[F1] 2005 season approaches. Big rule changes.

[soberion]

Did a search, couldn't find any discussion of the new rules for the 2005 season.

I think the biggest impact will be the limitation of one set of tyres per race excluding tyre damage. Taken from the F1 website


On Fridays, drivers will be able to test two different dry tyre compounds. Ahead of Saturday practice they must choose one of these for the remainder of the weekend. They will then be allocated three sets of this compound – one will be used in practice, one in qualifying and the race, and one kept in reserve in case of punctures or accident damage.

These changes will require harder compounds than in 2004 and will force drivers to drive with tyre preservation in mind. The knock-on effects will be slower lap times and much-revised race strategies.

Drivers will also have access to wet and extreme-weather tyres. These can only be used when the track is declared wet by the race director.

On top of this, is the raising of engine life from 1 to 2 race meetings



In 2004 engines had to last one race weekend. From 2005 they must last two – equivalent to a distance of around 1,500 kilometres (close to 1000 miles). If a driver requires an engine change ahead of qualifying, he will drop ten places on the grid for that race. If an engine is changed between the start of qualifying and the race the driver will be put to the back of the grid.

In both instances the driver concerned must use his new engine for the remainder of that meeting and the entire following grand prix weekend. If a driver fails to finish a race, he may start the next meeting with a new engine without penalty.


There are others, noticably aerodynamic changes, but I really hope that the above two will lead to much closer racing, something F1 has been lacking for a while.

[rawowl]

Are they considering using any figure of eight tracks this season ? :D

[Andrew70]

Japan is and I think I read that one of the places that wants to host a race is considering building a track with a cross over. Can't remember where though.

A.

[blobberTHEjobber]

The tyre rule is an utter joke. F1 fans have been crying out for years for mechanical grip to be increased at the expense of aerodynamic grip and what do they do?

[rgfinch]

I like the tyre rule as I think it will force the drivers to look after their tyres rather than just drive flat out all the time. I'd like to see refuelling banned too - pit stops are the enemy of actual racing as the performance levels of the cars were too even over the course of a race. The faster cars just drove off into the distance too often.

Starting a race with 200miles of fuel and one set of tyres would be more interesting as people who go too quick at the start would knacker their tyres and pay for it later on, whereas the smart cookies who look after their cars would benefit. The relative performances of the cars over the course of a race would be more variable and we'd have more overtaking. We need more cuts in aerodynamic grip too.

The new fig 8 track is the one being built in Cancun, Mexico.

[jolt]

How about tyres that have to last a whole season? :nuts:

[Arthur Fowler]

The new fig 8 track is the one being built in Cancun, Mexico.

Suspect it won't have an actual track crossover in the Scalextric style though. Would be interesting if it did. Traffic lights, roundabout or US style 4 way stop?

[Bearhorn]

Starting a race with 200miles of fuel and one set of tyres would be more interesting as people who go too quick at the start would knacker their tyres and pay for it later on, whereas the smart cookies who look after their cars would benefit. The relative performances of the cars over the course of a race would be more variable and we'd have more overtaking. We need more cuts in aerodynamic grip too.

But tyre degradation is not just limited to the drivers and their relative ability to maintain the tyres. It has a lot to do with the way that a car is designed and built, for example Jaguar never managed to resolve the issue of why their cars was using up their rear tyres much more quickly than other teams.

As blobberTHEjobber points out, Formula 1 actually needs to give the drivers back more mechanical grip because this is what allows the cars to run closer together and attempt more overtaking manoeuvres. The real problem which needed to be solved for closer racing in Formula 1 has been aerodynamic grip from the wings on the car. Certainly they have changed the specification of the rear wing for 2005, but they have counteracted that by also taking away mechanical grip for the tyres.

[riz1]

agreed - the changes will make for "less expensive" racing for the teams but more cautious/tactical/dull driving during races

[rgfinch]

We'll have to see but I don't think the tyre restrictions will detract from the spectacle. I would rather have seen a refuelling ban as well but a tyre change ban will do for now. If the car in front has knackered it's tyres, it will be slower through corners and easier to follow as a result - it's braking distance into the next corner will increase and it should be easier to overtake.
If somebody designs a car that chews up tyres, surely it's their fault, not the rules.

[Panavision]

Harder tyres = less marbles off the racing line.

[Bearhorn]

Harder tyres = less marbles off the racing line.

Which is fine if true, except for this benefit to be realised, it is also necessary to take away carbon brakes. Formula 1 cars have such short braking distances due to carbon brakes that even if going off line was viable, it would still be very difficult if not impossible to successfully complete an out-braking manoeuvre.

[Panavision]

I agree, why steel brakes haven't been introduced is baffling.

[jolt]

Which is fine if true, except for this benefit to be realised, it is also necessary to take away carbon brakes. Formula 1 cars have such short braking distances due to carbon brakes that even if going off line was viable, it would still be very difficult if not impossible to successfully complete an out-braking manoeuvre.


I dont see how you work that out. Out-breaking occurs even last season. It's when the brakes are applied that matters, and that's down to the drivers.

[rgfinch]

Let's say that to get alongside an F1 car before you turn into a corner, you need to gain 5 metres. Is it easier to gain 5 metres over a 50 metre braking distance, or over a 100 metre braking distance?

[Bill Carr]

I agree, why steel brakes haven't been introduced is baffling.

IIRC, it was because the teams argued that they would just spend a fortune developing expensive alloys to use instead.

