FIA Thread

[chrisc90]

I don't want this at all btw but it's fun to talk about. Let's say you were the FIA and really keen on nerfing Red Bull in order to bring the grid close again, what would you do as the FIA? As it would have to be something that would hurt RB much more than any other team to bring closer parity to them all.

Add 10kg to the car for each race win. 70kg is a little over 2 seconds a lap lap time taken away.

It's an extreme thing, but probably about the only thing that would work as the RB is sufficiently far enough ahead that any fiddling of the rules wouldn't close the gap.

See success ballast works in other series. Take BTCC for example when they run 3 races per weekend.

Introducing similar when there's only 1 race per weekend wont really work. RB will just turn up and qualify 3rd or 4th instead of on pole and make the places back up in the race.

If you give 1 car 10kg more then it becomes unfair. How long should that 10kg (if it was implemented) be allowed to be given if RB then dont finish the race and Mercedes finish 1st for them say 2 or 3 races. Should that 10kg then go to Mercedes for example?

[Tiny73]

I don't want this at all btw but it's fun to talk about. Let's say you were the FIA and really keen on nerfing Red Bull in order to bring the grid close again, what would you do as the FIA? As it would have to be something that would hurt RB much more than any other team to bring closer parity to them all.

Enforce the cost cap properly?

[Just_a_fan]

I don't want this at all btw but it's fun to talk about. Let's say you were the FIA and really keen on nerfing Red Bull in order to bring the grid close again, what would you do as the FIA? As it would have to be something that would hurt RB much more than any other team to bring closer parity to them all.

Add 10kg to the car for each race win. 70kg is a little over 2 seconds a lap lap time taken away.

It's an extreme thing, but probably about the only thing that would work as the RB is sufficiently far enough ahead that any fiddling of the rules wouldn't close the gap.

See success ballast works in other series. Take BTCC for example when they run 3 races per weekend.

Introducing similar when there's only 1 race per weekend wont really work. RB will just turn up and qualify 3rd or 4th instead of on pole and make the places back up in the race.

If you give 1 car 10kg more then it becomes unfair. How long should that 10kg (if it was implemented) be allowed to be given if RB then dont finish the race and Mercedes finish 1st for them say 2 or 3 races. Should that 10kg then go to Mercedes for example?

We were asked how the FIA could slow down Red Bull. Adding mass is about the only way they could do it. It's a response to a hypothetical question.

As to how you do it, you add the mass for each race that is won and it stays on the car from then on. That would be the only way to do it within the remit of the question.

Of course, that's neither fair nor practical.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't want this at all btw but it's fun to talk about. Let's say you were the FIA and really keen on nerfing Red Bull in order to bring the grid close again, what would you do as the FIA? As it would have to be something that would hurt RB much more than any other team to bring closer parity to them all.

Enforce the cost cap properly?

[chrisc90]

When do we hear about the 2022 cost cap stuff? Been 18months now.

[InsaneX_Badger]

When do we hear about the 2022 cost cap stuff? Been 18months now.

There was talk that several teams went over. Died down again now.

[Big Tea]

I don't want this at all btw but it's fun to talk about. Let's say you were the FIA and really keen on nerfing Red Bull in order to bring the grid close again, what would you do as the FIA? As it would have to be something that would hurt RB much more than any other team to bring closer parity to them all.

Add 10kg to the car for each race win. 70kg is a little over 2 seconds a lap lap time taken away.

It's an extreme thing, but probably about the only thing that would work as the RB is sufficiently far enough ahead that any fiddling of the rules wouldn't close the gap.

See success ballast works in other series. Take BTCC for example when they run 3 races per weekend.

Introducing similar when there's only 1 race per weekend wont really work. RB will just turn up and qualify 3rd or 4th instead of on pole and make the places back up in the race.

If you give 1 car 10kg more then it becomes unfair. How long should that 10kg (if it was implemented) be allowed to be given if RB then dont finish the race and Mercedes finish 1st for them say 2 or 3 races. Should that 10kg then go to Mercedes for example?

I would say for each race points are scored. This would mean 'lower teams' get to score points even if it costs them next race. It would still end up with the usual suspects getting most points, but it would share them around a little.

I.E. Win and get (what ever the penalty for first is, say)10k. Next race they finish 3rd so they take the penalty for that instead (say 5k). Another option would be permanent small amounts for maybe half a season or reduced with each finish below 'X' places reviewed 4 times a year or so.

There could be a case for adjusting the penalty due to the gap on the last lap, which the leader could back off and make it look close, but there is always a chance of something going wrong and them getting jumped.

Not sure if it would work, but they have tried some poor things that they seem to like and the public do not.

[chrisc90]

TBH, the others arent a million miles away in the grand scheme of things. If you exclude Perez in 2022 at Barcelona, Russell was +32.9 behind Max, Today Lewis was +24seconds.

[KeiKo403]

I know the question was only hypothetical about slowing Red Bull down but I’m not up for that. Even as a Merc/Hamilton fan!
Red Bull have made a unicorn this season, we get to see it every race weekend perform so perfectly with Max, quite honestly I’m here for it!!
I’m happy for Max to take a record number of Grand Slams in a season, Red Bull win every race, this would be something special to witness.
This is a technical forum and what Red Bull are achieving this year is pure perfection of engineering and Max is just driving fantastically, I don’t want to see any team artificially slowed down.

