New Rules For 2005. Did It Work?

[Monty 0]

The new rules from Max and Bernie, did they work? Did they create any excitment?

[nojvnof1 0]

not in qualifying, tires didn't have a big effect, Friday was a bit of a joke with little running, so no in my opinion, they just screwed things up even more.

[rodders47 2]

Yeah sort of made a mockery of Qualifying. As D.C said you don't have an aggregate for final positions in say "Wimbledon"

My other concern is this 2 races for 1 engine rule.

M.S. probably could not have continued after his "Blocking Manouver" backfired, so WHY does that allow him to change the ENGINE for the next race ?

Clearly his engine was running when he spun off , and as set down in the rules, if the engine is running and the car in a vunerable position the car can be pushed back onto the track by the marshals, so I would presume he never had an ENGINE problem, so why is he allowed to change it ??

Also a couple of other cars never crossed the finish line, electing to go into the PITS prior to the Chequered Flag..

As I see it this SCENARIO will happen with every one OUT of the POINTS in the current race to dive to the pits prior to finishing in order to get a new engine for the next race!!!

SURELY there must be a penalty for "This Type of Action" if the problem is not a GENUINE ENGINE problem ????

[nojvnof1 0]

both BAR cars went into the pits I hear, JV should have done the same.

[rodders47 2]

yeah just what I mean those 3 cars plus M.S. will have new engines?

Is that FAIR to the others that TRIED???

[nojvnof1 0]

no, I agree it's not fair, but F1 is all about the "Piranha Club", so if you don't take advantage of the loophole, someone else will. I prefer they never introduced this two race engine rule BS.

JV didn't get into the pits, Im saying he should have so he gets a new engine, he needs all the help he can get if Melbourne is anything to go by!!

[rodders47 2]

my understanding of this 2 race engine rule was to "CUT COSTS"

Seems to me that this cost cutting exercise has already been "over ridden" with this interpretation of a bloody stupid, un thought out RULE?

So in the case of M.S. / BAR and whomever, they are just dumping what may be a very "Serviceable" race engine just to get a new one with NO PENALTY

[nojvnof1 0]

pretty much yeah!! It's all a load of rubbish, but this rule just adds to a number of stupid rules the FIA have brought in.

[Taku 0]

JV didn't get into the pits, Im saying he should have so he gets a new engine, he needs all the help he can get if Melbourne is anything to go by!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah i expected him to better with that grid position to be honest. especially in light of massa's hard drive.

[Sato 0]

F1 cost cutting will never work. Because everytime they try to effect it, the teams and engine companys, and tyre companys put even more $$$ into making them the best, and ends up with no cost cuting, and maybe even make the costs worse! not to mention some of the way the rules are panning out so far....Bad FIA! *puts FIA outside*

[Monty 0]

yeah just what I mean those 3 cars plus M.S. will have new engines?

Is that FAIR to the others that TRIED???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at what BAR did, and they made a statment as well. Just Ridiculous. Wondering if they took a crash course on cheating with Brawn & Todt.

BAR slipped through a rule 'loophole' in Melbourne, when the F1 team ordered both drivers to retire their healthy cars with a lap to run.

''This failure to finish,'' read a statement, ''provides the opportunity to use new engines in (Malaysia) without ... penalty.''

If they'd completed the lap, both men would've been automatically subject to the FIA's new 'one engine per two races' regulation

BAR's move is likely to be controversial.

A grumpy-looking Button rued the Brackley-built car's poor pace at the

Australian grand prix and groaned: ''We have a lot of work to do.''

Sato, of Japan, agreed that the Honda-powered racer is 'off the pace

[Stub-o-matic 0]

I think the new rules worked...if you consider making the race boring.

I can live with the 1 engine/2 race rule, but the 1 set of tyres takes away a lot of the strategy and pit-crew involvement.

However, I will not complete my opinion until AFTER the next race...especially if some engines "expire" for the leaders.

[Max Mosley 2]

I thought it was a very unsatisfying race. I'm not convinced the new tyre rules work either: as Brundle said making the drivers pace themselves sounds like a step backwards although if it gives the drivers more chance to make a difference I might possibly be won round. Likewise the new quali rules left us with a result that didn't reflect the true perfomances and if its going to be split over two days this is going to happen more often. That might have been OK if we'd been at a track where its easier to overtake. I wonder if the new tyre rules made them reluctant to overtake? The performances were really weird too. I can't work out where MS, KR and JPM were in the race. It seems like all three were falling over themselves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I don't want races to be decided on whose engine blows up so I actually hope that rule doesn't produce any excitement. As for cost-cutting I think the only effective way to do it might be to impose budget limits because little else seems to work as you say Sato.

