FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

In the wake of Honda leaving F1 Brundle has an 8 point plan to keep F1 thrilling audiences for the future. I cant be botherted to type up all hi reasoning but here are his 8 ideas. This is from todays Sunday Times.

1. Knock 2000 revs off the engine and allow the teams until eve of first race to reoptimise only the ancillaries and electronics. Then they must last 4 races.
2. Teams to do K3000 testing a year without spectators. ban testing outsideof fri and sat of a GP weekend.
3. At end of first race and mnid season all cars made available for clo9se insepection by other teams.(To keep competition close and dissuade huge spending on wind tunnels and computers)
4. Reduce dry tyres from 14 sets to 8 sets per weekend.
5. Share common consumables and components.
6. Limit number of t6eam personel at race track to, say 50. Limit pitstops to 8 crew.
7. Consider postpning KERS.
8. Wasnt sure what his last point was. To do with the teams becoming more financially attractive and more money flowing back to the teams,to grassroots and junior levels.

What do you reckon to his ideas.

[FerrariFan63]

I like the idea of allowing the cars to be looked over by other teams. I've been suggesting a similar strategy where all designs must be made public knowledge, so that there is a limited amount of advantage that can be gained by spending huge amounts of money on R&D. It would also make it much easier for new teams to enter the sport as they could get access to the designs for a race winning car quite quickly rather than having to spend a decade or more tooling around mid-pack (or worse).

[cap-dude]

They're hardly ground-breaking.

Also, KERS, just get rid of the idea, its gonna cause more trouble than its worth.
Limiting the pit stop crews not a bad one. A1 only allows about 6 members I think, and the pit stops are more exciting to be honest. Reduce sets of tyres, another fairly good idea to.

Really, there are loads of things that F1 just wastes away money on. They need to remember the simpler times.

[Denthúl]

There aren't too many things I can add to that. It's all good as far as I'm concerned. Creating off-the-shelf components for teams to buy if they wish is one thing that definitely needs to be added to reduce costs as the design process only has to be done once for each of those components, rather than once per team.

[EwanM]

It is little things that could save so much and Brundle's point has picked up on it as have others in this thread.

If they are going to standardise anything, why not simple things like Brake discs, wheel nuts, Engine Oil, Fuel...
Simple things that if standardised would surely save alot of money - not alot but surely it would be in the right direction?

[7UpJordan]

I think the new aero regulations for 2009 might help save a little bit of money too. Those ugly, complicated winglets, flips, flaps and fins must have cost an awful lot to research into.

[scotty]

4. Reduce dry tyres from 14 sets to 8 sets per weekend.

I have long thought that they should could the amount of tyres available (somewhat like 2005 race regs, maybe have just one set to last them) - i didn't realise that the teams took as many as 14 sets though.

Is that per team or per car? If it's per car, the entire grid were taking 280 Sets of tyres to every race (!!!), which is absolutely fcking nuts just considering the logistical costs alone! I say one set per session and a back up in case of any blowouts... which is what, 6 sets?

[Denthúl]

4. Reduce dry tyres from 14 sets to 8 sets per weekend.

I have long thought that they should could the amount of tyres available (somewhat like 2005 race regs, maybe have just one set to last them) - i didn't realise that the teams took as many as 14 sets though.

Is that per team or per car? If it's per car, the entire grid were taking 280 Sets of tyres to every race (!!!), which is absolutely fcking nuts just considering the logistical costs alone! I say one set per session and a back up in case of any blowouts... which is what, 6 sets?

I think it's per team, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't think that going to the 2005 regulations would be wise, however I do think that providing longer-lasting compounds and removing the compulsory tyre-changes could improve the situation. Obviously, if the teams could design their car to last as long as possible on a given set of tyres, they would do, seeing as it would mean that they could minimise time spent in the pit lane.

[7UpJordan]

4. Reduce dry tyres from 14 sets to 8 sets per weekend.

I have long thought that they should could the amount of tyres available (somewhat like 2005 race regs, maybe have just one set to last them) - i didn't realise that the teams took as many as 14 sets though.

