View Full Version : 2010 Rules?????
i know some of this has been stated on other threads, but I thought I'd put it all together. The following is based on the Pitpass.com summary:
1. Minimum weight of car + driver will be 620kg.
2. Refuelling during the race is banned.
3. Tire warmers banned
For those teams taking the 40m budget cap:
4. No limit on the number of engines used.
5. No rev limit.
6. No limit on the number of gearboxes used.
7. Moveable front AND rear wings.
8. Double the KERS boost.
9. No limit on out of season testing.
10. Unlimited use of full-scale wind tunnel testing.
Seems that Max is trying to drive FOTA out of F1 entirely!
Some of the rules don't make sense - take #4 for example. If you buy Merc engines for 5m each, you can only use 8 per season and that shoots your whole team budget right there!
Look at #4 and #5 - no rev limit and no limit on engines - doesn't that allow qualifying engines again?
If you look at items 4 through 10, a team with a 40m budget cap can't afford to do all those things anyway. The rules are pointless!
dependant on the engine deal, if say the Cosworth engine deal is based on the season, and not the # of engines, then perhap Max is out to force them bankrupt? :p :
Also I imagine similarly, if you got your engines and kers from mcleran or ferrari for example, they could insist on the same rev limit, and amount of kers boost they are using because those are the numbers they developed those systems for.
Also how about the Red Bull situation? I think they are already benefiting from running 2 teams and gaining from a development standpoint. could you imagine if they decide to cap Team Torro, and have that team run some summer test miles that Newey could transfer that data towards both teams?
Some of the rules don't make sense - take #4 for example. If you buy Merc engines for 5m each, you can only use 8 per season and that shoots your whole team budget right there!
The budget doesn't include engines for 2010. So we'd likely see teams back to one engine per race!
If you look at items 4 through 10, a team with a 40m budget cap can't afford to do all those things anyway. The rules are pointless!
To be fair that is kind of the point - if you are budget capped then the FIA aren't going to tell you specific areas where you can and can't spend your money, as the budget cap becomes sort of self-regulating.
Having said that I'm still not liking this "optional" system, either have it or don't. This system in its current form is going to lead to a LOT of controversy, protests, moaning about equivalency, etc.
Powered by Cosworth
1st May 2009, 09:55
The budget doesn't include engines for 2010. So we'd likely see teams back to one engine per race!
Screw that, one lap qualifying engines!
Screw that, one lap qualifying engines!
*drools* Those were the days!
ArrowsFA1
1st May 2009, 13:24
Having said that I'm still not liking this "optional" system, either have it or don't. This system in its current form is going to lead to a LOT of controversy, protests, moaning about equivalency, etc.
That's the point Luca is making (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74969):
"There are...doubts as to whether or not two categories of teams should be created which will inevitably mean that one category will have an advantage over the other and that the championship will be fundamentally unfair and, perhaps, even biased."
While appearing to give the teams a choice (capped or un-capped), in reality there is no choice. If a team wants to have a realistic chance of being competitive it must agree to the cost cap.
The FIA is crossing a line into an area over which it has previously had no authority. What the teams spend to go racing has always been up to the teams and the funds they can raise, and that remains the case today, and would continue to be the case.
A couple of years ago a company called Ricardo were appointed by the FIA to provide technical support and advice on the development of future regulations in F1 and there have been recent reports that Ricardo had done a study for the FIA into the possibility of using the same engine in many different racing series including (IIRC) F1, GP2, rallying, IRL and others so this cost cap can be seen as just the first step in restricting all types of motorsport.
If you look at items 4 through 10, a team with a 40m budget cap can't afford to do all those things anyway. The rules are pointless!
Of course, DUH!!!
They're silly artificial sweeteners to tempt new teams and bait for FOTA to make the budget cap fully mandatory.
Knock-on
1st May 2009, 13:56
That's the point Luca is making (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74969):
While appearing to give the teams a choice (capped or un-capped), in reality there is no choice. If a team wants to have a realistic chance of being competitive it must agree to the cost cap.
