The FIA has made some changes to the F1 Regulations for 2015. These were put forward by the F1 Strategy Group, passed by the F1 Commission and agreed by the FIA World Motor Sport Council. They are designed to cut costs. There is nothing of great significance, just fiddling with the rules with reduced testing, reduced wind tunnel time, reduced CFD and so on. The only significant change from a spectator’s point of view is that Safety Car restarts will now feature standing starts, unless it is within two laps of the start (or of a previous restart) or within five laps of the finish. The design rules will change to make the cars less ugly.
There is also a change of rules that mean that the sporting and technical regulations for the following cannot be changed without unanimous agreement after March 1 each year, rather than the current June 30 date.
The logic of having standing starts for restarts is beyond my comprehension as standing starts are generally more dangerous than rolling starts, although they do provide more chance to alter the running order. thus one can only describe this idea as one that increases the risk of an accident in an effort to spice up the show.
joeblogsf1 
They have just lost another 20 m viewers
But Joe, standing restarts increase the chances that a crash will get on the television news highlights, which we’re told is where those 400million viewers are to be found. There’s your marketing savvy, innit?
Good Lord is this depressing
Standing re-starts are moronic. Plain and simple. What does that say in my faith of the current FIA?
Inmates running the Asylum mate! If this carries on the way it’s going at present, in 5 years time there won’t be half the raceday attendance, the tv figures will be down at least the same, the sponsors will be running for the Exit Doors, and there will only be 5-6 teams competing. Soon after that it will all collapse up it’s own orifice!
I wonder whether more standing starts will actually increase costs by a fair bit.
More generally as a fan of 30+ years I do find the general direction of the sport at the moment quite concerning.
Or if the failure rate will increase.
If you look at what happened in IndyCar with the double-file rolling restarts, it doesn’t sound like a good idea. Double-file is barely acceptable at the start with open-wheel cars.
I don’t understand the FIA. They preach safety and then create a rule that will ensure dangerous scenarios for drivers. ‘Beyond comprehension’ is the perfect way to describe it!
People don’t watch F1 to be entertained. It’s about passion, speed and watching determined racers competing.
I am sure that people will continue to loose interest in this sport, which once was magnificent and still can be.
Soccer is so popular because it is so pure. F1 must also become pure. DRS, double points, starting the race on the same tyres as qualifying, stewards giving inconsistent punishments and now restarting the race after the safety car are all leading towards farce.
Soccer may be defined as pure in terms of simple rules, but I got turned off of it years ago when I saw the athletes kicking opponents’ ankles and throwing themselves on the pitch/field to benefit from a free kick as a goal (no pun intended). I guess life is to see how much the rules can be exploited by some…
Now who write the rules, and who govern that?
>>The logic of having standing starts for restarts is beyond my comprehension<<
Maybe they engaged Randy Bernard as a consultant.
Huh? Randy Bernard was great… what F1 needs is somebody like Randy Bernard… a guy who gives his effing email address to fans so he can listen to them… can you imagine?
He just got screwed by backstabbing BS. The morons on the IMS board who got rid of him proved yet again that just because they know how to put on a race, that doesn’t mean they know anything about racing…
They are going to reform the grid, with the mechanics etc to start the car rushing back to the grid and then back again to the pits, during a live TV broadcast event, and then hope they can get the race finished within the time limits of the race? No one wants to see races ending because of time limits rather than via reaching the last lap. Imagine a rainy race in Canada, with a couple of mid-race safety cars, then add in standing starts? Talk about artificial! I find rolling restarts to be very exciting. I don’t see them making this decision just to be able to roll more commercials – they will do what they want in that area. Thanks for continuing to blog Joe!
Brian, they are not going to stop the race and restart, they are going to pull the safety car in, have the cars stop on the marks, then do a start. They will be stationary for 30 seconds or so and the engines will not be stopped. This will not be a red flag restart. It’s still stupid.
Perfect summation of the rule
And Steve, the silly part of this is the likelihood that the cars will overheat after racing for many laps and then having to stop and do a restart. There is a big difference between a warm up lap – stop for 30 seconds and then start the race then the proposal they are talking about here. I can see the engineers throwing stuff around the room for a day or so and then sitting down thinking about how they have to plan for these thermal losses and how the extra heat load of sitting around stationary a few times – say in Montreal – will affect the machinery. All these standing restart proposals do is give guys like Maldonado more attempts at room for error… Wait, maybe that IS the goal.
