Start, Red Bull Ring, 2019

What the draft 2021 rules reveal about F1’s future direction


Posted on

| Written by

As the clock continues counting towards 31 October, the deadline for publication of F1’s ‘new era’ 2021 Sporting, Technical, Power Unit and Financial Regulations, a number of provisions and clauses are gradually dropping into place after a number of meetings were convened by the FIA and F1 with the sport’s relevant Working Groups.

The motivation behind the delay was always to ‘fine tune’ the regulations rather than push for massive changes during the intervening four months, and thus the regulations as prepared for the 14 June sitting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council are expected to remain largely as-is save for clarifications or certain revisions.

The media release issued by the FIA after that meeting stated: “While the core objectives outlined for the future set of regulations of the championship have been defined, in the interests of the sport it was agreed that the best outcome will be achieved by using the extra time for further refinement and additional consultation.”

Working Group meetings are ongoing, with, for example, a Technical Working Group session scheduled for the week. One technical director told RaceFans in Spa discussions have been “fruitful”. Another was not so diplomatic in his suggestions that many of the changes aimed at cutting costs will actually increase them, while he also felt many changes are being introduced for the wrong reasons.

He singled out the removal of tyre blankets and introduction of 18-inch wheel rims. “You get decisions like 18-inch rims which, when it all boils down, started life as aesthetics. No-one gave it any more thought, apart from aesthetics…”

On blankets: “We’re trying to tell them it’s the wrong idea, even Pirelli are trying to tell them it’s the wrong idea.”

On the wider subject of tyres he added: “The biggest part of the problem is you get the cars close [through the new aero regulations], then they have to attack. That attacking, and the recovering, is all down to tyres. And you’ve got the tyre supplier that I don’t believe is capable of developing tyres that can do that.

Mark Webber, Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Istanbul, 2010
2010: The last time drivers could really lean on their tyres?
“When we had the drivers in the meeting, we asked them, ‘When was the last time that you could attack, and keep on attacking with the tyre?’” The response from one of the world champions present was ‘in 2010’. That was, of course, the final season under outgoing supplier Bridgestone.

Still, clearly an enormous of preparatory work has gone into the various regulations, with arguably the largest changes to the regulations being not aerodynamic, but to various new component categories, up to four from the previous two Listed/Unlisted Parts categories and the tyre tender.

Although renderings of swoopy cars in wind tunnels and impressive ‘following car’ wake-reduction statistics make for great headlines, the fine print on part categories will have a far greater impact. Consider, a new Article 17 running to four pages replaces the previous article, which related to Roll Structure Tests and has now been incorporated in an expanded Article 13 under the heading ‘Safety Structures and Homologation’.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Effectively the preamble to the provisions of Article 17 in draft regulations seen by RaceFans states “All components used in Formula One cars and all equipment used to support a competitor’s operations during a Championship shall be classified as a Listed Team Component (LTC), or a Standard Supply Component (SSC), or a Prescribed Design Component (PDC), or a Transferable Component (TRC).”

A full list of LTC, SSC, PDC and TRC components will be released at a later date, but clearly teams will face greater restrictions on component design than under the current regulations. These restrictions are aimed primarily at cost saving under the incoming budget cap (Financial Regulations) by reducing design time and spend on non-performance differentiators.

However, the FIA plans to have a ‘fall-back’ option for SSC and PDC components “for the event that when a tender or design process fails to produce a satisfactory result”, while the governing body also undertakes to “use its best endeavours to secure the ‘prime’ option for the classification of components”.

Sebastien Bourdais, KV Racing, IndyCar, Sonoma, 2015
Wheel rim lights, which IndyCar trialled in 2015, are coming to F1
The regulations define Listed Team Components (LTC) as components whose design and intellectual property lies with a single competitor or its agents on an exclusive basis, and further states that the competitor [is required to] retain the exclusive right to use the LTC in F1 for as long as it competes in Formula One.

Any third party to whom manufacture of the LTC is outsourced – if not designed and manufactured in-house – may not be another team, and there are restrictions on the sharing of any data of such components.

