Start, Silverstone, 2015

One month left for F1 to agree new 2017 rules

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: F1 teams have one month left to agree plans to overhaul the rules for next season, before further changes require their unanimous agreement.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Jackysteeg won this weekend caption competition:

Romain Grosjean, Eddie Jordan, Yas Marina, 2015

Romain could only force a smile after Haas revealed its new team principal.
Jackysteeg

Thanks to everybody who joined in and a special nod to Euro Brun, Jack, JamieFranklinF1 and Yoseph who also wrote some of the best captions.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Cliffery, Kutigz and Pmelton!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Four teams revealed their F1 cars five years ago today – including eventual champions Red Bull:

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 48 comments on “One month left for F1 to agree new 2017 rules”

    1. I’m so scared by strategy group’s perverted logic that I really hope they won’t agree on anything

      1. Me too, especially after reading that weight is expected to increase, again.

    2. “F1 heads easily come to agreement”

      I’m just saying Keith, if you ever post this, I will know you are making things up. :p

      1. Jonathan O'Brien
        1st February 2016, 8:55

        Well if he posts that on April 1st you know it will be his April fool

    3. I’m not gonna lie, the plan to implement those halos for 2017 is hitting me like a ton of bricks. I feel selfish because i want the drivers to be safe, but something just wont be the same.

      1. The halo is the ant-eater nose times 20000.

        I don’t know how it measures up against a windscreen or canopy in terms of safety but I know what I would choose.

        And isn’t driving your regular car with a helmet on also safer than without? If every road driver feels good with a compromise on safety why shouldn’t racdrivers?

        1. I don’t know how it measures up against a windscreen or canopy in terms of safety but I know what I would choose.

          I reckon it’s a step along the way to a canopy @verstappen. We’ll all get used to the halo and the even higher cockpit sides then someone will get hit by a smaller object and it’ll be pointed out we could see more of the driver with a canopy.

          And isn’t driving your regular car with a helmet on also safer than without?

          Only if your head hits something, otherwise a helmet is more load on your neck. F1 might come to think about that as well, in time.

          1. @lockup Seems to me the canopy concept has already been found to have too many strikes against it and could not just be added to cars that resemble what we have known as a modern day F1 car. ie. In order to implement a canopy they would pretty much have to make an F1 car look like a WEC car which would mean massive costs of redesigning everything and risking losing audience while doing it due to the cars no longer looking like F1 cars.

            I know you have mentioned before being able to see the driver, and even them not needing helmets once inside a canopy but I don’t think seeing the driver is a big concern, and I firmly believe they will never ever go racing in any series without a helmet no matter how safe the cars are claimed to be.

            1. WEC is 2-seater though @robbie. If they’re making F1 cars 2m wide again they could look again at the curvature and its light-bending issues. There is plenty of width really, it’s just not expected to be used for a screen.

              Yes it would be expensive, but then so is everything in F1. F1 is supposed to be expensive.

              I think seeing the drivers’ faces would be massive. Imagine tennis or golf or, I dunno, beach volleyball, in helmets!

              I agree it’s too big a step for now tho. This is why we need a step along the way.

      2. Me too. It is a step too far.
        Honestly it might be the end for me.
        I can handle every other rule change they throw at me but if these cars don’t remain open cockpit then i’m signing off completely.
        Seriously, how far is too far. If we wanted to be completely safe…. why even race at all. The risk (whilst still a risk) is acceptably low, in my opinion.

        Going jogging has risk… Should we all wear helmets just in case we get knocked over?
        What do we do? Ban every other motorsport that uses open cockpits? Put halos on a $7000 Formula Vee car FFS?

        A step too far…. I’ll be leaving if it happens because (to me) it won’t be Formula 1 anymore. It’s some pansie racing series with acres of run-off and zero risk. This is why extreme sports are gaining in popularity and one of the reasons F1 is dying.

        1. Leaving for the halo? Isn’t that a bit overreacting?

          1. Each to their own. It’s a final deal breaker for me. It’s not just the Halo… It’s what it represents. Nothing is allowed to be risky any more. There are no punishments for running wide and if you want a halo or something similar, you’re no longer the brave combatant that I wish to follow and support. It’s that simple for me. The world has become ridiculous. Wrapping everything in cotton wool and removing risk to the point of producing a yawn fest. I’ll be going elsewhere.

            1. So basically you are saying

              “I won’t watch Formula 1 is less there is at least some chance I can watch someone die”

              Well I can’t imagine I’m the only who doesn’t give a toss if you stop watching or not. Enjoy whatever alternative you decide to spend your time on.

