FIA invites teams to suggest 2011 rules

[Dave B]

The FIA have released a document suggesting that from 2011 costs should be reduced, and that teams should make their complete drivetrains (complete with KERS) avaiable to independent teams at a "reasonable" cost. Funny how they don't want customer cars, but...

Also they propose a 20% increase in fuel efficience, increasing to 50% by 2015. Sounds expensive...

They would "not exclude the possibility of flexible aerodynamics".

The document can be found here: http://www.fia.com/public/new_2011_rules.pdf

The accompanying letter (http://www.fia.com/public/mm_letter_030708.pdf) basically gives the teams three months to come up with proposals, otherwise the FIA will impose its own rules.

Discuss, as they say.

[Mark]

I wonder if we will see a return to limited fuel. That was widely discredited at the time.

[DezinerPaul]

The FIA have released a document suggesting that from 2011 costs should be reduced, and that teams should make their complete drivetrains (complete with KERS) avaiable to independent teams at a "reasonable" cost. Funny how they don't want customer cars, but...

Also they propose a 20% increase in fuel efficience, increasing to 50% by 2015. Sounds expensive...

They would "not exclude the possibility of flexible aerodynamics".

The document can be found here: http://www.fia.com/public/new_2011_rules.pdf

The accompanying letter (http://www.fia.com/public/mm_letter_030708.pdf) basically gives the teams three months to come up with proposals, otherwise the FIA will impose its own rules.

Discuss, as they say.

90 days, that means they are not interested in what the teams say, otherwise they would have given them enough time to present some proper proposals!

[cosmicpanda]

90 days, that means they are not interested in what the teams say, otherwise they would have given them enough time to present some proper proposals!

I doubt that the teams haven't been considering such ideas in advance. If they haven't given some thought to the future they're fools.

[Robinho]

at least they are offering the teams an opportunity to shape the rules, even if they won't remotely agree with each other and probably won't have time to put a full proposal together -that said the teams must have plenty of ideas where things should be headed, and if they have half a brain between them, it would make sense for them to lock themselves in a room together and see if they can come up with a few ideas they all like.

i think fuel limits could work well, the sport needs to be seen to be promoting efficiency and it could lead to some different approaches to a common goal, plus IMO it has added a certain something to Moto GP.

[ioan]

90 days, that means they are not interested in what the teams say, otherwise they would have given them enough time to present some proper proposals!

90 days is more than enough time to come up with good proposals.

However the teams have a history of not being able to agree on anything, this is the real problem they have. The stubbornness of some teams to always pull against the main stream is well known.

So let's not start criticizing the FIA for giving them, again, the chance to have the rules they would like to have.

[ArrowsFA1]

This is slightly different to Max's normal tactic, which is to suggest something deliberately controversial/impractical (i.e. F2), challenge those involved to come up with their own ideas, and we normally end up with something completely different to any of the suggestions in the end!

Is F1 really unsustainable? Is the number of people employed by the teams any of the FIA's concern? Isn't it for the manufacturers to decide whether their spend on F1 is acceptable or not? Has KERS really led sponsors to stay in the sport?

[Mark]

Tjhe FIA *does* need to worry about sustainability. There has been situations many times in other motorsports such as BTCC and WRC where costs have escalated to such an extent that the majority of manufacturers decide to quit the sport as its no longer value for money. This leaves the sport all the weaker for the lack of competition and makes the remaining manufacturers even less likely to stick around.

[ioan]

Is F1 really unsustainable? Is the number of people employed by the teams any of the FIA's concern? Isn't it for the manufacturers to decide whether their spend on F1 is acceptable or not?

Yes it's the FIA's concern. Let's face it world's economy is going through a rough patch, a very rough one. Manufacturers will ditch their F1 efforts in a fraction of a second if it will please their shareholders. Having costs down to about half of the current level would help a lot in keeping the existing teams and improving the chances for new teams to join.



Has KERS really led sponsors to stay in the sport?

Sponsors wouldn't care if the cars were powered with the Flinstones method as long as the TV exposure is at the highest level.

[ArrowsFA1]

Manufacturers will ditch their F1 efforts in a fraction of a second if it will please their shareholders.
But that's always been the case. Nothing new there.

[ioan]

But that's always been the case. Nothing new there.

Why did you ask then?! :confused:

[Knock-on]

Making a car availiable for £160,000 is a bit unrealistic.

Also, looking at a spec engine is a thinly veiled threat to the Manufacturers to do Max's bidding or he will flick them off.

Worrying.

