THE RULES DESIGNED TO TOPPLE SCHUMACHER? The Story of the Controversial 2005 Formula One Rulebook
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ม.ค. 2022
- In 2005, a wave of changes were made to the cars. The FIA said it was to stop the cars getting faster, as the 2004 cars had been smashing lap records left right and centre.
But a lot of fans say that the rules were designed to do one thing and one thing only: Stop Michael Schumacher winning.
Was it just the new tyre rules, or had Ferrari also just built a bad car? Let's have a look.
Enjoy! And remember to like and subscribe for more!
------
Wikipedia images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Flickr images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Business enquiries: amsimracing@gmail.com
Patreon: www.patreon.com/aidanmillward
Discord: / discord
Instagram: amillward01
Twitter: Aidan_Millward
Steam: AdmiralLaWind
----
CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 @3.9gHz
Motherboard: MSI B450 Mortar Micro ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8gb @ 3000mHz
GPU: MSI GTX1660 w/ slight OC
Editing Software: Sony Vegas 14 Steam Edition
Wheel: Simucube 2 Pro - Cube Controls Formula Pro Rim
Pedals: Fanatec Clubsport V3 with Brake Performance Kit - กีฬา
10:07 That engine failure still gave me my favorite Schumacher moment ever in Brazil. Schumacher needs to win and Fernando do woeful for #8. Schumacher is reaching hard but blows a tire and has to limp it back to the pits at the worst spot possible going to dead last. It's his last race and we knew he was going to retire for months. He had nothing else to prove and could have parked it with no shame.
Instead, he gets new tires, puts his head down and races from last to 4th passing his Ferrari replacement Kimi Raikonnen and almost getting a podium.
Amazing drive.
Fmichelin International Assistance
huh?
@@JoseRodriguez-ey7ju Ferrari International Assistance - with all of the decisions over the decades which had made Ferrari's lives a lot easier, it became the FIA's "nickname", though unlike most nicknames, there was no affection behind it.
And no, there was no love for Michelin from the FIA. If anything, Bridgestone were their little darlings for _years._ It just happened that the rule change was dealt with better by Michelin than be Bridgestone.
How'd that theory work out on 2003?
Actually it makes sense.
What people miss is, Michelin did NOT change tyre compound in 2003 regarding to FIA inquiry after Hungary. They admitted this in 2004.
Britis media never ever covers that.
To be fair, 'better racing' back in 2004-2005 would be equal to 'haltering Ferrari'.
I personally loved it being a Schumacher/Ferrari fangirl, but the last few seasons have let me understand why others were annoyed back then.
I was not a Michael fangirl, but I can remember watching him race more often as he became more dominant. Like Lewis in recent seasons, I watched to enjoy the best driver at his peak as you never know when he’ll stop. There have been seasons without great drivers in good enough cars. We were so lucky to have 2 last year.
@@MsZeeZed Mh, that's how I watch F1 now. Still rooting for Ferrari, but able to enjoy the incredible skill of the drivers. It makes it even better. (Although Hamilton and Alonso irk me, dethroning Schumacher...) Honestly, what we are treated to in these days is marvellous. The world champions Hamilton, Verstappen, Vettel and Alonso alongside the stars of the future Norris, Leclerc, Russell, Schumacher. Makes me think about the early 90s (watched some season reviews the other day) with Mansell, Prost, Senna alongside Schumacher, Häkkinen, Villeneuve.
Yeah, this is a great time to be an F1 fan.
I remember that Ferrari was winning too much but they had rivals that could battle them and they didn't get it easy every time. Most of the teams had factory backing. McLaren-Mercedes, Williams-BMW, Renault, BAR-Honda, Toyota and Jaguar (Ford) all were pushing and especially McLaren and Williams gave Ferrari a run for their money. Of course in the end of the day it was Schumacher winning but I don't remember Ferrari being as dominant as Mercedes in the hybrid era.
So the same as 2021 then. To have good racing, you have to always slow down the best teams
@@micahkiyimba8641 Well, yes and no. The dirty air is the main issue, but if it mixes up the field a bit letting more or other teams be competitive in front it'll probably make the sport more interesting to the casual viewer or pull more people in. The amount of people tuning in for the -21 finale would support the notion that closer racing and a closer championship will let F1 attract more audience and thereby earn more money.
Ironically journalist Mark Hughes said when discussing Ferrari's 2005 season on The Race's Bring Back V10s podcast said Ferrari probably would have been okay even had the no tyre change rule stayed for 2006 as Bridgestone constructed a more radial 'Michelin style' tyre for that year.
People say 2005 was a payback for 2003.
No.
Michelin did not change anything after FIA inquiry in 2003.
They admitted this a year later.
@@commenttorv5572 that was a lie from Michelin. And makes absolutely zero sense if you think about it. They would got in serious trouble if they had not. They would have risked to get DQed. No one in F1 risks that when you are in a championship fight. They changed the shoulder of the tyre. By doing that the tyre did not get bigger, as the shoulder/tread area was how they made they tyre "grow".
Hmm, appears I made a mistake here.
The F2005 debuted at the Bahrain GP, not the Aussie one. Forgot they brought new cars in later on compared to now. Point still stands, they had problems.
