Het 9 punten plan van de FIA.

[Werner333]

Dit is het volledige 9 punten plan van de FIA om de F1 te hervormen.

Bron: http://www.autosport.com/

The FIA's nine-point plan

F1 could be about to change forever...

This is the document that the Formula 1 team owners were sent, outlining how motorsport governing body, the FIA, plans to shake up grand prix racing like it has never done before. As you will see, some of the ideas are so radical it is hard to believe they will ever become reality. Others, however, appear to make some sense.

The nine points and split into two categories: improving the spectacle and cost reduction in Formula 1. The explanations given are part of the FIA document, and are not AUTOSPORT's.

IMPROVING THE SPECTACLE

Quite often, one team achieves dominance. When this happens public interest in Formula One declines. The following proposals are intended to increase public interest in each event, even in periods when one team is dominant.

1 Drivers and teams

Drivers competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship will no longer be contracted to a team. Drivers wishing to compete will submit an application to the FIA (ie to the Formula One Commission) which will select the drivers each year for the Championship on the basis of one for each car entered.

Assuming ten teams and thus 20 drivers, each driver will drive for a different team at each of the first ten races. The teams and races for each driver will be decided by lot. The driver leading the Championship after ten races will then choose the seven teams for which he wishes to drive in the seven remaining races. The driver lying second will have second choice and so on. Having chosen his seven teams, the race at which he will drive for any given team will be decided by lot.

At each Event a driver will wear the uniform of the team for which he is driving. While existing driver contracts last they will be honoured financially by the teams which made them. Drivers with a firm contract for 2003 will automatically be included in the 2003 Championship.

Each team will have a test driver, who will not participate in the Championship except to replace a scheduled driver in case of force majeure. However, the test driver will be well placed to have a future application to participate in the Championship accepted.

Subject to the necessary changes to the Concorde Agreement, drivers without a team contract (or whose contract has expired) will be paid out of a central fund - for example a fixed retainer plus an amount for each point scored in the current and previous season plus an amount for each World Championship and so on.

Explanation

From a sporting point of view, both the drivers' championship and the constructors' championship are flawed because a mediocre driver can win in an outstanding car and vice-versa. However, Formula One (indeed motor sport generally) has always been like this.

The proposed new system would eliminate this unfairness. It would also add a new element to each race and would fascinate the public, giving the press and commentators an endless source of stories and speculation. What will Schumacher do in the Jordan or Webber in the Williams or Montoya in the Minardi, Villeneuve in the Ferrari, etc, etc?

It is beginning to be fashionable to criticise Formula One. Arguably, a change as radical as this is what Formula One now needs in order to re-establish its image and recapture the interest of the public.

Further reasons for adopting this system are:

all teams would be able to offer the same outstanding driver line-up, at least for the first ten races. This would help the smaller teams attract sponsors; by separating the drivers from the teams, public interest in the participating manufacturers would increase; we would no longer have drivers in the Championship who bring more money than talent; he team-order problem would be eliminated.

2 Qualifying

In place of one session of one hour on Saturday, two 30-minute qualifying sessions (with a five-minute break) on both Friday and Saturday. A maximum of 8 laps in any one 30-minute session. Times from the first Friday session to be aggregated with those of the second Friday session. These aggregated Friday times to be aggregated with the times from the first Saturday session and all those times then aggregated with those of the second Saturday session.

Any driver failing to record a time in a session would be credited for that session with his worst recorded time from the session immediately before or after the session he has missed, whichever is the slowest.

Explanation

This will ensure everyone runs on Friday, even with the restriction on engine supply. It will also give the press more to write about for the Saturday papers. Interest in qualifying will grow steadily as one session follows another and times are aggregated during the weekend.

3 Tyres

Each tyre company to be permitted to continue to supply a maximum of two types of dry tyre to each competing team, but with freedom to supply different types of tyres to different teams.

Explanation

This will reduce the disadvantage suffered by a team which has to share a tyre company by comparison with a team which does not.

TECHNICAL REGULATIONS

4 Handicap

Introduce a handicap formula by adding 1 kg per point to the weight of the car.

Explanation

If the drivers and teams proposal outlined under 3(i) above is not accepted, a weight penalty would add interest and make the Championship much more competitive by ensuring that any outstanding car/driver combinations were progressively slowed relative to less successful cars.

