To make F1 more relevant, why not abolish all rules relating to the mechanical side (except software and electronics).
And limit all 300km GP to 60-100 litres of fuel. The engine which can get the most from this fuel will be of utmost relevance to the motor industry and it sets a course for technology to be directly transfered into the automotive industry.
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:To make F1 more relevant, why not abolish all rules relating to the mechanical side (except software and electronics)...And limit all 300km GP to 60-100 litres of fuel..
A sound idea. I would question the imposition software & electronics rules, however - surely software is already in widespread use in road cars. I would also be tempted to define a "bottom" profile to limit ground effect aerodynamics. Essentially, extreme ground effect is not really road-relevant & such a rule would have the virtue of limiting L/D - increased down-force would always be accompanied by increased drag.
Let's just forget about relevance to bloody road cars and let them make the quickest cars they can for, say, £100million.
All sponsors pay in to a central FIA pot, the FIA pays equal money to each team and they are fully audited (bang RRA right there). The sponsors for each car at each race get drawn from a hat so each sponsor can be on a winning car at some point during the season.
Right lads, off you go and play with your money.
Drivers? You each get £1million salary from the FIA plus whatever the team wants to give you from their fund. And you can go get your own money by attracting your own sponsors if you want more...
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
DaveW wrote: Essentially, extreme ground effect is not really road-relevant
FORMULA CARS ARE NOT ROAD RELEVANT!! They never have been, never will be. Touring cars and rallying are much more useful if you want road relevancy.
Whatever next, mud guards and lights on F1 cars so that they're "road relevant"?
FFS!
A definitive -1.
Why have branded automotive maunfacturers?
Why have V8 engines? (V6 turbos to come)
Why have KERS?
F1 should be different yes. But the pinacle of motorsport shouldnt have more in common with an F 16 jet fighter than it does to a motor car.
Look at the Americans, the changed indycars to alleviate that series aero dependance, and it wasnt even as imbalanced as F1.
F1 should have downforce, but it should in no way shape or form be the massive differentiator it is today.
Come up with a DDD? Win.
Come up with an EBD? Win.
Thats all fine and well, but what about the engineering and mechnical side of F1? It is so stringently regulated it doesnt allow for any ingenuity as it does in the aero department.
Its why we have aero gadgets being dreamt up that have absolutely no automotive relevance. None, Zero.
Make it a level playing field between Engines, aero, suspension/mechanical and F1 will a balanced formula, but as it stands its grossly imbalanced and needs correction.
Yeah F1 need back that proper balance between engine (mahanical) and aero developmend! From my point of view is nowadays situacion reached the bottom of F1 interest... Sadly but true
"And if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you're no longer a racing driver..." Ayrton Senna
I totally agree with the idea of reducing regulations of the mechanical side of the sport (and I'm an aero guy!!!)
As much as I would like to see F1 being the maddest baddest form of racing ever seen I think that there needs to be some connection to road cars as this is something that will attract new manufacturers to the sport (and sponsors that build their own road cars)
1) It must be stated that there is an underline restriction for overall car performance by the sanction body to prevent the cars from out growing the current spectator safety levels of the circuits. The circuits are in no position to constantly improve at the rates capable if there is unrestricted car development. There is a constant requirement for improved performance restrictions.
2) The knowledge base of the mechanical design restrictions is very well established. That is why it seems that the mechanical side is so restricted.
3) The knowledge base of the car's aero design is constantly growing at this point. There are going to be times when new aero features are developed for the first time, but they are usually put under restriction in short order.
So what we are talking about is room to develop in areas that the none of the participants had prior design knowledge or expertise before there are new rules restrictions applied. This is more likely in aero than mechanical design. You can not restrict the unknown.
So, let's just make it a standard formula. One set of FIA-defined wings and diffuser, one FIA-homologated engine, one tyre supplier, one FIA-homologated chassis.
We could call it, um, GP2. Everything you people are calling for already exists in other race series. And how many of you watch those other series every race?
The debate about F1 and where it should go is reminiscent of the debate in cricket. Some people seem to just want every game to be a 20 over slog-fest. Those of us with a deeper understanding / passion for the game enjoy the complexity of the the 5 day test match just as much.
Lots of people in here seem to want F1 to go down the "20 over" route. Presumably this is just a symptom of the "I want a quick fix of something and I want it now and to hell with the long term consequences" culture that permeates society ever deeper.
