What would be your formula for Formula 1?

[mzso]

Hi!

I wonder what people think would be best for F1, as far as technical regulations and other rules go.
In my opinion there are two points to car racing, especially F1:

1. Development, exploration, and innovation of new or underdeveloped technology.
2. Providing entertainment. Especially on-track action, which is entertainment to everyone unlike calculating numbers.

(It also needs to be reasonably safe)

So mine would be something like this:

• Since no-downforce probably wouldn't fly these days due to pervasive superficial reasons, I'd have a fully body based downforce, No wings, winglets, potrusions, and definitely none of the vortex generating horror. Similar to the more extreme ground effect cars, but..
• the sidewalls mandatorily higher than the middle to prevent sealing to the ground which would bring dangers.
• Abandon the morbidly counterintuitive heritage of open wheels. Wheels would be mandatorily covered by the chassis. Much better, for both safety and aerodynamics.
• Downforce levels would only be adjustable by changing leading and trailing edge elements.
• The chassis would have have mechanical strength regulations to avoid rubble breaking during contact(it would crumple into dust like nose cones instead) of a reasonable speed difference. For all four sides of course.
• Instead of a halo, a frame reinforced windscreen that extends to both sides, even behind the drivers eyes. To provide safety (from small object as well, and from the sides too) an to also provide a good (230° or more) field of view. Currently in F1 the drivers' peripheral vision is completely blocked. No wonder there are so many weird collisions.
• The drive would be full electric of course. (I see no reason to drag-on ICE technology, which is past it's time).
  It'd be 4WD with torque vectoring and regen breaking only. And direct drive to avoid whining gears (screw noise!), which is also and underdeveloped concept. Set a hard limit on both power output and regen (can be tuned to get better racing). Otherwise the motor regulations would be extremely open, only banning very expensive/troublesome materials and concepts such as cryogenics.
• Power storage would be any combination batteries and fuel-cells running on bio-producible alkanes (eg: butane).
  At least as long as batteries are good enough that fuel-cells can be neglected. (Or at least if races can be done with 1-3 batter swaps)
• Recuperative electromechanical active suspensions
• Non-pneumatic tires, both for safety reasons and because they're a pretty undeveloped concept.
• Measures to avoid taller drivers being handicapped. Increased weight perhaps. Maybe shorter cars/wheelbase so midgets won't have as much of an advantage with ballast weights. (apart from current F1 stuff)
• No safety car. Slow zones instead, with multiple speed limits depending on severity of accidents/problems. They should be as short as reasonably possible, and would normally be only lifted when cars head through them an equal times.
• Tires that can last a whole race even with some abuse, otherwise tire changes with a minimum time. (I'm thinking 10 first and 15 thereafter) Fight it out on track. One compound for the race.
• Standing starts only, rain no excuse for not racing, the cars should be able to handle large amounts of water, including a reasonable thickness of pooling/flowing water.
• Not part of the formula, but races on better racetracks even if they don't live up to the ridiculous demands of the FIA security theater. (Would probably require splitting with the FIA, which is bonus in itself.)
• Emphasize car safety instead of butchered, horrible racetracks. And definitely no-tarmac runoffs. Instead use other means to slow cars, like a sort of artificial grass field, with long strong fibers. Minimal Kerbs, to suggest the edge of the track.

[Scorpaguy]

Sounds pretty good to me MZSO.....although you did not mention speed. It still needs to be fast. I am not saying faster, but maybe a bit quicker.

I assume most of what you state will eventually happen in FE. If those cars get quicker (both going and slowing)....with better/functional ground effects, F1 will be in trouble with its current ICE costs and ridiculous aero package.

[mzso]

Sounds pretty good to me MZSO.....although you did not mention speed. It still needs to be fast. I am not saying faster, but maybe a bit quicker.

Thanks.
Well, that's why I said tha "no-downforce" wouldn't fly. Though I see no purpose to F1 being faster than now, or even as fast. Just fast enough so that it looks fast for viewers and be challenging to drive competitively.

I assume most of what you state will eventually happen in FE. If those cars get quicker (both going and slowing)....with better/functional ground effects, F1 will be in trouble with its current ICE costs and ridiculous aero package.

Perhaps. So far FE seems pretty hell-bent on being low performance and low tech. With little very little unique about competitor's cars.

[Zynerji]

Can run anything, as long as all models and cfd data is shared openly.

Automatic cost control, closer racing, and extreme looks.

