Ferrari to quit F1

[Timpo]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/12/f...s-are-enacted/

[impactX]

... IF FIA doesn't change the 2010 regulations on budget cap.

Other teams such as Mclaren, BMW Sauber, Toyota, Redbull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso also threatened to quit if the regulations aren't scrapped.

I think Max Mosley will end up resigning over this.

[elkayem]

That's retarded.

They're fucking destroying the F1 championship by changing retarded rules like that and thinking that it's better for the races and more factories could join. Like how they changed the regulations on the car dynamics this year.

[q0192837465]

it's turning into NASCAR, and that's not a good sign

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by elkayem

They're fucking destroying the F1 championship by changing retarded rules like that and thinking that it's better for the races and more factories could join. Like how they changed the regulations on the car dynamics this year.

What destroyed this year was their ruling on the diffusers.

The goal was to provide enough flexibility in the rules so the cars look different, yet basically perform the same. The problem with the diffuser is it gives the teams running them a huge advantage.

While within the rules, the diffusers are not within the spirit of the new rules to even the competition, so its a wonder why F1 sided them with (we know why, cause of Brawn's hype, F1 didn't want to diminish it).

---

F1 used to be about innovation. Anything to stifle that sucks. Teams should be allowed to go balls out if they can afford it, yet they get a limited time before other teams are allowed to adapt the technology. I don't mind seeing Ferrari or Brawn come out and smoke the rest of the pack if they've got a better design - wait didn't I just comment on the diffuser? I commented objectively cause its not in the spirit of the new rules, yet I hate the spirit of the new rules, parity is for Nascar.

---

I like some of this years rules (not to be confused with liking the spirit of the rules, which I hate), more emphasis on mechanical grip (slicks) than aerodynamic grip (wings) cause mechanical grip is more reliable and doesn't result in the stupid looking winglets all over the car.

I do not like the bigger front wing though, it seems to get in the way more during tight racing. I'd like to see a stat if there has been more front nose changes this year or not.

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by taylor192

What destroyed this year was their ruling on the diffusers.

Gotta disagree. The diffusers met the letter (if not the intent) of the rules, afaik. The Brawns are the fastest cars, but who right now has the second-best car? Red Bull, who cannot easily run a double-deck diffuser.

Williams hasn't done much. Toyota has been pretty good, but behind Red Bull.

The goal was to provide enough flexibility in the rules so the cars look different, yet basically perform the same.

No, the goals were to reduce downforce and increase the possibility of passing.

The problem with the diffuser is it gives the teams running them a huge advantage.

While within the rules, the diffusers are not within the spirit of the new rules to even the competition, so its a wonder why F1 sided them with (we know why, cause of Brawn's hype, F1 didn't want to diminish it).

I know you're a McLaren fan, but it's not like the diffuser rule has "destroyed" the year. The diffusers are legal - full stop. McLaren now has the McDiffuser (and still has the best KERS system to boot) and they're still running ass. Something similar is happening at Renault. Again, Red Bull has a very good car and no double-diffuser.

I have no idea what FOM is really trying to do. What is the pinnacle of motorsport shouldn't be limiting itself in terms of financial outlay.

I commented objectively cause its not in the spirit of the new rules, yet I hate the spirit of the new rules, parity is for Nascar.

The rule changes weren't about enforcing about parity; they were about increasing passing. I will cry (kind of) the day that spec engines and budget limits are imposed on teams... as I'm sure you would too.

As shown by the diffuser controversy, there is still room in rule interpretation to make a substantial difference in the design of F1 cars.

[impactX]

Originally Posted by Blinky

Gotta disagree. The diffusers met the letter (if not the intent) of the rules, afaik. The Brawns are the fastest cars, but who right now has the second-best car? Red Bull, who cannot easily run a double-deck diffuser.

Williams hasn't done much. Toyota has been pretty good, but behind Red Bull.




No, the goals were to reduce downforce and increase the possibility of passing.



I know you're a McLaren fan, but it's not like the diffuser rule has "destroyed" the year. The diffusers are legal - full stop. McLaren now has the McDiffuser (and still has the best KERS system to boot) and they're still running ass. Something similar is happening at Renault. Again, Red Bull has a very good car and no double-diffuser.

