The FIA World Motor Sport Council has announced that Pirelli has been selected as the single tyre supplier for Formula 1 for the 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons. The news is not a huge surprise. The Council has also announced that it will be considering a specific licence for members of teams entered in the FIA World Championships. If accepted this will be introduced at the start of next year. It would be adopted in other World Championships after that. This means that competitors can be punished if they are caught cheating. At the moment there is no available punishment as the competitors are not licence holders.
As expected the Safety Car rules have been revamped with cars being allowed to overtake one another on the last lap of a race after the cars pass the first Safety Car line but only if the Safety Car is going into the pits. If the Safety Car is still deployed at the beginning of the last lap, or is deployed during the last lap, it will enter the pit lane at the end of the lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal – but without overtaking.
The World Council ruled that with immediate effect, any car “being driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically, or which is deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers, will be reported to the stewards”. This will apply whether any such car is being driven on the track, the pit entry or the pit lane. In order to ensure cars are not driven unnecessarily slowly on IN-laps during qualifying or reconnaissance laps when the pit exit is opened for the race, drivers must stay below the maximum time set by the FIA between the safety car line after the pit exit and safety car line before the pit entry. The maximum time will be determined by the race director at each event prior to the first day of practice, but may be amended during the event if necessary.
The FIA has also ruled that from the start of next year any driver who cannot set a time within 107% of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards.
The World Council has approved adjustable bodywork may be activated by the driver at any time prior to the start of the race and, for the sole purpose of improving overtaking opportunities during the race, after the driver has completed the first two laps. The driver may only activate the adjustable bodywork in the race when he has been notified via the control electronics that it is enabled. It will only be enabled if the driver is less than one second behind another at any of the pre-determined positions around each circuit. The system will be disabled the first time the driver uses the brakes after the system has been activated. The FIA may, after consulting all the competitors, adjust the time proximity in order to ensure the purpose of the adjustable bodywork is met. With the exception of the parts necessary for the driver adjustable bodywork, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited from 2011. This means that the F-duct is banned.
From the start of next year, the minimum weight of the car must not be less than 640 kg at all times during the event.
With immediate effect, it has been ruled that if a sample of fuel is required after a practice session the car concerned must have first been driven back to the pits under its own power.
In addition to all these new rules the World Council has decided that Chinese driver Ho-Pin Tung should be granted a four-race probationary Super licence. This is based on his career résumé and comparative F1 testing times.
Interestingly, the FIA has also decided that competitors at FIA events “must act as ambassadors for the sport, be aware their conduct on the road must be exemplary and respect road safety rules”. The World Council agreed that the International Sporting Code be examined to ensure the Federation’s overall objectives and, in particular, its commitment to road safety, are upheld.
It has been announced that there will be an Extraordinary Meeting of the World Motor Sport Council on Friday September 10 in Como, Italy.
joeblogsf1 
Good to see, but I’m a little confused by the 107% qualifying rule.
“From 2011, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards.”
What?
You can certainly tell the difference now Max has gone. There’s nothing here that has been introduced to force the teams into a particular position. It all seems like sensible improvements and clarifications. Well done Jean Todt !
On a shallow note though, back when I started taking notice of F1, Pirelli were the name at the top of the rear wing endplate on the Ferrari’s. I’ve had a soft spot for them ever since, so I’m glad they’re back.
In order to ensure cars are not driven unnecessarily slowly on in-laps during qualifying or reconnaissance laps when the pit exit is opened for the race, drivers must stay below the maximum time set by the FIA between the safety car line after the pit exit and safety car line before the pit entry. The maximum time will be determined by the race director at each event prior to the first day of practice, but may be amended during the event if necessary.
And what happens if a driver has a puncture, an off-road excursion, has to slow down to avoid some other driver’s accident/mishap? All of these things could lead to times outside the window, none of which would be deliberate, all of which would get them into trouble with this rule.
Nice to see some measures in the rules that deal with not completing an in-lap for fuel sampling, F-duct bodywork holes and the like.
The rear wing device sounds incredibly fake.
F1 is becoming WWE, all show and no sport.
I guess that the FIA issuing a competitors license means that Bernie passes are no longer required? or does it? They will certainly come with a cost attached to help the poor FIA make ends meet when CVC stops paying for the commercial rights.
Pirelli as the sole supplier? Boy, the teams are certainly going to miss Bridgestone. I guess the calenders will make up for some of the performance loss.