There are, though, no restrictions on sharing of test facilities such as dynamometers or wind tunnels provided robust processes are in place, and the intellectual property involved in the operation of such shared facilities is not used or disclosed to the sharing party. Further, the results of any experiments/tests done in such facilities may not be shared outside the originator of the work.

Standard Supply Components (SSC) are defined as being those whose design and manufacture is carried out by a supplier appointed by the FIA through its tender process, supplied on an identical technical and commercial basis to each team.

Currently the list includes wheel rims – RaceFans understands that BBS was awarded this tender – brake drums front and rear, friction materials and hydraulic systems (Brembo), primer and high-pressure pumps, rear (tail) lights, and two new innovations: wheel and body LED information panels aimed at providing visual spectator information.

A note in the draft regulations as seen by RaceFans states that the article governing “Wheel attachment and retention” – usually referred to as wheel hubs and tethers – may be re-written to makes these “standard supply” components, meaning these could be added to the list of SSCs.

The specifications for visual information panels are due to be outlined in a future appendix, but the wheel displays will essentially be wheel covers that display information, while each car will be fitted with two display panels incorporated in its bodywork.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Previous plans to impose restrictions on brake set usage are believed to have been shelved, with the supplier committing to supplying additional sets free-of-charge should usage exceed laid-down parameters, while the gearbox gear cluster tender was withdrawn, as revealed here previously.

Brake, Paul Ricard, 2019
Limits on brake sets have wisely been scrapped
However one technical director opined that fuel systems should be tender items given the challenges of policing them. “These really trick fuel systems, that have to be tested every time. The FIA should just say, ‘Right, there’s a fuel system, everybody runs it. Perfect, now we can police it, you’ve all got it.’”

Prescribed Design Components (PDC) are those components whose total design is specified by the FIA, but may be manufactured by another team, its agent (parent or affiliate), or an external supplier on behalf of a team or may be supplied by one team to another teams.

This is a fundamentally a new component category, albeit one that was saw limited introduction with the halo, which is effectively a PDC through being manufactured to FIA specifications. Under the new regulations front floor and rear impact structures will be PDCs, as will the skid ‘plank’ and plates, and certain fuel system components.

The final category is Transferable Components (TRC), defined as being components whose design, manufacture and intellectual property is owned by a team, but can be supplied from one team to another. They differ from SSCs or PDCs in having design freedom, and are effectively the antithesis of LTCs in that one team designs the component but is free to sell to another.

Examples are certain heat exchangers and the complete gearbox as defined, with a further stipulation being that where a team supplies another with a gearbox all ratios shall be the same across both teams. For simplification, think many of the parts currently supplied by Ferrari to Haas.

Start, Spa-Francorchamps, 2019
‘Qualifying races’ aren’t in the rules – yet
On the sustainability side, the Technical Regulations make provision for bio (or synthetic) fuels, although the exact composition still needs to be defined. Talk is of an up to 20 per cent bio-component, with suppliers needing to satisfy the FIA that they are ‘genuinely developing these compounds for use in commercial fuels’.

Further, a new appendix in the Technical Regulations demands that fuel/engine oil suppliers now agree to be bound by and be subject to the various rules and regulations of the FIA, including, saliently, ‘jurisdiction of the internal judicial and disciplinary bodies of the FIA’.

What other changes can be excepted for 2021? Intriguingly, despite all the talk of changing weekend formats, the Sporting Regulations outline very similar timetables and formats for the three practice sessions, qualifying and the race itself. No qualifying races or two-day formats, although note the regulations are subject to change before 31 October and could further be changed by unanimous decision thereafter.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

Unsurprisingly the maximum number of rounds has been increased to 25, with a minimum of 10 grands prix per season. The current points structure has been retained, as has the point awarded for the fastest lap.

However, aerodynamic and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) development will be further restricted under the regulations, while a new article (9.4) relates to Power Unit Bench Testing, and restricts both power unit bench testing and complete power train tests according to complex formulae based on number of test benches, run time over 7,500rpm and operation hours.

Concept 2021 floor and previous design
Return of ground effect in 2021 to make “massive” difference to overtaking
While summer factory shutdown regulations are only marginally changed, power unit suppliers will in future be subject to the same shutdown period as teams save where local laws or unions demand otherwise, in which case the weeks may be replaced by the same number of shutdown days during which no development activities are permitted.

