F1 2030 rules

[Taxi645]

F1 considering the return to simpler atmospheric engines for 2030:

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2024/...ngines-report/

“It is a personal consideration of mine, not yet shared with the teams, even if we have spoken about it with the FIA, that if sustainable fuels work, we will need to carefully evaluate whether to continue with hybrid (technology) or whether better solutions will be available.”

Here is my take on what the 2030 could/should look like.




F1 2030 rules


Engine/fuel

- 100% sustainable fuel
- 3.0L V10
- 16.000 RPM limit (to limit cost, sound volume, fuel use, top speed with low drag aero)
- Max. output roughly 800 BHP + max. 80 BHP from KERS (this is more than enough due to the low drag).
- simple KERS system (nu push to pass, because too artificial and not needed, see chapter aero)
- Moderate minimum engine weight of 110 kg (cost reduction)


Chassis/wheels

- Max. wheelbase 3.200 mm
- Width 1.900 mm
- Min. weight: 695 kg
- Wheel size 15"
- Tyre size:
o Rear: 355/645/R15 mm
o Front: 245/645/R15 mm

Aero

- Aero surfaces that are free to bend naturally under the different aero loads throughout the speed regime (low drag straights, high downforce corners)
- There is a moveable side brace that supports the wing in corners so it doesn’t flex away as much in high speed corners (based on for instance on hydraulic pressure delta left and right side of the suspension).
- This brace has an end stop to control how far it can move towards the end of the wing to support it.
- This end stop is in a slightly higher position when following another car so max downforce is a little higher to counter the down force loss due to dirty air.
- Aero is further simplified to further reduce the vulnerability to dirty air we saw pre ground effect.
- The above allows aero to be generated more from the top side of the car again, which will lead to:
o Less requirement for ultra stiff suspension to keep it in the right aero regime
o Less problems with wet weather racing (because of the smaller wheels and less interaction with turbulent low pressure air underneath the car that creates more like fog rather than spray).



Is 695 kg realistic?

If we take we take the 2013 minimum weight of 642 kg of the V8’s with KERS:
Then add:
+15kg engine (V10 in stead of V8 and slightly lower spec built to reduce cost.)
+27kg safety and driver allowance
+10 kg (slightly larger car)
- wheels/tyres (slightly wider rear, slightly smaller diameter)

Total: 694kg



Won’t they need to carry too much fuel without the more advanced hybrid and turbo tech?

Yes, fuel carried could possible go up a bit. Some factors help in that regard:
- Much much lower drag increases efficiency
- Much lower weight
- KERS aids efficiency
- 16.000 RPM limit promotes efficiency
- Combustion technology has improved compared to previous atmospheric era’s.


Won’t the move to simpler hybrids have a negative effect on the environment?

The fuel used by the cars themselves will go up slightly, but it sustainably produced. The overall CO2 footprint of F1 will decrease because the lower CO2 output of producing and shipping smaller cars and tyres, but this reduction will be negligible compared to F1’s overall CO2 footprint.


What is the purpose of these bending aero surfaces and this side brace, it sounds awfully complicated?

Controlled bending aero surfaces allows F1 to not be dinosaurs in terms of aero sophistication. It makes zero sense to drag a car with max down force along the straights. Bending aero surfaces allows to massively reduce drag, while maintaining higher down force in the corners. Also it reduces aero parts needed for different tracks. The bending is regulated so both front and rear down force develops in a linear fashion to avoid dangerous handling characteristics when there would be a trigger point.

The side brace are both to increase performance in the corners as well aid the following car in a very natural manner (the down force lost by following is recovered in the very spot it is lost, the corner), without needing to rely on push to pass or DRS. This makes the fighting for position much more interesting and natural.

[PanozDP01]

Why Kers? It's all weight and drag. As Newey pointed out in his book

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by PanozDP01

Why Kers? It's all weight and drag. As Newey pointed out in his book

Basically it is the lightest most compact and cheap way to appease those desperate to call them hybrids. Furthermore it helps with the low drag cars to slightly limit topspeed while still aiding acceleration lower down.

In a scenario where a turbo V6 would maintained, it could function as a torque-fill to slightly reduce the turbo lag.

I don't have a strong preference either way. Without KERS they would be another 30-35kg lighter so 660-665kg.

They could possibly loose another 5kg on the V10's, without making it too costly. Because the rev's are limited they could built them with 93-94mm bores instead of the previous 98mm, futher reducing the size and weight. Also helps to keep the cars compact.

[V8 Fireworks]

The rule proposal sounds great Taxi645!

Hopefully the FIA are listening!

