F1 Strategy Group agrees to sweeping changes from 2017

[R.J. O'Connell]

After meeting for almost a full twenty-four hours, the Formula 1 Strategy Group announced on Friday that they have agreed to several key regulation changes meant to enhance the sport, including wider and more aggressively designed cars, free choice of tyre compounds, and the reintroduction of refuelling, which will be put into place over the next two seasons.

Improving the on-track product and reducing the overall cost of participation were the key concerns for the Strategy Group going into this week's key meeting.

From a joint statement by FIA President Jean Todt and Formula One Group CEO Bernie Ecclestone:

"The Formula One Strategy Group met yesterday in Biggin Hill to exchange views on the current challenges that F1 faces. Besides the statuary members of the Group, representatives of the engine manufacturers were also invited.

The Strategy Group members have debated a number of levers aimed at improving the show. An initial series of measures has been voted:

For 2016:

- Free choice of the two dry tyre compounds (out of four) that each team can use during the race weekend



For 2017:

- Faster cars: 5 to 6 seconds drop in laptimes through aerodynamic rules evolution, wider tyres and reduction of car weight

- Reintroduction of refuelling (maintaining a maximum race fuel allowance)

- Higher revving engines and increased noise

- More aggressive looks



A few other measures have also been discussed but require further investigation before they can be implemented:

- A global reflection on race weekend format

- Measures to make starts only activated by the driver without any outside assistance



Furthermore, in light of the various scenarios presented by the independent consulting company mandated by the F1 Strategy Group, at the initiative of the FIA, to work on the reduction of costs and following a constructive exchange, a comprehensive proposal to ensure the sustainability of the sport has emerged. The Strategy Group member Teams have committed to refine it in the next few weeks, in consultation with the other teams involved in the championship. On the engine side, it has been decided that stability of the rules should prevail in consideration of the investments of the manufacturers involved in the sport and to give visibility to potential new entrants. The allowance for a 5th engine to be used during the 2015 season has been rejected.

This constructive meeting between the FIA, FOM and the Teams has allowed paving the way for the future of the championship. All parties agreed to work together with an intention to firm up these proposals and submit them to the approval of the F1 Commission and the World Motor Sport Council of the FIA as soon as possible for implementation."

What is your take on the decisions from the F1 Strategy Group? Leave a comment below, and for more Formula 1 discussion, visit our F1 forum.

Image Credit: Pirelli​

 

[Angelo dos Santos]

What a joke....
They ban the refueling 4 years ago saying that was to improve racing, and now they allow saying that is to improve racing....
Refuel adds to strategy, of course, but also make drivers lazy...waiting PitStops to gain position, not risking on track moves.
Apart from that, Im ok with the changes.

 

[AnklaX]

They gonna solve jack with these changes. Again. First, they slow down the cars to increase overtakes, then add DRS to reduce quality of racing. They fail and want to make cars faster again. It only shows that they're confused or scared to make real changes. They should give a weight limit, safety requirements, ban DRS or active aero, SACK BERNIE ECCLESTONE and be done with it. That way, there will be more manufacturers, more technical variety requiring creative engineering and the drivers will as always be able to provide on track action.

If I had anything to do with it, I'd give a max weight limit, say 500 - 550 kg without driver (so that a big guy doesn't have to lose out just 'cause he's big) and maybe limit the power unit wight. That way engineers can decide what combination of cylinders, induction system and hybrid they want. I'd let them any number of gears and gear ratios as long as they're changed sequentially as they are currently.

That way, cars would sound different an have performance advantage at different parts of the track somewhat like what we've been seeing in Bathurst for past few 12 hour race. This will both increase overtakes and quality of racing instead of improving number of overtakes by sacrificing quality of the racing. This will also allow constructors and engine manufacturers to market their products base not only on race results and historic importance but also on the unique advantage of their technology giving better chance to survive in F1 financially. Also, Tyre and fuel change should allow maximum variety to allow varied strategies to make things even more interesting.

Rules should allow the driver push the car to the limit most of the time so that the best drivers aren't always forced to hold back and can show what they can really do.

Catering to those who don't watch or care for F1 is going against human nature and will therefore never work. F1 can't hope to increase its scope exclusively from its own efforts but by keeping true racing enthusiasts happy so that they can spread the plague. That's how marketing works best in this day and age and its also more cost effective. If F1 is great again, then we'll talk about it in such a way, that other will want to see it when they hear us talk about it. Nowadays, I don't like to talk to people about F1 for it saddens, not excites me.