I have no idea what FOM is really trying to do. What is the pinnacle of motorsport shouldn't be limiting itself in terms of financial outlay.



The rule changes weren't about enforcing about parity; they were about increasing passing. I will cry (kind of) the day that spec engines and budget limits are imposed on teams... as I'm sure you would too.

As shown by the diffuser controversy, there is still room in rule interpretation to make a substantial difference in the design of F1 cars.

Agreed with everything, just 2 minor corrections:
"The goals were to reduce downforce & increase mechnical grip and increase the possibility of passing."

"I have no idea what FIA is really trying to do. What is the pinnacle of motorsport shouldn't be limiting itself in terms of financial outlay."

FOM (Bernie) is already siding with the teams, since the teams pulling out of F1 would put a big dent in Bernie's wallet.

Renault also announced that they will be quitting if the budget cap plan stays in place for next year.

[Ludepower]

Let me get this straight...these rich teams wanna quit because they aint allowed to spend ridiculous amounts of money? Isn't that a good thing to place a cap...wtf?

[impactX]

No, you didn't get this right.

FIA is saying that if you limit your budget to 40mil, you will get unlimited testing, more flexible aerodynamic rules and all sorts of goodies, but once you get over that budget, you will need to follow stricter rules (aka no innovations). The teams are arguing that the budget caps are good for the sport BUT the cap shouldn't be this low and it should be implemented gradually. Also, they argue that there shouldn't be a 2-tier championship between budgeted and non-budgeted cars. Kind of like how in this year, there is a 3-tier championship, cars with double-decker defuser but without KERS, cars with KERS but without double-decker diffuser and cars without KERS and without double-decker diffuser.

Basically the rule changes are confusing the crap out of everyone. FIA said before that KERS would be manditory in 2009, then they scrapped that plan. FIA allowed 3 teams to build double-decker diffuser, but when another team, Redbull Racing, inquire about the legalities of a double-decker diffuser in 2008, FIA told them that it's illegal, hence why Redbull Racing doesn't have the DD diffuser right now.

Personally, I think the budget cap is crap. When the sponsors are willing to throw out millions of dollars on sponsoring the F1 teams during a frigging recession, why the hell would the teams not take the money? If I want to see a lesser series, I would go watch GP2 or A1GP.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Blinky

No, the goals were to reduce downforce and increase the possibility of passing.

How do you pass if there's not more parity?

Originally Posted by Blinky

I know you're a McLaren fan, but it's not like the diffuser rule has "destroyed" the year. The diffusers are legal - full stop.

The legality of the diffusers was in question, so its not a full stop, its debatable. Teams that tried to play the parity game were upset when this ruling came down, cause they had stuck to the spirit of the new rules to provide more parity in the design of the cars.

Originally Posted by Blinky

The rule changes weren't about enforcing about parity; they were about increasing passing. I will cry (kind of) the day that spec engines and budget limits are imposed on teams... as I'm sure you would too.

Again, how do you increase passing if cars are running away from the pack? Parity and passing have to go together, chicken and egg.

I will cry too.

Originally Posted by Blinky

As shown by the diffuser controversy, there is still room in rule interpretation to make a substantial difference in the design of F1 cars.

This years cars look more alike than ever. I disagree with substantial, subtle is the word you're looking for.

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by taylor192

How do you pass if there's not more parity?

One of the goals of the aero changes was to reduce the amount of "dirty air" coming off the back of the car.

An adjustment does not automatically imply parity.

The legality of the diffusers was in question, so its not a full stop, its debatable. Teams that tried to play the parity game were upset when this ruling came down, cause they had stuck to the spirit of the new rules to provide more parity in the design of the cars.

(emphasis added)
Sucks to be the other teams. The diffusers are legal - there is no debate any more. And now that things are clear, they have their chance at new diffusers. Like I've said, look at McLaren - they have the best KERS and now have the double-deck diffuser. They are still uncompetitive. How did the ruling destroy their season? How did the ruling destroy Ferrari's season?