[Richard C]

First, I want to say thank you for providing specific solutions. For me it is frustrating when topics like this are discussed and IMHO the majority of the comments can be boiled down to "stating goals" vs. "providing solutions". For me things like "We need smaller wings" just are not specific enough.

As to your post...

Solutions need to be tied to specific goals, so I would love to see the specific goals you are looking to achieve. By reading your post, I think it is implied as being…

1. Lower weight
2. Simple power units (which support lower weight)
3. Renewable power source (commercially driven)
4. KERS (commercially driven)
5. Implied performance via implied power limits and low drag aero (lap time target)

At the end of the day, I think the goal is to provide “Good Racing” (however that is to be defined).

My thoughts…

Engine
V8 vs V10. Either works for me. I think the 3.0 N/A options is fine. If there is a general target level of performance then you would need to figure out what it might take to ensure the target power levels are not exceeded. So that might be displacement, RPM limits, fuel flow limits, etc.

KERS
I am on the fence on this. I frankly could just do without it totally.

Overtaking Assists
I tend to think there will likely continue to remain a need for some type of assistance. I tend to think some type of push to pass system which is a limited resource so it is used strategically.

Chassis, suspension and wheel
I had to smile at your 15” wheel and mention of reduced spray elsewhere in your post. You got to keep those dreams alive! I think wheel diameter and tire sizes should be defined by both traction goals (part of aero solution) and diameters and widths are driven mostly be dimensions such as static and dynamic aspects (such as distribution of weight along the rotational axis). 15” might be the answer, maybe something bigger is the right answer.

As to keeping the pet ideas alive, it is the same for me as I have specific and long standing ideas on suspension that I post about periodically. You don’t mention suspension, but I would move to a fully active suspension system with a homologated control unit, fixed number of related sensors and homologated actuators.

I don’t care much for Peter Windsor, but he posted a video recently in which he talked with Scarbs about similar ideas that could be done and he talked about active suspension in supported some of the concepts I call out above.

See the 28:50 to 32:24 mark in the video I link below…

https://youtu.be/qRgF928noaA?si=df9FZxK3feILDgNC&t=1730

Gearboxes
Fixed ratios much like they do today (no circuit specific gearing). Paddle shifting can remain.

Material selection (aka previously banned materials)
Over the decades I believe various construction materials have been banned. I think some for things such as health reasons (Beryllium?) and others for cost. I wonder if some of those bans should be re-evaluated to see if they might be more cost effective today than they might have been decades ago. The implication here is the potential for weight savings.

Reducing or eliminating need to preserve fuel and tires
We see situations today in which the cars could run much quicker but are slowing to manage long term degradation of tires and/or manage fuel consumption. This can create situations in which cars are just driving around the circuit to a low lap target, lift and coast, etc. to just count down the laps and are saving resources for some type of push in the very late stages of the race. I haven’t put much thought into this but consider such ideas of setting minimal fuel levels (meaning MORE fuel than teams think might be needed) at race starts. This would prioritize burning of fuel (not particularly speaking much towards environmental concerns), vs going slow to save fuel. The idea being if you provide no incentive to save fuel, and in fact an incentive to burn fuel, you might see more “pushing” during the race. The same applies to tires. I don’t know the answer, but maybe starting with more durable tires (even if that means giving up some ultimate performance) might be a good thing. If you are not worried about managing your tires so much, maybe you can feel free to chase the guy in front of you. You don’t mention refueling. I think my concept above includes starting race with a full load.

Meeting your 695kg goal
You call out items that have created weight increases since 2013 as part of how you justify your target of 695kg. I think the 2026 regulations have another step up with respect to safety goals. So, I can’t imagine those are not adding additional weight above your listed 27k you quote. My point is that just be aware that the value might be higher?

Cost caps.
You don’t call those out, but I think the cost caps system needs to continue to be part of the equation. It’s not a technical regulation topic, but it supports specific technical regulations and their goals (see my comment above about goals being summarized as providing “Good Racing”)

Aero
I save the big one for the end. I appreciate that you are looking for a combination of active and passive aero. You seem to be heavily relying upon passive elements (I think) but you also call out a “moveable side brace” that I think acts as a variable stop. Is this “movement” set as part of the setup (ie. Tuned to specific tracks and then fixed prior to parc ferme? Or is this a dynamic solution that has some type of actuator? If dynamic than that is an active solution.

Regardless of if this is a passive, active or hybrid moveable aero solution I think it opens pandoras box in a bad way. Especially if you are looking for a passive solution. I am not sure of your thinking here, but maybe you are looking to just legalize the types of “flexy wings” that have shown up over the years. However, understand that those designs were intended to comply with “no moveable aero” rules. Legalizing these allows for more "overt" solutions.