In summary, probably the most surprising element is that there are no real surprises in either the Sporting or Technical Regulations. However, the devil always lurks in the detail, and until the final regulations are published on 31 October there could still spring a surprise or two, particularly to the Sporting Regulations, which have seemingly received little attention save for the addition of a power unit supplier shutdown and minor tweaks.

As outlined here, the biggest post-2020 change is the inclusion of Financial Regulations in the 2021 package, and these are not expected to change much – if at all – by 31 October after all teams signed a waiver as part of their agreement to delay the statutory date to 31 October. But, again, let us see what that date brings.

Equally, the 2021 rules package features heavily revised aerodynamic regulations, which its architects believe (hope?) will finally solve the ‘following car’ conundrum. But many technical directors are sceptical whether they will provide the silver bullet the sport so desperately needs, particularly as tyres are a major contributor to the overtaking dynamic.

Do these regulations provide the quantum leap into that future that Liberty envisaged upon acquiring the sport’s commercial rights? There is no doubt that they will deliver a more sustainable sport – and thus benefit mainly the teams – but, from a sporting perspective, the answer is negative.

Given the time and thought that had gone into the overall package, they surely should provide a platform upon which to build F1’s ‘new era’. That, though, is not what fans were promised.


Browse all RacingLines columns

33 comments on “What the draft 2021 rules reveal about F1’s future direction”

  1. The greater the complexity the more opportunity for confusion and for smart teams to get ahead and stay there.

    The more complexity the more time, and thus money, teams must spend on compliance departments.

    The more standardised components the more we move away from the essence of F1 : innovation, engineering excelle e put to good racing.

  2. Great update as always.

    I’m looking forward to seeing whether everything will be delivered as outlined in June or whether any one of the major teams ramp up pressure to change items as we get down to the wire.

    Exciting times ahead.

    1. @dbradock Of course taking into account that I have been ever the optimist on this file from the getgo, I’d be surprised if there was a ramping up of concern on anything major at this point at least wrt some surprise aspect or approach that Liberty and/or Brawn haven’t already addressed or given teams ample opportunity to address already. It sure feels like it is just coming down to the small details, not the big major ones like what Pu, what aero philosophy, what capping will look like, what money distribution will look like.

      1. I’d expect nothing else from you @robbie (you sure you don’t work for liberty lol) and I’m 90% with you and your optimism.

        If you recall, F1 has been close to agreements of a whole range of things before only to have one or more teams baulk at the last minute. I just don’t share your faith. Be happy to be wrong but as a lifer like yourself for many, many years, and a businessman for almost as many, vested interests are a hard thing to get past in any business, and F1 teams are the epitome of vested interests.

        Just because it’s Liberty and not Bernie doesn’t meant that the teams will really be any different when it gets down to the line. The huge difference this time around is that teams actually have a viable alternative (FE) to go to now if they decide that the new regulations don’t suit them so they can hold off on any disagreement till the last minute and use a genuine threat to pull out. Again it “shouldn’t” happen but to a degree the teams still have some fairly substantial bargaining power that they can bring to bear to look after their interests.

        The big question will be – do the regulations provide enough incentive for all the teams, especially the top ones, to remain in F1. If one or more decide they don’t at the last minute, and the most likely time that they’ll do that is at the last minute, we could be in for quite a ride.

        1. @dbradock Fair comment. For me it just doesn’t feel like the 10% of doubt you have will come to fruition. The teams balked at an MGU being taken away and so both remain. They balked at the initial caps and so those were raised and will be brought in in stages. Other than Ferrari trying to retain as much extra money as they can, the teams seem on board with the better money distribution. As far as I can tell the teams are on board with the ground effects work, the simplified wings, and the reduction of wake the cars will make, as well as 18” rims.

