[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Richard C

There is an excellent idea someone had (might have been Taxi's) to start with a higher minimum weight so that teams can meet it initially when a new spec is released, but then have a progressively shrinking minimum over time as teams engineer out the weight.

Richard

Is it mandatory to have to carry and use all the MGU guff? What if a team didn’t want to run it? If a team had a 700kg car with just a regular V6 turbo would that be allowed?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Is it mandatory to have to carry and use all the MGU guff? What if a team didn’t want to run it? If a team had a 700kg car with just a regular V6 turbo would that be allowed?

As it's a minimum weight, regardless of how low of weight they can get with an unballasted car, it would have to be brought up to minimum.

As to not including any type of KERS, as the effective maximum power output of the ICE is specifically restricted they would be giving up a massive amount of performance by not implementing KERS.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard C

As to not including any type of KERS, as the effective maximum power output of the ICE is specifically restricted they would be giving up a massive amount of performance by not implementing KERS.

When I typed this up earlier I didn't have the numbers at my fingertips. So I have pulled values from the video I posted earlier...

Internal combustion vs electric HP is...
Current: ~830 vs ~160
2026+: ~560 vs ~470

While both don't add up to 1000HP, I think the idea is that they are roughly the same (current vs. future total power). The point is (and especially for 2026+) is that if you give up the KERS, you are loosing almost 1/2 of the HP you could use. Now you might say... you can get much more power out of that V6 turbo and you would be right. The limit is the amount of fuel/energy that can be used over time and that limits the ultimate output. But this moves into a territory of a hypothetical and non-existent technical spec that allows for multiple solutions (i.e. a full blown high power V6 turbo vs. a hybrid approach). And the core reason this does not exists as a key feature is to reduce the cost of power unit R&D. They want these power units to be +/- equal in performance and those like Audi, and RBPT who are new to the power unit game, also want to have predictable and easy to achieve performance without someone like Mercedes finding a "trick" that they miss. The new power units will be highly constrained. Especially with respect to the combustion side of the solution.

Richard

[Greem]

I still think that an energy limited formula could have been a great engineering challenge and perfect for F1.

You give the teams a maximum number of joules of energy input for an entire weekend. Whether that's combustible fuel for a traditional engine, gas for some type of fuel cell, electricity put into a storage unit, or a combination thereof, it would push the design and engineering boffins into radical solutions - which is what F1 used to be about, in part.

To keep things interesting, the amount gets varied in inverse proportion to the last finishing position/points tally/phase of the moon etc.

On top of that, don't mandate where in the weekend it gets used.

Some teams might go for a steady approach, with practice and qualifying used to get a lot of data and a good grid position. Others might do the bare minimum running early on but then throw their excess unused energy at the race itself.

Sure it could be a bit topsy turvy, but it'd be entertaining!

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard C

There is an excellent idea someone had (might have been Taxi's) to start with a higher minimum weight so that teams can meet it initially when a new spec is released, but then have a progressively shrinking minimum over time as teams engineer out the weight.

Richard

No, was not my idea. Under the budget cap it's a better idea than without it. F1 says they don't mind a few more brake downs from teams that would go too far in their weight reduction. Personally I would prefer sensible power train regulations as a way to reduced weight, but I'm not against it.

Originally Posted by Greem

I still think that an energy limited formula could have been a great engineering challenge and perfect for F1.

You give the teams a maximum number of joules of energy input for an entire weekend. Whether that's combustible fuel for a traditional engine, gas for some type of fuel cell, electricity put into a storage unit, or a combination thereof, it would push the design and engineering boffins into radical solutions - which is what F1 used to be about, in part.

To keep things interesting, the amount gets varied in inverse proportion to the last finishing position/points tally/phase of the moon etc.

On top of that, don't mandate where in the weekend it gets used.

Some teams might go for a steady approach, with practice and qualifying used to get a lot of data and a good grid position. Others might do the bare minimum running early on but then throw their excess unused energy at the race itself.

Sure it could be a bit topsy turvy, but it'd be entertaining!

Personally I think such a scheme would indeed empower innovation a lot and would be very interesting to the more technical interested fan and actually might have real world value.

I do think though, that the results could potentially be too much all over the place to provide close racing though. I think the F1 stakeholders consider F1 to have outgrown such a wild approach and want more of a "controlled freedom" to ensure decent racing (and the money rolling in).

I do thinking it would be a very interesting concept for a lower class formula exactly as you say. The boundaries being:

- Safety
- Budget cap
- Limits on active suspension/ aero/ other systems to keep the driver the driver.
- As you suggest, total amount of energy dependent or your championship points (or more specific manufactures points if you want to penalize a fast car rather than a fast driver). Each year, a small reduction in total allowed to promote efficiency.

That to me also would be incredibly interesting to follow. They could experiment with it in a lower class and if it would (eventually) result in a stable championship, they could consider it for higher classes as well.

[Taxi645]

Size comparison 2023/2004:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQzUNbntFRQ

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Size comparison 2023/2004:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQzUNbntFRQ

Wheelbase was free until 2021, teams chose the wheelbase that gave the most performance.

