Representatives from the non-member teams will henceforth be invited to meetings of the F1 Strategy Group, in order for them to have access to the discussions. This does not mean that they will have a vote, but the move is designed to demonstrate that the FIA and the Commercial Rights Holder want to improve transparency in the sport. The implication is that the two parties are unable to give the small teams a vote because of the contractual arrangements that exist with the other teams.
The argument that really needs to be discussed is whether or not the Strategy Group is the right way for F1 to make decisions, or whether the rule-making structures should be changed when the current Concorde Agreement comes to an end in 2020.
The decisions taken today by the Strategy Group and then the F1 Commission include ditching the halo system of head protection and concentrate development on the new “shield” concept. The FIA says it will carry out tests of this system in preparation for implementation in 2018.
The rules will also be modified to get rid of the T wings and shark fins. There will also be new rules to make sure that no-one uses oil as fuel. In addition, only one specification of oil can be used for any given power unit during an event.
It was also agreed that Pirelli will be allowed to develop 2018 wet weather tyre compounds using previous specifications of cars and wheel dimensions.
It was also agreed that if a race is red-flagged, the race will be restarted with a standing start.
The FIA has also informed the teams that from the Spanish onwards, the sporting regulations will be strictly enforced to ensure spectators can see the names of the drivers and the numbers of the cars.
joeblogsf1 
Seems that broadly speaking, the nit-picking continues.
That all sounds very sensible! At last there is some light at the end of the dire tunnel that F1 has been in. Just having numbers and names on view is a great step forward if one spectates at races. Something I’ve not bothered to do in F1 this Century. And making the cars look better is good as well. However it would be a real step forward to allow them to actually look different as they did up until the mid 90s or so. Let’s have some triangle monocoques tea tray wings teapot air intakes! Good God please let us have some VARIETY!!!
Brabham BT44B any-one ?
That would be the lobster one?
I suppose that it be be looked at in that way. The BT44B in Martini colours was a nice looking car.
No that was the BT34. But again, it got a nickname, which is something cars back then could get because the looked different to each other. What could a fan call a modern RB? Ermmm, The “Identical to all the Others”!
One of my personal favorites! And you couldn’t go to a race and not recognize that car!
Damian – how would you ‘allow’ that?
Specify a budget for the season and allow free rein within that. Designers could do as they pleased, just so long as they could do it for the money. Open-wheel, closed-wheel, two or four or six-wheel drive, petrol, diesel, turbocharged, normally aspirated, supercharged, open-cockpit (with the safety cover if decreed) or full roof, whatever they wished with no limits other than budget and passing crash testing.
It may potentially make for an exciting championship as different solutions could be best suited on different types of track. Some teams may produce a car which is blisteringly quick on fast open tracks, others may produce one which is brilliant on street circuits, and the rest could be decent everywhere without dominating one kind of layout. Small teams could aim to make their car specialize in three or four tracks to pull off shock results at the expense of competitiveness elsewhere, whereas manufacturer teams would need to balance abilities to chase titles.
Put what is currently spent on making and enforcing design rules into enforcing the budget. Perhaps having the FIA appoint a bank to control the money in accounts which the teams would have to use to make all payments to suppliers and staff so that the total throughput could be monitored. It’d be a tough job to keep tabs, but with enough resource it could be done.
and a scone sidepod for me please!
So would you volunteer your team to have one of the slow shapes? I think the reason the car look broadly similar is the a lot of very intelligent engineers have discovered that that shape is the fastest one the regulations allow.
The bigger differences in the past were down to a lack of understanding as to what the fastest shape was.
Hands up. Who has been using lub oil as fuel then?
Just as the rest of the world is on the verge of giving up on oil engines, some in F1 have been taking this unhealthy technology up it seems. Indirect VW influence?
Solamente una squadra…
exactamente. And this ruling will kill the eager competition we are now enjoying and bring back the dreaded Mercedes Solo we had for 3 years.
Not necessarily… it was going on all last season.
Argh, is that a joke you’re writing about ?
I think the smokin’ exhaust was easy to see on the Merc as it left the garage during qually.
the bit from yesterday’s strategy group meeting “measures will be taken to ensure that oil will not be used as fuel” was interesting, it was the first time this comes-up more than just a rumor. but I hardly finished reading that when I came upon another rumor that have started doing the rounds ” Mercedes fuel tank vent feed air into compressor during qualifying Q3, fuel tank is filled with hydrocarbon gasses, most likely derived from the same race fuel, not a small volume, 120 liters with some some pressure which gives them the additional fuel volume for more power”. at this rate of rumor production the strategy group will have to hold a meeting every day.
