How the bodywork rules shape Formula 1 cars

[jjn9128]

Thread for discussion of front page article on bodywork regulations:

How the bodywork rules shape Formula 1 cars

[F1NAC]

Is that me or is the area where bodywork may be (blue part behind drivers back) is bigger than this year? Fantastic article!! That's what this forum is all about

[jjn9128]

Thanks, I'm trying to think of more to write about on this sort of topic. Seems to be something people have responded to.

You mean this? The engine cover bit is 700mm wide for the 2021 car and 900mm wide for the 2022 car. The length of it is about the same but the top is a bit shallower.



You can really see how the 2022 rules make this though.

[JordanMugen]

Excellent article jjn9128!

That's an interesting point about the volume for the bargeboards actually being increased in 2017. Who thought that was a good idea!?

Why no appetite from Technical Working Group to eliminate the volume dedicated to bargeboards entirely (and eliminate the neutral centre wing section and Y250 while they are at it)? Wouldn't the racing be a lot more fun if all the teams struggled to control the wakes from their front tyres?

[Stu]

Excellent article! I love how it shows the increased level of restriction in where ‘things’ can be placed (which explains the similarities between cars now); I only wish that the budget cap being put in place could allow LESS prescriptive designs, although I guess that nothing that has been discovered could be unlearned…

Totally agree with you JordanMugen on how the barge boards have been allowed to develop, when you look at how frangible they are (and the effect that debris has on race results) they are more of a safety issue than the Tyrell X-wings, etc!!!

[jjn9128]

I only wish that the budget cap being put in place could allow LESS prescriptive designs, although I guess that nothing that has been discovered could be unlearned…

This is something I'm thinking about - is it possible to reduce restriction without the performance running away and becoming dangerous, if so how. Is there a way to open up rules without then setting off an arms race, e.g can you set limits but then allow freedom about how to meet those, and does that fly in the face of open competition? I think this is where my next article is going.

I think F1 has a lot of issues with regard to the rules. The lack of an holistic concept for engine and bodywork rules is chief among them - I've said it before, the deltawing concept is one I like, "half weight, half drag, half power, half fuel" it might not have been all that pretty but there was at least an overarching aim.

[Zynerji]

I only wish that the budget cap being put in place could allow LESS prescriptive designs, although I guess that nothing that has been discovered could be unlearned…

This is something I'm thinking about - is it possible to reduce restriction without the performance running away and becoming dangerous, if so how. Is there a way to open up rules without then setting off an arms race, e.g can you set limits but then allow freedom about how to meet those, and does that fly in the face of open competition? I think this is where my next article is going.

I think F1 has a lot of issues with regard to the rules. The lack of an holistic concept for engine and bodywork rules is chief among them - I've said it before, the deltawing concept is one I like, "half weight, half drag, half power, half fuel" it might not have been all that pretty but there was at least an overarching aim.

I've posted about this over the years, often to ridicule, but a MINIMUM spending limit per team with full data sharing would solve this 100%. Blockchain the design/sim software, and anything is legal as long as the data is opened up to the other teams at the event where a new part is introduced.

It would lead to a co-development atmosphere where overspending doesn't help you, so it would naturally balance. Not to mention the massive savings by shutting down 10 reverse-engineering departments.

[godlameroso]

I only wish that the budget cap being put in place could allow LESS prescriptive designs, although I guess that nothing that has been discovered could be unlearned…

This is something I'm thinking about - is it possible to reduce restriction without the performance running away and becoming dangerous, if so how. Is there a way to open up rules without then setting off an arms race, e.g can you set limits but then allow freedom about how to meet those, and does that fly in the face of open competition? I think this is where my next article is going.

I think F1 has a lot of issues with regard to the rules. The lack of an holistic concept for engine and bodywork rules is chief among them - I've said it before, the deltawing concept is one I like, "half weight, half drag, half power, half fuel" it might not have been all that pretty but there was at least an overarching aim.

The cars will all look similar, and the parts that you can alter and shape aren't visible. I sincerely hope the racing is better with the new heavier cars. If it isn't as good as this season, the new cars will be a downgrade. Maybe it needs to happen for the plans that management has for F1. Teams feel there is a lot of cheap development on the table this year, so it becomes tempting to invest in this year at the expense of next. Particularly when the cars will be so similar. For the midfield, they're so close that a tenth can mean the difference between 6th and 3rd in the constructors.

[Zynerji]

I only wish that the budget cap being put in place could allow LESS prescriptive designs, although I guess that nothing that has been discovered could be unlearned…

This is something I'm thinking about - is it possible to reduce restriction without the performance running away and becoming dangerous, if so how. Is there a way to open up rules without then setting off an arms race, e.g can you set limits but then allow freedom about how to meet those, and does that fly in the face of open competition? I think this is where my next article is going.

I think F1 has a lot of issues with regard to the rules. The lack of an holistic concept for engine and bodywork rules is chief among them - I've said it before, the deltawing concept is one I like, "half weight, half drag, half power, half fuel" it might not have been all that pretty but there was at least an overarching aim.