The FIA set a lower maximum wheelbase in 2022 than most 2021 wheelbases, but obviously it is still quite a long wheelbase. It was 300mm more than the FIA originally intended, after teams refused to agree to the original proposal for a 3300mm (IIRC) wheelbase, accepting only 3600mm, down from the 2021 average of 37XX mm.

1.8m maximum track rule (1998-2016) vs 2.0m maximum track rule (1993-1997, 2017-present) vs 2.15m maximum track rule (1972-1992), is another topic. A wider maximum track obviously gives "free roll stiffness" (since the wheels are further apart; a motorcycle as an extreme extreme with no roll stiffness) so you can have a softer suspension generating more mechanical grip for the same roll stiffness.

My preference is the 2.15m track as I believed this gave Grand Prix cars the best look and the most free roll stiffness! [Before 1972, track width was free, much like wheelbase until 2021.]

IMO, the Ferrari 641 looks better than the Ferrari SF-23 in part due to being wider:


The wide front wing of the 2022 rules is chosen to manage front tyre drag and wake. Dallara F2 and Indycars use a similar solution. Newey proposed a 1992-style solution (https://cdn-3.latimages.com/images/m...IO-01n_026.jpg, where wake-control spats run in-between the front wheels) but this was rejected by regulators.

Of course, the stylised long front overhand and rear overhang introduced in 2017 are not strictly necessary and could be shortened.

I think it is not helpful to say "oh the car is massive compared to 2003" without explanation and especially without mentioning the FIA had made the cars narrow in 1993, even more narrow in 1998 and made the rear tyres reall ynarrow in 1998. These were NOT performance driven, they were purely FIA decisions.

On the other hand, teams continually increasing wheelbase each season from 2009 to 2021 was performance driven and increasingly gave more performance.

A lot of the discussion around F1 car size seems to ignore how the F2004 looks silly with its squashed track width and narrow grooved tyres -- entirely FIA choices NOT Scuderia Ferrari choices -- and how much better it would have looked with 1992 proportions and 1992 rear tyres!

[Sodemo]

I think the people that are designing the tech rules are forgetting the mistakes made in 1997 / 1998 when the universally unpopular narrow track and grooved tyres made their appearance.

[broadrun96]

Dear god no to all of those ideas, how about this, just drop it if it ain't working

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/re...vamp/10537004/

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Dear god no to all of those ideas, how about this, just drop it if it ain't working

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/re...vamp/10537004/

Exactly there was no need for it for the first place. Like most things in F1 an answer to a question no one asked

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Dear god no to all of those ideas, how about this, just drop it if it ain't working

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/re...vamp/10537004/

Toto Wolff is spot on with his comments.

"I'd rather have no sprint races than if you start to meddle. Even more with reverse grid races, we are going towards junior formulae where sport follows entertainment, while entertainment should follow sport.
Creating artificial gaming around the sprint race on a Saturday is not the way that I would favour personally.But that's my opinion.''

[Aysedasi]

Just dump it. Completely unnecessary and IMO it just devalues F1....

[chillibowl]

i was originally a supporter of them trying the idea out but not so much after having seen it in action multiple times.

list of things that have led me to change my opinion:
-its rarely been exciting
-not driving ticket sales or value for the live spectators
-disruption to the GP/compromises the already limited track time set up procedures.
-issues over tire and engine use in the budget cap era
-drivers championship officially secured during a sprint race was a misstep
-and probably my biggest reason, there are already so many races so the need for extra content is not longer required imo.

dont fault them for giving it a shot but better now to walk away from the idea rather than dig the hole deeper.

[Tourer]

I was on the fence with sprints when first introduced. I’m off the fence now - have really only seen one good “race” out of it & it has too much impact on the main event.

Parc ferme guessing game, too little practice, drivers being able to “dress rehearse” first laps in the sprint takes away from the GP - plus other problems.

The juice ain’t worth the squeeze - sprints need to go. They’re meaningless enough in lower echelons but far worse at a Grand Prix.

[Mike Harte]

Sprints are fine when the field is too large and you need to thin out the cars for the main event; so you run two or more sprints dividing those participating in to separate sprints. Then the fastest so many from each sprint go through to the Grand Prix to create a grid.

A bit similar to pre-qualifying that they used to have when their were more entrants than places on the grid. And, to my mind, that should be the only reason to hold sprints.

[broadrun96]

The only thing to come out of it that I like is the need to learn quick and have a driver who can give quick feedback. The pounding laps so the supercomputers can tell you x, y, z isn't as nice as the learn what your car needs on track and get it wrong oh well

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Toto Wolff is spot on with his comments.

"I'd rather have no sprint races than if you start to meddle. Even more with reverse grid races, we are going towards junior formulae where sport follows entertainment, while entertainment should follow sport.
Creating artificial gaming around the sprint race on a Saturday is not the way that I would favour personally.But that's my opinion.''

I am of two minds on this and could be convinced either way...