Not to mention brakes overheating, resulting in a fire or two. Sorry, this just reeks of a bad decision made by people who have live far too long in the bubble and have little regard for anyone who tells them that perhaps it’s a bad idea. A lot of car will get banged up.
Thanks for the clarification SteveH – the fact that I even imagined the above scenario as possible goes to show you that I thought they were capable of it.
They’ve also started Parc Ferme at the beginning of P3, meaning that you’ll now get about 80 minutes of watching an empty track.
Is there a (non-dubious) reason for establishing Parc Ferme prior to P3?
Saving money?
Incredulous stupidity!! Toad and Shekelstone still making sure they have control of who wins the titles each year! F.I.A……Fixed Innit A55holes!
TOAD & SHEKELSONE! Bucking Frilliant!
Ridiculous rule – may as well red flag it in an accident and save the laps if that’s going to happen.
Of course in that case Mercedes and Allianz wouldn’t get their value for the SC sponsorship so that wouldn’t happen …
Is it April’s Fool’s again?
The Ministry of Silly Ideas. I am afraid to think what happens if a driver has worn tires and has been on an alternative tire strategy is forced to do a standing start. What is a few driver’s lives anyway. It could cut costs. Double points for one race, standanding restarts, silly tires. Are childish ideas. For me sport has long left F1. Unless one believes the lottery is a sport.
Just heard about this change:
Car specification at an Event
The current restrictions to the parc fermé will now apply from the start of P3 instead of the start of qualifying.
What’s the point of P3 then?
Federation d’Imbéciles and Abruti.
I had to Google Abruti…then I laughed for a while, I shall add the word to my arsenal!
The announcement says all teams agreed! The F1SG does not represent all teams so who is on the F1 Commission, is that all teams?
Or is the release just wrong?
All the teams are represented on the F1 Commission.
I would if they have been watching to much nascar?
NASCAR seems a much saner sport now…
In addition to the safety issues, consider the situations (admittedly not so common or recent) when someone puts their hand up for stalling, etc. just at the end of the formation lap and the start is aborted – that usually takes another ten minutes for the chaps with laptops, tyre warmers, etc. to get on the grid, restart all the cars and be ready for the start! I cannot believe this is a serious rule change agreed to by everyone concerned!
Joe – is the rule about not being able to change tyres on a red-flagged then (standing) re-start situation – the one that so annoyed Red Bull with their ‘worn down to the carcass’ tyres a few seasons ago – still in existence?
So nothing logical like wider tyres to increase mechanical adhesion together with standard and less effective front and rear wings to both reduce aerodynamic effects and R&D costs? Another missed opportunity. As for standing starts after safety cars – total lunacy. Haven’t the drivers any say in this or have they been massaged with dollars into silence? Wilson
Most likely the latter…
I mean, wider tyres would have really helped improve mechanical grip without too much reliance on aero, not to mention the aesthetic attraction of seeing a wide-tyred car. But I tell you, someone is purposely trying to undermine the sport. I’m not happy with the rules.
I agree with more reduction in aero (although that has potential implications on jobs). If there was a way to police it, it would be sensible to reduce or ban rapid prototyping, which only became “must have” technology with 24/7 tunnel testing. The rest, as observed is… nuts.
The front-running cars will surely have overheating problems if they have to wait until all of the cars form up. They have overheating problems after the formation laps, imagine how they will overheat after running at racing pace and then suddenly have to stop on the main straight for 20 seconds while the backrunners get into position.
That’s the point. These crazy, childish rule makers want mayhem…
I wouldn’t object to the standing starts quite so much if we didn’t have to wait for ages for lapped cars to un-lap themselves. As there is a limit on how fast they can go, they take forever and a day to catch up to the back of the field.
We’re repeatedly told that F1 has some very smart people, but no-one’s ever thought that it would be far quicker to allow the lapped cars to fall behind the cars on the lead lap once they’re all behind the safety car.
So, more gimmicks. A saying involving deckchairs and a certain ocean liner that struck an iceberg comes to mind. Meanwhile, proper and urgently needed changes like meaningful cost cutting are nowhere to be seen. Presumably it will take a complete implosion of the sport (or EU intervention) for something to be done.
