Alright F1 fans…most of us ‘lifers’ know that the behind-the-scenes wrangling is often more interesting than the racing itself. So it comes as no surprise that the proposed F1 regulations for 2008 were introduced shortly before the Indy race, allowing enough time for the two youngest members on staff to produce a point/counterpoint. I, for one…am firmly against the proposed regulations.

The purpose of the new regs is to keep costs in check. Well guess what – they won’t. Instead of manufacturers being able to spread out their budgets over a wide range of departments (chassis, aero, engine, etc.), the workforce will be concentrated on refining the most minute part of the car’s package. This will force teams to do more development for far less achievable performance gains.

James Neilson (JN) and Michael Banovsky (MB) report.

ENGINES
“All components of the engine will be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Bad – Think “fuel rig” on this one. The FIA isn’t capable of contracting a company to supply a fuel rig that doesn’t malfunction, let alone a complex ECU.
JN: Good – Fuel rig? They don’t work because teams like Benetton modified them outside of FIA regulations. Remember Jos Verstappen and the inferno that obscured his stricken Benetton in 1994? I’m sure a company like Magnetti Marelli, who currently provide ECU’s to Ferrari, could provide a standard ECU to all teams.

“The ECU may only be used with FIA-approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators as specified by the FIA.”
MB: Bad – So what if there’s a faulty sensor and the car fails during a race? Does the FIA lose constructor’s points? Of course not. And what will be the cost to each team for this technology and the software to use it?
JN:
Good – Cost is always an issue but cost debates always revolve around some teams having more money than others. If the software is provided to teams at the same price what’s the problem with standard electronics?

“A 3 litre V10 engine will remain an option for teams unable to obtain a 2.4 litre V8, but subject to similar strict performance limitations as in 2006 and 2007.”
MB: Bad – Don’t worry, the new 2.4L V8s will be up to today’s performance levels in two years. So it would be a farce to allow teams to use V10 engines in 2008, considering their increased longevity through the increased displacement. I say engine regs should allow for more creativity. Cap the displacement at 4L, and produce a rev limit for any combination of V6-V16 engines at that displacement. This would allow, say, a 3L V8 limited to 18,000 RPM to compete alongside a 4L V12 at 9,000 RPM.
JN: Good – Longevity is irrelevant as the 2.4 litre V8 will be designed to make it through two races. If a V10 could last longer, say four races, it will most likely still be changed after two as the rules allow you to do that. Development will inevitably cease on the V10 and any advantage that configuration might have initially will be nixed by the crappy chassis, think Minardi, it will be strapped to.

GEARBOXES
“All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials that have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Bad – Is there one gearset allowed for a season? What is the maximum number of parts allowed to be purchased by teams? What are the fatigue levels for each component (how long will the gears last)? And who agrees to this specification?
JN: Good – Gearboxes are one of the most expensive items on a car to develop and maintain. Considering the money BAR spent this season on their “seamless shift” transmission and the resultant embarrassing performance, it’s obvious that money could have been spent elsewhere, like giving David Richards an offer to return he couldn’t have refused.

“Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox.”
MB: Good – This should help drivers shake the in-car image of being robots.
JN: Good – I Still remember watching poor Ukyo Katayama clang through the gears and dance the two-step in the footwell of his anemic Tyrrell at the ’94 Japanese Grand Prix. Bring that back! Please!

“Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism.”
MB: Bad – I firmly believe that F1 technology should precede technology available to the consumer, not follow it. So, in the world of SMG and DSG, where is the link between F1 and available technology? At the very most, limit clutch use to the start of the grand prix and pit stops.
JN: Undecided – I’m still trying to figure out where the teams would fit a third pedal in a modern Formula 1 Car.