            2. @martin That is not what he is saying, that is how you interpret it. The point John wants to make, is that you can’t ever prevent an freak accident when it comes to motorracing, and we should accept that.

              With all the measures taken in the last 20 years, F1 is saver than ever. We have now come to a point that any further safety measures will interfere with the atmosphere and the identity of F1. Some people feel that this line already has been crossed (tarmac outside parabolica for example). An halo will raise this feeling more than ever.

            3. That is not what he is saying, that is how you interpret it

              No it actually is what he is saying:

              If we wanted to be completely safe…. why even race at all. The risk (whilst still a risk) is acceptably low, in my opinion.
              It’s some pansie racing series with acres of run-off and zero risk.
              Nothing is allowed to be risky any more
              you’re no longer the brave combatant that I wish to follow and support
              Wrapping everything in cotton wool and removing risk to the point of producing a yawn fest.

              As to your post:

              that you can’t ever prevent an freak accident when it comes to motorracing, and we should accept that.

              No one is arguing otherwise. But it is stupid to say because we can never make it 100% safe we shouldn’t bother trying. Who gets to decide the line where we say “Ok well we’ve done enough, if you die now well at least you can rest in your grave easy knowing if we had made your job any safer it would have spoiled the atmosphere of F1″. That is an absolutely ludicrous point of view to have.

        2. I can handle every other rule change they throw at me but if these cars don’t remain open cockpit then i’m signing off completely.

          I know, right? I mean, how dare they value driver safety over aesthetics?

          1. Shall we make the cars remote controlled by the drivers then? That would be safer? We could cocoon them in a simator with real time video feeds? How many million a year? For what? Sitting in a cotton wool ball of safety??? No longer heroes IMO.

            1. OK, now you’re just being ridiculous and a crybaby.

            2. A crybaby? No. Ridiculous? Well if you want things to be as safe as possible… what’s wrong with my suggestion? I just refuse to be emasculated like the few formula 1 drivers and supporters remaining in this watered down sport. You wonder why fans are leaving in droves? No wonder people are picking up WEC in greater numbers. At least it isn’t pretending to be heroic… Something F1 used to be when it’s viewing numbers were massive. If you want engineering… WEC is where it’s at. I raced open wheelers for years. I knew the risks. I accepted those risks. There has to be a certain element of risk or danger… or zzzzzzzzz.

            3. A crybaby? No.

              Really? Let me remind you of your very own words:

              Going jogging has risk… Should we all wear helmets just in case we get knocked over?

              Yeah, I’ll stick with my original assessment.

      3. Oh man…. john & mcfillin… lmao. Please, do stop following F1.

        1. Favomodo gets it.
          Without the risk of death or injury… There is no bravery. To me that is part of the appeal. I want risk. Isn’t that why people watch extreme sports? I want brave drivers pushing to the edge with consequences. Otherwise… lets get it over and done with and have computer controlled cars.
          If you just want skill… with no bravery… fine. Personally I don’t.

          1. @martin To answer your question… Yes.

            1. Was that aimed at me? Because I didn’t ask you any questions so not sure as to what the “yes” is referring.

        2. Satchel, I’ve missed probably two or three races in the past ten seasons. I don’t think i’m going to stop watching because of a useful safety feature being implemented. Especially when we have things like DRS.

    4. ColdFly F1 (@)
      1st February 2016, 6:35

      As always I love to read the various good captions.
      At first I did not understand the entry by @jackisthestig: “Romain, what first attracted you to drive for the billionaire Carl Haas?”
      I did not find it particularly funny, but also the name Carl Haas didn’t register immediately.

      I looked it up and found out that (of course) the owner of Haas F1 is Gene Haas, and Carl has nothing to do with him (as far I can see).
      But I also found that the team I always thought that was (Gene) Haas’ team in the US was NOT the Newman/Haas entry in Indycar, but a team in NASCAR.
      I’m flabbergasted. I thought Haas came into F1 with a lot of experience in open wheel racing in a top level competition. But it seems he’s only done that NASCAR thing; which is a spec car series if I’m not mistaken.
      How can having that experience be a good base for entering F1?

      1. That’s an excellent question. I must admit that I fell for that name, too. I did have the feeling that all the positive news surrounding them were suspiciously undifferenciated (i.e. most likely a hype). But seeing as their only experience in motor racing seems to be in NASCAR (which is hardly of any relevance for F1, and where they also rely on a technological partnership with a more successful team), my scepticism has undergone live-cell therapy.

      2. @coldfly Leading an operation on a high platform of motorsport is a valuable experience whether it is in a spec series or not. How often do you see top managers change function for example from logistics into healthcare. Good managers and leaders can lead any operation and will work on themselves to improve and get the specific know-how.

