I hope so because the alternative (that the driver is supposed to work out in their head how much fuel they need to save and how to do so) seems silly to me. Someone elsewhere pointed out that the transmission of telemetry to the car has been banned for some time, this is simply preventing the team radio from being used as a proxy to get around those regulations, which I suppose is fair enough. As far as penalties go, well, Ferrari got a fine when they breached the team orders rules. I imagine similar will apply here, either fines, the withholding of prize money, or in serious cases the loss of constructors' points.
EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED Allowed - Telling a driver when he is allowed to or meant to stop for new tyres - Team orders in terms of overtaking or letting a team-mate past - Warning a driver about the traffic situation during qualifying and the race - Safety warning relating to yellow flags or dangerous situations on the track Not allowed - Informing a driver to change any settings on his car to improve its performance - Informing a driver about his fuel consumption and how to manage his pace - Informing a driver about his own performance in sectors and where he can improve - Informing a driver about the condition or state of his tyres - Informing a driver how best to approach the formation lap or setting changes to make better start So if a driver comes on to the radio and says his tyres are shot, can the team respond by telling him how many more laps he needs to do before he needs to pit? That would be the driver informing the team about his tyres and not the other way around?
The fuel consumption one could be interesting, may need cars to be overfueled to play it safe for the hot headed drivers
Yes. I believe that this is covered by "Telling a driver when he is allowed to or meant to stop for new tyres". It would only be against the rules if the team said "Your tyres are fine, keep pushing"... I think. EDIT: It has been confirmed that coded messages will be banned.
This is such a stupid rule change, it's almost certainly going to lead to more mechanical issues as drivers flog an ailing car to within an inch of its life without even knowing that the car is failing.
In an age where they're trying to cut costs, i fail to see how it helps. If car management is required from now on, then i see Nico trouncing Lewis.
I do think it's a bit brave to start this rule at Singapore considering the track can cause major brake issues. As for Hamilton potentially damaging his car more than Rosberg, I don't see that. He has had many issues with his car this season so he knows how fragile it is. What it does mean however, is that the last few races of the season could be a lottery.
The only driver i really see benefiting from this ban is Kimi, and that's only because he ignores everything the team tells him anyway.
I understand your concern, Dalziel; but actually, I do not agree. In particular, I dispute your suggestion that it is "stupid". As things have been progressing, a driver has already become something of a bit player in managing the car. Things have gone so far, in fact, that it could be argued that today's drivers have already begun to close in on what was (to me at least) a previously unthinkable reality: that he or she will operate a vehicle entirely according to external instruction – much as an automaton might operate according to an external computerised programme via radio signal, WiFi, or similar. What we end up with is a pilot who does things according to what he/she is 'driven to do' by an external source; a team of people perhaps; or worse: a 'team' replaced by a sufficiently advanced computer programme! Make no mistake: left unchecked, an F1 driver becomes something from a futuristic nightmare – an F1 'car-operator' – such that the best (ahem) driver will be someone whose greatest asset would be the ability to quickly and accurately follow instruction from someone (or something) else. Taken to its ultimate logical conclusion, the need to 'think' is virtually eliminated! Thus, much of what has always been admired by spectators; individual human endeavour; is removed – and we are left with a spectacle which might easily be minimised into some local event on a Scalextric track. To put it another way, F1 relies upon an audience. This audience exists only so long as it feels there is something to admire in the participants it watches.
Well said Cosi... Heaven forbid we ever get to a point where a computer replaces a driver because it's far more efficient. They'll all do fine without input from the pit wall. They might even perform better when relying on instinct rather acting on relayed data. I'm usually concerned about mid season rule changes, but this particular tactic should have been stamped out long ago. It gets my thumbs up.
Cosi, as a man in the know. Who do you think will benefit most and who will suffer. Or will there be not much difference? Or will it be the cars that suffer more often?
Will anyone gain/lose more than the other in reality? I personally think it won't make a whole lot of difference across the board. I'll likely be proved wrong now.