          So for me a team pulling out at the last minute in favour of FE, which to me still pales in comparison to F1 and therefore is no serious alternative, imho of course, is hard to fathom. I would think it should be the opposite in that F1 is being fixed in many regards, or at least being set on a much better path and basis for a better work in progress. I would think rather than being poised to leave, the teams should be stoked. They have a great chance to enjoy what they love doing even more, and if Liberty has their way and the audience, the sponsors, and even the teams count increases, then they all stand to make even more money doing what they love.

          There have been genuine threats from teams to leave in the past, even for a breakaway series, and nothing came of that. Given the fantastic opportunity F1 has for great things to come I’ll take your 90% and run with it lol.

        2. “The huge difference this time around is that teams actually have a viable alternative (FE) to go to now”

          Might as well worry about teams sprinkling fairy dust on the cars. FE is a spec series with cars slower than top karts. It’s a joke compared to any real motorsport, let alone F1.

  3. When such a massive change to the overall shape of the car is introduced all at once, it would follow that trying to achieve a set of regulations that don’t result in all cars looking the same will leave a lot of room for “innovation”.

    By innovation, of course I mean a liberal interpretation of the rules in areas where the designers are left some wriggle room.

    I bet Adrian Newey can’t wait.

  4. Good article thanks.

  5. However one technical director opined that fuel systems should be tender items given the challenges of policing them. “These really trick fuel systems, that have to be tested every time. The FIA should just say, ‘Right, there’s a fuel system, everybody runs it. Perfect, now we can police it, you’ve all got it.’”

    While this is an elegant suggestion, I’d still think we should go the other way… Remove the fuel flow limit.

    If a team wants to burn more fuel, they either:
    – have to resort to fuel saving later in the race, leaving them vulnerable (or saved fuel at the start, so let them have at it)
    – carry more fuel, thereby paying a weight penalty from lap one
    – have a more efficient engine, and should reap its rewards

    Today’s article about Max’s engine is a good example – they pushed too hard at Hungary and were paying the price for it in Spa. Likewise, let teams manage the risk/reward of fuel burn in the race.

    1. That would mean massive cost increase because the manufacturers would want to make an engine that can produce maximum power in qualifying while being able to save fuel in the race. The current engines have been designed around certain engine speeds and loads that are created by the energy that the fuelflow and oilflow limits allows to get into the engine. Taking away the fuel flow limit essentially gives the engine manufacturers total freedom in how much energy/fuel and boost pressure they can dump into the engine to get more power out of it.

      In the 80s teams were getting easily over 1000hp (let’s say somewhere between 1100-1400bhp) out of 1.5 liter engines. With 2020 tech and 1.6 liter engines there is decent chance to get at least similar numbers out of current engines despite their standardization. But to handle those increased loads the engine needs to be redesigned so it is stronger and can handle that extra horseppower and torque. Same goes for gearbox, driveshafts and maybe even rear suspension. Rear tires need work as well..

      The fuelflow limit is essentially a limit about how much energy goes into the engine. As such it is a horsepower limit and also an engine durability limit. Removing it will lead to big increase in peak power and expensive redesign of many parts in the car. What you are suggesting is totally new engine formula for f1.

      1. @socksolid – thanks for your good reply. “The fuelflow limit is essentially a limit about how much energy goes into the engine” -> this is a particularly good point.

        1. @phylyp, I would say that the available technical data for the turbo engines of the 1980s suggests the claim that they were producing “easily over 1000hp (let’s say somewhere between 1100-1400bhp)” is rather optimistic at best.

          When you look at the contemporary reports and available technical data, the reliability of those high power claims are quite dubious, and most of the claims of power outputs in excess of 1000bhp are for qualifying engines from the 1986 season using the exotic toluene based fuels that were soon banned because of their toxicity.

          Multiple major manufacturers never produced an engine that produced “somewhere between 1100-1400bhp” – Ferrari, TAG-Porsche and Ford-Cosworth, for example, never managed it, let alone Alfa Romeo or any of the multitude of privateers like Hart, Zakspeed or Motori Moderni. Only three manufacturers might have exceeded a power output of 1100bhp with their turbo engines in that era, which would be BMW, Renault and Honda, but that is really just a guesstimate of the possible power output.