“any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited”
I can think of some driver movements that alter the aero characteristics : for example, braking changes the pitch, which alters the aero characteristics, in the same way that the fduct changes the areo characteristics.
1 & 2: If a driver sets a time 7% or more slower than the fastest Q1 time (i.e., if the fastest Q1 time is 1:40.000, then any time equal to or slower than 1:47.000) because their car is Just That Slow, then they won’t be allowed to start. If they don’t set a time because they broke their car in practice (like Alonso in Monaco) or set too slow a time because they mess up when they do a lap during a wet/dry Q1 (like the McLarens in Malaysia), but that obviously doesn’t represent their true speed, then the stewards will call it “exceptional circumstances” and let them start.
Simple as that.
“The FIA has also ruled that from the start of next year any driver who cannot set a time within 107% of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances, however, the stewards may permit the car to start the race.”
That’s to make sure the favoured few are allowed to race, wouldn’t want to upset Monty would we.
“With immediate effect, if a sample of fuel is required after a practice session the car concerned must have first been driven back to the pits under its own power.” A typically ambiguous FIA rule here… what if the driver runs out of fuel? That’s the whole point of the rule, yet it doesn’t state what the consequences are… moronic.
would the 107% rule have prevented any cars from participating this year, if it had applied?
John
All kinds of odd little titbits here.
Ho-Pin Tung… I guess Renault are planning to run him in FP1 at Singapore, or something? It strains credibility to think that they would want to dump Petrov — he’s posting decent results on circuits he knows. Maybe daddy has been slow coming through with the dosh?
Interesting too to see the rules with immediate effect about erratic driving and having enough fuel to get back to the pits for a sample — the “Naughty Michael” and “Naughty Lewis” rules. And, for that matter, the rules about finishing under the safety car and respecting local road laws (“Naughty Michael 2” and “Naughty Lewis 2”).
Presumably the 107% rule makes a return to satisfy Monty’s ego, as other than the Hispanias in the first couple of races there has been almost no-one who has fallen afoul of it, even with some of the fraught circumstances this season. Presumably ART or Epsilon next year will have no difficulties in that regard…
Hi Joe,
I have a question… if the drivers would be allowed to use movable rear wing after a Safety Car restart.
the same logic should apply as with the first 2 laps of the race as all cars would be very close together….
The 107% rule is garbage. Congratulations on finding another way to siphon sponsorship money away from the new teams. Who in their right mind would sponsor a team that won’t actually make it to the race?
107% is a bit near the nuckle for some of the new teams at the moment but a quick fag packet calculation showed only karun would have failed in Canada as he was 8 seconds behind everyone and they all would have started in Turkey with Karun .3 secs inside. Even going back to Bahrain only the HRTs fell out of the 107%
Assuming they should be in an area of bigger returns than the front teams then the gap should close. Just the 13th team then needs to worry?
Ho Pin Tung a superlicense and Sebastien Loeb refused. I am pleased to see the FIA continuing with decisions that make sense and will improve the racing.
I hope that this won’t be the same group of monkeys making decisions on my long term health care later in life!
It seems the FIA also felt that some cars are too slow.
Also interesting that “movable aerodynamic devices” is not restrictive to rear wings.
Another note on the F-duct, from their statement, is that it is deemed illegal when it “uses driver movement” (a la McLaren and Ferrari), but not necessarilly when it is automatic, such as the one currently being developed by Mercedes (and perhaps others).
No mention on KERS. Does that mean that it is still deemed as part of the formula and that it is unto FOTA to decide whether it is to be used, or not?
“must act as ambassadors for the sport, be aware their conduct on the road must be exemplary and respect road safety rules”……..well, the gentlemen F1 drivers better start thinking about hiring a private chauffeur. Looks a bit like the infamous NASCAR rule that says “for actions detrimental to etc.”
Increased weight limit is very welcomed and will increase overtaking. The 107% rule seems sensible too.
However this over taking rear wing system is ridiculous. It’s a real backward step for F1. Yes it will increase overtaking but by totally artificial means. So any ‘improvement’ to the show will be utterly superficial and worthless.
I’m all for movable rear wings, but make them available to all drivers, all the time.
Why not just call it the Flav rule?
Pity they’ve gone for a single tyre supplier. I think competition between tyre manufacturers would have been a great addition.
Only McLaren get Kers working, and it is banned.
Only McLaren get the F-duct working and it is banned.
