New rules for F1 in 2011.

[gloomyDAY]

Complete list of rules. (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/9A195FD4A47DA4E1C12577F8004AA63E/$FILE/1-2011%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2010-12-2010.pdf)

*head scratch* There's a curfew now? http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88685

Also, someone needs to explain to me the new tire rules.
I just read it and my reading comprehension skills are just insufficient to wrap my head around those rules. :p
Hell, draw a diagram if you have to!

[Mark]

Tyre rules pretty much the same as this year, which is a shame.

The curfew rule is a decent idea.

[ioan]

As Mark says the rules are more or less the same as before.

Let me know when they decide to enforce the rules in a proper way, that will be the day.

[Nikki Katz]

Hmm, I'll really have to wait to see what the results of the cleaner driving initiative are. There are cases when this is really a good idea - it seems to have become acceptable this season to cut a corner to keep a car from overtaking you, which is completely wrong, and some of the (Schumacher) moves definitely need to be looked at harder.

But I hope that this doesn't just penalise anyone making a slightly daring overtaking move - there's too little overtaking as there is, and it looks like overtaking in the pits is on the way out too.

[UltimateDanGTR]

I quite like the curfew idea, esepcially as teams are allowed to have 4 exceptions per year-maybe a little much but it gives the best of both worlds.

107% is as expected back-Meaning we will probably see 22 cars per race with no HRTs qualifying, which I will boldly predict giving the state they are currently in.......

[ioan]

*head scratch* There's a curfew now? http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88685

The curfew rules is a good one.
But what about this aberration:


"If the race is suspended and cannot be re-started, thirty seconds will be added to the elapsed time of any driver who was unable to use both specifications of dry-weather tyre during the race," stated the regulations.

Who decided this idiotic rule?!

[UltimateDanGTR]

Who decided this idiotic rule?!

maybe Mosley still has a role in the FIA? :p :

[maxter]

Well I guess they needed something to compensate for the removal of the team orders ban. I mean, what would we do if the rule book was less than 800 pages and/or logical and simple to understand and follow? Oh the horror.

[ioan]

maybe Mosley still has a role in the FIA? :p :

I doubt it that Max would have come up with something as stupid as this.
Worse part of it is that the WMSC accepted this crap, most probably without ever reading the rules. :\

[ZEROX]

No more aggressive racing. :(

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88686

[Tazio]

Hmm, I'll really have to wait to see what the results of the cleaner driving initiative are. There are cases when this is really a good idea - it seems to have become acceptable this season to cut a corner to keep a car from overtaking you, which is completely wrong, and some of the (Schumacher) moves definitely need to be looked at harder.

But I hope that this doesn't just penalise anyone making a slightly daring overtaking move - there's too little overtaking as there is, and it looks like overtaking in the pits is on the way out too.

Not for Fred at Silverstone. :bandit:
But then again he is a specimen of pure evil! :rolleyes: :s mokin:

[ykiki]

Will be interesting to see how the "aggressive driving" rule is enforced. What are the penalties? Will these rules keep Schuey from running Rubens into a wall or Hulkenburg from cutting through numerous chicanes?

My fear is that Kobayashi's spectacular overtaking will get penalized and a driver that actually adds excitement during a race will get be encouraged to play "follow-the-leader" like most everyone else.

[ShiftingGears]

I find the aggressive driving rule slightly silly, they would not have to implement the rule so forcefully if kerbs actually punished vehicles that mounted them. Kerbs in the 60's especially were tyres that were mounted into the ground that would rip the cars wheels right off should drivers get overly aggressive with them. As it is now, with tarmac runoff, the distinction between the circuit and runoff is more or less the white line which carries minimal consequence, which causes more aggressive driving on behalf of everyone. Fix that and the need for rules like this will be greatly reduced.

