Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[autogyro]

Formula 1 regulations are for the benefit of outside vested interests, not for any sport.
If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.

[Mysticf1]

could you elaborate with some specifics? I'm seriously interested.

[Just_a_fan]

Therefore, shouldn't it be much better to reduce downforce to the absolute minimum (the amount necessary to keep the cars from coming off the ground) and allow road relevant development work to be done in other areas?

F1 isn't about being relevant to road cars. There are other series with more relevance to road cars - let them be the test beds for road car development.

F1 should just be pure engineering. Scrap the rules except one - you're allowed X amount of fuel for the race. "Spend" that fuel how you will. Anything else goes.

[Scotracer]

Therefore, shouldn't it be much better to reduce downforce to the absolute minimum (the amount necessary to keep the cars from coming off the ground) and allow road relevant development work to be done in other areas?

F1 isn't about being relevant to road cars. There are other series with more relevance to road cars - let them be the test beds for road car development.

F1 should just be pure engineering. Scrap the rules except one - you're allowed X amount of fuel for the race. "Spend" that fuel how you will. Anything else goes.

And F1 was never pure engineering either. It's first and foremost a competition on a partially level playing-field.

We don't want either extreme - both would be bad for the sport.

The problem with trying to get rid of aero is that it's such a brilliant way to improve the performance of a car. It increases the force on the tyres without increasing momentum or inertia...it's almost like getting something for nothing. And it squares with speed! Oh my.

Aerodynamics aren't a symptom of poor regulation writing, they are a symptom of the universe we live in.

[ISLAMATRON]

Therefore, shouldn't it be much better to reduce downforce to the absolute minimum (the amount necessary to keep the cars from coming off the ground) and allow road relevant development work to be done in other areas?

F1 isn't about being relevant to road cars. There are other series with more relevance to road cars - let them be the test beds for road car development.

F1 should just be pure engineering. Scrap the rules except one - you're allowed X amount of fuel for the race. "Spend" that fuel how you will. Anything else goes.

I choose to use that fuel to burn my competitors cars while they are in parc ferme... I love having no rules, because as a ruthless bastard I allways win, must be how Bernie feels!

[Pingguest]

Then i disagree. A sport should stay what it is, an art of doing something unique; Not a laboratory for everyday life.

That's our opinions then, i respect yours.

I can't see why non-spec, low-weight, low-downforce, open-wheel single seaters can't be unique.

Therefore, shouldn't it be much better to reduce downforce to the absolute minimum (the amount necessary to keep the cars from coming off the ground) and allow road relevant development work to be done in other areas?

F1 isn't about being relevant to road cars. There are other series with more relevance to road cars - let them be the test beds for road car development.

F1 should just be pure engineering. Scrap the rules except one - you're allowed X amount of fuel for the race. "Spend" that fuel how you will. Anything else goes.

And that would probably mean that Formula 1 would get rid of its own drivers, as cars are to be computer-controlled.

[Ogami musashi]

I can't see why non-spec, low-weight, low-downforce, open-wheel single seaters can't be unique.

Now that's unique indeed. in your definition there's nothing including a road relevance except your low downforce requirement..Again..you use the road relevance at will only to show you don't like downforce.

Don't say F1 has to be road relevant then, simply say "i don't like aerodynamics and don't want it in F1"..that's simple.

When then..i'm sorry but i'll stay on my opinion. I want to see specialized extreme performance; And yes, i don't want to reverse back to the day the driver had to fight the car; i want to see the driver fighting the other drivers on the track.

[Pingguest]

I can't see why non-spec, low-weight, low-downforce, open-wheel single seaters can't be unique.

Now that's unique indeed. in your definition there's nothing including a road relevance except your low downforce requirement..Again..you use the road relevance at will only to show you don't like downforce.

Don't say F1 has to be road relevant then, simply say "i don't like aerodynamics and don't want it in F1"..that's simple.

When then..i'm sorry but i'll stay on my opinion. I want to see specialized extreme performance; And yes, i don't want to reverse back to the day the driver had to fight the car; i want to see the driver fighting the other drivers on the track.

My thoughts go a step further than just not liking high-downforce aerodynamics. Formula 1 should really become more road relevant. Of course, we could go to the extreme and mandate closed-wheel, two- or even four-seaters with doors, windscreens and a luggage space. But that would make Formula 1 totally unrecognisable to the public.

Only the recognisability, drivers input and safety can be legitimate reasons not to make the sport as road relevant as possible. Considering this, I think it would make sense to:

• reduce downforce to the absolute minimum by banning wings and diffusers, or at least to reduce downforce to road sports car levels
• introduce non-spec, durable, all-weather tyres which are practically road legal by re-allowing tyre wars, banning tyre changes, allowing a maximum tyre width of 13-inch and specifying a minimum of the tyre surface to be grooved with a minimum depth both before and after use
• allow manufactures to develop clean, fuel-efficient and hence eco-friendly engines by allowing any engine configuration, mandating the use non-fossil fuels, introducing fuel-flow and/or fuel consumption limits, mandating catalytic converters and exhaust silencers.

[Just_a_fan]

Presumably if we're going to make them "road relevant" we'll also be allowing the use of ABS, TC, EPS, dual clutch / CVT gearboxes. How about 4WD with lots of clever diffs in the system?

All of these things are on road cars now.

F1 is not road relevant and doesn't need to be road relevant. There are lots of series around the world that are "road relevant" - we don't need another one.

You say that adding windscreens etc. to the cars will make F1 unrecognisable to the public. Guess what - getting rid of the downforce will make F1 unrecognisable to the public.

[autogyro]

Scotracer wrote
And F1 was never pure engineering either. It's first and foremost a competition on a partially level playing-field.

We don't want either extreme - both would be bad for the sport.

The problem with trying to get rid of aero is that it's such a brilliant way to improve the performance of a car. It increases the force on the tyres without increasing momentum or inertia...it's almost like getting something for nothing. And it squares with speed! Oh my.

Aerodynamics aren't a symptom of poor regulation writing, they are a symptom of the universe we live in.[/quote]


It depends how you define performance. Downforce does decrease lap times but only on pre designed circuits that have a balanced number of braking areas and corners to give this decrease. On a wide banked oval the high downforce would increase lap times. So downforce in car racing is only a fabricated benefit and not a true performance increase.
Streamlining is by comparison a pure performance increase and also reduces the amount of fuel used where as downforce increases the fuel used.
Now I was always taught that performance also included how efficiently the engineer made use of the fuel to achieve both the highest speed and also for the longest time. Downforce is the complete opposite of this and wastes fuel through the excess drag it creates.
I do not want to do away with downforce completely, I would just like to see regulations that forced it to be reduced by at least 50 percent to give more relevence and exposure to other more important technology.

I do not want to see F1 directly relevent to road cars, however lets be fair an F1 car is a road vehicle and can be compared to other road vehicles.
The spectators do make this comparison and the conclusions they make dictate the future of F1 as a sport and as a technology motivator. Of course many of them want to see noisy hugely powerful ic engined cars but an increasing number are demanding that F1 reflect the need to make the most out of energy and for F1 to become more relevent to the latest technology in vehicle motive power. There is a conflict of interest here that has to be dealt with and soon. It is of no use ignoring it and going brrm brrm with the motor heads.

[WhiteBlue]

Therefore, shouldn't it be much better to reduce downforce to the absolute minimum (the amount necessary to keep the cars from coming off the ground) and allow road relevant development work to be done in other areas?

F1 isn't about being relevant to road cars. There are other series with more relevance to road cars - let them be the test beds for road car development.

F1 should just be pure engineering. Scrap the rules except one - you're allowed X amount of fuel for the race. "Spend" that fuel how you will. Anything else goes.