          Williams themselves were basically guessing for much of their time at what the power output might have been because they couldn’t actually measure it. As for Honda, when they have published data on what the power outputs of some of those engines were, they’re actually a lot more modest than some of the wilder claims that have been made

          Paul Rosche, meanwhile, has stated that the claims of the massive power outputs of the BMW M12 engine all stem from a single flash pressure reading of Berger’s engine at the 1986 Italian Grand Prix.

          They never measured the power output directly in that case – they rather crudely extrapolated what the power output might have been based on the boost pressure that was recorded for an engine that had only just been fired up and, not being up to full working temperature, was almost certainly an overestimate.

          Rosche admitted they never recorded any boost pressure readings that were as high as the Monza reading ever again, which points far more strongly towards that single reading at Monza being inaccurate – and, even then, the power output which was suggested was still a long way short of 1400bhp (it was closer to 1300bhp).

          Furthermore, it is also worth noting that the claims that Rosche made about the power output of the M12 in the English press were very different to those made to the German press, and indeed the European press as a whole. If you look at Rosche’s claims to the German media, his claims are much more modest – especially when you consider that he was also making his claims in terms of metric horsepower, which is lower than brake horsepower.

          It’s also been pointed out by engine restorers that, when you start to back calculate the stresses that would be developing in some of the components if they were producing that much power, and then look at the components that were actually used back in the 1980s, it’s beyond the yield stress of those components. It’s physically impossible that the M12, for example, could ever have produced the power outputs of 1400bhp or more that are claimed for it.

          In the case of Renault, the only engine that supposedly got to that sort of power output was the qualifying spec EF15-C – an engine that only appeared for a few months in late 1986, and where there is no real supporting evidence to back up the claims that they did actually produce that much power.

      2. @socksolid – just had a thought – wouldn’t the budget cap, and the FIA mandated engine costs put a limit as to how much money teams (or engine suppliers) wish to spend on this? i.e. a fiscal limit instead of a technical one.

        1. @phylyp
          Sure as the only job of the budget gap is to set a maximum to how much money can spent. If you impose one on the engine manufacturers then of course it would limit costs. There is the question about how things like lubricants and fuels factor into the budget gaps. I don’t think fia mandated engine cost really makes any difference to engine manufacturers’ costs tho. If merc are spending 250 million per year on engines and each team using them spends 10-15 it means those millions don’t really matter that much.

          However if you put a budget gap in place you may create a sort of double spending issue because the engine manufacturers need to keep improving the current engines while designing new ones. If you just put a single budget gap that covers all engine development then for sure you’d freeze the current engine performance levels as everybody would put all the money into developing the next engines.

  6. Great update as always. Not sure I understand the last sentence though. Not sure what it is fans were promised that won’t be delivered, or at least won’t head F1 in a much better direction.

    Wrt to tires, I’m pretty sure Pirelli can indeed make much better tires and that will come down to the mandate that F1 gives them. The thing is, the cars will make less wake and be less dependent on clean air, so I expect much less movement in the front end when trailing a car, ie. much less wear and tear on the tires. But anyway, the tires will have to be much different for several reasons one would think, aside from a F1 mandate that is. They’ll be on 18” rims. The cars will resultingly have different suspension. The cars will be racing more closely. That means the tires needn’t be depended on to mix up the show and make up for processions, as close racing and driver vs driver duels will take care of that. Surely Pirelli will be mandated to make much less finicky tires wrt their temp window for that is counter to close racing.

    1. Meant to add, a more sustainable sport does not just mainly benefit the teams, but also inherently will benefit the fans. As an F1 lifer, I’d like to keep being one. And to me it is what sustainability represents, which is an overall philosophy of a better product on the track in a fairer setting. A growing audience and even a growing grid rather than those things diminishing in an unsustainable setting.

      1. I prefer to share your optimism on this @robbie, we can always be pessimistic if the promised land doesn’t materialise, no need to take the fun out if it now (nor will it make it less painful; in my experience – being pessimistic and then being affirmed tends to make people more sour!).

        Anyway, clearly, the promised effects are definitely good for most everyone involved in the sport, if they can look at it rationally, even Ferrari: if they can spend less for the same, or better worth, why not take it? Who knows, maybe the new rules allow them a renewed opportunity to not get things wrong again.

