[CealialactBek]

Could be your life if we have another Massa like mix-up

Unless the new team Honda makes me an offer I can't refuse I doubt it . But your right, there have been quite a few accidents with the seemingly fool proof fuel rigs, none have caused any major problems, but they are an unnecessary risk really.

But, we still do need pit stop, even just for tyres.

[AndyScouchek]

That's why they should have an unrestricted Friday test day. So they can test new parts etc, without any restrictions on tyres, engines, etc.

True, but how do you schedule that over a normal GP weekend with support races that need track time and so forth?

I don't see a problem with that, but the fact is that Friday has been pointless for many years now. And if they insist upon keeping it then they might as well give it some reasonable purpose, and a test session seems the best idea to me. Especially if all other testing is banned.

Friday has never been pointless over the past few years. It's become a tyre test over the prime and option compounds, to gauge degradation and graining.




On the whole its all good. Excuse my ignorance but the sharing of fuel and tyre information sounds worrisome following of from McLaren/Ferrari spy row; tyre warmers WILL be banned, testing banned and hopefully no changes to race distance.

Good work gentlemen

[Immampdah]

That's an interesting little line hidden away in the detail there. I didn't expect to see that one. But it does make perfect sense. How much do those fuel rigs cost after all?!

I didn't expect it either, but it's welcome for the show.
How about having to completely redesign the cars to allow for a 2xbigger fuel tank? Doesn't that cost money? Maybe it's offset by not having to use refueling rigs and the 2 people that have to work with them?

[GoblinGaga]

I'm broadly supportive of most of it, but I'm still very anti the refuelling ban. As was mentioned before, in the 80s people tended to have to conserve fuel during the races, and many ran out of fuel in the last few laps. The GP2 race in Valencia this year was also a good example of that.
Also, the race distance would necessarily have to be slashed as the current cars can't go that far on one tank of fuel, and they don't want to introduce a whole new aero program 5 minutes after the current one is introduced, and especially not when we're supposed to be cutting costs.

[BCVB9SOc]

All good to me, only disappointment is the possibility of standardising KERS. Whilst I appreciate its to cut costs, I thought the original idea behind introduction of KERS was to make F1 technology more relevant, surely by standardising KERS, your moving the focus away from making F1 a field of pushing KERS to its ultimate limits.

If they're going to standardise it, I'd say just scrap it altogether and save even more money.

[hitaEtela]

All good to me, only disappointment is the possibility of standardising KERS. Whilst I appreciate its to cut costs, I thought the original idea behind introduction of KERS was to make F1 technology more relevant, surely by standardising KERS, your moving the focus away from making F1 a field of pushing KERS to its ultimate limits.

If they're going to standardise it, I'd say just scrap it altogether and save even more money.

I was thinking of that when I read it

The claim: Max says F1 technology will help car manufacturers and the racing.

Reality: KERS is dumbed down and inferior to road technology.

The Future: Further standardised meaning it is consigned to a great white Elephant.

[Eromaveabeara]

Be interesting to see how the drivers adapt to no tire warmers. Some will probably struggle at first.
They are talking of shortening the races. That would negate to some extent the fuel problem but I think the races are already too short. Trouble is I remember when they were around 300 miles. Larger fuel tanks will require larger cars and the handling will change more as the fuel is burned off than is now the case. With the costs of chassis redesign will it really save money?
I think the testing ban is a little dangerous. No question it will save money as test teams will be gone as will test drivers as well as the costs of track rental and hotel costs for the test teams. However the chance of component failure will increase.
I expect some of the rules planned for future implementation will disappear. Just look at the number of rules that have supposed to have come into effect over the last few years have quietly disappeared. The use of cheaper materials and standard parts will most likely die a quiet death as the economy improves.
One way to keep the costs down would be to stop the constant tinkering with the rules. Every change costs the teams money to implement.
Do the teams really need those all huge hospitality trucks with training rooms and private areas for each driver? They all stay in hotels anyway.
I know we can't go back in time but that is just a very obvious way in which teams spend as much money as they can get their grubby paws on.
I must admit that after over 50 years of following F1 (and at one time being with a F1 team) I am beginning to lose interest. I may not bother to watch next year but probably will. However if they dumb it down too much I will be gone.