The FIA is crossing a line into an area over which it has previously had no authority. What the teams spend to go racing has always been up to the teams and the funds they can raise, and that remains the case today, and would continue to be the case.
A couple of years ago a company called Ricardo were appointed by the FIA to provide technical support and advice on the development of future regulations in F1 and there have been recent reports that Ricardo had done a study for the FIA into the possibility of using the same engine in many different racing series including (IIRC) F1, GP2, rallying, IRL and others so this cost cap can be seen as just the first step in restricting all types of motorsport.
Hasn't a Tender already been put together? Thought it had?
Anyway, we know where this is heading. Max wants a spec series and will get it. That way he can precisely control the sport and which teams win.
He has picked the perfect foil for FOTA in cost capping but will get away with it. He promises greater flexibility for the teams under budget but watch how quickly that goes when he has the teams under his control.
No more manufacturers, no more innovation. Standard cars are on their way with Max dictating the championship.
Forgetting next year (which is a total mess IMO) for a second.
Why oh why are we waiting an entire year to raise the weight limit to 620kg's???? I mean seriously how hard could it be to implement it now and save tallents like Kimi and Kubica spending a year on the sidelines?
UltimateDanGTR
1st May 2009, 17:55
i know some of this has been stated on other threads, but I thought I'd put it all together. The following is based on the Pitpass.com summary:
1. Minimum weight of car + driver will be 620kg.
2. Refuelling during the race is banned.
3. Tire warmers banned
For those teams taking the 40m budget cap:
4. No limit on the number of engines used.
5. No rev limit.
6. No limit on the number of gearboxes used.
7. Moveable front AND rear wings.
8. Double the KERS boost.
9. No limit on out of season testing.
10. Unlimited use of full-scale wind tunnel testing.
Seems that Max is trying to drive FOTA out of F1 entirely!
Some of the rules don't make sense - take #4 for example. If you buy Merc engines for 5m each, you can only use 8 per season and that shoots your whole team budget right there!
Look at #4 and #5 - no rev limit and no limit on engines - doesn't that allow qualifying engines again?
If you look at items 4 through 10, a team with a 40m budget cap can't afford to do all those things anyway. The rules are pointless!
engines arent included in budget cap anyway, so 4 and 5 are fine. ;)
Are they still planning to sell engines for 5M per year? Because with "unlimited number of engines" the cost would be clearly higher!
veeten
1st May 2009, 18:12
Forgetting next year (which is a total mess IMO) for a second.
Why oh why are we waiting an entire year to raise the weight limit to 620kg's???? I mean seriously how hard could it be to implement it now and save tallents like Kimi and Kubica spending a year on the sidelines?
Okay, let's help the sinking ships with... a bigger boat anchor. :p :
almost as good as those lead-lined floatation vests. ;)
cosmicpanda
2nd May 2009, 02:13
I like these rules.
jjanicke
2nd May 2009, 06:21
The rules do appear a little biased. The freedoms they provide come at a cost, making them less "free".
engines arent included in budget cap anyway, so 4 and 5 are fine. ;)
Only for 2010, so what happens after that? In 2010, team "XYZ" could run 2 engines per race at 30,000rpm if they can afford it. You could win a race with a brick with that engine as long as it didn't explode!
Then along comes 2011 and they are forced to pay for the engines out of their budget cap and they go back to the rear of the grid???
UltimateDanGTR
2nd May 2009, 07:42
Only for 2010, so what happens after that? In 2010, team "XYZ" could run 2 engines per race at 30,000rpm if they can afford it. You could win a race with a brick with that engine as long as it didn't explode!
Then along comes 2011 and they are forced to pay for the engines out of their budget cap and they go back to the rear of the grid???
half their budget goes on engines nowadays, so thats £20 million. so they can get 4 engines if they're £5 million each. however, if the manurfacturers spend less on engines, which they would need to, they can sell them for cheaper to teams like red bull, brawn etc. and so those sorts of teams may be able to get 8 engines after all ;)
big_sw2000
2nd May 2009, 10:54
Only for 2010, so what happens after that? In 2010, team "XYZ" could run 2 engines per race at 30,000rpm if they can afford it. You could win a race with a brick with that engine as long as it didn't explode!
