Divergent Governance: A Solution to the Overtaking Problem

[rjsa]

When I read the paper title I was thinking 12 meters and America's Cup. By that I mean create a set of rules that does not dictate shape as it does today, force teams to take wild compromises.

But I really don't like the idea of imposing engine power or total downforce. First, even with the simplest set of rules to be enforced - lengths and static deflections - the teams find all manners to run around the rules. Imagine if you are trying to mandate downforce. Second, I can't even figure out how you would check downforce on track. Or engine power for that matter.

[machin]

Interesting article; I've just read the whole thing through....

I quite like the ideas actually, but I almost think you haven't taken the concept far enough! Here's what I would propose:-

Rather than specifying parameters such as horsepower, downforce, weight, etc (which as others have said above can, in some instances, be diffiult to measure on the track) why not go a level further; back to the fundamental three things that govern the performance of a vehicle:-

Accelerative G-forces
Deccelerative G-forces
corning G-forces

The governering body could specify a 3D curve which links these three (i.e. with high accelerative G-forces requiring correspondingly low corning G-forces, etc) and the teams must, at the beginning of the season, declare to the FIA what position on the curve their car will take for the season.

Different formulae would have different curves; so the FIA could limit the corning G-force element of the curve to provide a low down-force formuale if they wanted (and yet maintain a performance differential between braking and accelerating)...

The control/enforcement of the rules is easy; cars are simply fitted with a two axis G-Meter (one meter doing acceleration and decceleration)... three transgressions of the limits could result in a drive-through penalty (or similar), whilst a single transgression say 5% above the limits could result instant disqualifiation.

The design of the cars would thus be engaged in maximising the time spent at the limit values (e.g. nice wide spread of power, adaptive aerodynamics, etc), and indeed it would allow in-season development to continue... but because the position on the curve is fixed at the beginning of the season it would maintain a performance differential between cars at different points on the track (and indeed, between one track and another) to make for the exciting racing we all crave.

Of course, you'd still need some geometric contraints; overall vehicle size, etc, and it might be desireable to make certain parts "Spec" -tyres etc, to reduce costs of these parts, but that would still be OK I think.

costs would be constrained by limiting the peak values on the curves; lower peak values are easier to achieve at all points around the track so would be cheaper to provide... higher peak values require more advanced equipment to maintain these values at all times where possible. The emphasis of the design team would then fall upon trying to obtain these peak values as simply and cost effectively as possible... just like in the real world of consumer engineering -so there's relevance for F1.

This also has the desireable outcome that lower formulae are cheaper to produce cars for than the upper formulae as achieving the lower peak values is easier.

[rifrafs2kees]

To me, the best way forward is to limit certain resources that the cars need to run, not the actual output figures. I would really like to see a limitation on the inputs.

For example:
Specify a set amount of fuel to be used per race distance. Let the competitors decide the best way to use that fuel...it's their business to decide whether to have all the necessary fuel on board or refuel.

Specify a tire size and allow competitors decide between outright grip or durability...etc...
Specify minimum weight and car size and let them race
In a nutshell, leave the teams to come up with the most efficient combination of power vs efficiency, downforce vs drag, aero grip vs mechanical and I think we'll see all sorts of approaches.

[machin]

I quite like that too... But that'll just lead to a situation where the team with the biggest budget wins... And doesn't solve the overtaking issue...

[hollus]

Limited fuel (very limited) with no further restrictions, goes some way to solve the overtaking problem. There are about 200 decently sized straights in an average F1 race, now let the guy in front guess in which ones I decide to waste some fuel to crank up the power and in which ones not. If he guesses it wrong too often, then he is wasting fuel and I am saving it.
It also leads to situations where the car building the engine with the best peak power would qualify ahead, but likely suffer from worse fuel economy in the race.

[autogyro]

Limiting fuel also forces a reduction in downforce to reduce drag.

[machin]

Just noticed this idea is in racecar engineering this month!

@Auto and RifRafs2kees...I would fear that a simple fuel limit would result in huge expenditure... putting a cap on performance would promote obtaining that performance in the most cost effective way...

