Saving F1 - the new approach?

[Red Schneider]

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.

That is true, but my suggestion allows them to improve either way. To me the impotant thing is to not only reduce the importance of aero but to put the carrot elsewhere to they'll have other areas to improve instead of desperately clawing back the downforce they've lost. If you tighten the aero regs and greatly increase the marginal benefit of development in other areas, presto, the problem is solved and remains solved for quite a while. That is as opposed to the tradition of having to change rules every few years because the engineers have managed to overcome the regulations again.

[Arterius]

I think that F1 should be opened to more free mechanical development. This will lead to teams to having to spread their resources between mechanical development and aerodynamic development.
Firstly the minimum weight of the cars are too high at the moment and should be lowered back to the 605kg. If that means teams will drop KERS to run a lower weight then increase the power and energy storage of the system to make it more worth while to run. There are already strict crash test rules in place to ensure the safety of the drivers.
On the engine front only a fuel flow rate should be specified. Let the teams decide how best to use that to win races. This will lead to proper technology development. Also remove the maximum cost cap of engines to customer teams. If they want a better engine then let them pay for it.

[raymondu999]

the issue with aero is the quicker you make the car, the more importance aero gets as the downforce and drag quadratically increases.

[basrawi]

the issue with aero is the quicker you make the car, the more importance aero gets as the downforce and drag quadratically increases.

bring back ground effect and restrict the wings. this way they will have all the down force they could ever imagine (with minimum drag), and the will focus on mechanical development.

ground effect will make downforce irrelevant and make the other parts of the car crucial to win

[myurr]

Guys, good discussion so far but I'd like to throw a few things out there:

1) You need to go read up about the 2014 rules. In addition to the change to engine specification the FIA have also introduced a maximum fuel flow rate, a practical equivalent to limiting the amount of energy the F1 cars can carry.

2) This not only limits engine power it effectively enforces a certain level of aerodynamic efficiency as you can't just throw fuel at the drag problem. If cars get too quick this fuel flow limit can be reduced. This in turn will allow the FIA to open up the aero regs a little more - I don't know if they plan to do so.

3) KERS will be less restrictive. I forget the exact figures but I believe both maximum power output and duration are increased. Duration significantly so.

4) HERS will be introduced to further aid efficiency.

5) Manufacturers didn't leave F1 because of the technological restrictions or lack of road relevancy. They left because the financial crisis obliterated their profits and because they weren't seeing a marketing return for their expenditure (primarily because they weren't winning). Nothing that has been suggested would address these fundamental facts.

Mercedes stuck around because their profits weren't as badly affected and because they saw opportunity in the contrary strategy. By establishing themselves now they seek to get a march on the other manufacturers both in terms of exposure during the next few years but also by having an established race program that is already at the front of the field should the other manufacturers decide to return.

I'd also like to throw my hat into the ring that backs the cars racing wheel to wheel with each other, and believe that this is what the majority want. If it's all about the technology and not the racing then why not hold speed trials instead of holding a race. F1 has always been about drivers battling it out between themselves. Call it spectacle, call it purity of the drivers racing, either way it's what actually sells the tickets. The majority of discussions about F1 surround the drivers, it is their names that are remembered more readily by the masses, and when we talk about classic races we pretty much always talk about a monumental battle between two drivers and not a particular car or technology on a car.

[Cam]

Guys, good discussion so far but I'd like to throw a few things out there:.....

So no suggestions or ideas yourself? We know what F1 is doing, but what would you do? How would you get the manufacturers back?

[myurr]

Guys, good discussion so far but I'd like to throw a few things out there:.....

So no suggestions or ideas yourself? We know what F1 is doing, but what would you do? How would you get the manufacturers back?

I would question whether we need to get them back. What specifically do the manufacturers bring to the table that benefits the racing?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Manufacturers in F1 add cachet to the series. Any series.

