Rules I'd like to see

[KevlarUSA]

Here's some F1 rules I'd like to see implemented to improve the racing.

- No diffuser, no ground effects, most downforce from tunnels. Less vortexes generated behind the cars to allow closer running.

- No carbon brake discs. Iron or steel. Drivers would have to manage braking performance. This is a major area that causes problems overtaking because the braking distance is so short.

- Get rid of paddle shifters on the steering wheels. put the shifter in the cockpit like it used to be and force the driver to take his hand off the wheel.

- Lose engine restrictions. Limit power with either air restriction or fuel flow restrictions. Air restrictions might resort to a turbocharged engine being the norm though.

- Current aero regulations are prety good. Cars look better without all the dodads. But I'd like to see the front and rear wings more like '07

[Giblet]

Increasing engine capacity, and handling, while putting brakes back in the 70's would be a recipe for disaster, and would make the majority of modern F1 tracks obsolete.

The other ideas I like for the most part. Maybe allowing ceramic brakes instead of just iron or steel, as there would simply be too much overheating, and put the cars in an echelon of performance lower than Gp2.

[Scotracer]

-If that was indeed beneficial they would have changed the regulations to suit by now

-Steel brakes are just as powerful, they are just heavy

-Very old technology these days

-Yes

-2000 front/rear wing regs please.

[Steven]

Actually I have been wondering about the brakes for quite a while now, especially because they indeed allow for very short braking distances. It is interesting to suggest to just reduce the maximum disc size or change the material to reduce braking performance.

It is however a bad idea when you consider safety. If you for instance pick Ayrton Senna's fatal crash, he only died because of a suspension part. Before he hit the wall, his car reduced speed from more than 300km/h to approximately 210 at impact thanks to these high performance brakes.

I know maybe it's a bad example, but if they'd have worse brakes, the resulting impact speed of say 240 would have killed him anyhow, no matter if there was a suspension part involved or not.

Basically, I'm not sure which way to go, but it's an important consideration to make when taking on the brake regulations.

[KevlarUSA]

Increasing engine capacity, and handling, while putting brakes back in the 70's would be a recipe for disaster, and would make the majority of modern F1 tracks obsolete.

The other ideas I like for the most part. Maybe allowing ceramic brakes instead of just iron or steel, as there would simply be too much overheating, and put the cars in an echelon of performance lower than Gp2.

Here in the U.S. Champ Car R.I.P. and the IRL have always used steel discs in a heavier car without too many problems. As far as horsepower, it would have to be limited by air or fuel restriction to somewhere near where they are now, or a little lower. Current F1 cars are generating up to 5Gs of deceleration and reducing this would help alot in improving overtaking.

[KevlarUSA]

-If that was indeed beneficial they would have changed the regulations to suit by now

I disagree. The rules that have been introduced over the last 15 years or so have had the effect of making the cars harder and harder to drive. with less downforce, downforce generated in ways that make a large vortex wake and grooved tires. I just thing they went down the wrong path in rying to slow the cars down. Look at GP2, they have tunnels and no diffuser, and they can run right behind each other.

-Steel brakes are just as powerful, they are just heavy

But they have to be managed more by the driver.

-Very old technology these days

-Yes

-2000 front/rear wing regs please.

[KevlarUSA]

One point about carbon discs, My understanding is they take around 5 or 6 weeks in an oven to make. That's got to be a huge amount of energy to make them. Doesn't sound very eco-friendly. And it would be far cheaper for teams if they didn't use them.

[Giblet]

Increasing engine capacity, and handling, while putting brakes back in the 70's would be a recipe for disaster, and would make the majority of modern F1 tracks obsolete.

The other ideas I like for the most part. Maybe allowing ceramic brakes instead of just iron or steel, as there would simply be too much overheating, and put the cars in an echelon of performance lower than Gp2.

Here in the U.S. Champ Car R.I.P. and the IRL have always used steel discs in a heavier car without too many problems. As far as horsepower, it would have to be limited by air or fuel restriction to somewhere near where they are now, or a little lower. Current F1 cars are generating up to 5Gs of deceleration and reducing this would help alot in improving overtaking.

I just think that any change to the brakes, would make the cars slower by a large margin, and GP2 would have better brakes.

You can't have a feeder series with any part of their car above or equal to what it feeds. It just doesn't make sense.

Most drivers that have been in other quick open wheel series, say it's all just another car, but the brakes are what really surprises every first time driver.

Not to mention quite a bit of unsprung weight, and a beefier braking system to handle all the heat transferred back into the lines and fluid.

[KevlarUSA]

Increasing engine capacity, and handling, while putting brakes back in the 70's would be a recipe for disaster, and would make the majority of modern F1 tracks obsolete.

The other ideas I like for the most part. Maybe allowing ceramic brakes instead of just iron or steel, as there would simply be too much overheating, and put the cars in an echelon of performance lower than Gp2.

Here in the U.S. Champ Car R.I.P. and the IRL have always used steel discs in a heavier car without too many problems. As far as horsepower, it would have to be limited by air or fuel restriction to somewhere near where they are now, or a little lower. Current F1 cars are generating up to 5Gs of deceleration and reducing this would help alot in improving overtaking.

I just think that any change to the brakes, would make the cars slower by a large margin, and GP2 would have better brakes.

You can't have a feeder series with any part of their car above or equal to what it feeds. It just doesn't make sense.

Most drivers that have been in other quick open wheel series, say it's all just another car, but the brakes are what really surprises every first time driver.

Not to mention quite a bit of unsprung weight, and a beefier braking system to handle all the heat transferred back into the lines and fluid.

