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

[greg.n]

Limiting the RPM to 9000 wouldn't be any more boring than limiting it to 14000 or 20000. it would just make the technical challenge different and there maybe a more valid reason. alower rev limit would enable them to use less expensive metals and the lessons learned in development would have more relevant applications to road vehicles. Many of the ideas relatinfg to aerodynamics are good-after all FF produces some of the closest racing and they have no wings.. Limiting such technical advances doesn't dilute the scope of the technical challenge, it just means it can go into more relevant areas of development. I'd agree with everything to limit the use of electronic wizardry in the driving of the cars. Hand operated sequential gearboxes (no paddles), common ECU's the above mentioned restrictions on diffusers. R. Dennis has stated that the technical discussions in December will be hard to find agreement on. If they don't read this column and take some notice of what entusiasts can suggest and continue with the staus quo F1 may not have a long term future. The decline in the quality of the racing over the last five years has thrown up hundreds of comments about the design of the cars. The FIA and constructors do something now in time for 2004 or the decline in ratings will seriously constrict the supply of funding to the teams in the future. They need to be aiming at the sort of racing we saw in the Monza from the early 70's. Anything signifivcantly less than this as a goal is a failure to appreciate the seriousness of the F1 problem.

[Wrex]

While none of the silly suggestions put forward by the FIA were passed, changes to qualifying and points (amongst others) were passed at the last meeting for the 2003 season.

Most of us agree however, that more needs to be done with the technical regs. These could'nt be possible for the 2003 season, and the FIA will meet again in December to discuss these for 2004.

I just read this at Autosport.com, and loved the following quote:

Team bosses and technical figures are to discuss a host of issues before then, including a reduction of downforce, the return of slick tyres and a ban on two-way telemetry.

If there are 3 things I'd like to see changed, they are it.

Fingers crossed everyone, there's hope yet.

[twig]

ban use of pit to car radio. So they can only use pitboards, open for the public to see, which will easily prevent team orders.

Keeping car to pit would still be fine, but when you have engineers talking to drivers about how they should drive and what to do is stupid.

How about putting the regulations back to the way it was in 2000, that was a fantasitic year.

Tom.

[Gt_R]

"So they can only use pitboards, open for the public to see, which will easily prevent team orders."

It only makes it harder, but it won't prevent it.

But i agree that removing the pit-to-car is a good call. If i'm a racing driver and hunting down the leader, i'd kill anyone who tries to take away my revs, or croak "slow down slow down to save the car". I'd refuse to listen... I'd be... JPM!

[golem]

I still very much like the nos idea, and I don't think they'd all use it at the start. Anyone who did would be taking a massive gamble, because the first few corners always end up being slow if you're not the lead car and the tyres aren't quite at optimal grip.

As for track switching and ticket costs, I think people would pay the same. They'd have a lunchtime break to shift to the next section of track, and get some refreshments without missing anything.

And I think a general consensus is either standard wings or some kind of aerodynamic limitation on downforce is needed. Particularly with the wake.

[golem]

Easy to regulate the radio biz. Less so telemetry. I'm no electronics engineer and can't begin to think of how to enforce it.

As for aero limiting and tyres, YEHAH! I say perfectly flat undetrays (No diffusers) and single plane wings on front and rear with no surface length (not width) on the wing longer than 35cm or so. Besides those, no winglets or anything. Barge boards are fine but I'd like to ban them because they look dopey to me. :P But that's just me I guess.

[Adam43]

I would like to limit the effect of the diffuser. But serious consideration has to be given to the use of a totally flat floor. Some shape could be a good thing. In sportscar flat floors have been blamed for causing a few accidents (although they start further forward and there is no comedy plank in sportscar - so it is very different).

I would like to limit the effect the front wing has (it's the one that loses most of the air when following close). A smaller (or less effective) front wind and a single plane rear (but perhaps bigger in size to keep the sponsors happy?) would be idea IMO. Oh and winglets should be banned on purely aesthetic grounds!

Barge boards, I agree, get rid of them. If only to reduce the shrapnel in an accident. However when I see an early 90's F1 car now I think they look a bit old fashioned without barge boards! But this is not a reason to not ban them.

With no barge boards designers may start experimenting with different side pods (at least for a bit) and this could provide some variety in the looks!.