[AutoRacer5 0]

my understanding of this 2 race engine rule was to "CUT COSTS"

Seems to me that this cost cutting exercise has already been "over ridden" with this interpretation of a bloody stupid, un thought out RULE?

So in the case of M.S. / BAR  and whomever, they are just dumping what may be a very "Serviceable" race engine just to get a new one with NO PENALTY

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cost cutting will only be effective in F1 if the same Tech regs are in place for oh, say 10 years. Because of so many changes, the lower teams have to adapt to each change. As for qualifying, do the Gary Anderson system.

[pumpdoc 2]

Well this race just showed how rule changes by dictatorship are a joke.

Q2-nothing changed really, with anything more than a cpl. of tenths diff in time round 1 positions will be the final grid positions unless there is a failure or off track jaunt. Tires-up in the air-no failures this race but I'm sure it lead to less racing as for position. Engines--HA! big loophole there and as a racer you use it to your advantage, just like any other loophole. Aero mods--Friday times showed how futile this was as times were fast aproaching last years.

[kiko01 0]

Look at what BAR did, and they made a statment as well. Just Ridiculous. Wondering if they took a crash course on cheating with Brawn & Todt.

BAR slipped through a rule 'loophole' in Melbourne, when the F1 team ordered both drivers to retire their healthy cars with a lap to run.

''This failure to finish,'' read a statement, ''provides the opportunity to use new engines in (Malaysia) without ... penalty.''

If they'd completed the lap, both men would've been automatically subject to the FIA's new 'one engine per two races' regulation

BAR's move is likely to be controversial.

A grumpy-looking Button rued the Brackley-built car's poor pace at the

Australian grand prix and groaned: ''We have a lot of work to do.''

Sato, of Japan, agreed that the Honda-powered racer is 'off the pace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is ****ing ridicolous... The car that change the engine after the first race should be punished. Anyway i don

[Taku 0]

Cost cutting will only be effective in F1 if the same Tech regs are in place for oh, say 10 years. Because of so many changes, the lower teams have to adapt to each change. As for qualifying, do the Gary Anderson system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's exactly right. consistency and continuity in tech regs is the only way costs will really be reduced. unfortunately though the flip-side is rapidly increasing speed until you hit diminishing returns. very difficult balance, but annual changes is definitely not the way to go...

i also liked the anderson system, and the purnell system too. unfortunately the team bosses, and esp the fia, don't like people other than themselves coming up with the good ideas and actually using them. if someone else thought of it it would make them look silly wouldn't it? that's also the problem with dictatorships, they fear their loss of power and influence above all other things...common sense takes a back seat to maintaining control.

[Buttonfan 0]

The only rules that will possibly hurt will be the 1 set of tires for the race and the 1 engine for two races. The one engine rule will possibly hurt all the people that finished the race cuase the next race, people will be blowing their engines up like crzy, except those who retired their cars this week

[nojvnof1 0]

there's a very simple way to close this engine loophole, just state in the rules any car who doesn't complete 50% of the race is entitled to a new engine next race. I assure you no self respecting team will pull their cars out that early. Sadly, I can't claim this idea as my own, it's that of Pat Symonds, but he said it should be 60%. I put the 50% as it's my view on what the limit should be, but the whole general idea was Pat's.

[Shadow 0]

even if it is 60% no problem it is a good idea. And to hell with the one tyre set rule. tyre changes make pitstops more interesting in my opinion

[nojvnof1 0]

the myth of having to conserve the tires was blown away during the race, Alonso said he was pushing hard all race.

[Jenson_Rules 0]

yeah alot of the drivers didnt even slow down and the tyres looked in quite good shape at the end of the race!!! and the aero changes dont seem to have made the cars look slower in the race, i think they aint too bad, but whats the point in changing it to slow the cars down by just a second, what a waste of money. the fia made the teams change the cars to new spwecs just to slow the cars by little more than a second. XCost cutting measures!??! yeah rite!!!

[Taku 0]

yep, it was all bollocks. all it did was push those already in financial difficulty further towards the brink. all i the name of cost-cutting and safety too. are the car cheaper? no. are they safer? by 1 sec a lap, and the minardi's didn't look much safer at all. drivers complained at their poor ability at moving out of the way, but i'm sure the minardi's were trying hard just to keep them on the road!

[nojvnof1 0]

they were. They were very ragged on Saturday. I was on Brocky's Hill at the Turn 11/12 left/right and they were really on the edge, as were the Jordans, but the Minardi's were worse.

[ksajoe 0]

I do not know if the show has improved for the fans at all. The mixed grid had very little to do with the rules and everything to do with the weather. I suspect that tyres were fairing much better under the cooler temperatures than expected and it's not a reflection of how the rest of the season will work out. I think we will see alot of teams struggle with tyres in Malaysia, and we might hopefully see the much anticipated changing of positions in the clossing stages!