Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] - The FIA's nine-point plan

http://www.autosport.com/featuresitem.asp?id=20923&s=5
The FIA's nine-point plan  
 
 
 
F1 could be about to change forever... 
 
This is the document that the Formula 1 team owners were sent, outlining
how motorsport governing body, the FIA, plans to shake up grand prix
racing like it has never done before. As you will see, some of the ideas
are so radical it is hard to believe they will ever become reality.
Others, however, appear to make some sense.
The nine points and split into two categories: improving the spectacle
and cost reduction in Formula 1. The explanations given are part of the
FIA document, and are not AUTOSPORT's.
IMPROVING THE SPECTACLE
Quite often, one team achieves dominance. When this happens public
interest in Formula One declines. The following proposals are intended
to increase public interest in each event, even in periods when one team
is dominant.
1 Drivers and teams
Drivers competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship will no
longer be contracted to a team. Drivers wishing to compete will submit
an application to the FIA (ie to the Formula One Commission) which will
select the drivers each year for the Championship on the basis of one
for each car entered.
Assuming ten teams and thus 20 drivers, each driver will drive for a
different team at each of the first ten races. The teams and races for
each driver will be decided by lot. The driver leading the Championship
after ten races will then choose the seven teams for which he wishes to
drive in the seven remaining races. The driver lying second will have
second choice and so on. Having chosen his seven teams, the race at
which he will drive for any given team will be decided by lot.
At each Event a driver will wear the uniform of the team for which he is
driving. While existing driver contracts last they will be honoured
financially by the teams which made them. Drivers with a firm contract
for 2003 will automatically be included in the 2003 Championship.
Each team will have a test driver, who will not participate in the
Championship except to replace a scheduled driver in case of force
majeure. However, the test driver will be well placed to have a future
application to participate in the Championship accepted.
Subject to the necessary changes to the Concorde Agreement, drivers
without a team contract (or whose contract has expired) will be paid out
of a central fund - for example a fixed retainer plus an amount for each
point scored in the current and previous season plus an amount for each
World Championship and so on.
Explanation
From a sporting point of view, both the drivers' championship and the
constructors' championship are flawed because a mediocre driver can win
in an outstanding car and vice-versa. However, Formula One (indeed motor
sport generally) has always been like this.
The proposed new system would eliminate this unfairness. It would also
add a new element to each race and would fascinate the public, giving
the press and commentators an endless source of stories and speculation.
What will Schumacher do in the Jordan or Webber in the Williams or
Montoya in the Minardi, Villeneuve in the Ferrari, etc, etc?
It is beginning to be fashionable to criticise Formula One. Arguably, a
change as radical as this is what Formula One now needs in order to
re-establish its image and recapture the interest of the public.
Further reasons for adopting this system are:
all teams would be able to offer the same outstanding driver line-up, at
least for the first ten races. This would help the smaller teams attract
sponsors;
by separating the drivers from the teams, public interest in the
participating manufacturers would increase;
we would no longer have drivers in the Championship who bring more money
than talent;
he team-order problem would be eliminated.
2 Qualifying
In place of one session of one hour on Saturday, two 30-minute
qualifying sessions (with a five-minute break) on both Friday and
Saturday. A maximum of 8 laps in any one 30-minute session. Times from
the first Friday session to be aggregated with those of the second
Friday session. These aggregated Friday times to be aggregated with the
times from the first Saturday session and all those times then
aggregated with those of the second Saturday session.
Any driver failing to record a time in a session would be credited for
that session with his worst recorded time from the session immediately
before or after the session he has missed, whichever is the slowest.
Explanation
This will ensure everyone runs on Friday, even with the restriction on
engine supply. It will also give the press more to write about for the
Saturday papers. Interest in qualifying will grow steadily as one
session follows another and times are aggregated during the weekend.
3 Tyres
Each tyre company to be permitted to continue to supply a maximum of two
types of dry tyre to each competing team, but with freedom to supply
different types of tyres to different teams.
Explanation
This will reduce the disadvantage suffered by a team which has to share
a tyre company by comparison with a team which does not.
TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
4 Handicap
Introduce a handicap formula by adding 1 kg per point to the weight of
the car.
Explanation
If the drivers and teams proposal outlined under 3(i) above is not
