F1Rejects.com

by **Nin13** » 01 May 2009, 01:25

1. Increases minimum car weight from 605 Kgs to 620kgs so more benefit for heavier drivers like Kubica, Webber for balancing their cars with KERS-
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74954

2. Refuelling ban-
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74948

3. £40m budget cap-
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74947
New teams to get financial support- With a maximum of 13 teams now eligible to enter the championship in 2010, each first-year constructor will be paid US$10 million to compete, as well as being provided with free transportation for two chassis plus an additional 10,000 kilogrammes of freight. On top of this, the commercial rights holder will be providing 20 economy class air tickets to each team for all non-European races on the calendar.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74950
Possible 26 cars on grid next year- USGPE (formerly USF1), Prodrive, Lola and iSport.
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/ ... next-year/
Those teams taking budget cap will get -More technical freedom, Unlimited off-season testing, unlimited engine revs, no scale or time restriction on wind tunnel testing, moveable front and rear wings.

4. No tyre warmers

5. KERS output can be boosted to 120bhp from 80bhp this year- but that's only for teams taking cost cap..............
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/ ... t-cappers/

6. Low fuel qualifying returns-
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/04/30/o ... s-in-2010/

Must Read-
14 frequently asked cost cap questions-
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/ ... questions/

Another good article about rule changes-
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/04/30/h ... 0-f1-cars/

Difference between Non-capped teams and Capped teams for 2010-
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/04/30/f ... gulations/
In short capped teams will get- Maximum ten-degree adjustment any number of times per lap, Adjustable rear element- Permitted, No rpm limit, KERS power in- No limit, KERS power out- Max. 120kW, KERS energy release per lap- Max. 800kJ, Transmission- Any number of driven wheels, KERS power delivery- May power any wheels, Wind tunnel -Unlimited, Unrestricted testing, Engines and gearboxes- No limit.

Views of teams on RULE CHANGES-
McLaren again two-tier system-
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/ ... er-system/
Williams also against two-tier series-
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74955

Now this will shuffle grid once again next year. Another chance for Brawn and Newey to do their magic.

I actually liked all this changes and 1st time agree with Max's ideas!! Anyone else with me??

by **noisebox** » 01 May 2009, 01:49

I don't know about this - very complex, and big scope for championships to be settled in court rather than on the track. No chnage really, then!

by **DP-Future F1 Reject** » 01 May 2009, 02:20

Formula1.com wrote:Those teams accepting the cap will be able to run constantly adjustable wings, engines with no rev limit, and more powerful KERS systems. They will also be allowed unlimited out-of-season track testing with no restrictions on the scale and speed of wind tunnel testing.

No rev limits!

This 2 tier system will be weird!

by **Paul Hayes** » 01 May 2009, 02:47

It will be interesting to see who goes for what option, in terms of obeying the budget cap or not. I am still not sure there is enough money around to get three new teams into the sport, though.

by **CarlosFerreira** » 01 May 2009, 03:03

It's not supposed to be a two-tier system, I reckon. It's going to favor the budget-cap takers so much, everyone is going to take it.
I like it. However, you can see Bernie and Max increasing their grip on the championship, because car manufacturers will be gone in no time. It's coming back to the independent constructors, the way I see it. Overall, I approve.

No tyre warmers will put up a nice show, especially since next years tyres will have to be harder to cope with entire races!

by **PayasYouDNPQ** » 01 May 2009, 03:15

1 - Makes sense I guess. I would have preferred making rear tyres larger compared to the fronts to reduce the need to have so much weight so far forward.

2 - No complaints. F1 seemed to work well the previous time refuelling was banned.

3 - Seems like it could work well, as long as the difference between the capped teams and the non-capped doesn't become a big issue. I would hope all teams adopt the cap. The chance to test mid-season and more technical freedom should outweigh the greater spend, which will just seem wasted. More teams is good too.

4 - OK. Works in Indy car, emphasis on driver's ability to warm his tyres quickly.

5 - A very sensible idea. This year has already shown that the technology works, now let's have it pay off.

by **Faustus** » 01 May 2009, 03:16

CarlosFerreira wrote:It's not supposed to be a two-tier system, I reckon. It's going to favor the budget-cap takers so much, everyone is going to take it.
I like it. However, you can see Bernie and Max increasing their grip on the championship, because car manufacturers will be gone in no time. It's coming back to the independent constructors, the way I see it. Overall, I approve.

No tyre warmers will put up a nice show, especially since next years tyres will have to be harder to cope with entire races!

