2025 ... 4 wheel driven cars

[Andres125sx]

F1 cars go on rails, Id go for the opposite, banning wheel adjustments (at least some of them) so cars are more difficult to drive and driver role is more relevant

Putting independent wheel control directly under the drivers control isn't more difficult and "driver relevant"?

IMHO, no. That´s exactly the same as wheel adjustments for BBW, PU mapping, 3 different differential settings, etc. That only makes the car perfectly stable under any circumstance, what is usually called going on rails.

A car difficult to drive wich is not perfectly stable under any circumstane is much more fun to watch, at least to me

[Tommy Cookers]

Triggers like on an xBox controller, built into the steering wheel.
Yes, they could use it for regen, but I would rather see it done as a "boost". IE: In a left hand turn, pulling the trigger on the right side of the steering wheel would slow down the left-rear wheel through the diff, and speed up the right front wheel through the electric hub motor. This would allow the drivers to take a dozen different lines through a corner, and allow more on track passing attempts. I think it could be a thing, as it would be 100% under the driver skill to control.....

A modern version of McLaren's infamous "fiddle brake" system. Which was banned, of course, for reasons that were political rather than legal.

I apologise for my inability to do proper quotes ....and for having only just noticed that ....
Zynerji took us from (page1) .....'front axle yaw moment by trigger' ... to (page 2) .....

'both axles yaw moment by trigger' - BAYMT

his BAYMT scheme isn't great for 'change in the distribution of work load across the 4 contact patches' because .....
the inner rear wheel has a low contact load due to 'centrifugal' 'weight transfer' with cornering

and with BAYMT
the FIA will never be able to prevent increased behaviours emulating ABS/traction control 'aid'
eg present rules for K activity being steady-state rules can't prevent passive MG dynamic behaviours emulating ABS/TC

handily for us though cornering is essentially a 'centripetal' activity not a yawing activity .... so needing ....
continuous presence on (not inside) the 'traction circle' and so ....
relative smoothness

[Zynerji]

F1 cars go on rails, Id go for the opposite, banning wheel adjustments (at least some of them) so cars are more difficult to drive and driver role is more relevant

Putting independent wheel control directly under the drivers control isn't more difficult and "driver relevant"?

IMHO, no. That´s exactly the same as wheel adjustments for BBW, PU mapping, 3 different differential settings, etc. That only makes the car perfectly stable under any circumstance, what is usually called going on rails.

A car difficult to drive wich is not perfectly stable under any circumstane is much more fun to watch, at least to me

I literally believe that is exactly what Junior categories are providing. The pinnacle should have that stuff under better control.

[Zynerji]

Triggers like on an xBox controller, built into the steering wheel.
Yes, they could use it for regen, but I would rather see it done as a "boost". IE: In a left hand turn, pulling the trigger on the right side of the steering wheel would slow down the left-rear wheel through the diff, and speed up the right front wheel through the electric hub motor. This would allow the drivers to take a dozen different lines through a corner, and allow more on track passing attempts. I think it could be a thing, as it would be 100% under the driver skill to control.....

A modern version of McLaren's infamous "fiddle brake" system. Which was banned, of course, for reasons that were political rather than legal.

I apologise for my inability to do proper quotes ....and for having only just noticed that ....
Zynerji took us from (page1) .....'front axle yaw moment by trigger' ... to (page 2) .....

'both axles yaw moment by trigger' - BAYMT

his BAYMT scheme isn't great for 'change in the distribution of work load across the 4 contact patches' because .....
the inner rear wheel has a low contact load due to 'centrifugal' 'weight transfer' with cornering

and with BAYMT
the FIA will never be able to prevent increased behaviours emulating ABS/traction control 'aid'
eg present rules for K activity being steady-state rules can't prevent passive MG dynamic behaviours emulating ABS/TC

handily for us though cornering is essentially a 'centripetal' activity not a yawing activity .... so needing ....
continuous presence on (not inside) the 'traction circle' and so ....
relative smoothness

I normally look forward to your info, TC, but wth did you even say here?!?!

[Rodak]

...handily for us though cornering is essentially a 'centripetal' activity not a yawing activity .... so needing ....
continuous presence on (not inside) the 'traction circle' and so ....
relative smoothness ...

Exactly. Was going to post the same. To achieve the same maximum g load (and thus remain on the road), as you tighten the corner the speed lessens. I look at situations like this from a calculus sort of standpoint, the two extremes. With an infinitely large turn radius (a straight line) there is zero g loading; at the minimum radius (a point) there is infinite g loading. in between, for a given g load and radius there is a maximum speed. Faster and you go off the road....

[Zynerji]

...handily for us though cornering is essentially a 'centripetal' activity not a yawing activity .... so needing ....
continuous presence on (not inside) the 'traction circle' and so ....
relative smoothness ...

Exactly. Was going to post the same. To achieve the same maximum g load (and thus remain on the road), as you tighten the corner the speed lessens. I look at situations like this from a calculus sort of standpoint, the two extremes. With an infinitely large turn radius (a straight line) there is zero g loading; at the minimum radius (a point) there is infinite g loading. in between, for a given g load and radius there is a maximum speed. Faster and you go off the road....

If the cars were able to perfectly maximize this 100% of the time (they are hopelessly NOT) then I would agree with the push-back.

The reality is that no-one is perfect in this calculus to reality conversion, so there is plenty of margin that can still be utilized with a corrective system that's under the drivers' control.

[JordanMugen]

A car difficult to drive wich is not perfectly stable under any circumstane is much more fun to watch, at least to me

Like an old Minardi or Jordan?



