F1 Silly Season 2009!

[skimonkey30]

oh and nice job slowing the cars down Max

[sperry]

My big worry for Brawn is that they're doing something the FIA will consider illegal that the other teams aren't trying.

[skimonkey30]

Originally Posted by sperry

My big worry for Brawn is that they're doing something the FIA will consider illegal that the other teams aren't trying.

brawn himself is known to push the limits

[skimonkey30]

maybe brawn GP isnt carrying enough ballast??

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...13090301.shtml

The cynics are not now wondering if the BGP001 is fuelled light, but how much below the mandatory 605kg minimum weight it is circulating.

Up and down the pitlane, however, the message is clear: if Brawn is running representative fuel and a legal weight, the car is the runaway favourite to win in Australia.

[Nick Koan]

Most wins will take the championship this year.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...-championship/

Consistency will remain vital, as points will decide the title in the event of any number of drivers scoring the same amount of race wins.

The scoring system remains the same with 10 points for a win, 8 for second position, 6 for third and 5-4-3-2-1 down to eighth place; the number of points will still decide any position in the standings other than first. The Constructors' championship will remain the same, and will once again by decided by points only.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Nick Koan

Most wins will take the championship this year.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...-championship/

Dumb.

Maybe it's my love of endurance sports car racing, but IMO it's way more impressive to finish on the podium all season long than to have 5 wins and 12 DNFs and be the champion.

But at least this bodes well for Massa's win it or bin it driving style.

[Dean]

Anybody know if second event engines actually failed more last year than first event engines? I wonder if taking the penalty and getting off sequence early might have a benefit?

[Nick Koan]

Originally Posted by Dean

Anybody know if second event engines actually failed more last year than first event engines? I wonder if taking the penalty and getting off sequence early might have a benefit?

Actually, I believe they changed those rules for this year. You get 8 engines for all 17 races this year, and you can blow up the first 7 and run the next 10 races on the same motor (in theory) without penalty.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Nick Koan

Most wins will take the championship this year.

I think this is awesome news. Drivers will be going for the win now, instead of just being happy finishing with points.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeK

I think this is awesome news. Drivers will be going for the win now, instead of just being happy finishing with points.

So what you're saying is... be alone in 3rd so when the first two cars wreck each other out with dumb passing attempts late in the race, you get the win?

Forced passes in open wheel cars rarely end well. I expect plenty of shenanigans. Which wouldn't be a huge deal except you know the FIA will penalize the drivers inconsistantly all season long for risky driving. Oh look Hamilton gets a 10 grid spot penalty, but Massa gets off scot-free, but Vettel gets docked 25 seconds, but Kubica loses 2 championship points... etc.

[Dean]

I have to agree with Scott. Season championships should not be primarily based on victories. Consistency over time with maybe a small bonus for wins is far better IMHO.

[sperry]

They could have just made wins worth 12 or 14 points instead of 10 and left the rest of the points schedule alone for the same effect w/o tipping the advantage to the driver who's willing to risk crashing out someone else on the last lap looking for a win.

[Nick Koan]

That was one of the proposals. 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 or something if I recall correctly.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by sperry

Forced passes in open wheel cars rarely end well.

They rarely end well for the drivers. But they usually end fantastically for the spectators!

[Nick Koan]

And now for 2010, optional budget caps!

http://www.crash.net/formula+one/new...from_2010.html

Important points bolded.

There will be an 'option' for Formula 1 teams to adhere to a strict budget cap of £30 million as of next year – but no official requirement for them to do so, the FIA has announced following the World Motor Sport Council reunion in Paris today (Tuesday).

The meeting came to a number of decisions regarding cost-cutting within the top flight over the coming years, but the overall outcome did not go so far as to actually enforce what equates to as much as a 90 per cent reduction in teams' spending – a move that had previously been proposed.

As it is, teams can choose to slash their expenditure by that much should they so desire, and in an effort to sweeten the deal, those that do will be granted incentives in the form of greater technical freedoms – a more aerodynamically efficient (but standard) under body, movable wings and an engine which is not subject to a rev limit or a development freeze – than those teams still running to full budget.

'As an alternative to running under the existing rules, which are to remain stable until 2012 (when the current governing Concorde Agreement expires), all teams will have the option to compete with cars built and operated within a stringent cost cap,' read an official FIA statement.

'The cost cap is £30 million (currently approximately €33 million or $42 million). This figure will cover all expenditure of any kind. Anything subsidised or supplied free will be deemed to have cost its full commercial value, and rigorous auditing procedures will apply.

'To enable these cars to compete with those from teams which are not subject to cost constraints, the cost-capped cars will be allowed greater technical freedom. The FIA has the right to adjust elements of these freedoms to ensure that the cost-capped cars have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage when compared to cars running to the existing rules.'

The theory behind the new rules is that those competitors that choose not to limit their expenditure to £30 million will be disadvantaged technically and so will eventually comply, whilst the budget cap is also intended as a method by which to attract new teams to the sport in an age in which keeping costs down is absolutely key.

[sperry]

Right...

What's the point of that? To keep the small guys in the hunt?

This reeks of SCCA street-tire factor. The FIA's gonna have to constantly manipulate the rules so the cheaper teams' cars are competitive w/ the spendy teams' cars. Which will negate the spendy teams from bothering to develop any cutting edge technology, and turns F1 into a spec-car series, which none of the big manufacturers and sponsors are going to care about competing in.

I think FIA's taking pages out of NASCAR's playbook too often. Spec cars and spending caps are terrible ideas when the series is pretty much all about advanced technology.