It makes me sad to think that the sport I love is run by a group of halfwits and imbeciles who can’t see further than their own interests.
They needed to change the front and rear crash/impact structures. There was a very obvious way to do this, extending the front horizontally and the rear vertically downwards, so that there was probably a four times better chance of only the crash structures engaging each other in a rear end shunt and preventing submarineing.
Still, deck chairs eh?
Standing starts are one of the more exciting things in F1. Once you see them repeatedly in a race, will they loose there lustre?
Parc ferme at P3!!!!!
F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing and new technology in vehicles. They took such a leap forward this year with the new power units, now three steps backwards. What the hell are these BOZO’s thinking with all these gimmicks.
Get into the new world attracting younger crowds through social media, and you can still retain the older crowd. The way they are heading they will loose there base crowd, and not attract a new one.
Where the hell is Max Mosely????
So the safety car pulls in, and everyone… stops? If anything sums up what’s wrong with Todt’s FIA, there it is.
Weird, innit?
Standing Starts increase the risk of another Safety Car… oh well. It IS, after all, an F1 “circus”
Wonder if the standing start were requested by the promoters to charge more for start finishing line gran stand tickets. Having these break during a GP, not sure that will be better.
I really believe that financial balance is all that is missing. The people at Force India’s shop do an amazing job on a fraction of the big teams budget’s. It’s hard to imagine they couldn’t produce a winning car if the big teams had to run on the same budget. Six or seven teams could be competing for wins with a budget cap and nothing improves the show like racing.
Yup
Nero fiddles…
Funny way of spelling Bernie…
I believe IRL uses standing restarts with poor results. It was total mayhem about a month ago. Each restart is an opportunity for a back marker to GO FOR IT with a high probability of a crash. Then more safety car, repeat.
IRL has some races with standing starts but not restarts. Rolling restarts.
The ‘mayhem’ at the start of the Indianapolis grand prix was caused by inexperience and developing technology. If all the US series used standing starts, drivers would be used to them and such shunts would not happen. However, it’s pretty rare for such a thing to happen, and if IndyCar keeps using then, the drivers will learn. They’re supposed to be top-class drivers.
I must be the only one who’s thought standing restarts sounded like a good idea… Not for the crashing element but because of the chances to overtake. The current rolling start doesn’t really allow for much change in the order. The start of the race is an exciting part of the race and I’m glad as a spectator that there is an opportunity for more. I’m guessing I’m on my own in this view. It must be said this is coming from a younger audience member (25)
But they’ll be restarting on old and possibly cold tyres. Couple that with not knowing exactly what cornering ability the other cars have, and trying to overtake, and you have a recipe for a demolition derby, not a grand prix race.
I’m guessing the Ferrari veto doesn’t apply here? Or are they on board with this stupidity?
Considering the greatest number of crashes are seen at the start of races, they may as well replace the ‘Safety’ car with a snowplough to remove the debris after each restart.
I’m surprised no one has argued that standing restarts are likely to increase costs as more cars will need repairs.
The endlessly stupid rule tweaking to improve the show misses the entire problem – the costs to compete are too high. I’m really getting frustrated by these artificial efforts to improve overtaking.
Next up… FIA announces, in an effort to improve the show every lap will include a standing restart.
It’s as if F1 is trying to destroy itself. I love the new cars and the new engines (weird noses notwithstanding), but I think this might be the last season I watch because it’s just becoming ridiculous now. Thank goodness for the WEC.
Any confirmed reports on Caterham continuing in F1?
They might be but Tony F has finally stopped chopping & changing, and stated that the F1 team is for sale. Quite why anyone would want to buy it I cannot fathom, although it might help someone absurdly rich, convert some monies that they might not want any tax authorities to look at too closely. Being F1, any money put into a team is going to drain out so fast, that no one would see where it went! In fact cash drains out of the teams these days, faster than the lap times of most of the cars!
Standing starts are a ridiculous idea. Imagine if they were in place this year, we would have been robbed of the thrilling ending to the Bahrain GP, one of the best in a long time, because chances are Rosberg on the option tyres would have got the jump off the line on Hamilton and then driven off into the distance. The safety car provided us with some of the best teammate sparring we’ve seen in recent years.