Then along comes 2011 and they are forced to pay for the engines out of their budget cap and they go back to the rear of the grid???
I would love to here that, what sort of BHP would it kick out
30000RPM???
I hope that's a joke.
Even assuming engine development had not been frozen I guess the max would be around the 22,000 mark.
jjanicke
2nd May 2009, 23:03
30000RPM???
I hope that's a joke.
Even assuming engine development had not been frozen I guess the max would be around the 22,000 mark.
That maximum (22k) would be with a V10, which probably would actually be a little higher. The smaller V8 however, could lend it self to higher RPM's, but I too doubt they could hit 30k.
LeonBrooke
2nd May 2009, 23:41
I don't see where all the conspiracy theories are coming from. How does this prove that Max is out to get anyone? There's nothing stopping McLaren, Ferrari, etc. from signing up to the budget cap. If they choose not to, that's up to them.
But I do think that allowing technical freedoms for the budget-capped teams is a bit silly. I'd allow some other sort, for example allow them to run a third car in practice.
And I think the whole moveable wings idea is silly and I'd ban it altogether.
jso1985
3rd May 2009, 00:10
for once I can say Adam Sandler makes better jokes that someone else! :eek:
shame on you Mosley!
30000RPM???
I hope that's a joke.
Even assuming engine development had not been frozen I guess the max would be around the 22,000 mark.
Not a joke, just a hypothetical thought. :)
gloomyDAY
3rd May 2009, 08:37
If teams under the budget are allowed to tinker with their engines, then is there really a purpose for an engine freeze? How do is the FIA going to address that issue?
If teams under the budget are allowed to tinker with their engines, then is there really a purpose for an engine freeze? How do is the FIA going to address that issue?
They'll stop that loophole as soon as all the teams have signed onto the budget cap!
Why oh why are we waiting an entire year to raise the weight limit to 620kg's???? I mean seriously how hard could it be to implement it now and save tallents like Kimi and Kubica spending a year on the sidelines?
Changing the rules mid-season to benefit specific drivers? Well it would keep this forum busy I suppose.
Well the forum has been a bit quiet lately. LOL.
As for changing the rules mid season. Its happened before; 1994 I believe the weight limit was changed mid year. And as for giving a driver an advantage. Balls. A level playing field can never advantage one driver over another. Besides the larger drivers would always have less ballast to play with.
And as for giving a driver an advantage. Balls. A level playing field can never advantage one driver over another.
Well in your original post you did seem to suggest that the current level playing field was disadvantaging Kimi and Kubica! :)
I haven't seen any discussion on the rationale for doing away with tire warmers next year. Surely there are safety issues there. Does anyone know why this was done?
Well in your original post you did seem to suggest that the current level playing field was disadvantaging Kimi and Kubica! :)
Ok you got me there. :p
You get my drift though? Heavier drivers should not suffer simply because of their size.
I haven't seen any discussion on the rationale for doing away with tire warmers next year. Surely there are safety issues there. Does anyone know why this was done?
I think cost was put forward as one reason. (Total crud IMO as the teams already have all the gear and there is bound to be serious expense to the tyre manufactures to rework the compounds to heat quickly).
As for safety I can see it changing anything. These are the best in the world and 40 secs on cold tyres isn't gonna make much difference.
I haven't seen any discussion on the rationale for doing away with tire warmers next year. Surely there are safety issues there. Does anyone know why this was done?
To save the teams money by lowering the electric bill...
christophulus
4th May 2009, 10:55
The new "most wins" system is in the 2010 regulations..
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/05/04/most-wins-system-confirmed-for-2010/
Looks like Bernie's serious about it. With this, and two sets of regulations, next year is shaping up to be a disaster :down:
veeten
4th May 2009, 14:24
To save the teams money by lowering the electric bill...
... to later be used for keeping Kimi's ice creams cool and ready. ;) :p
Nikki Katz
4th May 2009, 14:52
The new "most wins" system is in the 2010 regulations..
