I don't think any team will go for any other strategy than high grip tyres and refueling.rifrafs2kees wrote: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.
Sure...except if you qualified infront and want to keep track position. Then the cars behind might decide to refuel and go with high grip tires in hopes of overtaking.Tumbarello wrote:I don't think any team will go for any other strategy than high grip tyres and refueling.rifrafs2kees wrote: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.
). It's up to the teams to decide how to generate that output the most efficiently... There are pretty much no rules to break! That's what's so great about it!How would one go about governing cornering speeds? What about the always present "track evolution"? Wet races? Seems very hard not to break the rules, even if one tried not to.machin wrote:@DaveW: Your example shows why the current rules system is so bad. -unlike today's rules which set geometric limits which can always be interpretted differently (as in your Ferrari example), Richard's suggestion is to measure outputs e.g downforce (or cornering G-force in my refinement,
Machin: I wasn't trying to defend the current rule structure. In an earlier post I suggested that teams & sponsors found the current rule structure "safe", meaning low risk. I thought that L di M's outburst was an illustration of that thinking as, incidentally, is the FOTA agreement to fix longitudinal c.g. position for 2011...machin wrote:@DaveW: Your example shows why the current rules system is so bad.
I think this is a pretty inherent problem with this type of governence. The problem with restricting outputs such as V and Ay is that they are such a complicated function of the inputs that the outputs simply arent static.lolzi wrote: How would one go about governing cornering speeds? What about the always present "track evolution"? Wet races? Seems very hard not to break the rules, even if one tried not to.
I cannot see any connection between limiting downforce with a maximum figure and a lap time limit.DaveW wrote:Performance limits monitored by real time measurement are often difficult to implement reliably & almost impossible to police. In any case, the idea is a little absurd, if I may say so. That should become clear if I suggest that the most reliable & incorruptible performance measure is lap time. What would you think about about imposing a minimum lap time....?
Allowing a fixed quantity of energy for completing a race is a good idea, I think, although it would introduce some novel technical problems. I'm not sure that it would encourage diversity, however, or stimulate overtaking.