Again, how do you increase passing if cars are running away from the pack? Parity and passing have to go together, chicken and egg.

There is a difference between slowing down the fastest car and allowing a marginally faster car a better chance to pass a marginally slower car. The "faster" car is going to have an easier time of passing if it has only 20 ft of shitty air to deal with instead of 200. How effective the change has been is debatable.

It should be clear from the overwhelming success of Brawn that "parity" is NOT happening right now. There is still definite stratification of the teams. They're just in a different order than we're used to.

This years cars look more alike than ever. I disagree with substantial, subtle is the word you're looking for.

They may look similar, but they sure don't perform similarly. The performance differences are substantial

[Chuck Norris]

F1 sucks shit now. It's been going downhill for quite a while.

There should be some regulations but it's just fucking stupid now.

[Blue92]

Let the whole thing go down in a shitstorm...the entire sport needs a drastic change. I am actually in agreement with some sort of budget cap (albeit a much higher one), but if it is implemented I'd like to see it across the board AND with minimal technical limitations (maybe limit the overall dimensions of the car, and the engine size). As enjoyable as the racing can be, I feel that F1 is more of a creative engineering challenge - and i think the rules should reflect that.

[Noizz]

motogp ftw!

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Blinky

...

We're just disagreeing on the spirit of the new rules.

I know they are to reduce downforce and put more emphasis on mechanical grip. This requires more driver skill then before, where the car could be thrown into a corner and expected to stick cause its sucked down to the road. This is good, cause the drivers were becoming robots with all the aids.

IMHO though the rules are designed to create parity. They are more limiting than ever before, and allowing the diffuser opens other rules to interpretation and will put F1 back in the same spot (cause like you point out, some teams are still dominating, parity wasn't achieved), yet with new stupid rules.

Personally I don't want parity, yet there's no way you can tell me all the new rules changes have not been designed to bring parity to the cars and put more control in the hands of the drivers.

[Blinky]

Taylor, no worries -- I enjoy chatting about F1

Looking at it from a high level though, F1 is a tough balancing act. How do you balance these things?

- driver and spectator safety
- cost
- entertainment value ("the spectacle")
- its position as the premier form of motorsport
- competitiveness between teams (related in part to entertainment value)
- Bernie Ecclestone's senility/ego

Personally I don't want parity, yet there's no way you can tell me all the new rules changes have not been designed to bring parity to the cars and put more control in the hands of the drivers.

Not trying to pick on you -- but do you prefer greater driver control or not? Your statement seems like you don't, and I don't think that's your intent.

Just stirring the pot a bit. Seeing a dominant team (McLaren in 88) is interesting... for a little while. But what about after that? Makes me wonder if we're going to see the same thing this year. Doubt it, but ya never know.

[Ludepower]

Originally Posted by Blue92

Let the whole thing go down in a shitstorm...the entire sport needs a drastic change. I am actually in agreement with some sort of budget cap (albeit a much higher one), but if it is implemented I'd like to see it across the board AND with minimal technical limitations (maybe limit the overall dimensions of the car, and the engine size). As enjoyable as the racing can be, I feel that F1 is more of a creative engineering challenge - and i think the rules should reflect that.

+2

They should have Hybrid engines now...if they're going to waste money...the technology can trickle down.

[Black SC2]

Originally Posted by Blinky

Taylor, no worries -- I enjoy chatting about F1

Looking at it from a high level though, F1 is a tough balancing act. How do you balance these things?

- driver and spectator safety
- cost
- entertainment value ("the spectacle")
- its position as the premier form of motorsport
- competitiveness between teams (related in part to entertainment value)
- Bernie Ecclestone's senility/ego



Not trying to pick on you -- but do you prefer greater driver control or not? Your statement seems like you don't, and I don't think that's your intent.

Just stirring the pot a bit. Seeing a dominant team (McLaren in 88) is interesting... for a little while. But what about after that? Makes me wonder if we're going to see the same thing this year. Doubt it, but ya never know.

