20 responses to “Matt’s Presser Notebook: F1 Strategy Group Rules Press Release”

1. So cost-cutting, revenue distribution and the financial distress of half the grid ain’t on the agenda, is it?

   • Are you really surprised?

   • According to Amus, there will be a cap of 10m Euro’s on engine costs for the year.

     • About time, I suggested $11.5m in the comments a while back, interestingly with current exchange rates that works out close to 10m Euros.. Might not be worth much at all by next week :'(!

     • @Anil

       Unfortunately this addresses not the fundamental dynamics in the finances of F1 minnow teams…

   • Cost of supply of engines (sorry, PU) at least got a mention.
     Interesting to see McLaren/Honda given a free engine, wonder if that would have happened in the interest of fairness if they were even further ahead of Manor?
     Surely there must be someone specific (hands up VW) for whose benefit this rule has actually been proposed, just seems to be the manner in which F1 works?

     • @marek

       My suspicion is that this rule change is a game play, whereas Merc saw no real harm in tolerating such a change, whereas Red Bull (and to a degree Ferrari) wanted to institute a precedent for relaxing the rigid penalty system. Once the 5th Honda engine has sunk in, expect a fresh Red Bull offensive on allowing a 5th engine to all and sundry…

       • Totally agree. Merc has been very opposed to engine development which might not look the best in public, but can soften their stance by agreeing to let the other teams use more engines … thing of it is, that actually has little effect on Mercedes because all the extra engines are slow Hondas or Renaults (or Ferraris) … well play Mercedes, well played.

2. What a shock to see the drivers getting bashed yet again – not.
   Changes to quali and races? If we get reversed grids, 2 races, points for quali, sprinkers, 6pm starts or any of the other bullshine I’ve heard mentioned, F1 will be heading down the crapper faster than ever.

3. all positive things. a lot missing but def a move in the right direction

   • I’m not so sure the direction is “right”. The projected changes seem to imply a wholesale redesign of the aerodynamic concept of F1 cars, as significant as or even more far-reaching than the aerodynamic changes (i.e. loss of downforce) introduced in 2014.

     This year Sauber, Force India and Manor are effectively using slight variations on last year’s chassis, because of lack of funds to adjust to the relatively minimal aerodynamic changes in 2015. Now what chance do they stand to comply if the thoughtful types at FIA go ahead with this? How much will the poor be further behind, and the rich and overspending further in front?

     • Actually, changing the rules are the only way cash strapped teams can make a difference i.e. by investing early or coming up with a fresh idea. Over time with stable rules, cash makes a difference and gaps extend – see the new teams from 2010 to present.

       • @Iestyn Davies

         While I follow your rationale, this reasoning doesn’t seem to apply in the current context. Cash strapped teams have no cash to simply ship their cars to F1 sessions (races or testing), and get their cars out of the garage… Investing? I’m afraid not. These teams simply have no resources left after the financial squeeze coming from aerodynamic and engine changes in 2014. One more exogenous shock—wider tyres, ground effect, no pay drivers, etc., etc.—and the Caterham debacle will all of a sudden seem rather soft. As it happens, this was one of the primary motivation behind the Blingmobile series (and as per my fears, the Strategy Group seems to be bringing to life the worst-case scenario, so we better start preparing the body bags while at the same time expecting 3rd cars).

         Besides, the last two significant rules overhauls (in 2009 and in 2014), saw massive overspenders come out dominantly on top. Honda’s spend on Brawn’s 2009 chassis would make Red Bull and Merc blush today, while Merc’s spend on 2014… well…

4. So the largest penalty that can now be awarded to a team for doing Power Unit changes, is to start from the back of a 20 car grid. Actually an 18 car grid, because the Manor’s will be passed instantly.
   All this is going to do is cost more money. All teams will now simply change out the entire Power Unit if there is a problem, instead of just the parts that failed. Why not?
   the ICE is 10 spots, and the next component is 5. 15 spots is all there are to loose, so they might as well change it all at no penalty. Honda are going to use SOOO many Power units….

   Great cost cutting move.

   I am not going to debate my thoughts on the removal of “driver aids” manly because we have no idea what they mean by that, but the one specific thing they mention is clutch engagement and “the start”.

   If we combine these two rule changes, we find we will have a regular occurrence of fast manufacturer cars starting behind the Manors, who will now be far more likely to screw up their clutch engagement and blow the start.

   I predict accidents.

   • Sounds to me like they are simply making the double clutch start more manual – take out any launch control settings and CPU torque maps etc. Maybe this will help Ferrari, as Kimi has spun out 2 or 3 times now on the ‘launch map’ throttle settings.. But yes, we are likely to see more Webber-like slow starts now that it’s down to the drivers more again.. Coulthard was notable for fast starts in the same vein.

5. “Increased restrictions on driver aids and coaching received unanimous support and will be rapidly implemented, starting from this year’s Belgian Grand Prix – with a particular emphasis on race starts – and in 2016. These measures will bring back the driver in full control of the car, enhancing races excitement and unpredictability.

   These cars are an order of magnitude more complex than the cars of prior generations. I’m not sure legislating drivers back into the roles they had in th1950s is the way the to go. We no longer have cars with 3 pedals, a gear lever, and bare steering wheel. Maybe it is appropriate for drivers to work with their engineers to optimize there performance.

   • Watch for the cars to become less cumbersome (2017), vis-a-vis complexity for drivers, as teams and drivers scream like stuck pigs during last-1/2 2015 & 2016. This is a cunning (dare I say Machiavellian) way to cement a simpler engine formula for 2017 . . . maybe 🙂 Find it interesting that MBZ is for this, unless they have a think-tank program already half-baked that looks promising to them. May be what it takes to get Renault and Honda to stick around, and actually entice some other manufacturer(s).
     The current P.U.s are incredible pieces of technological kit. They may, however, be a bridge too far at this time.

6. @Strategy group said “limits on the use of engine dynamometers etc”.
   @Mattpt55 said “Gift to Renault and Red Bull”

   Would have thought it would be a handicap for them. The more dyno time the better.

   • I believe based on the sentence construction as well as previous history of poor orthography that the intended reading was an increase in time allowed on dyno, not the reverse. Hence the comment as Renault seem to need all the dyno time they can get.

     • @mattpt55

       no/yes/maybe/Google translate 😉

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.