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/05/04/most-wins-system-confirmed-for-2010/
Looks like Bernie's serious about it. With this, and two sets of regulations, next year is shaping up to be a disaster :down:
I can't say that I'm surprised, I'm a little surprised that nobody noticed this before now as they'd been threatening to force it through no matter what the teams said.
I do side with the FIA on the budget cap (though perhaps not some of the detail) as even without the economic crisis the spending in F1 couldn't really be maintained for long. I'm against the refuelling ban though, and dead against the medals system.
Giuseppe F1
4th May 2009, 22:30
Wont the refuelling ban add more cost as teams will have to re-design the car around a new larger fueltank which can hold a races worth of fuel how?
http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13124&Itemid=219
The controversial 'winner takes all' Formula One scoring system has been rubber stamped for introduction in 2010 by the FIA World Motor Sport Council
the only way this would be good is if you had a driver that had not won a race and was ahead on points
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=326699
Last week the FIA presented some new facts about the earlier this year announced cost cap regulations which will be applied to the sport from 2010 onwards. Again, the FIA did not come up with the technical regulations regarding the capped and non-capped teams. And time is running out, the FIA also stated that all teams who want to compete in 2010 should submit their application during the period 22-29 May 2009. Teams now have less than 3 weeks to make a decision whether they wish to compete under the cost-capped rules in 2020 or not -- or whether they wish to compete in Formula One at all for that matter.
There we have problem number one, no details about the 2010 regulations, and yet less than three weeks to make a decision. Most teams already made it clear they don't oppose the new cost regulations, but they do oppose the fact that there will be two sets of rules within one competition. It seems the FIA now wants to force the teams to make a decision without any knowledge of the technical regulations. Hopefully the FIA will soon publish the 2010 regulations; you can't expect a multi-million dollar enterprise like a Formula One team to agree with any regulations without knowing its content and possible consequences first.
52Paddy
5th May 2009, 08:45
"It seems the FIA now wants to force the teams to make a decision without any knowledge of the technical regulations"
This is a political trick. Reminds me exactly the position that Ireland was in at the time of the Lisbon treaty. I really hope the teams stay strong and hold a force together. The teams must realise that they are at the centre stage. Without them, there is no show. I wonder do they have it in them to boycott the sport (...remembering the 1982 fiasco....)
I think in this case, I would support their decision if they did boycott.
The new "most wins" system is in the 2010 regulations..
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/05/04/most-wins-system-confirmed-for-2010/
Looks like Bernie's serious about it. With this, and two sets of regulations, next year is shaping up to be a disaster :down:
We have two madmen fighting over control of the sport!!!! :(
SGWilko
6th May 2009, 10:30
Hasn't a Tender already been put together? Thought it had?
Anyway, we know where this is heading. Max wants a spec series and will get it. That way he can precisely control the sport and which teams win.
He has picked the perfect foil for FOTA in cost capping but will get away with it. He promises greater flexibility for the teams under budget but watch how quickly that goes when he has the teams under his control.
No more manufacturers, no more innovation. Standard cars are on their way with Max dictating the championship.
What I think could be acceptable is this;
A standard Tub including floor, fully crash tested etc.
Teams would then be allowed to design and fit:-
1. Their own wings front and rear.
2. Airbox and engine cover.
3. Radiator/Sidepod inlets
4. Suspension
5. Engine - in return for being given a set amount of fuel per race, the manufacturers can have a budget capped free reign on engine configuration/development. Still only allowed 8 units per season.
6. Gearbox - must last 4 races.
7. Kers - Unrestricted use, but must only produce an additional 80BHP.
waddayathink?
What I think could be acceptable is this;
A standard Tub including floor, fully crash tested etc.
Teams would then be allowed to design and fit:-
1. Their own wings front and rear.
2. Airbox and engine cover.
3. Radiator/Sidepod inlets
4. Suspension
5. Engine - in return for being given a set amount of fuel per race, the manufacturers can have a budget capped free reign on engine configuration/development. Still only allowed 8 units per season.