accepted, a weight penalty would add interest and make the Championship
much more competitive by ensuring that any outstanding car/driver
combinations were progressively slowed relative to less successful cars.
COST REDUCTION
Each cost reduction measure must satisfy four conditions:
no reduction in the technical challenge of Formula One;
no reduction in the spectacle of Formula One;
no medium or long term increase in cost as a result of a short term
decrease.
no reduction in safety
Measures such as engine speed limitation (reduction of technical
challenge) or one set of tyres per race (loss of pit-stop spectacle)
cannot be considered. Similarly, the lesson of aluminium beryllium must
not be forgotten - banning this very stiff but expensive alloy
eliminated an expensive material but the wording of the new regulation
resulted in even greater sums being spent on special alloys to get as
close as possible to the lower stiffness limit.
The two areas where the greatest savings can be made while respecting
the above three conditions are (i) reducing private testing so as to
eliminate the need for a test team and (ii) increasing the life of
components used in the race cars.
SPORTING REGULATIONS
5 Testing
From 2003
no private testing on any circuit where a Formula One World Championship
Event is run.
no more than twelve car-days of private testing per team between 28
February and 1 November.
Explanation
At present, each team maintains a separate test team. The above rule is
intended to render this unnecessary. The twelve days could be
accomplished with the race cars and would be insufficient to justify a
separate team. But twelve days is enough to carry out genuine or
emergency testing during the season.
Much current testing is unnecessary and contributes nothing to Formula
One. Testing on the permitted GP circuits is mainly used to set cars up
for the relevant GP and is a complete waste of time and money.
The cost of testing varies from team to team, but the savings would be
very significant: up to $30 million or more for the bigger teams;
perhaps as much as $250 million for Formula One as a whole. The rule
would have the biggest impact on the largest and richest teams, because
they have the best facilities and spend the most money, but it would be
the same for everyone and might slightly reduce the gap between the
front and back of the grid.
Teams would resort to simulation, but they already use simulation (rig
testing) extensively for durability work. Accurate and useful simulation
of chassis performance testing may still be some way off, but could be
beneficial for the motor industry if developed successfully. In any
event, research into simulation technology would be a far better use of
resources than running round and round circuits at $2,000 to $3,000 per
car per km with no television or public present.
6 Engines
Bring forward the 2004 single engine rule to 2003. From 2004 one engine
to last for four races. From 2005 on, one engine per half season.
Explanation
The idea of making an engine last more than one race seems radical, even
crazy, at first sight. On careful reflection, however, the case for it
is overwhelming.
The cost of a racing engine using the ultimate in available technology
and materials is virtually the same whether its design life is 400 km,
800 km or 6000 km. Development costs will also be substantially the same
except for extra dyno time. The huge economies that would result if
Formula One engines were made to last as long as the racing engines used
at Le Mans are self-evident. The technical challenge would also be more
relevant to the motor industry.
Furthermore, a progressive increase in required life would prevent
further escalation of horsepower. Indeed the lower engine speeds might
reduce power from current levels and remove the need to consider a
reduction in capacity in the near future for safety reasons.
In addition to a very big reduction in costs and a helpful containment
of power output, long-life engines would have a number of positive
effects on the Championship. First, they would introduce an element of
uncertainty should one driver build a big championship lead: he might at
any time have to change his engine and incur a penalty in each of the
remaining races (eg a loss of grid position, a stop-go, or similar).
Secondly, we would see fewer engine blow-ups (which are bad for
manufacturer image). Thirdly, as the number of races completed by the
engines grew during the season, speculation on reliability by
commentators and journalists would increase, and with it public
interest. Fourthly, because engine reliability and durability would
become so important for the Championship, the engine manufacturers would
become increasingly relevant in the eyes of the public world-wide.
Formula One would become more of a manufacturers' championship.
Finally, with long-life engines we would no longer need to worry about
exotic materials. The cost of these materials is only significant if
they are used in components which are changed frequently. If each car
used only two engines per season, it would no longer matter what these
engines were made of.
The penalties for unauthorised changes are a matter for discussion, but
a large number of options exist.
7 Mechanical components
From 2004 
Gearbox assemblies and key components in the chassis and running gear to
have a required minimum life of a specified number of races.
Explanation
