More rule tweaks

[Sonic]

I'll post a link in a second.

[Sonic]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81069

[Sonic]

Your cheating on us!? :D

Yeah that's how I read it too.

Generally I am against silly artificial rules, however this is one of the better ones and does encourage some options for the likes of Ross Brawn to ponder.

[Sonic]

Sorry guys I was going to confess honest.. :p
There does seem to be a sense of harmony around here of late, with no trolling and everyone having sensible discussions. I can't for the life of me understand why that is.. ;)


Its alright mate. We still (man)love you :D



Yeah, but I suppose the teams have decided this one so it will make sense. At least it brings back a positive element as far as strategy goes. I'm waiting for the season to start and people to start saying but Nico/Jenson were given the wrong tyres.. :eek:

Hadn't thought of that. Thank god this rules wasn't enforced last year - can you imagine Rubens moaning?! :D

[Hawkmoon]

They never learn do they? Having race fuel in qualifying did nothing to improve the racing so now they move on to tyres. Why can't they just seperate qualifying from the race and be done with it. Qualifying already has a profound effect on the race without adding stupid rules like this. Idiots, the lot of 'em!

[Saint Devote]

This rule is still artificial because it removes choice. Surely giving the teams the option to retain or change tyres is far closer to reality?

I cant stand this nanny form of goddam government anywhere.

I can tell you who will be on pole position if tyres are critical and he proved that in 2009. His name is Sebastian Vettel. He HAD to look after his engines from Monza onwards remember?

Consequently his his one lap out and then pole lap and back to the pits was amazing - remember Suzuka? Amazing!!!

Of course any soft pedalling with tyres suits a driver like Jenson Button but will definitely penalize a driver like Mark Webber and even the harsh turn in specialist Fernando Alonso.

See my point? These goddam rule makers should leave the teams to decide. Why push the advantage in any driver's direction and then pretend it is "competitive".

God I hate modern f1 compared to the gunslinger days when silly little rules would be scoffed at.

I don't think a single driver from the 70's into the 80's could have escaped some sort of stupid fine from that dysfunctional body led by the toad, aka - the FIf....gA!!! if it was like today.

[Saint Devote]

They never learn do they? Having race fuel in qualifying did nothing to improve the racing so now they move on to tyres. Why can't they just seperate qualifying from the race and be done with it. Qualifying already has a profound effect on the race without adding stupid rules like this. Idiots, the lot of 'em!

Yeah!!!! You got my vote!!! :D

[V12]

Oh dear...

More rubbish, even if it's a FOTA initiative rather than an FIA/Bernie one.

It's almost like they were thinking "Damn...we got rid of refuelling simply to save costs but as an unwanted by-product we lost the ridiculous race-fuel qualifying rule, how can we go out of our way to bugger things up again?"

[Valve Bounce]

Much ado about nothing!

Move on folks, nothing to see here.

[Sonic]

Henners has a good point.

St.D, whilst I like you enjoyed the "good old days" thery are gone and in the past. FOTA have come up with an interesting proposal which IMO makes the best of the new rules from the FIA over the past ten years.

Thanks to parc ferme rules the guy on pole would (barring disaster) still be fastest on Sunday and pull away from P2, as P2 would pull away from P3 etc etc. Dull. If we can't get rid of parc ferme conditions then having a strategy choice to make on Saturday could mix things up a bit.

The fastest driver would almost always still win but at least he would have to work at it - say starting from P4 on the hards vs the softer compounds of P1, 2 and 3.

Enjoy your motor racing St. D! :)

[Valve Bounce]

Thanks :)
I think it'll certainly be interesting when the tyre choice at the front is not necessarily the choice tyre the following day should conditions change etc. Obviously if its raining then that another matter. You could see the likes of Sutil on hard tyres catching a degrading, soft compound Schumacher/Hamilton by lap 10 and mixing things up abit.

I think the teams have opted for such a change because a large chunk of their strategy base has been taken away with the non refueling rule and this is an interesting replacement IMO. Should be a great season non the less.. :)

Just a thought here. In Melbourne, quite often the temperature can fall 20 degrees from one hot day to a cooler following day. This phenomenon may or may not seriously affect the tyres that the first 10 cars have to use following a hot quals and cooler race day.

But if it affects the same 10 guys on the front 5 rows, then maybe it won't be such a big imposition.

[K-Pu]

But now it all depends on how different are the tyres... Sometimes we have seen how different compound turn out to be really similar, and all that stuff of "yeah, he´s leading but now has to put the bad set of tyres so he will be caught by the others" tended to be "not-very-true".

In fact, we saw this when someone had real tyre problems, not when someone was forced to use the other compound. What I´m trying to say is that this new rule change won´t add very much. I wouldn´t worry about it.

[Mark]

As I understand it, Q3 will be with race fuel too? It'll be interesting to see how they handle the heavy cars on a qualy lap.

[Valve Bounce]

As I understand it, Q3 will be with race fuel too? It'll be interesting to see how they handle the heavy cars on a qualy lap.

This is very interesting - how will they work out how much fuel the cars should carry for the race before Q3? I think this is a stupid idea.

[SGWilko]

Eh? ALL qualifying is low fuel. They just have to start the race on the same set of tyres they set their fasted Q3 time on.

[Mark]

Eh? ALL qualifying is low fuel. They just have to start the race on the same set of tyres they set their fasted Q3 time on.

Ah yes, my mistake!

One interesting thing I note is that the front tyres are going to be narrower in 2010.

[wedge]

Sounds very gimmicky but it could be interesting. Out of curiosity I'm in favour of this.

[SGWilko]

Ah yes, my mistake!

One interesting thing I note is that the front tyres are going to be narrower in 2010.

Yes, will make cooling requirements easier to accommodate as there will be less turbulance from the smaller surface area of the tyre. But now there are no wheel covers allowed....

Also, with the lager fuel tanks, weight is concentrated more rearwardd on full tanks, but the weight characteristics will move a lot more (and the CofG) as the fuel load comes down. Potentially, the fronts will get more wear from aero load in the latter part of the races.

[Sonic]

The narrower fronts could well tip the balance in favour of one driver or another. With a smaller contact patch, drivers who like to stick it in on the nose might suffer - Lewis, MS to name two. Those who favour a natural understeer - Massa, perhaps Alonso and Jenson might find the cars more to their taste without adapting their style.

Just a thought.

[71minus2]

Also, with the lager fuel tanks.

Now that IS a good idea!

[truefan72]

I don't like that Q3/ Race single tyre rule. It is just plain dumb. and to me seems to penalize drivers for doing well in qualy. If they got rid of the declared fuel thing then why would they introduce another handicap into the fold.

I think the show is good enough and I don;t need gimmicks like this to improve it. once agian proving that the collective minds of fIA and FOTA are suffering from winter brain fade.

[airshifter]

Also, with the lager fuel tanks, weight is concentrated more rearwardd on full tanks, but the weight characteristics will move a lot more (and the CofG) as the fuel load comes down. Potentially, the fronts will get more wear from aero load in the latter part of the races.

Has anyone seen the regs on fuel tanks for 2010? I would have to assume that given the chance the teams would use forward and aft tanks so that they could use the fuel load to affect the car balance as the race progressed.

[call_me_andrew]

No one seems to notice that the FIA is coppying NASCAR's rulebook.

[Mark]

Has anyone seen the regs on fuel tanks for 2010? I would have to assume that given the chance the teams would use forward and aft tanks so that they could use the fuel load to affect the car balance as the race progressed.

ARTICLE 6 : FUEL SYSTEM
6.1 Fuel tanks :
6.1.1 The fuel tank must be a single rubber bladder conforming to or exceeding the specifications of FIA/FT5-
1999, the fitting of foam within the tank however is not mandatory. A list of approved materials may be
found in the Appendix to these regulations.
6.1.2 All the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the front face of the engine and the driver's
back when viewed in lateral projection. When establishing the front face of the engine, no parts of the fuel,
oil, water or electrical systems will be considered.
Furthermore, no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of the highest point at which the driver's
back makes contact with his seat. However, a maximum of 2 litres of fuel may be kept outside the survival
cell, but only that which is necessary for the normal running of the engine.
6.1.3 Fuel must not be stored more than 400mm from the longitudinal axis of the car.
6.1.4 All rubber bladders must be made by manufacturers recognised by the FIA. In order to obtain the
agreement of the FIA, the manufacturer must prove the compliance of his product with the specifications
approved by the FIA. These manufacturers must undertake to deliver to their customers exclusively tanks
complying to the approved standards.
A list of approved manufacturers may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
6.1.5 All rubber bladders shall be printed with the name of the manufacturer, the specifications to which the tank
has been manufactured and the date of manufacture.
6.1.6 No rubber bladders shall be used more than 5 years after the date of manufacture.

[V12]

Im not a big subscriber to the "qualifying order will equal race order if nothing is done to artifically shake things up" school of thought.

It's common knowledge that some drivers seem to be intrinsically better at qualifying than racing, and vice versa. Yes they both require talent at driving quickly, but some drivers seem to be better at putting together one fast lap than consistently over a race distance. Jarno Trulli is the most extreme and stereotypical example but I'm sure it applies in varying degrees to most drivers.

It applies to cars too, especially now the race fuel farce is over - some cars may handle better relative to the opposition on lower fuel or full tanks, and it goes on. Stuff like this is totally unnecessary IMO.

[Mark]

Stuff like this is totally unnecessary IMO.

Agreed. Many, myself included, used to enjoy the pureness of qualifying in days gone by, all the drivers competing on an equal basis to see who was fastest on that track at that moment. None of this, well he was only on pole because he was lighter on fuel. And now it'll be, he's only ahead because he's got the soft tyres and others are on hards etc.

[maximilian]

It's as unnecessary as having to change tires in the first place. Nothing wrong with running soft tires when you wanna go quick for a short time, and hard tires when you wanna go less quick for a long time. That's really all it needs to be, leave the rest up to the teams, and the situation at hand!

[wedge]

Agreed. Many, myself included, used to enjoy the pureness of qualifying in days gone by, all the drivers competing on an equal basis to see who was fastest on that track at that moment. None of this, well he was only on pole because he was lighter on fuel. And now it'll be, he's only ahead because he's got the soft tyres and others are on hards etc.

It made race day more unpredictable until the damn publication of fuel weights.

With refuelling thankfully banned we don't have pit passing to fall on and more onus on overtaking on the race track.

[52Paddy]

It's a pity that the days of the underdogs qualifying well on merit are declining :(

Remember Pier-Luigi Martini qualifying on the front row in Phoenix 1990? (details off the top of my head). In fact, that whole grid was out of place due to bad weather in Saturday qualifying. I'd love if they brought back Friday qualifying. That would be a fine solution because if there's one element in F1 that is a constant unknown, its the weather. If you get that to muck up the grid, rather than selecting puny regulations to artificially achieve, then you're talking my language :s mokin:

[wedge]

It's a pity that the days of the underdogs qualifying well on merit are declining :(

Remember Pier-Luigi Martini qualifying on the front row in Phoenix 1990? (details off the top of my head). In fact, that whole grid was out of place due to bad weather in Saturday qualifying. I'd love if they brought back Friday qualifying. That would be a fine solution because if there's one element in F1 that is a constant unknown, its the weather. If you get that to muck up the grid, rather than selecting puny regulations to artificially achieve, then you're talking my language :s mokin:

Qualifying tyres.

Arguably a gimmick.

De Cesaris was also pretty nippy around that time when he would get a decent grid slot and did his usual job of annoying the 'genuine' front runners.

[stephenw_us]

No one seems to notice that the FIA is coppying NASCAR's rulebook.

We notice it all right - blame all the whinging over not enough passing...

Its not possible for a much slower car to pass a faster car, so that's why they want the qualifying lottery...

[christophulus]

Qualifying tyres.

Arguably a gimmick.

De Cesaris was also pretty nippy around that time when he would get a decent grid slot and did his usual job of annoying the 'genuine' front runners.

I could live with them bringing back qualifying tyres, maybe one set per car? Ideally they need to bring three or four different compounds to a race and just give the teams freedom to use whatever, whenever (upto a limit of seven or so new sets). Then do you use super soft tyres to jump up the grid but run the risk of compromising the race, or save the tyres for later in the race once the fuel loads have gone down and overtaking is easier?

Having hard and soft with a compulsory change doesn't leave any room for flexibility really, but I doubt Bridgestone are going to spend millions when they're leaving at the end of the year!

[Mark]

Qualifying tyres.

Arguably a gimmick.


I wouldn't say so, they had qualifying engines too didn't they?
As far as I know qualy tyres were a result of no particular rule which banned them rather than what we have now where rules create artificial situations.

[Sonic]

I could live with them bringing back qualifying tyres, maybe one set per car? Ideally they need to bring three or four different compounds to a race and just give the teams freedom to use whatever, whenever (upto a limit of seven or so new sets). Then do you use super soft tyres to jump up the grid but run the risk of compromising the race, or save the tyres for later in the race once the fuel loads have gone down and overtaking is easier?

Having hard and soft with a compulsory change doesn't leave any room for flexibility really, but I doubt Bridgestone are going to spend millions when they're leaving at the end of the year!

100% with you. I would much prefer the drivers could choose any tyres the wish, let's say compounds A-D (like the good old days) then we'd have some interesting choices. Button sticks it on the second row and runs the hardest compound intending not to stop. Hamilton on pole runs the softest and does 3. Some amazing scraps could result.

However we don't have that, so with the mess of a rule we currently have forcing a pitstop, the selection of compound on sat could shake things up marginally.

Perhaps FOTA will hear us, remove the compulsory pitstop and we'll have the ideal sytem - unmolested qualifying with a RACE on sundays.

[truefan72]

another rule change I jsut found oit.

during SC period, lapped cars may not unlap themselves.