Joe, don’t the drivers have a voice/vote in all this? I would think they generally wouldn’t like this? Except maybe for cars running in 2,3,4 and 5 place hoping to jump the leader at the time?
I may be wrong, but is it not possible that a standing re-start during the race could lead to cars stalling due to overheating, or different engine mapping settings could effect levels of acceleration, or possibly different levels of break wear causing havoc in first corner dash?
What a bunch of numpties, they really don’t know what they are doing!
If it carries on like this The Bolt will be able to buy F1 back for less than he sold it!
😉
Maybe he has a Post Germany Cunning Plan??
Perhaps the cars could jump a shark in each DRS zone.
If they want to spice F1 up a little then why not borrow reverse grids from speedway? Aside from watching them all try not to qualify with the fastest time, “no no, after you, I insist!” unless there was a mechanism to make them qualify, race once and then restart, it would be different.
We tried it once at one of the local club level endurance kart racing series, two hours sprint, then points (the bit that makes you try…) then four hours more racing from a standing start. Of course you have already guessed why we only tried it the once, carnage in the first two laps of the four hour event.
If just shaking things up, why not take a random time as a mark and have the closest time to the mark set pole?
I can see that if the mark was taken as almost exactly that of a slower competitor, that might present some unusual advantage. But there is still enough driver skill involved to satisfy me this is a challenge.
Now add in a best of three sessions aggregate, keeping every driver out on track right through.
What if the first run could be a measured economy run, lowest fuel use wins. Easily conveyed as “economy run”. Three chances over five laps, but with a hard minimum average speed, sort of like the 107% rule.
Session two is the “closest to mark” run, to match a set time. Call this a “precision run”. Make this harder. Only two outings, out lap, times lap, in lap.
Session three is a outright sprint for half a hour, just like quail used to be, fastest lap matters only. “sprint run”
Then aggregate them.
Now then, why not bias constructor points for the economy run, and driver championship points for the precision.
Yes, I just suggested giving points out or Saturday. I think it takes a particular skill to match a time to hundredths of a second, or to conserve fuel above a average lap time, and I believe drivers not often with chances in the race results ought to be rewarded.
Why I would advocate this idea is to convey the legitimate use of economy during the race itself, to provide a greater spectacle and to put the cars through a greater range of tests, whilst entertaining. To me, final sprints matter more if everyone is there. Presently the objective is dialing in sprint performance to get through to the next session. Gross exaggeration of course, but that is the bias, especially if you are on the bubble. I think we would get a greater variety of race setups, and both relax pressure on backpacker teams (especially if they are rewarded, see further) whilst reducing frontrunner teams from just optimizing the heck out of their absolute pace. Race starts could become more interesting.
I also like any idea which can pinch something interesting from LMP and whilst doing so generate variety of commentary. Right now I am so disappointed with the commentary. This would give them a focus to explain how these cars work, and to address driver abilities beyond mechanical pace. So far, I am yet to enjoy the three segment quail and knockout format. I miss the full on sprints and all cars being on track when it comes to the finale, and it’s imperative to increase small team presence on television.
I think this idea could even be pushed as far as including Friday sessions, maybe for economy runs. My contention is I want to test the cars more and test the drivers more and display the skills, and absolutely to make Saturday a event that non fans can appreciate as a self contained display, if they will not see the race. I want something a hour long that will catch non fans’ interest to come back tomorrow, for something other than bribery of my cooking… which though not bad, I tend to hedge with good wine. I want the format of Saturday to explain the issues in a race. Even time matching is relevant, as safety car periods are effectively matching the Mercedes roadster pace, and deliver both challenges and data about aero, tires and cooling.
I would also like teams to be able to trade constructor points for relaxation of parc ferme rules. If backmarker teams could score extra points on Saturday, they might be able to risk those for better sprint pace for the start.
Anything to my view is better than arbitrary double points. I probably won’t, because it cuts my nose to spite my face, but I keep thinking I want to boycott Abu Dhabi just because it could mock a close season likely between the two Mercedes dudes, and I can’t think of it doing other than cause a awful lot of artificial rivalry of the resentful nature. All for sake of unintelligent press coverage. Column inches we know from Karen are significantly down by usual key measures are not well filled with upset opinionating.
