How Would You Change Formula 1?

[xDama]

5 rules total.

1: Spec safety cell for the driver.

2: Car must fit into a box of XxXxX size.

3: 4 Wheels

4: 3 inches of fuel line .25" with a pressure relief set at 80psi

5: Bladdered fuel cell

+1

+ No more tarmac run-off area's, or only the very minimal. Back to gravel/grass
+ Only a limited set of rules, without steward-interference. (pitlane, jumpstart, etc...) -> No more penalty-nonsense like the last couple of years.
+ No more DRS, or completely unlimited DRS.
+ More mechanical grip, less aerodynamics

[FW17]

Have said it before;

Car weight restricted to 2000 kgs when on track (down force restricted)

along with diffuser made larger to the height of 300 mm or full floor length tunnel (cheap down force)

DRS removed

Side pod to front wheel axial reduced (font end looks skinny at the moment).

[Kiril Varbanov]

In short, less restrictions, but with a reasonable budget cap. It will be up to the team whether it will invest in aerodynamics, engines, or whatever.
Honestly, having to re-read the technical regulations when there's a revision, I am amazed by the amount of restrictions we have today - a supposedly, albeit artificial equal ground for everyone.

[monsi]

Use the aero downforce for the spectators - build tracks that have a section where they run upside down

[Stradivarius]

It's amazing how many of these are "I want it to be exactly the same as it was in the particular year I started watching it".

I think it's in the nature of formula 1 that it changes all the time. We have already seen many things changing back and forth, like tyre changes, refueling, traction control and grooved tyres. There are also more radical changes, like engines have changed multiple times and aerodynamic restrictions have come and gone. The qualifying format and points system have also changed many times. I think that no matter what kind of formula you come up with, there will only be a limited time window in which it will work well. It's simply not possible to account for the changes that will come as a result of the teams gaining more knowledge and optimizing their designs accordingly. Additionally, as the technology develops, there will sooner or later be safety measures available which I will find it ethically challenging not to implement. So no matter what you come up with now, you will probably have to change it after some years anyway.

A result of an optimized design is lack of overtaking. First of all, as has been pointed out in other discussions before, every formula will have an ultimate limit of performance, and as the teams approach this limit, their performance will also approach each other. Another result of optimized design is sensitivity to aerodynamic changes as a result of having a car in front, simply because the more downforce you are able to produce without turbulence, the more downforce you will loose when you experience some turbulence.

I think I would have modified the tracks instead of the cars so that the cars and the rules can still keep changing like they always have witout it resulting in "boring" races. (Some tracks could remain unchanged to maintain some tradition of course.) The tracks should be as long as possible, maybe up to 10 km, and the high speed corners should be close to each other in one part of the track. The rest of the track should consist only of slow corners and long straights, each followed by a sharp turn of 90 - 150 degrees (depending on the width of the track in order to keep the speed down). The problem with most tracks today is that there is rarely enough time to catch up after a high speed corner and make a passing attempt before the next high speed corner. That is why I think the high speed corners should all come together and the track needs to be sufficiently long so you have time to both close the gap and make a passing attempt before you are back at the high speed corners.

[CMSMJ1]

2hr races - or 300 miles.

Keep the safety regs and keep making them safer.

[FoxHound]

I'd start by making the least grippy tyres as is possible without spoiling the spectacle.

Super hard compounds that don't give their grip up easily, and that last forever. Force teams into changing them at least once in a race keeping pitstops.
Makes the tyre a lesser variable in the total equation.

Also, if the tyre is giving up less grip it makes Aero less of a factor as side consequence. The driver will be more pivotal and reliant less on the car as they are today.
Maybe a quick fix, but seems a good one.

[Steven]

In short, less restrictions, but with a reasonable budget cap. It will be up to the team whether it will invest in aerodynamics, engines, or whatever.
Honestly, having to re-read the technical regulations when there's a revision, I am amazed by the amount of restrictions we have today - a supposedly, albeit artificial equal ground for everyone.

