Those who watched RPM yesterday will have heard the brief discussion on the proposed rule changes for 2005.
Without going into massive detail (it's a long document), here are the basics. The primary aim is to contain cost rather than alter the competitive arena.
Aerodynamics
Minimal working aerodynamics solely to achieve parity. The cars are to have the same external appearance.
* Removal of front under tray from 1 January 2005
* Rear wing to be fixed or with minimal adjustment from 1 January 2005
Comment:These are parity changes and are unlikey to have any cost impact. Assuming there are full wind tunnel tests to verify parity I can't see any issues with this change.
Brakes
* Control brake rotor from 1 January 2005
* Control brake pad from 1 January 2005
* Restricted list of specified calipers available for use in 2005
* Control brake caliper from 1 January 2006
Comment:While it's a bit hard to see how this has any massive impact on cost given that they are going to be expensive anyway and the teams that don't presently use the control set up will be buying new ones, it is probably not a bad idea.
Data logging / telemetry
* Live car to pit telemetry is to be banned from 1 January 2005
* Control dash unit from 1 January 2005
* Reduction in the duplication of data collected from 1 January 2005.
* Reduction in the number of channels of data available to teams from 1 January 2005.
Comment:This is another odd one. Certainly a reduction in the quantity of in car telemetry is probably not a bad thing and does reduce the cost of replacment sensors; the bulk of the investment in the technology has already been made and there are undoubtedly some safety concerns because the driver will have to more carefully monitor the instrumentation rather than relying on relayed information.
Transmission / driveline
* Immediate consideration of gearbox specification - sequential/h pattern shift. Any change to be effected 1 January 2005
* Control specification of internal gearbox components from 1 January 2005
* Minimum flywheel weight from 1 January 2005
* Control carbon clutch from 1 January 2005
* Control crown wheel & pinion from 1 January 2005
* Minimum rear axle (drive shaft) weight - solid component from 1 January 2005
* Minimum tail shaft weight and gauge of metal from 1 January 2005. To be a TEGA recommended part.
Comment:This one should help contain costs as (presumably) the control components won't use ultra expensive parts made out of unobtanium. Again, the initial investment for teams not using the chosen control components will be an initial drawback.
Engine
* Engine specification will be adjusted to provide extended life.
* As many engine components as is practical and possible are to have a minimum weight and specification applied to them from 1 January 2005
* As many engine components as is practical and possible will be reviewed and specified as a control component (either by specification or supply) from 1 January 2005
* Maximum valve lift to be stipulated from 1 January 2005
* Specified number and size of piston rings from 1 January 2005
* Restricted list of specified engine peripheral components together with designated position requirements from 1 January 2005.
* Engine peripherals to be control components from 1 January 2007
* Minimum engine block weight for both Ford and Holden to be identical from 1 January 2007
Comment:Again a positive move which should have substantial cost benefits as well as increasing the durability of components. The only drawback to this would be that it removes some of the potential gains in power that teams can introduce through innovation although it should even the performance field between the haves and have-less.
Suspension
* Restricted list of specified shock absorbers available for use from 1 January 2005
* Control sealed shock absorber from 1 January 2006
* Individually team homologated stub axle to be available for use and sample logged with TEGA from 1 January 2005 - control component from 1 January 2006
Comment:Clearly a cost containment item as the range of options (and thus the parts inventory) open to teams at the moment is huge. Assuming the chosen options are available over the counter then the equipment needed to build their own will be redundant for the teams that have it.
Wheels
* Control aluminum alloy wheel from 1 January 2005. All other wheel specifications to remain unchanged. Current stock of wheels to be marked.
Comment:Long overdue
General items / non-performance components
* As many non-performance components as is practical and possible will be control components for any new car that is built from 1 January 2005
* Control fuel tank in all new cars built from 1 January 2005.
* Specified identical location of the fuel tank in all new cars built for application with the introduction of new model cars.
* Control on board jacks in all new cars built from 1 January 2005.
* Control rattle guns and associated equipment from 1 January 2005
Comment:All make reasonable sense - a bit puzzled by the fuel tank location rule as it takes away a major weight distribution tool but the rest seem o.k
This appears to be further progress down the road of the Nascar silhouette formula where the bodyshell, engine, driver and car set-up are all that differentiate the winners from the losers.
Is it a positive move for the series?
The real question (and the one I've added a poll for) is whether the philosophical change in direction is a good thing for the series. To help the debate here are a few pros and cons from my viewpoint.
Pros
1. The reliance on cubic dollars that presently separates the front runners from the rest should be minimised and thus the equality across the field improved.
2. Driver skill becomes a larger factor in the overall equation than it is presently.
3. The overall capital and operational cost of fielding a team should be reduced - although it would be interesting to see the actual number quantified.
Cons
1. There is less room for innovation and gaining a technical advantage which in turn impacts on the need for engineering expertise.
2. It could be argued that teams with big budgets will just find new ways to spend the development dollars they have now that will still lead to disparity between themselves and the lesser budgeted teams.
3. The inherent Ford v Holden rivalry that is the raison d'etre of the series becomes more blurred as the cars move closer and closer to being identical under the bodyshell.