[Dean]

I don't know about the advanced technology argument anymore with standard ECUs, no ABS, no traction control, no launch control, aero limitations, legacy fuel and engines with little practical application.

I am not saying they are not innovating, just that they are not the leaders they used to be. In some ways, ALMS and similar series are doing more in that area.

F1 has to decide what they are. To be the premier series, you have to let builders build premier technology, not just engineer solutions to the nth degree of stifling regulations.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

I don't know about the advanced technology argument anymore with standard ECUs, no ABS, no traction control, no launch control, aero limitations, legacy fuel and engines with little practical application.

I am not saying they are not innovating, just that they are not the leaders they used to be. In some ways, ALMS and similar series are doing more in that area.

F1 has to decide what they are. To be the premier series, you have to let builders build premier technology, not just engineer solutions to the nth degree of stifling regulations.

To that end, here's what F1 should really do:

1) Mandatory spending limit at say, 100M euros per season.

2) Fixed fuel load per race weekend. You get X liters of fuel to drive Y miles. It doesn't have to be in the car the whole time, so you can refuel, but you only have so much for the whole race distance. The fuel type is open, but based on energy density, everyone starts the weekend with the same amount of potential energy.

3) Raise the min weight of the cars to 800kg. Heavier cars mean less need for exotic materials (thus allowing more creative design w/o running into the spending cap) as well as results in drivetrain technology more directly applicable to real world cars.

4) Car design rules: single seater, open cockpit, no fenders, one allowable primary aerodynamic device on the front of the car, one primary aerodynamic device on the rear of the car. All engine/tranny layouts and types are allowed, active aero is allowed, active suspension is allowed, driver aides are allowed... basically anything goes, the limiting factor is keeping design/manufacturing cost under the spending cap and being able to finish the race on the allocated fuel.

5) Unlimited testing, but testing costs apply to the spending cap.

6) Long weekend schedules: give the fans lots of time to see the cars... 4 hours testing on Friday, 2 hours of practice on Saturday, 2 hours of Qualifying on Saturday, 2 hours of racing on Sunday.

7) Bring back the practice cars and Friday drivers... if we're giving teams more track time, let's have more cars out there to make the time useful to the teams as *free* track time that they don't have to pay for under the cap.

8 ) Once car per race, per driver, one backup testing car. So three cars go to every race per team. You crash a car, blow a motor, etc during the weekend and can't fix it, that's a DNF/DNS. No spare motor swaps, no tranny swaps, etc... but also, no 10 point penalty for switching a motor the next race, and no artificial limits that span multiple races. Three cars for the weekend, with two of them starting the race... (which does imply the T car can be cannibalized for parts if one of the primary cars breaks).

The bottom line is, I would love to see some high tech cars with all sorts of variation out there. Put a turbo flat 4 diesel up against a E85 V6 with a flywheel based KERS up against a jet-turbine that has a fully electric AWD drivetrain. Let see some crazy active aero that means the following car can make downforce while in the slipstream, then attempt to clean up as they try for the pass, only to be blocked because the lead car goes from their 400hp economy engine map to their 1200hp power engine map to keep from getting passed, only to run out of their fuel allocation with 2 laps to go.

Instead of clamping down more and more on the tech rules, just limit everything by forcing the teams to be efficient, both in their fuel consumption and in their spending. Then, when the cars start to get "too fast", just dial back the fuel allocation by 10%, and the teams will instantly be 10% slower until they can build something 10% more efficient. If the economy means teams will go out of business due to spending so much to stay competitive, then the FIA can just dial back the spending cap.

It's a hell of a lot better than crap like spec ECUs, or spec undertrays, etc, and it gets F1 back to being the premier showcase for technical innovation.

[Dean]

I'm right there with you...

What is funny is that I had 2 sentences about a series with an energy (erg, BTU, calorie...) budget and a $ budget and not much else but wasn't sure that should be F1 and deleted it from my lat post.

I'd like to see the energy or both budgets drop each year by some percent.

Not sure about restricting aero at either end, or fenders. Tires in open air is so 1950s.


800KG is OK, but 900KG or 1 ton might be even better for a minimum.

I'd be tempted to make the rule that Aero is open, but you can't replace it if it fails or gets damaged. This also deters some of the the delicate exotic materials and things hanging off the ends of cars out in harms way.

Heck, I might even support "bumpers" from 6-10" off the ground. Not trying to turn them into stock cars, but I am a bit sick of all the shrapnel strewn all over the course on any contact.

[MikeK]

New graphics and data coming to the TV coverage this year:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73763
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73568

[sperry]

Engage drama mode!

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...ot-be-changed/

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

Engage drama mode!

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...ot-be-changed/

She' already at 110% Cap'n! She can't give any more drama!

[Nick Koan]

"But you said it was okay!?!"

http://www.crash.net/formula+one/new...ts_change.html

“On 17 March, the FIA World Motor Sport Council unanimously rejected FOTA's proposed amendment to the points system for the Formula One Drivers' Championship,” the FIA statement read. “The 'winner takes all' proposal made by the commercial rights holder (who had been told that the teams were in favour) was then approved.

“If, for any reason, the Formula One teams do not now agree with the new system, its implementation will be deferred until 2010.”

[Nick Koan]

http://www.f1technical.net/news/11905

Brawn GP gets its first major sponsor... with the Virgin Group (which was rumored to be interested in the ex-Honda team too).

[Nick Koan]

BBC has this awesome circuit map thing up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/moto...efault.stm#top