I agree that these changes to the rules will favour the independent constructors, which in my personal opinion, is a good thing. There is no telling how much the major car manufacturers will stick around for, so the future of the sport has to be assured. Through Formula 1's history, we've seen car manufacturers come and go, so it's critical to have healthy and competitive independent teams.
The budget cap does indeed favour those that opt for it and sooner or later I think every team will take it.

The tyres will be harder but they won't last for an entire race, but we will have the prospect of 5 second pitstops again!

by **WeirdKerr** » 01 May 2009, 03:25

Nothing mentioned of the "ABBA system" for the championship....?

by **thehemogoblin** » 01 May 2009, 05:19

No tires, no fuel next year... so, they're taking all of the strategy out of the races... you think they're funeral processions now...

by **RejectSteve** » 01 May 2009, 05:55

thehemogoblin wrote:No tires, no fuel next year... so, they're taking all of the strategy out of the races... you think they're funeral processions now...

[sarcasm]No tires and no fuel? This will get exciting as we see the drivers pushing their wheel-less cars across the tarmac.[/sarcasm]

Great. Now when a non-KERS car is stuck behind a slow KERS car, he'll never get ahead. Lovely, just lovely. While nobody has gotten the KERS package right yet, it has done nothing for overtaking, and in some cases, has been a detriment to the desired objective. Webber's misery in Malaysia when he couldn't overtake Alonso and whoever the poor chum that Piquet was holding up in Bahrain spring to mind, and we're just four races into the season. It produced a decent battle, at the very least but wasn't this idea from the Overtaking Working Group?

by **Debaser** » 01 May 2009, 06:32

Why such pessimism about next year? No tyre changes meas we'll see a return to tyre stops and massive variations in speed because of tyre stops/compounds etc. Preserving tyres will be an important part of races next year which I think is a good thing and a return to pre 1994 racing. Also the independant teams, the real racing teams are flooding back, which is also good.

by **Dom** » 01 May 2009, 06:59

RejectSteve wrote:Great. Now when a non-KERS car is stuck behind a slow KERS car, he'll never get ahead. Lovely, just lovely.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't KERS compulsory next year anyway?

Website · by **Wizzie** » 01 May 2009, 08:15

Dom wrote:
RejectSteve wrote:Great. Now when a non-KERS car is stuck behind a slow KERS car, he'll never get ahead. Lovely, just lovely.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't KERS compulsory next year anyway?

No. KERS is only compulsory from 2011 onwards. The FIA decided that the teams should have a few years to develop the technology first.

by **midgrid** » 01 May 2009, 08:55

Where's this idea of a tyre-changing ban come from? All I see is a refuelling ban, allowing tyre strategies to continue.

by **Captain Hammer** » 01 May 2009, 09:26

midgrid wrote:Where's this idea of a tyre-changing ban come from? All I see is a refuelling ban, allowing tyre strategies to continue.

I think people are confusing the ban on tyre warmers with a ban on changing tyres comepltely. The idea is that now when the cars race, they have to start on tyre that are stone-cold.

The thing I like most about these new regulations is that FOM will pay new teams to enter the championship. They'll get US$10 million, plus free shiping of their cars and equipment and all their travel expenses will be covered, provided they can demonstrate that they are a serious outfit. It's obvious FOM and the FIA are trying to attract as many new entrants as possible by assisting them and making entry easier, so who says the Bernie & Max show is inherently bad?

by **johnston21** » 01 May 2009, 12:09

Captain Hammer wrote:
midgrid wrote:Where's this idea of a tyre-changing ban come from? All I see is a refuelling ban, allowing tyre strategies to continue.

1) I think people are confusing the ban on tyre warmers with a ban on changing tyres comepltely. The idea is that now when the cars race, they have to start on tyre that are stone-cold.

2) It's obvious FOM and the FIA are trying to attract as many new entrants as possible by assisting them and making entry easier

----
1) Agreed. Tire changing is still in.

2) It's a "Concord Buster" for sure.

...as someone said above, the manufacturers will be gone real quick.

by **Captain Hammer** » 01 May 2009, 13:16

More likely the manufacturers will fall in line with the new regulations. They're obviously written in such a way that teams will have trouble justifying the decision not to comply with the budget cap, and so will fall in line with them. I believe not a few teams suport cost-cutting, and if the forty-million pound cap allows greater freedom of design and testing, they're more likely to comply with it. After all, it's not a case of the budget cap only being offered to new teams; everyone has the option of adopting it.

by **Fitch** » 01 May 2009, 13:23

Some Dumbass on the SpeedTV Forums has proclaimed that next year will see the Deaths of quite a few Drivers, ala Senna,and all of this because of.............wait for it....................Ban on Tire Warmers.............. :lol:

Is this person the whole sane being on this planet?, is he the opnly person who can see the Carnage that is IndyCar racing and GP2 I mean Look at the insane number of Drivers who've been killed in those series...because of a Ban on Tire Warmers..........