        1. @bosyber Good stuff. Yeah from the start when Liberty hired Brawn and started saying all the right things about addressing all the issues that BE and the top teams left them, particularly from his last decade with CVC, I’ve seen no reason to be pessimistic, knowing that we will only know what the new gen truly will look like once it comes to fruition and proof will be in the pudding.

          As I’m sure I’ve said more than once, take even just one component they’re addressing and there would inevitably already be improvement to the sport. Just a budget cap and change nothing else, and that would help. Just better money distribution on its own would help. Closer racing cars due to much less dependence on clean air would on their own make a better product on the track and might solely boost excitement and thus audience and thus sponsors and thus more interest for new teams to enter.

          Combine all that they are addressing and hey…I already after all these years still can’t fathom missing a race in spite of all the issues throughout the years. Why wouldn’t I be stoked for a totally new and exciting chapter that I cannot see being anything but an improvement, but moreso even a big improvement?

          Taking even a most pessimistic approach, that being that surely they can’t make F1 worse, and at worse little will change (an impossibility given all they’re addressing) I’m still the guy that can’t fathom missing a race.

    2. Both a team technical director and a wdc driver say that pirelli are incapable of making a better tire but you know better. It has taken pirelli 8 years to finally make a tire that is somewhat suitable for F1 and you know better that they can make a better tire, THEY CAN NOT.


      1. @megatron The anonymous comments slagging Pirelli sound more like they’re made out of frustration. Let’s be realistic about this. Pirelli has a rich history of providing excellent tires to all kinds of racing series throughout the decades. If they didn’t, and in fact were known to be incapable, they wouldn’t have qualified for F1 to begin with. We also know Pirelli have been making tires they were mandated to make, sometimes with no testing on the actual next-year car, particularly from the final BE chapter with CVC that also brought us drs to try to mask the harmful effects of F1’s addiction to aero downforce. Sure, we also know that F1 did not mandate Pirelli to make tires behave necessarily exactly as they do, but they were definitely mandated to make tires a big part of the story, again, to try to shade the aero addiction and mix things up amongst the grid.

        Bottom line for me is that I have no doubt Pirelli has all the knowledge necessary, after all their experience throughout the decades, to access all the miriad of combinations of rubber to make whatever they want in terms of levels of durability, and when a tire will fall off and at what rate, and what the temp operating window will be. They know their chemistry as well as any tire maker that has been doing this for more than a century.

        It comes down to what they will be asked to make for the new gen and those tires right off the bat will have to be vastly different than today’s, as the cars will be vastly different. That includes especially if they are mandated to deal with no blankets. And then there’s the 18” rims and no longer the balloons that provide so much of the suspension as it has been for decades.

        Just one more comment back to the anonymous insiders that say Pirelli can’t make a better tire, and btw I disagree with you that this year’s ones are ‘somewhat suitable’, but how would they know? Since 2010 Pirelli has only been mandated in one general direction. Make high deg tires that are tricky and might shake up the order of things and throw the teams a curveball. Make them the segregating factor along with drs to try to overcome processions from clean air dependence. So I mean no offence to those who are frustrated with Pirelli, but I really think those comments are made out of frustration and that Pirelli could easily do much better if mandated so.

        And here you are even saying that in your opinion they have finally made tires this year that are somewhat suitable? Why aren’t you agreeing with me then that they are capable of better? And disagreeing with some insiders who don’t want their name mentioned? Because YOU know better? And they have experienced all that Pirelli can do? If you’re so happy with today’s tires, imagine this same rubber on 18” tires on the 2021 cars (not that I think they can simply do that) and worse case scenario the cars will be moving around much less due to cars making less wake and having simplified wings to make them less clean air dependent, and just from that alone the fronts would survive on the trailing car much better, and give them more opportunity to sustain an attack on the leading car.

        Anyway, we and they have no choice but to have a few more years yet of Pirelli tires and perhaps we can say that this will be yet another test for Liberty and Brawn…to mandate them to make tires that can handle close racing, for that is what Brawn and his wind tunnel team have been working very hard to do, and it would not make sense to anybody, including Pirelli, to have tires that would undo that work. Imho and speaking very very generally for it is complex, I think even today’s tires on 2021 cars would allow for closer racing, as a big key is and always has been the dirty air effect as the main culprit.