[ArrowsFA1]

Why did you ask then?! :confused:
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to my question about the manufacturers deciding whether their spend on F1 is acceptable or not, rather than the FIA deciding for them?

You made the point about the world's economy going through a rough patch, and that's certainly true, but ever since sponsors and manufacturers have been involved in F1 that involvement has been dictated by their interests. They may only want to be involved short term to promote a product, or they may have longer term interests in terms of being seen going head to head against their competitors, but they, not the FIA, determine their committment.

An exception may be something like tobacco sponsorship which was affected by factors outside F1.

[Dave B]

Making a car availiable for £160,000 is a bit unrealistic.


Not a whole car, just the drive train. The expensive bit! :p

[Dave B]

Did anybody pick up on this snippet?


We would like to go further, with developments to allow the cars to run in close proximity to one another without losing performance. One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower.
This could lead to drafting, with the faster car staying right behind a competitor until the last possible moment. It stands to reason that this would be more fuel-efficient for the follower, potentialy reducing not increasing the requirement to overtake.

[Knock-on]

Did anybody pick up on this snippet?


We would like to go further, with developments to allow the cars to run in close proximity to one another without losing performance. One possibility is that the car behind should be faster by virtue of being behind not, as at present, slower.
This could lead to drafting, with the faster car staying right behind a competitor until the last possible moment. It stands to reason that this would be more fuel-efficient for the follower, potentialy reducing not increasing the requirement to overtake.

Good point.

69 laps of drafting followed by one lap of mayhem. Bit like the reverse of what we have at the moment :D

[Azumanga Davo]

This is slightly different to Max's normal tactic, which is to suggest something deliberately controversial/impractical (i.e. F2), challenge those involved to come up with their own ideas, and we normally end up with something completely different to any of the suggestions in the end!

A clever ploy to get the teams to agree to some more sensible suggestions that what was proposed in the first place so we dont have to see the crazy ideas in place.

[ioan]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to my question about the manufacturers deciding whether their spend on F1 is acceptable or not, rather than the FIA deciding for them?

No I'm referring to this one:



Has KERS really led sponsors to stay in the sport?

I think it was a try to ridicule the introduction of KERS. I was just trying to see if you'll own up to it, which you failed! :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

I think it was a try to ridicule the introduction of KERS.
No, not at all. The issue of KERS is different to the point I was making about the manufacturers.

[Knock-on]

I think it was a try to ridicule the introduction of KERS. I was just trying to see if you'll own up to it, which you failed! :p :

I think there is a question about whether a manufacturer will stay in F1 just because of KERS.

Then we have the alluding to a single spec engine for F1 which has to be taken into account.

[ArrowsFA1]

I think there is a question about whether a manufacturer will stay in F1 just because of KERS.
It does seem a little odd to say, as Max does in his letter, that "without the KERS initiative, some major sponsors might have already left" F1.

[Knock-on]

It does seem a little odd to say, as Max does in his letter, that "without the KERS initiative, some major sponsors might have already left" F1.

Ooops, bad me. I just tend to skim read the drivel coming from Max these days and got Manufacturers and Sponsors mixed up.

So, what Major Sponsors would have left F1 if KERS wasn't implemented?

Can't see it myself, however, ioan likes to argue Max's corner so perhaps he can develop one of his far left opinions on this :D

[gravity]

I'm not so sure about major sponsors of old leaving without KERS. Most of them used to be tobacco sponsors. Maybe, there are some current new major sponsors that would not have entered into F1 had it not been for the implemenation of KERS.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ooops, bad me. I just tend to skim read the drivel coming from Max these days and got Manufacturers and Sponsors mixed up.
I wondered if Max meant manufacturers, but it's hard to see him mixing them up in a letter :p

Ferrari are one manufacturer who have voiced their criticisms (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66781) about KERS. Piero Ferrari said:
"We should reflect on many of the technical and sporting decisions taken in F1 lately. The way the regulations are right now, we can't re-design a single part to improve it. It's excessive. Ferrari have great engine guys twiddling their thumbs....By contrast, they make us spend time and money to design the KERS, for which we can't evaluate the costs precisely because it's a new technology...To acquire that know-how will cause high levels of spending over the years, it's not the best solution to reduce costs. Engine recovery is fine, but not this way."

[cosmicpanda]

Right now we already basically have a spec engine because of the tightness of the regulations but without the excitement of possible engine failures (unless the exhaust falls off).

Admittedly with spec engines we'll still be unlikely to have engine failures but the cost of producing engines would be much reduced.