6. Gearbox - must last 4 races.
7. Kers - Unrestricted use, but must only produce an additional 80BHP.
waddayathink?
I don't know about a mandated standard tub, but I remember a discussion, I think it was way back in the early to mid 90s when the grids first started to shrink, about offering a fully crash tested etc. tub for a cheaper price that a budding entrant could then design the rest of their car around, should they choose to. I for one would welcome that.
LeonBrooke
6th May 2009, 11:31
What I think could be acceptable is this;
A standard Tub including floor, fully crash tested etc.
Teams would then be allowed to design and fit:-
1. Their own wings front and rear.
2. Airbox and engine cover.
3. Radiator/Sidepod inlets
4. Suspension
5. Engine - in return for being given a set amount of fuel per race, the manufacturers can have a budget capped free reign on engine configuration/development. Still only allowed 8 units per season.
6. Gearbox - must last 4 races.
7. Kers - Unrestricted use, but must only produce an additional 80BHP.
waddayathink?
Sounds reasonably ideal to me. Combining the best parts of Group C, modern F1 and classic full-freedom F1 while being realistic with money. :)
gloomyDAY
8th May 2009, 05:03
Wait a second here....
This two tier system is total hogwash.
How are manufacturer teams' supposed to compete if the minnows can take their engines, break the seals, and tweak them to produce more power? Someone else replied earlier that this loophole would be dealt with once the teams all agreed on a budget cap. I wonder if any of the teams can reach a consensus on a figure or if they'd rather leave.
LeonBrooke
8th May 2009, 09:01
My big question is, what's wrong with the budget cap? What's stopping McLaren, Ferrari, Williams, BMW Sauber, et al. from racing under the budget cap?
Nothing, that's what. If they did they'd have nothing to complain about. But then, it wouldn't be F1 if everyone just got along now, would it?
SGWilko
8th May 2009, 10:10
So, if you accept the budget cap, you can do what you like?
But, no you can't, because a fart in modern F1 genarally costs a million bucks........
LeonBrooke
8th May 2009, 11:35
Therein lies the fun. What will the budget-capped teams do with their money? Given all the freedoms, what's the best thing to spend your limited budget on?
Dave B
8th May 2009, 13:50
If there's a cap for 2010, what's to stop teams "doing a Honda" and throwing all their 2009 budget at developing the new car? Ferrari and BMW in particular could benefit as their championships are all but shot, and they have plenty of resources to use. How would this be policed?
Knock-on
8th May 2009, 13:56
If there's a cap for 2010, what's to stop teams "doing a Honda" and throwing all their 2009 budget at developing the new car? Ferrari and BMW in particular could benefit as their championships are all but shot, and they have plenty of resources to use. How would this be policed?
The problem really is going to be controlling information, not parts.
You can have 1000 engineers sitting in a room at Toyota, bevering away, with just the results being filtered down to the F1 team.
christophulus
8th May 2009, 18:30
The general feeling seems to be that if any of the current teams ran under cost capped conditions against the rest of the current field uncapped, the cost capped car would have a massive advantage, probably two to three seconds per lap, so it is unworkable for the current field to be divided and everyone recognises that.
http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/patrick-head-on-why-two-tier-f1-wont-work/
So yeah, there's no chance of teams accepting a two tier system.
On an interesting side note, the article also states that USF1 and Lola have paid Cosworth a deposit for engines...
christophulus
8th May 2009, 18:31
If there's a cap for 2010, what's to stop teams "doing a Honda" and throwing all their 2009 budget at developing the new car? Ferrari and BMW in particular could benefit as their championships are all but shot, and they have plenty of resources to use. How would this be policed?
I doubt it could be, not this year as it's not illegal. If the cost cap comes in, and the regulations stay stable, it's the only sensible thing to do. Otherwise they'll be stuck in the midfield for the next few years.
veeten
9th May 2009, 14:30
Well, it looks like Toyota might be the first to 'opt-out'...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75164
they cut so much of TTE's budget and the car is looking like a competitor. I thought they would get it now, but alas...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.