Why the need for stringent regulations?

[thearmofbarlow]

Actually, the big drop in deaths was associated primarily with the push for safer tracks not cars. Senna's death for example would likely have happened in a modern car, and could only have been prevented by keeping the speed of the car at that point below the maximum safe speed for the track.

The fact that we no longer watch races through forests on narrow, bumpy, 20km long tracks with poor marshal support, and 0 run off is what has improved safety.

There is no way Senna dies in a modern car. We've seen some absolutely ungodly shunts (think Schumacher at Indy) that would have resulted in deaths, absolutely, were the cars not safer. I will grant you that there are just as many examples of safer tracks avoiding crashes altogether or reducing their result (Perez at Monaco. I still cringe), but honestly it would take an absolute hellish crash at an incredibly high rate of speed to result in the kind of injuries or deaths we saw twenty years ago.

THAT said, with the safety structure of BOTH the cars and the tracks at a very high level there is absolutely no reason to continue with the ridiculous technical restrictions in the name of safety. "Oh, that tiny hole in the floor isn't legal! It might cause you to go 'round a corner three thousandths faster!" Boring. Don't care. I'm sick of watching a race then waiting a day to see who got a grid penalty, or a time penalty, or if the result I saw actually stood. It's nonsense. Clamping down on everything so tightly you may as well be running a spec series.

I've said it before and I will continually harp on it. Stringent safety regs are a must, for both car and track. This goes without saying. Stringent technical regs... well, those lead to races won on tire strategy. Strip away all the BS about how many millimeters above the ground plane but behind the trailing front wing edge you can allow stupid aero horseshit and leave it at this: engine spec, fuel limit... have fun. Want ground effects? Go for it. Moving wings? Sure. KERS/TERS/Alexander Wurz? Why not? Take the focus off this aero fiddling and give us what we want. Differing engines, differing strategies, and a field that doesn't look like the same car fifteen times.

[beelsebob]

Actually, the big drop in deaths was associated primarily with the push for safer tracks not cars. Senna's death for example would likely have happened in a modern car, and could only have been prevented by keeping the speed of the car at that point below the maximum safe speed for the track.

The fact that we no longer watch races through forests on narrow, bumpy, 20km long tracks with poor marshal support, and 0 run off is what has improved safety.

There is no way Senna dies in a modern car. We've seen some absolutely ungodly shunts (think Schumacher at Indy) that would have resulted in deaths, absolutely, were the cars not safer.

The thing is, Senna wasn't killed by the shunt being ungodly quick... He was killed by bad luck in just exactly how the car came apart and exactly what flew where. There is nothing that would stop the same thing happening in a modern car. The thing that would prevent it in modern terms is that the wall would not have been any where near that close to the track – there would have been another 200m of tarmac run off, and then 200m of gravel, and then a tyre barrier, not some grass, then a concrete wall.

THAT said, with the safety structure of BOTH the cars and the tracks at a very high level there is absolutely no reason to continue with the ridiculous technical restrictions in the name of safety.

No, the reason why everything appears so safe is because everything is held (nearly) in the margin where things are safe. The reason the technical restrictions are there is because if they weren't, they no longer would be in those margins.

[thearmofbarlow]

The thing is, Senna wasn't killed by the shunt being ungodly quick... He was killed by bad luck in just exactly how the car came apart and exactly what flew where. There is nothing that would stop the same thing happening in a modern car. The thing that would prevent it in modern terms is that the wall would not have been any where near that close to the track – there would have been another 200m of tarmac run off, and then 200m of gravel, and then a tyre barrier, not some grass, then a concrete wall.

Can't disagree that the wall should never have been that damn close to the track. There is much regarding track and car safety in the past that was absolutely ridiculous to anyone that gave such things much thought. That it took the death of one of the all-time greats at the hands of such stupidity to bring about change is appalling.

No, the reason why everything appears so safe is because everything is held (nearly) in the margin where things are safe. The reason the technical restrictions are there is because if they weren't, they no longer would be in those margins.

By limiting resources you create margins. Put a tighter lid on fuel consumption and/or fuel flow rate. Utilize one control tire, one inter, and one wet, so that cars can be designed to use them properly. Restrict the dimensions of the wings in a MEANINGFUL way.

The current regulations have been hammered into place over the course of decades. There are restrictions that exist for no reason other than the technology wasn't considered safe enough thirty years ago. Times change. My Kia has more technology packed into it than an F1 car does. Stability control, ABS, traction control, these cool lights that blink in time with the music... think Ferrari has that in Alonso's cockpit?

Point being, it's time to take a look at the regulations as a whole and see what is actually needed. Throw the rulebook out and start fresh. One tire, tight fuel restrictions, small wings, engine formula. Go.

[beelsebob]

By limiting resources you create margins. Put a tighter lid on fuel consumption and/or fuel flow rate. Utilize one control tire, one inter, and one wet, so that cars can be designed to use them properly. Restrict the dimensions of the wings in a MEANINGFUL way.

The current regulations have been hammered into place over the course of decades. There are restrictions that exist for no reason other than the technology wasn't considered safe enough thirty years ago. Times change. My Kia has more technology packed into it than an F1 car does. Stability control, ABS, traction control, these cool lights that blink in time with the music... think Ferrari has that in Alonso's cockpit?

Point being, it's time to take a look at the regulations as a whole and see what is actually needed. Throw the rulebook out and start fresh. One tire, tight fuel restrictions, small wings, engine formula. Go.

