F1: 2009 rules or 2013 rules?

[ESPImperium]

Id stick witheese rules for another 3 years, as the rules that ended in 2008 were in effect a long labour of love of 6 to 7 years.

And while there is life in theese V8s, as i dont think they are outdated lumps, lets race them. As when the aggreement was signed by all 11 teams at the start of the 2008 season there was provision for the V8s to carry on for up to another 10 years, with a review after 3 years, 6 years and then 8 years.

The V8s are cost effective for what the produce. Customer teams pay between €5.5m and €10m for a years supply, and with some teams outsourcing their transmissions and KERS, the V8s have some futher milage in them i feel.

We are still in a period of austerity in F1, and i feel that with costs pretty much remailing constant in the engine departments now, i feel that it would be wrong for the V8s to dissapear. Howevber, if there is a veto against them, id open up the whole 2013 season tp the engine guys to development, then homologate them again to the same standards as is present. Give the engine guys a chance to bolt up to an extra 25% more power onto them.

If this were to happen, id make a change in the engine rules, and that would be that engines must be ran consecutivly, and not concurently. So in the case of Ferarri and Bahrain 2010 that would have ment that the #1 engines would have been dumped after about 350-400km if memory serves me correctly.

HOWEVER, with that id also bring in the next generation of KERS and bolt HERS onto the cars as well, but in effect make the power avalable the same as what is being suggested for the I4s, somewhere in the region of 250HP for somewhere in the region of 30 seconds a lap.

THAT would make a car hard to handle with the 2013 aero tweaks.

[alelanza]

I prefer 2009 ones. I don't see a good reason behind the 2013 ones, other than change for the sake of change, in which case they represent a very expensive way of changing things, they could accomplish all that and more for less money by making less expensive alterations to the 09 ones

[Byronrhys]

I prefer 2009 ones. I don't see a good reason behind the 2013 ones, other than change for the sake of change, in which case they represent a very expensive way of changing things, they could accomplish all that and more for less money by making less expensive alterations to the 09 ones

+1, these rules still have life, even the engines still do, I don't see how some can say they are dated technology when they had been frozen, if not for that these engines would be far more modern. The 1980's is gone, 2013 is not gonna be that.

[N12ck]

I think keep the rules for a few more years yet, allow the constant development through with the 2009 rules (to see how extreme redbulls sidepods get, ) but allow us to see the constant development for a few more years yet, as i just feel f1 is turning into stop start regulations,

come up with the ultimate regulations,,,, get bored, make some new rules,,,, get bored,,, make some new rules,,, get bored and so on,, i think we need to stay with these for a few more years yet, and the v8's arent outdated, they could just force them to make them more fuel efficient = less fuel onboard = faster laptimes= more like f1 and more environmentally friendly = everyones happy

[WhiteBlue]

The 2013 rules are dropping like flies already. No new aero packages. Big Four set to veto the new engine reg. And if needed they(teams)can continue with current engine package until agreement can be reach within the teams

This is a rather outlandish claim which isn't supported by a single source. AFAIK the latest publication on the 2013 plans are by Dieter Rencken in Autosport+ and they contradict your assertions.

Compare also: Todt: New Rules Set in stone

[SiLo]

They shouldn't change the engines, they are fine as they are, it's more the aero regs for me that need looking at. I think raising the rear wing was a mistake, they just needed to decrease the overall area of the thing to make is less effective. In fact, the could just change the rear wings quite a bit, and then the rest of the car would have to change anyway because there would be way too much understeer to drive the things!

[Just_a_fan]

Stick with the current rules but reduce the fuel tank size by e.g. 15 litres each year. Allow the teams to develop the engines and the KERS to account for reducing fuel use.

Require the big teams (they are generally the ones who make the engines anyway) to absorb the engine costs so that the little teams get the same engine deals as now - thus they can continue in the sport with current funding levels.