Drivers who are easily distracted (eg Maldonado) and drivers who have the ability to manage their own races (eg Button, Kimi, Alonso) will benefit. Drivers who need to be coached and/or constantly have their races managed (Vettel, Hamilton, Rosberg and most of the others) will suffer, though by what degree remains to be seen. I don't think the Mercs will be too hurt by it this season unless they race each other (I don't think they will passed the first corner, especially not in Singabore where a mistake isn't a loss of a few seconds), and I don't think it will affect the race in Singabore because it's a fractionally less boring track for F1 action than Monaco. It will be interesting to see how the others fair, I think the Ferraris and Button will finish higher than usual in the races
Hi Bando! The way things have been going, I've felt more and more like a 'man in the don't know', so I should first claim that this timely step may benefit me most – thereby providing a convenient caveat for anything I'm about to say! Hmm. I don't know! But seriously… –It seems reasonable to conclude that this rule should help the more experienced drivers, just as it ought remove some of the ease by which newcomers have been 'helped' to acclimatise to modern day F1. Indeed, it might be argued that the use of 'coaching' technology has been part of the reason behind us seeing such incredibly young, relatively inexperienced drivers finding their way onto an F1 grid. It might even provide a good excuse for ever-more forgiving tracks because they are surely more justified with such inexperience! Some things remain unchanged, however. Intelligence, awareness and anticipation have always been essential faculties for the successful racer. Those capable of marrying these factors best should be smiling most at the FIA's latest decision. Of course, intelligence might be considered innate*; but awareness and anticipation are derived through interpretation of one's experience. For instance, catching or kicking a ball requires an awareness of how nature works in order to anticipate what can be expected, thus enabling one to plan for a desirable outcome. So, of today's grid: take your pick. Beneficiaries should be Button and Alonso, who are amongst the most intelligent and experienced. Don't count out Rosberg either: he's also been around quite a while and is certainly very intelligent, although it might be said he's been very good at doing what he's being told is needed, as opposed to the likes of Button and Alonso who are strong and confident decision makers. Hamilton's not daft either and has an extraordinary instinct for what's needed at the right moment. Then again, there are those who can pick things up very quickly with less experience aren't there? – So it doesn't mean Ricciardo or Bottas will suffer! In my opinion, Vettel and Massa are likely to be amongst those least happy. Raikkonen will be completely unaffected: external input makes little difference to him in any case. - - -o0o- - - *Intelligence might also be argued to be a manifestation of experience itself, just as is being nurtured and encouraged (coached) at the right moment! [Edit: alternatively, you might prefer Miggs' response, although I'm not sure I agree about Maldonado. Of course, we'll need to see him complete a few more race distances before we'll know, so we'll probably never find out . For the most part, I'd say this new ruling won't make a big difference but if we see drivers mismanaging their races, we'll know soon enough…]
Even the best drivers will look at lap data to see where they can improve. What this does pretty much prevents it being relayed to the drivers in real time. That benefit is being taken away across the board, so there could be a degree of loss across the board. Will it be noticeable the the viewing public? Probably not. If a driver is losing time to the car ahead (or behind), they'll figure where and possibly even know where they can improve. You'll just not have a boffin feeding it to them. That's the way I see it anyway.
Yeah, I'll admit this is a good thing. While you can say "oh they'll find ways around it", if that happens it won't be until next season due to the complexity involved and even then, something like "speak twice for genuine commands" is likely to end up screwing over the driver in the heat of the moment, so I think most teams won't bother. That doesn't stop me being a little nervous about things that make F1 slower in the name of emphasising the drivers. Obviously things that would just turn drivers into a particularly athletic passenger on a rollercoaster are categorically to be ruled out (stability control, traction control, all of that jazz), it's the citing of that particular excuse that really bugs me - I never quite understood why some stuff has been banned, apart from the standard issue of "give some teams an inch and they'll take a mile". I always liked launch control, for instance, in my eyes all that did was to help add to the spectacle of the start and avoid the increasingly common situation of the anti-stall kicking in and doing the opposite of its actual job. I think Noble had the right idea when he said it's more to combat the perception than any real issue (although I think they'll find perceptions hard to change). I also think I'll like it more when it becomes normal. I'm even more pissed off Singapore's exclusive to Sky now because the one who calls himself Crofty will bring it up every three corners and Brundle will moan about how back in his day even touching the team radio at Benetton was punishable by death.
