[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

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

There's a silver lining in every cloud!!

[S griffin]

It's clear the sprint races have rarely added anything. Really they've tried it, but it hasn't worked, either to decide the grid or have it as a standalone. It's time for them to be dropped, rather them try to tweak it further. It's the simple solution. Then we can focus on other issues to be had in F1

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's clear the sprint races have rarely added anything. Really they've tried it, but it hasn't worked, either to decide the grid or have it as a standalone. It's time for them to be dropped, rather them try to tweak it further. It's the simple solution. Then we can focus on other issues to be had in F1

Formula 1 never goes for the simple solution, for some reason they always go for a more complicated one, like these sprint race proposals.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

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.


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

Yes Richard, it was all tongue in cheek because I think they are pointless (which is why I made my suggestions for the sprints with no WDC points.
Yes two practice sessions and no qualifying but Max would argue that not having points is a bit pointless....
And having the same drivers up front at each sprint would seem like a replay but it just might provide them with experience in leading a F1 race, first corner strategies etc.

Of course, we could just have handicap racing which can be a lot of fun....

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Formula 1 never goes for the simple solution, for some reason they always go for a more complicated one, like these sprint race proposals.

Actually the sprint race idea is like the double points final and the knockout system we had at the beginning of 2016. An answer to a question nobody asked

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Actually the sprint race idea is like the double points final and the knockout system we had at the beginning of 2016. An answer to a question nobody asked

The knockout qualifying system was dropped after Bahrain, as it proved to be farcical.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The knockout qualifying system was dropped after Bahrain, as it proved to be farcical.

I know that, that’s why I said the beginning of 2016.

[Akrapovic]

Brundle made 2 decent arguments for retaining the Sprints this weekend.

1 - The worst Sprint race is more interesting than the best FP3. And I kinda agree with that.

2 - If you're going to have Sprints, then this is where you mess with wild things like reverse championship order grids. If you run a mini race, you get a mini race. If you want to mess with things, there's an opportunity here to do it without breaking the main event.

I kinda agree with both of those. But I'd also add that I think the Sprint Shootout qualifying is better than the main qualifying. All we lose is down time between runs and an empty track.

[V8 Fireworks]

Why not have the Sprint on Friday afternoon based on reverse championship order or something and then have qualifying on Saturday and Grand Prix on Sunday as usual?

[Tourer]

It does seem that the sprint is going to be part of a few race weekends each year. Personally, I don't like the sprint weekends because of the whole "one practice session then the rest of the weekend in Parc Ferme" approach.

If they changed it to Practice on Friday, followed by the Shootout, then the Sprint on Saturday "morning" that would work and would allow the cars to come out of Parc Ferme conditions after the sprint - thus the sprint really means something as the teams can take info from it and adjust their cars accordingly for the GP.

Then run Qual as it is now with the current Parc Ferme rules on Saturday afternoon and then the GP on Sunday. To me, that follows the ethos of the sport much better, keeps the GP itself more "pure" and gives teams the opportunity to try something different over the actual "long run" of the sprint race.

Going that way would make Friday pretty cool - practice and the shootout and also make Saturday pretty much compulsory viewing and really quite engaging, which it seems is what the focus on the sprint is all about - I mean, a short F1 race PLUS Qualifying would be pretty cool in one day.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Why not have the Sprint on Friday afternoon based on reverse championship order or something and then have qualifying on Saturday and Grand Prix on Sunday as usual?

The problem is that for most, Friday is a work day and so sprint events and possibly a Sprint mini-championship isn't going to pick up a big TV audience, unless it's run late into the evening, which isn't always possible around the world.

[S griffin]

The only solution is to get rid of it. There’s no need for it and it hasn’t increased excitement

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Brundle made 2 decent arguments for retaining the Sprints this weekend.

1 - The worst Sprint race is more interesting than the best FP3. And I kinda agree with that.

2 - If you're going to have Sprints, then this is where you mess with wild things like reverse championship order grids. If you run a mini race, you get a mini race. If you want to mess with things, there's an opportunity here to do it without breaking the main event.

I kinda agree with both of those. But I'd also add that I think the Sprint Shootout qualifying is better than the main qualifying. All we lose is down time between runs and an empty track.

Felt like a throw away comment in the broadcast there but also a moment of him letting his true feelings out there. I do wonder though if allowing a team to say screw it, car's not working and pit to tweak settings but not much time in race. The parc ferme condition can make the race less interesting than FP3 so maybe a timed thrash to tune after the sprint for the GP race could be worked in.

