Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged]

[AMT]

The current structure of F1 means that no-one's going to be first to move in case they lose their little corner of the very cosy duvet, so the FIA resorts to cartoon ideas. There's no-one with any vision of what F1 should look like, and what its unique selling point is. It has always been about mind-blowing machines and driving talent, not often about close racing: there has almost always been one dominant team. Here are my ideas, maybe to be introduced in 2007 to allow for development and harmonisation of the necessary control technology.

1. Restrict the power to say 500bhp. This can be done by fitting a torque sensor to the input shaft, linked to the engine ECU.

2. Reduce the downforce by at least 75%. Currently huge sums are being spent on building more and more sophisticated wind tunnels, to look primarily for downforce, which doesn't have, and will never have, any relevance to road cars. Everyone knows that the aerodynamics of the current cars is eroding any potential there may be for close racing. The emphasis should be on reducing drag.

3. Eliminate all electronic communication (including voice) from pits to car. That would ensure that team orders were more difficult to engineer, and it would mean that the driver would have to concentrate on nursing the car, not having the telemetry geeks to monitor every function.

4. Allow any power plant, providing it used the specified fuel. That would mean the manufacturers concentrating on efficiency rather than power - saving weight by carrying less fuel.

5. Allow energy recovery systems, such as regenerative braking: again, relevant to road cars.

6. Allow control of car functions by on-board computers: these are a feature of current road cars, and provided there was no communication with the pits, any programming would be just an extension to the set-up procedure that happens to the car prior to the race. Anyway, there is always a trade-off between sophistication and simplicity that means that it's often not the most sophisticated car that is the fastest. I don't see that a car with a plane-load of control electronics will be less interesting to watch than a car with a plane-load of downforce.

7. Allow any transmission. Efficiency would again be key.

My starting point is a strong belief that the supply of money to F1 will not be limited by tinkering with the regulations - limit testing, and the rich teams will simply build bigger wind tunnels and more sophisticated simulation rigs Therefore give that investment some real value, make it relevant. Neither should we be Canute about technology: F1 should remain cutting-edge. And of course, the other basic problem with F1 now is that it's up its own arse, and that isn't an attractive posture.

Andy

[Valve Bounce]

How about swapping drivers after each race?
or apply a ballast penalty to winning drivers,
or reverse the starting grid,
or making the top four teams field 3 cars so that rookies from their home countries can get a drive,
.......give me time, and I'll think up some more interresting ideas

[Adam43]

I don't like the reduction in power. Something that can unstick those rear wheels, that keeps the driver's right foot busy.

Aerodynamics: I would like see a reduction in downforce. However I would like the emphasis on allowing cars to follow each other.

I would get rid of pit to car links, but keep the pit to driver link.

Different power plants: Wow that would be good, but I don't like the fuel formula. That's what they had in the mid '80s. Stupid conservative driving. Remeber GP at Imola in that period. A joke.

Energy recovering systems: Very interesting. Tried by Panoz in sportscars and muted by, I think, McClaren (until it was banned!). It is not crucial to F1 at all, IMO. Could be too heavy and storing energy can be very inefficient. It might be relevant to road cars, but I'm not sure it's relevant to racing.

This situation already exists. The computer is very sophisticated in an F1 car as it is. The pits to car stuff allows this to be taken to another degree. But I like the idea that adjustments to rev limit etc. are made by the driver (but again this already happens - the Williams' boost button).

Transmission: I liked the idea of CVT that Williams were developing a few years ago. However, this was from a purely technical viewpoint. I feel we should have manual gearboxes (with H pattern!). More chance for a mistake by a driver.

And while we are talking about. Get rid of other aids such as traction and launch control. Again more chance of those small mistakes (perhaps while under pressure, or ones that give the guy behind a sniff of an overtaking chance).

I sort of agree with you about cutting-edge. But then a 900bhp 3-litre engine is pretty cutting edge.

How to control a car with 900bhp and a lot less grip? It will be the job of the designers and engineers to think of solutions to this and produce a fundamentally good car (not one that is fudged with computer input). It will also be the responsibility of the driver to drive it. It is this last point that is the most crucial to F1.