Strategy group is a terrible concoction. The inmates are running the asylum.
RE visible names and numbers – hooray!
I wouldn’t hold your breath – neither will be seen in any great detail on a TV/laptop/iPads. Never mind at speed track side. Personally, I’ve got used to identifying drivers by their helmet colours and designs coupled with wing flashes.
Having only discovered F1 a few years ago I find their rule-making process so byzantine..
FIA – rights holder -some teams.. Honestly WTF?
Being used to Indycar and Nascar – I find the idea of having the commercial rights holder and rule maker being separate entities just odd.
And yes, teams are asked for input – but to actually have a vote!?!?!
Too many vested interests in that pie… No wonder F1 has its issues.
Remember that F1s history and hart is as an international sporting competition. NASCAR is a private entertainment business that pretends to be a sport.
Nascar does have its issues – but Indycar is the same way, and so is every other sport in the US.
Inter-intra, it shouldn’t matter.
And if Nascar ever changes to responsible hands, the new owner has the power to actually fix things without going hat in hand for votes from the teams he is paying!
I think you’ll find that ESPN and other networks don’t have much of a say over the rules of MLB, NHL, NFL, or MLS.
F1 is the only organisation I know where the participants are allowed to discuss the rules that they will play by…..huh???? It’s almost akin to asking all the Premier League teams to come to the table and discuss changing the rules of the football played on pitch.
Scrap it all. Ross Brawn makes the rules and presents them to FIA and WMSC who ratify it. Teams abide by it. The end.
if Ross Brawn was to write the rules/makes the rules he would be so much undecided because of him remembering what he used to want done when sitting on the other side of the fence.
How much do I disagree with salvuborg about this? Let me count the ways…
Well if anyone could come up with some rules that could not be circumvented it would be he.
I think the participants discussing the rules up front is right, and how it should be SpeedsterAce. The part where they get to vote on them (and can block anything not to their liking if they stick together) is not good.
I agree that the whole thing should be ditchted ASAP and replaced by something that makes more sense for the sport, instead of being in effect the “haves” warping the playing field in their favour to make for an unequal competition.
@ speedsterAce – Have the rules of football changed in the last 100 years? Some sports take a high handed approach to changing the rules, Track Cycling is one, but even they have started – slowly – to take on the views of the riders.
There is nothing wrong with competitors making the rules in any sport, because that is exactly how the rules were formulated in the first place. it’s only old men in jackets who think otherwise. We’ve seen what happens when the FIA ignore team’s input, we get joking qualifying, daft radio rules and double diffusers.
The only fly in the ointment is worrying too much about the moans of a few keyboard warriors and believing they speak for every fan of F1.
I hate to break it to you Jonno, but the rules of football (I’ll assume you mean the one where the foot is actually the dominate method of controlling the ball, rather than the American or Australian versions), have changed a number of times in the last 100 years. the last change being in just 1998. Here’s a link to FIFA’s page on the subject: http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/who-we-are/the-laws/ (and if Joe removes that, just google for ‘changes in the rules of football’)
@Ben K – Shock horror. Nearly 20 years ago, and that was only tinkering. In that time F1 has had 10 or more court cases over their constantly changing rulz.
Visible names are unnecessary if the drivers would stick to one helmet for their careers. Senna, Stewart and Prost didn’t need a name on their cars.
Visible numbers, now there is a return to common sense. Very unF1-like and good news.
In his Tyrrell days the name STEWART was written large by the cockpit! And helmet colours were fine but today most seem to have lots of artwork. Ickx Amon Hill Snr etc etc were easy to spot, always the same helmet id.
@Anthony Jenkins – A driver’s helmet is the only personalised part of a car. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to race in what is often a work of art, not some 5 minute job with 2 cans of paint. Using the same design throughout their career is impossible, because the helmets are expected to be a billboard for team and sponsors decals, which can change every season. Fifty years ago, there was no money in helmets and most drivers used the same helmet for many races. If Jackie Stewart had been offered good money to change his helmet design, he’d have taken it.
Why blame the drivers if teams can’t be bothered to show a visible number on a car?