As far as I can see, what people seem to want is a grid full of cars of basically identical laptime-potential because they think that will give great racing. And it might give close racing. But will it be great? If we get 30 overtakes every lap will we think "wow, great season"? No, I don't think we will. Lots of overtaking is just as boring as none. What makes overtakes in F1 interesting and enjoyable is the whole build up and then the attempt. The drivers setting up the attack and defence of the move over several corners. The "will he, won't he" moments. And all happening at high speed thanks to big downforce giving big cornering potential.
The best overtakes, the ones people talk about for years afterwards are usually the result of the driver having to be brave by going off line in high speed corners. They're not generally the ones that are done at 50mph in hairpins.
If you want heroic driving you need heroic cars. And in these days of high safety levels, heroic cars are high downforce cars. We can't go back to the days of the Maserati 250F, the Mecedes W196 and the like (when the drivers really were heroic) because we couldn't put up with the regular killing of drivers.
So, if you want to watch mid-downforce cars with similar laptime potential, go watch GP2 and leave the rest of us to enjoy the more complex season-long battle that F1 is, and should remain.
Unless, of course, your real reason for watching F1 is to support a certain driver or team and you just want the rules changed to help them. In which case, you really are on the wrong forum...
I'm bored with the whole "F1 should be relevant" argument. F1 is irrelevant. It is pure fantasy and should remain that way. It has no bearing on road cars. Hell, my car is way more advanced than today's F1 cars. Why? It's got 4 wheel drive, a 3.6 litre twin-turbo V8 diesel, height-adjustable suspension, traction control, stability control, radar, positioning sensors, it'll do illegal speeds on road and will go most places off road too. And it'll carry 5 people plus luggage and/or tow 3.5 tonnes of trailer whilst doing it. And it'll do it all in any weather condtions without needing to change tyres or run behind another vehicle at reduced speeds.
Now, tell me how in the hell you're going to make F1 "relevant" compared to that?
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Just_a_fan wrote:Hell, my car is way more advanced than today's F1 cars. Why? It's got 4 wheel drive, a 3.6 litre twin-turbo V8 diesel, height-adjustable suspension, traction control, stability control, radar, positioning sensors, it'll do illegal speeds on road and will go most places off road too. And it'll carry 5 people plus luggage and/or tow 3.5 tonnes of trailer whilst doing it. And it'll do it all in any weather condtions without needing to change tyres or run behind another vehicle at reduced speeds.
Just_a_fan wrote:So, let's just make it a standard formula. One set of FIA-defined wings and diffuser, one FIA-homologated engine, one tyre supplier, one FIA-homologated chassis.
We could call it, um, GP2. Everything you people are calling for already exists in other race series. And how many of you watch those other series every race?
I love the technical creativity of F1 as much as you, but I have no sympathy for your position. The fact is the cars cannot be allowed to exceed the performance level of the circuits. That is one of the basic criteria that rules must encompass for all sanction bodies.
Frankly, what we have now is a fairly creative atmosphere. We see a few new innovations each year that are, unfortunately, subsequently banned. I am not saying these innovations are as dramatic as the past, but then what innovations are that dramatic anymore in science or engineering these days.
I fully agree with Just_a_fan here, btw what car do you drive?
@hardingfv32;
Excuse me but these 'innovations' you call are barely anything new, just recycling things that were done before in the modern environment. The EBD? Was done until 2003 when Newey was the last one to abandon it, and this in turn goes back to when the Wing cars were banned. So before Newey 'invented' it it was already 30 years old. Not much innovation going on here. And what the teams themselves said was that they used this 'blowing' before too makes it nothing new.
And the DDD, Nothing new about it either, it uses exactly the same rulebox as these large central tunnel uses since around 1995.
The F-Duct is the only thing we can call innovation, I cannot recall anything anywhere were it's same function has the same usage.
As for Flexi Wings, these are as old as Wings exist in Formula 1, making it actually the oldest of al these 'innovations'.
wesley123 wrote: Not much innovation going on here. And what the teams themselves said was that they used this 'blowing' before too makes it nothing new.
1) If this stuff is so old why was RB the only team to maximize their benefits?
2) I will further refine my statement to say: These are innovations under the current rule set.
If you both need more substantial innovations, you will need to find another type of racing. F1 is not going to change.
FORMULA CARS ARE NOT ROAD RELEVANT!! They never have been, never will be. Touring cars and rallying are much more useful if you want road relevancy.