Is that per team or per car? If it's per car, the entire grid were taking 280 Sets of tyres to every race (!!!), which is absolutely fcking nuts just considering the logistical costs alone! I say one set per session and a back up in case of any blowouts... which is what, 6 sets?

I think it's per team, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't think that going to the 2005 regulations would be wise, however I do think that providing longer-lasting compounds and removing the compulsory tyre-changes could improve the situation. Obviously, if the teams could design their car to last as long as possible on a given set of tyres, they would do, seeing as it would mean that they could minimise time spent in the pit lane.

I think the forced "you must use this compound" rules are stupid, if a team manages to get a car through a full race distance on a single set of tyres, that should be commendable. Afterall it was quite common to do this back when I first started watching, and teams would come in and usually do a single tyre stop, or take them on if they felt the tyres were really wearing down or if they felt they were getting nowhere on their current set or if putting on a fresh set would help them progress quicker. And just changing tyres never used to really cost much time either, however back then there were no pitlane speed limits.

[Jensonb]

I think the new aero regulations for 2009 might help save a little bit of money too. Those ugly, complicated winglets, flips, flaps and fins must have cost an awful lot to research into.

Damn straight, those things are insanely complex.

[scotty]

4. Reduce dry tyres from 14 sets to 8 sets per weekend.

I have long thought that they should could the amount of tyres available (somewhat like 2005 race regs, maybe have just one set to last them) - i didn't realise that the teams took as many as 14 sets though.

Is that per team or per car? If it's per car, the entire grid were taking 280 Sets of tyres to every race (!!!), which is absolutely fcking nuts just considering the logistical costs alone! I say one set per session and a back up in case of any blowouts... which is what, 6 sets?

I think it's per team, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't think that going to the 2005 regulations would be wise, however I do think that providing longer-lasting compounds and removing the compulsory tyre-changes could improve the situation. Obviously, if the teams could design their car to last as long as possible on a given set of tyres, they would do, seeing as it would mean that they could minimise time spent in the pit lane.

Your point is valid to be honest about the unforced pitsops (considering the racing implications), although i think in that case i think the pit lane speed limit should be even lower, so that the benefit of coming in for fresh tyres has to be offset against say a 40s pitstop... and then we may see things like Mansell's attack on Piquet in 1987.

I do think the amount of tyres used over a weekend should be vastly reduced though, it is insane. So is that rule of using both soft and hard tyres, it just makes no sense on any level (let alone the cost of keeping such a rule) - there should be one single compound for every race of the season, and teams can work around it if it doesn't work for them.

[McLaren Fan]

The difference between the hard and soft compounds should be reduced. At the moment, nine times out of ten there is always one compound which superior to the other. If the difference between them was smaller, it would make it harder for the teams to decide which one to use and there could be some interesting strategic calls made.

[7UpJordan]

I think the new aero regulations for 2009 might help save a little bit of money too. Those ugly, complicated winglets, flips, flaps and fins must have cost an awful lot to research into.

Damn straight, those things are insanely complex.

And with the new front and rear wings being less complex and more basic that should save a few pennies too.

[scotty]

The difference between the hard and soft compounds should be reduced. At the moment, nine times out of ten there is always one compound which superior to the other. If the difference between them was smaller, it would make it harder for the teams to decide which one to use and there could be some interesting strategic calls made.

They should just have one compound then!! Teams can just work their strategy around it... e.g. judging by this year's cars, you would have the McLaren's on a 2 stop but doing very quick laps, while the Ferrari's can make their tyres last better on a one stopper but have to deal with the extra fuel. That is a bit more interesting while cutting the (pointless) expense of developing and transporting different compunds.

[8-ball]

A lot of money is currently frittered away on pointless testing of extra bits and bobs on the car etc. F1 should first cut out these unnecessary expenses then look at what the cost of running a team is. If needed then the more drastic cuts like standardizing parts can be looked at.