COST REDUCTION

Each cost reduction measure must satisfy four conditions: no reduction in the technical challenge of Formula One; no reduction in the spectacle of Formula One; no medium or long term increase in cost as a result of a short term decrease.

no reduction in safety

Measures such as engine speed limitation (reduction of technical challenge) or one set of tyres per race (loss of pit-stop spectacle) cannot be considered. Similarly, the lesson of aluminium beryllium must not be forgotten - banning this very stiff but expensive alloy eliminated an expensive material but the wording of the new regulation resulted in even greater sums being spent on special alloys to get as close as possible to the lower stiffness limit.

The two areas where the greatest savings can be made while respecting the above three conditions are (i) reducing private testing so as to eliminate the need for a test team and (ii) increasing the life of components used in the race cars.

[Werner333]

SPORTING REGULATIONS

5 Testing

From 2003
no private testing on any circuit where a Formula One World Championship Event is run.
no more than twelve car-days of private testing per team between 28 February and 1 November.

Explanation

At present, each team maintains a separate test team. The above rule is intended to render this unnecessary. The twelve days could be accomplished with the race cars and would be insufficient to justify a separate team. But twelve days is enough to carry out genuine or emergency testing during the season.

Much current testing is unnecessary and contributes nothing to Formula One. Testing on the permitted GP circuits is mainly used to set cars up for the relevant GP and is a complete waste of time and money.

The cost of testing varies from team to team, but the savings would be very significant: up to $30 million or more for the bigger teams; perhaps as much as $250 million for Formula One as a whole. The rule would have the biggest impact on the largest and richest teams, because they have the best facilities and spend the most money, but it would be the same for everyone and might slightly reduce the gap between the front and back of the grid.

Teams would resort to simulation, but they already use simulation (rig testing) extensively for durability work. Accurate and useful simulation of chassis performance testing may still be some way off, but could be beneficial for the motor industry if developed successfully. In any event, research into simulation technology would be a far better use of resources than running round and round circuits at $2,000 to $3,000 per car per km with no television or public present.

6 Engines

Bring forward the 2004 single engine rule to 2003. From 2004 one engine to last for four races. From 2005 on, one engine per half season.

Explanation

The idea of making an engine last more than one race seems radical, even crazy, at first sight. On careful reflection, however, the case for it is overwhelming.

The cost of a racing engine using the ultimate in available technology and materials is virtually the same whether its design life is 400 km, 800 km or 6000 km. Development costs will also be substantially the same except for extra dyno time. The huge economies that would result if Formula One engines were made to last as long as the racing engines used at Le Mans are self-evident. The technical challenge would also be more relevant to the motor industry.

Furthermore, a progressive increase in required life would prevent further escalation of horsepower. Indeed the lower engine speeds might reduce power from current levels and remove the need to consider a reduction in capacity in the near future for safety reasons.

In addition to a very big reduction in costs and a helpful containment of power output, long-life engines would have a number of positive effects on the Championship. First, they would introduce an element of uncertainty should one driver build a big championship lead: he might at any time have to change his engine and incur a penalty in each of the remaining races (eg a loss of grid position, a stop-go, or similar). Secondly, we would see fewer engine blow-ups (which are bad for manufacturer image). Thirdly, as the number of races completed by the engines grew during the season, speculation on reliability by commentators and journalists would increase, and with it public interest. Fourthly, because engine reliability and durability would become so important for the Championship, the engine manufacturers would become increasingly relevant in the eyes of the public world-wide. Formula One would become more of a manufacturers' championship.

Finally, with long-life engines we would no longer need to worry about exotic materials. The cost of these materials is only significant if they are used in components which are changed frequently. If each car used only two engines per season, it would no longer matter what these engines were made of.

The penalties for unauthorised changes are a matter for discussion, but a large number of options exist.

7 Mechanical components

From 2004

Gearbox assemblies and key components in the chassis and running gear to have a required minimum life of a specified number of races.

Explanation

Until a few years ago gearboxes were constantly changed during world championship rallies (at enormous expense). When a restriction was first mooted, the conventional wisdom was that it was impossible for technical reasons and, anyway, could not be checked. It was nevertheless brought in and now functions without difficulty. Gearboxes are heavier and stronger, but they break no more often during the competition than they did when they could be changed at will.

