Ferrari Life Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What are your opinions of the new proposed rules for next year and beyond?

2 sets of tires for the entire weekend (race & qualifying)

grid positions to be an aggrigate of a lightweight run on Saturday and also a race weight lap on Sunday just before the race

new engine rules for 2006 (V8 format)

Also, it seems the British GP is no more and a new race is added for Cancun, Mexico....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,082 Posts
i'm more a bit pissed at the new rule for next year that Ferrari refused to sign, a rule that is meand to safe the smaller private teams
it was to reduce testing to 10 days max.
and that way they can also bring the total races to 20 instead of 17.
if that rule comes in, then Jordan & Minardi will be able to stay affloat and stay in F1.
if that rule comes in, then Renault will stay in F1, because it will safe them around € 20 million. if not they will most likelly leave F1 in 2006

Ferrari is beeing very selfish at the moment, because of them rejected that rule, wich is very good rule IMO, 3 teams will most likelly disapear from F1 because of money issues, a problem taht Ferrari doesn't have
even McLaren & Williams signed it, altough both of them are not really in favor for it, but they understand the need for it for the smaller teams
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,211 Posts
It is not only the fact that more teams will stay, but because the gap in testing between the bigger and the smaller team becomes smaller the races will be more exciting because they will test the same amount of days. Ferrari selfish? Tell something new please :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I agree Ferrari should sign up to the testing agreement. The sport needs the smaller teams: to make full grids & train upcoming drivers. Eddie Jordon deserves to be allowed to field a team. He's having enough trouble without an engine supplier now that Cosworth is out.

I do have a big problem with cancelling the British GP. China has no heritage; Middle East has no heritage; neither does Russia (where Bernie is in talks to set up another race). It would be tragic to have season without Silverstone.

What abput the expense of going to a V8 format?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Maybe Ferrari refused to sign because they were not allowed to test at Fiorano anymore? That would cost Ferrari much since they wouldn't be able to operate it for the F1 department anymore.

As for the rules, they are plain stupid to me. that 2.4 V8 formula would mean almost every team needs to develop such an engine which won't reduce costs in the first place. The two race engine is a joke, IMHO, definately when it is linked to the ten-places back rule. If you have to retire in the race, you should be place 10 places on the grid back in the next. If you hit the barrier in Monaco for instance, you should pray to god that your engine did not suffer any damaged. Then the tyre question: drivers are only permotted to replace tyres when the suffer a puncture. That would mean tactics are not that essential anymore and that would bore F1 even more. All F1 drivers have proven their capabilities and do not differ that much. With the new rules the cars are starting to look like GP2 cars with the same stuff almost on all cars, making no difference in drivers and cars ==== NO OVERTAKING. Pitstops only allowed for fuel ==== LESS THINGS THAT CAN GO WRONG === MORE BORING RACING

So F1 is robbed from: tactics, tyre-war (well almost, survival of the fittest), guts (drivers now have to plan for two races enginewise, and will never make a do-or-die action at the end of the race since that might result in two bad scores!!!).

2005 season: cars qualifying position = race order position, not very hard to predict and very uninteresting to watch. If Ferrari wouldn't be there, I wouldn't have watched it since 2000!



Niels
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,082 Posts
actually 1 tyre company would mean, some costs in that departement would go down, and also most likelly some loss of speed wich should mean maybe a bit "safer?"

and actually the tyre rule isn't really correct, it didn't say if you get a puncture, it said if it's "damaged", but that hasn't really been fully defined.
in a mather of speaking a driver good go and do a small rally and then come in and say my tyres are damaged i need new ones cuz of the grind & dirt.
or if he did 3-4 lock-ups he could say, i have some flat spots now, that could be dangerous, let's go in and change them since my tyres are damaged.

i wouldn't mind dropping Silverstone, it's a bloody boring race. England has far more interesting tracks available, like Donnington Park or maybe even Brands Hatch


and please, get rid of (B)ernie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Personally I see it, Ferrari doesn't want to give up their current advantage of having Fiorano. And now Ron Dennis is all up in arms about the whole thing, the first to say anything. We wouldn't see him complaining if he had such an advantageous circuit or whatever.

But yes, this set of rules should benefit the smaller teams. It would be good for them to go through in that view. I do not agree with the new V8 regulation, makes it too much like lower formulae. ANd the engine restrictions are so strict now, basically telling them to almost make a spec engine. But either way...

Best thing to do would've been to make a control tyre and keep most of the rest.

But if it really does imrove saftey, okay.

It's going to be a long off-season....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Who does Bernie answer to? Can he be gotten rid of? What about the rumored non Bernie formula that some teams threatened to set up away from the current regime? Is that still active?

I'm not absolutely tied to Silverstone, but where ever it is, shouldn't Britian have a GP?
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top