I couldn't agree more with that. I've been preaching this for years already.

The best way to go I think would be to introduce this gradually over a span of a few years. Gradually open up some regulations (such as removing surface restrictions of FW, re-allowing everything underneath the nose, allow front wheel drive, etc). This combined with a gradual resource restriction will see common sense ideas being rewarded, rather than endless improvements of details in the windtunnel.

[xpensive]

Afraid a budget cap will never work, which I believe Mateschitz already has proven with his different companies and what not.

No front wing, flat bottom rule as long as there is car to measure, to make aero much less important, perhaps reducing the need for cray-computers and 20 MW wind-tunnels. Formula libre engines, just a limit on amount of fuel for each race-weekend.

[FrukostScones]

bigger wings , bigger tyres, more power

[Juzh]

More power. 2014 with even more stringent aero rules and lets say a 1000bhp turbo engine would surely produce some dramatic stuff on track.

[oT v1]

What Flynfrog said^^^ +remove team powers and influence

Also, put some jumps in

[elMaestro]

Bring back V10 engines, a budget cap, get more durable tires and refuelling, and just let them race for God's sake

[Kiril Varbanov]

In short, less restrictions, but with a reasonable budget cap. It will be up to the team whether it will invest in aerodynamics, engines, or whatever.
Honestly, having to re-read the technical regulations when there's a revision, I am amazed by the amount of restrictions we have today - a supposedly, albeit artificial equal ground for everyone.

I couldn't agree more with that. I've been preaching this for years already.

The best way to go I think would be to introduce this gradually over a span of a few years. Gradually open up some regulations (such as removing surface restrictions of FW, re-allowing everything underneath the nose, allow front wheel drive, etc). This combined with a gradual resource restriction will see common sense ideas being rewarded, rather than endless improvements of details in the windtunnel.

I think we are, currently, in a sad state of the tight hug of rule makers. What I mean is that we don't get much to analyse and tinker with. As much as I like aerodynamics and it is still my personal preference and interest, I don't think it is entirely feasible to spend gazillion of cash for a single winglet which is about the size of a credit card.
Short additional notice - the usual process of development is not something new, but let me reiterate.
For each new aerodynamic update, the sequence of events is something like this :

Analysis of track aerodynamic data from previous race(s)
Meetings to decide targets and specification for next update
CFD modelling and simulation of potential new bodywork packages
CAD generation of 60% scale components for wind tunnel model car
Manufacture and assembly of new model parts
Wind tunnel testing and data analysis of results
CAD modelling of selected full size parts and production of laminate drawings, component moulds, bonding jig and fixture designs
Layup, cure, trimming, bonding and inspection of final parts
Proof test and geometry check that parts pass all FIA legality requirements
Fit pressure tappings and sensors to verify part performance against predictions from the wind tunnel

Add to that a wind tunnel time, which I can roughly estimate to about $3000 per day.

Can you calculate all these? Huge costs. I'm not saying that we should have un-updated cars, but it is too much for the result it produces - couple of slices in the rear wing and a new cascade. I'm totally not surprised that some of the updates don't work as expected. Finally, it is us, with a bitter expression, waiting and drooling for new parts, but we don't get them... We even tend to over-analyze them, as we don't have a lot to talk about.

That imperfect world could become a less imperfect one with less restricted rules. I've seen a suggestion on the previous page - "The car has to fit a box with dimensions X and X" - well, this is too severe Joking aside, too much freedom will certainly be trouble, but some general guidelines and leave the engineering to be engineering. I can put any money that such formula will become attractive for both future employees and sponsors.

[needmoretorque]

I've just scanned these after the overnight (posts). Tons of food for thought and I will be definitely working these into my post over at GP evolved. I'll post a link once its up.

However, I think the best suggestion so far is the mandatory return of mutton chops. I'm still laughing about that.

Would love to an off-topic photoshop thread as to how current drivers would look with some shaggy-burns.