[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ?

[Marbot]

I have to admit that I'm with Tony Purnell on this one.If you want the sport to 'evolve' then regular rule changes are needed.Rule 'stabilty' is OK,but will always benefit the 'bigger' teams in the long run.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...fia-s-purnell/

[Gingers4Justice]

Rule changes are always needed and if teams weren't spending suge huge amounts they wouldn't disagree that we need them every 4-5 years to keep it interesting.

Mind you, despite what some say, the racing hasn't been too badly lately, but some tweaks will be needed. I still maintain that the cars are too complex for it to be a simple answer like some new wings, but we'll see...this year won't go down as a bore.

[duke_toaster]

I think rule changes shouldn't be implemented for their own sake, but there are a few tweaks needed occasionally. Sometimes it's like the javelin throw in '86 and '99, the rules caused major head-ache with officiating and possibly the potential of them going in to spectators not being a good idea they had to tweak them.

In my opinion the main rule change needed is a ban on the crash structure diffusers, 10 out of 10 for Brawn, Williams and Toyota for thinking of them but they aren't exactly what the OWG intended. The F1 rules don't operate on a principle of "if in doubt, don't" (which is fine provided that is explicity said) but the double diffusers are one thing that could go. Safety measures and cost cutting measures are good if they genuinely work.

Other things are more long term, such as changes in the engine rules to replace the current 2.4 V8s.

[Jamesy-18]

The fact of the matter is this: Even though for the past few seasons on track action has been few and far between as far as loads of over takes, the champioships in 2006, 2007 and 2008 have all gone down to the last round. Most notably of course was last year.

It is fair to say that 2009 COULD do the same and even though we've had some dreary processions we've also had some great races and some great drives by certain drivers that have more than made up for the bad races. If it ain't broke, don't fix it as the saying goes and F1 is far from broke currently with more interest than ever in some countries.

Certainly, improvements could be made to improve the show even more, but for two reasons i don't think it's necessary. For one the clsoe championship battle is the main focal point and two i doubt we'll eve get back to the basics of F1 with minimal aero etc. It has how the technology has evolved/improved over the years and in a sense, made the racing worse.

[Teretonga]

You need to distinuish between rules changes for safety, procedural, technical or racing rules.

Safety is always valid.
Procedural to improve or validate changes in the way things are managed are usually valid if it results in a genuine improvement.
Technical rule changes that affect safety are always valid, other rule changes to improve the quality of the racing or improve the spectacle of the sport are probably valid.
Rules governing principles of driving, (resulting in judicial and other issues) need to be as constant as possible within reason. Stability and transparency in this area stops confusion and misunderstanding (Spa anyone?).

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Safety is always valid

You will have to properly explain and define this. It is entirely possible for things to occur in the interests of safety which are of detriment to motorsport (and can be counter-productive in safety terms).

[csirl]

The big issue at the moment is turbulance in the wake of a car reducing the downforce on a following car and total amt of downforce. The OWG changed the rear wings, but the teams were able to produce the turbulance using diffusers instead. In past years, where things have been changed to reduce downforce, the teams have always managed to find it elsewhere. IMHO, no matter what you do, the designers always find a work around to get back anything that is lost and you end up back at square one.

How do you prevent this?

Easy (in theory anyway) - you write the rules in a different way and bring in some additional scrutineering tools.

Turbulance - instead of specifying sizes etc., you put in the rules that it is illegal for any structures on a car to cause a reduction in downforce for a following car - set a % or value OR is not allowed to cause X amount of turbulance. It is possible to devise tests for these. Turbulance can be measured in a wind tunnel. You could also place each car in a wind tunnel with a standard car (or even only a front wing) x metres behind it and if the car causes a loss in downforce, it is banned. May not even need to put the cars in an actual wind tunnel - could be done by computer.

Downforce - this is an easy one to test for. You write in the rules that you are only allowed X amount of downforce full stop. How do you test? Place the car on a scales in a wind tunnel. Weight of the car will increase in proportion to the downforce.

