How to make F1 more competitive

[TERRASTAR18]

we need more overtaking, also f1 needs to encourage teams working together, and have a set # of rules instead of constant changes which hurt the smaller teams who can't afford the r&d like the big boys.This leads the smaller teams being in an even worse position than before. Cutting the costs of the bigger teams is essentially a pointless task that could only be achieved by restricting the supply of funds. The real aim in many respects is to ensure that smaller teams can compete so as to ensure a full grid of teams. Allowing customer chassis (as will be the case from 2008) may achieve this but the effective result may actually be fewer teams with each team fielding four drivers. And also I would love to see them respect the other motorsports and not have scheduling conflicts like in the case of Monaco and the Indy 500. I would love to see the days of double-duty. It would be nice to see ppl go for the Triple crown again. Also MM must resign,he is just a ferrari puppet. He has had dumb proposals: reductions in testing time(which only hurts small teams, the big teams are always testing, they build cars for sale!).

[Ogami musashi]

Your points make sense but i don't agree on the set of rules.

I find that the ever changing rules are one of the most exciting aspect of F1.

Cars change every year and they behave every year differently.

For example from the transition of V10 to V8 the cars became narrower having less drag, being able to take some corner flatout wich made the enter and exit faster wich in turn led to shorten lap times, but where top speed or fast acceleration were needed the cars behave less good than in 2004.
This just led to very different lap time in comparison to previous year.

This year is the same, the reduced grip of tyres led to higher aero efficiency wich shows on high speed tracks like magny cours or silverstone where this year cars were both in qual and race 1 second faster than previous year, while at tracks requiring more low speed handling they were 1 second slower.

What if thoses rules changes never existed we couldn't talk about ground effects, turbos, V10 , V12 , slicks, grooved, double wishbones etc..

Next year, engine developpement will be allowed again , there will be new ECUs wich will ban TC, some differentials and SC, in 2009 new aerodynamics rules will come, and then after 2011 will be radical in both engine, aeros and suspension rules...Now i think that's exciting!


I found the solution if i want to see different race type: i watch older F1, group C, IRL or even skip barber and those 4 example are all different in term of racing..isn't it that cool?!

Well however i agree on the rest of your message.

[jddh1]

The banning of TC is a good step I believe. However, one must keep in mind that these are some of the best drivers in the world. Therefore they will adapt very rapidly. Of course, with the speeds one finds in F1, only the tiniest error will be magnified into a huge, and perhaps, costly mistake. So, we will get a good sense of whom the great drivers are, as they separate themselves from the good ones just by making less driver errors.

[captainmorgan]

To make it more competitive, rules should change race by race.

Or rather, there should be a minor "winner's handicap." For instance, a 1 kg weight penalty for 1st, and a 0.5 kg penalty for 2nd. The actual weights for the penalties and the duration of the penalties can be determined in many ways, but the important thing is the principle.

The penalties in this case should actually be considered race trophies, so can be another way teams can distinguish themselves to sponsors. Maybe even add a point to its constructor's championship score.

Additionally, the slowest cars might be allowed to run with less weight according to inverse finishing order, although they'd actually have to finish the race. Cars that have previously finished in the top ten can be disqualified from this rule. But with this rule, bottom-tier teams have incentives to design reliable cars that go as fast as they can, but will do better for any given development level.

With weight penalties, the formula can be opened up, and top teams will have less incentive to overspend, but still have the choice to do so.

[Dukeage]

Sorry to bring up a thread with a limited lifespan.

I think F1 needs to become more exciting which would make it more presentable for TV - these rules would IMO make the racing better.

AERO

Single element spec front and rear wings, no winglets, no barge boards. However, ground effect will be reintroduced.

ENGINES

3000km/half season life V8 engines of around 2.6 litres. Homogolated for 1 year.

TYRES

Control slicks, no option tyre.

CHASSIS

Free for all on customer chassis - or even turnkey cars. Homogolation lasting 2 years.

TEAMS LIMIT

Up to 15 teams, 2 cars each. 2 heats on saturday instead of qualifying select 20 cars to race.

RELATIONSHIP WITH FEEDER SERIES

Add an F3 turbo series and rename it Formula 2, assign each of the 15 F2 teams to an F1 team. Combine this with a F3 series as a support event.