The cars will all look similar, and the parts that you can alter and shape aren't visible. I sincerely hope the racing is better with the new heavier cars. If it isn't as good as this season, the new cars will be a downgrade. Maybe it needs to happen for the plans that management has for F1. Teams feel there is a lot of cheap development on the table this year, so it becomes tempting to invest in this year at the expense of next. Particularly when the cars will be so similar. For the midfield, they're so close that a tenth can mean the difference between 6th and 3rd in the constructors.

After Q2 in Azerbaijan, I can only expect that the current closeness of the teams will spread back out.

I'm kind of wishing they would change to a 3yr cycle of the same chassis, as the second year of the 2020 chassis is giving us the closest field in recent memory, and I could only dream of the parity that would emerge in year 3...

[Stu]

I only wish that the budget cap being put in place could allow LESS prescriptive designs, although I guess that nothing that has been discovered could be unlearned…

This is something I'm thinking about - is it possible to reduce restriction without the performance running away and becoming dangerous, if so how. Is there a way to open up rules without then setting off an arms race, e.g can you set limits but then allow freedom about how to meet those, and does that fly in the face of open competition? I think this is where my next article is going.

I think F1 has a lot of issues with regard to the rules. The lack of an holistic concept for engine and bodywork rules is chief among them - I've said it before, the deltawing concept is one I like, "half weight, half drag, half power, half fuel" it might not have been all that pretty but there was at least an overarching aim.

I am another Deltawing fan, truly out-of-the-box thinking.
I also think that Zynerji’s idea of ‘open’ development has legs, I have been around various series and the best (and closest and most affordable) have had inferred budget caps on various items. Inferred, as the rules stated that a competitor could ask to buy item ‘X’ for £YYY, there was little point in spending more.
F1 was going to head in that direction in 2009(?) but it got bashed by the big spenders…

[Zynerji]

I only wish that the budget cap being put in place could allow LESS prescriptive designs, although I guess that nothing that has been discovered could be unlearned…

This is something I'm thinking about - is it possible to reduce restriction without the performance running away and becoming dangerous, if so how. Is there a way to open up rules without then setting off an arms race, e.g can you set limits but then allow freedom about how to meet those, and does that fly in the face of open competition? I think this is where my next article is going.

I think F1 has a lot of issues with regard to the rules. The lack of an holistic concept for engine and bodywork rules is chief among them - I've said it before, the deltawing concept is one I like, "half weight, half drag, half power, half fuel" it might not have been all that pretty but there was at least an overarching aim.

I am another Deltawing fan, truly out-of-the-box thinking.
I also think that Zynerji’s idea of ‘open’ development has legs, I have been around various series and the best (and closest and most affordable) have had inferred budget caps on various items. Inferred, as the rules stated that a competitor could ask to buy item ‘X’ for £YYY, there was little point in spending more.
F1 was going to head in that direction in 2009(?) but it got bashed by the big spenders…

Good thing I didnt own one of the 2 teams that signed up for the 2010 "$40M, build what you want" regualtions.

I would have shown up with my car, and protested the other teams that didn't comply, and win the WCC/WDC.

Too bad those teams sold-out and pretty much guaranteed their own extinction.

[Jolle]

Although the idea is nice to have a budget limit as the main technical regulation and would see some nice differences in design, it would kill on track competition.
Because of the big differences, it’s likely that one team will be miles ahead of the competition, that, because they can’t invest as much, will take forever to catch up.

[Zynerji]

Although the idea is nice to have a budget limit as the main technical regulation and would see some nice differences in design, it would kill on track competition.
Because of the big differences, it’s likely that one team will be miles ahead of the competition, that, because they can’t invest as much, will take forever to catch up.

That's precisely why data sharing would fix the issue. Go ahead and spend $1B on your car... Everyone else will just copy the design, and we wouldn't end up with "Dynasties" that end up being just boring af...

[Jolle]

Although the idea is nice to have a budget limit as the main technical regulation and would see some nice differences in design, it would kill on track competition.
Because of the big differences, it’s likely that one team will be miles ahead of the competition, that, because they can’t invest as much, will take forever to catch up.

That's precisely why data sharing would fix the issue. Go ahead and spend $1B on your car... Everyone else will just copy the design, and we wouldn't end up with "Dynasties" that end up being just boring af...

Fun idea for club racing, for formula one I don’t see any of the sponsors/investors/teams willing to invest anything just to be given free to their rivals.

[Zynerji]

Although the idea is nice to have a budget limit as the main technical regulation and would see some nice differences in design, it would kill on track competition.
Because of the big differences, it’s likely that one team will be miles ahead of the competition, that, because they can’t invest as much, will take forever to catch up.

That's precisely why data sharing would fix the issue. Go ahead and spend $1B on your car... Everyone else will just copy the design, and we wouldn't end up with "Dynasties" that end up being just boring af...

Fun idea for club racing, for formula one I don’t see any of the sponsors/investors/teams willing to invest anything just to be given free to their rivals.

What about all of the FREE stuff they get from the other teams? I give one, get nine in return. That sounds like a GREAT DEAL for everyone involved...

Sponsors want TV time. Closer racing/excitement guarantees that.

That's the point as well. Maybe the teams should NOT have the voice that they currently do, as it is impossible for them to vote without bias. Publish rules, sign up or dont. It's the belief that certain teams "can't" be lost that has led to the current, awful, spending situation.