And F1 was never pure engineering either. It's first and foremost a competition on a partially level playing-field.

We don't want either extreme - both would be bad for the sport.

The problem with trying to get rid of aero is that it's such a brilliant way to improve the performance of a car. It increases the force on the tyres without increasing momentum or inertia...it's almost like getting something for nothing. And it squares with speed! Oh my.

Aerodynamics aren't a symptom of poor regulation writing, they are a symptom of the universe we live in.

That discussion has the problem and the solution included.

Many people share Jean Todt's view that aerodynamic is over emphasized nowadays and has been for many years. I call all designs over emphasized that substantially disadvantage a following driver from using the slipstream of the front man.

The endless discussions how clever the aero is and how little drag is produced disregard the fact that you cannot loose downforce that you do not have in the first place. So if the following driver looses too much downforce to pass in most cases then there is simply too much of it. Simple straightforward logic.

The solution is similarly simple. Downforce is not a game of getting something for nothing. Downforce and the inevitable drag it creates require power and energy to generate in the first place. If you don't have excess power over accelerating and overcoming the natural drag of the car you cannot pile on downforce. Really simple.

We want F1 racers to be vastly powerful and impressively performant but we also want to showcase driving talent and skill. Most people accept that managing a fuel budget is not adverse to the ethos and DNA of F1. It requires skill and good thinking in the heat of the battle. So the solution is obvious. Reduce the fuel budget to the point where X-amount of fuel for the race is sufficient to generate spectacular acceleration and speed but not enough to create aero forces that over advantage the leading car.

[Pingguest]

Presumably if we're going to make them "road relevant" we'll also be allowing the use of ABS, TC, EPS, dual clutch / CVT gearboxes. How about 4WD with lots of clever diffs in the system?

All of these things are on road cars now.

F1 is not road relevant and doesn't need to be road relevant. There are lots of series around the world that are "road relevant" - we don't need another one.

You say that adding windscreens etc. to the cars will make F1 unrecognisable to the public. Guess what - getting rid of the downforce will make F1 unrecognisable to the public.

Without wings and diffusers, Formula 1-cars will stay being open-wheel single seaters. People will recognize them as race cars and as something different to prototypes, touring cars and rally cars.

From a road relevance perspective technologies like FWD, FWS, ABS, TC, EPS and CVT should be allowed. But as I wrote earlier, there are three legitimate reasons not to make the sports fully road relevant: recognisability, driver input and safety. As Formula 1 is supposed to be the ultimate drivers' championship, I would oppose the (re-)legalization of those technologies. In contrast to prototypes, as endurance racing was originally for manufactures in first place.

[piast9]

From a road relevance perspective technologies like FWD, FWS, ABS, TC, EPS and CVT should be allowed.

I disagree. FWD, CVT - maybe. But not the electronic gadgets that separate driver's foot from the throttle or hand from the front wheels. This is the sport and it should be all just about the skills in controlling the car. Equipping a racing car with all this is just like taking machine gun to a skeet shooting.

[Ogami musashi]

. As Formula 1 is supposed to be the ultimate drivers' championship, I would oppose the (re-)legalization of those technologies. In contrast to prototypes, as endurance racing was originally for manufactures in first place.

If you want F1 to be the ultimate test for driver, then you need to make it the fastest out there because driving at speed is what makes the difference.

And until now..downforce is the only mean to do so.

[Pingguest]

. As Formula 1 is supposed to be the ultimate drivers' championship, I would oppose the (re-)legalization of those technologies. In contrast to prototypes, as endurance racing was originally for manufactures in first place.

If you want F1 to be the ultimate test for driver, then you need to make it the fastest out there because driving at speed is what makes the difference.

And until now..downforce is the only mean to do so.

More speed doesn't necessarily mean more difficulty. And more speed doesn't necessarily mean more downforce. An increase of mechanical grip, lowering the weight and increasing engine power are other means.