|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
8 Aug 2018, 15:00 (Ref:3842345) | #3076 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,981
|
sorry for the delayed response...
fair point..these sorts of changes/gimmicks only yield a temporary boost at best. the teams (the top ones certainly) have an amazing ability to adapt. but surely then if we accept that premise then any proposed change can be discounted so should we instead just advocate for continuity and more of the same each year? |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
8 Aug 2018, 15:18 (Ref:3842352) | #3077 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,938
|
Quote:
Hopefully I am correct in saying that after longish periods of rule stability, the racing has been,on the whole, far closer with more teams/drivers able to compete against each other. It seems to me that every time a new rule set is introduced, you have one or maybe two teams that come out clearly on top. And it then takes years for the other teams to catch up. |
|||
|
8 Aug 2018, 15:43 (Ref:3842360) | #3078 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
I agree very much with what Mike Hart wrote above. |
||
|
8 Aug 2018, 18:08 (Ref:3842384) | #3079 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,981
|
Quote:
Ferrari certainly has but then they have the budget to do so. as for the rest of the teams (and i would have to look at the race times more closely) but it seems to me that apart from Merc and Ferrari (and RB on occasion) that the gap between the top teams and the mid to lower field has been increasing as of late. the last few races, if memory serves, outside the top runners every one else is around a 30sec to 1 lap down on the podium winners. that said, if i do look back at this season and then other seasons these sorts of gaps in the field probably isnt all that uncommon. but nevertheless, if continuity over time is an equalizer and with 4 or so years of relative rules stability, should we not be seeing this gap shrinking? anyways...as the life of engines are required to last longer i am really ok with tires being used to alter (or even manipulate) performance levels. fair trade off for me. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
8 Aug 2018, 21:05 (Ref:3842407) | #3080 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,161
|
A period of stability leads to smaller gaps between teams, but more consistent gaps.
I’m for regular changes announced relatively close to the following season. Of course the big teams are more likely to get it right, but it gives an opportunity for someone to steal a march on the others. Any stability means that the others teams will just catch up with resources. It’s also fair as each team hasn’t the opportunity. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
9 Aug 2018, 10:56 (Ref:3842472) | #3081 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
I recall lamenting the change of regs at the end of '97 as Williams had been caught up by Ferrari, Mclaren, and Benetton had begun to get over their post Schumacher wobbles. Stewart and Jordan were also knocking on the door and even Arrows showed serious signs of breaking through. Then it took another 3 or 4 years before we got more than 2 teams wining all the time. But nowadays the budgets and technical advances maintain the advantages of the manufacturer elite teams are probably beyond the reaches of most entrants and definitely have deterred others from coming in. |
|||
__________________
"Double Kidney Guv'nah?" "No thanks George they're still wavin a white flag!" |
9 Aug 2018, 11:56 (Ref:3842480) | #3082 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
The only way F1 can plausibly develop into something to face the future is to have a rulebook which is thinner, which allows development of real novel solutions (not using unobtainium, mind you. Or toluene) without rendering them immediately illegal. That way the clever people behind the DDD, or full active cars, or mass dampers, or j-tubes (or whatever they were called) could develop ideas instead of being forced to watch endless CFD simulations on whether a front wing endplate makes the low pressure vortices spilling off that 5mm section affects the braking efficiency of the left rear, or something equally detailed. Free up the method of producing motive power. Limit the fuel/energy on board, or available over a weekend. Do *something*! |
||
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
9 Aug 2018, 12:12 (Ref:3842489) | #3083 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
The other problem is that the only place you are going to make a decisive difference in an engine based formula is the engine, and there are only 4 manufacturers, one of which is light years ahead of the others.
|
|
|
9 Aug 2018, 12:15 (Ref:3842490) | #3084 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,749
|
Quote:
Don’t forget though that 97 was helped by there being a tyre war again. That’s what helped Prost, Stewart and Arrows were up there several times. Although Jordan were definitely up there and Gary Anderson says that if Barrichello had stayed with the team they would have got their first win. But it was a shame they came up with that rule change, which split the pack up, especially those horrible grooved tyres. |
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
9 Aug 2018, 12:45 (Ref:3842506) | #3085 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
The whole grooved tyres and narrow cars thing in 1997/1998 just shows how clueless, oblivious and illogical the FIA are. I do often wonder who is actually making these decisions and what they are hoping to achieve with them.