[thisisatest]

Simplified body overall shape rules.
Maximum overall length, shorter than now (maybe 15cm).
18" wheels.
No weight distribution limit.
Narrow front wing, maybe slightly wider than inner faces of front wheels.
Front wings and bargeboards must be made of thermoplastic instead of thermoset. 5mm radius on all edges.
Front wing end plate must have some portion be visible above front wheels, to best judge car corner.
GIANT, clear side mirrors, with unobstructed view of rear.
Car radar, like in GT Sport.
Engine would be what we have now, for the most part. Personally, I don't like the cylinder count, bore, stuff like that regulated. Also material stiffness limits have had the opposite effect of cost control, so I'd remove that. Maybe no new material changes in season.
Electrics, including MGUs, would be free.

[PlatinumZealot]

Homologated safety cell and tyres.

No Limits otherwise.

The three richest teams will win anyway.

[mzso]

No Limits otherwise.

The three richest teams will win anyway.

On the otherhand F1 would quickly collapse like this. Even the richest teams would go bankrupt.

Homologated safety cell and tyres.

The tires are already the same for everyone. Safety cells are designed for the chassis. Having the same for everyone would restrict/uniformize car design, wouldn't it?

[PlatinumZealot]

No Limits otherwise.

The three richest teams will win anyway.

On the otherhand F1 would quickly collapse like this. Even the richest teams would go bankrupt.

Homologated safety cell and tyres.

The tires are already the same for everyone. Safety cells are designed for the chassis. Having the same for everyone would restrict/uniformize car design, wouldn't it?

That would be a discussion on what the safety cell would look like which I have no clue right now. But with the wild crazy cars that would be born from these rule sets, I believe the safety cell would have to have some agreed features and dimensions.

[Tzk]

Simplified body overall shape rules.
Maximum overall length, shorter than now (maybe 15cm).
18" wheels.
No weight distribution limit.
Narrow front wing, maybe slightly wider than inner faces of front wheels.

GIANT, clear side mirrors, with unobstructed view of rear.
Engine would be what we have now, for the most part. Personally, I don't like the cylinder count, bore, stuff like that regulated. Also material stiffness limits have had the opposite effect of cost control, so I'd remove that. Maybe no new material changes in season.
Electrics, including MGUs, would be free.

I like that idea in general. However i‘d not limit overall car length, but just limit wheelbase. The combination of minimum cockpit size, fuel cell and wheelbase (and the fact that the cockpit must entirely sit behind the front axle) will limit the overall lenght of the cars. My guess is that a wheelbase of roughly 3000mm wouldn‘t look as stupid as the current merc does.

Then, as you suggested, i‘d limit and simplify the aerodynamics. You could cut the downforce in half and get sliding cars and drivers fighting every corner. Also overtaking and following closely wouldnbe possible again.

[zac510]

If you can't include a negative point about your fantasy formula then your formula has not been thought through enough. For example "I would remove all wings, but then there would be less budget for advertising, budget which is needed to buy the expensive engines which are now made of unobtanium and 8 are needed per race weekend."

Listing a negative point will also enhance your credibility by showing that you're open to discussion and healthy criticism.

[mzso]

If you can't include a negative point about your fantasy formula then your formula has not been thought through enough. For example "I would remove all wings, but then there would be less budget for advertising, budget which is needed to buy the expensive engines which are now made of unobtanium and 8 are needed per race weekend."

Listing a negative point will also enhance your credibility by showing that you're open to discussion and healthy criticism.

I fail to see why I would want to add negative changes. As for the advertisement you mentioned, the cars would naturally have a long flat-ish sidewall. Also a large upper surface would be crated.

I'd say it's the other way around. If there's a big immediately obvious negative point, that's when ther formula is not well thought out.

Listing a negative point will also enhance your credibility by showing that you're open to discussion and healthy criticism.

That's just your impression. Anyway, criticize away if you actually find something to criticize.

[zac510]

If you can't include a negative point about your fantasy formula then your formula has not been thought through enough. For example "I would remove all wings, but then there would be less budget for advertising, budget which is needed to buy the expensive engines which are now made of unobtanium and 8 are needed per race weekend."

Listing a negative point will also enhance your credibility by showing that you're open to discussion and healthy criticism.

I fail to see why I would want to add negative changes. As for the advertisement you mentioned, the cars would naturally have a long flat-ish sidewall. Also a large upper surface would be crated.

I'd say it's the other way around. If there's a big immediately obvious negative point, that's when ther formula is not well thought out.

