Saving F1 - the new approach?

[Red Schneider]

I don't know if this specifically has to do with 'saving F1,' but on the subject of track characteristics I think elevation and camber change are very important ingredients for a great track. Also I think fast chicanes (think Nurburgring and Imola chicanes at Magny Cours, the Masta Kink at Spa, or the [first] swimming pool chicane in Monaco) are quite entertaining, certainly vastly moreso than slow chicanes. The track needs to undulate way, way more than currently allowed.

It's also important that mistakes are punished. There needs to be the real possibility of (big) crashes. Get rid of the mind-bogglingly easy runoff areas like at Turn 3 in Catalunya.

Lastly Tilke gets an unfairly bad rap. He is working within extremely limiting regulations.

[feni_remmen]

Standard FIA off the shelf 1.5 litre naturally aspirated engine (or free 1.5 NA engines)
Totally free energy recovery systems and electrical power systems
Any suitable aero platform, ie - something like the current aero rules! (probably smaller front wings)
18" WIDE rears
12" WIDE fronts

[Robbobnob]

@ beelsebob
I wouldn't have thought so.
6 seconds on KERS provides around 6tenths at present. Having more power would probably make that 1 to 1.5 seconds quicker(roughly) and it is mainly used in acceleration zones, so the demand on the driver is minimal other than in utilising the control.

Easy to implement, easy to develop and it would add another dimension to strategy.
When to use it, at which stage of the race etc.
Would some hoard it till the end? Would others try use it to overcome a poor grid position? You could get some brilliant racing, and the best thing is, it's the drivers choice and he is in full control.

I was referring to the originally proposed changes – allowing the teams to build any shape of car they like as long as it fits a certain bounding box would immediately reintroduce all kinds of crazy aero devices. Allowing any engine as long as it meets a certain efficiency rating would instantly increase the power output, as we'd start seeing things like the current engines, but with turbos, and more optimal cylinder sizes, and more cunning methods of getting the fuel ignited well. I would be willing to bet that if we moved to "you can have any shape as long as it fits in this box", we'd instantly see lap times drop by 10 seconds or more.

It is for this reason that i proposed a kJ limit per race. Simply put to reduce the speeds the cars go at, reduce the amount of energy they can use over a race. As technology develops naturally the cars will go faster, and so the energy limit can be reduced. It maintains safety standards whilst increasing technology

[Cam]

When you say two different routes, do you mean two different racing lines or two wholly different routes? Either last year or the year before, Ecclestone actually proposed allowing drivers to cut a certain number of corners per race to overtake cars ahead.

Maybe two whole different routes. Not really sure how it would work though, some thought would have to go into it. I know most tracks have different configurations available, so maybe someone needs to crunch some numbers on laptimes etc.

Not sure I like the cutting corners part but it is an interesting concept. Did he mean this to let cars catch up if they fall behind?

[Cam]

It is for this reason that i proposed a kJ limit per race. Simply put to reduce the speeds the cars go at, reduce the amount of energy they can use over a race. As technology develops naturally the cars will go faster, and so the energy limit can be reduced. It maintains safety standards whilst increasing technology

This is a really interesting point. Teams could devise many ways to expend that energy - the entire car and power train would have to be efficient as possible, although some forms of energy could be extracted quicker or slower, depending on what point in the race you're in. This would also allow different fuels and energy sources.... the mind boggles. Certainly a valid idea and one with some merit worth considering further.

[Cam]

It's also important that mistakes are punished. There needs to be the real possibility of (big) crashes. Get rid of the mind-bogglingly easy runoff areas like at Turn 3 in Catalunya.

Agreed. Although no-one wishes to see a major accident, however there is certainly very little ways a driver can be rewarded for 'pushing' and made to pay for 'mistakes'. Right now, most are in cruise control for the majority of the race. A driver making a mistake in Monaco, sits out he rest of the race, just about everywhere else he can rejoin without lose of place. How to find that balance of enticing drivers? Maybe take some cues from computer games. Most offer a risk/reward paths through the game. High risk = high reward, but you have to be spot on. Would sort the men from boys if nothing else.

[Red Schneider]

Has anyone thought of limiting wings to a single element? Legislating very basic wings would cut downforce by quite a bit I imagine. My beef with aero is that slaving to find another 0.1% of downforce really has no real-world application.

Here's my sophisticated wild-ass guess of a plan. Mandate simple wings (think 80s cars), then open up the engine regs and - gasp - maybe even start a tire war. This will incentivize the engineers to focus less on aero since the gains from engine and tire work will increase dramatically. Might make for better racing and increase the real-world applicability at the same time.

Alternatively you could limit new wing iterations to one or zero over the course of a season. Might be more palatable and have a very similar effect.

[raymondu999]

I still say ground effect

[SeijaKessen]

I still say ground effect

My one argument against ground effects --even though I would like to see it again-- is what happened to Gilles Villeneuve.

A sudden loss of downforce could mean death.

I think F1 needs to put limits on downforce.

Would love to see small front wings with no cascades, and less effective rear wings.

One other thing I would like to see is the cars widened up again.

Let teams run their chassis low to the ground if they so desire.

[Red Schneider]

I don't like numerical limits on downforce because it's too absolute. That completely rules out innovation in that area. If you mandate simple wings then there's still the chance someone somehow will have an idea that will increase downforce and give them an edge. The point of my plan is that when you restrict the aero regs and simultaneously open up engine and tire regs, you've moved the bait to a more sustainable and sensible area, i.e. drivetrain power and efficiency and tire development. Downforce is king now but it doesn't have to be that way.

[raymondu999]

I disagree. If you mandate a given downforce level, or max downforce level, then the key aero improvement area will be the efficiency of downforce production.

[Cam]

I still say ground effect

Ground effects back would be nice. Technology never really got to push this did it? And it's relatively simple and cheap to bolt on. Imagine being in the car with that on.... awesome. I doubt you'd have too many drivers turning down the opportunity.

[Cam]

My one argument against ground effects --even though I would like to see it again-- is what happened to Gilles Villeneuve. A sudden loss of downforce could mean death.

Racing has risk and ground effects would be just another one. So how could we get Ground Effects back and reduce the risk? With the strength of the cars now days and track layouts, a human would pretty survive almost any kind of impact so I'm not sure this is not as a big of problem.

[Cam]

What about a Draft system? Both for drivers and technology. This would ensure tech moves forward, but one team never truly 'gets away'?

[raymondu999]

My one argument against ground effects --even though I would like to see it again-- is what happened to Gilles Villeneuve. A sudden loss of downforce could mean death.

Eh? Villeneuve's passing (bless his soul) could happen again even in the current formula. Mass saw Gilles, and moved off the racing line to the right to avoid. Gilles saw Mass on the racing line and moved to the right to avoid. In an unfortunate coincidence both seemed to just be going the same direction. It's like what happens when 2 people are going through a narrow aisle anywhere - sometimes you mirror the move by accident. At least to memory that's what happened.

I don't remember anything ground-effect-specific to that accident.