That,s what I think.

 

[Nox]

What they really need to do is let the engineers and car designers be innovative again. That'd spice things up.

 

[Victor Ivanov]

What a joke....
They ban the refueling 4 years ago saying that was to improve racing, and now they allow saying that is to improve racing....
Refuel adds to strategy, of course, but also make drivers lazy...waiting PitStops to gain position, not risking on track moves.
Apart from that, Im ok with the changes.

Yeah you are right but before the tyres were durable and the undercuts didn't work. Now with the Pirelli's melting tyres it can be 50:50 situation and drivers will need to push. For me refuelling ban was probably one of the most stupid moves F1 could do but again, they did it for safety reasons especially after the "Iceman on fire" thingy in Brazil 2009

 

[Nox]

Yes, safety reasons - which haven't changed since. It makes no sense to stop something on safety grounds, then reintroduce it again a few years later. I can't see the refuelling coming back to be honest, but F1 often surprises me with its decisions.

 

[Connor Caple]

Drop DRS, let them use any tyres they want at any time they want to, get rid of the stupid "leave plenty of room for your opponent" rules and let them shut the door again, then make the cars fast and competitive enough so good drivers can win.

I know, impossible isn't it? But, that is what would get me watching it again. This sanitised crap they have at the moment is no longer 'racing'.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

Refuelling is not about safety, they know perfectly well it is risky to put flammable liquids at high pressure tens of centimeters away from red hot glowing things. It is about weight of the car and it's effects on tires and inertia. They want faster cars? Take 50kg of weight off, 1-2 seconds should be in the bag from that alone (in race fit).

Free choice of tires seems to be the return of "super qualy" format, qualy runs that are on par with 2001 season and 5 seconds faster than the fastest lap in the race. This is NOT cost effetive but it isn't as big cost as one might think. The overall tire usage will stay the same, only cost really is the price to haul ~50% more tires to the race. This will make practice sessions SUPER important as the need to find the exact right tire becomes the most important part of the weekend.

Wider tires and more aero... That might be a catastrophic for safety reasons. I hope they increase minimum ride height too but i'm 100% certain those titanium blocks will stay since, let's be honest, it's freaking super cool to see them sparking again. But if the aero changes are really the return of "over body" aero and decrease of "under body" aero, bottoming is not as dangerous. Since they are still going to make them touch the road, every millimeter you drop in that area gives you "free" downforce. But decreasing floor area is net effect and there is no other solution than to add more wings and thus drag. This will mean possible decrease in top speed. Cornering speed should increase but not as much as one might think, if my prediction is right and the downforce Center of Mass is going to be raised upwards, you get problems with YAW (when your car is turning, you are not going thru air completely "forward" but also applying YAW rotation at the same time, think of a car going just a tad sideways) and wind direction that will drecrease theoretical performance.

But since it is aerodynamic rules evolution, it might also mean the return of blown diffusers, in which case my F1 interest will take a hit: then it's RBR that has threatened to leave who they are pandering to and i don't care if you are Ferrari, threat to quit to get their competitive advantage back is deplorable and i say "goodbye then", let's hope it's not that but actual evolution. But it also may mean Formula-E, IndyCar style partial tire covers/fenders. I actually don't have such a big objections to that, as along as the elements are properly limited (for ex only up to axles height). Having drawn a few bodies, i can easily say that the open wheel is totally against every rule in aerodynamics: it's top rotates opposite to travel direction, it has 0mm ground clearance while having a wedge (squeeze), it's large, has square profile, has lots of linkages between it and the body and those linkages can not be shaped to fit any sort of aero plan etc etc. (Second largest obstacles are the engine and driver but both of them are malluable, tires are fixed in place and shape ).. So taking out the "tire squeeze" effect off significantly improves performance, we are not talking about 0.2% but closer to 10%.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

Drop DRS, let them use any tyres they want at any time they want to, get rid of the stupid "leave plenty of room for your opponent" rules and let them shut the door again, then make the cars fast and competitive enough so good drivers can win.

I know, impossible isn't it? But, that is what would get me watching it again. This sanitised crap they have at the moment is no longer 'racing'.

Stupid "leave plenty of room for your opponent" rules ? Ok, i'll know who i don't want to meet on track... That is not good driving, that is being a douche.