        I’m expecting Haas to immediatly be ahead of Sauber and Manor, and I even dare say Honda-McRubbish.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          1st February 2016, 9:37

          I’m expecting Haas to immediatly be ahead of Sauber and Manor, and I even dare say Honda-McRubbish.

          Challenge accepted, @xtwl! I expect Haas to be behind all of them (let’s say after 5 races).

          1. @coldfly Ok, we’ll see after 5 race. Looking forward to it.

            1. Fudge Ahmed (@)
              1st February 2016, 14:41

              @xtwl I expect them to be on par with Manor and for those two to be much closer to Sauber. McHonda will be some way ahead…

      3. Romain, what first attracted you to drive for the billionaire Carl Haas?

        I believe it is a reference to “The Mrs Merton Show”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj-9lSEBBm0&feature=youtu.be&t=53

    5. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      1st February 2016, 8:01

      Another 34 thousandths of a second and it would have been a great week all round for the Magnussens. I think Daytona just set the level pretty high for motorsport in 2016…

      1. @william-brierty The Dubai 24Hs were pretty good too. Audi their new R8 is a GT killer. I’m expecinting Phoenix on top in Bathurst next weekend.

        1. @xtwl – Yeah, I am not quite as excited about Bathurst. A lot of the works teams are running diluted driver line-ups with most of the world’s top GT drivers just having competed in a 24 hour race. For Pheonix, Vanthoor doesn’t have his usual works Audi disciples – that ought to open the door for the #10 Bentley or the #59 McLaren. It is a shame that without Buncombe and Reip, Katsumasa Chiyo will struggle to put the Nissan where it deserves to be – it’s definitely a GT-R track.

          But yes, Audi are the motorsport masters. The only manufacturer that can remotely rival them in terms of their stable of affiliated drivers, work ethic, professionalism and expertise is Porsche. Both/either could revive competition in F1 with a single leap of faith. But Audi do need to convert the new R8 into a LM-GTE car, so we can get Vanthoor, Rast and Frijns out of the Blancpain wilderness and battling drivers like Bruni, Makowiecki and Stanaway in the WEC.

    6. I am really not a fan of the Halo concept I must admit. I agree that the drivers need protection but that just doesn’t do it for me. It doesn’t look sturdy enough to deflect a large object such as a stray tyre (though I’m sure they will have to pass load test which could deal with this point) and there is a mass of open space through which smaller bits of debris can get through (for example, if you look at the angle the spring from Barrichello’s Brawn hit Massa, a halo would have done him no good at all).

      It just looks like a solution that is being forced through without being thoroughly thought through. It would be great to see this concept going up against a few others so that we arrive at a well engineered and thought through (and above all, safe) solution.

      1. I think that in between the first time this idea was brought up (Mercedes did, but it was clearly discussed with their drivers too and probably ran in the simulator even before we ever saw it) the FIA has indeed done enough load testing to conclude that it does solve a lot of the larger objects and cars coming towards a driver’s head @geemac.

        Both Wurz and Davidson (who drove a car with this fitted at least in the simulator) mentioned that it gave the best results at least for now, as a closed cockpit with canopy would pose too many issues (extraction, visibility, cooling, dirt buildup, extra weight …) and be too complicated to integrate – for now.

        The central pillar is probably the least disruptive place to have one, as the driver looks there only when on a straight.

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        1st February 2016, 13:03

        if you look at the angle the spring from Barrichello’s Brawn hit Massa, a halo would have done him no good at all

        Just imagine that the angle is slightly more upwards, and the object would have missed the driver if there was no halo. And now imagine that the halo would bounce the item straight back into the helmet of the driver.

        Even a simple solutions can be more complex when taking everything into account!

        1. I also struggle to see how a freak accident such as Bianchi’s would have offered any improvement in protection. The only thing I can see offering improved protection against is a flying wheel, which could be better prevented by improving the tethers that are supposed to keep the wheels attached in accidents. The solutions seen so far would (as everyone has pointed out) not dramatically improve safety against flying debris. It’ll be interesting to see how this saga concludes…

          1. My impression is that they have, for years now, addressed the concept of enclosed cockpits at various times, and always come to the conclusion that they could not be implemented on F1 cars as we have known them in the modern era. They would have to completely change the look of an F1 car which would not only be massively expensive but might scare the audience away as it would no longer be the F1 cars we know and love.

            I think it was GT Racer who pointed out the other day some of the issues like the extreme curve an enclosed cockpit cover would have to have and how do you have a wiper blade on that etc etc, never mind the extraction issues, the fogging inside etc etc. You pretty much would have to have F1 cars that look like WEC cars to enclose the cockpit from what I can gather.