How to bring them back?
1) F1 needs proper management. Not the cowboy act that is Bernie.
2) Monstrous budgets should be limited. An idea I have is that for every million you spend over say, 150 million,30% of each million over this will go to the 3 backmarcking teams.
In essence the giants will be funding the paupers if they choose to burn money.
3) Homologate some technology for a limited production run of series cars. If unable to manufacture, the smaller teams could purchase from their chosen suppliers. Im talking HERS or KERS, and also allow annual development. By being able to directly sell what they race, manufacturers have the direct link most crave.
4) Limit fuel usage per race. Each year the figure should drop 5%. Relevant tech can be garnered from this avenue, and in this day and age, fuel economy is probably the most pressing issue for car makers.
5) Banish aero reliance. Make cars more about what we can see(engine, driver, gearbox suspension) rather than the air that passes over it.

My 2 cents.

[myurr]

Do manufacturers add any cachet to the series, and is that even important? Manufacturers have historically been more active in other series than F1 and yet it's F1 that is viewed as being top dog.

1) Completely agree although I'd include the FIA in the 'cowboy act'. The FIA either needs a complete overhaul to remove the vested interests and corruption (although Todt is a step above the poisonous Moseley, he's no saint), and the entire rulebook needs review. Where the FIA requires control then the rules should be unambiguous and explicit. There are too many poorly worded rules that are open to interpretation allowing the whims of the FIA to govern the sport depending on who is involved and their political connections.

2) Budgets do need to be limited, but how can you police them? The FIA cannot even define clearly whether or not a hole in the floor in front of the tyres is allowed and offer conflicting rulings depending on which week it is. Teams are controlled by multinational corporations who will not open their books across the board, and could therefore find a myriad of ways to hide expenditure. If Red Bull, for example, were to develop a revolutionary KERS system that knocked the spots off anything any of the other teams could come up with and gives them a 2s a lap advantage, but spent £200m on R&D as part of the parent company only to then give the plans to the F1 team to actually build, how would you police that and how could other teams compete?

3) I'll come back to this if the other points are exhausted.

4) Agree to a degree, although this will see budgets skyrocket especially in a few years time as the efficiency savings get harder and harder.

5) How, and how will you keep the cars the fastest in the world if you limit aero that much?

Okay here's my list of changes, I look forward to having them torn apart!!

a) Limit maximum fuel flow and starting fuel volume - reduce this year on year, initially by a couple of percent but tailing off as difficulty increases.

b) Limit maximum downforce as measured by sensors on the suspension - reduce this year on year, initially by a couple of percent but managed in relation to lap time.

c) Mandate Pirelli improve thermal degradation characteristics of the tyres but keep current wear levels.

d) Allow teams to select which compounds of tyres they bring to each race, with the FIA dictating whether they need to be 1 or 2 steps apart on a race by race basis.

e) Scrap moveable aero and police flexible aero by measuring suspension loads over the range of car speeds. There will be a mathematical model that works well enough to allow some tolerance and copes with variations due to wind speed, cornering speed, slip angles, etc.

f) Choose x races each year where the teams are able to test on the Monday following the GP event. Allow the race drivers to attend some of these tests, keep others for new / reserve drivers.

g) Return to steel brake discs to increase braking distances. I find this a preferable solution to the overtaking problem than DRS.

h) Relax the rules on the dimensions of the cars.

i) Relax the rules on gearboxes to allow seamless shifts rather than the current fake blipping of the clutch to stay within the rules. Allow more ratios.

j) Scrap the rules relating to exhaust position - the fixed downforce levels will eliminate any blowing of the diffuser.

k) Relax the rules on size and position of the wings, but retain the raised floors. Ground effect whilst awesome isn't road relevant and doesn't improve the racing so provides no benefit other than lower lap times.

I could keep going but let's start with those.

[myurr]

One thought as to how to keep budgets under control:

The car is divided up into sections, e.g. engine, gearbox, KERS, steering system, front suspension, rear suspension, chassis, front wing, rear wing, etc.

The FIA sets a price for each component so that a team could buy the entire Red Bull car (or any other car) for $300m (or any other arbitrary price) per annum but is limited to buying at most two components.

That way if someone blows stupid amounts of money on the best engine or best KERS then even the grandee teams would have the option to just buy that one component until they can either do better or until they need to switch to buying a different component that gives a larger benefit.

I'm sure that's flawed in some way but seems to have something about it to me at the moment.

[Red Schneider]

@Cam

I'm aware that manufacturers left because the cost was no longer palatable. Aside from a budget, to me the key is to redefine what the manufacturers get in return for their money. At the moment it's largely marketing. With the right set of rules it will not only be marketing but R&D as well. F1 is a 'product' that manufacturers have to buy into. Make the product more valuable and they're more likely to participate.

[bhall]

Limiting fuel use/capacity would likely produce fuel-saving periods during a race very similar to the tire-saving periods we see now. If efficiency is a goal, the only way to combat that problem is to mandate a specific rate of fuel flow from which teams may never deviate. Performance gains then come by way of lighter and/or more powerful cars. That also opens the door to some powertrain variety.

I think budget caps would send teams "underground," so to speak, to find new ways to legitimately spend money/seek a competitive edge over their competitors. Finding loopholes is F1's bread and butter; they won't give that up without a fight. I think the only road to cost-cutting is paved with the will of each and every team striving for that goal for the sole purpose of reaching that goal. (Here's a nutty idea: award points for financial efficiency. Then F1 would truly be a team sport in every sense of the word.)

But, even then, there's no guarantee that the big manufacturers will return. I personally think Honda, Toyota and BMW left because they sucked, not because of escalating budgets. It's simply not good for business to be terrible in front of a world audience year after year. (I wonder how much Honda laments what would have been the RA109.)

Those companies will come and go, and there's nothing anyone can really do about it.

EDIT: If budget controls are about bringing new teams to F1, maybe new privateer teams should be (at least partially) subsidized for X years. After that, it's sink or swim, but don't say you never had a chance.

I understand why people are against aerodynamic development, but I don't agree with the position at all. It's not the demon to close competition in the way it's commonly portrayed. All it takes is one look at wet races and rapidly-degrading tires to see that overtaking is more a function of performance differences and iffy mechanical grip. Moreover, two aspects often attributed to F1's status at the top of the racing mountain - cornering and braking - are inseparably tied to aerodynamic research.

From my point of view, I think F1 simply needs to adopt a long-term strategy that considers the best interests of racing and the fans. World economic fortunes wax and wane purely of their own volition, and that will never stop. Making constant adjustments based on that unstable reality is just plain expensive, and it's short-sighted. The same is true of technological advancements. The cycle of "innovate and ban" in which F1 seems to be constantly mired is not healthy for anyone, either.

I don't know what those goals should be; all I have are opinions. But, surely there are people far smarter than me associated with F1 who just might. Call those people the Whatever Working Group, and task them with looking 10, 15, 20 years into the future to see if a big picture can be discerned. Then remind them that racing itself will never die, nor will the fan base eager to watch it. Serve those two masters above all else, and F1 will easily continue to remain viable well into the future.

[Just_a_fan]

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.

Downforce is king because it's the fastest way around a race track. Opening up the engine, for example, will mean that the teams will look for more power because that allows more downforce to be carried by the car. Changing the tyres will either mean very sticky tyres that don't last or tyres that last for a long time but are somewhat slower. I doubt it's even possible to make tyres that generate the cornering grip that downforce does and still last for more than a few corners.

If the rules allow for downforce to be used then the teams will go looking for it because it is a massive performance benefit - hence Chapman's "something for nothing" quip when they were developing the Lotus 78. And let's not forget that F1 has been a downforce series (even if just a relatively small amount of downforce) for more than half of its existence.

I'll just highlight that to avoid any doubt in anyone's mind: F1 is a downforce series.

And to those asking for ground effect to be allowed - the current cars are ground effect cars. The front wing runs in ground effect. The floor is a ground effect device. I doubt they'll ever allow a return to highly profiled undersides and / or skirts simply because cornering speeds would go through the roof.

