Ferrari Test: I was under the impression that the test are not allowed on this years cars(2013), last years cars(2012) or the preceding years cars(2011). So doesn't that make testing a 2011 Ferrari a breach of the regs?
Back to tyres...
- Thread starter BrightLampShade
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
what is the actual rule on the car? I know Ferrari were testing with Salo last year in a 2010 car. everybody knew and nobody battered an eyelid then so it must of been legal. EDIT: is a 2011 preseason spec car legal as its over 2 years old?
I think thats where some of the confusion is. It is over two years old but its a chassis that was used less than two years ago (or something).
This post is a response to SgtBhaji's point of opening up the technical regulations in the interests of innovation. It is not directly related to tyres.
When more freedom is given to technical innovation, the gaps between the wealthy and less wealthy opens up. This reduces the chance of on-track action, since it increases the chance of teams being unable to keep pace with each others' technical developments.
This was the whole philosophy behind Max Mosley's (somewhat idealistic) budget cap and the tightening of regulations. The tightening of regulations reduces disparity precisely because innovation is focussed upon a very narrowed window which all teams are aware of, thus making it less likely that any team can suddenly leap ahead. Inevitably, when such a leap occurs, it immediately places a further financial burden on the less wealthy teams to catch up. Ultimately, this strings out the field so that each team runs its own, lonely race. This was the biggest single reason for tightening regulations.
For F1 to remain 'the pinnacle' of motor sport, it needs only to outstrip all others by a fair margin. Being already a light-year ahead of all others is plenty; there is no need to go into warp drive such that they could lap American ovals, for instance, at 300+mph (which, with loosened regulations, they could). Besides, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, with the disparity between front-runners and tail-enders increasing, the reality would be more akin to 320mph from the fastest, and 280mph from the slowest, with others filling the spaces between. The result being that F1 dissolves itself through the lack of on-track battle because they all run a different Delta â suddenly we have no pinnacle called "F1" because it is well known that what the public want is to see on-track action rather than a bunch of guys doing their own high-speed demonstrations at the same venue, which, according to the public, would not be 'racing' at all.
The logic runs thus:
Loose regulations = poor spectacle (that of watching awesome speed minus the battles the public actually says it is paying to see).
Tight regulations = tight grid (greater chance of producing unpredictable results and close, on-track action).
I can understand this point of view but there is something very important that we should not overlook:
When more freedom is given to technical innovation, the gaps between the wealthy and less wealthy opens up. This reduces the chance of on-track action, since it increases the chance of teams being unable to keep pace with each others' technical developments.
This was the whole philosophy behind Max Mosley's (somewhat idealistic) budget cap and the tightening of regulations. The tightening of regulations reduces disparity precisely because innovation is focussed upon a very narrowed window which all teams are aware of, thus making it less likely that any team can suddenly leap ahead. Inevitably, when such a leap occurs, it immediately places a further financial burden on the less wealthy teams to catch up. Ultimately, this strings out the field so that each team runs its own, lonely race. This was the biggest single reason for tightening regulations.
For F1 to remain 'the pinnacle' of motor sport, it needs only to outstrip all others by a fair margin. Being already a light-year ahead of all others is plenty; there is no need to go into warp drive such that they could lap American ovals, for instance, at 300+mph (which, with loosened regulations, they could). Besides, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, with the disparity between front-runners and tail-enders increasing, the reality would be more akin to 320mph from the fastest, and 280mph from the slowest, with others filling the spaces between. The result being that F1 dissolves itself through the lack of on-track battle because they all run a different Delta â suddenly we have no pinnacle called "F1" because it is well known that what the public want is to see on-track action rather than a bunch of guys doing their own high-speed demonstrations at the same venue, which, according to the public, would not be 'racing' at all.
The logic runs thus:
Loose regulations = poor spectacle (that of watching awesome speed minus the battles the public actually says it is paying to see).
Tight regulations = tight grid (greater chance of producing unpredictable results and close, on-track action).
I hear ya Cosi, but homogenized cars with overtaking gimmicks isn't the pinnacle either. Maybe it needs a combination of opening the regs, budget caps and better distribution of wealth through the grid.
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression teams were not keen on 2011 cars being used for testing which for me explained why Pirelli were lumbered with the 2010 Renault as opposed to a more representative car.
I think F1 is getting to the stage where there are to many regulations. We've had the same baseline for years now (thankfully soon to change) and each year theres more rules to stop you going down certain design paths. All cars are forced into a situation where they have identical strong and weak points. There needs to be more open regulations so we can have cars that are actually different, that reward teams massively if they buck the trend and its pays off. All you need is some loose regulations to keep the cost down and then let the teams try what ever they want with in those regulations, we may even get cars that look different from a distance not just up close 
I hear you too, Bhaji. Really; I do.
