2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

[FW17]

There was that concept floated by Patrick Head and Rory Byrne a few years ago, saying they should go back to ground effect(ish) cars:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/andre ... _quie.html

This was mooted and then dropped for 2013 but wonder why this isn't being thrown into the mix with current discussions? Seems to me that, with more powerful engines too, this would achieve the goals the fia are after - and would likely leave a less turbulent wake/aid overtaking.

F1 should only make the necessary changes to the PU to make them louder, on the chassis side i totally agree with your article. I also think ground effect is the cheapest way to add downforce without creating a lot of drag. Also with ground effect it would guarantee that even the slowest cars would be a lot quicker then GP2 cars or other race series. Also i think the turbulent air is less with ground effect then with all the little vortex generators teams use nowadays.

Those ground effect rules were kind of dropped mainly because of Red Bull who thought they would be carrying their Aero Dominance into the new era.

At the moment F1 needs softer tyres and sprint race stints with refueling. The teams were doing 1.22 s during the testing season in frigid conditions and today the best was 1.25.5 that is just bad. And tomorrow's race they will be running 1.32 laps when with refueling they could be doing 1.24's the whole race.

I think that too much is being spent for looking unspectacular, things got to change other than just the sound.

Today's comments by Carlos Sainz and Rafael Marcello were very damaging. This could also be a factor into new manufacturers coming in.

[Pingguest]

What is the excitement of drivers not passing on-track, as they wait until the next pit stop? If one thing should be changed, it is to bin pit stops and thereby make drivers to race.

[SectorOne]

2010 had perfect regulations in my opinion.

Excellent downforce, excellent tires, no DRS, no button-KERS, lots of (real) overtakes.

[wesley123]

There was that concept floated by Patrick Head and Rory Byrne a few years ago, saying they should go back to ground effect(ish) cars:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/andre ... _quie.html

This was mooted and then dropped for 2013 but wonder why this isn't being thrown into the mix with current discussions? Seems to me that, with more powerful engines too, this would achieve the goals the fia are after - and would likely leave a less turbulent wake/aid overtaking.

Because it's an awful idea. In the sense of safety, at least.

Although i would agree, cars suddenly losing downforce, taking off etc. etc. would be pretty entertaining to watch!

Pretty much all forms of motorsports put serious limits on the underbodies of cars because of the dangers ground effect aero have.

[RicME85]

2010 had perfect regulations in my opinion.

Excellent downforce, excellent tires, no DRS, no button-KERS, lots of (real) overtakes.

Adjustable front wing

[Juzh]

2010 had perfect regulations in my opinion.

Excellent downforce, excellent tires, no DRS, no button-KERS, lots of (real) overtakes.

It had perfect regs in terms of outright pace and racing, which unfortunately didn't translate very well onto actual on-track action. Dirty air effect was really bad that year with massive air disturbance behind the cars, thanks to in large part the overpowered DDDs.

Also, those "real overtakes" were mostly in the early part of the season when not every team yet had F-ducts and RB6 was acting like a true brick on the straights.

[FW17]

There is will not be much overtaking happening now either without the DRS

Add DRS to the previous system and you have overtaking on the track and during pit stops.

It is really sad that a car capable of doing 1.22 is doing 1.26 in qualifying and 1.32 at the race

Is that what $500 million budgets and $500 tickets get you?

[SectorOne]

2010 had perfect regulations in my opinion.

Excellent downforce, excellent tires, no DRS, no button-KERS, lots of (real) overtakes.

Adjustable front wing

I thought they removed that after 2009?
Anyway it seemed to have such a small impact on the racing that it doesn´t really matter if it´s there or not.

[kooleracer]

- F1 should have a constitution which includes things like:

- Power and weight ratio of 1.5 ( So under the current regulations the 2015 cars (702kg) should have 1050bhp.

- F1 cars are only allowed to carry a maximum amount of 35kg of fuel at all times.

- Maximum delta between qualifying and race pace should be 3sec/5% off the pole lap during normal conditions, to guarantee that the drivers are also challenged during the races.

- Tyre manufacturers always have the mandate to make the quickest and most durable race tire possible. 3 race tire per weekend (dry ,intermediate and full wet). Tyre should have a maximum drop off of 2 seconds after 100km on full fuel load.

- Powerunit costs (including upgrades) for any team may not exceed, 33% of the equal share part prize money ( 2014 44m was distributed to the top 10, which would mean that the engine bill would have been 14.5m).

- All powerunit manufacturers must deliver the same spec to all teams during a race weekend.

- Powerunit manufacturers are allowed to update the powerunit 2 times during the year. But manufacturers are not allowed to charge extra and the new spec should be available to all teams at a race weekend.

[agip]

Wolff said: "We have agreed to increase the width of the cars and tyres, and have larger front and rear wings.

Can someone explain the "larger front wing" part? How could it be bigger than what we have now? I know they're reduced in width two years ago (i'm not sure) but just a little.

[Artur Craft]

At the moment F1 needs softer tyres and sprint race stints with refueling.

Today's comments by Carlos Sainz and Rafael Marcello were very damaging. This could also be a factor into new manufacturers coming in.

Softer than what they already are? for goodness's sake, please, no. I want a series in which drivers can push all the time and doesn't have to worry about preserving them.

When asked as to what he dislikes about the current F1 tyres, Couasnon said: "Tyres should offer stable performance and grip levels.

"It's not normal that after a few laps a driver says 'I need to slow down otherwise the tyres won't last'.

"That shouldn't happen. These days F1 drivers can't show their talent because the tyres don't allow them to.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118945

What did Sainz and Marciello said, btw?

[RicME85]

2010 had perfect regulations in my opinion.

Excellent downforce, excellent tires, no DRS, no button-KERS, lots of (real) overtakes.

Adjustable front wing

I thought they removed that after 2009?
Anyway it seemed to have such a small impact on the racing that it doesn´t really matter if it´s there or not.

Was there in 2010.
Anyway, that was my point with the wink, it was supposed to make following cars easier but didnt seem to make a damn bit of difference to racing.

[zgred]

Full details of the Strategy Group's Formula 1 revamp plan

AGGRESSIVE LOOKS

There would be an increase in the rear tyre width, from 360mm to 420mm, which would increase grip, and again aid the increase in speed.

In addition to this the width of the cars would also be increased to two metres with wider front and rear wings, and double end plates

Does not sound like revolution but double end plates? What that means exactly?

Like this rear wing?



Photo source: motorsportretro.com - History of BMW in Formula 1

[Sevach]

2010 had perfect regulations in my opinion.

Excellent downforce, excellent tires, no DRS, no button-KERS, lots of (real) overtakes.

The pole laps from 2010 looked insane, like a roller coaster.


Anyway, i would like to see harvesting and deployment freed up, i'm just not cool with a car that has 900 horses at a part of the track and 740 at another, it irks me a bit.

Refueling is one of those things... the pace will go up, which is good, but it might bring less action on track.
Still it worked just fine until some turds introduced qualifying with race fuel and made everyone's strategy more or less obvious.

Visually a lower and wider rear wing, flip ups in front of the rear wheels, bigger tires front and rear.

[RicME85]

Wolff said: "We have agreed to increase the width of the cars and tyres, and have larger front and rear wings.

Can someone explain the "larger front wing" part? How could it be bigger than what we have now? I know they're reduced in width two years ago (i'm not sure) but just a little.

Front wing will be wider as the cars are going to be wider.