Generic TH-cam apology inbound, no make up, let’s do this properly.
Are you deleting my comments?
@@commenttorv5572 haven’t touched your comments.
Were you to ask me that question back in 2005, I'd have probably said the rule changes were worth it, as I too was one of those fans at that time who got tired of Ferrari dominance.
Looking back 16ish years later though, it was a stupid idea that coincidentally also resulted in the single worst race (not including races which resulted in fatalities) I've ever witnessed in Indianapolis 2005. I can't help thinking that Schumacher and Ferrari were robbed of 1 or 2 more championships, maybe even more.
Not to take anything away from Alonso, he's obviously a ridiculously talented F1 pilot, but were the rules to remain stable, I think Schumacher would've taken both 2005 and 2006 as the Ferrari was THE car to beat, even after these rules designed to kneecap it. Who knows, Schumacher might've even won a few more after that, as I doubt Ferrari would've forced Schumacher into retirement then. THAT also turned out to be a pretty stupid move, but that's a story for another time I suppose.
You have a point, very sad 😞
YES! It was exclusively done to stop "The Michael" & Ferrari from winning.
Indy 2005 was one of my favorite races because it opened my eyes to the absolute cluster fuck that FIA was at the time (and still is).
+ Tiago Monteiro celebration was lit.
And boy have have they proven what a cluster fuck there are numerous times since!
Also no one remembers (bc why would anyone lol) from that race Schumi and Rubens had a dicey moment. Imagine if the ferraris wrecked and Jordan wins and Minardi got on a podium! I wish it did just to hammer in how stupid the whole mess was
Suzuka and Imola aside, I tend to view 2005 with little regard. I am *far* from a MSC or Ferrari fanboy, but hated the everlasting tyre rule with a passion. It was without doubt brought in to try to hobble Ferrari, and did so through a combination of Bridgestone not doing as good a job as Michelin, and the Ferrari diffuser issues you mention.
The everlasting tyre rule also led to the stupid situation at the Nürburgring where Kimi didn't pit to replace his flat-spotted tyre, resulting in a last-lap suspension failure caused by the vibration of said flat-spot, which nearly took out Button into the first corner. As James Allen said at the time, Kimi should have pitted, and banked the points instead of going for broke. With that change, and a more reliable McLaren/Mercedes engine, he could well have been 2005 WDC.
I also hated the idea of raising the front wing to reduce downforce (and therefore cornering speed) with a passion; as dirty air was already a problem, reducing front-end downforce, and thereby increasing the likelihood of understeer - especially when following another car - was a completely dumb idea. Surely it just exacerbated the dirty air/following issues further? What they *should* have done is restricted the power of the rear diffuser. Not only would this have reduced rear downforce, but also the amount of front wing that could be used, to keep the car in some form of 'balance'
Actually there were changes to the diffusor in 2005, too, and that was part of Ferraris issues, as this was an area where they were ahead of the competition. Ny changing the rules of the lateral diffusor channels FIA took this advantage away. So it was not only the tyres. It was also the diffusor and the aero as a whole. By changing aero and tyres, FIA changed exactly the areas where Ferrari were ahead of the competition and introduced rules which where totally against Ferraris concepts of 2002, 2003 and 2004. Also Ferrari got some things wrong, especially with the gearbox, which was to bulky and in the wrong place, making their diffusor less effective. Also Ferrari made the mistake to focus on the recovery of downforce instead of aerodynamic effiency. So the car had a drag penalty, too, compared to the McLarens and Renaults. So Ferraris problem was that the FIA strengthend the advantages of Michelins radial tyres, made rules which completely which needed a car which was the opposite of Ferraris concept and also took away their advantages in the area of the diffusor. Ferrari then also made the mistake to focus too much on recovery of lost downforce and a wrong solution in the diffusor area. That what happened in 2005 and explains it.
Concerning the flat spotted tyre, I've read that it wasn't allowed for drivers to pit and swap them until after that incident, before that only a punctured tyre could be replaced
@@fam.hunger5244 so basically F1 2021 rules?
It definitely was the case, the only reason they haven’t done this with Merc already is because social media would just blow up, something Bernie didn’t have to deal with in 2005
Edit: everyone keep bringing up 2017/2021 rule changes, and while they were indeed meant to bring the field closer together, they were nowhere near as surgically written as 2005 was with Ferrari, and anyone saying otherwise is just delusional at this point.
Ferrari and Bridgestone had become masters of short, high paced stints, you could have up to 4-5 tire changes, forbidding them from changing pretty much destroyed the entire philosophy around which the car was built.
Mercedes best asset, especially at the beginning of the turbo hybrid era, was their engine (not to say that the rest of the car was bad), if they really wanted to hit them where it hurt they would have made changes there
The main people who would complain are the ones that make the least senseable arguments and only have a social media account to get annoyed by most things of today. If a team dominates like Ferrari and Merc did, changing the rules to stop them sounds logical to me (even if it artificially changes the pecking order). It's like a major regulatiton change to bring at least one team on par with them.
I mean they kind of did it this year? With the floor regulations attacking the low rake Mercedes car
@@freakysquirrel7218 yeah but it still stinks, honestly.