(But I still agree that F1 needs to have a fuel limit as well, somewhere around 75% of current fuel usage, dropping each year to promote research in this area).

[netoperek]

i would really like it if there were no limits at all!! maybe except for lower limits, like minimum performance, ie. in terms of lap time, specified for each formula. And leave all the rest to engineers creativity

[autogyro]

A set fuel amount is not realy a limit, it is a target to aim for that is at last outside fabricated regulations that give a false picture of what F1 should be about.

[machin]

I'd love to see that too...

... But how long could it sustain itself?

[rifrafs2kees]

A set fuel amount is not realy a limit, it is a target to aim for that is at last outside fabricated regulations that give a false picture of what F1 should be about.

A set fuel amount is not realy a limit, it is a target to aim for that is at last outside fabricated regulations that give a false picture of what F1 should be about.

It is a limit and it can certainly spice up the racing. When Audi wins Le Mans, spectators don't say they won the fuel efficiency race. It won't be a solar race. I assert that, if teams are allowed untethered freedom in aerodynamics, power generation and capture plus other areas of car development, while having a set amount of fuel for race day, we'll see a wide variety of approaches to winning. In such a scenario, the FIA wouldn't need to set wing size and so on, rather, car size and minimum weight shall be set. I think it will be wise to have continuation of the single tire supplier culture but teams should be allowed to choose if they would run supersofts and pit so often for tires and fuel or run a hard tire with a full tank of gas.

Under such a system, cars start the race in exactly the state in which they make their qualifying runs, except that during qualifying, they carry just enough fuel for such.....in essence an exact continuation of the system we have today.

What all this means is ...we'd have a wide variety of tire strategies...one team might qualify using the softer grippier tire for position but have to pit, while the next team might run a hard tire.

Some teams might pursue KERS, to offset the drag associated with higher downforce if the so choose.

The FIA won't have to define wing size and the such. The fuel limit will take care of majority these things. If u want to run a high aspect ratio wing, cranked up like an air brake, u just might run out of fuel.

And most importantly, there should be a performance benchmark matrix. The matrix for the previous year will be referenced and used to skew the regulations yearly to give cheaper technologies slight advantages just to help poorer teams. It won't be perfect. The richer teams are always going to do better. It's just an "unfair characteristic" of racing. Example, if the first 6 teams for the previous year, run KERS, then according to such matrix, minimum car weight can be reduced further and may be fuel allowed per race distance may be increased also. This in turn reduces the KERS advantage.

That's my 2 cents

[machin]

@rifrafs2kees; Would you allow active aero? With open rules like this we'd see massive corninering speeds... the FIA wouldn't like that on safety grounds.....

[rifrafs2kees]

Not sure about active aero. I've never been a fan of it and I surely don't like how it might be used next year. It will be too artificial in it's use..(can use it when overtaking only..blahblahblah...). The issue of cornering speed is easily handled by the fuel limit. High risk solutions to cornering stability like ground effect should continue to be limited. That leaves diffusers and wings as primary downforce generators. You limit the fuel, and wing sizes and angles reduce, consequently cornerings speed, fall. To raise overall speed, bump up the fuel allowed per race distance. Under such a system, one would effectively be deciding between, how much downforce/fuel is wasted on sections of the track that do not need it. With limited fuel, you can't pound around the track with a 1000hp engined parachute.

[machin]

With active aero you can have the high cornering speeds we have now and low drag (hence fuel consumption) on the straights.

Personally I'm all for active aero; even modest road-going sportscars have it these days...

I guess active aero could work with a fuel limit regulation; but you'd be looking at drastically limiting fuel so power was in the region of 300-ish bhp... Maybe even less to maintain today's performance levels...

[machin]

Very simplistically; assume power due to all resistances are proportional to speed cubed... If in high down force the car absorbs 750 bhp, at 125 mph it only absorbs 250 bhp... So to maintain todays steady state cornering speeds at 125 mph u only need 250 bhp. With fully active aero i'm sure 250 to 300bhp could maintain top speeds at 180mph...

All of that aside; it doesn't solve the cost issue, and it is debatable whether just cutting downforce would solve the overtaking issue; Richard's document concerning performance differential makes interesting reading...