OMG!
Max Mosley must have hit with his head into a brick wall and he has completly reworked his vision of F1 industry.
For a long time (back in the days of Mr. Balestre) drivers have been asking for real measures to be taken.
They say they have suffered something similar to what jet planes pilots have suffered before them.
In the flight industry they call it avionics.
In F1 industry they prefer calling it electronic gizmos and 2-way telemetry.
Too much electronics controlling the car while nowadays they could actually drive the car confortably from the pitlane instead of having a man inside.
On the other hand Mr. Mosley seem to have noticed that F1 is also a show, a show that need attendants in the grandstands.
With no attendants due to lack of interest in the sport soon F1 will enter an era where investors will look for other markets leaving F1 on it's own.
This has reached a status where the FOM commité has issued a document with the purposed 2008 technical rules, sustaining that:
- "there should be a single rear wing for all teams". This kind of rear wing has been used in CART with very good results meaning that it is prooved to improve overtaking capabilities for the cars behind.
- "there should be a single tyre manufacturer". I don't like monopolies but we wouldn't like to see sad pictures like the USA '05 GP right? Either there is a GP or there is no GP and it is postponed. No more half a dozen cars starting a GP please.
- "teams will be allowed to run on slick tyres again". Typical...FIA is telling us that us they might have been resposible for some crashes during the grooved tyres period.
If the issue is safety I can't see how grooved tyres can help. Yep, cars shouldn't be able to corner as fast as with slicks but then again if it wasn't for traction control they'd be running against the wall all the time.
Just typical from FIA.
Do look in here for some more info http://www.formula1.com/news/3894.html.
Apparently this time we're heading the right way .
Cheers

__________________
Rui

Hi, so in same sense as tyres, teams should have same engine. Or not?

OT
It seems that McLaren don't think as you about Alonso, isn' it?
END OT

Well we could say yes and no.
You see the problem with tyres is that each tyre manufacturer provides tyres to many squads.
In some cases such as USA GP a bad thing can happen and then there is no show.
In case of engine suppliers I see it differently.
Each engine manufacturer supplies one or 2 squads.
So the worst that could happen was to have a GP without 4 cars.
Not the same as USA GP that was held without 12 cars, wasn't it?

Hmmm, didn't catch the joke .
What's with McLaren and Alonso?
Did something come up in the news that I didn't read ?

Anyway, Luis, I think we're definitly on the right track to have a more enthusiastic sport.
Something that will once again grab the fans to their chairs.
F1 really needs to re-adjust otherwise it will loose a lot of fans.
Cheers

__________________
Rui

Maybe I didn't read the document accurately in my 1st attempt.
Here's what I found later on from this document:
1 - arrangements for a single tyre supplier in 2008;
2 - three - Event engines;
3 - four - Event transmissions;
4 - weight penalties for early replacement of engine or gearbox;
5 - testing restrictions;
6 - a limit of two cars per team at an Event;
7 - New technologies which give a team an advantage for one season but which are then adopted by all teams for subsequent seasons at significant expense will be banned after the end of the first season (Article 2.5).

1 - I've already said what I think about monopolies, but I would be willing to welcome this measure as an assurance to the show.
2 / 3 - Are we nuts?? 3 event engines? why not 3 season engines? I still can't see how using the "x times events parts" (such as engines in this case) can lead to a better show.
It surely leads to (up to some extent) cost reductions but not that much.
I could be wrong but I can't remember any other sports that uses "x times events parts".
On the other hand we'll keep watching how some very good drivers having lowsy results just because their team still hasn't found a way to keep consistent.
It doesn't seem much fair to me. This sport values a lot more the driver championship than the constructors championship.
There are not many drivers that we can still say "this championship win suites him like a glove" and if we turn the sport into a lotery game with this kind of measures I can't see any kind of benifits...
As for 4 events transmitions I also think FIA is a bit out of line but I wouldn't be too worried if we were talking about (top) 2 events transmitions.
4 - weight penalties to those that change engine / transmition 1 hour before the race? That seems to be pretty fair to me but not with the above (2/3) figures. Teams that have to change their car's parts shouldn't be moved to the 24th position in the grid. They might get caught behind of Trully or Villeneuve that have a very large butt and that will do their best to keep everybody running at "safety car speed" during the whole race.
5 - very unpopular decision. I can see 3 or 4 teams rejecting this one although I'm not particularly opposed to this.
6 - If a driver crashes his car into to the wall during practice or qualifying he is not allowed to race. More devious: if a driver is hit by another driver's car and his car ends up destroyed he's not allowed to race.
Yep...it's his fault, he shouldn't have been in that place at that time...
Come on, be reasonable .
7 - This one is tough. On one hand this will prevent technical development a lot. No team will spend big bucks developping something that will last 16 races. On the other hand it could help leveling the teams and then we could really see who's the best driver out there.

So IMHO some measures are pretty much ok but some of them seem to be completly out of line.
Maybe the teams can help FIA to polish these rules a bit and we could be in business, that is from 2008 on...

__________________
Rui

But that's the point ! It's a F1 race, it's not a CART race, no ?
Then, why not just take CART cars instead of F1 cars ?
I like both, cart and F1, but I don't like the idea of the same wing, tyres, engines and everything else for the F1.

There was a single tyre manufacturer (bridge) in 99/2000 and it was all about Ferrari. If Michelin hadn't come in the race, Williams or Mc Laren would have never improve.
You prefer the risk of 0 cars starting a GP ?

Agree.

2005 could have been the best season for me without that stupids rules about one engine for two races and no changing tyres during a race.

Hi Jason
I don't like that idea too.
F1 has a lot more "personality" than CART because it has lot's of different chassis, engines, fuel, etc.
But would you mind having a single/equal rear wing installed on all cars in the name of the sport and the fans.
We watch F1 because we enjoy it right?
At least that's why I watch it.
But I want to see manouvres, overtaking, etc.
If it doesn't have overtaking then I can't enjoy F1.
Errr sorry but I can't agree on that.
I'm not saying that the tyres didn't work better on Ferraris than on Williams or Mclarens.
I'm just saying what every engineer would tell you: that car (Ferrari) was the best in the pack, period.
And it had the best driver in the pack, period.
You can't beat that combo .
No way.
I said that it would have to be postponed or something similar .
No more less than 15 cars starting a GP please .
Cheers

__________________
Rui

I've been reading all these posts trying to figure out what "tyres" is.
Did you guys actually mean "tires" (gomas, ruedas, wheels)
Because I really don't know what a "tyre" is

Edit: Never mind
I just learned that in UK and other places in Europe, Tyres = Tires
On Michelin's US web site, it's refered as "tires", but in the UK site, it's "tyres"

Guess I learned something new today in 2006

-kwag

Ahhhh! now understand, when all people here are saying that Mallorca is full of yonkies, they meant that is full of yankees, jajajajajajajaj.

Here, when you are tired, you rest, lied down.
When you are tyred, you rest lied down, with the mark of the tyre in your face, 7 meters under ground.

Edit: 7 meters
Isn't that a little "too" deep

-kwag

Well, i just explained you the case of my mother in law. You will understand that i wanted her enough deep (just in case that she would wish to come back).

OT

Now I understand
So you have mixed emotions about your mother in law, right
You know what that is I mean, you know the REAL meaning of a "mixed" emotion

"Seeing your mother in law falling down a cliff, while she's driving your brand new Mercedes Benz"


/OT

-kwag

I've also learnt something new in 2006: tires=tyres
This is one of my favorites .

__________________
Rui