FIA Decisions - no single tyre till 2008 and ban in Bling (merged)

[Inigo Montoya]

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...300305-02.html

The Technical Regulations will remain unchanged for 2005, 2006 and 2007. However, a proposal for change, unanimously supported by the Teams, would be considered by the WMSC. The current rule which places no limit on the number of tyre manufactures competing in the Championship would still remain in force at least until 2008.


So, stability in the rules, and no control tyres... I am a bit disappointed, as this will surely drag out the testing limit disagreements....

[Kicking-back]

Without unanimous approval of the teams, it wasn't in a position to do anything else.

[Inigo Montoya]

Approved the adoption of new international anti-doping regulations in line with the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code. Decisions made under the Regulations may be appealed and all appeals would be ultimately heard by the FIA Court of Appeal.

Approved an immediate ban on the wearing of jewellery (body piercing and heavy chains) by race and rally competitors.


Missed that bit about anti-doping, and not wearing jewellery (!). Guess they are trying to improve their image

[Kicking-back]

The jewellery thing is a safety issue - and I'm surprised it's not been addressed before now

[Pingguest]

Fine. A control tyre would not improve racing any way.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Fine. A control tyre would not improve racing any way.

It would if it was accompanied by a massive reduction in downforce.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

The jewellery thing is a safety issue - and I'm surprised it's not been addressed before now

I was just kidding KB

[Logrence]

Michael will have to take his belly ring out then?

Surely the FIA could get a control tyre rule through on safety reasons? This ubiquitous safety rule seems to be carte blanche for everything else.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by The Monster

It would if it was accompanied by a massive reduction in downforce.

Even then it wouldn't. But don't forget: Formula 1 should be the pennacle of motor racing. Any kind of standardisation would harm the sport.

[Kicking-back]

So how do you think the rules should go to maintain that "pennacle" [sic]?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Even then it wouldn't. But don't forget: Formula 1 should be the pennacle of motor racing. Any kind of standardisation would harm the sport.

At the moment being the pinnacle of motorsport as more to do with the amount of money that F1 has, and very little to do with what actually happens on the track.

If pinnacle means fastest then why aren't Champ cars in a hurry to turn their boost up,by far the easiest way for them to bring their performance level up to that of F1.And all standardized too.

Champ cars (and other series) are at least trying to sell racing ,whereas F1 has backed itself up a technlogical cul-de-sac.Where only the best is available to the richest.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

whereas F1 has backed itself up a technlogical cul-de-sac.Where only the best is available to the richest.

Hello, FIA GT 1997 / 1998???

Pingguest, who ever said reducing downforce should mean standard parts, I never stated that.
Even then, why would having less downforce be dumbing down?

Reducing downforce could be achieved quite easily and cheaply, but it seems the FIA and the teams never seem to address the issue.

[TomS]

Reducing downforce can only happen to a point for F1 to remain at the top...and by that in my opinion it has to be the most techinically advanced and pretty much the fastest thing around....after all what would be the point if GP2 ended up quicker. Standard parts are only the way to go for things that dont have a huge performance input. Standard aerodynamics would be bad IMO because that is one of the largest factors governing whether or not a car is quick and so would spoil the competition between teams

[Dixie Flatline]

The argument has been made that by going onto a control tyre, the teams will save costs because they won't need to run test sessions simply to feed data back to the comepting tyre manufacturers. Stoddart was all in favour of going to a single tyre manufacturer, and I believe one of the other teams also supported that proposal, but I could be mistaken (need to check the facts, really - but I'm at work and they're at home).

Standard rear wings were also considered by the team directors as part of the meetings of the Technical Working Group, but simulations run by Ferrari, Renault and I think Williams suggested that the benefit of going to standard rear wings would be wiped out by the need to re-design a lot of the car's remaining aerodynamics.