As a team, having your effort and hard work rewarded with an active effort to hinder you is just disheartening.
It’s one thing to make a massive rule change where everyone just starts from scratch, it’s another when the rules are consciously written so that they affect one team more than the other.
@@ethanplumb9411 I’m not sure, I recall at the beginning of the season everyone thought that high rake cars would have been more affected.
Furthermore this was more of a small, hasty regulation change to improve racing even a little bit since technically 2022 rule change were supposed to happen last year.
@Spacialdave tbf the 2021 regulations were more for Pirelli not being sure their tires which effectively were the 2019 tires could handle a 2020 car with development than to improve the show
More often than not, I do get the feeling that the FIA tries to steer clear from copying American Openwheel racing concepts until they are out of options. This tire rule is one of those cases where (I think) they weren't willing to adapt to the multiple compounds per race that Champcar did for some time at that point.
I know it is not the only thing in effect, but the racing in F1 improved when they took on multiple tire compounds in the race, dry car weight gains and they kind of outfitted the cars with an "overtake button". I am really curious for what the Champcar-inspired underbody aero for 2022 will bring.
My opinion is that F1 is improving since they actually implemented rules and methods that are/were a staple in American Openwheel racing.
Ever since I first heard the description of the new rules and it was basically how they described the Ir18 bodykit I've been excited.
After a major regulations change the teams are further apart in terms of performance, hence the initial drop in overtakes, then it trends back up and normalises.
Urgh, worst rule ever... could have killed someone, dont think I'll ever forget the feeling as I watched Kimi shake his car to destruction and how close the front quarter was to him as it came apart
The proof of the stupidity of the 1 Set of Tyres rule is the front corner snapping off Kimi's McLaren in Germany, & Ralf rear parking the Williams at Indy.
That rule endangered drivers.
Shame on FIA for that one.
I can't remember but have you done a video on the rise and ban of the tuned mass damper? If not, as a big change to a specific car mid season, it would be worth a video
Love your story time videos. Wish you had more so I could binge them 😂
Like some people commented here already 2005 really had some parallels to 2021 in the sense the rule changes effectively brought the car of a 7 times WC back to the field although the basis of the 2021 rules were different as they were done to spare Pirelli blushes as Pirelli didn’t know if their tires could handle a 2020 spec car with development whereas the the 05 rules were to improve the show as much as slow cars down
It’s funny how in the space of 6 years from 2005 to 2011 you went from tires that had to do quali and the whole race distance to tires that barely lasted 10 laps, that’s the FIA/FOM for you indecisive and unsure of what they want at the best of times lol
Also the appendages on the car really started to increase a lot I feel from 2005 naturally teams were already trying things like double rear wings and X-wings in the 90s but the 2005 rules defo made teams look down that path even more which probably contributed to the issues of dirty air more
Agree with everything you've written except " to spare Pirelli's blushes". Pirelli still introduced new structures for 2021. Then reinforced it again in silverstone... The 21 regs were specifically designed to nuked the "low raked" cars aka mercedes. AM or tracing point was collateral.
Dude use a comma or full stops lol
@Bahamuttiamat the reason I said what I said about Pirelli was that if you remember in 2020 the proposed tires that were meant to be used were rejected therefore they used the 2019 tires instead. In 2021 due to the pandemic Pirelli didn’t bother to develop new tires as the current tires were meant to be phased out for the 18” tires so the 2019 construction were still being used however, 2020 cars were already pushing the tires to the limit, that’s why the cars got slowed down well one of the reasons why.
You right tho that Pirelli still made changes after the Baku issues.
Edit - did more research the rear tires profile weren’t changed the front were so you were right and I was right to an extent
@Aidan Underhill loooooooool usually I’m decent with my punctuation on TH-cam. I was definitely rambling on a little too much with that post the topic was just too interesting!
Imola 2005 was the race when I finally admitted that Schumacher was the best....maybe it was because it was a dud season for him, the old "dominant driver is hated till he is the underdog then we all love him" syndrome, which I'm totally guilty of doing.
I had just started watching NASCAR and IndyCar the year before and Imola 2005 was my first Grand Prix
It's true in the most recent era, total overtakes were high. But that wasn't happening at the front of the grid. As you may recall, there were a few occasions when Lewis complained that he was getting very little TV coverage when he stormed away at the start and went unchallenged throughout the race. This was true of Vettel in 2013 (though he didn't complain). All the battles were in the mid field. So, I'm not sure comparing overall overtakes is enough to paint the picture of an "exciting" race. People want to see a battle up front, and don't really care about the battles further back.
I'd rather have a battle that goes on for several laps than a simple pass with DRS....
@@benn8793 agreed. Max vs Charles at Silverstone 2019 was an amazing battle and it wasn't even for P1
@@benn8793 Absolutely, it shows a level of mettle within both drivers as they defend and attack in equal measure. Push to pass just takes all the fun out of it.
You nailed it. The only time tv viewers care about back runners is blue flag action involving the leaders.
I hope the '22 cars are able to bring '21 level action at the front but I have my doubts, especially with the long and wide designs.