There were more sponsors in the 80s and 90s than the current era (with several teams without even a title sponsor these days). Yet The likes of Berger, Alesi, Coulthard, Herbert, Hakkinen, Prost, Mansell, Brundle, Blundell, Capelli, Boutsen, Gugelmin, Irvine, Hill and Patrese all had distinctive helmet designs that remained constant throughout their career and accommodated a number of different teams liveries and sponsor logos.
@Bob Ballard – that would be when we could actually see a driver’s head in the car. When the shield/halo arrives, we’ll have to take it on trust there is actually a driver in the car.
I hear the Red Bullies are attempting to stop Honda receiving help from other engine manufacturers to enable them to catch up with the leading teams. I don’t expect RB wouldn’t have an issue with Renault being allowed to work on their power plant, whilst other engines would be stopped from working on theirs, as has happened in the past.
I’m finding RB more and more objectionable as every season passes.
You make a good point. Presumably only TAG are allowed input to the RB engine technology.
Anyone else remember Larrousse losing their 1990 points because their chassis was really designed & built by Lola? As everyone knew perfectly well, it wasn’t a secret.
Words do not exist to express how much I’d like to see RBR advised by the FIA that only powerplants entirely designed & manufactured by TAG-Heuer would be able to pass scrutineering for the remainder of the season. Unsporting, I know. I’ve just had it with those people.
How much influence has Ross Brawn had with these discussions?…it seems to me that he is slowly and methodically steering common sense back into the sport…and Mr Todt is very lucky there is someone actually driving the boat, as he doesn’t have the stomach (or time?) to do it himself…very happy the little man has been put on ice…not nice to say really…but can’t wipe the grin off my face…
Joe is the red flag rule effective immediately or next year? I presume the stuff on T wings and Fins Shark is for next year or am I wrong?
Whilst a welcome move, if the small teams have no vote and the large teams still effectively have a say in the regulations going forward it is just window dressing.
I would venture that all the while Todt is president changes will be small and drawn out. Like Bernie, he is part of the problem, not the solution. Read Joe’s interview with him published recently and while Joe asks pertinent and intelligent questions, in my view all Todt replies were generalised political answers. Like any politician he is scared to say something specific that could return to bite him in the butt later.
He (Todt) indicated, if I read the article correctly, that he has been asked to stand again for a new term in office. If so, I suggest this indicates the problem running through the FIA structure.
In any dynamic organisation, there will be worthwhile candidates waiting in the wings to take the helm when the incumbent’s term has finished. This suggests there are still enough blazered officials happy to accept their 1st class travel, free access to all GP’s and all the other perks, not to mention a high salary, in return for simply voting to retain the status quo.
If Liberty really wish to drive the sport forward they need to somehow get rid of the old guard.
Why restrict the shark fin concept? Surely it creates a very visible space that would be valuable sponsorship real estate?
The demand for the space isn’t visibly overwhelming, exactly. If sponsors, new sponsors, were asking for it, I would be tempted to just let it be. Otherwise please ban fugliness, at least the kind everyone can immediately copy. Innovative, rule twisting, outrageous, fugliness I accept as a tradition. But fins? Dull.
Truly distinctive car design strongly correlates to sponsorship business health.
I’ve hit the point at which I can’t without a customer, justify acquiring all the data, but reviewing old tapes I started to tally a few points.
I think there is a cause and effect: Sponsors want to be painted on properly innovative, distinctive, cars.
The rules are anti business, and I would – were I a team manager – hire counsel to investigate the restraint of trade principles.
Liberty and the FIA should force the teams to use the rear wing end plates to display large decals with the driver’s number. They could use the ridiculous sail/sharkfin for that purpose until they are removed next year.
The strategy group has to either be inclusive of all teams with equal voting rights or be disbanded. The current situation is simply a cabal of the engine manufacturers protecting their positions.
” to ensure spectators can see the names of the drivers and the numbers of the cars. ”
Might that best be achieved by increasing by three times the current dimensions of the cars?
Just watched a video with Peter Windsor and “Scarbs” who reported that 400 people are employed on Ferrari wings. This is fairyland!
With all due respect to Scarbs, that report sounds like horse manure.
400 Man-hours perhaps?
@ FAB – the little man is seething with frustration at his loss of power. He described himself as “a hitman without bullets” in his Top Gear interview with Eddie Jordan at the weekend. As he’s spent the last few years shooting himself in the foot at every opportunity, I can understand why LM have locked the gun cabinet.