In terms of rules as a whole, for me they need to massively simplify the upper surface aero, as in cut it back to 70-80% of its current values. Then what you do is you employ ground effects to claw back some of that lost aero through a method of aero generation which doesn't affect following cars (as much). The new front wing rules dont nearly go far enough and making them wider again is foolhardy. Did they not see countless races when cars bashed wheels and then the front wing fell off because of it...!?! Make the front wing finish well inside the front wheel track, then have it scraping on the ground with skid plates or strakes to stop is stalling through getting too low. Again I shake my head at the rule makers; 2001 - raise the front wing, 2004 - raise the front wing again, 2005 - raise the front wing again further. Pure idiocy. |
||
|
9 Aug 2018, 12:52 (Ref:3842507) | #3086 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,749
|
And that’s keep the tyres wide too
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
9 Aug 2018, 13:40 (Ref:3842523) | #3087 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
|
||
|
9 Aug 2018, 15:09 (Ref:3842550) | #3088 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
|||
|
9 Aug 2018, 15:24 (Ref:3842553) | #3089 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,981
|
Quote:
imo, now days, rules stability just reinforces the status quo. perhaps more so now as we approach the last couple of years of the current formula. good point about it being deterrent to entry as well. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
9 Aug 2018, 17:25 (Ref:3842574) | #3090 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,160
|
I post this idea occasionally and today is a good day to do so because you mentioned active suspension.
Bring back active suspension! * Spec ECU for active suspension (limited number of data streams in/out and finite compute power) * Limited number and type of sensors. * Limited number and type of actuators * Maybe even homologate sensors and actuators I think it should do a few things. 1. Move the design of trick suspension from the physical world to the software world. In short, less tricky/complex/expensive mechanical solutions that don't have any real world use outside of F1 (and maybe WEC) 2. Reduce cost as development/testing/turning should "mostly" be doable via simulators. Also potentially easy and cheap to adjust on race weekends. 3. Spec "resources" puts everyone on same playing field. Teams still get to design their own solutions. 4. I am not an aero guy, but I suspect much of aero optimization is getting things to work in relation to the dynamic nature of the car (i.e. ride height and other attitude variations that make it hard to optimize aero). So if the relationship to the road can be more tightly controlled (for less money), then it may be cheaper to create competitive aero. Downside is it should make the cars easier to drive. Which I know is a heretical position here (and one in which I sometimes espouse). But it should allow a cheaper way for teams to equalize base chassis differences as well as potentially ease cost of aero development. If this proved successful, next step could be movable aero. Again, this could reduce the importance of a single optimized aero solution. This could also separate F1 from other series as well (capture the technology high-ground without it being extremely expensive) Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
10 Aug 2018, 00:12 (Ref:3842661) | #3091 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
||
|
10 Aug 2018, 08:21 (Ref:3842718) | #3092 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
||
|
10 Aug 2018, 13:29 (Ref:3842790) | #3093 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
Well 2009 was probably the closest we came to what I suggested, but it was never a 70-80% reduction in upper surface aero, maybe 20-30% after the aero guys had worked their magic, also there was no ground effects either.
|
||
|
10 Aug 2018, 18:37 (Ref:3842848) | #3094 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Of course there's ground effects. Every aerodynamic race car has that. What you want is more of it. Even though there's zero evidence it does anything good to the racing.
|
|
|
10 Aug 2018, 18:56 (Ref:3842853) | #3095 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
This is a post I made on Reddit, but it seems people there don't actually read and just reply with pre-programmed robot-like responses. Maybe a better reception here:
Why do Q3 runners need to start the race on Q2 tyres? Quote:
|
||
|
10 Aug 2018, 19:27 (Ref:3842856) | #3096 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,549
|
Quote:
For those teams who make Q3 - the tyres are returned, so they gain nothing by sitting in the garage on tyres that will not be used again. So making them use Q2 tyres means that there is a genuine battle in Q3. Making teams use the Q2 rubber also means that there is less chance of a team sticking on a tyre that is of no racing value in Q2, just to make Q3 - because they will be stuck with that tyre for the race. So, we should see the best 10 cars in Q3, and all of them should be challenging for a grid position. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
10 Aug 2018, 19:41 (Ref:3842863) | #3097 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,108
|
Quote:
My understanding of the Q3 teams using Q2 tyres at the start was it was introduced to allow the teams to do proper qualifying laps, rather than conserve tyres for the race. So if you forced them to use the Q3 tyres, nobody did any running for 10 minutes, then did 1 lap, and that was it. Using the Q2 tyres for the race allowed them to run pure qualifying in Q3, and make it more fun. That's my understanding. Whether that's right, or whether that even works I don't have the slightest clue! You may be onto something with the MotoGP thing. If it's a rule that's over complex and has no positive effects, then just get rid of it and let them do whatever they want. If you're no worse off, then at least you've gotten rid of a crap rule. |
||
|
10 Aug 2018, 20:11 (Ref:3842874) | #3098 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Aug 2018, 20:12 (Ref:3842875) | #3099 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
I very much agree with you that scrapping rules is a plus in itself, even if it has very little effect. In fact, I'm in favour of tearing up most of the (in my opinion) extremely silly 'sporting regulations'. |
||
|
10 Aug 2018, 20:15 (Ref:3842876) | #3100 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,108
|
Yes, that's what I said at the end of my post, agreeing with you
Now I thought the original rule was purely about improving Q3, not the race. So it seems I've misunderstood the intention of the rule. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |