The good, bad and ugly of the 2011 F1 rules

Dec.5 (YallaF1.com) Fresh from an astounding Formula 1 season, which delivered one of the closest fought and most intriguing seasons, the FIA is introducing a raft of rule changes for 2011.

We take a look at these changes and provide opinions on how they will impact on the season ahead. Here goes in no particular order:

F-Duct pioneered by McLaren in 2010

1. Goodbye to double diffusers and F-ducts. In 2009 the term “double diffuser” became buzz words in Formula 1. A year later “F-duct” stole the limelight. For 2011 both technologies are outlawed.

Opinion: We can say good riddance to double diffusers which cost a huge amount of money for the teams who had to catch up what in the end was a clever exploitation of a loophole in the regs. The same cannot be said of the F-duct system which was an ingenius way to control air onto the rear wing in a comparatively rudimentary way, and inexpensive too. Clever engineering should be rewarded not discouraged.

Pirelli tyres for 2011 and beyond

2. Farewell Bridgestone and welcome Pirelli. After 13 years Bridgestone departed Formula 1 and opened the door for Pirelli to enter the sport as sole tyre supplier. Two decades since their last involvement in F1 the Italian tyre giants are back and have already conducted their first all team test in Abu Dhabi. All indications so far are positive.

Tyre allocation has been reduced for 2011, with 11 rather than 14 sets of dry-weather tyres available to each driver per race weekend. Drivers will receive three sets (two prime, one option) to use in P1 and P2 and must return one set after each session.

The art of quick pit stops remain

A further eight sets will then be at their disposal for the rest of the weekend, although one set of each specification must be handed back before qualifying.

If a driver fails to use both specifications of dry-weather tyres during a (dry) race, they will be excluded from the results. If a (dry) race is suspended and can’t be restarted, and a driver has failed to use both specifications, 30 seconds will be added to the driver’s race time.

Opinion: Any commercial relationship has a sell by date and Bridgestone’s departure was inevitable and well planned. Over a dozen years of good service, from the Japanese tyre manufacturer, makes way for Pirelli and a new tyre era for the sport. The transition should be seamless.

3. Gearboxes now need to last for five race weekends, instead of the previous four.

Opinion: This is a true measurable cost saving exercise which also encourages teams to build robust gearboxes. Thus implementing the kind of technology that could realistically be incorporated in the motor industry.

Graham Hill's Lotus 49B featured adjustable rear wing back in 1968

4. No more adjustable front wings but adjustable rear wings allowed. New regulations allow for drivers to adjust rear wing angle from the cockpit. The system will be available to drivers throughout practice and qualifying but restricted use during the race when it can only be activated when a driver is less than one second behind another car at pre-determined points on the track. The way this is to be monitored is yet to be announced. The system is optional.

Opinion: Adjustable rear wing is a good idea but the way the FIA want to implement the usage leaves a great deal to be desired. There is talk of restricting when a driver can use wing angle altering button. For example the initial thinking is that it can only be used when a driver is less than one second behind another and at certain pre-arranged areas on a circuit. The device (or gimmick?) is potentially a great idea but restricting it’s use, limits the appeal. Too complicated, keeping it simple is what makes sport so attractive.

Slow drivers will be affected by the 107% rule

5. During the first phase of qualifying, any driver who fails to set a lap within 107 percent of the fastest Q1 time will not be allowed to start the race. However, in exceptional circumstances, which could include a driver setting a suitable time during practice, the stewards may permit the car to start.

Opinion: Well overdue rule which will protect the sport from “mobile chicanes” which invariably create high risk scenarios in racing conditions that are best avoided. The rule would have impacted on the new teams in 2010 and will certainly impact on the likes of Hispania Racing again this next season. Interesting to see will be if it affects Team Lotus and Virgin Racing.

A BMW Sauber mechanic receives an electric shock from Christian Klien's BMW Sauber running a KERS system during testing in 2008

6. In 2009 Kinetic Energy Recovery System, better known as KERS, was a curse for some but a boon for others. Giancarlo Fisichella and Force India were denied victory at Spa that year thanks to Kimi Raikkonen’s timely use of KERS on his Ferrari. The power boost system is back for 2011. The system is optional, but the minimum F1 car weight has been increased to from 620kg to 640kg to acoomodate the device and also not prejudice heavier drivers.

Opinion: KERS is optional so again the big teams will benefit while the smaller teams will struggle to accomodate the technology in their limited budgets. Already Team Lotus have indicated that they will not be using KERS early on in the season. The technology, however noble, further unevens the playing field. A standard unit to all teams, made compulsory would go a long way to addressing the equality problems while fulfilling F1′s obsession of being perceived to be environmentally friendly. Additionally KERS creates additional dangers in the pit garages as highly charged area of the car have been known to shock sturdy mechanics off their feet. A school of thought within F1 is that the whole energy recovery concept is a smokescreen to placate environmentalists.

Fernando Alonso's Renault lost a whell during the 2009 Hungarian GP

7. It is now mandatory for teams to place a second wheel tether on all four wheels to improve safety. The two tethers must be contained in separate suspension members.
Opinion: Great idea and anything that enhances safety in this manner is a no brainer.

8. Abolition of team orders for 2011 and beyond.

Opinion: Who implemented the mindless rule in the first place? Team orders are part and parcel of Formula 1 and if a team wants to have a number one and a number two driver they have every right to do so. And if they want to give “numero uno” all the trick bits and the other guy gets hand me downs – so be it – that is and always has been the way of motor racing. Not forgetting that there were many instances when secondary drivers were called in to hand over their cars to the team’s leading driver. Good riddance to a farcical regulation.

No more burning the midnight oil for teams

9. A clampdown on team crews working long hours has been introduced, with a curfew on team personnel connected with the operation of the cars. They will not be allowed into the circuit between midnight and 6am when practice is scheduled to start at 10am the following day, or between 1am and 7am when practice starts at 11am. Each team is permitted four individual exceptions to this rule during the season.

Opinion: Silly rule which will be hard to police as teams will probably find clandestine and no doubt innovative ways to circumvent this restriction. If teams want to work all night so be it. These are well paid technicians and engineers, partaking in the world’s most highly visible sport and the amount of hours they dedicate in pursuit of perfection at race tracks should be encouraged and not discouraged. Visions of hotel rooms converted into make shift workshops springs to mind. Cross out silly rule and make that: stupid rule.

10. Testing restrictions remain unchanged

Opinion: Forgotten or inexplicably neglected is the much needed increase in testing time for drivers. Drivers, particularly rookies and reserve drivers, are simply not being given enough track time and are thus often exposed as hopefully out of their depth in a Formula 1 car. Having seen this injustice prevail in 2010, one would assume that the FIA would have allowed extended testing even if only for test drivers with limited or no F1 experience. Instead huge resources are being pumped into development of simulators. Lack of real testing is the greatest paradox of modern Formula 1. Imagine restricting how often Manchester United, Real Madrid, Inter Milan et al can train their players! Or limiting how many kilometres car manufacturers can do when developing new cars!

Ultimately Formula 1 fans want great racing, overtaking and a knockout championship all the way to the final race. Actually very much like the past season. Time will tell if the changes made will as the F1 brains trust like to say: “improve the show.” Ahem, what about track design gentlemen?