Nice guy that Ross Brawn is, it should be remembered he now has the same power that Bernie had, but is unlikely to use it in the same way.
Interesting, though the screen is subject to several possible, even probable occurrences which may make it effectively opaque, or at best translucent.
Who will decide to get rid of the DRS system ?
You make a good point. It’s time to start dumping some of the gizmos and make the cars more ‘drivers’ cars. Some of these techs are pointless, others have now had thier technology proven and so it is time they were dropped to put more onus on the the drivers’ skills.
I would get rid of :
– Telemetry during race weekends
– DRS
– Flappy paddle gearboxes
– The ability to change engine maps more than three times during a race
– Carbon brakes
– PIt to car radio during races, except for car/driver safety messages
Well surely all you are left with there is Formula Renault? You either move with the times or you are left behind, it’s as simple as that.
I would also love to see both a low limit on garage mechanics, and a requirement for drivers to at minimum be involved in every work on their car, present, except engine rebuild and bodyworks fitting after a big shunt, when I prefer the driver rest / attend medical etc. My purpose is to get drivers talking more about the real work of delivering a winner.
F1 cars would become slower than Le Mans prototypes…
“It was also agreed that if a race is red-flagged, the race will be restarted with a standing start.”
Bad idea. Defies all logical explanation with regards to safety concerns.
If a race is red-flagged, everything stops. Everyone goes back to the pits. Why on earth would it be unsafe to restart from a proper grid of cars in the race order at the end of the lap before the red flag came out?
If, on the other hand, you have mis-read ‘red flag’ as ‘safety car period’, then you’re right. 😉
Because a racing start from the grid is the acknowledged by everyone, especially the drivers, as the most dangerous part of the race and the one most likely to lead to serious accidents. It’s one thing to have one scenario that has the potential to lead to serious accident and injury (the start of the race, you can’t avoid that) – but amend the rules so that potentially you have an additional racing start from the grid, instead of electing for the safer option of starting under the safety car? From a safety part of view, the aim is to eliminate all risk of accident or injury where possible. This does the opposite. It just does not make sense.
Representatives from the non-member teams will henceforth be invited to meetings of the F1 Strategy Group, in order for them to have access to the discussions. Only brought in because the big boys controlled the rules, and an un democratic consortium was ruling. But wait………. nothing has actually changed, the small teams are only now allowed to listen but vote on nothing.
As dismal as this situation is, it arose from the Max & Bernie show ending, when teams took business risks, pushing rules about. The so called strategy group is nothing but a political counterweight that’s no longer necessary. In cold terms, smaller teams could not afford to face off TPTB of the time it was formed.
do we know when the t-wing / shark-fin ban will come into effect? with any luck we don’t need to wait until next year for this inevitability to come to fruition.
Gradual changes, slow but sure improvements, no knee jerk reactions. It seems Bernie E is really gone!
Should names be written on white letters on a dark background, or black letters on a lighter background? Few people care nowadays but it mattered in the 1960s.
BRMs had an orange nose cone. Graham Hill had his hat display, and the side of the car said Owen Racing Organisation — and that is an awful lot of letters.
Stop it! Your making me cry! 😦
Me too. Time we gave e the recognition back to the players and drivers. I see this as nothing else but a reaction to e.g. the huge individual sponsorships that threatened team revenues. But sponsors need to relearn how much a driver matters, especially new drivers coming up fast, who need to be better seen. Often I think the reality of the terrible sponsorship business, is the big teams only want compliant sponsors who will remain. In that pursuit, sponsors are educated to be unsighted for real value opportunity that exist, we’ll, at the back of the grid. There’s some very anti competitive behaviour that has become not amused in F1 whilst we’re all distracted by arguments at the top. These factors are why we have a grid of maybe six contenders. A lot will have to change, before my research tells me space on cars is a buy again. But if fixed,culturally fixed, what a strong buy that will be.
the fact as such is i guess a good/excellent news, but poor folk have to wait 3 years b4 any change might come along! that’s not right i think. the same i think there will be no new power unit suppliers anytime soon 😦 , if f1 don’t know what they do how do you attract the new parties to join?
Were there any further discussions held about the engine formula 2020+? Is it true the direction goes to V6 biturbo without MGU-H?