Until a few years ago gearboxes were constantly changed during world
championship rallies (at enormous expense). When a restriction was first
mooted, the conventional wisdom was that it was impossible for technical
reasons and, anyway, could not be checked. It was nevertheless brought
in and now functions without difficulty. Gearboxes are heavier and
stronger, but they break no more often during the competition than they
did when they could be changed at will.
Long-life components and assemblies in Formula One would present no
technical problem. They would merely be bigger and heavier and make the
cars slightly slower. This would be helpful. At present everything is
built to last for one race in the interests of optimum performance with
minimum weight. The cost is immense, but merely allows the teams to fit
large amounts of expensive ballast to the cars with absolutely no
benefit to anyone, least of all the spectators. The argument for
long-life components is the same as for long-life engines.
The only difficulty is the need for a system to identify each component
or assembly so as to ensure it has not been changed without the
scrutineers' knowledge. The FIA already does this for tyres, but would
need to extend the technology to components, some of which operate in
very hostile conditions. However, there are a number of ways in which
this could be done.
8 Bodywork including aerodynamic devices
From 2003 
Two alternative sets of bodywork to be homologated by each team before
the start of the season. These may be changed once only during the
season after half the season's Events have taken place. Each set of
bodywork may incorporate means of adjustment, but the removal or
addition of a part would constitute fitting new bodywork.
Explanation
Very considerable expenditure is incurred by teams constantly making new
items of bodywork as they discover new elements in the wind tunnel or
try ideas seen on other cars in the wind tunnel and find an improvement.
A top team will go through the very expensive process of making, say, an
entirely new engine cover if the wind tunnel research indicates this
might produce a 0.03s or 0.04s second advantage.
By forcing research into distinct six-month periods, the constant design
and production of entirely new parts would stop. Teams would continue
with their wind tunnel work, but only in the last month or so of the
relevant period would they bring together the results of all their
research and make their two sets of bodywork for the next half-season.
Front and rear bodywork (wings) would remain adjustable so that cars
could continue to be set up from one circuit to another. But these
changes would cost nothing. It is the constant manufacture of entirely
new parts, together with the necessary new patterns, moulds, etc, which
wastes the money. By comparison, replacing a bodywork part damaged in an
accident with an identical part for which the moulds, etc, already exist
is relatively inexpensive.
Homologation would also add interest to the Championship, with much
speculation as to who might lose or gain an advantage as the half-way
point of the season approached.
Two different bodywork configurations would be needed to take account of
significant differences between the requirements of the fastest and
slowest circuits.
Enforcement would not present a problem, as the FIA's new Krypton camera
system would be able to detect any difference, however small, between
the bodywork actually fitted to a car and that which had been
homologated at the start of the season.
Note
Apart from the obvious huge savings in material and labour costs, the
use of long-life engines and other components would produce three
additional significant savings.
First, because less work would be needed on each car, the number of
personnel required by a team at an Event would decrease.
Secondly, the amount of air freight needed by each team would decrease,
as would the number of engines and other parts transported backwards and
forwards (sometimes at great expense) between the circuit and the team's
base.
Thirdly, reduced maintenance would make it practicable, if desired, to
hold certain races with a one-week gap, thus further reducing travel and
accommodation costs.
TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
9 Standardised parts
Standard electronics, particularly ECUs 
This would save huge R & D costs, but might be said to reduce the
technical challenge.
Standard brakes 
Would make worthwhile savings.
A requirement that any ballast carried must be fixed in one place on the
car and not moved for the duration of the season
This might reduce the incentive to build ultra-light cars and thus save
costs
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 Would make worthwhile savings.
E soprattutto si potrebbe ridurre la "capacità frenante" per agevolare i 
sorpassi.
Mah... penso davvero che abbiano sparato alto per arrivare ad un incontro a 
metà strada. Di certo la maggior parte delle idee non si possono applicare 
al 2003, per cui le macchine sono già in avanzato stato di progettazione. 
In compenso, un anno simile a questo darebbe comunque voce ai sostenitori 
della "crisi" e di queste misure "drastiche".
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (o_        Vinci                     registered Linux User #276630
 //\           " I find your lack of faith disturbing "
 V_/_            Darth Vader, Star Wars : A New Hope