[Just_a_fan]

the issue with aero is the quicker you make the car, the more importance aero gets as the downforce and drag quadratically increases.

bring back ground effect and restrict the wings. this way they will have all the down force they could ever imagine (with minimum drag), and the will focus on mechanical development.

ground effect will make downforce irrelevant and make the other parts of the car crucial to win

Ground effect is downforce. It's just a method of making downforce that utilises the interaction of an aerodynamic profile and the ground. Current cars utilise ground effect already - particularly the front wing.

The only way you will stop the teams looking for more downforce/improving aero efficiency is if the rules specify the exact dimensions of every part of the car that is contact with the air flowing around it. Thus the shape, position and construction of every wing, body panel, floor panel, suspension component, camera housing, turning vane, vortex generator, diffuser, strake, duct and hole will need to be exactly defined in the regulations and checked with absolute precision at each race. Or the items are produced by a single supplier. I.e. a spec series.

[Just_a_fan]

Manufacturers in F1 add cachet to the series. Any series.

How to bring them back?
1) F1 needs proper management. Not the cowboy act that is Bernie.
2) Monstrous budgets should be limited. An idea I have is that for every million you spend over say, 150 million,30% of each million over this will go to the 3 backmarcking teams.
In essence the giants will be funding the paupers if they choose to burn money.
3) Homologate some technology for a limited production run of series cars. If unable to manufacture, the smaller teams could purchase from their chosen suppliers. Im talking HERS or KERS, and also allow annual development. By being able to directly sell what they race, manufacturers have the direct link most crave.
4) Limit fuel usage per race. Each year the figure should drop 5%. Relevant tech can be garnered from this avenue, and in this day and age, fuel economy is probably the most pressing issue for car makers.
5) Banish aero reliance. Make cars more about what we can see(engine, driver, gearbox suspension) rather than the air that passes over it.

My 2 cents.

1. The irony is that Bernie made F1 the international event that it is. He marketed it extremely successfully and the teams know this. The problem is that Bernie's involvement is now all about financing the huge sums that were paid for the commercial rights by CVC. There is no way this will change unless CVC et al want it to.

2. I can see where you're coming from here and can sympathise but it's not going to happen. A possibility is that the top teams should trickle technology to the other teams so that HRT is gifted Ferrari's gearbox from last season, for example. That way they will be brought close to the top teams. A bit like formalising the relationship between RBR and TorroRosso but along the whole pit lane.

3. Not sure I necessarily agree with this. Use F1 as an R&D laboratory, sure, but the idea that you should be able to take it off the race car and stick it in a road car seems a bit, um, daft to me. I do agree that KERS etc should be more fully developed and allowed to be used more freely by the teams. The current limits are purely there to help a certain couple of teams who couldn't/can't get it working previously. I think that KERS etc. could easily be part of a technology transfer scheme as suggested in my point 2. above.

4. Fuel usage is a political and moral issue for F1 in my opinion. If you want to limit it because road cars becoming more fuel efficient then you are paving the way for external political pressures to be applied. Road car manufacturers don't need F1 to develop high efficiency road car engines - they're doing very well already. F1 isn't road car relevant and trying to make it so will kill it. If you entice manufacturers in with the promise of reflected road car glory then, when the economy is down they will likely leave because the costs are too high for any likely reflected glory. We've been here before and it wasn't pretty.

On engine development - be careful what you wish for. Engine development can very easily soak up hundreds of millions of [preferred currency] searching for small gains. That's one of the reasons the engine freeze was implemented.

5. Won't happen because aero is what makes F1 cars so fast around a circuit. Reduce aero and you will slow the cars down. Then F1 would be slower than GP2 etc. which are supposed to be feeder series for F1 itself. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the only way to prevent aero development is to introduce rules that precisely specify every item that might be aero-related on the cars. In effect we'd have a spec chassis series - GP2 by another name.

The irony about aero is that it's probably the most road related aspect of F1 - road cars are minutely detailed these days to cut drag (and lift which creates drag anyway). Look closely at a new road car and you'll see lots of little aerodynamic niceties in amongst the styling all intended to reduce drag (and other things such as wind noise). Sure, they're not making downforce per se (although looking at some sporty cars one can see where they are trying to use downforce to minimise overall lift and so make the car more stable at speed) but they are heavily aero dependent.