Yep, I would tend to agree that it's time for new regulations, that think about the restrictions in different ways, my point was only that the restrictions are needed (however you choose to implement them).

[xpensive]

I believe that rules and regulations should most of all be obvious and understandable, xamples;

* A flat bottom rule is obvious - Minimum radius on bodywork is not.
* Energy limitation is understandable - Regulated cylinder spacing is not.
* A ban on adjustable aerodynamic devices is obvious - A ban of flexible such is not.

[beelsebob]

I believe that rules and regulations should most of all be obvious and understandable, xamples;

* A flat bottom rule is obvious - Minimum radius on bodywork is not.
* Energy limitation is understandable - Regulated cylinder spacing is not.
* A ban on adjustable aerodynamic devices is obvious - A ban of flexible such is not.

I'd agree on all counts, except the minimum bodywork radius – that's there for one simple reason – don't build cars that are essentially knives, and will cut your opponents tyres.

I'd love to see a formula 1 with no diffuser (flat bottom all the way back), no beam wing (at least not one that's wing shaped, maybe just for structure), a fuel flow limit, but allowing all the kind of technical wizardry you can think of, including (but not limited to) all kinds of crazy energy tech, energy recovery systems, active suspension systems, movable aero...

[bhall]

Formula 1 teams are considering a ban on tyre warmers from as early as next year as part of a package of cost-saving measures.

With the FIA and teams currently involved in a consultation period to frame new regulations aimed at keeping finances in check, sources have revealed that one proposal being given serious thought is to outlaw tyre blankets.

Such a move, which was also considered a few years ago before being dropped because of safety concerns, would save teams money in both equipment expenditure and in freight costs.

[...]

Out of all the things...

[xpensive]

Good lord, limiting the wing-span of the private jets would have been far more efficient cost-wise,
but I guess that is not what it's all about, is it? Taking the Pirellotery one step further perhaps?

[munudeges]

Good lord, limiting the wing-span of the private jets would have been far more efficient cost-wise,
but I guess that is not what it's all about, is it? Taking the Pirellotery one step further perhaps?

I don't think the local 'escort' budget for execs will be going down either..........

[bhall]

I've only been following F1 since 2005, and there's very little left of the things that attracted me to the sport in the first place. I'm not so naive as to think that such shifts are without precedent. In fact, I think changes and the behind-the-scenes machinations from which changes are born are firmly ensconced as part of F1's allure, albeit in a very twisted way.

But, I do wonder, at what point does it stop? My lack of knowledge of F1's history largely precludes me from making judgments one way or the other, because I have no idea what's cyclical and what's not.

I don't know. Every time I think F1 has jumped the shark, something inevitably happens that reminds me things can, and probably will, get worse.

[xpensive]

Like mun so subtly hinted at, the money in F1 one comes largely from treating the sponsors' executives right, limit wingspan of the private jets along with bra-size of the "hostesses" from DD to A, and the cost of F1 will come down like a ton of bricks.

[myurr]

Like mun so subtly hinted at, the money in F1 one comes largely from treating the sponsors' executives right, limit wingspan of the private jets along with bra-size of the "hostesses" from DD to A, cost of F1 will come down like a ton of bricks.

And so will sponsorship...

[thearmofbarlow]

Yep, I would tend to agree that it's time for new regulations, that think about the restrictions in different ways, my point was only that the restrictions are needed (however you choose to implement them).

To me the only thing that should matter when it comes to what goes on a car, as far as the FIA should be concerned, is "Is this safe?" Fan car made safe? Race it. Ground effects combined with an electronic suspension system to eliminate sudden loss of force? Race it. As long as your engine is to formula, your fuel tank is the same volume, and your tires are spec.

I believe that rules and regulations should most of all be obvious and understandable, xamples;

* A flat bottom rule is obvious - Minimum radius on bodywork is not.
* Energy limitation is understandable - Regulated cylinder spacing is not.
* A ban on adjustable aerodynamic devices is obvious - A ban of flexible such is not.

Flat bottom isn't obvious, nor are movable aero devices. If you're limiting the amount of fuel available, and doing so in a very harsh manner, you'll need such things to claw back efficiency. When I say limit fuel I don't mean take a few pounds I mean along the lines of 150 kg capacity using a spec fuel bladder, and require that they be filled completely before each race.

[beelsebob]

Formula 1 teams are considering a ban on tyre warmers from as early as next year as part of a package of cost-saving measures.

With the FIA and teams currently involved in a consultation period to frame new regulations aimed at keeping finances in check, sources have revealed that one proposal being given serious thought is to outlaw tyre blankets.

Such a move, which was also considered a few years ago before being dropped because of safety concerns, would save teams money in both equipment expenditure and in freight costs.

[...]

Out of all the things...

Wait what... I would bet that'll cost more, due to the increased fuel usage getting tyres up to temp!

[beelsebob]

Yep, I would tend to agree that it's time for new regulations, that think about the restrictions in different ways, my point was only that the restrictions are needed (however you choose to implement them).

To me the only thing that should matter when it comes to what goes on a car, as far as the FIA should be concerned, is "Is this safe?" Fan car made safe? Race it. Ground effects combined with an electronic suspension system to eliminate sudden loss of force? Race it. As long as your engine is to formula, your fuel tank is the same volume, and your tires are spec.

And back round in circles we go – again, part of the safety issue is simply the maximum speed that the track can bear, the tightening regulations are intended to keep cars at or below that speed. Fan cars are not okay, because they were one of the methods of keeping the speed down.