The FIA called a meeting with team principals in Paris on Friday to discuss a host of ideas, including a reduction in wind tunnel and computer use, after feeling that more needed to be done to bring down the budgets needed to compete in F1.

And although the more radical plans, like wind tunnel bans, were not accepted by the teams as being the best way forward, major progress was made in making them accept that something needed to be done.

One source told autosport.com: "It was a very positive and productive meeting."

The teams agreed to shorten the current 10-year freeze on engine development down to five years, with the FIA to start work on a new engine concept that will be ready for the start of 2013.

It is understood this new engine will aim to be more environmentally friendly and more cost-efficient than the current 2.4-litre V8 power unit, with provisional engine regulations due to be presented to the teams within the next two years.

As well as agreeing on that point, the teams agreed unanimously that cost reductions were needed as soon as possible, although there was no consensus on how this should be achieved.

A majority of teams felt that a renewed impetus for budget caps would be the best way forwards, but Ferrari felt that there were better solutions. One suggestion was for the cap, which would exclude engine development, to be set at around the £80 million mark.

The latest push for budget caps was first revealed by autosport.com at the end of last year, when Honda Racing's Ross Brawn and Nick Fry said they felt it was the best way forward.

"Ross and I both think that an overall budget cap is something that should be seriously investigated," Fry told autosport.com in December. "What we see at the moment, if you look at the accounts of any of the UK F1 teams, is that the costs keep going up.

"So far what we have been successfully doing is moving money from one area of the team to another. Money is certainly moved from engines to aerodynamics, because that is the next best area of performance advantage.

"We support a lot of the proposals on the aero restrictions, but the fear is that that money will merely be diverted elsewhere. It will go to driver salaries or engineer salaries, or some other part of the car, but will not necessarily reduce the total bill that a team has to pay.

"So rather than chasing our tails, we think we should be considering an overall budget cap. Although it will be difficult to monitor, we think it can be achieved."

Source: Autosport

 

[m7ammed]

at last something that makes sense 10 years was too long , and glad they didn't got for the wind tunnel thing , I would love to see the budget cap thing happen as it can level the playing field a bit and it would be exciting to see what each team would do with the same amount of money

 

[peterjford]

I don't know about a budget cap. I would like to see more teams be competative, but I also like that Formula 1 is the pinnacle of motorsports technology. Seem that with a budget cap you could start limiting them more than the rules currently do. I enjoy seeing the new innovative ways teams come up with to improve performance without breaking (although many times bending) the rules. Just seems the with a budget cap it wouldn't be Formula 1 anymore, it would be Formula 80,000,000. Maybe I am just getting old and cynical.

 

[Danoff]

Budget Cap: 👎
Sticking with engine freeze: 👎
1 tire manufacturer: 👎
Overall goal to cut costs: 👎

 

[Omnis]

Ferrari favors cost-cutting over a budget cap because they have the most money to put into development to meet the requirements.

In other words, cost cutting stuff really only helps brand-spanking new teams and big money teams.

 

[Metar]

Actually, in this case Ferrari is the big profiteer - they have a single, state-of-the-art wind-tunnel, while teams like Renault and BMW Sauber have two or more...

 

[Omnis]

Actually, in this case Ferrari is the big profiteer - they have a single, state-of-the-art wind-tunnel, while teams like Renault and BMW Sauber have two or more...

That's what I mean.