(A). Racing rules are arbitrary already. Racing is a game. It is made up. So things like reverse grids is just an alternative way of playing a game. Who is to say that this is "sport follows entertainment". There are already a multitude of rules that exist today to generally "balance the field" in an attempt to decrease domination (boring seasons) and increase the entertainment value (more teams/drivers fighting at the front). Another phrase for "entertainment" or "entertainment value" could be called "good racing". Then again, not everyone agrees as to what is "good racing". Some want to see various teams trading wins back and forth over a season. Others are perfectly fine with one team absolutely dominating as it just showed they are performing at a level above the rest. The problem is there is no wrong answer.

(B) Ditch the sprint races all together. Stop trying to "fix" sprint races and focus on the effort to "fix" the primary GP event. Improve the the "entertainment" value of the GP. I mean they are trying this already, but stop also trying to band-aid on the sprint races as part of that. Also as called out in posts above mine, the season is pretty long, so throwing in more sprint races can create a level of "race fatigue". With more and more races, each one becomes less important and special. So you can start to care less about them. For example I was busy this weekend and just didn't watch the sprint race at all, but did watch the Sunday GP.

I know most here would say this is dumb, but part of me REALLY wants to see reverse grid sprint races. I suspect if it was done, the stragglers at the slow end of qualifying would be quickly passed and then it would be a progression of the fast cars working to the front. But that assumes a large performance difference as it is today. If there was more performance parity, there would be no need to invert grids to create entertainment.

Richard

[Skam85]

Have a sprint where last place is eliminated at the end of every lap.

Or maybe throw some bananas on the track, and have a blue shell thrown at the leader that makes the leader lose their front wing

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Dear god no to all of those ideas, how about this, just drop it if it ain't working

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/re...vamp/10537004/

Yes. No need for sprints at all.
But if we have to have them....
t
Then reverse grids, lowest points in season on pole, season leader on grid 20, $1 million in prize money, finishing order determines grid position session for GP qualifying.

So the last 6 in the sprint contest Q1, the first eight contest Q3, and 9-14th contest Q2.

If you want the prize money limited to 1 million and spread a bit then 1st to 9th, 250k, 200k, 175k, 150k, 125k, 100k, 75k, 50k, 25k.

This means that if you spin, crash, retire, or have a problem you will probably compete for one of the last six grid positions.
If you finish in the top eight, then you will start in the top eight, but you still have qualifying for position in your group.
That might spice things up and make the sprint meaningful. No WDC points in the sprint.
Only 6 sprints a year, circuits rotated, so no circuit holds a sprint for two consecutive years.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Have a sprint where

Originally Posted by Teretonga

But if we have to have them....

I think some of this might be tongue in cheek or maybe not. Either way, I like these ideas. Again, I think many might roll their eyes at all of this. But frankly it would be interesting to watch and they would be racing.

I would absolutely watch this stuff. I know those serious folks on the teams will feel it is absolutely Mickey Mouse however.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

lowest points in season on pole, season leader on grid 20

You don't explicitly call this out, but if grid order for the sprint is determined by points or some other method, it removes the need for sprint qualifying and allows the return of some practice.

One of the potential negatives of the order being reverse season points is that if you were someone who is just always at the back of the pack (this season it would be Logan or Daniel), it might be rough (and crushing) to continue to be on the poll in each sprint races. Maybe they could take the last four in points and randomly rotate them or something to ensure it's not always the same person.

Richard

[chillibowl]

while i am a proponent of trying things out in order to see where exactly everything stands, i do question the logic of reverse grinds for a 20 lap sprint race.

ostensibly they want to try this out in order to create scenarios where we would see someone come all the way from the back to win it. dramatic and exciting for sure...

but if it turns out that this is actually possible, more so if it turns out to be the likely, then surely a much bigger flaw has been exposed...rather, if the worst starting position can be overcome entirely within 20 laps then the gap between the teams at the top and those at the bottom is still way to big.

the irony here of course being that if the gap is not so great, then why bother with a reverse grid sprint race in the first place? rather, if the top driver cant make their way through the field to win it, then the sprint would be won by one of the slower cars by virtue of the fact that they simply had a favourable starting position earned by virtue of previously poor performances...this would be, to say the least, odd territory imo.

that said, i am more amenable to seeing them try out a reverse grid over the the course of a full race distance, although i suspect that by the end of the first stint (and barring accidents) the top teams would still reshuffle out near the front of the pack anyways.

[broadrun96]

Yeah, I'm with you on the 20 lap reverse grid being somewhat pointless with the modern cars. You'll end up with a decent mid-fielder being the usual winner if they can get through the backmarkers quickly they have the best chance and can use the back markers and themselves as blockers to the front of the pack getting through

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Have a sprint where last place is eliminated at the end of every lap.

You jest but maybe after lap 5 and each lap after the last place car is out? Then they get the who's on the bubble action each lap like quali

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

You jest but maybe after lap 5 and each lap after the last place car is out? Then they get the who's on the bubble action each lap like quali

As long as it's not Crofty commentating, I have a headache just thinking about that.

[broadrun96]

Oh dear God, but maybe it will kill his vocal cords and we get someone new