Geez................Get a grip, some people really do look for ANYTHING to bitch about........

On a more serious note.........While I do like the ideas set forth.....Can't say that I'm a fan of the Method the FIA is using to "force" the teams to adhere to the rules............

I can see teams like Ferrari and Renault Claiming they won the Wold Titles because they were the only 2 teams to NOT adhere to these new rules and then trying to have their claims legitimized by an Italian Court.............

by **eytl** » 01 May 2009, 13:43

Don't forget that Max and Bernie come from a background of independent team ownership (with March and Brabham respectively) and so they've never been overly keen on the manufacturers. But this is the most overt attempt to deliver the big manufacturers an ultimatum for a while. The emergence of FOTA as a political threat and the global financial crisis are providing perfect excuses for them ...

I for one have never liked manufacturer-dominated F1, so I won't be sad if they depart. Even if manufacturers submit to the budget cap and hang around, the percentage of the field taken up by corporations will decrease. One really wonders why they would though, because under a budget cap the unfair advantage of being a corporation and having lots of money to splash around will disappear, ie no guaranteed success. (Not that money always buys success - hello Toyota and Honda.) And Ford, Honda, Subaru and Suzuki (in the WRC) and Kawasaki (in the MotoGP) show that when there's no success, the rationale of "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" goes, so why bother hanging around for an uncertain marketing exercise?

All sounds good to me. Like it has started to do this year, F1 might start rewarding ingenuity rather than wealth. I don't think I've ever liked an initiative by Max and Bernie more ...

As long as they don't destroy the sport in other ways (as they are simultaneously doing), e.g. taking the sport away from its heartland to government-funded locales, exorbitant prices, closed paddocks etc. But that's another thread altogether and a Bernie/FOM greed problem. And why another united lobby group (e.g. FOTA if it survives with different constituent members in the future as new teams come in) needs to exist as well.

As far as the sporting regs go though (and this is what these rule changes are about), I think I like ...

But yes, radical changes = lots of bunfights in the coming days, and lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee. So don't hold your breath just yet.

by **thehemogoblin** » 01 May 2009, 14:13

If the cars are ridiculously full of fuel at the beginning, there would be no reason to run the quick-to-be-on-but-quicker-disintegrating option tires until the end of the race. The unlimited preseason testing will then tell the teams the exact point where the option tires are worse than the prime tires, and the option tires will only be ran exactly that long.

This also takes the fun out of the fuel gambling in qualifying... if everyone starts off the same, then it's just going to be the faster cars at the front of the grid every time and there will be practically no overtaking. It's a bad, bad idea.

by **Nin13** » 01 May 2009, 16:34

Just updated the list...................

by **LionZoo** » 01 May 2009, 18:10

I wonder if the constant taking away of design freedoms the last few years was Max's build up to ram through a budget cap. As we know, if the budget cap was to be introduced when there was still design freedom, it would be a huge fight. By making it "optional" it really weakens the positions of teams against it and when all teams opt for the budget cap the no cap option will just go away.

I don't like the ban on refueling though. Taking away the advantage of lighter fuel loads will probably lead to a bit less on track action.

by **PayasYouDNPQ** » 01 May 2009, 22:07

The return of low fuel qualifying is great news. Qualifying will mean something again. Also, the cars that are best on a full fuel load or have great race pace may not be the ones that are fastest on low fuel, so the race result should be different to the grid.

by **Nin13** » 02 May 2009, 01:21

PayasYouDNPQ wrote:The return of low fuel qualifying is great news. Qualifying will mean something again. Also, the cars that are best on a full fuel load or have great race pace may not be the ones that are fastest on low fuel, so the race result should be different to the grid.

Yeah!! remember in 2005 FIA tried out one tire to last entire race rule and it failed very badly...........
Hopefully there will be more overtaking and we expect more one stop stratergies next year because tire warmers are banned so this will ensure better results for teams. Also use of 2 tires is compulsory during race so this means stop will be mandatory..............

by **tristan1117** » 02 May 2009, 09:01

Nin13 wrote:
PayasYouDNPQ wrote:The return of low fuel qualifying is great news. Qualifying will mean something again. Also, the cars that are best on a full fuel load or have great race pace may not be the ones that are fastest on low fuel, so the race result should be different to the grid.

