Death of the DDD's

[Richard]

So now holes in the floor are big technology in F1... wow has it progressed... large tunnels are nothing new, poking holes in the floor to make them are.

Fitting big tunnels into small spaces whilst maintaining a very low tail (ie Red Bull) is new.

[ISLAMATRON]

Maybe I'm biased as a mechanical engineer, but I just dont see what was so ingenious about it.. or new... F1 has been running tunnels since the 70's, all they did was find a new way to integrate an old tech.

I certainly dont think it should have been something that decided the races or the entire season in 2009, but it was.

Aero is important, but it should not be the determining factor every year, a balance must be found.

I hope, contrary to what Gascoyne claims, that the DDD ban will allow for closer, wheel to wheel racing, I hope the wheel fairing ban does as well.

[Richard]

find a new way to integrate an old tech.

That's still innovation. Same could be said of the RB pull rod suspension, and that was also innovative for 2009.

[ISLAMATRON]

i guess our idea of what is "innovative" is quite different.

[Scotracer]

Maybe I'm biased as a mechanical engineer, but I just dont see what was so ingenious about it.. or new... F1 has been running tunnels since the 70's, all they did was find a new way to integrate an old tech.

I certainly dont think it should have been something that decided the races or the entire season in 2009, but it was.

Aero is important, but it should not be the determining factor every year, a balance must be found.

I hope, contrary to what Gascoyne claims, that the DDD ban will allow for closer, wheel to wheel racing, I hope the wheel fairing ban does as well.

Well Fluid Dynamics is still a part of mechanical engineering as it is labelled under mechanics.

Of course we're looking at a contrived version of innovation and ingenuity but we haven't had true innovation since perhaps the active suspension days of the late 80s. I don't see how anyone can still claim innovation in F1...yes perhaps it was ingenious to find that loophole and exploit it with such a major advantage but it still doesn't count as innovation.

Also it is unfortunate that aerodynamic load is so much more critical to the performance of a race car than the dynamics of the mechanical system, specifically at higher speeds. That's just the way reality is. Also aero load magnifies any development in the mechanicals of a car which is a bit of a double-blow.

Let's all go race in a vacuum with electric engines and drivers on EVA equipment.

[Flabbio Fixatore]

Its so bad, that even the top wishbones are now angled up instead of down!

And it IS an innovation when it is something that not everyone else has. Ferrari were the leaders in the rimshields (amazing innovation), micro barge boards in 2009, Red bull did the spine exhaust and so forth...

If you think that innovation is the re-invention of the wheel, then yes, we think differently. I think finding a competitive advantage where your competition has missed the opportunity is the only innovation currently available in F1.

[DaveKillens]

The FIA has to be more stringent and thoughtful in how they write the regulations, and they need to make every effort to stabilize this kind of spending. I hate to say this, but at this moment in time, rules stability is required until the economy becomes less fragile.

The FIA does not write the rules, the teams do... IT HAS BEEN LIKE THAT SINCE THE FIRST CONCORDE... the FIA merely approves the rules and enforces them.

More nitpicking. I was generalizing, and emphasing the FIA's role in containing costs.

If FOTA wants stable rules then they should just do it... but it does not seem to be what they want. So far they have put into effect the refueling ban, the front tire size change, the wheel cover ban, increase in ballast, Death(for now) of KERS, and soon the banning of DDDs.

What does this have to do with my comments on the FIA?

I thought mostly everyone on these boards was yelling that the teams know what is best for them, so now that Max is gone and Todt works quietly and allows FOTA to be at the forefront everyone is saying the opposite?

What does this have to do with my comments on the FIA?

The teams have never agreed on what is best for F1, because they only care about what is best for themselves.

What does this have to do with my comments on the FIA?

Please stick to the immediate subject, and stop trolling

[ISLAMATRON]

-Removed-

you said

The FIA has to be more stringent and thoughtful in how they write the regulations

how can they do so when THEY DO NOT WRITE THE REGULATIONS... does it need to be repeated again?

Nobody is trolling... it is just the reality on the ground... the FIA does not write the rules... so therefore they cannot ensure how stringently or how thoughtfully they are written. The teams have the responsibility of writing the rules so the impetus on cost control and stable regulations falls on them but...

The F1 teams are sometimes blind and do not realise what is happening in the world,

says Todt.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80685

On the subject of Innovation in F1, in that same article Todt also says this...

After giving up on KERS, we will accomplish nothing innovative next year. I'm sorry about that. I have therefore decided to create a working group...Gilles Simon, former boss at Ferrari engines, will join the FIA in this context.

Now I understand that batteries, MGU's or hybrid technology is not particularly innovative these days but what we saw on the Merc this year was pretty damn impressive... increasing power output by over 10%, while not using any additional fuel and all contained within 25kg that would have otherwise been only dead weight being carried around. No doubt Williams' flywheel, or the rumored flybrid system Honda were investigating would have been more innovative, but unfortunatly KERS was killed before we were allowed to see it mature.

