Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[godlameroso]

Great just make the cars slower, pretty soon LMP cars will be as fast as F1. The slower F1 cars are barely faster than GP2 cars as it is.

[MIKEY_!]

sad isn't it... i guess the only solution is to make GP2 cars slower as well

[godlameroso]

Why stop there, let's make every form of racing slower, we can make it so slow that each F1 race can become a 24h event...to do 1 lap.

[MIKEY_!]

I love it! And then we can allow spectators onto the track to mingle with the drivers, they could even conduct interviews and sign autographs during the race!

[FrukostScones]

the cars will be slower in 2014 than today and then there is this big issue Adrian Newey now talks about:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101865

I hope the engines and subsystems of the manufaturers will not differ to much in power output, otherwise we will have the engine dominated formula 1 some are craving for. Just imagine the Ferrari at the end of the grid just because of a --- engine....

[wesley123]

so? What's the point? There are different engine manufacturers, thus one manufacturer has the best engine andf the other the worst. I dont get the point, if it isnt meant that way let the FIA deliver a standard unbranded engine. Thank god I'm not watching this rubbish sport anymore.

[N12ck]

I actually question, why change the aero regs at all?

the cars are so similar in pace, I can just see there being 1 Brawn GP car (dominant) and the rest take ages to cotton on,

I understand why change the engine +ERS rules, but why change the aero rules, maybe lower the nose slightly, but not to the extremes which they are going to go to?

[DaveKillens]

the cars will be slower in 2014 than today and then there is this big issue Adrian Newey now talks about:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101865

I hope the engines and subsystems of the manufaturers will not differ to much in power output, otherwise we will have the engine dominated formula 1 some are craving for. Just imagine the Ferrari at the end of the grid just because of a --- engine....

Many years ago one of the reasons Ferrari was one of the big names in Formula One was because they built monster engines. Those V-12's were beautiful to hear and they put out prodigous power. Now, if in this day their engines aren't as ... awesome, so what? Reputations can carry one only so long, and then you have to produce results. But rest assured, Ferrari have a lot of good people in their engine department.

Great just make the cars slower, pretty soon LMP cars will be as fast as F1. The slower F1 cars are barely faster than GP2 cars as it is.

And that's a harsh reality of life and limits on safety. Many years ago Formula One cars were the quickest, but they became so quick that safety became an issue, and ever sincethen their performance has been hobbled to a specific performance level. If you took all the limitations off the cars would easily lap any track 5 seconds quicker, but they would also be much more dangerous. So there is a performance ceiling the FIA maintains.

Meanwhile, other formulas have steadily been increasing their performance and lap times with the advent of technology, and they are closing in on Formula One levels of performance. There is a ceiling, and Formula One got to it a long time ago. But now, others are getting close.

[wesley123]

Great just make the cars slower, pretty soon LMP cars will be as fast as F1. The slower F1 cars are barely faster than GP2 cars as it is.

And that's a harsh reality of life and limits on safety. Many years ago Formula One cars were the quickest, but they became so quick that safety became an issue, and ever sincethen their performance has been hobbled to a specific performance level. If you took all the limitations off the cars would easily lap any track 5 seconds quicker, but they would also be much more dangerous. So there is a performance ceiling the FIA maintains.

It wont be more dangerous, these cars can easily hold crashes of 300kph into the concrete. That was shown in 2007 by Kubica and since then the cars became even safer and slower. Safety is the biggest bs lately. As a matter of fact, what makes you think a 900kg LMP is safer than a 600KG F1 at the same pace? The only problem in safety is detached parts hitting surrounding people, and wether that happens with 300 kph or 250kph doesnt matter, at both speeds the marshall that gets hit by a tire, or a car itself, is pretty much dead. Not trying to be harsh here, that just is the case.

Meanwhile, other formulas have steadily been increasing their performance and lap times with the advent of technology, and they are closing in on Formula One levels of performance. There is a ceiling, and Formula One got to it a long time ago. But now, others are getting close.

bogus, the only ceiling is the fear by people around it who dont know anything about how safe it is and what 'could happen'. Might as well run pantsered cars, since a sniper in a tree could happen too.

Nothing wrong with safety but there is a thing that is too safe, and they're at it now. They are cutting speeds unneccesarily and bringing in rules to make the whole safer at the cost of on track action. What they're doing now is simply the same as when soccer players would need to use kneepads, helmets and other gear.

F1 is by far the safest sport, the likelyhood of even getting hurt is pretty much zero, compared to soccer where you might get injured when tackled, or any other sport.