I think I'm remembering Schumacher also putting pressure on Alonso at Bahrain until another mechanical failure forced him to retire.
Note that in addition to the front wing height, there were also changes to the diffuser size.
I'm honestly not sure the rules changes for 2005 were only done to break Ferrari's dominance, the FIA was genuinely worried about the increased pace of the cars as they were now several seconds quicker than before the last big rule change in 1998.
For the same reason I don't think the 2021 rule changes were done with the objective of curbing Mercedes dominance as some people think, they weren't sure at all it was going to affect low rake cars more than high rake ones, and without that the speeds would have increased a lot again with higher risk to the tyres.
However, forcing the tyres to last a full race was different from other "quick and dirty" rule changes designed to slow cars a bit, because it was directly impacting one of the parts of the cars most important for safety.
Break an engine or gearbox and you don't have a crash (most of the time), but blow a tyre and you have a potentially dangerous situation on your hands as Indianapolis but also Kimi at Nürburgring showed.
for people doubting the minute (or even more) savings by double stinting.. Remember LeMans has limits to how many folks can touch the car in the pits.. AND you cannot touch the car while refueling. I think F1 should adopt these rules and see what happens. Grav fed refueling, no touching the car while the refueling rig is hooked up and 2 crew over the wall at a time.
@Spike S Agreed. but with a grav rig that takes forever to add fuel you bet teams would most likely not be adding fuel... it would take too long.
It was to stop Ferrari as the Rules came out predy late Ferrari had a Car for 2005 small fueltank and many stops. It was all very against Ferrari. And the tire rule was a joke (Kimi in Germany). But was it bad for the Sport I think not. And People this days think the Rules 2021 were to Stop Mercedes and are still upset.
Absolutely enjoying your videos recently. Could you maybe go into the different qualifying formats that the FIA used for F1 since they always introduce new formats as a 'revolutionary idea' and then return to the old one within no time...
2005 was the year I started to take F1 more seriously - it's the era of car I picture in my head when I think of F1 cars. They were getting shapely but hadn't sprouted all the ugly winglets and crossbeams on the front wings etc they did in the next few years. In hindsight the banning of tyre changes was a strange rule change but at the time it seemed just to be how things were, and it meant someone other than Michael Schumacher won, which I was okay with. I appreciate him a lot more now than I did at the time
The FIA knew exactly what they were doing. It was common knowledge how Ferrari had developed its car the years before. They always squeezed the maximum out of the tyres. Maximum wear for maximum performance.
I think it was a very dangerous idea. We saw how badly the no tyre change rule effected Indianapolis in 2005
That intro card is really really snazzy my guy, love it :)
i remember a spanish grand prix that the whole race.. except for lap 1 of course, had ONE on track overtake
If you're talking about Melbourne in 2005, you are wrong about the Ferrari's. Schumacher started 18th and Rubens 11th. Barrichello finished 2nd in the race accually, while Schumacher retired in the middle of the race after a tangle with Heidfeld
I know i'm late to the party, but i've only just started watching this series and I was thinking the same, Michael retired after his bumper rubbing with the Williams and Barrichello was in a Renault sandwich - i wonder what race hes referring to?
And that was still with the F2004
Fantastic work, Hauden Moleweevil! 👏🏼👏🏼
Good video as always. Very interesting overtaking statistics! Personally, I wonder if what people call the golden age is viewed That way largely because of how good Murray walkers commentary was. Especially I making the fairly mundane sound exciting ( Australia 86 is a prime example , rosbergs retirement was treat on par with Mansel,s blowout at North of 170 mph ) . While today's commentary is good I do think that Murray walkers style made even the relatively dull seem absolutely amazing !
Murray Walker could make anything sound exciting.
Alonso took the racing line through 130R. The camera angle makes it look more dramatic. Wasn't too fussed about Imola either because it's hard to overtake without fuel strategy to do it for you
This is true regarding the Alonso move. Yes, Alonso overtook around the outside but only because Michael pulled over to the left. Alonso followed him briefly left and then returned to the racing line well before 130R. Michael then lifted. A good move but nothing more than that imo.
But even i as a Schumacher Fan must say it would have made more sense for Schumi to attack mord
I definitely think it was an attempt to at least get more teams competitive. I was one of those who had largely tuned out during the second half of 2004 due to the Ferrari domination so at the time I actually welcomed changes to try to make things so much closer. The farce of Kimi's tire at the Nurburgring where he wasn't able to change a badly flat spotted tire soured me on it.
What I don't understand is: back then the rules were changed every year to target Ferrari from winning.
When Mercedes started to dominate in 2014, there were no real changes implemented every single year to target them directly and stop them from winning...
The consistency is missing and I don't like that.
They banned oil burning.
They banned FRIC
They banned the trick suspension that replaced it.
They changed the regulations after just three seasons
They changed the front wings for 2019
They took a chunk of the floor away in 2021
Yeah, they didn’t do anything to stop Merc.
@@AidanMillward they need to change the engine for stop Mercedes domination. that's the Mercedes best asset in the hybrid era. during 2017-2018, i think RB and ferrari have the best aero package, but it doesn't matter because Mercedes engine was the best by far, and overtake always happens on the straight. it's same with RB and Ferrari right now, the difference is the car right now has less dirty air, so the overtake will happen eventually.
