FIA and Manufacturers Reach Agreement on Sweeping Changes to F1 Regulations

[Jack_Bauer]

The F1 fraternity has moved swiftly to implement far-reaching cost cutting changes to the sport's regulations in the wake of the demise of Honda and the deepening global financial crisis. In a rare moment of unity between the teams and the FIA, the World Motorsport Council today voted through the motions set out after a series of meetings between the teams and the FIA in recent days and weeks. The changes are substantial to say the least...

Originally Posted by GrandPrix.com

The new world of Formula 1

The FIA World Council met in Monaco today and voted through the following changes. These proposed changes have the unanimous agreement of the Formula 1 teams, who have played a major role in their development.

In 2009 engine life is to be doubled. Each driver will use a maximum of eight engines for the season plus four for testing (thus 20 per team). They will be limited to 18,000 rpm. There will be no internal re-tuning with adjustment only to trumpets and injectors only. The three-race rule voted on November 5 will remain in force. The cost of engines to independent teams will be approximately 50% of 2008 prices. Unanimous agreement was reached on a list of proposed changes to the Renault engine for 2009; all other engines will remain unchanged. Comparative testing will not be necessary.

There will be no in-season testing except during race weekends. There will be no wind tunnel exceeding 60% scale and 50 metres/sec after January 1 2009. A formula to balance wind tunnel-based research against CFD research, if agreed between the teams, will be proposed to the FIA. There will be factory closures for six weeks per year, depending on local laws.

Manpower at races will be reduced by means of a number of measures, including sharing information on tyres and fuel to eliminate the need for "spotters".

Market research will be conducted to gauge the public reaction to a number of new ideas, including possible changes to qualifying and a proposal for the substitution of medals for points for the drivers. Proposals will be submitted to the FIA when the results of the market research are known. It is estimated that these changes will save the manufacturer teams approximately 30% of their budgets compared to 2008, while the savings for independent teams will be even greater.

For 2010 engines will be available to the independent teams for less than €5 million per team per season. These will either come from an independent supplier or be supplied by the manufacturer teams backed by guarantees of continuity. If an independent supplier, the deal will be signed no later than December 20 2008. This same engine will continue to be used in 2011 and 2012 (thus no new engine for 2011). Subject to confirmation of practicability, the same transmission will be used by all teams.

A list of all elements of the chassis will be prepared and a decision taken in respect of each element as to whether or not it will remain a performance differentiator (competitive element). Some elements which remain performance differentiators will be homologated for the season. Some elements will remain performance differentiators, but use inexpensive materials. Elements which are not performance differentiators will be prescriptive and be obtained or manufactured in the most economical possible way.

At races there will be standardised radio and telemetry systems. Tyre warmers will be banned. No-one will be allowed to mechanically purge the tyres. Refuelling will be banned. The race distance may also be reduced depending on the results of market research.

There will be further restrictions on aerodynamic research, a ban on tyre force rigs and a full analysis will be made of factory facilities with a view to proposing further restrictions on facilities.

In the longer term FIA and FOTA will study the possibility of an entirely new power train for 2013 based on energy efficiency (obtaining more work from less energy consumed). Rules to be framed so as to ensure that research and development of such a power train would make a real contribution to energy-efficient road transport. An enhanced Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) system is likely to be a very significant element of an energy-efficient power train in the future. In the short term, KERS is part of the 2009 regulations, but is not compulsory. For 2010 FOTA is considering proposals for a standard KERS system. The FIA awaits these proposals.

Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. A case of adapt or die by the looks of things.

Thoughts?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

This is just a more extreme version of what they've been trying to do forever.

And it didn't work in small doses......

[ruim20]

Why not just end? it's a decadent sport and it's only going to get worse, by the looks of things in 2015 the grid will be made of the same car. F1 transformed in a mono marque sport.

I've allway supported the no refueling idea. why not make the rules free and start cuting in the fuel, one year 100 liters, the next 90, and so on, wasn't this sport supposed to help advance motoring technology?

[RacingManiac]

I thought the cutting the the analysis capability of the teams are silly....they are cutting track testing and what not but no need to cut out ability to do rig testing or software analysis. Granted those testing aren't cheap, but certainly not crazy expensive like track testing with the fabbing of protype parts and all the logistics...its the reason why physical testing and simulation tools exists in the first place, to save cost and time...If they are going that far you might as well ban all proper engineering and just have people start drawing stuff on napkins and guesstimate numbers...and then with all the cost cutting they still want to proceed with something thats going to be crazy expensive like the R&D of KERS, a brand new technology that requires a crazy amount of technology that has not been applied to this or any field at the moment.....