My reading of the FIA bulletin is that the halo could yet be implemented. It’s obvious that a revised shield has to have priority in 2017 testing, as it has so far failed the tests. Clearly a revised version needs to be tested in 2017, whereas the halo has already passed all the tests so it doesn’t need any further testing.
The FIA may feel they got what they wanted, if there is agreement now that if the revised shield still fails (as they may expect it to), then the halo will be introduced next year.
I must say I dislike both systems, but at least the halo is safer and must be capable of being improved aesthetically.
One of the problems with the shield it seems to me is that wet races would be much more likely to be abandoned, as there will obviously be poor visibility and Race Control can’t let a race continue if drivers are radioing in to say they can’t see where they’re going.
I would imagine the issue of visibility in poor conditions would be overcome in a similar way to aircraft (particularly military jets) where a high frequency vibration is passed through the screen effectively preventing anything attaching to it. I read a couple of years ago that McLaren were working on just such a system for its road cars / GT racers…
> It was also agreed that Pirelli will be allowed to develop 2018 wet weather tyre compounds using previous specifications of cars and wheel dimensions.
Er… maybe I’m just being a bit dim but I don’t understand what this means, what it’s happening instead of, or what the significance of it is. Would be kind enough to elaborate a bit, please?
@toleman fan – because of the testing ban and the woe caused by Mercedes and Ferrari being allowed private testing of tyres a while back, it isn’t possible for Pirelli to test wet tyres on any current race car. So, they will have to use pre-2017 cars with the old wheel widths. Should next year’s tyres be rubbish, that’s the reason.
Oh gawd 😦
The influence of Ross B seems to be percolating too slowly.
Pirelli should be allowed to use the current McLarens for their tests. The wheels are the correct size, but they’re not exactly this year’s cars.
Thank you.
Does that mean that they still have access to a pre-2017 car to test? Or does it mean that they’ll simply rely on the data they already have?
And – if this is a *change*, what did they do about wet tyres for this year?
Thanks again for the reply. Given that Pirelli don’t actually seem to have a choice about this, I’m still a bit bewildered about what the alternative was supposed to be. Or was the Strategy Group supposed to make a car available for more tyre testing than has actually happened, and this is a concession as a result?
If this group is to make decisions and claim its actually open, I will believe it if they provide a API for strategy gaming. Teams will have to get with the programme, too.
I’m rarely a game player on computers. As in every decade or so. But my first real attempt at programming was a PacMan clone in machine code, on a very early and hugely expensive IBM luggable, thru summer ’83, which a rich parent wonderfully donated to our backwater little school. I’m suddenly taken with the Nintendo Switch, recently. It seems to present the fun of gaming very distilled. A F1 strategy game should be on it. The Switch ought to be easily able with great race play, too. But you need programmers who eschew heavy libraries and RAD tools and who can hard code the play engines efficiently. Not the big studio developers like EA wo push reasonable kit cost all the time. In other words a game shop not the kind bigwigs at the FIA want to be wined and dined by.
Apologies to self reply, but the Switch ought to have a hardware accessory to receive VHF race feeds when attending the grand prix. This is entirely feasible simple engineering, and chance for massive tie in and exposure. Check out sales figures for this device. It’s hard to get at RRP. I’m waiting for one now. What’s crucial to appreciate, and why I am speaking up for the thing, is, for reasons too long for comment but which you probably would get immediately on picking one up, it doesn’t seem like a game device to me. I’m actually buying one to evaluate the device for use in a office context, going thru byzantine Nintendo developer applications of late, to explore. It has a maturity in design that I believe can be attractive and practical for much wider use. So F1 using it is going to get attention far more widely Ghan a announcement with some big game shop.
Joe, Is this some response to the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation into the Concord Agreement? ITN, ITV’s national news, has run a story after getting a copy of the agreement. I would assume that Liberty, in the clear in the matter of course, would like to pen their own agreement and limiting the powers of the top teams would suit them.
I can’t see the argument against the teams having a say in how F1 is run. They are the major investors in the sport and should have some say in where the profits go and what the regs are. Liberty merely hold the commercial rights and the FIA just enforce the regs.
The ITN story is crap
No, it’s just old regime stirring trouble
Hi Jo. While not related to this specific article, I’d love to hear your views on the political motivation behind the FIA stating that the top 3 manufacturer’s PU’s were within 3 tenths of a second of each other. I’m sure you could give us some insight as to how accurate the teams believe this is behind the scenes.
I guess they believe that