@@AidanMillward
They banned DAS
@@AidanMillwardoil burning was only banned when Ferrari started using it.
FRIC was always illegal - as it was an aerodynamic device.
Similar to the next suspension system in 2016, it was against the rules but was allowed for the entirety of 2016.
The 2017 regulations didn’t directly target Mercedes. In fact they would get a huge advantage since the cars would be more draggy and Mercedes could afford to add more Aero. That’s why Redbull was very plain and slow.
The 2019 rules arguably targeted Ferrari since they used the turning vanes to control the airflow the most to produce less draggy cars. After that l they had to sacrifice more downforce to get the same drag.
Also FIA changed the tyres to fix an issue only Mercedes faced, and that made them dominant from 2019 again.
The 2021 floor rules did hurt Mercedes but before the season everyone thought that high rake cars would be impacted the most since it would be much more difficult to control the airflow and get the diffuser to work. This was Mercedes’ opinion. Only after the season started did Mercedes and everyone else find out that low rake cars actually were worse off.
Regardless the change wasn’t there to target Mercedes
Old F1 heads have such nostalgia glasses. I’m glad your brought this up in this video. I do believe the Melbourne race was the old spec car
Something else to take in to account with the overtaking stats you shown is the amount of races per season too
Fascinating video and stats, prescription is the enemy of innovation and competition, this just reminds me of what i felt at the time, silly rule changes for no reason (always felt it was anti Farrari but....) worries me for the future in this ever proscribed and entertainment focused world, i see a similar counter intuitive thing with increased weight and bulk of cars...time will tell...fascinating though as was the tyre vid, i'd forgotten that.
Very interesting video. The traction control vs grooved tyre bit needs more explanation - the grooved tyres reduce overall grip, traction control helps drivers get closer to that grip limit (but do not change how much grip is available).
The reason they change the rules for 2005 is that FIA wanted fitght at the front of the pack (remember Ferrari won 15 of 18 races, Schumacher won 12 of the 13 opening rounds, basically no one watched races), sure they have overtakes but most of them were not at the front. Everyone notice the big advantage of Ferrari was the short Bridgestone stints and Michelin built a better allround tyre so the rule of 1 tyre for the whole race killed Bridgestone.
Ferrari also suffer because diffuser performance was reduced and their gearbox construction didnt allow them to exploit the new diffuser rules as Mclaren and Renault were able to do. Even so you have to recognize Schumacher talent vs Barrichello in the same car/tyres.
The reason it was a 1 season rule is that once you have a new champion everyone want to know it the previous champ can due a comeback so they level the playfield (and also remember the huge political power of Ferrari in that era).
Would be interesting to see you revist the overtakes number in this video after this 2022 regulation change to see if they were higher than the last couple of seasons 👍
I always remember the race where Kimi flat spotted his tyre and then the suspension decided to do on strike cause of the can’t change the tyre rule. Which was changed after that incident.
Yeah it was a pretty dumb rule to not give the possibility to change the tyres at all. There should have at least been some possibility to change tyres under some penalty, like extra drive through penalty.
Hard to say, but history dosen't repeat itself, it improves and that is in and of itself a matter of perspective as to whether it 'improved' or not.
The grooves were not to reduce contact area, they were to allow the tread to squirm. Much more effective in reducing traction
Nice video
Sounds like.2021 Rear Floor Regs changes just randomly before the last season with fixed rules .. hmmmmm
Excellent channel 🇦🇺
Enjoyed this, reminds me of the FIA using Masi to change the rules with laps to go.
It had to happen. People were dozing off just a couple of laps into the race with Ferrari so dominant for so long. The FIA did the same in 2021 and it resulted in one of the best seasons ever. It's shame it ended with the race director manipulating the final laps of the race for everyone's entertainment.
Damn didn't know Cletus was an F1 fan. Simpsons lore runs deep
I like to think that in the boardroom they give everyone a different drug and see how they can combine ideas. The guys on uppers will usually win but that qualifying format was definitely the guys on trips
I kind of wish that the FIA would stop trying to appease fans (who don't know what they actually want 9 times out of 10) by punishing anyone who does well and just let the racing happen. Either accept F1 for what it is (if you build the best car for the rule set, you're going to win most of the time) or give everyone the same car and just save yourself the bother.
I think MotoGP does it best. They have a system which I'm not sure about how it's called in English, but it's kind of a BoP. But it's unique because it doesn't penalize the good teams, it rather helps the weaker ones. Low finishing teams can use more engines and have more test mileage than the better teams, which allowes them to catch up faster. I think it's the fairest BoP in motorsport and nice to see F1 heading to a similar direction (more air tunnel time for slower teams), they just need to copy it.
@@albert_gyorgy yeah these rule changes actually kind of hinder teams from being able to compete since they never have time to catch up in the current regs.
Domination is boring. And leads to less audiences.
@@weignerleigner3037 Exactly, you can kind of tell who is going to dominate for the next couple of years within the first half of a season after a major rule change because catching up is all but impossible.