[ShiftingGears]

Not for Fred at Silverstone. :bandit:
But then again he is a specimen of pure evil! :rolleyes: :s mokin:

But he was the one passing Kubica, an important distinction worth making. Which brings up another point. That, in a way, set a precedent that forcing a car off the road to maintain position is okay, because the driver who cuts across the chicane will have to concede position anyway.

Which again ties into one of the negative effects of kerbs that don't punish. Drivers would be more likely to give racing room knowing that the driver attempting to overtake would find it more convenient to stay on the circuit at risk of running into the defending driver rather than cut across the run-off area(usually tarmac) to try again later in the race.

[Tazio]

But he was the one passing Kubica, an important distinction worth making. Which brings up another point. That, in a way, set a precedent that forcing a car off the road to maintain position is okay, because the driver who cuts across the chicane will have to concede position anyway.

Which again ties into one of the negative effects of kerbs that don't punish. Drivers would be more likely to give racing room knowing that the driver attempting to overtake would find it more convenient to stay on the circuit at risk of running into the defending driver rather than cut across the run-off area(usually tarmac) to try again later in the race.

Duh!!! :crazy:
My bad!!!!!
The backmarker moving over is a good aspect of this rule as long as it is possible to enforce it in all situations evenly. :idea:

[AndyL]

Great explanation of the new technical regs on Craig Scarborough's blog:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/f1-2011-technical-regulations-detailed-and-explained/

Looks like even passive F-ducts are effectively banned with the tighter restrictions on slotted rear wings.

[Mark]

Thanks! No wonder all cars look the same when the rules are this strict!

[edv]

Who decided this idiotic rule?!

If you've used both specs of tires, that means you've made the pit stop and lost 20-30 seconds to those who have not yet stopped.

[ShiftingGears]

Who decided this idiotic rule?!

Awful. It's a stupid rule to regulate against their other stupid rules. Just get rid of the mandatory tyre switch.

[SGWilko]

If you've used both specs of tires, that means you've made the pit stop and lost 20-30 seconds to those who have not yet stopped.

True, but the rule is nontheless hitherto extremely unfair and skewed for any car/driver combination who is very tyre sympathetic and can make the set they started the race on last. If they were planning on making a last gasp late stop, the rule has no allowance for this.

[SGWilko]

Awful. It's a stupid rule to regulate against their other stupid rules. Just get rid of the mandatory tyre switch.

:up: Amen - the voice of reason!

[ioan]

If you've used both specs of tires, that means you've made the pit stop and lost 20-30 seconds to those who have not yet stopped.

But that also means that if the rain comes pouring down in lap 3 to 10 the driver who made a change of tires on lap one due to a collision or something will win the race.

And what if someone want to drive a 40laps long first stint?! Do we have to penalize them if the race is stopped after lap 39?!

Let's get real FFS.

[ioan]

True, but the rule is nontheless hitherto extremely unfair and skewed for any car/driver combination who is very tyre sympathetic and can make the set they started the race on last. If they were planning on making a last gasp late stop, the rule has no allowance for this.

I call this rule downright stupid.
It is incredible that so many people agreed to it and it was introduced as a rule for F1.

[ioan]

Awful. It's a stupid rule to regulate against their other stupid rules. Just get rid of the mandatory tyre switch.

:up:

[ioan]

People are missing the point about the water first having to flow to a drain before living the track and we can not have a track made of drain covers.
Nothing amazes me anymore.

[call_me_andrew]

What money is the curfew rule going to save? These people are not paid by the hour.

[gloomyDAY]

What money is the curfew rule going to save? These people are not paid by the hour.That's what I thought too! Let the teams decide what they want to do with their personnel. Geez, this crap reeks of NASCAR circa 2005.

[Mark]

Far from mixing things up, the tyre rule makes sure most teams use the same strategy.

Otherwise you could have mix between drivers doing 1 stop on hard tyres and 2 stops on soft tyres.

[AndyL]

What money is the curfew rule going to save? These people are not paid by the hour.

