x838nwy

Clipped this:

I really don't see why they'd want to do this, watering down the whole thing IMO.

Anyway, an interesting thing is that somewhere in the specs. says that it is required to control a "6 or 7 speed semi-automatic sequential gearbox and hydraulic multi-plate carbon clutch." Does this mean they're going to make seam-less shift gearboxes illegal too, all in this crusade to save costs? That would be probably the last straw.

Evilution VIII

Well since they are pretty much going to a spec motor.... handing out an ecu to the team before the race probably isnt going to change much.

'ringmeister

iTrader: (25)

i believe they are going with a common ecu is so they can effectively ban traction control, etc. with proprietary ecus it is too easy for the TC code to be hidden. that was the only reason the made it legal again a few years ago because everyone was using it and getting away with it anyway.

chronohunter

iTrader: (1)

I agree, anything that gets rid of driver aids is worth it IMO

992gnt

iTrader: (5)

Amen to that!

x838nwy

I don't see why so many are against these "driver aids". I agree that it's not exactly best for F1 (or any other kind of racing) if the driver simply becomes a passenger, but we must also be careful not to make F1 some sort of historic event.

Take gearboxes for example - next year, a number of engines will be going around 20,000rpm mark (and more towards the end of the season). With a normal synchromesh, it would be next to impossible to change gears. With systems like DSG and various others available in road cars, isn't it a little silly to keep the technology out of F1?

Another would be traction control. The FIA has for the moment at least given up trying to control it (as 'ringmeister pointed out, it's virtually impossible to do so). But is this really a bad thing? Obviously it makes less important one quite important skill, but it places a demand for the skill to set it up properly to the conditions, track, driver and then the ability to use it properly. Hopefully we will see some of this developents in road cars, hopefully.

A host of other things I could go on about, but my point is that the FIA, to me, has made a mess of it all. The two issues involved are a.)cost cutting for teams b.)drives aids. They can't seem to separate the two subjects and instead of trying to intelligently control (b.) the trend is to group it with (a.) and throw it all in the bin.

While they're focusing on what's expensive, I think they should instead look at is what is wasteful - what area of development holds the least benefits for the teams. If Mercedes somehow develops a really great engine or traction control system or even active suspension, I'm sure we'll see the technology passed down to road cars eventually, somewhat justifying the costs of development. But if Red Bull develops an amazing aero pacakge on their cars, then that's that. It might help them win races, but that would be the only return of the millions spent. And while winning is obviously the immediate goal, there is no further return on the investment.

With the ECU - back on topic - currently there's a situation where whoever comes up with a 'better' solution has the advantage and therefore companies are competing by developing new techniques, technologies and products and this will advance the industry as a whole. With the introduction of standard ECU's the developments will be pretty much frozen, or at least slowed down significantly and that does nobody any good.

Evilution VIII

I wish there were an easy solution to bring back more teams and allow for more creativity in design. but its been a domino effect.

x838nwy

I think costs spiralled due to the fact that since 97( ? J.V.'s title) the FIA regulations are such that teams ended up relying a lot more and more on the aero effects to get the lap times. Then they realised that this makes overtaking impossible at some places and people don't want to pay to see a row of cars going round and round so they start trying a thousand and one things to make it more exciting most of which didn't work.

The point is that aero research costs a heck of a lot of money and it is a bill footed only by the teams (no real partner like say if they were developing a radical new clutch or something) so that makes it worse. Now almost everybody has a multimillion dollar wind tunnels - you can't convince me that a dyno would cost that much. It's all, IMO, because of the FIA. Even public interest is fading because of this. I mean Renault has come up with a rather clever rear wing for 06 but does that really interest anyone?

It's like you can get 500whp from your evo, but it would cost probably 10x more if you had to keep to the stock turbo etc. etc.

GregGSC

iTrader: (44)

nah got to be on the stock ecu. the hell with the stock turbo.


as far as everyone using the same ecu wouldn't bother me. Everyone knows that it wouldn't really matter if there was no TC aids in the car. one ecu to the next isn't going to make a significant power advantage its all in the 10 PHD Tuners they got putting the numbers in the computer making them go. its now going to rely on the drivers


Now the Tire rule is what bothers me.

fromWRXtoEVO

iTrader: (18)

I doubt they would do that, there are too many advance Japonese and European ECU makers like Magneti Marelli, Motec,Hondata, Bosh, Motronic , Geber, and the list goes on and on.

Making the ECU under restricted reg wouldn't allow some team take their advantage over others.

Carlos

nils

iTrader: (56)

yah...

n

x838nwy

The tyre thing is bound to happen ever since that (bad) joke of a GP in the US last year. Tyre companies are becoming like car companies - there are fewer and fewer of them - so I think the single maufacturer thing is more of an excuse for why nobody wants/can to supply F1 tyres except for one company.

Anyway, it's happened before and tyres are a more remote part to the performance of the car. I don't mean it in a sense that it's not important - it determines the ultimate performance capability of the car - but it's not as guarded as the teams's engines, ecu's, transmission etc. so in that sense they're not they're in a different category to those things. It is a shame that avenues for intelligent and novel solutions are being removed...

bobaab

iTrader: (5)

I think you are forgetting the main reasons they are putting in all these rules in effect. It's not just a cost saving thing, they are also trying to put more excitement into the sport by making it more of a driver's game instead of a money game. (ex. Ferarri a couple years ago)

mayhem

iTrader: (9)

There's drivers in racing? :P

yooyooyoo

iTrader: (3)

I think you're on point on this topic. FIA is looking at viewership and if you've ever been to F1 or watched it, while the awe of the amazing machinery dies out fairly quickly, just watching it is kind of boring. One driver (at least for the last few years) has dominated everything. His advantage was so great he could use the previous years car and still win. Yes his skill is high, but his teammate does just as well.

its like in the NBA when they change the rules to make the game more "exciting."

If you watch an F1 race, whoever sits on pole will most likely podium. Theres hardly any passing. Contact is rare relative to other sports. So wheres the excitement?

I think the idea they are moving towards is towards a more leveling of the playing field...