Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[autogyro]

It most certainly is not.

[WhiteBlue]

So people agree with me that there are at least three good reason from the cost and sporting point of view to ban refueling (no passing in pits, low fuel qualifying). Refueling artificially cuts a GP distance into several sprint races and does this by using equipment that can always go horribly wrong. How often have we seen cars run away with a fuel hose attached? It is a minor miracle that we did not have a lethal fiery accident in refueling. So the fourth point against refueling is the safety problem it creates.

Fuel efficiency is valuable by itself for any form of traditional GP racing like light weight or simplicity. Engineers have pursued it since the first motor race. I will try to explain why.

It is a natural thing in formula racing that you need a limiting parameter to avoid too much performance. In the past displacement or boost pressure or rpm have been used for that purpose. It is much more elegant to limit undesired performance by limiting the fuel use. It also makes sense to reward technologies like, variable valve timing, variable intake and exhaust geometries, direct fuel injection and HCCI which make the internal combustion process more efficient. On many of those technologies F1 has put an artificial stop to cut performance which isn't needed any more if the performance is regulated by fuel use. So the fifth point is the elegance of curbing excessive performance which is hindered by refueling.

In the past racing has helped the general development of fuel efficient technologies and it is time that GP racing goes back to those roots. Heat recovery is used by stationary power generation for a long time. It is not used in mobile applications. Racing can help making heat recovery so light weight that it becomes useful for automotive applications. Kinetic energy recovery is used in road cars and would be used in GP cars as well if the unreasonable restrictions would be lifted. It makes sense to carry some weight in additional equipment instead of carrying fuel weight if the equipment is lighter. So my sixth point is the promotion of energy recovery technology which is useful for the society and gets suppressed by rules that do not promote fuel efficiency.

All those points have nothing to do with sentimentality or greenness. They simply make sense from general and engineering point of view. This is a technical board and we should not have to make excuses if we propagate a technical view in determining racing regulations.

[hollus]

Other than the fuel limits I have to agree with WhiteBlues above post...but I will be damned if I understand why any of you want to push for fuel economy in the first place but I'm really baffled, after our past experience with fuel limits, why any of you would want to place a limit on the fuel used.
This is racing,,in racing,,we don't need no steeenking fuel economy. Save that for those bleeding hearts that have been sucked in by propaganda.

But we already have a fuel limit in place, and races already are economy runs. Engine volume is limited, RPMs are limited, and thus effectively all engines end up with similar HP. Plus the engine equalization have made them even more equal. With equal amounts of power available, carrying more than X amount of fuel is detrimental to your race time, and we already have all teams designing a car with as small a fuel tank as they can, also because of the elevated CG and aero effects. Then, all teams go and fill the car with a bit less fuel than actually needed to finish the race at full blast, so as to be lighter and faster up to the first pit stop. And then they go on to save fuel in the second half of the race, some teammates more than others. We are already in a fuel limited formula, but with a soft limit, where every car runs with a slightly different amount of fuel.
A hard limit should produce very similar races.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't think the racing is bad. We have seen some good races this year. They just have to continue making the cars and the tyres better for overtaking.

[strad]

tires...tires are are one of the biggest problem we have and as usual we brought it on ourselves

[WhiteBlue]

tires...tires are are one of the biggest problem we have and as usual we brought it on ourselves

I think Bernie and his followers of artificial "racing action" have brought it on us.

[strad]

We as spectators and the racers have created a monster in tires, in an effort to see them go faster..Our desire to always see faster,,every year we want to see quicker lap times or we see a problem..We've done it to ourselves.
Many of you want spec cars etc..well I'd like a spec compound for tires then,,one that would last the entire race..Screw this "must run both compounds" crap and bring on HARD tires that don't make so much clag, then a guy could actually move offline to pass without being on ice...Remember the Vettle/ Webber wreck where Vettle made a stupid pass and then hit Webber,,,a good half of the reason he got sideways and turned into Webber was one drive wheel in the clag.
I have watched in many series, but in INDYcar recently, it was on perfect display..On a track that was plenty wide enough for three or four cars there was barely one car width of usable track...F1 is the same..as is almost every series.

[WhiteBlue]

I'd like a spec compound for tires then,,one that would last the entire race..Screw this "must run both compounds" crap and bring on HARD tires that don't make so much clag, then a guy could actually move offline to pass without being on ice...

++++++++1111111

[Just_a_fan]

tires...tires are are one of the biggest problem we have and as usual we brought it on ourselves

I think Bernie and his followers of artificial "racing action" have brought it on us.

I find this slightly ironic - you're a prominent advocate of rules that limit certain aspects of the car in order to "improve overtaking".

Not a "go" at you by the way, just an observation

As it is, I agree that the continued movement to artifically "improve" the racing is not necessarily healthy.

[WhiteBlue]

I find this slightly ironic - you're a prominent advocate of rules that limit certain aspects of the car in order to "improve overtaking".

My POV is very simple. I don't want performance at any price like some do. They say that more power, more tyre grip, less car weight, more aerodynamic downforce is always good regardless of the level of performance already achieved.

I look at the amazing racing that people achieved with skinny tyres, zero downforce and 600 bhp in 1937. I'm not saying that we need to go back to such times but clearly neither marbles nor three tons of downforce are needed and usefull. Cars can produce amazing races with one ton of downforce and tyres that run a complete GP weekend without marbeling.

Today many technologies are restricted because it made sense at one time. I want those things reviewed and brought up to date. What is the purpose of banning turbos, variable valve timing, variable intakes and exhausts, adaptable aero, KERS power and engine efficiency developments. It makes no sense any more.

Restrictions on engine sales prices and engine development resources should replace the development ban. I am clearly advocating more technical freedom but restricted resources for cost control. Performance limitation should be done by limiting the race fuel budget. This is not difficult to understand.

I do not want parc ferme. I do not want race fuel qualifying. I do not want overtaking in the pits. I do not want artificial lotteries with stops under safety car. I don't want mandatory stops at all. I want races that are won by racing and not by stopping.

[Just_a_fan]

I'd be happy if they made just one change - get rid of the huge sail behind the airbox connecting it to the rear wing. It is so ugly and totally unbalances the look of the cars.

[wanegilly]

hi..
If your car would be used as template you will loose all of this which i am sure fans enjoy, and not to forget, even F3 will have cars running with more down force, that is the worse part.

[aral]

It is interesting to see that Indy car, that bastion of spec cars, is doing an about face, and is to allow different aero to be developed. Probably a mistake, as F1 has shown the problems of allowing aero changes and development!

[Richard]

Surely we need less durable tyres? I want to see drivers struggling to keep the car on track. I want to see tortoise & hare scenarios, with one team going for 3 sets in a race, the other trying to make 2 sets last the duration of the race.

If we had everlasting tyres and no refuelling, then we would have no pit stops, no variability, the race would be over after the first lap.

[WhiteBlue]

You mix up stopping with racing. IMO it is ridiculous to force drivers to artificially stop so that those who cannot pass can look better. With less or almost no marbles and less downforce to loose good drivers will be able to pass on most tracks.