[neiltb]

Originally Posted by csirl

Turbulance - instead of specifying sizes etc., you put in the rules that it is illegal for any structures on a car to cause a reduction in downforce for a following car - set a % or value OR is not allowed to cause X amount of turbulance. It is possible to devise tests for these.

I'm sure if I was a good enough designer I could look at your car and design mine to make yours illegal. I agree turbulence is the problem but it's a problem bigger than the sport at the moment.

Covering the wheels would help a lot (no longer open wheel), skinny tyres reduce downforce required (grip balance), chucking all the wings out would help (cars slower than GP2), reduce engine power significantly, reducing the benefit of big wings might help (same problem as above)

Maybe we have rear wings no more than 500mm tall and front wings at least 1,000mm tall that'll clean the air for everyone.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Dutton

You will have to properly explain and define this. It is entirely possible for things to occur in the interests of safety which are of detriment to motorsport (and can be counter-productive in safety terms).

You are correct.
It is possible to introduce rules into motorpsort which ultimately are actually detrimental to safety because they have an influence which actually defeats their purpose.

One example would be bodywork (nosecones and sidepods, and lately rear bumper bars) on CIK karts.

Initially the argument was the protection and safety but the extra safety has infact simply led to driving styles where leaning on people, shoving, barging, and tapping people into spins has in some quarters become de rigueur.

The CIK may argue otherwise but the driving standards of 2008/2009 are not the same standards regarding contact we saw in the 1980's before sidepods became a mandated item.

Similarly if racing cars is so safe you can drive into someone without endangering them or yourself does common sense, sportsmanship and courtesy go out the window?

Valid safety items are those that operate at a personal level in terms of driver and spectator protection, but if the result is a lowering of professional ettiquette that in itself creates a more dangerous practice then that has to be weighed up against the benefit of the introduced item.

[Pingguest]

I think where the priorities lay is wrong. Most development work is done on aerodynamics, because this area is relatively the most unrestricted. No wonder that all the efforts of the OWG have become meaningless. Instead of aerodynamics, most development work should be done on engines, tyres and the chassis.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Instead of aerodynamics, most development work should be done on engines, tyres and the chassis.

I think we've got to the stage now where development work is done much more effectively by teams that have left or are leaving F1.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I think we've got to the stage now where development work is done much more effectively by teams that have left or are leaving F1.

?

[DanShenise]

The only thing I would change is to narrow the front wing. Not back to last year, but between this year's snow plow and last year's. Though they probably should have kept the width of the rear wing from last year and just raised it to the current levels and forced a Monza spec angle of attack. It would have looked much better and probably resulted in similar overtaking results. And no more anvil shaped engine covers!

[duke_toaster]

I think the a key part of the problem is the double diffuser, which ought to have been banned for '10 (but kept legal for this year). After that I think it's other issues that affect the racing.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

?

We seem to be under the impression that if it wasn't for F1,automotive technology would be 20 years behind what it is now.That simply isn't the case;never has been really.

Honda and BMW will probably take just as big a stride with their future technologies (if not bigger having looked at what Honda are up to) than any manufacturer in F1.

We should also realise that in 2010 there will be four manufacturers and nine private teams.Will these private teams (or indeed FOTA) be at all interested in fuel consumption,horsepower gains or tyre development if it means that every year a new set of regulations has to be drawn up in order to keep the cars speeds in check?

N.B. Talk is that over the next few months each team will have to get its personel count down to around 350 and maybe more cuts after that.

F1s future will be leaning more towards being a sport and not as an irrelevant technologies proving ground.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

We seem to be under the impression that if it wasn't for F1,automotive technology would be 20 years behind what it is now.That simply isn't the case;never has been really.

Honda and BMW will probably take just as big a stride with their future technologies (if not bigger having looked at what Honda are up to) than any manufacturer in F1.

I never had the impression that Formula 1 played a key role in the development of future technologies. Due to its shape and demands, Formula 1's road relevance is very limited. But there's a potential for road relevancy: with proper regulations Formula 1 could well have a relatively small but positive effect on the development of fuel efficient and sustainable technologies.