Oh and go back to Spa and circuits like it.

[AMT]

<I don't like the reduction in power. Something that can unstick those rear wheels, that keeps the driver's right foot busy.>

When did you ever see a good driver in a good F1 car struggling with oversteer? It doesn't happen, and probably hasn't since Auto Union. It's a daydream...

<Aerodynamics: I would like see a reduction in downforce. However I would like the emphasis on allowing cars to follow each other.>

Inability to draft comes from reliance on downforce, and the effect of the wake on the car behind.

<Different power plants: Wow that would be good, but I don't like the fuel formula. That's what they had in the mid '80s.>

No, what they had in the 80's was a fuel consumption formula. That's not what I'm suggesting. There should be (as there is now) a single specification for fuel. A more efficient engine of the regulated power would require less fuel for a race distance, and hence less weight.

<Energy recovering systems: Very interesting. Tried by Panoz in sportscars and muted by, I think, McClaren (until it was banned!). It is not crucial to F1 at all, IMO. Could be too heavy and storing energy can be very inefficient.>

That would be a decision for the engineers to make. If it were too heavy, it wouldn't be used. However, the fact that McClaren were developing it and that Panoz used it (I know, I was an engineer on that project) suggests that it could be relevant.

<I feel we should have manual gearboxes (with H pattern!). More chance for a mistake by a driver.>

Outside handbrakes? Ride-on mechanics? aero screens and leather helmets?

<And while we are talking about. Get rid of other aids such as traction and launch control.>

This is more Canute stuff. It's becoming more and more difficult and expensive to police electronics systems, so unless all electronic systems are banned, there will be continuous inflation in scrutineering costs, and to what point? Think of a jet fighter - it's packed with computer-controlled systems, but when it comes to a battle, it's still the pilot's input that is crucial. IMO that's where F1 should be.

Andy

[DMC]

My ideas, I don't claim to have infinite knowledge of F1 but most of these are common sense ways to bring Formula One back to the days of entertaining races requiring every last bit of a drivers skill without compromising on the technology and safety side of the sport.

1. Manual, sequential gearboxes, not a huge step back in terms of technology and not much of a challenge for drivers but its just another way of giving the drivers more control over the car and balancing that with the incredible speeds they're going.
2. Reduced aerodynamic grip made up for with a return to wider, ungrooved tires which is widely regarded as the best way to allow cars to race closer together resulting in more spectacular racing and driving.
3. Standardised engine electronics are a good idea in theory but will remove the creativity in creating a unique engine. For example Mercedes comes up with a new innovation in their engines but cannot impliment it due to restrictions in the standard electronics. Therefore banning two way telemetry is the best option however hard it is to police.
4. Ban traction control and launch control, I want to see full clutch starts, wheelspin and all!
5. Most importantly of all the races should only be held on unique, challenging circuits with no regard for "emerging markets" or commersial interests of companies with no respect for the sport. We NEED Spa and the pre 2002 Hockenheim.

[Dutton]

I'd be interested to see what would the teams would come up with if all regulations were removed, for I reckon after 2 or 3 years of this it could be quite incredible the speeds/braking/cornering etc that they reach. However, that is just curiosity and I don't think it should actually be done in reality.


I haven't really got anything extra to add, for my thoughts are covered in previous posts. I don't agree with limiting the engines to 500 bhp or whatever though, simply because I want to see just how far they could go with a 3-litre V10 engine. It is already phenomenal, but I think that BMW/Ferrari are both on the brink of making a major step forward.

I think that the principle simply has to be to make the driver input far more important, and the means by which it is achieved would sort itself out.

Still pondering.

[CleanTone]

The 3 car for the top 4 teams is a good idea. Seriously. Look at Wurz, Badoer. 3 years ago I believe there was the same hype for Badoer as now for Alonso....

[Down F0rce]

get rid of traction control. it is a product of satan that no place in motorsport.

H-Stick gearboxes, no electronic clutches.

"low" nosecones

SLICKS.

CART style hanford devices.

INCREASE Downforce. drivers will be more confident in making bold moves.