But isn't the problem always one of converting such ideals through method or 'formula'? It's great to set out with a clear ambition but essential to move towards achievement in practical steps: i.e. those which take us closer to our goal without risking our own termination.
Like you, I'm not one for gimmicks either. However, KERS has now proven itself beyond such a label, and F1's recursive problem of aerodynamics (itself a product of technical innovation) has been at least offset to some degree by another technical innovation: DRS. These two were enough. There was no need to get silly with the tyres to artificially force another wholly unnecessary gimmick: multiple pit-stops. As others have said, we should be careful what we ask for.
My belief is that the first step should be to reign-in the tyres. F1 took a wrong turn in making such unreasonable (unnecessary, in my view) demands upon Pirelli. Last year's tyres had already gone slightly too far and should have been left to 'mature'. Instead, Pirelli were too aggressive in their eagerness to please an FIA which was itself egged-on by an insatiable audience.
By analogy. Food is essential to living things; but eat too much too quickly and we either vomit back to somewhere we started, or choke to death…
As I've replied to Bhaji, tight regulations are a method of keeping teams competitive with one another.I think F1 is getting to the stage where there are to many regulations. We've had the same baseline for years now (thankfully soon to change) and each year theres more rules to stop you going down certain design paths. All cars are forced into a situation where they have identical strong and weak points. There needs to be more open regulations so we can have cars that are actually different, that reward teams massively if they buck the trend and its pays off. All you need is some loose regulations to keep the cost down and then let the teams try what ever they want with in those regulations, we may even get cars that look different from a distance not just up close
Loose regulations do not keep costs down.
…Indeed, this does precisely the opposite: it becomes a spiralling 'arms race'.
Loosen up the regulations and you'll open gaps between teams according to their financial capacity to be innovative. Your proposal for cars which "look different" is an interesting ideal (I like the thought of it too), but is immediately undermined by the primary consideration for teams to be competitive with one another in order to provide the spectacle demanded by an insatiable, impatient, reactive public. In fact, it would be easy to argue this is where F1's current problems actually stem from!
Loose regulations risk losing those who decide they cannot keep pace such that the public end up with no sport to watch because only Ferrari and (perhaps) McLaren are left to do what would inevitably be an unequal battle.
If the FIA could actually manage to keep tabs on team spending there could be spending caps. As it is it seems the FIA make no attempt to actually check the teams books and the resource agreements are a open farce. I'm an engineer at heart and can at times be more interested in a car with 'clever parts' than the drivers. An idea costs nothing and if you're limited by funds you may end up with cars designed partially on instinct. There's more than one way to skin a cat but it seems these days the only variation we get is in the name of the cat 
The thing I really dislike about the current regulations is where the budgets are spent. Billions of pounds a season goes on creating little slots and turning vanes. These developments are specific to these regulations, they serve no greater purpose, as soon as the car is updated the previous set of upgrades worth thousands of pounds is cast aside and never used again. I'd much rather see the budgets spent on powertrain development, knowledge which will be useful forever and can built upon by the next generations of cars and filter down into road cars.
With the hybrid power systems coming in there's so much scope for billion pound investment in battery technology and energy harvesting. But it will all be wasted on aerodynamics. I'd like to see the teams given licence to experiment, maybe see some teams experimenting with four wheel drive systems, with ERS deployed to independent motors on the front wheels for example. But the current regulations are too restrictive.
I don't tend to agree with this. Like BLS says an idea costs nothing, you don't need financial capacity to be innovative, money doesn't buy creativity. More open regulations provide an opportunity for lesser funded teams to steal a march on the big boys. I think 2009 is a decent example of this, McLaren and Ferrari had dominated in the years building up to it, but it was Brawn, Toyota and Williams who came up with the double diffuser, and Red Bull with their pull rod suspension who were the key innovators. Sauber were one of the most innovative teams last year but the closed regulations meant the big teams could quickly copy their ideas without falling behind in other areas.
I agree restrictive regulations keep the field close, but they also keep them in the same order because the smaller teams can't use their budget creatively to overcome their lack of funds. The pecking order also remains largely unchanged through the season too because there's less scope for development.
Either way I'd like to see the aero regs tightened further and other areas opened. It seems wrong that engines are frozen for years at a time when in the real world the technology is progressing fast. Money is being poured down the drain in modern F1.