  7. “When we had the drivers in the meeting, we asked them, ‘When was the last time that you could attack, and keep on attacking with the tyre?’” The response from one of the world champions present was ‘in 2010’. That was, of course, the final season under outgoing supplier Bridgestone.

    2010, when the tyres looked like being made of steel instead of rubber and we got 1 stopper races. Also, about the passing was the year were the championship was decided because one of the contestants wasn’t able to pass (or even try) a car with much slower pace and tyres from the beggining of the race. So, if I have to choose which tyres are better for racing, definitily the current ones instead of the 2010.

    1. But that was then, and we are talking about a completely different new generation where dirty air, which has always been the enemy to close racing no matter the tires, will not be a harmful factor any more. Just because in 2010 the drivers felt like they could sustain attacks doesn’t mean aero dependence wasn’t a problem. Don’t forget too the current ones are flattered by drs enabled passing.

      1. Isn’t ICCJCC more or less saying that, in different words? So, I think I agree with both of you.

        While I think it’s good the drivers are also consulted, their experience of what they like to drive and race, might not quite match with what is the best for the whole of the sport, or for fans, and shouldn’t be taken as gospel, almost as much as ‘that is what the fans want’ isn’t, nor what the teams feel is best, or Bernie E. That’s of course also why this whole process with a group of knowledgeable people independently bringing up, and testing ideas that can then be refined or discarded is a good thing for F1.

  8. It was only matter of time before RGB makes its way into F1..

  9. In any business arena, more regulatory complexity equals greater costs. Why can’t the FIA understand this?

    Open up the rules book more. Set a hard budget cap. Completely equalize F1 revenue distribution. See which teams can do their best w the same constraints.

    1. Duncan Snowden
      4th September 2019, 18:28

      Well said. I can see an argument for standardized off-car components – simulators, design software… – but you’re absolutely right. Set a budget cap and let the engineers have at it. That’s what this game’s supposed to be about.

      1. Probably far easier said than done, from one’s armchair. I think I’ll trust the experts who are handling this from within F1 taking all the aspects that need to be dealt with into account. Eg. ‘set a hard budget cap.’ If it were that easy to police and get the teams to agree, perhaps they would have done that already if they thought it was prudent. It likely is not. ‘Completely equalize F1 revenue distribution.’ Yeah try getting that one past Ferrari who has been in F1 from the start and is a big draw to the sport.

    2. Traditionally budget caps have been avoided by F1 because they’re so easy to get around. If you want to spend more than the cap, simply divert sponsorship money to a third party which does the work and then passes it on to the team.

      As for equal revenue distribution, personally I hate the idea. Winning should be rewarded. A fairer distribution is possible without going too far down the US-style franchise path.

      1. Understand your perspective. I could counter that by saying the winning teams will still be rewarded by drawing more sponsorship dollars/euros/whatevs, making the more successful outfits more profitable businesses.

  10. The new rules won’t please the teams, suppliers, drivers, or fans. But just think of the moneymaking opportunities in new markets! Right? :-/

    1. Changeisscary.
      5th September 2019, 11:45

      How do you know it won’t please “the teams, suppliers, drivers, or fans”?

      1. Seems a fair prediction, given the fools coming up with the rules. They won’t achieve their intended purpose.

  11. On the wider subject of tyres he added: “The biggest part of the problem is you get the cars close [through the new aero regulations], then they have to attack. That attacking, and the recovering, is all down to tyres. And you’ve got the tyre supplier that I don’t believe is capable of developing tyres that can do that.

    To be fair, Pirelli was asked to make high degrading tyres from 2011 until now, not as long lasting tyres as the Bridgestones were. Even for the 2020-2023 tender they are asked to make high degrading tyres by the FIA.

    They are willing to make less degrading tyres if asked. In fact, they think that high degrading tyres are the wrong way to go and are searching for a better optimum between degradation and the ability to push.

Comments are closed.