Long-life components and assemblies in Formula One would present no technical problem. They would merely be bigger and heavier and make the cars slightly slower. This would be helpful. At present everything is built to last for one race in the interests of optimum performance with minimum weight. The cost is immense, but merely allows the teams to fit large amounts of expensive ballast to the cars with absolutely no benefit to anyone, least of all the spectators. The argument for long-life components is the same as for long-life engines.

The only difficulty is the need for a system to identify each component or assembly so as to ensure it has not been changed without the scrutineers' knowledge. The FIA already does this for tyres, but would need to extend the technology to components, some of which operate in very hostile conditions. However, there are a number of ways in which this could be done.

8 Bodywork including aerodynamic devices

From 2003

Two alternative sets of bodywork to be homologated by each team before the start of the season. These may be changed once only during the season after half the season's Events have taken place. Each set of bodywork may incorporate means of adjustment, but the removal or addition of a part would constitute fitting new bodywork.

Explanation

Very considerable expenditure is incurred by teams constantly making new items of bodywork as they discover new elements in the wind tunnel or try ideas seen on other cars in the wind tunnel and find an improvement. A top team will go through the very expensive process of making, say, an entirely new engine cover if the wind tunnel research indicates this might produce a 0.03s or 0.04s second advantage.

By forcing research into distinct six-month periods, the constant design and production of entirely new parts would stop. Teams would continue with their wind tunnel work, but only in the last month or so of the relevant period would they bring together the results of all their research and make their two sets of bodywork for the next half-season.

Front and rear bodywork (wings) would remain adjustable so that cars could continue to be set up from one circuit to another. But these changes would cost nothing. It is the constant manufacture of entirely new parts, together with the necessary new patterns, moulds, etc, which wastes the money. By comparison, replacing a bodywork part damaged in an accident with an identical part for which the moulds, etc, already exist is relatively inexpensive.

Homologation would also add interest to the Championship, with much speculation as to who might lose or gain an advantage as the half-way point of the season approached.

Two different bodywork configurations would be needed to take account of significant differences between the requirements of the fastest and slowest circuits.

Enforcement would not present a problem, as the FIA's new Krypton camera system would be able to detect any difference, however small, between the bodywork actually fitted to a car and that which had been homologated at the start of the season.

Note

Apart from the obvious huge savings in material and labour costs, the use of long-life engines and other components would produce three additional significant savings.
First, because less work would be needed on each car, the number of personnel required by a team at an Event would decrease.
Secondly, the amount of air freight needed by each team would decrease, as would the number of engines and other parts transported backwards and forwards (sometimes at great expense) between the circuit and the team's base.
Thirdly, reduced maintenance would make it practicable, if desired, to hold certain races with a one-week gap, thus further reducing travel and accommodation costs.

TECHNICAL REGULATIONS

9 Standardised parts

Standard electronics, particularly ECUs

This would save huge R & D costs, but might be said to reduce the technical challenge.

Standard brakes
Would make worthwhile savings.

A requirement that any ballast carried must be fixed in one place on the car and not moved for the duration of the season
This might reduce the incentive to build ultra-light cars and thus save costs.

[airco]

ok dat er iets moet gebeuren in de F1 is duidelijk ... Het miljoenencircus kan niet blijven doorgaan of we hebben binnenkort geen teams meer.
Dit is echter veel meer dan eventjes iets veranderen he ... dit is een hele revolutie.

Persoonlijk sta ik er nogal sceptisch tegenover

[schumivill]

Ik ga beginnen met de eerste regel af te breken :p

Hoe gaan ze in godsnaam iedere keer de wagen aanpassen aan de grootte van de rijder?Dus Webber kan zomaar overstappen in de Sauber van Heidfeld,aléé,ik versta da nie zulle,ik dacht dat ge als ge bij de FIA zit,toch wat intelligenter moest zijn.

[Bam-Bam]

"Het zijn radicale ideeën om het spektakel NOG spannender te maken en enorm op kosten te besparen", stelt Mosley.

ze gaan het dus NOG spannender proberen maken :D ge moet het maar kunnen uitleggen he;)

Die Mosley kent evenveel van autosport als Jean-Marie Pfaff van motorrijden, Duits spreken, gewoon spreken, enzenz...

[Mario]

Dag bam-bam :).

Uit welk hol kom jij gekropen ?