But the whole point of the finetuning which the top teams do is to make the cars easier and more predictable to drive (not less), so the drivers can go faster.

I imagine Lauda would describe the ol' Minardi PS02 as a s*&^box! It constantly wants to go sideways and has a severe lack of traction.

[Andres125sx]

A car difficult to drive wich is not perfectly stable under any circumstane is much more fun to watch, at least to me

Like an old Minardi or Jordan?

Exactly!

But the whole point of the finetuning which the top teams do is to make the cars easier and more predictable to drive (not less), so the drivers can go faster.

I imagine Lauda would describe the ol' Minardi PS02 as a s*&^box! It constantly wants to go sideways and has a severe lack of traction.

Of course, that´s the point of fine tunning the car at every single component, but then TC, ABS, ESP should be included too, as those aids make the cars easier to drive and faster, but they´re banned for a reason.

I know this is completely subjective, but IMHO brake balance or the three differential adjustments fall into same category, they´re faster and easier to drive with them, but if F1 don´t want to become some sort of hidden Roborace (no driver involved) I think these adjustments should be banned to keep some relevance on the driver side.

When a car is not perfectly stable at every corner, and at every point of every corner, then driver relevance increases drastically as cars become more difficult to drive.

[Zynerji]

A car difficult to drive wich is not perfectly stable under any circumstane is much more fun to watch, at least to me

Like an old Minardi or Jordan?

Exactly!

But the whole point of the finetuning which the top teams do is to make the cars easier and more predictable to drive (not less), so the drivers can go faster.

I imagine Lauda would describe the ol' Minardi PS02 as a s*&^box! It constantly wants to go sideways and has a severe lack of traction.

Of course, that´s the point of fine tunning the car at every single component, but then TC, ABS, ESP should be included too, as those aids make the cars easier to drive and faster, but they´re banned for a reason.

I know this is completely subjective, but IMHO brake balance or the three differential adjustments fall into same category, they´re faster and easier to drive with them, but if F1 don´t want to become some sort of hidden Roborace (no driver involved) I think these adjustments should be banned to keep some relevance on the driver side.

When a car is not perfectly stable at every corner, and at every point of every corner, then driver relevance increases drastically as cars become more difficult to drive.

Would you like to go back to solid front and rear axles too?

How about Drum brakes?

Analog gauges?

Verified symmetrical setups?

All of those tech innovations make driving "easier" as well. What is your REAL concern?

[Andres125sx]

Would you like to go back to solid front and rear axles too?

How about Drum brakes?

Analog gauges?

Verified symmetrical setups?

All of those tech innovations make driving "easier" as well. What is your REAL concern?

Don´t be absurd please. As always, a balance is needed. Take it the opposite way. Would you like to see cars with TC, ABS and ESP? Hey, they´re technological advances wich make the cars faster, right? TC improves traction, reduces tire wear, reduces driver mistakes and cars are faster. ABS reduces driver mistakes and forced pit-stops to replace damaged tires. ESP reduces unstabilities and accidents. They all are good to make the cars safer and faster, right? Do we include them?

[Zynerji]

Would you like to go back to solid front and rear axles too?

How about Drum brakes?

Analog gauges?

Verified symmetrical setups?

All of those tech innovations make driving "easier" as well. What is your REAL concern?

Don´t be absurd please. As always, a balance is needed. Take it the opposite way. Would you like to see cars with TC, ABS and ESP? Hey, they´re technological advances wich make the cars faster, right? TC improves traction, reduces tire wear, reduces driver mistakes and cars are faster. ABS reduces driver mistakes and forced pit-stops to replace damaged tires. ESP reduces unstabilities and accidents. They all are good to make the cars safer and faster, right? Do we include them?

Sure.

Banning advances in a technology formula is inherently idiotic. Grooved tyres was a great way to compensate for these advances as well.

[Andres125sx]

Then let´s agree to disagree

[Jolle]

I don't see how, for instance, diff adjustments make the car easier to drive. They enable the driver to change the setup in the car from corner to corner and even the different phases of the corner. I think it makes the car even harder, like picking the right gear, but then in extreme. The opposite of a driver aid like ABS/ESP/TC, where the settings of a car are changed without the driver in the loop.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't see how, for instance, diff adjustments make the car easier to drive. They enable the driver to change the setup in the car from corner to corner and even the different phases of the corner. I think it makes the car even harder, like picking the right gear, but then in extreme. The opposite of a driver aid like ABS/ESP/TC, where the settings of a car are changed without the driver in the loop.

The diff settings etc. will also all be figured out in the simulator before the driver even gets on track. He'll run a base line from the sim and then adjust to suit himself/conditions/as directed. It is "driver in the loop" and thus legal, but it's not like the driver goes out and figures these settings out for himself from scratch during FP1.

[Jolle]

I don't see how, for instance, diff adjustments make the car easier to drive. They enable the driver to change the setup in the car from corner to corner and even the different phases of the corner. I think it makes the car even harder, like picking the right gear, but then in extreme. The opposite of a driver aid like ABS/ESP/TC, where the settings of a car are changed without the driver in the loop.

The diff settings etc. will also all be figured out in the simulator before the driver even gets on track. He'll run a base line from the sim and then adjust to suit himself/conditions/as directed. It is "driver in the loop" and thus legal, but it's not like the driver goes out and figures these settings out for himself from scratch during FP1.

True, but it isn’t an automatic system. Drivers can, when the track and tires evolve, adjust the settings how they feel right. Else the same could be said for other driver input methodes like steering and pedals. All are rehearsed in the sim and they get coaching from the pit wall.

The easiest car to drive is one without any driver adjustable settings.