Then create a Formula 1/2/3 World Championship Driver Draft, like the Baseball etc.[/list]

[vyselegend]

Hi Dukeage, welcome to the forum.

Could you specify the "why" of your proposed rules, because honnestly I don't understand your point. You sound like you want to build F1 as a spec series, which is quite the opposite of what F1 spirit is IMO.

Why half season engines?! Don't tell me you prefer the sound of a V8 revving at 8000 rpm than 19000rpm!

Why do you want to uniformize aerodynamical elements, it would cut innovation, wouldn't it?

I also disagree with your proposed qualy format, time have changed, and I don't thing teams will be founded and money invested in F1 program by sponsors if there's a risk the car doesn't even compete.Furthermore, in your proposal, at each GP there is the cost of transporting ten more cars, and the people needed to work on it, but no return on investment for those ten cars without race visibility!

The point I agree on is slick tyres, but I think it has been confirmed for next year already.
And your Idea of related series remind me very much of Mosley's idea to link F1 teams to GP2.

[DaveKillens]

Lots of ideas on how to solve problems, but each person has their own idea of what they desire the end result. Just what is the general consensus on where to go?
More, easier passing? Less pit stops? How about every race having as much chaos as Nurburgring? Lower costs to attract more teams? One spec cars, or on the opposite end, each car unique and each component custon built?
Personally, I'd like fierce, shreiking engines good for just one race, qualifying engines, fat slicks from more than one supplier (tire wars, love 'em), and every means exercised to make a profound and deep difference between F1 and any other racing series.
How to get there, I'm not sure how, but before embarking on a journey, I'd like to know the destination.

[Dukeage]

Why half season engines?! Don't tell me you prefer the sound of a V8 revving at 8000 rpm than 19000rpm!

OK, half season might be too much. But engines should last for longer rather than the old situation of a qualifying engine.

TBH, I'm torn between having V8s and production based turbos. Actually, on reflection the latter is better.

Why do you want to uniformize aerodynamical elements, it would cut innovation, wouldn't it?

The undertrays are free, it's only the front and rear wings that are spec. The plan is to cut costs. BTC Touring had a spec rear wing.

I also disagree with your proposed qualy format, time have changed, and I don't thing teams will be founded and money invested in F1 program by sponsors if there's a risk the car doesn't even compete.Furthermore, in your proposal, at each GP there is the cost of transporting ten more cars, and the people needed to work on it, but no return on investment for those ten cars without race visibility!

Or at least heats for grid position, if the tracks can hold 30 cars for the GP.

[vyselegend]

Or at least heats for grid position, if the tracks can hold 30 cars for the GP.

That would be great, but very unlikely! They are already fighting around the world to build facilitys for 12 teams on existing circuits (because of Prodrive arrival)

Actually that's one of the reasons why I wanted so much to go to Le Mans, I'd like to see with my own eyes how they manage to organize pits for more fifty cars in a short pit lane! Plus, it can happen that a car is repaired in "it's" garage, but surely there aren't fifty garages... I fail to understand that

[mx_tifoso]

Actually that's one of the reasons why I wanted so much to go to Le Mans, I'd like to see with my own eyes how they manage to organize pits for more fifty cars in a short pit lane! Plus, it can happen that a car is repaired in "it's" garage, but surely there aren't fifty garages... I fail to understand that

A guess would be that if a repair is needed it will be carried out in their trailers/motorhomes (?). If fifty cars or so don't fit in the pitlane garages, then it must be in some other personal property of each team.
----------------------------------
The primary and most important aspect of F1 that needs improving is overtaking, or the lack of it.

@Dukeage: I believe you are watching the wrong series if you really believe in what you have posted above.

Half season life for engines? I am for reliability, but it should be for that very race. Not for a number of races where you have to take care of it constantly. There should be fighting all the way to the end. One engine per race. This is racing after all.

I'm starting to believe you're MadMax in disguise, trying to push your extremist ideas on us.

[jamsbong]

This is a great discussion. I think one of the essence of F1 that differentiate itself from other racing is the technology and its high-rev engine noise.

I like to see more freedom on technology development but to be fair, each new technology has to be opened for others to follow. This will minimize the unfair advantage over others to just a short few race and eliminate issues of spying.