 della "crisi" e di queste misure "drastiche".
Un altro paio di anni di dominio rosso assoluto con mondiale chiuso a
metà stagione e la F1 chiude.
Una Ferrari che si "aggrappava" a MSC per risollevarsi era auspicabile
ma ora che la Ferrari ha raggiunto il top non è necessario ne
auspicabile che ciò permanga


 metà stagione e la F1 chiude.
Però a mettere in campo certe idee chiude lo stesso, per diventare un
circo. Non si può impedire "per regolamento" a qualcuno di fare un buon
lavoro e dominare il campo. Al limite puoi andare _dopo_ a cambiare le
regole tecniche per rimescolare il tutto. Ma non puoi forzare
eccessivamente le cose, con proposte tipo quella sui piloti che cambiano
vettura ad ogni gara.....


 vettura ad ogni gara.....
Hai detto bene, se passano queste proposte, saprò bene perchè lo
chiamano "il circo della F1". 
In ogno caso "Max Ecclestone" vuole una sola cosa: gare interessanti.
(altro che sport, spettacolo!) O la concorrenza è in grado di
competere con la Ferrari (attraverso un rimescolamento delle carte) o si
crea con una forzatura una lotta all'interno della Ferrari.
(Bisogna domandarsi se è meglio per lo sport che ci sia una lotta tra
almeno 3 o 4 squadre oppure se per i prossimi anni quello che
vedremo sarà una lotta all'interno della Ferrari. Non credo che per i
tifosi in tutto il mondo di McLaren o Williams, per non parlare di
Mercedes e BMW, questa sia una prospettiva allettante).
IMO avere il prossimo anno una Ferrari con MSC e Villeneuve non sarebbe
una brutta idea. Una forzatura, senz'altro, ma quasi inevitabile per
ridare interesse, nell'immediato, alla F1.


 beh, ancora piů spettacolo alla domenica, non č questo l'obiettivo?
In piů, se un pilota fa uno sbaglio parte molto indietro, se fa un
testacoda parte ultimo. Molto eccitante no?


 morti.
A parte il fatto che le qualifiche sono forse l'unica cosa che va bene
com'è, se proprio si vuole cambiarle e rendere utile il venerdì, c'è sempre
la possibilità di adottare la "Superpole" tipo Superturismo... il venerdì
serve per dividere in due la griglia, poi al sabato un giro secco per tutti
--
Allora, dottore, che cos'ho?
Mah... di preciso si sapra' solo dopo l'autopsia
P#R
Rimuovi FOREVER per rispondere in e-mail

 a metà stagione e la F1 chiude.
È chiaro a tutti, tranne che a Maranello.
 
-- 
Alessio F. Bragadini            
ale...@sevenseas.org
"La libertà è una forma di disciplina"

 un circo.
Max & Bernie, anche se chiamati così sembrano due comici, in realtà
non lo sono; stanno giocando con l'opinione pubblica e i team per
portarli dove vogliono loro...
Non mi stupirebbe se avessero piani completamente diversi, da tirare
fuori al momento opportuno.


 potrebbe venire incontro alla riduzione dei GP italiani....
Mi sembra di aver già riportato qualche tempo fa le perplessità del
mio amico che lavora in Ferrari: con la trasformazione
dell'Hockenheimring Monza è rimasto un unicum estremamente costoso per
le scuderie, che non possono usare le soluzioni e gli assetti per
nessun'altra corsa. E se davvero si è pronti a rinunciare a Spa per
una questione tutto sommato volgarmente economica, non punterei troppi
soldi sul futuro di Monza.


 nessun'altra corsa.
Appunto : l'altro circuito italiano, Imola, è uno circuito da "carico" 
maggiore, quindi assetto "riciclabile" in altre realtà. Probabile a questo 
punto che sia Monza a perdere il GP, a meno di ristrutturazioni radicali, 
molto improbabili per i vincoli legati al Parco.


 fuori al momento opportuno.
Penso anche io che puntino ad altro, anche perché se queste fossero le 
soluzioni che sono in grado di concepire, sarebbe preoccupante. IMHO 
comunque il fatto solo che vengano rese pubbliche proposte così "radicali" 
è un sintomo del malessere attuale del mondo della F.1.....


 pista....
Me lo sono sempre chiesto anch'io. Verso la fine di quest'anno mi sembra
che Räikkönen provasse ad uscire un po' prima e così si faceva qualche
bel giro a pista libera che non guasta mai.


[cut]
Ciao
Luciano R.
P.S. Se questi dovevano essere l'alternativa ad un certo, famigerato,
J.M.Balestre .........

 del 2% e dell'1% al secondo e al terzo del GP precendte, sarebbe
Questo invece mi sembra molto interessante, anche se poco sportivo.
Poi basta che i piloti facciano il loro lavoro come Trulli-MSc in Australia,
e non tipo Suzuka 98 (?? MSc parte ultimo e tutti tranne Hill lo lasciano
passare senza opporre la minima resistenza) e si potrebbero avere
delle belle gare anche con le attuali differenze di prestazioni; specie
se si usa anche una gomma unica per wend e niente pitstop.
Luca