The curfew's not about money, it's about health and safety. The Red Bull mechanics in particular pulled a lot of all-nighters this year - the FIA wants to prevent this becoming an accepted norm. Doubtless to US members this will sound like communism ;) but in Europe it's accepted that regulations should strongly protect employees from exploitation by their employers.

[fandango]

I think they should limit the number of mechanics per teams at the circuit, and make the "race team" a standard number of people, the same for every team.

The problem with the curfew rule as it is now is that it penalises the poorer teams, because the ones with money can just bring more mechanics to get the work done in the available time. So they should have looked at limiting the number of people on the race team as well limiting the time the teams can work on the cars.

I actually think they should have cameras in the garages so that the fans can see what's going on. A post-qualy expert-driven report TV show on the teams' updates and fixes would be fascinating for petrolhead F1 fans.

[AndyL]

Isn't there already a limit on personnel numbers at races? Didn't that come in this year?

[Marbles]

I would love see them make the call on "a car leaving the track". But do they have it? Shortcutting a track has always been illegal but with the massive paved run-offs these days the longer way around a corner could be the faster way. For instance, what call, if any, would they have made at the start of this years Hungarian GP?

[call_me_andrew]

The curfew's not about money, it's about health and safety. The Red Bull mechanics in particular pulled a lot of all-nighters this year - the FIA wants to prevent this becoming an accepted norm. Doubtless to US members this will sound like communism ;) but in Europe it's accepted that regulations should strongly protect employees from exploitation by their employers.

1. This goes back to the lump of labor fallacy. If you give employees a shorter work day, their employer will simply force them to work harder while they're on the clock.

2. What's the more interesting story: a) Red Bull mechanics work on car all night and win the race or b) Red Bull withdraws after car is damaged in practice?

[Mia 01]

What money is the curfew rule going to save? These people are not paid by the hour.
Tired people makes moore mistakes, a life or two could depend on it.

[AndyL]

2. What's the more interesting story: a) Red Bull mechanics work on car all night and win the race or b) Red Bull withdraws after car is damaged in practice?

They do get 4 exceptions per season which should cover those scenarios. Unless a team has hired some sort of dodgy pay-driver who crashes way too often of course :) This new rule is about making sure that 24-hour working days remain an exception and don't become routine, which seems entirely reasonable to me.

[Lalo]

Jaime Alguersuari seems worried with the moving wings (article in spanish)

http://www.corsaonline.com.ar/2010/12/15/N-4947-los-puso-en-alerta.php

[I am evil Homer]

He should...it's the dumbest idea in a long list of dumb ideas from the FIA. It won't make overtaking easier and if anything constitutes a danger.

[N. Jones]

Complete list of rules. (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/9A195FD4A47DA4E1C12577F8004AA63E/$FILE/1-2011%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2010-12-2010.pdf)

*head scratch* There's a curfew now? http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88685

Also, someone needs to explain to me the new tire rules.
I just read it and my reading comprehension skills are just insufficient to wrap my head around those rules. :p
Hell, draw a diagram if you have to!

The tire rules are friggin' stupid. They should be removed so teams can run whatever they want.

Oh, and did I mention the tire rules are stupid?

[gloomyDAY]

Jaime Alguersuari seems worried with the moving wings (article in spanish)

http://www.corsaonline.com.ar/2010/12/15/N-4947-los-puso-en-alerta.phpThanks for the article. I didn't know some drivers had that problem with the F-duct. Also, a glitch with a moveable rear-wing would be catastrophic. Teething problems are probably going to arise during testing and if those issues can't be ironed out, then good luck in Bore-ain.

[ioan]

I would love see them make the call on "a car leaving the track". But do they have it? Shortcutting a track has always been illegal but with the massive paved run-offs these days the longer way around a corner could be the faster way. For instance, what call, if any, would they have made at the start of this years Hungarian GP?

Forget it, in F1 rules are made to be ignored by the stewards.