With the hybrid power systems coming in there's so much scope for billion pound investment in battery technology and energy harvesting. But it will all be wasted on aerodynamics. I'd like to see the teams given licence to experiment, maybe see some teams experimenting with four wheel drive systems, with ERS deployed to independent motors on the front wheels for example. But the current regulations are too restrictive.
I don't tend to agree with this. Like BLS says an idea costs nothing, you don't need financial capacity to be innovative, money doesn't buy creativity. More open regulations provide an opportunity for lesser funded teams to steal a march on the big boys. I think 2009 is a decent example of this, McLaren and Ferrari had dominated in the years building up to it, but it was Brawn, Toyota and Williams who came up with the double diffuser, and Red Bull with their pull rod suspension who were the key innovators. Sauber were one of the most innovative teams last year but the closed regulations meant the big teams could quickly copy their ideas without falling behind in other areas.
I agree restrictive regulations keep the field close, but they also keep them in the same order because the smaller teams can't use their budget creatively to overcome their lack of funds. The pecking order also remains largely unchanged through the season too because there's less scope for development.
Either way I'd like to see the aero regs tightened further and other areas opened. It seems wrong that engines are frozen for years at a time when in the real world the technology is progressing fast. Money is being poured down the drain in modern F1.
The Resource Agreement has worked to a very limited extent but once, again, this was never going to be much more than an ideal lacking methodology: as you suggest, it is very difficult, if not downright impossible, to police. In a practical sense, this was little more than a pipe-dream based upon an opaque trust.
I agree with you, BLS, that ideas cost nothing in terms of their conception, and that instinct plays an important part in design; but as you know, it requires research and development (money) to bring any design idea to fruition. Furthermore, the best minds are usually snapped up (paid for) by the biggest teams who can and will pay more than a competitor for such brilliance.
As you say, there's more than one way to skin a cat; but only so long as you have a catâ¦
Whatever the regulations are, whether 'tight' or 'loose', competitors will do whatever they can to produce the best design within their own budget. And yes, when regs are tight, teams will fight tooth and nail on the finer details. But when small details are fought over, the differences are small and the racing is tighter. It should also be clear that whatever the regulations, the budget is still the ultimate limit in the long-term, despite occasional anomalies in the short-term; and this was the idealism behind Max Mosley's efforts to impose a ceiling on budgets. At the same time, one might argue that a wealthy team has every right to make use of its resources and recruit the best minds in order to gain, or maintain a competitive edge.
I also agree with you that it is a shame that the most important technologies for the future of transportation are not given greater emphasis. However, relaxing the regulations, rather than for instance, finding some tortuous method of redirecting them in a manner which is not punitive to the weaker teams, will reduce the spectacle of on-track action – which is the very thing keeping this boat afloat! (as I've outlined previously).
Some specifics taken from your interesting post:
[1]
Yes, in the purest sense, an idea costs nothing. However, in a practical sense, if you can afford to pay the people most likely to come up with the best ideas, you are actually paying for them, even before the development phase kicks in. That said, there will always be exceptions; but one can only plan for trends and the trend will always be that the wealthiest buy the best brains.
[2]
This is a valid point. Over time, the pecking order tends to remain similar. However, research shows that bigger gaps in performance causes audience numbers to dwindle.
[3]
Yes, I'm with you on this. Of course, tightening aero regs flies in the face of a point made by BLS that he'd like to see bigger variation in the appearance of the cars.
[4]
I see your point and largely agree. Regulations need to move with the times and 'frozen' engines does not help the image of a sport which makes rightful claim on the word 'pinnacle'. That said, I should mention that engine regulations have never precluded alterations for reliability. But it is worth making the point that during this era of engine freeze we have seen closer racing – and for a longer time – than at any era from the sport's past.
If theres animal lovers around:
a. I do have a cat
b. I have no intention to skin her
a. I do have a cat
b. I would love to skin it, but my wife may leave me. I may however turn it lose to the coyotes.
b. I would love to skin it, but my wife may leave me. I may however turn it lose to the coyotes.
Any animal that brings down another animal of considerable extra proportions gains my respect. Some times my cat brings home 'presents' and I'm like how did you manage that!
Just watching the F1 show and they showed Hamilton and Brawn's interviews before Monaco. Hamilton said they'd done a lot of analysis after the last race, Brawn said they'd done a lot of development since Barcelona. According to Ted that's Mercedes not keeping it secret. 
I thought their argument was that it was Pirelli doing all the analysis and development? So if that's Mercedes hinting at them having a test that surely contradicts their claims they didn't know what Pirelli were doing.
I thought their argument was that it was Pirelli doing all the analysis and development? So if that's Mercedes hinting at them having a test that surely contradicts their claims they didn't know what Pirelli were doing.