The pit-car live telemetry is just as easy to ban as pit-to-car radio (it is the same principle of wireless communication). However I would keep pits to car radio (communication with the driver). It is a slight safety issue (hey Diniz your car is on fire).

Also I love to listen to the conversations on the telly (apart from scripted winning speeches). For example last year we had Montoya's annoyance at having a drive through, Rubens' noise when winning at Monza and lots of tech talk about the cars during Friday practice. Something for everyone.

[Valve Bounce]

Good points regarding the aero suggestions, Adam. I think pit to car radio is essential for safety warnings as well.

[Nicholas]

This is what we want to hear, but will it happen? I hope so...

[Armco Bender]

I would like to limit the effect the front wing has

They've done the no front wing,nearly no rear wing thing before,where theres airflow theres the potential for down force to be generated.I still think they need a control engine with a limit on horsepower output if you ever want to see close racing again.The cars now are so powerful and technically advanced racing is almost impossible with them.

[Adam43]

In the mid 80s the cars had loads more power than they do now and the racing was about as good as it came.

Powerful cars are harder to drive. More mistakes. More overtaking.

Also downforce isn't something that hinders overtaking. It is the loss of it when you do something out of the norm that is the problem. Like following someone else or going of line and perhaps using kerbs etc...

There is a complete lack of power in F3 and this tends to produce racing that is even duller than what F1 is perceived to be. The only time anything exciting happens is when someone goes for something that is outrageous and not on. F3 is a perfect example of a series with too much dependence on downforce and not enough power.

Technically advanced I go with. (make the power harder to control!). Get rid of Traction and launch control and auto 'boxes.

But keep the power, in fact increase it!

[Yoong Montoya]

I hope they get rid of launch and traction control as well. They take too much skill away from the driver.

[Guisbro Rod H]

The original purpose of spoilers was to create stability on an unstable vehicle.
Richie Ginther back in the sixties suggested a spoiler or trim tab as previously used in aircraft to correct bad aerodynamics.

Spoilers and wings on road cars are there to correct bad body shape. I recall a BMW M series car that didn't have a rear spoiler. Why because the bodywork was the correct shape. Customers added after market spoilers to the boot "to look right" after BMW M division refused to put them on. The customer's cars with after market wings squatted at the tail on autobahns. Result was a nose high attitude, the air got under the nose and the cars became unstable. Now spoilers and wings on road cars are mainly fashion items.

The lesson to learn is that if a spoiler is needed, the road car is the wrong shape and needs after correction.

So how does this apply to F1 racing cars? Simple, ban separate wings altogether and use flat bottoms. Result a totally new image for F1 and new body shapes with much better racing like that in the picture of Monza in this thread.

Naturally Ron Dennis and others will stop any such suggestion. Wings are an essential surface to sell sponsorship. That is why the big air intake behind the driver continues to exist. The ram air effect was to be banned, but that would destroy an advertising space; the big scoops were kept for sponsorship.

[Guisbro Rod H]

Are the excellent suggestions within this thread duplicating or at least operating directly in parallel with: "> Formula One > Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?":confused:

[Adam43]

That is a good point actually (and I am as guilty as anyone). I suppose this thread is about what might happen in that meeting. And the other what you would want carte blanche.

[Tristan]

I've read through and I'd like to give my two pennies worth:

1) Scrap prizemoney/TV money distribution according to placing. The motor manufactureres aren't in this sport for the prize money. They want their cars to win to sell more cars. Spread the money around, get better competition, more people will watch, more reasons to invest in the sport, an upward spiral of joy.

2) I've thought about this long and hard. I've put the argument of "no F1 car should be less technically advanced than a road car" round my head a thousand times and, frankly, it doesn't stand up any more. Road cars already are in many ways comparible in terms of technology and, untill they start making them out of carbon fibre, this isn't going to change. So

BAN ALL ELECTRICAL SOURCES. Batteries, dynamos, solar panels. The lot. Manual throttle/gear/break linkages. Manual dials. Manual spark plug firing. Manual breaks. The works. The only batteries allowed will be in the enclosed, tamper-proof camera boxes that are already in place. And it's impossibnle to to cheat. We have NOT banned "ELECTRONICS". We've banned the power source, so there can be NO SUSPICION OF CHEATING.