[wmirkru]

My only real objection to the proposals is the hidden gem about banning refulling almost certainly goes hand-in-hand with the potentially reduced race distance / duration. I fear we're in for 60 minute races to fit the dumbed-down attention span of TV viewers.

Other than that it all seems fair enough.

[vSzsgifP]

"The chance of component failure will increase" - is that strictly true? Since the introduction of the one engine per one/two races the number of engines that blew up during races has dropped significantly (no facts to back this up but Brundle has noted it in his commentary).

Surely a lack of testing will make teams a bit more conservative and build components that are more likely to last for longer?

[awagsFare]

don't like most of the suggestions at all especially the refueling ban and 3 engine rules. I always felt that cost cutting should be up to the individual teams and not mandated from the legislative side at all.

All these moves are gimmicky and have no real value IMO. When the economy turns around and money starts to flow again, I don;t see why a team cannot invest their appropriate amount to become champs.

These applications move F1 further away from a legitimate top series and more into a gimmicky series with useless contrived parity, cheap chasis, standardized units and shorter races.

My interest in F1 is fading rapidly. And the irony is, that it wasn't the economy bringing about my disinterest but their own stupidity of reducing a once proud series into the laughing stock of the motor world.

Better to leave the sport like Honda did, than to participate in this nonsense.
At least I got to see Hamilton win the last "real" championship.

[sjdflghd]

All I can say is how many times have they gotten it right when changing the rules in F1!

[Eromaveabeara]

Curry: About the same # of times the Toronto Maple Leafs have won the Stanley Cup in the last 40 years.

[Enjknsua]

I'm generally in favour of all those changes they've made. Hopefully it will make F1 cheaper.

[Kilaoksrsa]

Generally good. Coupla problems:

We had an opportunity here to really push the boundaries of hybrid technology. All you needed was to allow engine development, a restriction on fuel capacity, no refuelling and 200 mile races combined with KERS and you're sorted. Although I guess if they leave KERS free, the development will come.

[Broorbbub]

We had an opportunity here to really push the boundaries of hybrid technology. .

This always puzzles me: why should F1 be the avenue for pushing hybrid or any other technology?

I'd rather see F1 simply as the means for the best drivers racing in very, very fast cars. PERIOD!!

[vioppyskype]

yet Ahole Bernie Ecclestone will still make around 30 million pre race weekend

[quorceopporce]

I didn't expect it either, but it's welcome for the show.
How about having to completely redesign the cars to allow for a 2xbigger fuel tank? Doesn't that cost money? Maybe it's offset by not having to use refueling rigs and the 2 people that have to work with them?

I have thought for some time that the tech regs out to allow at least the flexibility to make running through without a fuel stop a viable option.

[luspikals]

This always puzzles me: why should F1 be the avenue for pushing hybrid or any other technology?

I'd rather see F1 simply as the means for the best drivers racing in very, very fast cars. PERIOD!!

I totally agree.

[Liskaspexia]

Race weekend
Ban on tyre warmers.
Ban on mechanical purging of tyres.
Ban on refueling.

Is it just me, or does this amount to an effective ban on non-emergency pit stops? (I include stops to change to and from wets under "emergency") You need to carry enough fuel to last you to the end of the race, since you can't pit for fuel, and you'd be spending a lap or more "driving on ice" after a tyre stop and you'd lose a hellavalot of time (cf: the Toyotas' last lap in Brazil, when their tyres lost temperature). And if they maintain the "you must use two compounds during a race" rule and thus enforce a pitstop, everyone will do one stop and no more.

I forsee some very hard tyres in 2010.

And DO NOT WANT the shortening of races.

[Broorbbub]

Is it just me, or does this amount to an effective ban on non-emergency pit stops? (I include stops to change to and from wets under "emergency") You need to carry enough fuel to last you to the end of the race, since you can't pit for fuel, and you'd be spending a lap or more "driving on ice" after a tyre stop and you'd lose a hellavalot of time (cf: the Toyotas' last lap in Brazil, when their tyres lost temperature). And if they maintain the "you must use two compounds during a race" rule and thus enforce a pitstop, everyone will do one stop and no more.

I forsee some very hard tyres in 2010.

And DO NOT WANT the shortening of races.

There's nothing in the new regs that bans drivers from coming into the pits and waving to the Pit Babes, or having a shyte, although the latter could be regarded as an emergency if it wasn't just a routine visit.