@@micahkiyimba8641 Tell that to billions of football fans?
I thought the mclaren “devil horns” actually did nothing initially and were on the car to trick other teams into sinking development time and resources into nothing. But i could be mis-remembering.
great video
I do think some of the rules were aimed at improving the racing but the primary objective of them was someone else to win the world championship, or at the very least compete for it. Like you mentioned with Michelin supplying Le Mans, the FIA would have known there was a good chance that Michelin would get it right over Bridgestone. When you consider by the end of 2004, McLaren's B-spec car (MP4-19B) was just about getting on the pace of the F2004 the FIA probably were counting on McLaren being the best car-tyre package in 2005. Renaults performance was probably a pleasant surprise for them.
I really hope that you can do a video on Niki Lauda accident at the 1976 German Grand Prix the last time F1 will race on the Nürburgring Nordschleife
The biggest problem F1 had in the mid 2000s was not Schumacher's dominance but rather the in-race refuelling. Far too often, races would effectively be won in the pit lane through fuelling strategy, rather than by the skill of the driver on the track which, lets face it, would be somewhat more pleasing for viewers and spectators.
The FIA dicks around with F1 rules year after year when a couple of simple changes could possibly transform the sport.
1. Less disruptive aerodynamics which would allow another car to follow closely making overtaking attempts possible without what is essentially the sanctioned cheating of the DRS induced situation that we have now.
2. In the pits, a standard minimum time, say 30 seconds, that a car has to be stopped in it's pit box. The idea being that all racing is on the track.
Also, F1 is now a manufacturer dominated and hugely expensive game which effectively excludes independent (garagista) type teams and it is a shame that the tightness of modern rules effectively kills innovation nowadays. Remember the days of the garagistas who used to come up with some genius innovations to try and take on, and often beat (much to Enzo's annoyance), the major teams.
Make pit stops longer and everyone one stops, and I mean everyone, no variation at all.
Even if you said "well tyres have to last x laps and then blow up" team would tell their drivers to go as slowly as possible to make sure the tyres didn't blow up because that would save more time than pitting. We saw this in the Belgian GP of 2020 (IIRC) where the last 10 laps were Hammy/Bottas/Verstappen crawling around on dead rubber because nobody would pit and risk losing track position.
Think of all those races where Verstappen/Hammy have pitted late and put on soft tyres before going hell for leather to catch up with the leader and having a nail biting finish where they either catch and pass or the driver in the lead holds on, with your "idea", gone, doesn't happen because instead of losing 20 seconds on a pit stop (in and out) you're not losing FIFTY seconds, in some cases that could nearly be an ENITRE LAP.
The problem with overtaking in this era wasn't technical. It was refueling. Teams would radio to their drivers and tell them NOT to attempt passes because they'd try to overtake in the pits. But overtakes in the pits only happened when some guy no one knows made a mistake. Overtaking increased immediately in 2010. Tires create overtaking due to wear variances, not refueling because there's always only one right strategy, barring yellows.
Ah yes. The ending of Imola 2005. Those were some good adverts.
I didn't mind the one lap qualifying, it was great spectacle. Kimi put on some real blinders on a dirty track, while JPM threw away a couple of front row positions with lurid slides on the last few corners.
In these days of homologated parts, I’d quite enjoy a return to multiple tyre manufacturers. Imagine adding that variable to Abu Dhabi!
1:00 I'd blame it on Mika Hakkinen's early retirement. He was the only one who mature enough to challenge Michael Schumacher in that era yet he decided to quit early.
He wasn’t the same after his 1995 crash. By 2001 he couldn’t keep up anymore.
The figures you’ve given for the 2000s overtakes. Where these all on track? I remember most of the overtakes happening when one car pitted for fuel and tyres.
I think it's a little bit of column A, little bit of column B as to why the rules were the way they were, but the way the rules are now makes the current supplier Pirelli look bad. In fact Michelin snubbed an F1 return due to believing the current rules meant tyres would be designed to fail.
But who knows, maybe we could see a pivot back to full-race tyre durability by 2026 in another move towards sustainability and cost-cutting measures.
Im loving these new thumbnails!
I think its not just overtaking that entertains, the battle for the overtake is what I like to see personally.
😁I am Looking forward to see in a few Seasons Time all new Spec Cars of the 2022 Era becoming Quicker than the 2020 Cars!
ironically to the purpose of 2005 rules, kimi could have similar dominant season of schumacher's 2004 season if it wasn't for reliability
so interesting for those who were little and couldnt experience it
Can We Have A Story About The ETCC And WTCC Please?
Its true, I remember hearing lots of the same in these days like we did 2017-2020...there just wasn't social media back then (thank god) so it was less horrible. But yup its the same thing. People talk the talk about best car and the best equipment wins and dont tamper w the rules etc but then moan constantly when a team, esp person, dominates. Also as I've learned more of the technical part of the sport I've realized many of the great competitive years often came after rule changes. We have to be honest...the sport was always a balance of letting the teams go at it vs entertainment and often the latter is chosen. Which we want. We dont always admit it but we do. Including me. I think a bit more of an egalitarian field lets talent show better!! Hard to judge talent or show off when its a very rigid hierarchy of cars
F2005-GA also was flying at the Spanish? GP but it suffered tyre failures..
