FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
User avatar
By Martin
#33481
Sporting Regulations, Article 22.1
22.1 a) Testing shall be considered any track running time undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship with the exception of:
i) promotional or demonstration events carried out using tyres provided specifically for this purpose by the appointed supplier;
ii) young driver training, any such driver having not competed in an F1 World
Championship Event in the preceding 24 months nor tested a Formula One car on more than four days in the same 24 month period.
IMPACT: Exempting young driver evaluations from the annual limit on testing mileage removes one of the barriers to new drivers entering the sport; the difficulty of giving young drivers F1 seat time was an unintended consequence of last year’s blanket testing restrictions. Renault have already put this clause to good use, evaluating Alvaro Parente as his prize for winning the 2007 World Series by Renault. Teams are limited to a total of 350km during these evaluation days.

Sporting Regulations, Article 28.1
28.1 Each competitor may have no more than two cars available for use at any one time during an Event. Any partially assembled survival cell will be deemed to be a car in this context if it is fitted with an engine, any front suspension, bodywork, radiators, oil tanks or heat exchangers.
IMPACT: This regulation means the disappearance of spare cars from the team garages. This is a logical move towards greater cost-efficiency in an era of nearly flawless reliability up and down the pit-lane. Teams will likely take one less chassis to the races than in previous years (in most cases, a total of three in 2008, compared to four previously).

Sporting Regulations, Article 28.6
28.6 a) Each driver may use no more than one gearbox for four consecutive Events in which his team competes. Should a driver use a replacement gearbox he will drop five places on the starting grid at that Event each time a further gearbox is used. Unless the driver fails to finish the race (see below) the gearbox fitted to the car at the end of the Event must remain in it for three further Events. Any driver who failed to finish the race at the first, second or third of the four Events for reasons beyond the control of the team or driver, may start the following Event with a different gearbox without a penalty being incurred.
d) At the second, third and fourth Events seals may be broken once, under supervision and at any time prior to the start of the qualifying practice session, for the sole purpose of changing gear ratios and dog rings (excluding final drives or reduction gears). Gear ratios and dog rings (excluding final drives or reduction gears) may also be changed under supervision for others of identical specification at any time during an Event provided the FIA technical delegate is satisfied there is evident physical damage to the parts in question and that such changes are not being carried out on a systematic basis.
IMPACT: Following the successful, phased introduction of long-life engines since 2004, the “long-life principleâ€
User avatar
By Denthúl
#33482
I think it will make drivers be a lot more careful when shifting gears. Otherwise they risk damaging the gearbox and if that were to happen during qualifying or practice, then they'd suffer for it. Granted, if it fails during the race, then I guess they're okay because they can get it replaced without penalty.

I'm also happy to see that the fuel burning period is gone - that was wasteful and, being someone who cares about the environment and controlling pollution, I think it's good that they aren't burning off extra fuel for no good reason. The testing restrictions are good and bad. Good in the sense that teams with a bigger budget can't get more testing time than those with a smaller budget, and that they use less tyres and fuel over the season. But bad in the sense that test and reserve drivers are likely to get very limited time in the cars because the team will want their race drivers to work on getting the car set up for a race and to test out any new aero packages that they add.

But I think, overall, the new regulations are a good thing. :)
User avatar
By 8-ball
#33484
the new quali regulations are good that Q3 was a waste of time. I'm not so sure about the gearbox regulations. This means that gearboxes will go through 2 engines and will that affect how the engine performs especially if the gearbox is on its fourth race?
User avatar
By f1ea
#33485
1. Testing - main drivers are like Hollywood super stars nowadays... it's good that they will get to do more of the dirty work themselves (plus with the ECU and TC thing even more). Anyway, this will just eventually reduce some running costs, and try and balance the field (and reduced costs possibly attract new investors/teams)

2. No spare car - the main influence is during Q... as you don't see many spare switches during a normal race. Definitely drivers have to be really really careful during Q and in wet conditions. Again, cost reduction, but I don't like this restriction. If you crash in Q you're out of the race or if there is a massive race pile up, the race could become a survivor event...

3. Gearbox - this, combined with the removal of electronic aids, will put more stress on the Gearboxes. We'll have to wait and see how reliable these gearboxes are and how much effort they spend designing them... i fear it will further separate front runners from the back of the grid.

4. Fuel / Qualy - This is excelent. Makes Q more exciting and strategies more upfront and decisive....
User avatar
By Jensonb
#33489
I hate these multiple races for one part rules.

