What kind of F1 cars you would want?

[Schummy]

In all those discussions about the new regulations there are several opinions about what type of cars people wants to see.

I'm curious about the question related to weight and downforce, therefore here is the poll!

[Schummy]

Well... my vote was more weight and less downforce.

[BootsOntheSide]

More weight and less downforce will combine to reduce power, reduce grip, adn create bette rovertaking chances due to a reduced 'dirty air' effect, so this ought to be an easy choice.

[shiny side up!]

An easy choice until you introduce safety concerns... more weight means bigger impacts, and with the current methods for constructing super-light chasses, means more ballast on the cars. More ballast means even more opportunity for an impact or accident to end in disaster...

[Schummy]

With 22 votes:

More Weight: 12
Less Weight: 10

More Downforce: 7
Less Downforce: 15

"People" wants less downforce. About weight, let's it unchanged!

[Pingguest]

Less downforce, but same weight.

[Knowlesy]

Just less downforce on its own please!

[Schummy]

I want tanks! I want tanks! (heavy and without dowforce )

[jj2728]

less downforce, big fat slicks, no-refuelling, and a ferrari v-12....

[Mattracer]

A return to slicks would be nice also.

[f1atic]

I am not sure what the purpose of the pole is.
Same weight with less downforce would slow the cars down overall because they would not be able to take turns fast.

More weight with less downforce would also slow down the cars.

The opposites are conversely true. This isn't rocket science so what point are you trying to get to? If weight and downforce are the only thing you are playing with, nothing will change as far as making anything more competetive.

[Teretonga]

One of the problems with more weight less downforce is that the cars will be less responsive and less agile. I voted for this but only because it was a better alternative to less weight less downforce.
The later could arrive at a car which had such minimal braking need and good acceleration, that on todays circuits they would be just as difficult and near impossible to pass.
Champcars are heavier then F1 but ask people like JPM and Dixon which cars are more agile and responsive then the F1 car is streets ahead.

Current build technology indicates that it is possible to build a car much lighter than the present cars but the whole solution is more complex then just the two variables weight and downforce. The overwhelming thought though is downforce must be reduced.

While some may hate the idea the solution to the wing dilema is relatively simple. Advertisers like big wings so mandate a compulsory wing that is large but relatively inefficient. It may go against the F1 ethos of advanced technology but they are cars not aeroplanes, and teams could spend more time building in mechanical grip, which it could be argued is more relevant to road cars, the manufacturers bread abd butter. The aerodynamic lessons in current F1 bear little resemblance to the needs of road cars.

[golem]

I've voiced my opinion on safety before, but I'm against more weight as at the current stage of things, it'll be artificially engineering more danger into the cars. And that's pointless.

[Sheila M]

Less technology and more driver talent would be good - bit like we used to have back in the olden days!

[Schummy]

... and in rallying and bikes nowadays!

[Sheila M]

Lessons in overtaking would be helpful as well!

[Gt_R]

My preference would actually be more weight (perhaps a maximum increase of 100kg..we don't want a tank) while maintaining the current level of downforce.

I'm repeating myself probably, but i don't forsee more weight = more dangerous... F1 cars are some of the lightest around, i'm sure a bit more weight won't make it a killer. If ballast is our worry, FIA could just make crash test even more stringent, while putting a cap on ballast limit, that teams are forced to spend the "additional weight" on heavier crash structures.

More weight will also mean less agile (hence probably longer braking distances, slower fast-cornering speed, more prone to understeer etc) which would open a slightly (but hopefully enough) bigger opportunity for overtaking.

It would also negate the need for FIA's call for less power...because cars would effectively run with a lesser power:weight ratio. Also, less well funded teams would then have a bit more breathing space as they won't actually need to use those expensive materials that top teams currently use in their bid to lower the car's weight.

[Schummy]

I agreed with Gt_R about car's weight. For the most of it I say Amen

Certainly I would be happy with less downforce, but it is another issue

Resume by now (40 votes):

more weight: 24
less weight: 16

more downforce: 11
less downforce: 29

[grumpy1]

More weight less downforce= more overtaking.

The Grumpy1

[Liz]

Bring back the cars they had in 1979. And the real men who drove them.