We should also realise that in 2010 there will be four manufacturers and nine private teams.Will these private teams (or indeed FOTA) be at all interested in fuel consumption,horsepower gains or tyre development if it means that every year a new set of regulations has to be drawn up in order to keep the cars speeds in check?

With a 'fuel formula' it wouldn't be necessary at all to draw up a new set of regulations in case cars become too fast.

When the 3-litre V10's became too powerful, new regulations had to be drawn up and completely new engines were introduced. With a fuel formula however, completely new engine designs are far from necessary to keep the power output in control. If the fuel allowance would be further restricted, the older engines only need to be detuned.

[duke_toaster]

They didn't have to be drawn up - they could have always air restricted or rev limited the V10s. The V8s were brought in for alleged cost control, which didn't exactly work. A fuel formula has advantages as well as disadvantages, what could be a good idea would be to go for the reciprocal of that idea and limit the power - then the development will be about fuel economy. Six races and 780hp, safe and limitations on "NASA technologies", otherwise free soulds like it could be a sensible proposition.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

They didn't have to be drawn up - they could have always air restricted or rev limited the V10s.

Due to free development most V8s were faster than the air restricted and revs limited V10s. On the long run all V8s would have become faster any way. Therefore, continuing with a V10 wasn't an option.

A fuel formula has advantages as well as disadvantages, what could be a good idea would be to go for the reciprocal of that idea and limit the power - then the development will be about fuel economy. Six races and 780hp, safe and limitations on "NASA technologies", otherwise free soulds like it could be a sensible proposition.

With a power cap the straight line speeds might become quite equal. At least, no driver will have the ability to overtake someone on the straight by temporarily boosting (more revs and/or more turbo boost) the engine. Enforced reliability are artificial and the mandatory reliability of six races is arbitrary too. If a minimum reliability is to be enforced, it should be for (a) qualifying and race, (b) one entire race weekend or (c) one entire season.

If we want Formula 1 to be road relevant to a certain point and hence have driving 'laboratories', any kind of "NASA technology" should principally be allowed.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Due to free development most V8s were faster than the air restricted and revs limited V10s. On the long run all V8s would have become faster any way. Therefore, continuing with a V10 wasn't an option.

Sorry, I was referring to drawing up the V8 engine concept completely, I was suggesting that it was possible that it would have been the same V10s but with a rev limiter and/or restrictor plate.

With a power cap the straight line speeds might become quite equal. At least, no driver will have the ability to overtake someone on the straight by temporarily boosting (more revs and/or more turbo boost) the engine.

No problem with that.

Enforced reliability are artificial and the mandatory reliability of six races is arbitrary too. If a minimum reliability is to be enforced, it should be for (a) qualifying and race, (b) one entire race weekend or (c) one entire season.

Yes, it's artificial but then again what are the alternatives? Six races is a natural period of time in a eighteen race calendar (one third of the calendar). There needs to be artificial breaks, like the intermissions in an ice hockey match.

If we want Formula 1 to be road relevant to a certain point and hence have driving 'laboratories', any kind of "NASA technology" should principally be allowed.

Whilst F1 should showcase technologies in road cars, I don't think a technology über alles approach is best in the current economic climate, or a situation where many F1 teams are independent. F1 is a sports league - indeed one of the world's largest and the top in motor racing - first and foremost, but where the technology can peacefully co-exist it should be welcome.

[djinvicta]

I think its a bit simpler. Give them a gear stick and clutch; One hand on the wheel and miss a gearchange here and there. Keep everything else....

[Dutton]

Totally manual boxes.........ah, man, that is something I would just love to see. Generally speaking, I am entirely happy for F1 to be dominated by "irrelevant" technology and be car dominated: this is just what F1 is, and has always been. A nice old-fashioned H-pattern manual gearbox, though, is right up vying for the top spot of my F1 wish-list. I am a total reactionary in this regard.