Bring back Spa.

Bring back Adalaide.

ban refulling. tyre stops only, with a "pit window" so everyone comes in within a few laps of each other.

moderate pit-to-car radio.

make the final race of the year a 500 miler at a superspeedway.

legalise NOS.

cant think of any more right now...

[ASCII Man]

Legalise NOS????

[Big Mac]

"CART style hanford devices."

I like the sounds of that Down FOrce. The first step in the right direction that the FIA needs to make is limiting downforce. I think the Hanford Device would work as well as the introduction of TRUE flat bottom cars, minus diffusers etc. Then you would re-introduce slicks.

"Bring back Adalaide."

If only.....

[JonesF1]

1. Restrict the power to say 500bhp.
No way. The more bhp the better.

2. Reduce the downforce by at least 75%.
The rear wings serve as billboards so thats not gonna happen any time soon. Im not sure it would reduce costs, if anything it would help prevent another R3. But a reduction in aerodynamic grip should happen.

3. Eliminate all electronic communication (including voice) from pits to car.
Voice, No. Data, Yes.

4. Allow any power plant, providing it used the specified fuel.
Combined with your first suggestion this would be interesting. Otherwise, no.

5. Allow energy recovery systems, such as regenerative braking: again, relevant to road cars.
Not really effective at this point. Maybe in the future?

6. Allow control of car functions by on-board computers.
F1 already has ECUs (black boxes).

7. Allow any transmission. Efficiency would again be key.
Basically everyone would be using CVTs. Why not? All F1 transmissions are full-automatic these days anyway. But manuals would be better for the sport IMO.

[DMC]

Originally posted by Down F0rce
get rid of traction control. it is a product of satan that no place in motorsport.

H-Stick gearboxes, no electronic clutches.

"low" nosecones

SLICKS.

CART style hanford devices.

INCREASE Downforce. drivers will be more confident in making bold moves.

Bring back Spa.

Bring back Adalaide.

ban refulling. tyre stops only, with a "pit window" so everyone comes in within a few laps of each other.

moderate pit-to-car radio.

make the final race of the year a 500 miler at a superspeedway.

legalise NOS.

cant think of any more right now...

Basically you want F1 to become CART? The suggestion of NOS is ridiculous, this isn't a playstation game. Pit windows make artificial results which is the last thing F1 needs at the moment. What Dutton said about driver input is spot on, the team should build the fastest car and then for those two hours every second sunday afternooon it should be up to nothing but the driver to win the race with the exception of pitstops. Sport is about humans competing to determine who is the best within a set of rules, those rules should only define reasonable restrictions, not create artificial results.

[Down F0rce]

well, i was running a little low on ideas when i came to the last two...

[Valve Bounce]

OK, try this one: ban all on board batteries and on board computers. Just think what this will affect before you say No!!

[Lee Janotta]

I've posted so many suggestions my fingers hurt.

A spec ECU will make possible the enforcement of bans on 2-way telemetry, traction control, launch control, and any other electronic voodoo, while allowing the teams to configure the firmware just enough to make the computer control their engine.

Next, eliminate the V10-only rule. Allow the teams to develop whatever they're most comfortable with. Cosworth V8s, Ferrari flat 12s, Honda V10s, Mercedes V12s...

A 15,000 RPM rev limit. Because the engines sound _so_ much better at that speed. It won't have much of an effect on power, but it will improve reliability, and should reduce costs.

Limit the cars to one aerodynamic element front and rear. No barge boards, winglets... None of that ****. This should reduce both downforce and the sensativity of the aero package.

Reinstate the 1993 regulations on chassis width. A wide track car will provide more mechanical grip. Plus the cars will look _much_ cooler.

Slicks. Big, fat, tall, wide slicks from a single supplier, who will provide two control compounds per race. The focus in tire development will be in finding a construction and compound which has good durability, but will start to go off if pushed relentlessly for much of the race. These tires will not be designed as today's are, for absolute maximum grip, but to provide a good amount of grip, but room to allow for different driving styles, allowing the drivers to slide the cars a bit.

