Pirelli, 107% Rule, Adjustable Rear Wings all in for 2011

[www.autosport.com]
[www.f1fanatic.co.uk]
[www.f1fanatic.co.uk]

I generally agree with these changes. However, I don't like the stipulation that the adjustable rear wings can only be used for overtaking. With KERS coming back as well, it only adds to the novelty value as well. The last few races have shown that we don't need such novelties to have good racing.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Right on time. I can't wait for 2011, Now all they need is F1 2005 Spec Car + Slick Tires + V10.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2010 03:54PM by RebelWithoutaCause.

RebelWithoutaCause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right on time. I can't wait for 2011, Now all they
> need is F1 2005 Spec Car + Slick Tires + V10.


+militar air's cannon to make a really nice track-track fight+molotov to be used twice a lap+KITT's turbo boost+KITT's ultraspeed mode

that's the f1 i would like

---

My GPGSL Career

adjustable rear wings will be pointless... and HRT will be well and truly doomed with the 107% rule... as will USF1's replacement, if they're as bad as the 3 newbies have been so far...

_______________________________________________________

Team Japan Owner - GPGNC

I don't think we need adjustable rear wings. Adjustable front wings has been a flop, now they want adjustable rear ones as well. I wish they'd open up the engine configuration, right now the cars are TOO equal.

we need V8, V10 AND V12 running tigether, not adjustable wings

107% rule is just stupid. The FIA have just given in to the top teams, which makes it harder for the new teams to establish themselves...

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski

Ferrari's cranky blogging got them what they wanted.... there is no need for the 107% rule. And this adjustable rear wing sounds like a bag of fail, how are they going to ensure it's just used for overtakes?

Welcome to a grid with only 18-20 cars.

I think it's been said before but actually if the 107% rule, as it appears next year (fastest time set in Q1), had already been in place this year then Hispania would have only failed to race at Bahrain and at Malaysia (and given that it rained they may have even got special dispensation) and in fact both cars would take part in half the races we've had so far. I agree though that in this day and age that every mile that a new team can achieve will help them develop the car and/or driver and therefore actually improve their pace - 107% seems counter-productive. The 13th team next year (let's hoping there is actually one) will face a steep learning curve, but hopefully whoever emerges as the new team next year will be far more prepared. There's also the issue of Chandok missing out on the 107% with a token showing at Quali at Canada because the car was still being repaired late on - it does put a lot of added pressure on teams that have not nailed down the reliability - the fresh teams seem a case in point again. Then you have a case like Alonso at Monaco. Would they allow him dispensation given his weekend pace or would they effectively rule that he misses out of the race because he destroyed the car in final practice and couldn't take part in Quali?

Quote
Aqualyx
Welcome to a grid with only 18-20 cars.

You realise that throughout the duration of this season that most of the newcomers would still have qualified? (edit: zulu_85 explained it in much more detail)



I'm completely against the adjustable rear wing in the sense it has been introduced. It's falsely inviting overtaking. I want overtaking to be difficult. I want drivers to have to fight to get into a position to overtake, not for them to simply press a button (or 2 with KERS) to be in with a chance. Where's the action then?

KERS is different as it has a political message too, and all competitors have the option to use it when they deem necessary.

Having the rear wing adjustment available only to those attempting an overtake is ludicrous and makes a mockery of a sport already lacking in morals and ethics.

Having a new tyre manufacturer with no data next year would have more than enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2010 10:05PM by gav.

i completley agree with the 107% rule... theres going to be some tolerance for the new team i suppose, but once in they should take it seriously if they want in at all....

Lotus is the only new team who seem to take things seriously and want more, considering they have as limited resources as the others and started later, they are doing a very good job, DNF's are part of it, but for next year they should all be settled

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having a new tyre manufacturer with no data next
> year would have more than enough.

exactly... every year they come up with something to make overtaking easier but then something else wrecks it

with the ban on diffusers, the introduction of Pirelli and KERS, should be enough, why add something else?... i can see some clevers engineers taking advantage of it and makig it more difficult than they pretend

i'm quite happy with overtaking this year, and it all pointed for better but as gav says, i want to see some real battles for positions, a driver overtaking another because he deserves it

i completley agree with the 107% rule... theres going to be some tolerance for the new team i suppose, but once in they should take it seriously if they want in at all....

Lotus is the only new team who seem to take things seriously and want more, considering they have as limited resources as the others and started later, they are doing a very good job, DNF's are part of it, but for next year they should all be settled

That doesn't make sense. You say you want the 107% rule because it means anyone not taking it seriously won't get in. But you then go on to say that only Lotus is taking it seriously (which is complete bullsh*t anyway, but we'll roll with it), despite every car being within 107% of the pole time in all of the recent races. So surely with this logic, they are all taking it seriously.