 

[Connor Caple]

Stupid "leave plenty of room for your opponent" rules ? Ok, i'll know who i don't want to meet on track... That is not good driving, that is being a douche.

Shutting the door is a major part of real motor racing and always has been.

It is still practised in actual events where they are allowed to race and you have to make the pass stick, rather than having to get out of the way because someone may have got their nose alongside your back wheels going into a corner.

If you think people have to get out of the way and let you pass, you're part of the problem and I wouldn't want to be on a track with you either.

 

[LacSlyer]

Shutting the door is a major part of real motor racing and always has been.

It is still practised in actual events where they are allowed to race and you have to make the pass stick, rather than having to get out of the way because someone may have got their nose alongside your back wheels going into a corner.

If you think people have to get out of the way and let you pass, you're part of the problem and I wouldn't want to be on a track with you either.

I'd argue that the rule (I assume the rule we're discussing is the one move only rule when blocking?) is actually needed, otherwise you'd get slow cars zig-zagging just to keep faster cars behind them. Hence why the rule was introduced. The notion that you have the right to be wherever you want on the track when someone performs a solid move to pass you is ridiculous, and too many drivers lack the respect for giving up a position to not have this rule. Furthermore, the reason it's a part of F1 and no other form of racing is because F1 is practically the only racing where losing even a minor piece of your front wing can cost you the race.

It's not about getting out of the way so people can pass you, it's about giving respect to someone who passed you and not putting your nose in their way threatening to give them a flat to regain your position.

 

[Connor Caple]

I'd argue that the rule (I assume the rule we're discussing is the one move only rule when blocking?)

No - nothing to do with that rule. Thought it was self-evident, unless people no longer know what 'shutting the door' means on a corner entry?

 

[LacSlyer]

No - nothing to do with that rule. Thought it was self-evident, unless people no longer know what 'shutting the door' means on a corner entry?

I very well know what that term means, but due to the person you quoted thought your post was in reference to that rule.

As I said though, F1 having their more strict rules has more to do with the fact that these cars aren't designed to take contact, at all, than them not wanting them to race each other. It's not about not being ballsy enough to race someone and just get out of their way when they've won the corner, it's about being conservative with your car that can't take any contact without you being significantly hindered.

 

[thewarmer]

Wider Tyre's , wider cars , Wow back to the 90's then.
No 1 is getting rid of the mad dictator BERNIE ECCLESTONE .
His control of F1 led to most of these crazy rules , back up in the past by Max Mosley as the head of the FIA before is Sexual perversions lost him his job.

We need a return to a pure design Formula , remember that most of the biggest innovations came during the 70's
Brillant Designers & Team owners Like Colin Chapman , keith Duckworth Mike Costin , Gordon Murry took F1 to new levels along with many other names I have left out but we all know very well.

Everything from The Cosworth DFV to Wings both moving & fixed , Ground effects 4WD Turbine engines , Six wheel cars & Low budget teams beating the big Factory teams like Ferrari .

For the most part most teams used the cheap Cosworh power units , only innovative designs bending rules to up-most degree made that era for me the purist.

Then came the 1st Turbo Era & ever increasing rules to limit pure design , Colin Chapman predicted back in the late 70's that F1 risked become a detail formula over inventive & ground braking design.
Cost spiraled as every team was force down the Turbo route.

Even after the end of the first Turbo Era in my eyes F1 never found a good solution .
We still had amazing things like Active Ride , traction control & other stuff .

Almost every Idea to improve F1 as failed since to improve F1's status.
Fixed engine types was a big one for me I grew up with the Mixed engine types V12 & Flat 12's V8's V6's Both turbos & none Turbos.

The mixed sounds of mixed field of V10 V8 & V12's was a big lose to F1.
Some of the best solutions were banned decades ago Active ride , Ground effects were far better solutions to better air flow than today's winged ugliness that limit close racing.

Yes F1 should always use cutting edge tech & idea's, but the hand cuffs should be removed from the Cars design .
The FIA should & F1 should set the limits for weight limits & overall engine output & safty systems.
The rest should be a open book & not this crazy grabbing at straws & staggering from one bad idea after another & is been stumbling for a while now & most of the blame as to laid at ECCLESTONE's feet with is wild actions & statements & back stabbing deals that he carry's on doing to keep F1 under his control.

I want pure design back over all these wild ideas that have all seen F1 suffer & have found no solutions in the long term

 

[Rob]

Damn, why didn't IndyCar think of this....oh...wait...