Well, that's kinda my point. The time spent braking for a corner has gotten so short it limits the guy behind from reacting quickly enough. The cars are so close to the edge that out-braking the other guy is close to impossible. These kind of rules would have to be brought to the feeder series as well so that there isn't such a huge difference in performance. As far as technical problems with overheating ect. They can be overcome. Reducing braking performance to somewhere around 3Gs I don't think would harm the show at all. Perhaps it's possible to limit the coefficient of friction that brake pads can generate much like the maximum stiffness of the material used on the calipers.

[Belatti]

The braking distance is determined by the grip between the tyres and the ground. Not by the brake disk or pads material or even performance. A steel rotor could brake in the same distance, however it is heavier and braking stability can differ (due to temp management)

[Giblet]

C'mon Belatti, really? Then why don't we use steel brakes? Carbon brakes have the most extreme performance under racing conditions, at a fraction of the weight. These cars don't weigh their stock curb weight when they begin braking, they are a couple thousand pounds heavier. The grip of the tires can not be overcome by steel brakes and cause locking as quickly as carbon ones.

Carbon brakes work better as they increase in temp, the opposite of steel. Braking distances would increase as the race went on.

So if the braking distances are longer, how will this aid overtaking? If I outbrake you at a corner by one meter, and overshoot the turn in point by one meter, how is this any different if the braking zone is longer?

I can still outbrake, and be outbroken.

If one car has slightly better brakes, not only will they be able to pass everyone in the field, as more time will be spent under braking, and their advantage will increase exponentially. Danger is a whole other story, and the redesign of tracks needed to account for cars different braking points would be a whole bag of hurt in itself. Getting out o trouble in a hurry is more important than getting into it when the card house falls.

F1, to me, is about lightning quick reactions taking place in small little slices of time. This is what racing is about. To bring the brakes to level of lower level cars like IRL and CART, that are not solely designed to attack a circuit, would be going backwards.

[FGD]

If the idea is to increase braking distances, I suggest drivers should have to stop the cars with their feet.

[Scotracer]

F1 has never been about promoting over-taking. It would be rape of the sport to reduce it to How can we force overtaking? F1 always has been and hopefully always will be high-speed driving with the occasional race breaking out.

The problem we've reached here is that people have forgotten/not realised:

a) rose-tinted views of the "golden years" within F1. Of course if you actually go and watch a season from say 20-30 years ago you'll see it's not really any different from today. In fact it was probably worse because the field was so spread out and so many cars broke down. Yes there have been some epic races throughout the years but there have been several from the past 5 years; Suzuka 2005, Germany 2008 (Lewis storming through), Brazil 2008 and probably many more I just can't remember at this moment. So it's not like F1 has "died". It would completely die if the technology and performance was stripped away.

b) what happens to the feeder series when you castrate F1? F1 has always been about being the fastest and ultimate in automotive shenanigans. If you do as you wish and force longer braking distances don't come crying to me when GP2 is faster.

What they need to do for 2010 is alter the aero regs again. The rules haven't helped - they've actually made things worse in some regards as the drivers are reporting very twitchy cars in a wake...and on top of that they are less attractive than afterbirth. There is a better solution out there.

Giblet: How would brake temperatures go up during a race? Currently the temperatures are pretty uniform over a race distance so I don't know where you got that from. Steel brakes can work just as well as Carbon in terms of braking performance. IIRC Jaguar were going to run Steel brakes in 2004 but due to reasons not connected with braking performance they chose to stay with Carbon.

[Giblet]

If the idea is to increase braking distances, I suggest drivers should have to stop the cars with their feet.

Yabba dabba do.

Scottracer, I thought brake fade was a problem that has to be overcome in any level of braking system, but I am not a real racer or even close to an engineer. I am learning.

But My mind tells me even if you have a beefy enough cooling system it still is to the detriment of the ultimate performance of the car.

Heat into the lines makes braking effort harder, and the brakes work less well? Correct me on how my line of thinking is wrong.

EDIT : here I found this so we can watch someone else figure it out
http://forums.autosport.com/lofiversion ... 29153.html

[KevlarUSA]

C'mon Belatti, really? Then why don't we use steel brakes? Carbon brakes have the most extreme performance under racing conditions, at a fraction of the weight. These cars don't weigh their stock curb weight when they begin braking, they are a couple thousand pounds heavier. The grip of the tires can not be overcome by steel brakes and cause locking as quickly as carbon ones.

Carbon brakes work better as they increase in temp, the opposite of steel. Braking distances would increase as the race went on.

So if the braking distances are longer, how will this aid overtaking? If I outbrake you at a corner by one meter, and overshoot the turn in point by one meter, how is this any different if the braking zone is longer?

I can still outbrake, and be outbroken.

If one car has slightly better brakes, not only will they be able to pass everyone in the field, as more time will be spent under braking, and their advantage will increase exponentially. Danger is a whole other story, and the redesign of tracks needed to account for cars different braking points would be a whole bag of hurt in itself. Getting out o trouble in a hurry is more important than getting into it when the card house falls.

F1, to me, is about lightning quick reactions taking place in small little slices of time. This is what racing is about. To bring the brakes to level of lower level cars like IRL and CART, that are not solely designed to attack a circuit, would be going backwards.

I don't understand your reasoning. F1 has always been about setting limits. If it wasn't we'd have cars that turn so quick and brake so hard drivers would pass out in the space of a few laps.

Skirts = banned
turbos = banned
v10 engines = banned
active ride height = banned
sucker cars = banned
active aero = almost banned
Lotus double chassis = banned


multiple driving and or steering wheels (Tyrrell) = banned