Is there a pattern here?
I thought Kers was coming back and double defusers were out. But then they are not McLaren items I suppose.
Maybe it’s me and I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like your paragraph about the Safety Car has two sentences which contradict each other. I think your first ‘on the last lap of the race’ is not right.
Good to see the FIA being more responsive in getting regulations sorted out.
I wonder how the FIA is going to control, limit and police the use of the movable wing.
To me, this looks like another idea that isn’t thought through well enough. Instead of curing the illness they just strap some pseudo-action on top.
Is it me or does the adjustable rear wing rule sound massively over-complicated?
I assume the purpose of the 107% qualifying rule is that, if force majeure eg. an accident or mechanical problem prevents a driver from setting a competitive Q1 time, evidence from the practice sessions that the car and driver combination is capable of sufficient pace will be considered as justification for a grid slot. That makes sense. Surely nobody thinks that a top driver should not make the start because of an electronics problem in Q1 or something of that nature.
I don’t understand the clarification of the last lap Safety Car scenario, however. If the safety car is still out at the start of the last lap, there is to be no overtaking when it pulls in at the end of that lap to preserve the finish photo? If that is the case, then under what circumstance could this now-permitted race to the line after the first safety car line if it is going to the pits take place? The two parts seem directly contradictory.
I understand the ruling now. I found a post which explains it excellently:
“So, the FIA has re-introduced the 107% rule for 2011, meaning any cars outside the 107% bracket of the fastest Q1 time will not be allowed to compete.
I thought I’d do a little calculating, and see who would be eliminated from the GPs so far if this rule were in place now. Don’t know why…
GP
Q1 TIME
107% TIME
DRIVERS ELIMINATED (TIME)
Bahrain 1:54.612 2:02.635 SEN (2:03:204) CHA (2:04.904)
Australia 1:24.774 1:30.708 N/A
Malaysia 1:46.283 1:53.723 CHA (1:56.299) SEN (1:57.269) DIG (1:59.997)
China 1:35.641 1:42.336 N/A
Spain 1:21.412 1:27.111 SEN (1:27.122)
Monaco 1:14.757 1:19.990 N/A
Turkey 1:27.067 1:33.162 N/A
Canada 1:15.889 1:21.201 CHA (1:27.757)
Interesting. Excluding Malaysia, which featured variable weather, there were only 4 occasions where a driver/s were slower then 107% of the fastest Q1 time. Excluding Chandhok’s problem in Canada, that leaves only 3.
Obviously (if HRT continue next year), the only logical prediction is that HRT, like Virgin and Lotus, will close the gap slightly more.
So I ask the question: Will this rule make any real difference? And if not, why is it being brought back?”
In short, the rule is being put in place to appease the teams and drivers with the much faster cars. Allowing them to run the race without having to run through as much traffic as they normally would. I feel this rule is a little harsh, especially on brand new teams who are trying to break ground into the sport. These are the best drivers and cars in the world, they should know how to deal with traffic…
The re-introduction of the 107% rule is nonsense. Everyone other than Chandhok who was 8 seconds from a representative time was within 105% in Canada. This is just a typical FIA knee jerk reaction to people moaning about slow traffic on the track.
This is typical of the FIA. Introduce a ridiculously complicated regulation that makes no sense to anyone and no-one watching is going to know what is going on. When I see something like this I always wonder what they ruled out to arrive at this disaster.
Have the FIA said why they are having an extraordinary meeting.
Whats the deal with Ho Pin-Tung? Is a current F1 driver up for the chop during the summer season?
I understood that Pirelli were pushing for an 18″ wheel. Were there any discussions on that I wonder?
The business where drivers get adjustable bodywork when close behind another car does sound a bit like something from Mario Kart, but I guess it’s worth an experiment…
“As expected the Safety Car rules have been revamped with cars being allowed to overtake one another on the last lap of a race after the cars pass the first Safety Car line but only if the Safety Car is going into the pits.”
Is that right? That’s not what the WMSC release says to me:
“With immediate effect, no car may overtake until it has passed the first safety car line for the first time when the safety car is returning to the pits. However, if the safety car is still deployed at the beginning of the last lap, or is deployed during the last lap, it will enter the pit lane at the end of the lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking.”
To be honest, I’m still a little fuzzy on how that one has been cleared up, so I really don’t know what the situation is. Have they preserved the status quo (i.e. Schumachers move was illegal and now clearly so) or have they opened the rule to allow drivers to do it? From my hazy perspective, it seems the former.