I think this is a sad thing as it decreases the opportunity for competitive racing in the eventuality that the SC car comes out.

And they say they will try to make that period shorter.

I think they need to rework the whole safety car thing
1. allow pits to be open regardless
2. allow cars to unlap themselves
3. make sure cars are properly aligned and leader can't get a jump on the pack (IRL style)

[wedge]

I wouldn't say so, they had qualifying engines too didn't they?
As far as I know qualy tyres were a result of no particular rule which banned them rather than what we have now where rules create artificial situations.

But quali tyres created artificial situations just as say race-fuel-quali did.

Just because is part of racing evolution and another is ruling - the point is that we need unpredictability going into races.

[Mark]

Just because is part of racing evolution and another is ruling - the point is that we need unpredictability going into races.

But do we really? They've been using the unpredictability thing linking the race with qualifying for years now, but has it really improved anything?

[Mark]

another rule change I jsut found oit.

during SC period, lapped cars may not unlap themselves.


Excellent. This was a stupid idea from the start. When the safety car comes out, everyone should hold station and that's it.

[wedge]

But do we really? They've been using the unpredictability thing linking the race with qualifying for years now, but has it really improved anything?

I've never been a fan of refuelling so it has made it a bit more tolerable by giving more incentive to vary the strategy.

[52Paddy]

Just because is part of racing evolution and another is ruling - the point is that we need unpredictability going into races.

You want unpredictability? How about going way back to the 1929 Monaco GP when the grid was decided by a ballot. Now that's unpredictable. Then, let them race away :) Funny, I originally meant this as a joke but now I'm thinking that it might actually work in practice :eek:

[jens]

It's a pity that the days of the underdogs qualifying well on merit are declining :(


Considering, how many complaints there have been throughout years, how Trulli is "unfairly holding up faster drivers and cars", then yeah - underdogs should always sit at the back. :p :

[52Paddy]

Considering, how many complaints there have been throughout years, how Trulli is "unfairly holding up faster drivers and cars", then yeah - underdogs should always sit at the back. :p :

Ah, Trulli isn't so much an underdog as a journeyman. Yes, Trulli on the podium is a nice surprise but not comparable so when Minardi scored 4th places, or teams like Tyrell, Arrows etc would get their cars onto the podium in the 90s.

I guess your kidding anyway but just in case you weren't I thought I'd answer. ;)

[truefan72]

One thing I would klike to see F1 abolish is the stupid 2 hour rule thing. Races should be run to their natural conclusion and if that means going over by 15 minutes then so be it. I think this 2 hour rule thing affects the way they proceed with on track situations. Times where the SC should be deployed they hold back. Times when a race is too wet to start, they force fans to watch cars circulating for 9-18 laps in extremely poor conditions so that they can fit in the window. Times when races need to be rd flagged and restarted are also, sadly, a thing of the past. To me if you have a pileup on the opening lap on the opening turn, the race should be stopped and drivers allowed to go to the back up car.

Anyway, just a rant :|

[N. Jones]

So, is this rule an artificial or "quick fix" to liven up the races?
It sounds to me like a rule that isn't going to hamper anybody but the drivers who are not good at managing tires.

[truefan72]

So, is this rule an artificial or "quick fix" to liven up the races?
It sounds to me like a rule that isn't going to hamper anybody but the drivers who are not good at managing tires.

to me it s a rule to liven up the races to the detriment of teams and drivers. I would rather see the best times and best qualy performances out there then a proper race with teams allowed to decide their own fuel strategy.

But if there is going to be no refueling, then they should have allowed teams to manage their tires as they see fit. As it stands, it seems you get penalized for doing well in Qualy by having compromised tires fro your first stint.

I suspect we will see everybody in Q3 run on the harder tyres and then have another long stint on hard tires in the race followed by the softs in the final stint.

[N. Jones]

That is what it seems to me - a penalty for being in the top ten.

Why not just reverse the field after qualifying and hope every race is like Japan '05?

[Koz]

What happens if it rains?

[Mark]

What happens if it rains?

Then they'll be allowed to put on wet weather tyres.

[Valve Bounce]

What happens if it rains?

We get wet? Just a guess, mind you!

[wedge]

to me it s a rule to liven up the races to the detriment of teams and drivers. I would rather see the best times and best qualy performances out there then a proper race with teams allowed to decide their own fuel strategy.


CART used a similar system during the tyre war and it worked out fine so I don't see it as a gimmick

[wedge]

That is what it seems to me - a penalty for being in the top ten.

Why not just reverse the field after qualifying and hope every race is like Japan '05?

That really is a gimmick.

Make quali 20mins at the most or bring back quali tyres or bring in top 10 one lap shoot out