Oh well, at least it's only a 5 place grid penalty this time
User avatar
By Martin
#33491
Gearbox. It does on the face of it seem to apply a high risk to reliability, but these teams / engineers are working at the highest level in the world. If the component has to last for 1 race then thats what they design, if it has to last for 4 races then they can design for that. They know every little detail about their car and the conditions and streeses that the components have to work under, and can design accordingly.
There really is no reason why any component could not be designed to last for a whole season.
Design is about compromise to all of the technical requirements. More reliability usually means a slight loss in some other area. If you only need to design for 1 race then you reduce reliability to maximise another element, if it has to be 4 races then that other element has to be reduced.
Easy peasy !!! :shock::o
User avatar
By f1ea
#33493
Easy peasy !!!


Specially with the engine turning @ 19,000 RPM with no electronic/engine braking. Piece of cake!

We'll see which teams got their development and design of gearbox, transmission and materials right... But as I think: teams with the most experience/budget will have done their homework; the smallest teams will have more trouble managing this on top of the ussual aero, engine etc etc
User avatar
By McLaren Fan
#33494
I'm glad the pointless fuel-burn period is gone in qualifying. It was a waste of time and highly boring. It did use up (a tiny fraction) of fuel which wound-up Green Peace and other biased activist, so, for that reason, I didn't mind it.

I think the main issue is how far car reliability has come on. Even five years ago, seeing cars pull out of races in plooms of smoke was not uncommon. Drivers had to drive tactically in a race anyway. Now, I suppose, drivers can punish their cars a lot more and get away with it. Therefore, to bring back an element of tactical car driving, having parts lasting for multiple Grands Prix is necessary, and I don't think it will have too much of an impact in general in terms of aggressive racing.

Not having a spare car, however, I disagree with. That means drivers will have to be careful in qualifying - not what we want to see - and I think it's unfair that should you have an accident, often through no fault of your own, you will not be able to start the race if the car is sufficiently damaged.
By al4x
#33499
i dont think q3 should be that short, its good to eliminate the fuel burn phase but i think it should be longer

and getting rid of the spare car, bad! as mclaren fan said, an accident is often of no fault of the concerned driver, and in q, you want drivers pushing! thus the gear box should be the same as the engine, 2 races.
By al4x
#33500
plus i still think that q3 should be 15 minutes where each time you come in the pits fuel has to be topped up to pre designated level but you can use whatever tyre you want and change tyres as many times as you want
User avatar
By racechick
#33506
Yup. Fuel burn going is good :D . Spare car going is bad :(
User avatar
By 7UpJordan
#33511
I think taking away the spare car's a bad idea too. I just hope that in a few years time we don't see the words "Engines are now banned, all cars must be driven by running inside the car Flinstones style." in the regulations. Then again anything is possible with Mad Max.
User avatar
By McLaren Fan
#33513
I think taking away the spare car's a bad idea too. I just hope that in a few years time we don't see the words "Engines are now banned, all cars must be driven by running inside the car Flinstones style." in the regulations. Then again anything is possible with Mad Max.

Well, it could save a little money, you know...
User avatar
By darwin dali
#33522
Easy peasy !!!


Specially with the engine turning @ 19,000 RPM with no electronic/engine braking. Piece of cake!

We'll see which teams got their development and design of gearbox, transmission and materials right... But as I think: teams with the most experience/budget will have done their homework; the smallest teams will have more trouble managing this on top of the ussual aero, engine etc etc


It IS easy! Nobody says you have to run the engine at 19,000 RPM. That's the crazy (and expensive) part and it does NOT translate into applicability for consumer cars.
Yes, I'd be all for longevity of parts. 2 engines per season per car, 2 gearboxes per season per car - that way we would see only one engine/gearbox update mid season. Cost reduction galore!
User avatar
By f1ea
#33545
They had to set a limit to rpm, so they could actually be even higher... there are I4 2.4L engines, with as much or even higher HP output and better mpg than many V6 3.5L, the I4s always run at higher rpm... so maybe some F1 technology / knowledge has already been used.

I don't know... but backfield teams have the highest failure rate anyway, so tighter restrictions regarding parts durability could hurt them even more, that's the difficult part i see in it. Before you know it, these smaller teams could spend even less time on the track with a running car: baaaaad for teams, sponsors... and for the fans.

As you would say: DNF galore!
:):wink:

By the way, Anyone knows the numbers on the last 3-5 seasons regarding engine, gearbox etc failure rate? and which teams have the lowest reliability for each part?

See our F1 related articles too!