3) Slick tyres and keep engine capacity the same. Scrap the V10 rule. Scrap Berylium rule.

4) Keep the wings the same. Keep the track the same. Keep all actual dimensions of the cars the same. By allowing slicks, we've reduced the DEPENDANCY on aerodynamic grip without actually reducing it.

5) Ban tyre warmers.

6) Reduce fuel tank size, but force the teams to qualify and start the race with full tanks.

7) Keep qually the same (I know it's too late but superpole is a rubbish idea, will bodge up the television viewing for the public and... it's rubbish)

8) Ban tobacco sponsorship by 2006. No later.

9) Night racing at Bahrain the only calander change. No new race in China. Do not increase the calendar. GP's will erode in significance.

10) That's it. No changes for testing, no single engine rule, no standardised or fixed wings.


Now, if you ask me, those 10 points are pretty bloody good. It's now up to you lot to criticise so that we can reduce these down into a lovely rich sauce that the FIA would be fools to turn down.

[Sodemo]

Well for one, make them include starter motors so they can restart if they spin out, with 20 cars its getting pretty desperate if say 2 spin out and could in theory restart if they had a starter.

[Adam43]

Guisbro Rod H I have merged the two threads because they were getting very similar (identical!)

Wrex (who started the second thread) seemed to think it is a good idea too, but I reckon he just wanted to see me mess up!

[Valve Bounce]

From reading the excellent proposals above, I suppose the obvious question left is to ask ourselves what we really want the blackbox to manage in an F1 engine. We eliminate: Trax, launch control, gearbox and clutch operation, diff, brakes (already banned), so what is left? Fuel injection, valve timing (already banned), spark, and that's about it. And controlling fuel injection and spark is what caused the difficulty in controlling Trax.
I think that control engines might just take F1 that one step too far out of the hands of the various manufacturers and put everything into the hands of the drivers and tyre manufactureres. This is a grey area and needs very careful consideration because there are 7 engine manufacturers very involved in F1, and do we want them to pull out and leave only one? Is this possible for F1 to survive?

[Wrex]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Wrex (who started the second thread) seemed to think it is a good idea too, but I reckon he just wanted to see me mess up!

This is outragous, I know nothing about this. Geez, these new mods...........




editted to protect the innocent :confused:

[Armco Bender]

So what we've designed so far is a Formula Ford with a V10 motor?.

[avsfan733]

it appears that thereal problem with the regs is who approves them. Why do the teams decide? look at NASCAR shudder they constantly have the closest racing on the planet that i know of by having a seperate tech team that looks at cars and changes the rules to keep them close. its not the teams making the rules. and why must the rules changes be made so far in advance? The real credit should already o to the designers, so lets see how good theyreally are! Any changes to the regs should be decided by non team members (but please not Mr. Moseley) in secret and released to the teams on january first each year. True it would encourage more spending but it would also incourage the intelligence that begets the original shapes because of the production lead times of many of the components.

[DMC]

It'd take a bloody good traction control system to make that thing go! Just imagine it around Monaco though!

[Tristan]

"So what we've designed so far is a Formula Ford with a V10 motor?"

No. It has wings for a start. And besides, V10 rule I'd outlaw. And you can use whatever materials you like, just no power sources.

Seriously, I appreciate I'm blowing my trumpet (as I do), but I reckon my 10 points are bloody good, guys!!!

[golem]

A 3 litre Carbon Monocoque formula ford with OEM wings big enough for advertisers, a ban on winglets (A maximum trailing edges rule is actually possible to help limit downforce generation. Gains become more marginal.) and slicks reintroduced, any engine spec is allowed, Metal cranks and cases but otherwise use whatever. (Ceramic pistons / carbon rods etc).

No place based Distribution of money.

As for engine electronics, the FIA approved battery, coil and ECU mounted in sealed black box which only has four connectors. One for throttle, one for positive/negative battery terminal and one for the spark plugs from coils, one for fuel injectors. Pretty standard fare, with no input from throttle allowed to be modified by some traction control unit outside the box. (Cable must be tracable back to the throttle if it's mechanical. If an FIA guy wanders over, traces it and finds some electric motor winch or something hooked up to it, then scratch every competition that cars competed in to date and let them start building points anew.)