I am all for safety, but just like cost cutting it is taken too far, way too far

[DaveKillens]

As much as I like you Wesley and respect your opinion, this is one subject where I disagree. I believe the present fixed level of performance is correct, the right balance between risk and safety. It's safer because the FIA does not want to see any driver deaths in Formula One. Senna's death was a traumatic blow to the sport, something that we really haven't got over, even after 18 years.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nay3co6i ... re=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvejihukmI[/youtube]

Kubica survived, Moore did not.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kODJoZwik_E[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kNZzqqdhM0[/youtube]

The difference? Webber went straight and survived. Krosnoff went into the fencing, and did not survive.

Racing is still a very dangerous sport, and but for the grace of God....

[wesley123]

We are talking f1 here, Indycars arent as safe as f1, hence sometimes a driver dies. Part of that is just the show that Americans love.

On the other hand, like said, f1 is simply too safe. The likelyhood of a driver even breaking a leg or something is almost zero percent. When was the last time we seen a driver actually get injured in f1? I believe last time was the 2004 US Grand Prix, and that was far from a driver dies.

Also this 'performance ceiling' is a huge amount of bs, every rule change the cars are made slower, but they never fully make up for it. Since 2004 the cars have been made an incredible amount slower, and also the cars became safer. The likelyhood of a driver death is such small that I dont even think you can consider it. Hell you are 1000 times more likely to die when playing soccer than this, and that is the part where 'too safe' comes to part. One thing that characters a sport is the adrenaline, adrenaline you get of the danger, the possibility you get hurt while doing the sport. It is just part of it, and then there are those people on the sideline, who know barely anything about the sport at all, saying the sport is too dangerous and it should be safer. Also these same guys who constantly moan how the costs should be cut, but are still spending the same amount of money.

Like said, the only dangers that are truly there are something like what Massa had in 2009, or a driver hitting a marshall, and I dont see how slowing the cars down once again, or safer crash structures is going to help. Also I dont see how the ban of DDD or the EBD is going to help against that either.

It is just a bunch of old guys standing on the sideline who cant understand it anymore when it goes to fast, so they cut the speeds every time they have the chance, and then use 'driver safety' as an excuse. They use it as an excuse for pretty much anything, and if they dont use this they use the excuse of 'too expensive'.

[bhall]

We are talking f1 here, Indycars arent as safe as f1, hence sometimes a driver dies. Part of that is just the show that Americans love.

[...]

Bullshit.

[Just_a_fan]

The difference? ....

The difference is that Kubica and Webber were lucky. Watch both accidents carefully and you can how close both came to have secondary impacts that would have been fatal. Webber almost hit the catch fencing - had it happened earlier in the straight then he might have done so. He also landed on the roll hoop in just about its strongest direction.

Kubica almost lost his feet - you can see them at the end of the tub and they are exposed. There are pictures showing them exposed. He also almost impacted head first in to the ground and was almost hit by another car. If the angle of his initial impact had been slightly steeper then he wouldn't have benefitted from the long drawn out dissipation of energy as it barrel rolled down the circuit. So many ifs in those two accidents. Only one of those "ifs" needed to go differently and we would have had a fatality.

The US drivers were unlucky because they were in accidents that were unsurvivable - not car (F1, LMP, anything) would have saved Moore, for example.

[Just_a_fan]

We are talking f1 here, Indycars arent as safe as f1, hence sometimes a driver dies. Part of that is just the show that Americans love.

On the other hand, like said, f1 is simply too safe. The likelyhood of a driver even breaking a leg or something is almost zero percent. When was the last time we seen a driver actually get injured in f1? I believe last time was the 2004 US Grand Prix, and that was far from a driver dies.

Wow. Never heard such rubbish. F1 is too safe because people don't get injured? Just wow.

[DaveKillens]

The difference between CART and Formula One crash protection is minor. Both have carbon fiber chassis, HANS, high cockpit sills, fuel retained in bladders, and both are capable of keeping the driver alive in a survivable crash.

I pointed out the similarities between Moore and Kubica. Both lost control at high speed, came off the ground, and impacted the hard barrier at a sharp angle. If, and that's a big IF, Kubica's car had rotated the wrong way, the first impact may have been similar to Moore's. But when you mix the words "safety" and "if", then you are down to nothing but pure chance.

Yup, even if it's us old guys keeping the levels of performance down and using "safety" as a rationale, maybe it's because us old guys are sick and tired of watching drivers die. I sure am. Formula One is safe, but even then we have had a lot of close calls.