A minimum height for the driver's helmet. This will give the drivers a better perspective to allow them to race more by reacting than anticipating. It should give them more confidence in overtaking, as well as making them more comfortable. This will be coupled with a maximum height for the nose, so that the intent of this rule is not subverted.

As part of the spec electronics package, cars will be restricted to a six speed sequential gearbox with no computer controls.

Titanium or steel will be required for all suspension and steering parts currently made of carbon fiber. This will provide more safety for the drivers and possibly reduce costs.

Refuelling will be banned.

Team orders will be banned. I'm not a lawyer, but we need a rule with some real teeth.

Teams will no longer have to build their own cars.. All teams who wish will be allowed to buy year-old cars from teams who wish to manufacture their own at a set price.

Engine suppliers will be encouraged to provide their current-spec engines to additional teams by a separate championship. If the engines are rebadged, they will still count, so long as spec is near-identical. For instance, if Renault provided Minardi with current-spec engines badged as Nissan, their points would still count for Renault in the engine championship.

Long list, ain't it?

The championship should consist of 20 races, and be run on a much better class of tracks than it currently is. See my post in the ultimate F1 schedule thread.

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...783#post409783

Points will revert to the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system.

Cars will not run on Friday. Saturday will start with a half-hour of free practice before qualifying starts. The Superpole system will be used. The polesitter will recieve one championship point.

On Sunday, grid positions will be drawn at random. The race will begin after a half-hour warmup.

Number of entries per event will be unlimited, allowing for wildcard entries and third cars. Each _manufacturer_ will have the option of entering a third car in 4 races per season. Also, relax the Super Liscense requirements. Anyone holding an International License and who can qualify on Saturday will be handed a _provisional_ Super Liscense on the spot.

Hans Joachim Stuck for FIA President.

Ban diffusers. Completely flat titanium floor plate under the car. Lots of sparks.

Limit testing to two rounds of one week each. Tests will be held at Donnington, Paul Richard, Estoril and Mugello. Teams may attend tests at two tracks during each week, with no more than 2 cars from each team allowed at the same track. Any team found guilty of privately testing their a current or future-spec car will be summarily banned from one round of the championship per offense. Dyno and windtunnel testing will be unrestricted for manufacturers.

[I Ate Yoko Ono]

Bring back venturi induced ground effects so cars can follow ach other closely through corners without losing as much grip as they do today. It hasn't done CART any harm these last 25 years.
You can still preserve wings that way for advertising space but they will be set flatter and as much balancing devices as they are for downforce (something like champcar wings).

But you've still got the advertising space.

[Champ69]

Why not ban fuel and make the teams look at alternative powerplants eg... solar energy, electricity.

[Glen]

I think we need to define the problem, before we can suggest the solution. In many ways the cars are actually very good - they are relatively safe and unquestionably very fast... both high priorities I'd say. The performance gap between quick and not so quick teams is one snag - but this is no different today than in years gone by. Design and development are now so good though that it takes years not weeks to make an alteration and leap-frog up the grid.

Look at some of the popular ideas (none of which I actually disagree with per se, but all of which have "flip-sides")...

1 Reduce areo grip, increase mechanical. It is true that this would enable two closely matched cars to circulate in close formation, and this might give you more overtaking. But it won't do anything to bring the cars' performance closer together in the first place. Additionaly, and more importantly, it will favour whoever has the best aero-efficiency - whoever gets the most out of what is left over after the wings are reduced will have the best of the change. Guess which team has the most aero-efficient car? (BTW aero efficiency is a measure of how much downforce is got out with the smallest drag penalty.)

2. Scrap driver aids. Make the cars harder to control, put more of a premium on the driver. Makes sense. But how will this shake up F1? The best drivers already drive for the best teams, for the most part. OK, the potential for the odd mistake is there and that would produce some surprises... so maybe this has merit on those grounds, but the spirit of this change is at odds with the next idea...

3. Wheras the point (above) of making the car harder to drive is easy to understand, many people are also calling for the car to be easier to drive by making the tyres more forgiving. A return to slicks, let them slide around without such a big penalty... The cars now reward perfection, not over-driving.