 

[mister dog]

Make up your mind already. Each couple of years these desperate attempts to bring 'excitement' to the sport, and all it does is absolutely nothing. Refueling will only makes things more boring as pit stops gain in importance again.

They are trying to correct their mistakes by making more mistakes. F1 has become a boring joke.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

Shutting the door is a major part of real motor racing and always has been.

It is still practised in actual events where they are allowed to race and you have to make the pass stick, rather than having to get out of the way because someone may have got their nose alongside your back wheels going into a corner.

If you think people have to get out of the way and let you pass, you're part of the problem and I wouldn't want to be on a track with you either.

You are not forced to "get out of the way". The rule is that you don't try to fit two cars in a space that allows only one. If you think that shutting the door unexpectedly rips of us from good racing, think again. Go and see few PrestoGP races (unfortunately, my wheel is shut so i can race there.. ) and see how you can go wheel to wheel, no-holds barred racing (racing is not a GTA style cops and robbers) and both drivers still respecting each others space. It isn't allowed in any respectable series. Not in GT or WTCC. It is allowed in series where crashing is the main attraction. You can't turn on someone and cause a preventable accident, period. It is exactly the same thing as you are not allowed to push drivers off track, you can do that too without damaging either vehicles (much). When someone has a nose aligned with your rear wheels: he IS there and who says he is forced to brake to prevent an a-hole pushing him off-track? If you have someone partly by your side, he is on your side. Not behind you.

Another factor, speed and time: It takes about 100ms to make a conscious decision reacting to an unknown event. That is the best estimate and F1 drivers have fractions lower (50-80ms) due to their training and experience. It also takes time to chahnge the direction where you are going, the body still has mass, inertia. In 100ms F1 car going 300km/h travels 8.3m distance. If we demand absolute safety, we should have... buffers of 10m or more between any vehicles on track.. But we ain't doing that, we just say "if any part of the car is beside each other, they have the right to keep driving on the lane they are". It is also wise that this zone is extended in the drivers mind, for the reasons i stated: nothing can react to sudden events. You need a freaking computer and still it would very unreliable due to the environment and simple laws of physics.

What you suggest is not only dangerous, it is unfair. it is also stupid, the chances are that in the span of ten corners, both drivers off-shoot their braking marks in 2 of them (or more). Not a lot, 10m is more than enough. You need to think your own survival too but unfortunately, in the heat of action, your own self preservation might take a backseat in that few tenths when you just react "block him, anyway you can". Good drivers know how to drive "backwards", thinking how their actions are seen, when are they seen by the guy centimeters behind you..

The current system is fine: one move and after that you can still move provided that you don't block the other guy, leave him just a cars width (or less, as we often see) and no one has been penalized for that. Drivers like it, they support it. Isn't that the only reason we need? If you turn on someone, take you both out, that is disrepect. Drivers also block at the exit pretty freely, good example is Hamilton-Rosberg debacle in Spa last year. In the strictest sense, Hamilton should've not shut the door but we all know, the drivers, the people serving as referees, we all know that it is perfectly ok and Rosberg was rightly found guilty. The only concern this ruling tries to improve is the passing before corner where speeds are high, cars are unstabilized, weaving and braking further making the variables in that equation to fluctuate wildly.

One car worth of space is very decent compromise and teaches new drivers the right kind of attitude: you are NOT alone in the race track. That is why i don't want to see people who think shutting at any moment is the right way, these people do not know what gentlemen racing is, at all. It is "everything goes as long as i win".. The same type of drivers complain pretty freely when they are shut off... in fact, they complain about anything if the result is not satisfactory (note, this is my view, anecdotal)

One thing is certain, drivers who are more aggressive, we kind a like them, going at the limits. But they will go to the limits, no matter where they are so better solution is to put the limits in the right places. This is definitely one of the best decisions any racing governing body has ever done.

 

[Mark Aalberts]

This is what is wrong with F1, 5 second off the Pace Minardi from 2000 being faster then the Championship winning RBR from Vettel. skip to 2.38 for the rolling start ,.... not even mentioning the sound though.

 

[Hor-hay]

Too many penalties, overtaking with DRS is way to easy, high tyre deg has added nothing in terms of excitment.

I'd leave DRS in but let the drivers use it as much as they want.

 

[Qazdar Karim]

This is what is wrong with F1, 5 second off the Pace Minardi from 2000 being faster then the Championship winning RBR from Vettel.

Are you sure ?