Rules I'd like to see

[outer_bongolia]

An easy solution would be limiting the race fuel load. May be to something ridiculous like 100kg, which would not even take the cars to two thirds of a regular race of 2009. If you want to put a v24, put it... But you'll have used all your fuel in 10 laps.

This would add incredible amount of good tactics. For example, to reduce the drag, the drivers would prefer following a car to passing it. So, if Jenson's car is followed by a fast car (Vettel?), Jenton could just let him pass and tail him to save some fuel.

Also, the cars would need to find the best combination between downforce, acceleration, and fuel consumption.

[tommylommykins]

hmmm.... Wouldn't formula one just degenerate into drafting battles with fuel limits? people would spend 90% of the race drafting off other people to save fuel, and then the person with the most fuel left will turn his engine right up and just waltz off to victory?

[KevlarUSA]

I still think limiting brake performance by a certain amount would improve the racing. If it can't be done by rotor and or pad materials, is it possible to limit maximum hydraulic pressure applied?

[ISLAMATRON]

then the drivers would just stomp on the pedal and let the limiter modulate for them... it would not allow us to see the differences between the drivers... a switch to ceramic materials is conceivable and would relate to road cars... as someone pointed out previously.

[tommylommykins]

Is this just the same as reintroducing ABS, but with an earlier application threshold?

IMO, reducing the ability of the brakes might introduce safety concerns? (SoAndSo wouldn't have died if his car/the rules actrually let him slow down as much as he could have before hitting the wall?) -- I guess the situation here is the same as reducing the size of the tyres, but the dangerous effects would be less obvious in that situation

[The Thorn]

Well, when a car gets in a graveltrap, then a F1 car with low speed would almost dig itself in, and a car with high speed would first take a few jumps, and then will dig itself in. There is just a little of the brakes and grip that will have significant effect on that.

With a wall along the track, with a patch of tarmac in between, the effect will be more significant. You will see that tracks need to make them bigger.

I haven't been a big fan of those tarmac patches. I think when a driver gets off track, he/she needs to be very smart and lucky by keeping speed in the car, or be punished by digging the car in the dirt. But it must be something with the high speeds why a graveltrap would work less safe in some situations.

If you ask me, give the cars less downforce, less brake power, and let them focus on engine/fuel management with limited fuel. Also, bring back a normal way of quallifying. The system used untill 2002 was a real test of the drivers and the cars.

[ISLAMATRON]

How is the qual system now any less of a test of he drivers? It is in fact more dificult now in that they must lay down 3 good laps to get the pole, whereas before all they needed was 1 good lap, while we the fans were stuck watching an empty track for a good half hour before any action got going.

The qual system now is great, and will be even better when they get rid of the race fuel load in Q3 next year... the only thing that could make it better would be the introduction of another session, especially with 3 new teams on the grid(hopefully)

[flynfrog]

How is the qual system now any less of a test of he drivers? It is in fact more dificult now in that they must lay down 3 good laps to get the pole, whereas before all they needed was 1 good lap, while we the fans were stuck watching an empty track for a good half hour before any action got going.

The qual system now is great, and will be even better when they get rid of the race fuel load in Q3 next year... the only thing that could make it better would be the introduction of another session, especially with 3 new teams on the grid(hopefully)

it wasn't a manufactured drama fest it was who has the largest pair in the fastest car.

The current qualy system is along the same lines as using both compounds of tires.

[outer_bongolia]

hmmm.... Wouldn't formula one just degenerate into drafting battles with fuel limits? people would spend 90% of the race drafting off other people to save fuel, and then the person with the most fuel left will turn his engine right up and just waltz off to victory?

Either that, or they could (i) develop a more efficient engine, (ii) reduce the drag, (iii) leave a terrible wake behind the car. Also, the field would be much more compact with faster cars not trying to separate too much, but everyone trying to align themselves for the best placement to win the race.

May be the teams and drivers would not push the cars to their maximum limits, but it would be definitely more tactical to avoid running out of juice at the end of the race (like Senna in 91 Silverstone). Some extra brainwork would be required from the drivers.

[ISLAMATRON]

How is the qual system now any less of a test of he drivers? It is in fact more dificult now in that they must lay down 3 good laps to get the pole, whereas before all they needed was 1 good lap, while we the fans were stuck watching an empty track for a good half hour before any action got going.

The qual system now is great, and will be even better when they get rid of the race fuel load in Q3 next year... the only thing that could make it better would be the introduction of another session, especially with 3 new teams on the grid(hopefully)

it wasn't a manufactured drama fest it was who has the largest pair in the fastest car.

The current qualy system is along the same lines as using both compounds of tires.