BODYWORK
“Downforce will be reduced to approximately 10% of current levels.”
MB: Bad – The trick here is to increase the overtaking, but to reduce the tendency for the cars to slide. When a car slides, it puts drivers/spectators/track workers at more of a risk from out-of-control vehicles. Also, without the downforce, how will high-speed component/tire failures be controlled? And how will the cars stay on the ground after tire-to-tire contact?
JN: Good – Cars should be less dependant on their aerodynamics in a bid to increase overtaking but to 10%? That’s a little extreme. Reduce the drag, reduce the resultant turbulence that renders the aerodynamics of a following car ineffective, increase the mechanical grip, but don’t just cut downforce. For the ‘95 season they did that, the cars went faster, when they raised the height of the front wing, the cars went faster, when they changed the rules for this year the cars inevitably caught up. Is the FIA ignorant? Oops, silly question.

“Drag will be maintained at current levels.”
MB: Bad – Less downforce with current drag levels will produce ugly looking cars, as most of the drag currently is created by the wings and tires. If a major source of drag is at 10% of current levels, something will have to be added to put the two back into balance. Bumpers?
JN: Bad – Can anyone explain to me how the FIA intends to do this? I shiver at the thought of how big a gurney flap you need to pull this rule off!

“Overall car width will be increased.”
MB: Bad – This is bad only because it isn’t clear where the width will come from, and by how much. Increasing width will allow for lower, more tightly-packed sidepods that should make the cars look better. Or like old Indycars.
JN: Good – Assuming they increase the width of the cars by moving the wheels out farther, and back to pre-1998 configuration, I’m all for it.

“By stipulating maximum and minimum dimensions cars will be “cleaned up” with devices such as barge boards, flip ups, winglets and other small add on parts removed.”
MB: Bad – If an engineer is told he can’t put winglets on a car, he will instinctively try to find other ways to make up for the lost downforce. And if the team has a big budget and wants to win, instead of developing a wide array of test parts (different barge boards, wings, flip-ups, etc.), they will concentrate their resources on the bigger components: the nose cone, airbox, sidepods, etc. to make up for the lost performance. This will increase manufacturing costs as the components will be larger and more complex to manufacture.
JN: Good – Engineering costs will go down, despite my associate’s claims. The development costs for some of these parts are staggering. And how many times have we seen an F1 car lose a bargeboard and continue on like nothing happened? Besides if there were untapped development potential in areas such as the Airbox and Nose-cone teams would have been all over that by now. In fact, teams are all over it already. Williams ran their bizarre front wing with “tusks” last season. Mclaren have their novel “canards” on this year’s MP4-20. I also think they would look a hell of a lot better devoid of all those incongruous appendages.

“Total advertising area on the car to remain unchanged.”
MB: Good – Who cares, anyway? Just paint the cars in the colour of the manufacturer’s home country and post a website on the side of the car that lists the sponsors.
JN: Good – Remember when they wanted to ditch airboxes in ’94? Every team cried about losing ad space they had already sold. I say keep them, F1 teams whine enough as it is. We don’t really need to give them another reason as they will surely find one themselves

WHEELS AND TYRES
“Tyres will be supplied by one manufacturer appointed by the FIA after an invitation to tender. Such an appointment will be conditional upon.”
MB: Good – Do I have to explain why?
JN: Good – See above, US GP, cough, cough.

“Slick tyres will be introduced for use in dry weather.”
MB: Bad – At first I was against grooves, but I think there needs to be a link between F1 and top-level road cars. Keep grooves, and introduce a more aggressive tread.
JN: Good – Mechanical grip should be increased, slick tyres is one easy way. Bring on the overtaking!

“Lower profile tyres will be introduced.”
MB: Good – Again, this would allow for a link between road and race cars.
JN: Who cares really?

“Significantly larger wheels with minimum and maximum sizes stipulated for front and rear will be permitted.”
MB: Good – So staggered wheels, and optimized sizes for each track, eh? (Smaller sizes for faster tracks, larger for high-grip tracks like Austria.) But just how will one supplier keep up with all of the different sizes? And does “significantly” allow for future cars to roll on 24-inch dubs?
JN: Good – It makes the technical package more fluid and we’ll get to see some interesting tyre configurations throughout the season.

“Tyre blankets and other heating devices will be prohibited.”
MB: Good – This will put more emphasis on the start and restarts.
JN: Good – I’m all for placing more emphasis on a driver’s car control ability. Plus I’m sure F1 teams have found a way to over-engineer and pay a fortune for what is essentially a space heater.