That's easy:

Priority 1 - - driver and spectator safety - no drivers, no racing
Priority 2 - - entertainment value ("the spectacle") - no fun to watch, no sponsors, no racing
Priority 3 - - cost - Few teams results in no fun to watch, no TV sponsors, no racing
Priority 4 - all the other stuff


Right now, they're focusing on spectacle and competitiveness, and ignoring the others. It's becoming nascar esque in that more of the story of an F1 weekend is about which team is challenging which rules, or which one cheated outright, or what the F1 management is up to behind the scenes. I remember when the commentary focused on trivial matters like tire choices, pit-stop strategy, the invention of Hans devices, improvements to existing tracks, the wonder of new tracks. When all that stuff went down the drain in favour of soap opera management and broadcasting, I stopped watching the series closely.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Ludepower

They should have Hybrid engines now...if they're going to waste money...the technology can trickle down.

I'd like to see them go one further.

If they want to level the playing field and make it interesting: all-electric cars.

1. This will solve the reliability problems, electric engines don't break down as easily.
2. This will put all the teams on the same playing field, since none have an all-electric engine.
3. This will bring back the innovation that made F1 the pinnacle of motorsport.

[spydermanx]

Originally Posted by taylor192

I'd like to see them go one further.

If they want to level the playing field and make it interesting: all-electric cars.

1. This will solve the reliability problems, electric engines don't break down as easily.
2. This will put all the teams on the same playing field, since none have an all-electric engine.
3. This will bring back the innovation that made F1 the pinnacle of motorsport.

instead of 10 sec refueling, we see 10 sec battery swaps

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Blinky

Taylor, no worries -- I enjoy chatting about F1

Looking at it from a high level though, F1 is a tough balancing act. How do you balance these things?

- driver and spectator safety
- cost
- entertainment value ("the spectacle")
- its position as the premier form of motorsport
- competitiveness between teams (related in part to entertainment value)
- Bernie Ecclestone's senility/ego

Me too, yet not as much lately as I feel F1 is turning into Nascar, and I already watch Nascar.

Driver and spectator safety are fine where they are at now. The cars and tracks are safer than ever, anything else that happens is going to be an act of god.

Cost is always going to be a problem. What made F1 great was teams spending stupid amounts of money trying new innovations. Toyota spends a fortune and is now only seeing results, and Ferrari spends a fortune and have seen their results taper off, while Brawn seems to have lured the best engineers and created a better car for less money. So I don't "buy" into the costs argument - especially when several other teams are running Ferrari or Mercedes engines.

Entertainment value is far down for me. I agree with the comments that its turned into a soap opera.

Limiting costs will bring F1 down from the pinnacle as it will limit innovation.

Allow the teams to run 3 cars. Nascar has 40 cars in each race, yet more than half are from a handful of teams.

Originally Posted by Blinky

Not trying to pick on you -- but do you prefer greater driver control or not?

Just stirring the pot a bit. Seeing a dominant team (McLaren in 88) is interesting... for a little while. But what about after that? Makes me wonder if we're going to see the same thing this year. Doubt it, but ya never know.

I prefer more driver control. I understand driver aids are part of the innovation, yet Kimi is a great example, he was able to drive robotically when the car did everything for him, now he looks erratic.

I like this cause drivers make mistakes, and without the drivers aid the mistakes will be bigger and this will permit passing.

I like seeing the dominant team if they are winning cause they have the better car (not just better interpretation of the rules). Force the dominant teams to share their engineering info after a timeframe, to allow the other teams to catch up.

[hk20000]

Sudden budget cap also means lots of people going out of job....and not doing the cap means not so competitive......Ferrari is looking out for its people man.

[Timpo]

i think the new f1 regulation is retarded...there are way too many rules in f1

[Shafto]

having the cap in place was the option chosen trying not to standardize the cars. Agreeing to the cap allowing you greater technical freedom will result in teams bringing forth whatever they can think up of. Fully adjustable aerodynamics, engines with no rev limit, it would be cool. But I am against the cap.

The other option for cutting costs was stadardizing of the cars, that would be making it like NASCAR.

Oh and electric? you cant be serious?

[Ludepower]

Originally Posted by Shafto

Oh and electric? you cant be serious?

Why not? they've mastered how fast cars can go on 4 wheels...it's time for a technology change.