interesting F1 rules changes for 2003 and beyond
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
2002 C230 K
interesting F1 rules changes for 2003 and beyond
New rules to be applied for the 2003 season:
1. Placing cars in parc ferme between final qualifying and the race (teams will be unable to work on them, except under strict supervision)
2. Elimination of traction control, launch control and fully automatic gearboxes (possible derogation for all or part of 2003, to be followed by absolute enforcement in 2004, if necessary by standardizing ECUs)
3. Elimination of pit to car and car to pit telemetry
4. Elimination of all radio comminucation between pits and driver
5. Allowing only two cars per team (no more spare cars)
These are the first steps of new cost cutting rules - for the 2004 season, teams will be required to use standard brakes, rear wing and long-life components. The engine manufacturers will be required to supply their powerplants to all competing teams, and the FIA will take a zero tolerance stance on traction control. The use of exotic materials will also be banned.
Further changes will be imposed in 2005. Engine life will be extended to two races per unit, major components will be required to have a further extension on their lifespan and harsh penalties will be imposed on teams changing major parts outside permitted times. Engine life in 2006 will be extended to six races.
- BT
1. Placing cars in parc ferme between final qualifying and the race (teams will be unable to work on them, except under strict supervision)
2. Elimination of traction control, launch control and fully automatic gearboxes (possible derogation for all or part of 2003, to be followed by absolute enforcement in 2004, if necessary by standardizing ECUs)
3. Elimination of pit to car and car to pit telemetry
4. Elimination of all radio comminucation between pits and driver
5. Allowing only two cars per team (no more spare cars)
These are the first steps of new cost cutting rules - for the 2004 season, teams will be required to use standard brakes, rear wing and long-life components. The engine manufacturers will be required to supply their powerplants to all competing teams, and the FIA will take a zero tolerance stance on traction control. The use of exotic materials will also be banned.
Further changes will be imposed in 2005. Engine life will be extended to two races per unit, major components will be required to have a further extension on their lifespan and harsh penalties will be imposed on teams changing major parts outside permitted times. Engine life in 2006 will be extended to six races.
- BT
Last edited by trench; Jan 15, 2003 at 05:31 PM.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
2002 C230 K
Originally posted by Lynn
With regard to item 4., shouldn't that be "Elimination of all radio comminucation between car and pits."
With regard to item 4., shouldn't that be "Elimination of all radio comminucation between car and pits."
BT
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Likes: 1
From: Canada
05 CLK 500 cab
All I can say is Wow. Have they committed to these or is this someone's trial balloon? That is a pretty comprehensive list of changes to make in the name of cost-cutting/ levelling the field. I ask only because I didn't see a correspondong press release on the FIA's web site.
Some of the wording opens loopholes broad enough to drive the entire Maclaren hospitality pavillion through, so there must be a more precise version either coming or out there somewhere.
Imagine a race weekend with only two cars per team, and the pressure on the drivers to qualify well but not demolish the team's opportunity to participate! Is the FIA really willing to be satsified with even smaller starting fields? or maybe they have more but poor entrants in the wings?
Eliminating radio communications between the pits and driver? Even club racers have this now. Would they take this step and leave the heads-up helmet screens in place? I'm shaking my head...
Some of the wording opens loopholes broad enough to drive the entire Maclaren hospitality pavillion through, so there must be a more precise version either coming or out there somewhere.
Imagine a race weekend with only two cars per team, and the pressure on the drivers to qualify well but not demolish the team's opportunity to participate! Is the FIA really willing to be satsified with even smaller starting fields? or maybe they have more but poor entrants in the wings?
Eliminating radio communications between the pits and driver? Even club racers have this now. Would they take this step and leave the heads-up helmet screens in place? I'm shaking my head...