Oh and the adjustable rear wings thing sounds rubbish. Not looking forward to that.
Could somebody explain why there’s only tire supplier again?
I’ll bet Ferrari are currently training onboard hamsters – not driver activated hamsters – to stand upright when wind speeds exceed 100MPH to activate H-ducts. Little magnets *ahem* Duct taped to their heads…
The 107% Rule was around in the 90’s when the grids were bigger wasn’t it?
“The World Council has approved adjustable bodywork may be activated by the driver at any time prior to the start of the race and, for the sole purpose of improving overtaking opportunities during the race, after the driver has completed the first two laps. The driver may only activate the adjustable bodywork in the race when he has been notified via the control electronics that it is enabled. It will only be enabled if the driver is less than one second behind another at any of the pre-determined positions around each circuit. The system will be disabled the first time the driver uses the brakes after the system has been activated. The FIA may, after consulting all the competitors, adjust the time proximity in order to ensure the purpose of the adjustable bodywork is met.”
Next stop: green and red turtle shells and banana skins that can be launched by the driver to slow opponents down. Compulsory bushy moustaches and race suits tailored to look like overalls to be introduced shortly thereafter.
Shaun: To me it is basically a catch-all ruling where drivers/cars who are fundamentally competitive are not unfairly excluded from racing that weekend, be it due to driver error, car problems, adverse weather, etc.
What it may give rise to (if further regulation does not stipulate) is the running of controversial but deemed legal parts on the car during practice which may advantage a slower car to creep into the race. However, times set using these elements would probably be negated as I believe the stewards would have a say in this.
The moveable bodywork thing is interesting. It has potential but perhaps I am seeing one or two negatives in it too.
1. You can only use it after two laps. Some of the bravest overtaking is off the start line on cold tyres, brakes, etc. I cannot see the point of a two lap wait before the system is active.
2. The device stops as soon as the driver hits the brakes. So you’re following, let’s say, Mr. Schumacher who pushes you towards the wall or brake-tests you. You had a decent run on him and suddenly his move causes you to brake and disables your device.
Other than that, it is good to see the safety car rule cleared up and the 107% rule back. I agree with ‘thewizardweb’. It is a new and happier era at the FIA.
“Unnecessarily” is entirely subjective. Unavoidable can look like the same thing.
“With the exception of the parts necessary for the driver adjustable bodywork, any ……… procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited from 2011.”
Hah Ha!
No more the driver moving his head to improve air flow to the airbox.
Love to see how they police that one!
PS Why Pirelli no surprise?
Unless of course the long arm of Max is still about.
The bit about the stewards having the power to allow a car in is to allow for a car that has set decent enough times in free practice to compete from the back of the grid in the event of a technical problem or crash in qualifying. I’m not sure about what seems to be granting the stewards to decide though – if you have a car that sets a good enough lap in free practice that ought to be good enough to allow it to race – after all that will mean it’s quick enough not to be a mobile chicane. For all that the stewards/race director have always been able to use black flags for dangerous driving and being ‘too slow’ is just that. (just ask Milka Duno after the Iowa round of the IndiCar series…)
The one make tyre rule is bolzup as far as I’m concerned. While Todt has made some decisive, good decisions since he’s become president, this, in my view, is not one of them.
Joe,
“As expected the Safety Car rules have been revamped with cars being allowed to overtake one another on the last lap of a race after the cars pass the first Safety Car line but only if the Safety Car is going into the pits. If the Safety Car is still deployed at the beginning of the last lap, or is deployed during the last lap, it will enter the pit lane at the end of the lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal – but without overtaking.”
The first part says that a driver is allowed to overtake on the last lap when SC is deployed, the second part says that they can’t.
In this case, the safety car is always going to go into the pits on the last lap whether it is still deployed or no longer required by race control. any chance of a bit more clarification..?
Joe,
Some of the changes seems to make sense (Safety Car, 107% rule) although I think there won’t be many missing a race as things are closing up pretty well, even with the newcomers.
But, the adjustable device bit doesn’t pass the common sense test. If you am leading a car by less then a second at certain parts of the course, that potentially slower car can then activate a drag reduction and pass you even though it could actually be a slower car. Usually, with regulatory actions, such as in aviation, there is a lot of material available explaining the research and rationale behind a new or revised regulation.