[rgfinch]

Perhaps the FIA should supply them with a standard steel brake and make them use it.

I remember about 5 years ago Jackie Stewart drove one of his team's cars around Silverstone, he said the biggest change from 25 years earlier was the brakes, not the grip or the engine power. I suspect there's a safety angle to this issue, imagine you're banging along at 200mph and suddenly there's an accident in front of you and you've got to stop in a hurry, what would happen if a driver in a steel-braked car couldn't stop in time and got killed when with carbon brakes he could have been saved.

The FIA would look pretty bad...

[The Bear]

I like the tyre rule as I think it will force the drivers to look after their tyres rather than just drive flat out all the time. I'd like to see refuelling banned too - pit stops are the enemy of actual racing as the performance levels of the cars were too even over the course of a race. The faster cars just drove off into the distance too often. Conserving tyres leads to boring races as has been mentioned before. I'd rather them get rid of refuelling and have them going flat out all the time with tyre pit-stops still allowed.

You'd be back to super-quick 3-4s pit-stops purely for tyres meaning the shorter length wouldn't allow rivals to use the pit-stop to overtake you on track when they have theirs. Plus they'd all be on the same fuel level as well so that also stops that sort of thing happening.

You'd HAVE to pass on track, barring the team messing up the tyre stop, but that is the sort of high pressure pit-stop we want to see. The timing of the stops would also be dependent on the driving style, car's use of tyres and also conservation of tyres if the driver gambled to make one less stop so maybe they all wouldn't be at the same time.

[mdiver]

The tyre rule is an utter joke. F1 fans have been crying out for years for mechanical grip to be increased at the expense of aerodynamic grip and what do they do?

Nail on the head :thumbs:

Lets talk some more about this.
At the moment you can't slipstream/draft the car in front - because it upsets the areodynamic downforce too much for brakeing/stearing into the next corner.
Also the cars are either stuck to the ground or crashing. A pre-1970 car drifted about, and was battled with into each corner. That was not the tyres, coz go-karts on sticky rubber still slide about.

BAN DOWNFORCE - PLEASE

[jolt]

Get rid of front and rear wings, and re-fueling, but allow tyre changes. Ban ceramic/carbon brakes, ban traction control.

[Panavision]

I like wings, but their effectiveness needs to be reduced by 50%

[jolt]

Perhaps the wings could be mounted upside down? :D

[The Bear]

I agree. Lets take to the skies!!

[blobberTHEjobber]

Anyone think that the return of ground effect may be the answer to top side aerodynamics?

[rgfinch]

What do we think about the GPWC alternative championship now that Ferrari are out of it?
I'd like to think the other 9 will all go and leave Ferrari and Bernie alone and set up without them but I have a nasty feeling Ecclestone will get his way and recruit the others back one by one.

[Panavision]

I have no doubt that Bernie will eventually get his way but I bet the deal will not be as sweet as the Ferrari one.

Difficult to tell which team is doing well in testing at the moment. BAR do look good, the new car is posting decent times.

[Samiad]

Interesting developments with the new car shapes this year though. Seems like a lot of teams are pushing heavy development on the front wing design as it perhaps is even more important due to the aero-rule changes.

Noticed Ferrari's new nose today, not sure if it's going to be a finalised design, but it's a very odd thing indeed. BAR and Sauber also have new types of front wing that look 'interesting'.

[Panavision]

Red Bull are posting very good times but it's the 04 car.

[Andrew70]

I'd like to think the other 9 will all go and leave Ferrari and Bernie alone and set up without them ....
God, I sincerely hope so.
The more details that emerge regarding the favouritism of the rules and organisation of Formula One towards Ferrari, the more their arrogance and grubby money snatching antics wind me up.

A.

[The Bear]

Interesting developments with the new car shapes this year though. Seems like a lot of teams are pushing heavy development on the front wing design as it perhaps is even more important due to the aero-rule changes.

Noticed Ferrari's new nose today, not sure if it's going to be a finalised design, but it's a very odd thing indeed. BAR and Sauber also have new types of front wing that look 'interesting'.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/haznick/images/7-picture1.jpg

Weird!! Can't see that being too kerb friendly!

There are more pictures and videos at http://www.f1racing.net/en/ and all the other team's cars as well in the top right hand column of the site. Some interesting designs.

Anyone know the thinking behind having the centre section of the front wing a lot lower? to push the air upwards instead of underneath so much?

[Andrew70]

Anyone know the thinking behind having the centre section of the front wing a lot lower? to push the air upwards instead of underneath so much?
My guess is that the new regulations didn't specify that the front wings had to be 50mm higher along their full length - probably something like having to be that much higher XXcms from the central plane of the car. That would mean there's a little area around the nose that wasn't covered by the new wing rule and they could continue to have a low wing section in that space.

A.

[The Bear]

I thought it may have something to do with them not being allowed a diffuser under the rear of the car (I think. IIRC?), and needed to get more airflow up and over the car. Im probably wrong!

Perhaps like you say, the regs say that only the centre section can be lower than the rest of the wing? I can't be arsed to go through the new regulations myself.

Ferrari obviously decided to use whatever it is to put more downforce elements there instead of lowering the existing centre wing section as a couple of other teams have.

[Radiohead]

Williams have gone for Heidfeld over Pizzonia for the second seat.

[Panavision]

Great! Nick deserves a shot :)

[Mr M0by]

I'm chuffed about that, hopefully he can challenge for the title next season.... though by Challenge I mean finish runner up to Schumey.;)