How to fix F1?

[SealTheRealDeal]

Why would a different logic apply to an engine going out in smoke than to a tire going out with a bang?

We have standard tires so it won't reflect poorly on any one particular engine or chassis constructor the way other mechanical failures do. Pirelli just makes what the FIA and F1 contract them to make, and we the fans dog on Pirelli regardless of what they make, so F1 may as well go back to ordering fragile tires rather than the current "good" tires.

[chaoticflounder]

Why would a different logic apply to an engine going out in smoke than to a tire going out with a bang?

We have standard tires so it won't reflect poorly on any one particular engine or chassis constructor the way other mechanical failures do. Pirelli just makes what the FIA and F1 contract them to make, and we the fans dog on Pirelli regardless of what they make, so F1 may as well go back to ordering fragile tires rather than the current "good" tires.

I do agree with the intention of where you're trying to go on the unpredictability. I think tires would likely not be where you'd want to add that since this could lead to a sudden loss of control. For the engine scenario, I would argue the imposed hazard from suddenly losing an engine is good bit lower than suddenly losing a tire.

P.S. I did think your point on the floor was good though. We don't ever get to see the details of why some cars are so far out ahead than the others.

[chrisc90]

Tyres could last shorter lifespan, which would force teams into additional stops = more strategy options = more chance of under/over cuts

[SealTheRealDeal]

Why would a different logic apply to an engine going out in smoke than to a tire going out with a bang?

We have standard tires so it won't reflect poorly on any one particular engine or chassis constructor the way other mechanical failures do. Pirelli just makes what the FIA and F1 contract them to make, and we the fans dog on Pirelli regardless of what they make, so F1 may as well go back to ordering fragile tires rather than the current "good" tires.

I do agree with the intention of where you're trying to go on the unpredictability. I think tires would likely not be where you'd want to add that since this could lead to a sudden loss of control. For the engine scenario, I would argue the imposed hazard from suddenly losing an engine is good bit lower than suddenly losing a tire.

Yeah I guess that would be a big safety concern.

[sp8472]

I'm not sure the engine reliability genie can be put back in the bottle. Retiring on the side of the track in a plume of white smoke is bad advertising, and really bad for one's championship hopes. I imagine that even without the engine reliability requirements the manufacturers would still make their engines much more reliable than they used to.

What about a return to the super fragile tires of the early 2010s as the chance factor? Returning to tires that are soft as cheese and which sometimes explode for no reason wouldn't just bring back unpredictability, it could also make pit strategy more varied.

I am not asking for engines to be made unreliable or even for a one race life span mandate. I think simply removing the minimum number of engines per season requirement and unfreezing engine development is all that is needed. Teams have a cost cap. Let that be the limiting factor and let teams determine how they spend within that. For example Renault has nothing to loose in developing an engine with a hp advantage that may be less reliable. I am sure there would be some easy performance gains that could be had at the expense of reliability.

There may be a bigger benefit for them to spend the extra millions on finding an extra 50hp and going through more engines, but being competitive because of this. Rather than investing the same $s trying to find ways to loose weight or improve aero performance. Clearly they are not finding the solutions they need down these pathways currently.

Why not allow them to throw all their eggs in the engine basket in the hope that they can design a rocket of an engine that may make them competitive, even if it only makes it through a race or two.

Other teams may choose to follow the same path because the benefit of extra hp exceeds the small but expensive gains that come from redesigning a floor. Or they may choose to hold the corse because they have a great aero concept that has potential.

The only downside I see is for customer teams who have to take what they get and live with the decisions of the engine suppliers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SealTheRealDeal]

I'm not sure the engine reliability genie can be put back in the bottle. Retiring on the side of the track in a plume of white smoke is bad advertising, and really bad for one's championship hopes. I imagine that even without the engine reliability requirements the manufacturers would still make their engines much more reliable than they used to.

What about a return to the super fragile tires of the early 2010s as the chance factor? Returning to tires that are soft as cheese and which sometimes explode for no reason wouldn't just bring back unpredictability, it could also make pit strategy more varied.

I am not asking for engines to be made unreliable or even for a one race life span mandate. I think simply removing the minimum number of engines per season requirement and unfreezing engine development is all that is needed. Teams have a cost cap. Let that be the limiting factor and let teams determine how they spend within that. For example Renault has nothing to loose in developing an engine with a hp advantage that may be less reliable. I am sure there would be some easy performance gains that could be had at the expense of reliability.

There may be a bigger benefit for them to spend the extra millions on finding an extra 50hp and going through more engines, but being competitive because of this. Rather than investing the same $s trying to find ways to loose weight or improve aero performance. Clearly they are not finding the solutions they need down these pathways currently.

Why not allow them to throw all their eggs in the engine basket in the hope that they can design a rocket of an engine that may make them competitive, even if it only makes it through a race or two.

Other teams may choose to follow the same path because the benefit of extra hp exceeds the small but expensive gains that come from redesigning a floor. Or they may choose to hold the corse because they have a great aero concept that has potential.