CHASSIS
“The minimum height of the centre of gravity of the chassis will be specified.”
MB: Good – But really – this will just allow teams to concentrate the majority of the component weight at the minimum allowed.
JN: Irrelevant – Like MB said, teams are just going to lower the car’s centre for gravity to within acceptable limits anyways.

“The minimum weight for a chassis will be specified.”
MB: Good
JN: Good

“Energy of all impact tests will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good

“Loads for all static tests will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good

“Side intrusion test requirements will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good

“Ballast will be reduced to minimal levels.”
MB: Bad – Without ballast, how will teams keep weight at the corners? They will spend more money on things like the floor of the car and sidepods and mould ‘heavy spots’ into the composite component. This will create a need for track-specific floors and sidepods, as well as increased replacement cost per component.
JN: Good – I’m sure all those genius designers in F1 can build a car to legal weight without ballast right? Aside from Geoff Willis of BAR of course.

BRAKES
“All cars will be fitted with brake discs, pads and calipers which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Good – This will allow for differences between drivers to show through, like Sato’s brake wear vs. M. Schumacher’s. However, the design of said components can be fixed, but the teams should be allowed to manufacture the components in-house to allow for tighter quality control.
JN: Good – Like BAR’s seamless transmission, Ferrari have spent a fortune developing trick brakes for this season and the performance benefit is indistinguishable.

DATA ACQUISITION AND TELEMETRY
“With specific exceptions, any data acquisition system, telemetry system or associated sensors additional to those associated with the ECU will be physically separate and completely isolated from the control electronics.”
MB: Good – Keep it simple. This will also allow fans to see where the cars are on track.
JN: Good – Like MB said it could open this information up to the general public.

“Pit to car telemetry will be prohibited.”
MB: Good – Telemetry is different from radio, of course. Drivers should focus on driving only.
JN: Good – see above

MATERIALS
“Limitations, similar to those within the 2006 engine regulations, will be imposed on all parts of the car.”
MB: Bad – What about Britain’s advanced composite manufacturing industry? Most people don’t know that F1 is the breeding ground for advanced material production. If the F1 doesn’t develop things like carbon fibre, who will?
JN: Good – Those exotic materials in the engine are unnecessary and at times dangerous. Remember the beryllium components in the Mercedes Engines of a few years ago? The vapors caused by the worn parts were poisonous to breathe.

STARTER
“All cars will be equipped with a driver operated starter which is capable of starting the car without outside assistance a minimum number of times.”
MB: Good – This will prevent M. Schumacher from waving marshals across the track.
JN: Good – This gives a chance for a driver that has spun and stalled to get going, and most importantly off the racing line, much quicker which will increase safety and decrease race stoppages.

SPARE CARS
“Spare cars will be prohibited, i.e. no team may have more than two built-up cars available at an Event at any one time. Spare chassis will be permitted but precisely what constitutes a car in this context will be clearly defined.”
MB: Bad – In the event of an accident, more money will be spent on flying additional needed components to the track, possibly requiring damaged cars to sit out whole sessions at the expense of spectators.
JN: Bad – The third car is a good rule. Sooner or later a driver is going to wreck his car. He shouldn’t be handicapped for taking chances because that’s what we all want to see right?

TESTING
“Testing will be limited to 30000km per team between 1st January and 31st December, subject to a single tyre supplier being appointed.”
MB: Good – Teams will be able to spend vast sums of money on testing (by having more personnel at the track to maximize data acquisition/testing analysis and computer simulation software.) Oh, and wind tunnel time.
JN: Good – Cutting costs and decreasing the divide between the haves and the have-nots is good for F1 in the long run.

CAR ACQUISITION
“Teams will be free to buy a complete car or any part of a car from another constructor.”
MB: Good – It will be nice to see Lola and Dallara (back) in F1.
JN: Good – Bring back the days of March! Frank Williams wouldn’t be in F1 if he didn’t have that choice while running Piers Courage.