When will we (the common folk) see, if it even exists, that sort of thing – I know the answer is “NEVER”.
Essentially, a quicker car/driver combination could lose a position and a race because a slower car is given an advantage. Lots of places for error particularly in the “electronic notifications” – software development is a complex process (ask Toyota about their road cars) which I am sure the F1 contingent is very familiar with but don’t you see a number of failure modes that are going to be difficult to manage. I didn’t see if this rule would be in effect of race days were odd or even dates.
If you apply the CST(Common Sense Test) to F1, it comes up short. I will say the quick movement on the Safety Car rule is refreshing. Does this mean there is hope.
Shaun,
The short version is that anyone more than 7% off the fastest Q1 time will only be allowed on the grid if the stewards say so.
The complexity and stupidity of F1 is stunning. First off, they expand the number of teams allowed to race. Any serious F1 fan knows it takes time, effort and a boatload of cash to get to a reasonable level of semi-competiveness. Since entries are restricted, it’s not like any team can come and try to race. The invocation of the 107% rule will only prevent those new teams from running, hence no sponsor will want to be associated with them, ultimately leading to the teams demise. Maybe the they should give the new teams more test time to come up to speed.
In addition, the complexity of the adjustable rear wing rules is equally idiotic. Not within the first 2 laps, only if one second behind, only on certain portions of the track, etc….
This to improve overtaking! The driver being overtaken cannot adjust his rear wing, will mave one move to defend and hit the KERS button, negating the overtaking attempt.
NOW WHAT?
Low noses, smaller front wing, bigger tires for more mechanical grip, smaller rear wing and no rear diffuser.
What could it hurt?
racerx
You’re not far wrong.
How about derestricting engines and giving a set amount of biofuel for qualifying then a maximum amount for the race. The idea for wings and tyres makes sense but he engineers would need more leeway for development on the suspension and chassis.
Missed opportunity with the tyre supply. Competition and 18″ rims would have made me smile.
Whats your opinion on all of this lot then Joe?
Waits with baited breadth………………….
Cheers
Andy
Andy H
There are lots of ideas floating about. I agree tht there should ebe more development potential but how does one balance that with cost-cutting… I guess the way to do it is to do what the manufacturers want and then they will stump up the cash, or pay for the result of a private team’s research (a la Williams)
Interesting that Mark Webber said adjustable rear wings are fine on a playstation but overtaking should not result from someone pressing a button to lower a wing or trigger KERS.
I am not the biggest Webber fan in the world but he talks a lot of sense.
Joe,
A lot of the ideas floating around are common sense and they also would lead to cost cutting – KERS, no KERS. Double diffusers, no double diffusers don’t save money. If F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing, it has, by definition, to be both the technical and performance pinnacles. The regulations that hamper the engineers (regulated engine performance, movable but restricted front wings, now gone, adjustable bodywork with a rule so complicated it will be enforced by a computer which will electronically display to the driver when or if he can use it – now how does this make anything safer as we now have a distracted driver looking for the blinking equivalent of a text message telling him he is less than 1.0 seconds behind the car in front as it would not be possible make the determination 1.0 vs 1.01).
No testing which is also a knock for safety. The test drivers can hardly be considered current in the cars in case they’re called upon. The development pieces cannot really be evaluated and then a decision as to their raceworthiness has to be made Friday morning.
Don’t you wonder, Joe, how and why so many pieces are falling off cars- more than I recall in the past??? We’re not getting the best out of the drivers or the engineers preventing them from working on the cars. You don’t think they go without pay between races do you?
Why don’t you regale us with tales of CFD and how that will save the day?
F1 is going to be expensive no matter what. The decision makers who brought us the “adjustable bodywork” rule are proving how inept they really are. As the FIA were able to quickly clarify the Safety Car ambiguity and put out an erratic driving prohibition, one would hope they could fix the movable wing and electronic notification.
Between race testing should be resumed and rules written which promote design diversity rather than restrict it. The fans have been saying this for a long time. The FIA should listen.
Gosh really not entusiastic about the return of the 107% rule, why do they just make it harder for new teams. I can’t fathom why people say the new teams take away from the spectacle, I want to see on track RACING, and if a Lotus and a HRT are dicing wheel to wheel, just because they might be 8 seconds off the pole sitter, or in 20th place does not make it many less exciting – they are still top drivers hovering around 200mph! What is NOT good for the sport about that? The more cars the more oppurtunity for battles on track…