The only downside I see is for customer teams who have to take what they get and live with the decisions of the engine suppliers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alpine tried something similar in 2022. They were more competitive then than they are now, but they got a lot of flak for all of Alonso's retirements, which also cost them a ton of points, and they weren't exactly fighting for wins even with the turned up engines. Could they have gained more from going all in on engine power reliability be damned? Maybe, but Alpine has structural issues that 50hp at the cost of more DNFs won't solve.

I'm saying you can allow engine manufacturers to go back to fragile but powerful engines, but I doubt many would actually choose to do so. Most likely those that do choose to do so will be weaker manufacturers trying to keep up rather than leaders trying to pull ahead. Returning to 2022 again, it wasn't the Red Bulls retiring on the side of the road in puffs of smoke, that was the Ferraris trying to chase them down and the Alpines trying to keep pace with the other factory teams. Looking back at the V10 era, Ferrari had very good reliability by the standards of the time, and even back then the typically more powerful and less reliable BMW and Mercedes engines were the loosing bet.

[SiLo]

Tyres could last shorter lifespan, which would force teams into additional stops = more strategy options = more chance of under/over cuts

We tried this, it just ended up being a roll of the dice as to who got the best out of the tyres. Teams then just started to absolutely baby-sit the tyres, because the cost of a pitstop is still so high.

[UlleGulle]

I do agree with the intention of where you're trying to go on the unpredictability.

I do agree that the utter predictability is the main problem with todays F1. And yes, suddenly blowing out tires would be a safety concern. My proposal is to instill some unpredictability would be to limit information and reduce the adaptility of the cars by the following.

1. Mandatory factory and simulator shutdown at the start of p2.

The few times the big teams have been in trouble in practice they have solved this come quali, as per their own account, by running simulators through the night and dialogue with the factory. This does not improve racing and would be easy to change. You race with your race team, and that's it.

2. Limit telemetry to be just warnings.

It's kinda strange to hear drivers ask teams how their tires are doing, it should be the other way around. The abundance of information available to the strategists create perfect strategy. With limited telemetry the teams would have to guess how close to the cliff the tires are, and plan with much more uncertainty. But yes, teams should get warnings if something is dangerous with the car.

3. Reduce the buttons and nobs on the wheel.

I remember in the period of 90:ies and early 2000 when cars on the same rubber could be faster or slower during different parts of the race, due to changing conditions and balance. Let's bring that back. Does an adjustable diff make the racing better? Nope. Does different engine modes do it? I don't think so.

[CHT]

Team dominating in F1 is perfectly normal as there will always be a team that is smarter than others, or some drivers quicker than the rest.
When teams and sponsors invest in the sport, they are all expecting to see returns and sponsors are important for this sport.
Whatever rules or ideas hoping to slow down the leader it will also affect the rest of the grid.

If F1 becomes predictably unpredictable, then no one will watch the race and it will become like junior formula series

[markmartinf1988]

Bernie used to keep it fresh with Mosley by changes the regulations every so often. That would help to mix things up a bit now, but Stefano Domenicali doesn't seem to think that is an option. I don't think the budget cap is helping at the moment, as it is stopping big spenders like Ferrari and Mercedes from chucking money at the problem to catch up quicker.

[TeamKoolGreen]

How to fix F1 ? Freeze the chassis formula for 20 years. Freeze the engine formula for 20 years. (we can't do that now that the Frankenstein hybrids are coming in 2026)

But let's look past the Frankenstein hybrids. After that era is over , we can go back to a V8 or something technically and economically sane. And look to lock it in long term. And this is what will fix F1.

[AR3-GP]

Success ballast so that everyone gets a trophy...

[dialtone]

Success ballast so that everyone gets a trophy...

Only RBR gets to demand a participation trophy when they lose. Everyone else needs to sweat it.

[maxxer]

Tyres could last shorter lifespan, which would force teams into additional stops = more strategy options = more chance of under/over cuts

We tried this, it just ended up being a roll of the dice as to who got the best out of the tyres. Teams then just started to absolutely baby-sit the tyres, because the cost of a pitstop is still so high.

Oh remember those days when Pirelli just came in and made tyres to do at least 2 pitstops in a race it was horrible.
Also doesnt help for f1 to be green and conscious with all the tyres. Also back then the start on the tyres you qualified in and all. Having to stop in 1 lap after the start

[Just_a_fan]

Team dominating in F1 is perfectly normal as there will always be a team that is smarter than others, or some drivers quicker than the rest.
When teams and sponsors invest in the sport, they are all expecting to see returns and sponsors are important for this sport.
Whatever rules or ideas hoping to slow down the leader it will also affect the rest of the grid.

If F1 becomes predictably unpredictable, then no one will watch the race and it will become like junior formula series

Team domination is a relatively new thing, really. For the first half of F1's existence, no team took three seasons in a row until McLaren in 84-86. Back to back years weren't unusual but certainly not a given - it happened 5 times in the first 30 years and only happened once between 1961 and 1984.

If F1 became unpredictable then plenty of people would watch it. Only hardcore fans watch stuff where they already know the outcome (pretty much).