Mercs is not first team or Lewis is first driver who faced such unethical practices......it's been in F1s name and history....no big deal....it has always been more entertainment than sports. Rbr, Williams, ferrari and many teams and many drivers have suffered this stuff, merc is the only one so far who stood against it(I mean I don't remember any team making huge issue), and every team should! Bring consistency to sports.
And Ntflx brought so many spoiled kids that they think entertainment is greater than sport.... It's never gonna stop, merc/ham days are over now.... He is old and soon will retire and we will see max taking place of ham..... There's always gonna be someone better driver. It was ham then , now it's max. But the media and fans made it so much toxic, that the beautiful Battle was not enjoying as it should have been...sad fact. F Phhiiiaaa!
Mad Max and team _still_ putting that Salt in their Trophy Cup.
I have no doubt in my mind that it was too stop Shui winning another title. Its hard to stop a driver and a team when their is NO doubt Michael was by far the best driver at that time. On a personal note I can never quite decide if Fisichella punctured Schumacher's tyre on purpose to give Alonso a bigger advantage . Taking that into account one of Michael's best drives as a come back from almost a lap down to finish Fourth if memory serves me correctly.
To be honest, most of the time, I wouldn't like to guess what F1/FIA motivations were at any point. Maybe the Poisoned Dwarf had a raging one for Fred because he knew that would bring in a _lot_ of Spanish cash, and would hopefully bring back the disillusioned fans. But the FIA? They didn't get their nickname for nothing, so I doubt that they set out to destroy Ferrari's chances.
They've always chickened out when Ferrari has threatened to leave F1 if they don't get their own way. It seems that only recently there's been _some_ backbone when it comes to dealing with them, but if we compare the "punishment" for cheating throughout at least one whole season recently (with what, a "we're sorry, we won't do it again" behind closed doors?) with the McLaren debacle - bearing in mind how quickly Ron Dennis reported his own people to the FIA, let the FIA crawl all over their cars and confirm that not as much as a screw had been copied (and that information you gave us in the video about that regarding the total silence about the other two teams found to have Ferrari plans *that year!*), I find it hard to believe that just a couple of years before that, that the FIA were trying to throw Ferrari to the wolves just to get ratings up.
The more I think about it, the more my inclination is towards the FIA wanting the Spanish moolah and using Bridgestone as the sacrificial lamb, then having the great opportunity to blame Michelin for _the_ feck up in Indy, they rewarded them not much later with sole supplier status. No, I don't believe cost cutting had a damned thing to do with that decision.
Max Mosley, the FIA president at the time, did not like the Ferrari dominance from the beginning. There were already small rule changes every year to try to slow Ferrari down. But none of that worked. Until 2005. It was well known how Ferrari used the tyres. Small fuel tank, short aggressive stints to squeeze everything out of the tyres.
How many time have they changed the rules to slow down the cars? When Heinz Harald Frentzen was at Williams for the 1997 season, he said that a lot of his fastest laps should stand for a while, because they were going to have grooved tyres the next season. I wonder if any of those records still stand?
None of them do, except maybe for Jerez. The tracks that continued into the 2000s got their lap records vaporised by the Ferrari F2004 and Williams FW26
If you want a study in why DRS happened, watch the 2005 season. The absolute worst for aero interference and the cars needing to be _way_ faster to get past. The tyre rules were daft but they produced some decent races, with the exception of the sometimes bizarre time differences as the tyres aged. At Imola Schumacher was 2s a lap faster than everyone else for a period - it was just so strange. Also odd Ferrari never managed that again all season.
I've actually NOT enjoyed seeing JPMs records fall.
When explaining double- and triple-stinting tyres at Le Mans, you need to explain that no other work can be done on the car while it's fuelling at Le Mans / WEC races etc, i.e. any time to change tyres is extra pitstop time, and takes a lot longer because of restricted pitcrew numbers. Unlike in F1 where tyres used to be changed for free, as they'd take a relaxed 3-4 seconds and be complete well ahead of the fuel.
On San Marino 2005 I thought you were gonna mention the ad break that ruined the end for everyone. It was really bad.
The FIA should have implemented a “maximum driver chin size” rule. That would have sorted it!
I think there needs to be an acknowledgement that in the mid-term, rule changes need to go against teams that are winning everything. My ideal would be for rules that allow for multiple options to scale up/down certain parameters, e.g. engine size, battery size, wing size, fuel tank size etc. Give points values to these parameters, so e.g. if you want a bigger wing, you can't have as much engine size. Then, re-weigh these parameters, e.g. if a team is dominating the championship with a bigger engine, make engine size cost more, to give other design philosophies a way in.
The outcome of this would be that you would be encouraged to design different cars. If you do the same thing as Mercedes but just not as well -- you're gonna lose. But if you take a different approach -- you won't succeed straight away, but in a few seasons the rules will come around to your way.
So it's not doing a touring car thing of just chucking weights into winning cars, you get rewarded for a good car by winning -- but once you have succeeded, you have to face new challenges, rather than just winning year after year until everyone gets bored, which has happened too often in recent years.