[Richard C]

Some interesting new rule changes. The headline calls out the first item, but there are some interesting ones...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...ting/10555905/

* Stop tunnel and CFD testing that is geared toward the 2026 spec. The article doesn't say this, but I wonder if that design and testing might have been outside of the existing budget and CFD regulations as it is development toward a spec that is not current?

* Dropping the alternative tire selection system. If I remember correctly this was somewhat about reducing the number of tires to be used during a weekend?

* Increase in the days of tire testing

* Trimming some timing of race procedures (clearing grid before standing start and pit lane open) to speed things up

* And this...

In a subtle change to post-qualifying/shootout scrutineering, the FIA will now select “specific” cars for further checks rather that “at least three”, which was previously the case.

My first reading was that this was to address the issue that came up from who was examined for plank wear at the USGP this year. In that is provided more flexibility to examine cars post race. But that is not the case. So I really don't understand what problem this change is meant to solve.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Some interesting new rule changes. The headline calls out the first item, but there are some interesting ones...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...ting/10555905/

* Stop tunnel and CFD testing that is geared toward the 2026 spec. The article doesn't say this, but I wonder if that design and testing might have been outside of the existing budget and CFD regulations as it is development toward a spec that is not current?

* Dropping the alternative tire selection system. If I remember correctly this was somewhat about reducing the number of tires to be used during a weekend?

* Increase in the days of tire testing

* Trimming some timing of race procedures (clearing grid before standing start and pit lane open) to speed things up

* And this...



My first reading was that this was to address the issue that came up from who was examined for plank wear at the USGP this year. In that is provided more flexibility to examine cars post race. But that is not the case. So I really don't understand what problem this change is meant to solve.

Richard

Not difficult to understand if there was suspicion that teams may test items under 2026 development that could also be applied to 2024-25 cars. Closing a loopho;e to ensure no squeaking by the less well funded teams.
Tyres was a pretty obvious procedural item.

The change from three cars to specific cars mean the stewards can decide who they want to deal with outside of three cars, like examine three podium getters then if they wish to nominate other cars to be held in park ferme until the examinations are finished.
Previously under the 'three cars' rule it was limited to three cars.
It just provides more flexibility in the future.

[V8 Fireworks]

I don't really see why teams shouldn't be allowed to develop their 2026 cars (aerodynamics) over two years instead of one year?

If a team wants to throw the 2024 & 2025 season (just come out with a 2024 launch car and never touch it ever again), and go all-in on doing all of their development for 2 years for their 2026 car, surely they should be allowed to?

[S griffin]

I understand why they are doing this. We'll see if it has the desired effect of cutting costs and making sure teams can't out develop each other too much.

[chillibowl]

could have put this in the FIA thread as it does showcase that there is still positive talk coming out from the more relevant and sensible quarters of the FIA.

much has been mentioned or indicated before, but also reads to me as a wonderful end of season/Christmas wishlist of changes most if not all F1 fans can get behind!

PU changes, sustainable fuels, getting rid of the MGU-H, shorter and narrower cars, weight reduction, tire rim size reduction, closing loopholes that allowed for more outwash from the front wings/bad for close racing, movable aero and DRS adjustments...essentially looking at many to create, as he says, more 'nimble' machinery.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...aero/10557347/

small steps, but all good stuff if it can come to fruition!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

PU changes, sustainable fuels, getting rid of the MGU-H, shorter and narrower cars, weight reduction, tire rim size reduction, closing loopholes that allowed for more outwash from the front wings/bad for close racing, movable aero and DRS adjustments...essentially looking at many to create, as he says, more 'nimble' machinery.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...aero/10557347/

I think it's a well written article, I tend to think they are talking up points around size and weight to address concerns specific to the cars just being too large. And I am sure that is part of it, but I think the real reason gets some mention, but maybe is not highlighted enough. Here are some selective quotes to make my point (sorry for the number of quotes). I have bolded key parts.

The plan is for less downforce and drag, and current simulations do not point to lap times being dramatically worse than they are now, although ultimately Tombazis says that outright speed is not its biggest worry.

One of the step changes from the current cars will be the addition of moveable aero to help reduce drag on the straights.

With the ICE element of the power unit going from around 550-560kw down to 400kw, and the battery element jumping from 150kw to 350kw, it was obvious that putting the future engines in the current cars would lead to battery power running out quite early on the straights.

So the cars won't be reaching the top speed in the middle of the straight and then degrading or anything like that. That's not going to be the case.

As mentioned more clearly in the later quotes, there is real issues with respect to the performance of the cars on long straights. That simulations of the 2026 engine in the current cars shows they run out of battery power and the ICE alone can't maintain top speed. The 2026 engine spec is pretty much set, so the only option is to reduce the drag on the cars so that less energy is required to maintain top speed. This would be primarily done by reducing frontal area (smaller cars with narrower track reduces drag) and something like active aero to actively reduce drag.

I have also generally felt that they would not ditch the 18" wheels given the amount of work that went into that solution, but I think they may reduce the diameter in addition to the expected width reduction. I wonder if they may also reduce the tire diameter as well and not just the wheel diameter? Tire diameter reduction may help reduce frontal area. I am sure Taxi645 will be happy if/when that happens.

Richard

[Taxi645]

I agree that the FIA is making steps in the right direction in many area's: weight, drag, following, simplifying the engines.

Personally I don't like the high percentage of electric, but yes with 50% power output electric and the ICE being both used to accelerate and be a generator for the electric motor, getting drag as low as reasonably possible is crucial. I suspects the tyre diameter to go down from from 720 to 670mm. Simply applying the wheel reduction of 50mm to the tyre diameter as well. I expect they will probably will want to maintain the current side wall height, but we'll see. Maybe they will go a little smaller to further reduce weight and drag.

What I really wonder about how turbo lag will be managed. The MGU-H that is leaving us in 2026, although a heavy and a complex and expensive solution, did have the advantage that it evened out the boost pressure by helping when the turbo wasn't sufficiently spooled up and throttling it on full boost by taking electric energy out of it and reducing compression into the engine.

As most of you know, a turbo engine, especially a heavily boosted one, drives very different than an atmospheric one which, allows for a much more linear and controlled output in relation to traction and car behaviour accelerating out of corners. Especially when on track and racing this is quite significant. As I understand it the ICE will be generating even under braking to have sufficient electric energy for the straight after the corner. What I wonder is will this generating be so strong that the engine will stay in it's boost range thus avoiding turbo lag when controlling the car out of the next corner? If this is the case than the power unit will be much more controllable than if it were to drop out of it's boost range. If it does drop out of it's boost range because it's generating function does not allow it to stay in boost mode we can expect drivers doing all sort of tricks with the pedals to stay in boost mode in laps where they are fighting for position and saving fuel on the other laps.

That said, even if it stays in turbo boost mode braking for and going through the corner, the drivers will feel much more disconnected from the ICE. There is no audible connection any more between the sound of the engine (rpm and volume) and what output the driver is getting from applying the throttle. This is part of the critique that Max Verstappen has shared on the 2026 engine 50-50% ICE/electric regulations.

I'm sure that all F1 drivers will manage, but is it still an enjoyable racing and the pinnacle of motorsport? I'm a bit sceptical on that and also dislike the missed weight reduction opportunity by ditching the MGU-H, but we'll see how it goes.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I agree that the FIA is making steps in the right direction in many area's: weight, drag, following, simplifying the engines.

Personally I don't like the high percentage of electric, but yes with 50% power output electric and the ICE being both used to accelerate and be a generator for the electric motor, getting drag as low as reasonably possible is crucial. I suspects the tyre diameter to go down from from 720 to 670mm. Simply applying the wheel reduction of 50mm to the tyre diameter as well. I expect they will probably will want to maintain the current side wall height, but we'll see. Maybe they will go a little smaller to further reduce weight and drag.

What I really wonder about how turbo lag will be managed. The MGU-H that is leaving us in 2026, although a heavy and a complex and expensive solution, did have the advantage that it evened out the boost pressure by helping when the turbo wasn't sufficiently spooled up and throttling it on full boost by taking electric energy out of it and reducing compression into the engine.

As most of you know, a turbo engine, especially a heavily boosted one, drives very different than an atmospheric one which, allows for a much more linear and controlled output in relation to traction and car behaviour accelerating out of corners. Especially when on track and racing this is quite significant. As I understand it the ICE will be generating even under braking to have sufficient electric energy for the straight after the corner. What I wonder is will this generating be so strong that the engine will stay in it's boost range thus avoiding turbo lag when controlling the car out of the next corner? If this is the case than the power unit will be much more controllable than if it were to drop out of it's boost range. If it does drop out of it's boost range because it's generating function does not allow it to stay in boost mode we can expect drivers doing all sort of tricks with the pedals to stay in boost mode in laps where they are fighting for position and saving fuel on the other laps.