You obviously dont know what you are talking about. Pole still goes to the fastest lap, nothing much has changed. But now you have to do it 3 times instead of just once. Yes race fuel sucks but that is gone for next year, and they still have to set 2 fast laps on low fuel to get to Q3. Qualifying before the multi session format was boring up until the last 10 minutes.

[DaveKillens]

I've witnessed fuel mileage races, and they are no fun. For the beginning of the race, there's racing, and that's a good thing. Then eventually all cars run up against the mileage barrier, and fall into just running laps based on fuel burn. No faster, no slower. So what you have for the last half of the race is cars just circulating, no one battling, just running their laps.
No excitement, no drama, no battles at the end. Just cars finishing their runs based on estimated fuel burn.
The only drama that may be present is watching a small handful of cars run out of gas and stopping, but that's it.

[ISLAMATRON]

I doubt it would be the case of every race being fuel dependent, We've all watched F1 pre 1994 when no refueling was allowed and it wasnt anything like that, even when they kept lowering the amount of fuel allowed for the turbo cars year after year. Yes the drivers saved fuel over the course of the race, but they had to drive like that anyway so as to not run off the tires every 10 laps.

[nae]

whilst not entirely supporting limited fuel for a race i do like
sports that have a finite resource that has to be managed, these
are mostly human endurance events where those with a genetic
predisposition to endure manage to last the longest and win the event

the tour de france is a case in point (just watched todays stage review)
you cant win all the stages all the time as you wont have any energy left
to finish the tour

how you move this concept over to motorsport is a matter of debate

running things to close to the bone is a saftey issue, so brakes that
only just last are not good enough, limited fuel only results in dull
races, the wrong tyres are just plain wrong (design the best cars in
the world and hobble them for the 'show')

i kinda see the point in a limited budget with more open technologies
one team might go for a screamer of an engine another for better areo
yet another for a mix of the 2, all for the same cost, much like it used
to be when knowledge was the limiting factor, yet any event i have seen
with engineered 'equivalence' is nowt more than an expensive farce.

being green is pointless, qualy used to be 12 laps , now is 20 odd for
the top runners, kers whilst good on paper is a fruitless waste of £ (currently)

i say open it up fully, anything goes, no min weight, no power restrictions,
perhaps only limit the aero to the amount of wash at the rear (develop a method
of measuring it first) but mostly accept its a fun pursuit that pointless and
let boys be boys and go stupidity fast, keep safety to a high standard but lets
not over value it, see the isle of man tt, people die every year, makes it much much more worthy of respect from both the riders and the fans.

and keep fans post short to boot i say

[noname]

hmmm.... Wouldn't formula one just degenerate into drafting battles with fuel limits? people would spend 90% of the race drafting off other people to save fuel, and then the person with the most fuel left will turn his engine right up and just waltz off to victory?

Either that, or they could (i) develop a more efficient engine, (ii) reduce the drag, (iii) leave a terrible wake behind the car. Also, the field would be much more compact with faster cars not trying to separate too much, but everyone trying to align themselves for the best placement to win the race.

May be the teams and drivers would not push the cars to their maximum limits, but it would be definitely more tactical to avoid running out of juice at the end of the race (like Senna in 91 Silverstone). Some extra brainwork would be required from the drivers.

(i) - teams are already working on that. more efficient engine means less fuel on board thus lighter car. or longer stint to pass opposition in the pits.

(ii) - create downforce with minimal drag penalty is the ultimate goal already.

even today teams are using their brains to save fuel and tires, also.

pushing too much with fuel limits could transfer F1 into endurance racing and I would not like that as there are quite a few such a series. I want the rules encouraging teams and drives to racing on the edge for most of time.

comparison with cycling was used here. I would like F1 to be rather series of classics than a Grand Tour.

[tok-tokkie]

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

The regulations are so specific now that real engineering innovation is no longer possible. Some of those things that have been banned I agree with as they were leading away from everyday vehicle application. But having such detailed regulations as we now have is redusing the field to almost kit cars (certainly as far as engine difference in performance terms; let alone design terms).

Look what Honda have just said (I have added the bold formatting).

'F1 holds no appeal for Honda'
Tuesday 14th July 2009

New Honda chief executive Takanobu Ito says F1's "mounting restrictions" mean the sport no longer holds any appeal to the Japanese carmaker.

Honda left Formula One at the end of the 2008 Championship, citing financial reasons for their decision to sell the team to tech director Ross Brawn.

However, even if the company had the money to return, Ito says they wouldn't.

"It was a real shame that we had to leave Formula One," Reuters quotes Ito as having said during a media briefing in Tokyo.

"On the other hand, F1 is becoming less of a medium in which companies can test their various strengths and more of an event with mounting restrictions.

"There's little room for us to challenge new fields, so bearing in mind the current state of series, I don't think we have the desire to return, even if the economy improves."

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954, ... 76,00.html