            A bigger wind screen might also have to be cleaned and wouldn’t protect from a tire coming down from above. So I think why the halo concept has momentum is because they have put a ton of time and research into this issue. Yes it does not protect for small objects hitting drivers in the face but at least the odds are they will be less lethal than a tire hitting a driver which we have seen recently to be lethal. Perhaps they could bolster the visors on their helmets.

            Of course none of this is to make racing 100% safe…they can only make it safer…and without a total car redesign I think the halo seems to be the best compromise that the experts have come up with from thorough research and discussions that have actually been going on for years, not just the last few. The halo could be added onto existing cars relatively easily and inexpensively and could only help in general even if not for every issue. Remember, it is not just about flying debris in the sense that if a car has to be righted to get a driver out due to an enclosed cockpit, he could suffer a spinal cord injury from doing that…hurt him further in trying to help him.

            I also don’t entirely get the argument that a halo or other concept would not have helped Bianchi. I thought it would have been about the halo at least absorbing some of the impact and lessening that to the driver. I could be wrong of course but in general isn’t that the idea, as it is with road cars, to have a ‘crumple zone’ that takes some of the shock energy and dissipates it before it affects the driver as much as it would without some protective measure there.

    7. I do hope that Magnussen makes it into Renault. It would do the grid a lot of good.

      First of all, Pastor has had his go, and since 2012-13 he has not really made any clear steps up in his performance (he did have somewhat less accidents), so we get a driver with a lot more potential in that car. And then I think its really good to see a driver who had a short spell in a team be able to return to F1 later. The Renault line up is not stellar now, but there is enough promise that it will be good to see how these guys develop during the year.

    8. Looks official:

      http://beta.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122654/magnussen-seals-2016-renault-seat

      I’ll be interested to see how he performs. I don’t think McLaren got the best out of him, as a working environment I get the impression it’s not very pleasant in recent years and I don’t think they were fair in the analysis of his performance. Button is seriously underrated, despite how he measure up against Hamilton, two youngsters and now Alonso and not every driver sets the world on fire as a rookie like Hamilton did.

      What I’m more interested in is Lotus/Renault maybe being a bit more honest about Maldonado now they aren’t in his pocket. It made me cringe to hear them praise him as a not just a driver, but as a human being.

      1. Thats the thing, Maldonado is just wonderful outside the car. Just like they say it.

    9. Form what I can gather from comments made by knowledgeable in F1 there are many serious problems with the 2017 proposals. EX. the aero changes will likely not improve overtaking at all and could make the aero wake even more troublesome. Rushing into significant rule changes due to the deadline could be a huge mistake.

      IMO, F1 would be better served taking more time, working on the rule changes for another year and coming up with better changes for 2018.

    10. In my opinion:
      Principles F1 should follow: 1. safety 2. close racing 3. world’s fastest cars 4. efficiency 5. optimizing 1-4 points.
      The most fans want to see close racing among best drivers in the fastest cars. How can we solve it? This is, decision makers and engineers should work for. I think it isn’t impossible.
      Some possibilities we have to consider:
      1. Less differences between cars in total. Some teams are better in PU and others in aero but we need less differences in total. I think we should introduce +weight/point system (for example +20dkg/point or ~0,5 pound/point) because it is cheap, fast, effective and we don’t need unification or freeze development. Smaller teams get the same PU as manufacturers. Decrease money/revenue allocation differences.
      2. Less dirty air in corners but fast cars: more mechanical grip, less or same aero
      A, simpler front wing B, (more effective diffuser) C, better tyres D, more powerful and effective PUs (natural development) without token system E, slight changes in technical regulation year by year (differences will naturally decrease) and more freedom in development until regulations allow F, DRS? (open DRS time/race and drivers manage it) G, refuelling? (Cars can be faster and drivers could push harder during races but there would be less safety and more ’overtaking during the pit stops’) H, narrow cars I, drivers manage ERS instead of a program J, less radio data from engineers to drivers during races K, minimum weight for drivers (for example 80kg with ballast less or more) but no limit for cars L, and what else…?
      Let’s see the advantages and disadvantages of +weight/point system in short term. (+20dkg/point, less or more)
      Advantages: 1. Less differences between cars in total and close racing. 2. Fast, cheap, simple, effective solution. 3. We don’t need unification or freeze development 4. Finally the best team wins (5. Head to head racing if there would be less turbulent air and better tyres)
      Disadvantages: 1. Unfair? I don’t think (or partly) because finally win the best and if you have the best team and car you have to work harder to remain the best.

    11. Well we wait for 2018 rules now.

    Comments are closed.