The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
PlatinumZealot
518
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

This thread is more about written sporting/technical regulations / directives than loopholes or banning of those loopholes guys.
.. OG.. OG.. OG.. OG..

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
426
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

El Scorchio wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:57 am
dans79 wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:27 pm
The weird knockout qualifying in 2016!
That was such a garbage idea! So relieved they dropped it. I don't know why they keep trying to mess with qualifying. It's one of the things that 99% of the time works brilliantly.
that's literally in the OP :roll:
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

User avatar
Big Tea
153
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Dont know that this is the right thread for it, but it is a past ruling.

Whats the feeling about 'T' cars? They were allowed, and for example when Max had his off on the way to the grid, he would have started in the 'T' car.
Seb claiming his chassis was broken, would compare it in the 'T' car.
A guest or test driver would be in a 'T' car, etc.

It would even allow for the suggested spare driver to have a bad off and the main driver to be OK for the afternoon Quali.

It would need rules for engine use, but could be worth thinking about again?
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So don't kick.

User avatar
El Scorchio
42
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:41 am

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Manoah2u wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:16 am
El Scorchio wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:57 am
dans79 wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:27 pm
The weird knockout qualifying in 2016!
That was such a garbage idea! So relieved they dropped it. I don't know why they keep trying to mess with qualifying. It's one of the things that 99% of the time works brilliantly.
that's literally in the OP :roll:
I know. Dans79 also mentioned it. I was commenting on it given it was such a spectacularly bad idea. Are we only permitted to list regs on this thread then and not pass any comment or conversation on them then? Because if so it’s going to be a boring thread.

the EDGE
the EDGE
119
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Bedfordshire ENGLAND

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Does the phrase ‘we’re going to let them race and have less penalty’s‘ count as a regulation change?

Because that was definitely short lived :lol:

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
704
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:32 am
Dont know that this is the right thread for it, but it is a past ruling.

Whats the feeling about 'T' cars? They were allowed, and for example when Max had his off on the way to the grid, he would have started in the 'T' car.
Seb claiming his chassis was broken, would compare it in the 'T' car.
A guest or test driver would be in a 'T' car, etc.

It would even allow for the suggested spare driver to have a bad off and the main driver to be OK for the afternoon Quali.

It would need rules for engine use, but could be worth thinking about again?
If Max had used the T-car, he'd have started from the pitlane so they'd have still wanted to have fixed the race car on the grid.

T-cars were banned as part of cost cutting, weren't they?
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
Big Tea
153
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:25 am
Big Tea wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:32 am
Dont know that this is the right thread for it, but it is a past ruling.

Whats the feeling about 'T' cars? They were allowed, and for example when Max had his off on the way to the grid, he would have started in the 'T' car.
Seb claiming his chassis was broken, would compare it in the 'T' car.
A guest or test driver would be in a 'T' car, etc.

It would even allow for the suggested spare driver to have a bad off and the main driver to be OK for the afternoon Quali.

It would need rules for engine use, but could be worth thinking about again?
If Max had used the T-car, he'd have started from the pitlane so they'd have still wanted to have fixed the race car on the grid.

T-cars were banned as part of cost cutting, weren't they?
Cost cutting and 'green' as they have to be transported.

I rise it because there has been talk of running extra races on a shortened weekend. One of those touted is a race for test drivers and spare drivers.
With a shortened weekend, any damage to a car in one of these 'extra' races will not leave much time to repair a damaged car in time for qualifying.

If the race was done in what were called T cars this would not be a problem and the teams could learn setup requirements etc from this extra race, and be more inclined to accept and finance it.

Getting something out of it, even if its just showing the sponsors off or trying a driver could encourage them. There would be many problems such as pit room, extra crew etc so it would not be trival for the team if not worth their while
Last edited by Big Tea on Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So don't kick.

DChemTech
DChemTech
49
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:25 am
Big Tea wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:32 am
Dont know that this is the right thread for it, but it is a past ruling.

Whats the feeling about 'T' cars? They were allowed, and for example when Max had his off on the way to the grid, he would have started in the 'T' car.
Seb claiming his chassis was broken, would compare it in the 'T' car.
A guest or test driver would be in a 'T' car, etc.

It would even allow for the suggested spare driver to have a bad off and the main driver to be OK for the afternoon Quali.

It would need rules for engine use, but could be worth thinking about again?
If Max had used the T-car, he'd have started from the pitlane so they'd have still wanted to have fixed the race car on the grid.