Could be an option. Similar to the changes made before the start of the last season. They come up with a different reason and solve a "problem" at the same time. Here a list of things the FIA didn`t messed up in the last decades:
1. Safety
2. ... hmmm
...
I think in general the more changes they make and the more rules they create the worse it is. Now that there is a cost cap I feel like they should dramatically open up the rules to allow more creativity. I wish they did stuff like the cars overall size has to fit inside a standard or even compact parking spot. For the engines they should say it has to fit inside a certain area and they can do whatever they want as long as it fits.
Yep, cars are nearly identical now from a viewer perspective. And it's not like we're in the 80's-90's where reliability was woeful. A set of parameters to follow and do whatever you want with the rest of the car... I can dream.
@@safeasf_uck7020 what got me hooked on f1 was that each car was totally different and you could see the car change from race to race. Now because of the rules the changes are so small that they all just look the same.
@@safeasf_uck7020f1 is disgust because it's not just the best drivers but the best and most creative engineers as well.
The 2017 regulations were perfect. It opened up the aero regs drastically and we actually got a title fight for two seasons before FIA favored Mercedes by changing the tyres to fix their issues.
You forgot the most significant change, which was, next to the tyres, the most important factor for Ferraris bad season- the rule change in the diffusor area, which took Ferraris significant advantage in that most important aera of aerodynamics away. Also i think you missed to explain that Michelins concept of a radial tyre was totally different than Bridgestones. And that the concept of Bridgestone, which was indeed a cross-ply tyre, has in general a huge disadvantage in relation to wear. Also you missed to explain Ferraris concept, which was actually a Sprint-Race Car. The new rules completely corrupted this concept.
So the FIA indeed created a set of rules that obviously was aimed to erase Ferraris advantages.
I mentioned the diffuser…
The 2004 Ferrari domination was probably helped by the 2003 tyre controversy, McLaren and Williams needed to swap back to their 2003 cars so they could keep the championship going, this gave Ferrari a 4-5 months advantage in developing the 2004 car
Not being able to switch tyres has to be the stupidest rule there ever has been
The rule changes to most of the rule book was ok. Except the tires. I feel it would be similar to the outcome.
There do need to be said tho, the teams were allowed to change tires again during 05 after Raikonnen had a big off due to a blow-out at the Nurburgring. But this was only allowed if the tires were threatening to explode if they didn't get replaced in time.
Feel free to correct me if I turn out to be wrong over this.
I believe you're correct.
I’m sure you’re correct I remember you could change your tires before that if you had a puncture like Michael did at Spain earlier that year but after Kimi incident they upgraded the rule to be able to change your tires if there’s a problem with that set
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 yes. The rule that you could change tyres if there were safety concerns existed before the Kimi incident.
Thanks guys, as I can remember from studying this season, after Kimi's crash you were allowed as a driver to change an entire set for safety reasons. So there were a few exceptions where teams did a tyre change.
If I remember correctly weren’t you only allowed to change the one damaged tyre, and not the full set?
I think the FIA were smoking some form of alternative tobacco in the board room maybe with some scantily clad women with whips and a few Egyptian symbols. I think Max was still there in 2005. After all it is Ferrari International Assistances. Any other team trying to work around the fuel sensor would probably been thrown out of the championship see Tyrell and the lead shot.
I would quietly be happy with this Englishman managing an F1 team.
🙏🙏🙌🙌
Imola 2005; one of the best finishes...never seen as we didn't see it because of stupid adverts!
The FIA need to go to the Cleland room for the 2005 rule change.
I don’t personally care about overtaking. I more interested in all cars being able to compete for wins. 2012 was awesome cus a bunch of different people could win a race since the cars were closer together in performance.
If F1 wants to ensure a spread of race winners, limit the period or number of titles a driver may drive for one team, but don’t change rules to stop the team from winning, force team to catch up. Allow development during season, including wind tunnel testing.
F1 should become more of a Spec series like NASCAR or Indy Car. Try to get the cars as close as possible, where winning is not always who has the better car. It comes down to who set up the car better, mid race adjustments and pit stops. In the final laps of the NASCAR championship, Kyle Larsen's team got him out in under 11 seconds moving him up 3 spots and into the lead.
Its a good thing that these kind of regs didn't come out now, otherwise social media would crucify them.
People crying that they don’t like the look of the front wing.
Next 'The rules designed to topple Hamilton'
The problem was when the FIA talks of lack of overtaking , they mean at the front of the field , yes there was over taking in the midfield but that is hardly shown on the TV , what the FIA wanted was lots of overtaking at the front , but to achieve that you need to make sure that the teams fighting for wins are equal in every way and that is almost impossible .
The total number of overtakes in a race/season is actually not a good metric by which to judge the entertainment value of a race/season. Not on its own, at least. Battles that results in no change for position can be quite exciting depending on the circumstances, after all.
Honestly believe the 2005 tyre rule was the worst ever implemented apart from *maybe* the sprint races or elimination qualifying
Let's face it, the pre 2021 chassis changes were 100% introduced to stop Mercedes so it's a cert they would have done something similar in '05.