[Korr]

Less physical downforce (wings) and more aero downforce (ground effects) this would be done to reduce the massive hole they bunch in the air

More mechanical grip (slicks)

I think these two factors would go a long way in helping cars pass a little easier.

[Andrew2001]

When one team dominates the championship it is normal, i suppose, for everyone to jump up and down and demand a change of rules just because one team is winning everything. But in 1988, 89, 90 and 91 was there any such uprage? Or what about 1992-1993, 1996-97 when Williams walked all over everyone?
No, because, those two teams, McLaren and Williams, at the height of their powers, never allowed either driver to dominate the team and therefore degate the purpose of having a second driver. Michael Schumacher may as well have a computer controlled car as a team mate that follows his every move because thats what its like at Ferrari. IT is rediculous. Yes, I am mocking their tactics, no, i will not be affraid to admit that these tactics have won SChumacher alot. But thats exactly the point. Montoya, Hakkinen, Villeneuve, Fisichella or Raikkonen will never find themselves lucky enough to challenge Schumacher in the same car because he himself will never allow it to happen. For his entire career he has had another driver out there on the grid working for HIS results.

That is ludacris. The fact that the FIA (Ferrari International Autosport Council) has allowed this **** to go on for so many years is bad enough, but put it all into perspective. Ferrari have protested so many results, so many occasions have McLaren and or Williams come worse off, or indeed both at teh same time, as was the case at Monza last year. Ferrari would not have won teh championship if Michelin's perfectly matched tyres, tailored with those McLarens and Williams were not ripped away right at the season climax. What was a fantastic season, was spoilt, because of Ferrari. I could write a book damn it, and in fact I will summarise the points here:

*McLaren's third brake pedal, deemed legal by FIA but subsequently banned following Ferrari protest @ Brazil-1998
*Their "team orders" @ Melbourne, which was as both Mika and DC said, a driver agreement and nothing to do with Ron Dennis was condemned, then all such team orders banned by FIA in the future. Then waht happens? IRvine lets Schumacher through at Austria 98. Barrichello lets him through @ Austria in 2001, and 2002.

It's dirty, filthy, de-grading Formula 1. And all this **** is the responsibility of Ferrari and Schumacher. Villeneuve could rip him to pieces given the same car, Hakkinen could show him how to take pole after pole after pole, and Fisichella could show him pure pace, lap for lap, race for race, season for season.
Of course, we will never know, because we have never seen Schumacher's team mate allowed to race for himself, except, of course, AUSTRIA 2002.

Ron Dennis and Frank Williams are clean and pure racers, and since 2000, every move they have made towards closing the gap has been clamped down by the FIA, following a Ferrari protest. I will not even talk about 2000 because there is just far too much to mention.

The one thing Ferrari have done well, is their car reliability, it is simply stunning, but that aside, had Ferrari not sucessfully persuaded the FIA in late 2000, and had they not done the same in 2003, Hakkinen would be 3 time champion, and Raikkonen or Montoya would have their first title.

For Christ sake Enzo would be turning in his grave, if only there was a way to let him know what has become of the racing spirit of Ferrari Formula 1.....

[josvandeperre]

You forgot this option:

Who cares provided they can overtake again

[GTV27]

re the poll items:

less weight - make 'em as light as they can (and still pass the crash test)
less downforce - no wings, maximum downforce limit set (enough for stability only) and verifed in FIA sanctioned windtunnel tests

some other thoughts:

bigger wheels/tyres - 19 x 8 and 19 x 15 rims should be about right
more power - 5 litre NA or 2 litre forced induction
covered cockpits/safety cells - with F16 style canopies
clip on cycle guards for wet conditions (spray reduction)

that should do for now

[eein]

I agree about the whole overtaking thing. Look at the last race (spain). Trulli got in front, then MS did not pass until the stops. In fact, he clearly didnt bother trying becasue of a number of factors - he cant get too close to trulli coz of the areo problems, he knew he had a faster car so could put in a couple of fast laps to 'pass in the pits' and he knew the under the current rules, risking any form of move is not worth it.

So I reckon the areo thing needs something done about it to allow people to 'tailgate' more (not sure what would allow this as I'm not an aero expert) and also do something to the rules/points/sporting ethos to make drivers want to take a racing risk or two. And for all It hink the pit stops are fun, maybe they should go to, or limited to one per race to prevent them being the prefered overtaking option.