All of that doesn't get us very far. We could do all three of those things and end up with the exact same order that we have now.

[Glen]

Here's one idea: Regulate weight distribution as well as total weight.

One objective in the obssesive drive to reduce weight and make up the difference in ballast is to get the centre of weight distribution further forward to closely match the centre of aerodynamic downforce. This is hellishly expensive to achieve and gives the big money teams an advantage over the also-rans. The big boys go to extreme lengths to reduce engine weight, gearbox weight... everything basically... so that heaps of ballast can be put as low and as far forward as possible. By the simple means of specifying a certain front-rear split much of this extreme investment can be rendered near-pointless. The only remaining benefit to cutting weight will be to carry ballast as low as possible, which on its own doesn't do nearly as much.

The focus for an idea such as this is reducing cost. Money is THE big differentiator between success and also-ran in F1.

[Glen]

Sorry - one of my favourite topics this one! Another idea to limit cost, far simpler in my opinion that one engine per weekend... Limit engine rpm. The battle for more power is very much to do with squeezing more revs out. This is easily done using the listening device that tells us the engine rpm on TV. Cut them back to 17,500 - they get cheaper more reliable engines and we get fewer blow-ups and a more even field.

[JGM]

Remove almost all aerodynamic downforce - no wings at all and just a bit of ground effect for high speed stability.

Permit four wheel drive with free tyres.

Free engines - any size, any number of cylinders, turbos, whatever - except that the engine would receive its fuel through an FIA-supplied fuel feed valve which would only permit a certain amount of fuel to reach the engine per second.

[ASCII Man]

Whoa, like jet engines too??
Imagine, a Thrust SSC look alike F1 car with two jetfighter engines...

[AMT]

Let's get one thing straight - whatever rules you draught, the best combination of designer, driver, engine and money will be quickest. The aim should be to allow exceptional talent in driver or engineer or strategist to shine through, and that comes with allowing more freedom, not less.

Andy

[Lee Janotta]

Glen, I've come to respect your opinions, despite not usually agreeing with them, they always seem very well reasoned.

I believe your weight distribution idea may have merit. I think it's certainly something worth exploring.

You and I both agree on a rev limit for the same reasons.

I've come up with several ideas which I believe would bring the slowest and fastest teams closer together, which is why I then suggest more mechanical and less aero grip to allow those cars running at close speeds to run even closer on the track.

My impetus for wanting slicks back is actually for reasons you've mentioned... Current tires don't encourage drivers to over-drive the cars... Right now the cars don't encourage very spirited driving _because_ overdriving will cost you. A slide now means an error... I'd like to see handling characteristics, where drivers _can_ slide the car and be extremely fast. There are many drivers who are naturally fastest when they slide the car around a bit, and I think they should have a fair shot at winning the championship, being as the F1 champion is supposed to be the best in the world (these drivers are often the ones to beat in sports, touring and GT classes, so it's not as though they're unskilled). One could actually say that there are advantages right now to _under_-driving the car... Ralf Schumacher, for instance, rarely pushes the FW24 to it's full potential, but does fairly well because he makes no mistakes.

And I don't believe one can overlook the aesthetics of a low, wide car with big fat slicks on it. A '95 Ferrari looks worlds better than the current model, especially from behind.

There may be a place in F1 for ground effects... But the problem there is they only work in series where the designs are closely regulated by the series... Grounds effects in F1 were really a failure in competitive terms, allowing the teams which got it right, especially Lotus, to simply dominate.

As for the driver aids... I'm boggled by the idea that people think they're good for the sport. It's just silly for the supposed best drivers in the world to have computers controlling elements of the car they should be plenty capable of handling. Automatic gearboxes and traction control are for soccer moms.

As for some of the more... Well, absurd ideas which have been posted here... We need evolutionary, or even devolutionary change... Not some cartoonish jet or solar-powered 6-wheel-drive formula.

[ASCII Man]

I liked the '90 model much better than the '95 one.
IMO, the McLaren MP4/5 is one of the most beautiful F1 cars in F1 history.
And the most succesful too...