[Just_a_fan]

I know the question was only hypothetical about slowing Red Bull down but I’m not up for that. Even as a Merc/Hamilton fan!
Red Bull have made a unicorn this season, we get to see it every race weekend perform so perfectly with Max, quite honestly I’m here for it!!
I’m happy for Max to take a record number of Grand Slams in a season, Red Bull win every race, this would be something special to witness.
This is a technical forum and what Red Bull are achieving this year is pure perfection of engineering and Max is just driving fantastically, I don’t want to see any team artificially slowed down.

Oh, I agree with you - I was just responding to the hypothetical.

It should be pointed out, however, that the rules are regularly changed to peg back the front end of the grid and even to specifically nullify one car's advantage. We've seen it in recent seasons with Mercedes (qualifying maps, anyone?) and, most notably, it happened in 2005 when the tyre rules were significantly changed and that slowed Ferrari enough for Fernando to take his first title.

[Big Tea]

I know the question was only hypothetical about slowing Red Bull down but I’m not up for that. Even as a Merc/Hamilton fan!
Red Bull have made a unicorn this season, we get to see it every race weekend perform so perfectly with Max, quite honestly I’m here for it!!
I’m happy for Max to take a record number of Grand Slams in a season, Red Bull win every race, this would be something special to witness.
This is a technical forum and what Red Bull are achieving this year is pure perfection of engineering and Max is just driving fantastically, I don’t want to see any team artificially slowed down.

I agree in principle, but it just happens to be Red Bull right now and has been others in the past for as long as I can recall. The Ferrari Williams and Mclaren years before were the same ( but to me some how more watchable?? possibility because cars broke down then? ) and it could well be AM next, but it is always more interesting if there are at least 3 probable winners, but that is not why the teams are in it, and in reality it is not fair to penalise success.

It is still interesting to discuss though

[Tiny73]

Changing the rules only works when teams stick to them.

[daneferrari]

I know the question was only hypothetical about slowing Red Bull down but I’m not up for that. Even as a Merc/Hamilton fan!
Red Bull have made a unicorn this season, we get to see it every race weekend perform so perfectly with Max, quite honestly I’m here for it!!
I’m happy for Max to take a record number of Grand Slams in a season, Red Bull win every race, this would be something special to witness.
This is a technical forum and what Red Bull are achieving this year is pure perfection of engineering and Max is just driving fantastically, I don’t want to see any team artificially slowed down.

I agree in principle, but it just happens to be Red Bull right now and has been others in the past for as long as I can recall. The Ferrari Williams and Mclaren years before were the same ( but to me some how more watchable?? possibility because cars broke down then? ) and it could well be AM next, but it is always more interesting if there are at least 3 probable winners, but that is not why the teams are in it, and in reality it is not fair to penalise success.

It is still interesting to discuss though

Time will pass and someone will be better again. It always happens that way. It won't always be Red Bull at the top, as no team stays on top for long. But what is interesting is that as time goes on, the race becomes more interesting. And it will be interesting to see which way Red Bull will be thrown off the podium.

[lio007]

So, based on WCC standings after Canada, the teams get their (new) aero development allocation for the second half of the year, right?

edit: I've checked, and it is determined at the last day of Aerodynamic Testing Period 3, which is the 25th of June.

Wind tunnel limits (100%)

• Runs: 320

• Wind On Time: 80 h

• Occupancy: 400 h

CFD limits (100%)

• 3D new RATGs used for solve or solve part of all RCFDs: 2000

• Compute used for solve part or parts of all RCFDs: 6 MAUh

RATG: Restricted Aerodynamic Test Geometry
RCFD: Restricted CFD (simulations)

For the first half of the year the teams had this percentage available:
1. Red Bull: 63% (incl. their penalty)
2. Ferrari: 75%
3. Mercedes: 80%
4. Alpine: 85%
5. McLaren: 90%
6. Alfa Romeo: 95%
7. Aston Martin: 100%
8. Haas: 105%
9. Alpha Tauri: 110%
10. Williams: 115%

For the second half of the year, as it is of today:
1. Red Bull: 63% (until end of October, then 70%)
2. Mercedes: 75%
3. Aston Martin: 80%
4. Ferrari:85%
5. Alpine: 90%
6. McLaren: 95%
7. Haas: 100%
8. Alfa Romeo: 105%
9. Alpha Tauri: 110%
10. Williams: 115%

[Wouter]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/how-fias ... -loophole/
.

How FIA’s trying to close an F1 team ‘side project’ loophole

By Mark Hughes

The FIA has issued a new technical directive to tackle potential grey areas around Formula 1 teams’ non-F1 engineering activities.

The newly-imposed TD45 comes into immediate effect and is backdated to January 1 of this year.

It is described by the FIA as both a technical directive and a cost cap admin clarification
which addresses the issue of non-F1 activities costs.

Many of the top teams have non-F1 engineering divisions – notably Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull, Aston Martin and McLaren.

The new TD clarifies how the FIA will interpret the costs of any technology or IP created by these non-F1 groups which is subsequently used by the F1 team, and makes clear the value of any such instances will be included in the cost cap. This is an attempt to close a possible loophole in the cost cap regulations.