Yeah!! remember in 2005 FIA tried out one tire to last entire race rule and it failed very badly...........
Hopefully there will be more overtaking and we expect more one stop stratergies next year because tire warmers are banned so this will ensure better results for teams. Also use of 2 tires is compulsory during race so this means stop will be mandatory..............

One pit stop mandatory! More overtaking! More one stop strategies! Low fuel qualifying! It's GP2!

by **StoneColdSpider** » 02 May 2009, 21:04

cant wait for next year now

bring on the new rules!

by **Nin13** » 02 May 2009, 23:47

tristan1117 wrote:
Nin13 wrote:
PayasYouDNPQ wrote:The return of low fuel qualifying is great news. Qualifying will mean something again. Also, the cars that are best on a full fuel load or have great race pace may not be the ones that are fastest on low fuel, so the race result should be different to the grid.

Yeah!! remember in 2005 FIA tried out one tire to last entire race rule and it failed very badly...........
Hopefully there will be more overtaking and we expect more one stop stratergies next year because tire warmers are banned so this will ensure better results for teams. Also use of 2 tires is compulsory during race so this means stop will be mandatory..............

One pit stop mandatory! More overtaking! More one stop strategies! Low fuel qualifying! It's GP2!

I did not say 1 stop mandatory......... You can make as many pitstops as you want........... But 1 stop will have to be done because of rule that soft and hard tires must be used atleast once!!
And "More one stop strategies" bcoz tire warmer ban means more laps to get heat into tire...........

So more spins by Piquet jr. and Nakajima..................... :oops:

by **The Horny Geek** » 03 May 2009, 17:34

Most of the rule changes are just further proof that Mad Max and The User Car Salesman with the Napoleonic Complex are slipping further into senility.

They put a cap of costs yet introduce a ban on refueling, which means that each team will have to completely redesign their cars. Guess what that means. Yep, more money down the drain. I doubt the teams have dropped anything in terms of their aerodynamic design area. In fact I will lay odds that it has gone up on most team, trying to claw back the losses from the aero changes this year

You think the cars look ugly now. Just wait till the new wide body lumps come off the designers boards.

If you want overtaking the answer is quite simple. Get rid of the ceramic brakes.That would increase braking distance, allowing more passing to occur under braking.

Some of the rules I agree with, such as evening the weight limit. If a team want to run without KERS then fine. At the moment it is a severe disadvantage. However, I would like to see the number of KERS activations reduced like they have in F1. That way you don't get everyone pressing it at the same point every lap, negating the whole point of the system in the first place, especially once it becomes compulsory. However, keep the concept of allowing a partial usage of a press for times such as coming out of pint lane. Make it a strategic decision, as that is what F1 should be, not just who has the best engineers or the best wind tunnel.

The return of low fuel qualifying will mean absolutely nothing. As with all other attempts of messing with qualifying , it will meet with failure.The teams with the best aero team and facilities in place will still be up the front, as they are now.

The sooner our sport is freed from the clutches of these idiots the better.

by **Captain Hammer** » 03 May 2009, 18:26

I find your criticism of the refuelling ban funny given that it was Bernie Ecclestone who invened it in the first place. Read this article for a pretty convincing argument as to why a ban on refuelling is a good thing.

by **CarlosFerreira** » 03 May 2009, 19:35

I would also argue that changing from carbon ceramic to steel bakes will make little to no difference. For a long time, the question has not been braking difference, but aero interference from the car in front; as that has been changed, the number of overtakings has increased.

by **PayasYouDNPQ** » 04 May 2009, 02:34

The Horny Geek wrote:
They put a cap of costs yet introduce a ban on refueling, which means that each team will have to completely redesign their cars. Guess what that means. Yep, more money down the drain. I doubt the teams have dropped anything in terms of their aerodynamic design area. In fact I will lay odds that it has gone up on most team, trying to claw back the losses from the aero changes this year

You think the cars look ugly now. Just wait till the new wide body lumps come off the designers boards.

If you want overtaking the answer is quite simple. Get rid of the ceramic brakes.That would increase braking distance, allowing more passing to occur under braking.

Some of the rules I agree with, such as evening the weight limit. If a team want to run without KERS then fine. At the moment it is a severe disadvantage. However, I would like to see the number of KERS activations reduced like they have in F1.(PYDNPQ: Eh?) That way you don't get everyone pressing it at the same point every lap, negating the whole point of the system in the first place, especially once it becomes compulsory. However, keep the concept of allowing a partial usage of a press for times such as coming out of pint lane. Make it a strategic decision, as that is what F1 should be, not just who has the best engineers or the best wind tunnel.