[Adam43]

Surely F1 is about the different cars too, any standardisation would lead to a dumbing down of this particular pinnacleness (good word ). In addition standard part do not always lead to good racing. More competitive, yes, but more overtaking no. The notable exception being high drag high downforce wings on ovals allowing many lines and slip straming - although that isn't always successful.

I feel that as much as possible should be free for teams. Tyres included.

It is jsut a shame that we perhaps will never see the likes of a Lotus 79 (insert other cars here) nowadays - although, of course, that was to the detriment of racing. The good old days.

[Kicking-back]

The point about GP2 ending up quicker is a red herring - as FIA sanctioned series, if F1 ended up being radically different to what it is now, GP2, and probably F3, would change to reflect that.

[Adam43]

In addition my previous musings. There are already plenty of series with standardisations and control parts. So why do we need to make another series like this? Of course you all watch CART, IRL, F3000, etc... (I do and enjoy it, but I wouldn't want another like them).

Just standardising one part is perhaps not as far as the above, but chosing one of the most important parts perhaps is a big leap. Obviously there are already some controls already in existence, but there is a balance and I think as many as possible should remain. If costs need to be reduced then do it so it is diminishing returns to spend more and remember Michelin and Bridgestone seem quite happy to spend at the moment (to return to the specific thread topic). If one of them isn't then they will leave and we will have a control supply anyway. So what we have is a situation where if both are happy to spend then they will, when one isn't they will leave and then we will have a single supplier!

[BootsOntheSide]

F3000 techncial specifications were always fixed for 3 years, and I asume GP2 does the same - remember that teams in junior championships run on much smaller budgets and can't afford to get to grips with completely new cars every year. Even then, it would take massive changes for GP2 cars to be as fast as F1 - the slowest F1 car would be comfortably on pole in GP2 as things stand.

I think control tyres would be a good idea, as it would make the racing much more even (none of the races where one tyre has a 2-second advantage, thus rendering teams on the other tyre as uncompetitive), but ti would also cut testing, and make it much easier to set a testing restriction every team considers to be fair.

As well as being a single supplier, the tyres should be off-the-shelf, with no specific customisation for each team allowed. The tyres for the enxt eyar must be ready well in advance of the next seaosn, so that teams can design their car around them. Keeping the current amount of different compounds and allowing a choice before qualifying would probably still be the right way to go.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

At the moment being the pinnacle of motorsport as more to do with the amount of money that F1 has, and very little to do with what actually happens on the track.

If pinnacle means fastest then why aren't Champ cars in a hurry to turn their boost up,by far the easiest way for them to bring their performance level up to that of F1.And all standardized too.

Champ cars (and other series) are at least trying to sell racing ,whereas F1 has backed itself up a technlogical cul-de-sac.Where only the best is available to the richest.

Being the pennacle of motor racing is not based on money or speed, but a combination of the best drivers, special cars, high technology and other smart people. If Formula 1 continues with it's current policy, manufactors and fans will lose their interest.

[Kicking-back]

The 1992 cars were the highest ever tech.

F1 is more popular now than then.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

The 1992 cars were the highest ever tech.

F1 is more popular now than then.

Just read what I wrote:

Being the pennacle of motor racing is not based on money or speed, but a combination of the best drivers, special cars, high technology and other smart people.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by The Monster

It would if it was accompanied by a massive reduction in downforce.

Reducing downforce is very difficult. Of course, measures to reduce downforce could have an effect for one or two years. But after that, teams will have found the lost amount of downforce.

A better way make overtaking easier, is just to create a more different way of downforce, like flat bottoms and the abolition of the obligated wooden board.

[Kicking-back]

But the reasons for introducing stepped-flat bottoms, with the board, are just as valid now as they were then/

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

But the reasons for introducing stepped-flat bottoms, with the board, are just as valid now as they were then/

There were other, better fitting solutions to slow down the cars.

[Kicking-back]

It wasn't about slowing down the cars as such.

Running extremely low ride heights as they were doing, is very safety-critical - the plank put a stop to it.