Let the debate begin.
Cheers
Russ
Without going into massive detail (it's a long document), here are the basics. The primary aim is to contain cost rather than alter the competitive arena.
Aerodynamics
Minimal working aerodynamics solely to achieve parity. The cars are to have the same external appearance.
* Removal of front under tray from 1 January 2005
* Rear wing to be fixed or with minimal adjustment from 1 January 2005
Comment:These are parity changes and are unlikey to have any cost impact. Assuming there are full wind tunnel tests to verify parity I can't see any issues with this change.
Brakes
* Control brake rotor from 1 January 2005
* Control brake pad from 1 January 2005
* Restricted list of specified calipers available for use in 2005
* Control brake caliper from 1 January 2006
Comment:While it's a bit hard to see how this has any massive impact on cost given that they are going to be expensive anyway and the teams that don't presently use the control set up will be buying new ones, it is probably not a bad idea.
Data logging / telemetry
* Live car to pit telemetry is to be banned from 1 January 2005
* Control dash unit from 1 January 2005
* Reduction in the duplication of data collected from 1 January 2005.
* Reduction in the number of channels of data available to teams from 1 January 2005.
Comment:This is another odd one. Certainly a reduction in the quantity of in car telemetry is probably not a bad thing and does reduce the cost of replacment sensors; the bulk of the investment in the technology has already been made and there are undoubtedly some safety concerns because the driver will have to more carefully monitor the instrumentation rather than relying on relayed information.
Transmission / driveline
* Immediate consideration of gearbox specification - sequential/h pattern shift. Any change to be effected 1 January 2005
* Control specification of internal gearbox components from 1 January 2005
* Minimum flywheel weight from 1 January 2005
* Control carbon clutch from 1 January 2005
* Control crown wheel & pinion from 1 January 2005
* Minimum rear axle (drive shaft) weight - solid component from 1 January 2005
* Minimum tail shaft weight and gauge of metal from 1 January 2005. To be a TEGA recommended part.
Comment:This one should help contain costs as (presumably) the control components won't use ultra expensive parts made out of unobtanium. Again, the initial investment for teams not using the chosen control components will be an initial drawback.
Engine
* Engine specification will be adjusted to provide extended life.
* As many engine components as is practical and possible are to have a minimum weight and specification applied to them from 1 January 2005
* As many engine components as is practical and possible will be reviewed and specified as a control component (either by specification or supply) from 1 January 2005
* Maximum valve lift to be stipulated from 1 January 2005
* Specified number and size of piston rings from 1 January 2005
* Restricted list of specified engine peripheral components together with designated position requirements from 1 January 2005.
* Engine peripherals to be control components from 1 January 2007
* Minimum engine block weight for both Ford and Holden to be identical from 1 January 2007
Comment:Again a positive move which should have substantial cost benefits as well as increasing the durability of components. The only drawback to this would be that it removes some of the potential gains in power that teams can introduce through innovation although it should even the performance field between the haves and have-less.
Suspension
* Restricted list of specified shock absorbers available for use from 1 January 2005
* Control sealed shock absorber from 1 January 2006
* Individually team homologated stub axle to be available for use and sample logged with TEGA from 1 January 2005 - control component from 1 January 2006
Comment:Clearly a cost containment item as the range of options (and thus the parts inventory) open to teams at the moment is huge. Assuming the chosen options are available over the counter then the equipment needed to build their own will be redundant for the teams that have it.
Wheels
* Control aluminum alloy wheel from 1 January 2005. All other wheel specifications to remain unchanged. Current stock of wheels to be marked.
Comment:Long overdue
General items / non-performance components
* As many non-performance components as is practical and possible will be control components for any new car that is built from 1 January 2005
* Control fuel tank in all new cars built from 1 January 2005.
* Specified identical location of the fuel tank in all new cars built for application with the introduction of new model cars.
* Control on board jacks in all new cars built from 1 January 2005.
* Control rattle guns and associated equipment from 1 January 2005
Comment:All make reasonable sense - a bit puzzled by the fuel tank location rule as it takes away a major weight distribution tool but the rest seem o.k
This appears to be further progress down the road of the Nascar silhouette formula where the bodyshell, engine, driver and car set-up are all that differentiate the winners from the losers.
Is it a positive move for the series?
The real question (and the one I've added a poll for) is whether the philosophical change in direction is a good thing for the series. To help the debate here are a few pros and cons from my viewpoint.
Pros
1. The reliance on cubic dollars that presently separates the front runners from the rest should be minimised and thus the equality across the field improved.
2. Driver skill becomes a larger factor in the overall equation than it is presently.
3. The overall capital and operational cost of fielding a team should be reduced - although it would be interesting to see the actual number quantified.
Cons
1. There is less room for innovation and gaining a technical advantage which in turn impacts on the need for engineering expertise.
2. It could be argued that teams with big budgets will just find new ways to spend the development dollars they have now that will still lead to disparity between themselves and the lesser budgeted teams.
3. The inherent Ford v Holden rivalry that is the raison d'etre of the series becomes more blurred as the cars move closer and closer to being identical under the bodyshell.
Let the debate begin.
Cheers
Russ