I like aerodynamics and it is still the great area of improvement and thus be encouraged. chassis and engine knowledge is already well-known in all forms of motorsports but aero in F1 is one of the most unique point in this sport, technology wise.

But a rule should be set so that aero will have minimal effect on a following car. This can be done using windtunnel or an idealised oval track. Something like 200km/h and 150km/h test should be conducted to see how much the trailing car is affected. It must not loose downforce more than 20% (as a start), at a distance of 2metres. No test will be need for higher speed because they are beyond most cornering speed.

What do you think?

the other reason I want aero is because if you compare motobike race where there is no aero, the cornering speed is just plain boring. I love the overtaking bits but everytime i watch MotoGP, I just find those riders are crawling around turns. If aero is ban in F1 and rely on mechanical grip, you'll see something like that and it just demotes the sport to some what of a common racing event.

[flynfrog]

This is a great discussion. I think one of the essence of F1 that differentiate itself from other racing is the technology and its high-rev engine noise.

I like to see more freedom on technology development but to be fair, each new technology has to be opened for others to follow. This will minimize the unfair advantage over others to just a short few race and eliminate issues of spying.

I like aerodynamics and it is still the great area of improvement and thus be encouraged. chassis and engine knowledge is already well-known in all forms of motorsports but aero in F1 is one of the most unique point in this sport, technology wise.

But a rule should be set so that aero will have minimal effect on a following car. This can be done using windtunnel or an idealised oval track. Something like 200km/h and 150km/h test should be conducted to see how much the trailing car is affected. It must not loose downforce more than 20% (as a start), at a distance of 2metres. No test will be need for higher speed because they are beyond most cornering speed.

What do you think?

the other reason I want aero is because if you compare motobike race where there is no aero, the cornering speed is just plain boring. I love the overtaking bits but everytime i watch MotoGP, I just find those riders are crawling around turns. If aero is ban in F1 and rely on mechanical grip, you'll see something like that and it just demotes the sport to some what of a common racing event.

I am betting it is impossilbe to see no more than @0% at two meters unless the carinfront is a perfect airfoil made to pass air to the car behind it

Its relitvly simple physics

to get down force you throw air up when the car in front is throwing air up the car behind is getting air going every direction instead of seeing clean to makes its air foils work at two meters at f1 speeds there is no way i can think of (granted i fell off a cliff a few times today) that you wont see turbulent air

[Tom]

I stand by my suggestion in the past, allow a second 'class' within the race (like the turbo and non-turbo) where a set number of teams race 2 cars (class 1), say 10, but allow 4 more teams which each enter only one car (class 2).

To keep it fair there will be a relegation/promotion process where the wining team of the class 2 championship is given a grant by the FIA and must enter 2 cars the following year, while the team at the bottom of the class 1 field is only allowed to enter one car the following year.

With the huge number of applications recieved by the FIA for 2008 then there would be no shortage of willing teams, and it would dramatically cut costs for backmarkers, plus sponsorship deals for class winnings would easily cover a decent one car team to run a second.

[jamsbong]

It is not exactly impossible to gain downforce in a turbulent air. just use body wing. In any case, the aero rules should be revised. Someone have to be brave enough to say, hang on, this is not right and rewrite it.

Also, I think flexi wings or even active aero should be used. I mean, why not? aeroplanes use it, otherwise you can't take-off or land.

It is hard to believe that a front wing can stall in turbulent air flow at 200km/h.

[megz]

Im keen on Slicks again, and I can understand the need to cut costs. But by not forking out on R&D with constant rule changes you would be cutting costs with sitting with cetain regs. The V8's should be allowed to rev back up to 21,000 the rev limit is sad and is cutting power cutting that off will allow for a little bit more competition with more difference in raw grunt.

I dont mind the Aero, I can see it is damaging overtaking and I dont like that at all but without out it you're going back to a spec series which I REALLY dont want to see. Its bad enough having standard ecu's and damn near identical engines.

TC while it is a safety measure without it we will see more driver skill and im all for that

I also liked the point someone made about free engine design and set fuel tank volume limits addding more intrigue. I dont wanna see 4-Cylinder truck engines in 2011 but energy recovery does sound like a good idea. We'll see, and that is my pound fifty.