What I'm saying is that there is almost always unintended consequences to a rule change. About the only rule change I can think of in the last 10 years that has not had an unintended consequence was that of changing to titanium bolts on the plank (sparks). Most all rule changes come with a promise of something like more overtaking, closer following, etc and might work temporarily but always have some kind of unintended consequence. An example might be; if you introduced these rules in 2020, that Sauber and Williams immediately go out of business because of the increased cost of developing a competitive car to the new rules. To me that would be an unacceptable negative consequence and these rules should not be allowed to go ahead.
There is no rule change that will just work perfectly immediately, without unintended negative consequence.

That's just your impression. Anyway, criticize away if you actually find something to criticize.

I am criticizing your whole thought process and design methodology. I am trying to make you improve your process so that the rules you come up with are safer and more likely to produce the real results you want without unintended negative consequences.
We can trust and have more faith in your ideas more if you prove that you have considered contingency plans for negative consequences.

edit: fix quoting

[mzso]

What I'm saying is that there is almost always unintended consequences to a rule change. About the only rule change I can think of in the last 10 years that has not had an unintended consequence was that of changing to titanium bolts on the plank (sparks).

Well, that's the result of FIA's ineptitude and the corruption of the teams. I think you overmistify things because of this.
Changes that would have truly fixed things (designed by Byrne/Head) were vetoed on the spot by the teams.

An example might be; if you introduced these rules in 2020, that Sauber and Williams immediately go out of business because of the increased cost of developing a competitive car to the new rules.

Don't present it as a fact since it's just something you expect to happen. For one all teams pretty much design a new car every year. With a simpler aero formula, without all this aero gunk that we have now it would just be cheaper, simpler, and and the differences would be less. The motors would cost lunch money in comparison.

I am criticizing your whole thought process and design methodology. I am trying to make you improve your process so that the rules you come up with are safer and more likely to produce the real results you want without unintended negative consequences.
We can trust and have more faith in your ideas more if you prove that you have considered contingency plans for negative consequences.

Really? It seems like you criticize for criticism sake without actually arguing anything meaningful about the technical aspects.
You suggested that I design in flaws, and now you require something vague "to have faith".
Besides, unless Ross Brawn will be taking the plans from this thread, convincing "unbelievers" has little importance.
Contingency plan would be to tune stuff that doesn't work as well as expected. But with a well thought out and designed formula there shouldn't be anything obvious, unintended consequences by their nature emerge later.

[zac510]

Just merely saying "With a simpler aero formula ... it would just be cheaper, simpler, and and the differences would be less" doesn't simply make it so. The engineers out there are ready to find loopholes in your rules at a moments notice and they'll happily spend more money, against your wishes. If you merely acknowledge this then you'll immediately realise you need some kind of CFD or wind tunnel rule restrictions (or other creative solution) to reduce the costs, unless you want the richest team to run away with the championship.

The engineering and commercial aspects of F1 are deeply integrated and you can't change one without changing the other, but it's interesting to study the relationships between them.

I'm not arguing about the technical engineering aspects because they are not rooted in reality, they are just a fantasy. The posts in these kind of threads (which we have a lot of) are the F1 forum equivalent of "which supermodel do you want to sleep with?" because they're never going to happen.

[mzso]

Just merely saying "With a simpler aero formula ... it would just be cheaper, simpler, and and the differences would be less" doesn't simply make it so. The engineers out there are ready to find loopholes in your rules at a moments notice and they'll happily spend more money, against your wishes. If you merely acknowledge this then you'll immediately realise you need some kind of CFD or wind tunnel rule restrictions (or other creative solution) to reduce the costs, unless you want the richest team to run away with the championship.

Perhaps. But that's outside of the technical regulations.
Also, making the aero simpler and more straightforward should definitely make it a lot less rewarding to sink money in aero developments. Just think of the complexity of the horror we have now. The front wigs look like the bastard child of a safety razor and a deer. All sorts of flaps protrusions and vortex generation. If you plainly ban all these tiny elements then you'll have a few big smooth surfaces, the top/bottom of the car. Orders of a magnitude less room for noxious tricks.

I'm not arguing about the technical engineering aspects because they are not rooted in reality, they are just a fantasy.

Just because they won't happen doesn't mean that the concepts are not reasonable and realistic.
The new regulations might as well go towards this direction with more body based downforce and much reduced wings. And removal of all those nasty little flaps and winglets. (They'd be insane not to get rid of these.)