Easiest way to reduce costs for the teams is for them to get more money. There is too much money being earned in F1 that is taken straight out of the sport. When will the teams do something about this? How can BE have them by the balls like this? The teams ARE F1!
Joe – whilst fundamentally I agree with you that there is too big a funding gap between the top, middle and bottom teams, I think there is an issue that I would like you to address in one of your blog posts. That is, a reduction in spending will likely mean a reduction in team headcount.
Perhaps that could be limited to PR staff, which I know you feel have limited value, but more than likely it will be the mechanics and engineers. The growth in budgets has meant that the motorsport industry, largely centred in the UK has been able to expand.
Hello Joe, well, when I attended your “Talk with Joe” in Melbourne “we” were clearly all waiting to see what would happen in the new F1 green, efficient, world. The problems that have surfaced with since then are slowley showing, from my position at least, that there needs to be a change of direction and soon if F1 is to be saved from its-self. I suspect that time and old age, plus technology has caught up with Bernard.
Some problems that still need addressing. We have rules that forbid engine improvements in season. Ok, but what is more expensive, finding a controlled way to allow a manufacture to improve his product, or lose that manufacture and a fan base, because only a single manufacture can win? Obviously only a single car can win at any race, but come on, is what we now have the competition we want?
When teams voice concerns that they cant compete “until next year” then we do have a problem.
Time, technology, budgets and the return on investment from all angles are going to kill this series if some real sanity is not provided soon. How much longer will sponsors be attracted to a reduced viewer profile while Bernie/CVC continue to sell Pay-per-View?
How can teams provide entertainment, and yes I know the front guys have provided good racing, but that will end as we get towards the end of the season and the championship is out of sight.
The young generation, future fans, can’t/won’t pay to see racing that only takes 2 hours on a Sunday, and yet the current cars are struggling with this because we have limited the engine “life” to five engines per season! Who are we kidding? The real cost involved in motor production is design and tooling, not testing in season. We recently had a group wanting to reduce the Friday practice to a single session, are these really the people we want deciding what happens to F1 in the future?
Reducing wind tunnel work to X teraflops? Come on! That is not a cost saving!
Starting at the top, the sooner the Munich court finds a verdict and CVC has to stop hiding behind Bernie, the sooner the issues can be addressed.
How much longer can the majority of teams continue to juggle a yearly loss of $60 million dollars?
You will well remember the time when a guy could find a budget of $5 million and go F1 racing, convert that to current money Vs what people are spending on these very complex cars and you will soon agree that there needs a solution. Its not based around batterys and such like, its based around entertainment and future fans.
Manufactures are disappearing and are being replaced by smaller, more agile companys that produce cheaper cars for the emerging masses to own, the F1 manufacture can only buy the hearts of the young with an image of success.
Ok, thats my Monday morning rant, think about it and reply as you wish, but you care as I care, so you know we have a problem that needs fixing.
Party on.
Well, I for one, enjoyed your Monday Morning Rant, Tony!
I’m not buttering you up deliberately,… oh, okay, just a bit because, but also, not as the first reason… have you looked at my “Microsoft should buy F1” comments of recent days? Or my “give points for different challenges in quali” above? Or caught Jem on the case of the teraflops modeling limits? Or rpaco on the FIA abandonment and past abuse of other formulae? I’d love it if you could let us have a Tuesday Morning Rant, on those! Cheers! ~ john
P.s. I think there may be a possibility that if MB can sell more than four PUs, that the complexity of extracting performance from these amazing beasts will return much potential to smaller designers with brains and not just billionaire budgets.
Hi Joe,
re: standing starts…isn’t this just another incentive for deliberate crashing as in Singapore 2009?
No
A tangential question: When a team has a tech deal with another team, might that deal include 2-way information sharing?
I ask because FI has some sort of deal with McLaren, such that FI pays to obtain benefit from McLaren’s capabilities… but FI clearly knows something McLaren doesn’t about tyre wear, rear traction, and God-knows what else…
So, do we think their deal permits McLaren to learn whatever FI knows about those things? Or have we no idea about that?
Also, do teams who are also engine suppliers get to spy on engine data from their customer teams’ cars?