[Ferrer]

I'm not much into F1, but isn't F1 supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport?

[Wouter Melissen]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

I'm not much into F1, but isn't F1 supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport?

Going fast at a budget does not mean it can not be the pinnacle. What they want to prevent is give the teams all the resources to get that extra tenth. If the cars are 1 or 5 seconds a lap slower because of this, they are still the most advanced and fastest racing cars out there.

[Kitdy]

What disappoints me and maybe Ferrer too were the relatively tight restrictions on the sport when things were going well - I was shocked to see the restrictions placed on engines. They really could usher in some interesting new technology I think if they allowed for some more creativity.

[Wouter Melissen]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

What disappoints me and maybe Ferrer too were the relatively tight restrictions on the sport when things were going well - I was shocked to see the restrictions placed on engines. They really could usher in some interesting new technology I think if they allowed for some more creativity.

Going well? We could have a whopping 18 cars on the grid in 2009.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

What disappoints me and maybe Ferrer too were the relatively tight restrictions on the sport when things were going well - I was shocked to see the restrictions placed on engines. They really could usher in some interesting new technology I think if they allowed for some more creativity.

I think that may be the problem.

Most of the teams are in a bad financial situation, fair enough. Let's limit the spending. But is standardisation necessary?

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by RacingManiac

I thought the cutting the the analysis capability of the teams are silly....they are cutting track testing and what not but no need to cut out ability to do rig testing or software analysis. Granted those testing aren't cheap, but certainly not crazy expensive like track testing with the fabbing of protype parts and all the logistics...its the reason why physical testing and simulation tools exists in the first place, to save cost and time...If they are going that far you might as well ban all proper engineering and just have people start drawing stuff on napkins and guesstimate numbers...and then with all the cost cutting they still want to proceed with something thats going to be crazy expensive like the R&D of KERS, a brand new technology that requires a crazy amount of technology that has not been applied to this or any field at the moment.....

I agree on the first part, even if a team like Force India doesn't have the money for simulated testing either (but they have money to purchase McLaren's stuff...).

I think the rules are basically correct considering this very moment, but perhaps a little too much restrictive on the long term.
Trying to be more efficient overall is a good thing, not just making a better car but also a better team, factory and so on, but standardization is something difficult to accept in F1.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Wouter Melissen

Going well? We could have a whopping 18 cars on the grid in 2009.

I said when they were going well - I am not intimate with the financial situation of F1 but I imagine that the late 90s in particular was a good period for the sport seeing as the economy was doing fabulous - maybe some more open technical regulations would have yielded some interesting developments. Imagine what active suspensions could have done for example with the computational advancements at the time (yes maybe it'd have been dangerous - anyways, only one example). I was against a lot of these changes proposed earlier this year (I did realise that costs were too high and may harm the sport though), but in the current state of things in 2009 it looks like the right thing to do. However, when the economy picks up it looks like things will be limited even further - I guess that's good in a way as it will generate more revenue for the teams and the like but maybe too much at the expense of high technology. I think a potential problem is the hoarding of TV revenue by the controlling interests of F1.

I quite liked the idea proposed by Matra which was a budget cap coupled with more open regulations. The problem would be monitoring spending.

[LTSmash]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

I agree on the first part, even if a team like Force India doesn't have the money for simulated testing either (but they have money to purchase McLaren's stuff...).

Vijay is very wealthy indeed.

[Kooper]

I think it's fine if they create a standard optional engine. This would give the smaller teams a cheaper alternative, should they want to go that route. Once this (standardized engine across the board) becomes compulsory though, I think that'll be the death-knell for F1.

The wind tunnel thing (no bigger than 60%), what about the teams that have 100% tunnels? Seems like a bit of a waste... No CFD? Why not? Surely this is a cheaper alternative to actual, real-life wind tunnels?

Be that as it may, guess we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.

[f6fhellcat13]

Originally Posted by Kooper

I think it's fine if they create a standard optional engine. This would give the smaller teams a cheaper alternative, should they want to go that route. Once this (standardized engine across the board) becomes compulsory though, I think that'll be the death-knell for F1.

I agree

Originally Posted by Jack_Bauer

Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. A case of adapt or die by the looks of things.

Thoughts?

Die.


... and pheonix-like, have a new F1 rise form the ashes.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by f6fhellcat13

I agree

Die.


... and pheonix-like, have a new F1 rise form the ashes.

And it shall be called... F-Zero. And the cars will all hover and fly through courses many many kilometres long at speeds in excess of 1000 km/h and some ill 80s style electronic rock will play and it will be bangin'.