The outrageous Formula 1 wishful thinking thread.

[Lycoming]

Maximum Fuel depends upon race distance, such that race distance/fuel mass = 3.0km/kg

All races except monaco are approximately 305 km, so what's the point of making fuel allocation a function of race distance?

On the other hand aero rules must be devised to reduce the advantage of the leading driver. Of these goals call for an increase in size of the rear diffuser and a decrease in the size of the rear wing, so be it. If it is to be the other way around, that is fine too. I care about the competition, not the downforce. I don't really care about how it all affects the handeling, because I do consider it the drivers job to drive the thing even if it has the aero of a 1966 Lotus 43. Indeed, rules limiting teams to 1966 aero technology might not be such a bad thing.

If you're really more concerned about competition, you may as well just ban downforce wholesale.

[rickzeppelin]

- Unlimited fuel flow;
- Unlimited engine RPMs;
- Allow refueling;
- Teams can use as much engines as they want per season;
- Leave unlimited turbo pressure as it is (nearly 1800hp qualy engines maybe?);
- No DRS;
- Ban penis noses. bring back 90s style low nosecones. (pure aesthetics this one);
- Bring back 6 or 7-speed adjustable gearboxes.

If we add NA engines into the mix, then limit turbo boost so the NA engines can keep up with them. And makers may use V8s, V10s and V12s. I want variety, and 400+ kph at monza!

[andylaurence]

Ditch all the current technical rules.
Limit plan area.
Limit downforce as a function of vehicle mass, tested at several speeds.
Limit fuel for the race as a function of vehicle mass.

The race then becomes one for reducing drag and deciding how large the car should be. We'd have a variety of designs from small to large, from long to short and wide to narrow. They might not all be rectangular. It's unlikely a designer will bash every one with the ugly stick. Big engines, small engines, hybrid systems and all sorts. Variety is the spice of life...

[xpensive]

Once upon a time the FIA sanctioned this as Group 7; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can-Am

Which led to that;



Where did they go wrong from there?

[MOWOG]

There is a problem at Wikipedia, X. Your link does not open the correct page, but if you search for Group 7 racing you will get to the correct page. Which has the same url as you posted! Must have been designed by Renault engineers.....

[lebesset]

3-2-3 Starts

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/ ... 557l0d.jpg

Flag man waiving the Checker on the track
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article ... rix-846222

love it ...when the front row WAS a row !

[rich1701]

Remove the plank to bring back sparks.
Increase tyre width to compensate for bottoming out.
Bring back the spare car.
Relax safety car rules for a wet track. (They have full wet tyres you know Charlie!)
Bring back V10 engines.
Ban power steering.
Sack the entire Motorsport world council and open it up to ex drivers, ex team bosses, ex racing people.

[Moxie]

All races except monaco are approximately 305 km, so what's the point of making fuel allocation a function of race distance?

Frankly i didn't realize that all of the race distances were so tightly clustered.
Mean excluding Monaco = 307.1
Minimum excluding Monaco = 305.3
Maximum excluding Monaco = 308.8

Monaco = 260.5

If you're really more concerned about competition, you may as well just ban downforce wholesale.

I did say that perhaps limiting teams to aero technology available in 1966 might not be such a bad thing. Now, clearly that statement is a bit unrealistic, but competition is really the whole point of the F1 endeavor isn't it. (Or Not??? Fodder for another thread.) I do like to see fancy cars go fast,and I recognize that downforce is part of that. However, when the turbulence leads to an inability to overtake, and the resulting race is more like a funeral procession, there is a problem.

[beelsebob]

All races except monaco are approximately 305 km, so what's the point of making fuel allocation a function of race distance?

Frankly i didn't realize that all of the race distances were so tightly clustered.
Mean excluding Monaco = 307.1
Minimum excluding Monaco = 305.3
Maximum excluding Monaco = 308.8

Monaco = 260.5

This is actually encoded in the rules – A race distance is n full laps, where n is the number that first takes them beyond 305km. Monaco is explicitly made an exception of.

[dans79]

I want Bernie and his 'show' to go the way of the dodo. I want unrestricted budgets, testing, and a non biased payout of profits.

[captainmorgan]

1. Trash the 2014 regs. Open the formula completely with only 4 exceptions: ban front wings. ban rear wings. Safety box standard cockpit. Half-season bans if 1999-Mercedes CLR style takeoff/somersault crash ever happens.

2. Keep the 2014 regs and go to places F1 never could otherwise: Laguna Seca? Downtown Miami/South Beach?

[xpensive]

I'd like to see cool Team Principals again!

[Tim.Wright]

I've always thought about a formula based on a power limit on the power train (using torque/speed sensors on the driveshafts) but leaving the method of implementation completely open.

While we're dreaming I'd remove or reduce the mass limit too

[Pierce89]

As the alternative ERS-thread seems to have lost it's initial crispness, I'm bold enough to try another pet-idea;

I wish the womanizing and hard-partying drivers of the 70s would come back, like James Hunt and John Watson, oh mama!

I'm not a fan of the current personalities but I also hate that kind of personality too. I don't see the appeal of these douchebag types. I would have constantly referred to James Hunt as James Cunt if I was around back then.

Why? James ignored the "proper" way, and we love him all the more for it. Did his cigarettes upset your precious sensibilities?

[Pierce89]

I'd like to see cool Team Principals again!

http://blogg.idg.se/piaplopp/files/2012 ... -beach.jpg

This picture shows kids why you should work hard. Say what you want about Flavio, he's been incredibly successful practically all his life.