T-cars were banned as part of cost cutting, weren't they?
Seems likely, so with a budget cap in place, even if a T-car was allowed, I suppose noone would opt for it (then again, if a budget cap is in place, I have no objection to offering teams the possibility)

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
704
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

The daft thing about the T-car ban is that they basically bring it anyway, it's just in lots of packing cases.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

Baulz
Baulz
1
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:10 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:12 pm
The daft thing about the T-car ban is that they basically bring it anyway, it's just in lots of packing cases.
Didn't the teams bring a full crew of mechanics just for the T-car? At least there are savings there.

cplchanb
cplchanb
8
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:13 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Baulz wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:55 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:12 pm
The daft thing about the T-car ban is that they basically bring it anyway, it's just in lots of packing cases.
Didn't the teams bring a full crew of mechanics just for the T-car? At least there are savings there.
I think its the same mechanics. They just set the car to the first driver's preferences before the race. Had they retained it alonso wouldve probably been 2012 wdc.

Jolle
Jolle
222
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

The T-car, or spare car isn’t a short lived regulation. Spare cars were quite common for many years.
There are a few reasons they are banned and obsolete.
The onvious one is cost and space. There were always three (sometimes four) cars in the garage, fully race ready, next with enough parts to build two others.

The rules also changed to make it more difficult. Drivers/cars have to use certain parts like the PU and gearbox for a number of races and there is parc ferme from the beginning of Q.
In the days of spare cars you had a different setup and engine for qualifying.
Last but not least, the proper introduction of the safety car eliminated red flags on the first lap, the only real time drivers “jumped in the T car”.

User avatar
Big Tea
153
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Jolle wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:12 pm
The T-car, or spare car isn’t a short lived regulation. Spare cars were quite common for many years.
There are a few reasons they are banned and obsolete.
The onvious one is cost and space. There were always three (sometimes four) cars in the garage, fully race ready, next with enough parts to build two others.

The rules also changed to make it more difficult. Drivers/cars have to use certain parts like the PU and gearbox for a number of races and there is parc ferme from the beginning of Q.
In the days of spare cars you had a different setup and engine for qualifying.
Last but not least, the proper introduction of the safety car eliminated red flags on the first lap, the only real time drivers “jumped in the T car”.
I am not advocating it as just a spare car but a full T (team) car that is used for things other than being just an emergency backup. As I said, new driver or spare driver races to fill the (artificially created) time on a weekend where a practice session would have been. Component use, yes something would need to be in place, possibly if the T is used for a 'primary driver' it costs points or grid positions. I was looking at it from the entertainment and driver testing/comparing angle rather than just a spare, but it would mean one of the race cars not being destroyed too close to the race or qualifying.
PS don't remember 4 cars, but do remember the T car being qualified.
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So don't kick.

Jolle
Jolle
222
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:30 pm
Jolle wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:12 pm
The T-car, or spare car isn’t a short lived regulation. Spare cars were quite common for many years.
There are a few reasons they are banned and obsolete.
The onvious one is cost and space. There were always three (sometimes four) cars in the garage, fully race ready, next with enough parts to build two others.

The rules also changed to make it more difficult. Drivers/cars have to use certain parts like the PU and gearbox for a number of races and there is parc ferme from the beginning of Q.
In the days of spare cars you had a different setup and engine for qualifying.
Last but not least, the proper introduction of the safety car eliminated red flags on the first lap, the only real time drivers “jumped in the T car”.
I am not advocating it as just a spare car but a full T (team) car that is used for things other than being just an emergency backup. As I said, new driver or spare driver races to fill the (artificially created) time on a weekend where a practice session would have been. Component use, yes something would need to be in place, possibly if the T is used for a 'primary driver' it costs points or grid positions. I was looking at it from the entertainment and driver testing/comparing angle rather than just a spare, but it would mean one of the race cars not being destroyed too close to the race or qualifying.
PS don't remember 4 cars, but do remember the T car being qualified.
The sort lived regulation is indeed the few years they could put rookies in the T car. I guess with the data driven F1 these days, this would give an advantage to the teams that could run an extra car. The use of FP1 to give a rookie (or a someone that pays handsomely) the chance to make some km is a good alternative.

User avatar
1158
54
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:48 am

Re: The failed Formula One regulations that ended up "short-lived"

Post

How about PU tokens? Might not be technically short lived, but everyone realized pretty quick it was a mistake. I believe by mid 2014 there were already arguments against it. Token rule was modified for 2016 and binned for 2017 I believe.