I also think having a fuel-restricted formula would be a good and positive thing, with the fuel allowance ever-decreasing (within reasonable limits), but combined with a severe relaxing of configuration regulations. Given drivers generally despise having to race by fuel economy, have it so that electronic gizmos ensure a car will not use too much fuel in a race. The driver can keep his foot the floor the whole race if he wishes, but not taking it easier earlier on means the software will automatically restrict power output (and so on) at an earlier point to get the car to the end. From my armchair perspective, I would quite happily leave it unregulated by software. I find economy racing entirely interesting in its own right, but given many fans/drivers/teams seem to not, this software angle is one way to try and minimise the "pain". The software approach would be quite fitting for F1, too, I think: it provides an arena for the development of complicated, esoteric systems. [It could also be said these fuel-management systems could be applied for different ends in other scenarios - road-relevancy blah, blah.]

As far as road-relevancy goes, and I am not of the mindset that F1 has any particular need to be such at all (indeed, the business of going open-wheel prototype racing is so unrelated to road cars it is kinda pointless to try to link it to road relevancy), I think the engine fuel-economy angle surely has to be one of the most clearly linked?


Well, anyway, that'll do for now.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Sorry, I was referring to drawing up the V8 engine concept completely, I was suggesting that it was possible that it would have been the same V10s but with a rev limiter and/or restrictor plate.

Indeed the FIA gave teams the a choice: an introduction of technically less restricted V8s or continuation with rev-limited V10s. As the manufactures choose for the first, the FIA only allowed rev-limited V10s for the smaller teams (e.g. Minardi).

The choice the manufactures made was far from surprising as they're more looking for technical challenges.

No problem with that.

We're used to watch processions, aren't we?

Yes, it's artificial but then again what are the alternatives? Six races is a natural period of time in a eighteen race calendar (one third of the calendar). There needs to be artificial breaks, like the intermissions in an ice hockey match.

This year's calendar has 17 races, the 2005 season saw 19 races. And I don't see the need artificial breaks. Until 2005 Formula 1 never had those breaks.

Whilst F1 should showcase technologies in road cars, I don't think a technology über alles approach is best in the current economic climate, or a situation where many F1 teams are independent. F1 is a sports league - indeed one of the world's largest and the top in motor racing - first and foremost, but where the technology can peacefully co-exist it should be welcome.

Yes, Formula 1 should be a drivers' championship in the first place. That's why driver aids (drive-by-wire, semi-automatic gearboxes, active differentials, power braking, power steering, telemetry and tyre blankets) should be banned at once. But I don't see why any engine technology shouldn't be allowed.

[csirl]

Given drivers generally despise having to race by fuel economy, have it so that electronic gizmos ensure a car will not use too much fuel in a race. The driver can keep his foot the floor the whole race if he wishes, but not taking it easier earlier on means the software will automatically restrict power output (and so on) at an earlier point to get the car to the end. From my armchair perspective, I would quite happily leave it unregulated by software.

No refueling brings back the likelihood of cars stopping on the circuit in the closing laps of races. If they happen to stop in inconvenient parts of the track, we're going to get safety cars or double waved yellows. Having safety cars in the last few laps of a race could ruin the finale and will change the results.

To guard against this, they need to introduce a penalty for stopping on track due to running out of fuel e.g. 10 place penalty at the next race. Drivers need to be encouraged to park the car safely in the pits just before they run out.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by csirl

No refueling brings back the likelihood of cars stopping on the circuit in the closing laps of races. If they happen to stop in inconvenient parts of the track, we're going to get safety cars or double waved yellows. Having safety cars in the last few laps of a race could ruin the finale and will change the results.

This doesn't look very likely to me. How often do we see the Safety Car being deployed after a mechanical failure?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

This doesn't look very likely to me. How often do we see the Safety Car being deployed after a mechanical failure?

Ageed.Cars running out of fuel tend to give a driver ample warning of the inevitable.So it would take a maneuver of Schumacher/Monaco proportions for a car running out of fuel to do much harm.