[wedge]

*claps hands*

'Aggressive racing' regs will turn into Indycar

2wHu6r28Ol4

[MAX_THRUST]

So if time is limiteed to repair a damged car, what happens when the nut isn't on properly and the car hits a wall and some one gets hurt. i know this is a What If? but stuff like that happens.

Agreed tired crew working in the pitts is a bad idea as well.

limit team members on pitt road. 1 guy for each tyre, two for fuel, and hydraulic jacks, I know that a little bit like indy car, but if some one gets it wrong in the pitts not so many people are gonna get hurt.

for example the bouncing wheel in the pitts scenario....less people around to be hit by the wheel also means more time to see the danger coming.

[MAX_THRUST]

In resspect of the clip, that was a crazy decision to penalise the lead driver. When a track is that wide and the guy trying to pass has gone even wider, whats the problem?

F1 an only hope cars over take as often as Indy cars.

[wedge]

In resspect of the clip, that was a crazy decision to penalise the lead driver. When a track is that wide and the guy trying to pass has gone even wider, whats the problem?

F1 an only hope cars over take as often as Indy cars.

Basically the lead car wasn't allowed to take the inside line to defend at T1 at Edmonton.

It'll be the same in F1 soon because of pansies* penalising aggressive defending and with gimmicks like FIA regulated-movable rear wings we're going to get artificial racing just for the sake of making overtaking easier.




*Stirling Moss once said "danger was the most important ingredient, like salt is to cooking."

[Malbec]

Will be interesting to see how the "aggressive driving" rule is enforced. What are the penalties? Will these rules keep Schuey from running Rubens into a wall or Hulkenburg from cutting through numerous chicanes?

My fear is that Kobayashi's spectacular overtaking will get penalized and a driver that actually adds excitement during a race will get be encouraged to play "follow-the-leader" like most everyone else.

What worries me is that there will sometimes be a huge speed differential at the end of straights with the moveable rear wings and KERS so it would be possible for drivers to be surprised by the car behind lunging in from a long way back. I think we're more likely to see high energy impacts due to accidents of this nature rather than dangerous driving per se.

[fandango]

The moveable rear wing is very gimmicky. I can't see it being popular.

If the problem for overtaking is so clearly and demonstrably that the car in front upsets the airflow of the chasing car, why don't they just make a rule that no car can disturb its wake by more than x%? They could have a standard wind tunnel test, just like the crash tests, and leave the expert designers to figure out how to design their car...

[SGWilko]

The moveable rear wing is very gimmicky. I can't see it being popular.

If the problem for overtaking is so clearly and demonstrably that the car in front upsets the airflow of the chasing car, why don't they just make a rule that no car can disturb its wake by more than x%? They could have a standard wind tunnel test, just like the crash tests, and leave the expert designers to figure out how to design their car...

The problem with ditching wings is a rather large loss of potential sponsor space.

Of course, the answer to that is to mandate benign wings - but that will just be a can of worms.........

[fandango]

The problem with ditching wings is a rather large loss of potential sponsor space.

Of course, the answer to that is to mandate benign wings - but that will just be a can of worms.........

Who said anything about ditching wings? I'm sure those clever designers could come up with a wing that gives downforce but doesn't disturb the trailing air more than a certain percentage.

And if it was all about and only about advertising space, the best rule would be to have flat, rather than curved wings. Back to the seventies, everyone, singing D-I-S-C-O....

[AndyL]

Who said anything about ditching wings? I'm sure those clever designers could come up with a wing that gives downforce but doesn't disturb the trailing air more than a certain percentage.

I'm sure they would also be highly adept at coming up with designs that would pass a standardised wind tunnel test, but generate a lot more turbulence in the more complex environment out on track.

The FIA struggle to even enforce rules about simple physical characteristics of wings (whether they bend or not). I think trying to prescribe their invisible effects would be even more difficult to enforce and less effective.