The return of low fuel qualifying will mean absolutely nothing. As with all other attempts of messing with qualifying , it will meet with failure.The teams with the best aero team and facilities in place will still be up the front, as they are now.

Oh dear, where to begin?

The teams design new cars every year in case you haven't noticed. It is still early enough that the final design for the 2010 cars will not be finalised, so changing the size of the fuel tank will not increase costs by much. It's also the same for everybody, especially if all the teams are under the budget cap. As this year has shown, new regulations make things more interesting, as the money is spent on new ideas rather than pointless refinement.

You may find the current cars ugly, but I think they look great. Anyway, where did you get this widebody lump idea from. Some of the most beautiful cars came from an era of no refuelling and large fuel tanks. Jordan 191 anybody?

The steel/carbon brake issue that you state has been refuted time and time again. The braking distances are defined by tyre performance, so simply switching the brake material would have little effect.

KERS is about recovering energy as it is about power boost. Even if everyone presses is at the same point in the lap, which is not necessarily going to happen, it will be saving energy. Some of your statement doesn't make sense though, so I won't say any more.

Low fuel qualifying will mean something, that the grid will once again be decided by who has the ultimate fastest car on low fuel. This may not be the fastest car over a race distance. I don't know what you would define as a success for a qualifying system, but unless you have a random draw, you will always get fast cars qualifying ahead of slow ones.

by **thehemogoblin** » 04 May 2009, 13:13

Captain Hammer wrote:I find your criticism of the refuelling ban funny given that it was Bernie Ecclestone who invened it in the first place. Read this article for a pretty convincing argument as to why a ban on refuelling is a good thing.

I'm not convinced at all. Still.

by **Captain Hammer** » 04 May 2009, 15:51

So the only passing you want to see is the passing in the pits?

Bor-ing.

If a refuelling ban can introduce more passing on the circuit, why shouldn't it be worth trying?

by **thehemogoblin** » 04 May 2009, 16:49

Captain Hammer wrote:So the only passing you want to see is the passing in the pits?

Bor-ing.

If a refuelling ban can introduce more passing on the circuit, why shouldn't it be worth trying?

It's not going to make any more passing. It's just going to get people shoehorned in behind slower cars... that doesn't make a great race for me.

Guess it's the oval-racer in me, but pit-stops and strategy are something I truly enjoy.

by **ImissJORDAN** » 04 May 2009, 19:00

I dislike the idea of a two tier series the most. Then the overspender will just be trailing around at the back. I think if the ploy works and all teams adhere to the £40m budget, then this could be a major filip for the series, but all teams need to be on side, otherwise the tiered system will cock things right up.

by **PayasYouDNPQ** » 04 May 2009, 20:01

If the overspender is trailing around at the back then I think it would have been a major success. Finally spending more will get you less. Any team that decides to do that will quickly switch over for 2011.

If the overspender's are at the front it will be a problem.

by **BlindCaveSalamander** » 04 May 2009, 23:14

thehemogoblin wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:So the only passing you want to see is the passing in the pits?

Bor-ing.

If a refuelling ban can introduce more passing on the circuit, why shouldn't it be worth trying?

It's not going to make any more passing. It's just going to get people shoehorned in behind slower cars... that doesn't make a great race for me.

People get stuck behind slower cars now, this is why we have stuff like the Trulli train. If everyone is on the same fuel load, then at least those on a heavy fuel load who have good starts won't muck up other people's races.

by **Captain Hammer** » 04 May 2009, 23:23

And the idea is that car performance will change as the race go on and fuel loads lighten. Refulling was re-tintroduced because the Williams cars were so far in front, and the FIA needed something to compress the field again. As there's no one superdominant team, there's no need for refuelling.

by **Bleu** » 05 May 2009, 00:11

Other reason was Ferrari struggle -

Ferrari had V12 => V12 needs more fuel than others => Ferrari needed more fuel at the start => Ferrari cars were heavier than others.

by **Alianora La Canta** » 05 May 2009, 00:59

One of the rules for cost-regulated teams is that they have to tell the FIA before December 15 of the year preceding competition about everyone who will be involved - from every member of staff the FIA might consider "key" to every agency, supplier and consultant who will be working for the team. How are they meant to know this 12 months in advance?

From what I can see, a team connected to reality could not possibly sign up for the cost cap under the regulations the FIA have created, but I can see teams missing this particular regulation, signing up anyway and getting into a heap of trouble in early 2011 when the truth comes out.

This is before the inherent encouragement to cheat is discussed...

F1Rejects.com

Who is online