[Benklak]

Ik ben voor dit hele gedoe! Toch veel zaliger, interessanter om Schumacher ook eens in een Minardi een race te moeten zien voltooien niet? En dat niet iedereen op dit moment in een andere wagen zou passen klopt, maar dan moeten de teams maar een wagen bouwen waar dit wel mogelijk is hé! Er zullen maw heel wat veranderingen moeten gebeuren ook binnen de teams!
Ik als autosport-fan kijk niet meer zo hard uit naar een race als enkele jaren geleden! Ik hou de kalender ook niet meer zo bij, het boeit me niet meer zo! TIJD VOOR VERANDERING!!!!!

[Sennake]

Als ik zou moeten kiezen tussen VOOR of TEGEN (en er geen weg tussenin bestaat) ben ik ook eerder VOOR.
Het gaat natuurlijk wel erg ver en de soep wordt nooit zo heet gegeten als ze uitgeschept is, maar dat er veranderingen nodig zijn om de spektakelwaarde en de spanning erin te houden of te vergroten, is duidelijk.

[STAFFO]

Dit is een beetje teveel van het goede vrees ik ... :D

[Jan]

De aanhoudende suprematie van Mc Laren en Lotus in vroegere
decennia is ook vanzelf overgegaan en zo zal het met Ferrari ook wel vergaan, we moeten alleen wat geduld oefenen. Groot verschil met vroeger is uiteraard dat er nu veel meer TV belangen mee gemoeid zijn, geen kijkers = geen inkomsten. Een paar tientallen jaren geleden mocht je al blij zijn als je op een of andere zender een F1 wedstrijd kon zien, dus dat lag wel ff anders.

jan

[FleaBite]

het zijn idd zeer ingrijpende veranderingen, maar ze lijken me wel interessant. Alleen vraag ik mij een beetje af of dit allemaal wel praktisch haalbaar is.

[redje]

Da van die rijderswissel gaat sowieso nooit doorgaan, te veel tegenstanders. De bandenregel is echt wel ne goeie; nu is bij michelin ofwel mclaren of williams slecht bezig omda hun bolides andere banden vereisen.

[Bam-Bam]

ja Mario, mijn intresse was gewoon een beetje afgezwakt door dit cut-gp-jaar he...

Ik ben eigenlijk TEGEN al die kunstmatige ingrepen. De competitie zal vanzelf wel weer in een goede plooi vallen, dat is altijd zo geweest en hoe meer regels de FIA oplegt hoe erger het wordt. Het afschaffen van alle regels die ze de laatste jaren hebben ingevoerd zou al een goede stap voorwaarts zijn :D Maar ik moet toegeven dat de juiste oplossing niet makkelijk te vinden is...maar als ik de laatste tijd IRL races zie die bol staan van de spanning dan moet het ook in deze moderne tijden nog mogelijk zijn om nog echt te racen. Misschien moete ze maar terug de auto's van 15 jaar geleden boven halen (want daar rijden die americanen nu mee...)

[Raceboy]

misschien kunnen ze dit is toepassen
http://www.neilthompson.co.uk/jimbamber/CARTOONS/0257.jpg

[Oneliner]

Originally posted by jan
De aanhoudende suprematie van Mc Laren en Lotus in vroegere
decennia is ook vanzelf overgegaan en zo zal het met Ferrari ook wel vergaan, we moeten alleen wat geduld oefenen. Groot verschil met vroeger is uiteraard dat er nu veel meer TV belangen mee gemoeid zijn, geen kijkers = geen inkomsten. Een paar tientallen jaren geleden mocht je al blij zijn als je op een of andere zender een F1 wedstrijd kon zien, dus dat lag wel ff anders.

jan

Daar lag ook wel een verschil hé.
Die mochten tenminste tegen elkaar rijden hé.
Zeker in de tijd Prost-Senna, dat waren mss de spannendere races uit de formule 1...

Laat Barri voluit strijden tegen de sjoemel en we staan al een pakske verder...

[Sway Bar]

Waarom laten ze niet iedereen met een volle tank rijden en geen pitstops meer. Dan moet er toch al wat meer spanning zijn.
Een race moet toch worden uitgereden/ gewonnen op de baan en toch niet in de pits :o

PS: goede race gereden raceboy :) , jammer van Robert op het einde :(