That said, even if it stays in turbo boost mode braking for and going through the corner, the drivers will feel much more disconnected from the ICE. There is no audible connection any more between the sound of the engine (rpm and volume) and what output the driver is getting from applying the throttle. This is part of the critique that Max Verstappen has shared on the 2026 engine 50-50% ICE/electric regulations.

I'm sure that all F1 drivers will manage, but is it still an enjoyable racing and the pinnacle of motorsport? I'm a bit sceptical on that and also dislike the missed weight reduction opportunity by ditching the MGU-H, but we'll see how it goes.

I guess they could have gone twin-turbo or just used anti-lag like WRC cars of the past.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

What I really wonder about how turbo lag will be managed. The MGU-H that is leaving us in 2026, although a heavy and a complex and expensive solution, did have the advantage that it evened out the boost pressure by helping when the turbo wasn't sufficiently spooled up and throttling it on full boost by taking electric energy out of it and reducing compression into the engine.

As most of you know, a turbo engine, especially a heavily boosted one, drives very different than an atmospheric one which, allows for a much more linear and controlled output in relation to traction and car behaviour accelerating out of corners. Especially when on track and racing this is quite significant. As I understand it the ICE will be generating even under braking to have sufficient electric energy for the straight after the corner. What I wonder is will this generating be so strong that the engine will stay in it's boost range thus avoiding turbo lag when controlling the car out of the next corner? If this is the case than the power unit will be much more controllable than if it were to drop out of it's boost range. If it does drop out of it's boost range because it's generating function does not allow it to stay in boost mode we can expect drivers doing all sort of tricks with the pedals to stay in boost mode in laps where they are fighting for position and saving fuel on the other laps.

That said, even if it stays in turbo boost mode braking for and going through the corner, the drivers will feel much more disconnected from the ICE. There is no audible connection any more between the sound of the engine (rpm and volume) and what output the driver is getting from applying the throttle. This is part of the critique that Max Verstappen has shared on the 2026 engine 50-50% ICE/electric regulations.

I'm sure that all F1 drivers will manage, but is it still an enjoyable racing and the pinnacle of motorsport? I'm a bit sceptical on that and also dislike the missed weight reduction opportunity by ditching the MGU-H, but we'll see how it goes.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I guess they could have gone twin-turbo or just used anti-lag like WRC cars of the past.

This is a deep topic given the potential energy flot paths plus the various restrictions the rules place on how much energy can flow and in which paths. But in general I would say it is expected that hybrid deployment will be used as anti-lag, but that also uses up energy from the battery. I don't know if anti-lag systems is banned or not (I tend to think not), but there is probably lots of tricks up their sleeves.

Overall I agree that the "drivability" of these engines will likely be less than the current ones. As mentioned, while the MGU-H has been complex, it has provided a way to solve many of the problems we call out in these posts.

Richard

[chillibowl]

not my expertise so could be completely off base here...

but in regards to the drivability aspects of the current PUs...i thought part of the push towards or the hope with sustainable fuels/cleaner e-fuels was to potentially remove the need for electric generation and turbo components effectively allowing F1 to move back to the now relatively cheaper and more predictable drivability characteristics that the older V8s (or bigger na engines) offered while maintaining a net zero image?

again out of my element, but pretty sure i have heard various pundits talk about this and when Domenicali is talking about sustainable fuels combined with 'simplified' and 'lighter' engines is this not what he is getting at?

[Richard C]

My perspective is the new power unit specifications target the following...

(1) Marketing realities
(2) Lower cost
(3) Ease of performance parity

As to the first, this is sustainability via biofuels and continued electrification via increased used of battery at the expense of the ICE. The second and third are tightly coupled. Removal of things like the MGU-H reduce cost and complexity (the "simpler" that is touted in the media), more standard components, very spec design constraints and lastly cost controls and development limitations to make it easier for a new provider (RBPT, Audi and maybe GM) to jump in, have a stable and fixed budget and to obtain performance parity (or at least in the ballpark)

Lighter weight is a priority but likely lower on the list. Things like "drivability" are problems for the suppliers to solve.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Different markets for sure see different trends, but with some manus recently scaling back EV production due to their high costs and lack of demand, are manus still looking at the same market realities as they were 5 years ago?