Last edited by lars; Jan 15, 2003 at 08:32 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,744
Likes: 1
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Likes: 1
From: Canada
05 CLK 500 cab
Thanks for the link, Lynn - an interesting article and a whole new diection for F1. I'm not a lawyer, but the release looks hastily and somewhat carelessly assembled. For example:
2003 Para 1 (iii). Radio communication between driver and pits is banned, but is a cell phone a radio?
2005 Para 14 says that an engine must last two consecutive events, but then para 16 seems to envisage that an engine can be changed if necessary. Why else would anyone change an engine, we ask, and what would the penalty be? The second half of para 16 just looks to have been inserted in the wrong place in the document, because it's so disconnected from the first half.
I'll be interested to hear what the manufacturers say.
2003 Para 1 (iii). Radio communication between driver and pits is banned, but is a cell phone a radio?
2005 Para 14 says that an engine must last two consecutive events, but then para 16 seems to envisage that an engine can be changed if necessary. Why else would anyone change an engine, we ask, and what would the penalty be? The second half of para 16 just looks to have been inserted in the wrong place in the document, because it's so disconnected from the first half.
I'll be interested to hear what the manufacturers say.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
2002 C230 K
Originally posted by lars
2003 Para 1 (iii). Radio communication between driver and pits is banned, but is a cell phone a radio?
2003 Para 1 (iii). Radio communication between driver and pits is banned, but is a cell phone a radio?
Originally posted by lars
2005 Para 14 says that an engine must last two consecutive events, but then para 16 seems to envisage that an engine can be changed if necessary. Why else would anyone change an engine, we ask, and what would the penalty be? The second half of para 16 just looks to have been inserted in the wrong place in the document, because it's so disconnected from the first half.
I'll be interested to hear what the manufacturers say.
2005 Para 14 says that an engine must last two consecutive events, but then para 16 seems to envisage that an engine can be changed if necessary. Why else would anyone change an engine, we ask, and what would the penalty be? The second half of para 16 just looks to have been inserted in the wrong place in the document, because it's so disconnected from the first half.
I'll be interested to hear what the manufacturers say.
I think the standard rear wing rule for 2004 will make the racing much better. Personally, I think they should also go back to slicks so that the cars can have more mechanical grip, which would also help in out-braking and passimg maneuvers.
- BT
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Likes: 1
From: Canada
05 CLK 500 cab
The possible issue with standardising wings is that aerodynamics work as a package. Standardising the wings may, probably will, work to reduce the range of feasible chassis layouts and body shapes. I wonder how tunable the wings would be; maybe we will start to see the appearance of three-dimensional sponsors' advertisements. Lars' maxim: for every rule there must be at least one work-around.
I do agree with you about the desirability of returning to slicks.
Lars' maxim: for every rule there must be at least one work-around.I do agree with you about the desirability of returning to slicks.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Admin Alumni
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 8,143
Likes: 19
See Garage
I thought the return to slicks was already stipulated in another set of rules (or was that wish lists?). I thought the Concorde Agreement specified a certain amount of advance notice before these kinds of radical rule changes could take place. Some of the proposed 2003 changes can't be incorporated in time, my guess.
I guess the designers must be shaking their heads. It was only in mid 2001 that traction control was permitted back into the game, and now it's out again? IMO, FIA should get its act together, lest it come to be perceived as indecisive (We seem to be reading about rule changes every other week)....
I guess the designers must be shaking their heads. It was only in mid 2001 that traction control was permitted back into the game, and now it's out again? IMO, FIA should get its act together, lest it come to be perceived as indecisive (We seem to be reading about rule changes every other week)....
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,744
Likes: 1
The Concorde agreement covers the Technical Regulations. The FIA can change the Sporting Regulations on or before 31 October of the year preceding the season the Sporting Regs cover. Actually no regs were changed for 2003, only the way those regs will be enforced, and there are provisions to delay that if the teams can show that they are a financial strain.
Bridgestone and Michelin are strongly resisting a return to slicks, saying they have too much invested in the current technology. The rumors are that Michelin has threatened to drop out if there is a return to slicks and Bridgestone says it won't/can't supply twenty cars.
Bridgestone and Michelin are strongly resisting a return to slicks, saying they have too much invested in the current technology. The rumors are that Michelin has threatened to drop out if there is a return to slicks and Bridgestone says it won't/can't supply twenty cars.