Whilst we're on the subject, lets cut the crap right here anyway. Not taking it seriously? F1 is more expensive, more advanced, and tougher than ever to compete it. Yet, the grid is closer than it ever has been, despite the massive range in budgets. The new teams for 2010 are closer to the back of the grid than teams like Pacific, Minardi and Simtek from just over a decade ago. So lets drop the "not taking it seriously" crap.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Mentioning Simtek and Pacific - if we compare this year with 94, I'd say Hispania are pretty much on par with Simtek, in my opinion, in terms of Qualifying pace at least (just the easiest data for me to use at the moment, can't vouch for accuracy or stuff like that). At Monaco however Kovalainen's fastest qualifying lap was, by my reckoning, 3.268 off the eventual pole time. That gap would have been good enough for 13th on the grid at the 94 Grand Prix. Although using the same model he would actually have started marginally further down the grid at Canada in 94 than he did in reality.

Anyway, in my opinion by making the 107% rule based only on the fastest lap set in Q1 is as kind as the FIA could possibly make it - Q1 lap times will, generally, be slower than the final pole time of course and most of the time all the cars will qualify anyway. But what gets me is that while I think what other posters have said is right - i.e. the rule stinks a bit of caving into the bigger teams moaning about back-markers - I think the assumption by several in this thread that the rule would boot the new teams out of the races seems to have applied to many of the people in the meeting too. Guys like De Montezemelo might moan about the new teams running at a GP2 pace, but if they looked at the data and the lap times they'd realise that the new teams are a quite of lot faster than they may think - certainly a hell of a lot faster than the leading teams had no trouble putting up with in times past, as Dave pointed out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2010 11:09AM by zulu_85.

The Ferrari, Italian Team with Italian Tyre.

the adjustble rear wing will be much cheaper then the f-ducts.

SchueyFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last few races have
> shown that we don't need such novelties to have
> good racing.

Hmm, please don't forget Bore-rain too easily. Canada was good but not as good as it has been in previous years. I agree we are heading in the right direction but there is still much to be done. Such novelties will help. Disagree with the 107% rule though. This will just cause HRT etc to struggle further.

SAMF1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Ferrari, Italian Team with Italian Tyre.

Eh? Just like Honda/Toyota/Bridgestone, the Japanese teams with the Japanese tyre. I don't see the significance...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2010 06:22PM by loque.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i completley agree with the 107% rule... theres
> going to be some tolerance for the new team i
> suppose, but once in they should take it seriously
> if they want in at all....
>
> Lotus is the only new team who seem to take things
> seriously and want more, considering they have as
> limited resources as the others and started later,
> they are doing a very good job, DNF's are part of
> it, but for next year they should all be settled
>
> That doesn't make sense. You say you want the 107%
> rule because it means anyone not taking it
> seriously won't get in. But you then go on to say
> that only Lotus is taking it seriously (which is
> complete bullsh*t anyway, but we'll roll with it),
> despite every car being within 107% of the pole
> time in all of the recent races. So surely with
> this logic, they are all taking it seriously.
>
> Whilst we're on the subject, lets cut the crap
> right here anyway. Not taking it seriously? F1 is
> more expensive, more advanced, and tougher than
> ever to compete it. Yet, the grid is closer than
> it ever has been, despite the massive range in
> budgets. The new teams for 2010 are closer to the
> back of the grid than teams like Pacific, Minardi
> and Simtek from just over a decade ago. So lets
> drop the "not taking it seriously" crap.

well, when you aim to join the highest series in motorsport, do you plan to get in with a wooden car?

my point is Lotus gains in performance compared to Virgin and HRT, no need to get sentimental about it!, they proven to be a lot more prepared and with a will to make better than their main rivals

at this day and age technology is a lot easier to reach than it was a decade ago, so it doesn't make sense to compare F1 back then and nowadays



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2010 07:33PM by Slash.

loque Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm, please don't forget Bore-rain too easily.
> Canada was good but not as good as it has been in
> previous years. I agree we are heading in the
> right direction but there is still much to be
> done.

One boring race out of eight. Oh noes... the burden of it all.

Much needs to be done. Super Mario Formula One FTW!

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Canada wasn't good this year, it was awesome. The only thing lacking from this year's race compared to recent ones was an SC - which shouldn't be necessary in order for a GP to be good.

---