[xpensive]

This is what is has to do with your comments on the FIA... The FIA DO NOT WRITE THE RULES, THE TEAMS DO!... what is so difficult to understand?

you said

The FIA has to be more stringent and thoughtful in how they write the regulations

how can they do so when THEY DO NOT WRITE THE REGULATIONS... does it need to be repeated again?

Nobody is trolling... it is just the reality on the ground... the FIA does not write the rules... so therefore they cannot ensure how stringently or how thoughtfully they are written.

This part is so good it should be saved for future generations. Ciro?

[WhiteBlue]

Are we referring to the "FIA Formula One World Championship Sporting Regulations"? These are rules for "the FIA Formula One World Championship (the Championship) which is the property of the FIA"? Quotes are from the FIA rule book.

The point is that rules are reviewed, approved and sanctioned by the FIA. So if the FIA says "we have a policy of cost reduction and rule stability" then they have it in their power to ensure they only sanction rules that comply with those aims, or amend suggested rules to ensure they fit the overall policy.

I would go further to say that the FIA have a duty to protect the integrity and reputation of motorsport, and that includes ensuring the rules are fit and proper.

However, if the level of the debate has sunk to that level then we are all doomed. What we need is more collaborative and coordinated efforts so the FIA and F1 participants have aligned expectations and common goals. Then we might start to see some progress. From what we have seen of Todt's regime, I think we are heading in the right direction.

The FIA F1 rules have always been the result of a cooperative process. It is true that in the end the WMSC accepts and approves the result of a formulation process that receives much input from different sides.

If the team proposals lead to some ambiguity in the interpretation of rules it is not alone the WMSC and the FIA's responsibility IMO. They primarily have to safeguard the championship against economical and political hazards and against improper and unbalanced influence of single stake holders. The responsibility for problems with unprecise rules lies primarily with the party which initiated the wording and those who are concerned by operating within the rules. So if an ambiguity primarily hits the scrutineering, the safety or the management of the race weekend the FIA should prevent that rule from being implemented in that bad form. If a rule primarily concerns the development of the cars or the competitiveness of a team due to sporting rules the teams must find the weak spots and eradicate them.

[xpensive]

In order to safely avoid future controversies ove the shape of the underside of an F1 car, I can see only two paths:

a) Flat-bottom-rule all the way, as long as there is car to measure.

b) Bring back the full-blown venturis with sliding skirts and all.

[Richard]

Sorry ... mucked up the quotes earlier and can no longer edit the post. Here's the correctd version .....

Please stick to the immediate subject, and stop trolling

This is what is has to do with your comments on the FIA... The FIA DO NOT WRITE THE RULES, THE TEAMS DO!... what is so difficult to understand?

you said

The FIA has to be more stringent and thoughtful in how they write the regulations

how can they do so when THEY DO NOT WRITE THE REGULATIONS... does it need to be repeated again?

Are we referring to the "FIA Formula One World Championship Sporting Regulations"? These are rules for "the FIA Formula One World Championship (the Championship) which is the property of the FIA"? Quotes are from the FIA rule book.

The point is that rules are reviewed, approved and sanctioned by the FIA. So if the FIA says "we have a policy of cost reduction and rule stability" then they have it in their power to ensure they only sanction rules that comply with those aims, or amend suggested rules to ensure they fit the overall policy.

I would go further to say that the FIA have a duty to protect the integrity and reputation of motorsport, and that includes ensuring the rules are fit and proper.

However, if the level of the debate has sunk to that level then we are all doomed. What we need is more collaborative and coordinated efforts so the FIA and F1 participants have aligned expectations and common goals. Then we might start to see some progress. From what we have seen of Todt's regime, I think we are heading in the right direction.

[ISLAMATRON]

The FIA tried to do that with the budget cap rules and FOTA overrode them with court battles and threats of a breakaway... why?

because

The F1 teams are sometimes blind and do not realise what is happening in the world,

-Todt

F1 was down to 10 teams(lowest ever) with Toyota & BMW looking to get out so the FIA implemented rules to contain costs while increasing technical "creativity"... But some of those very(blind) teams fought them tooth and nail for the right to outspend their competition.

How soon some of us forget recent history.

[WhiteBlue]

The FIA tried to do that with the budget cap rules and FOTA overrode them with court battles and threats of a breakaway... why?

because

The F1 teams are sometimes blind and do not realise what is happening in the world,

-Todt

F1 was down to 10 teams(lowest ever) with Toyota & BMW looking to get out so the FIA implemented rules to contain costs while increasing technical "creativity"... But some of those very(blind) teams fought them tooth and nail for the right to outspend their competition.

How soon some of us forget recent history.

Well said! =D> =D> =D>

But the world will always have those who will close their eyes to the realities. Several very active user of this forums (Xpensive and Chapparal have been most vocal) are still in denial that the FIA and the FOTA have agreed to a obligatory headcount cap for traveling and general team personnel for the next years. There are numerous references coming from the new teams to document the headcount cap but they still deny it.

[xpensive]

You two should get a room or something...oh, you already have?