Watch this video on “compliant mechanisms” and how something like that could be applied to a passive aero solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97t7Xj_iBv0

If you allow passive moveable aero than the solutions are likely to become quite complex and expensive. There will be specific "compliant mechanism" solutions which provide flexure, energy storage, feedback/control, actuation, etc. All will be “mechanical solutions” deemed as as part of a passive system. They will be brilliant solutions and exactly the type of crazy arms races not needed!

I suspect teams will understand this and would not support this type of passive system unless it had EXTREME controls placed upon it. Controls so extreme as to mostly negate your vision in my opinion.

One of my arguments for active suspension is to move away from esoteric, costly and complex passive solutions which at the end of the day may work, but the price vs. performance ratio is horrible vs. an active solution. The same will apply to a passive aero solution. I think active solutions are easier to control, easier to govern, cheaper and in some situations might be lighter. If an active aero solution adds to much weight than just don't have ANY dynamic (active or passive) aero at all.

A little bit more on this from a governance perspective. In your post you say…

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The bending is regulated so both front and rear down force develops in a linear fashion to avoid dangerous handling characteristics when there would be a trigger point.

How is that to be regulated? If you are talking about a passive system that is supposed to act within a specific allowed window and with linear performance… that would be complex, expensive and a nightmare for regulators to monitor for compliance.

I don’t have strong feelings on which solutions work better than others, but I can imagine a return to flat bottom cars, minimal diffuser, highly restricted areas for wings that focus on creating simple wings, banning of “air management” solutions such as barge boards, etc. With this resulting in relatively low drag car that are probably traction limited in most, but not all gears. If you want some type of dynamic aero solution, then create a controlled active solution that could be like my proposed active suspension solution with specific limitation, homologated actuators, etc. However, any type of dynamic aero solution is going to add weight to the car. So why not just have zero dynamic aero including something like DRS or the 2026 replacement for DRS.

Richard

[S griffin]

I think some proposals go the wrong way. Increasing engine power is fine though. Not sure about KERS. And we don't need overtaking assists like DRS. But trying to control everything like gearboxes is not the way to IMO

Hopefully DRS will be gone sooner rather than later

[chillibowl]

im all in favour of smaller lighter cars, return to v8/v10 engines while promoting sustainable fuels, get rid of KERS for the weight (even tho KERS is cool), and im probably in the minority of being ok with tire changes and a return to refueling.

but this may be the cynic in me, even if we got all those things, would any of those ideas get us to closer racing without the need for DRS or a push to pass system?

whether its a low drag solution or some sort of active aero system, the budget cap and current F1 development cycles (i suppose predicated on everyone having the same budgets and restricted testing opportunities) surely would still lead to a convergence of solutions meaning everyone will end up basically being just as fast or just as slow as one another on the same parts of the track?

and for passing to occur (without aids, driver error, mechanical failures, or tire deg/fuel stops) we genuinely need a system that allows for genuine pace differences (ostensibly through setup) between the cars right?

so to my layman's understanding a high top speed/low drag solution sounds like everyone will just be fast and slow in the same places and active aero means everyone just gets to be fast everywhere...where do the relative speed differences come from?

we have seen smaller agile cars in the past and the problem of close racing has always been there since i started watching at least.

is there actually a solution?

[Greem]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

is there actually a solution?

Nope. There is not A solution, singular. Well, there is, but that wouldn't be F1 (whatever F1 is), and that's a spec series which brings everything down to car setup and driver ability.

There are however many different solutions. You only need to look at Historic Racing, particularly Pre-66 Touring Car type classes, to see how different ethos in design make for spectacular racing; 1275cc Minis with a lowish top speed but a relatively high average speed due to their cornering ability, racing against huge 5.7 litre V8 Mustangs, Galaxies etc which never stop accelerating in a straight line but corner like a container ship in the Suez Canal.

It's the insistence on forcing all teams into the same restrictive box that's the problem. That box is shaped like an elephant, and nobody ever notices it...

Super high-tech; environmentally conscious; extremely fast; not profoundly expensive; greatly entertaining; nobody dominating; safe for all involved.

Pick 5.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Greem

Super high-tech; environmentally conscious; extremely fast; not profoundly expensive; greatly entertaining; nobody dominating; safe for all involved.

Pick 5.

environmentally conscious and super high tech probably go hand in hand while excluding 'not profoundly expensive' which happens at the expense of the budget cap which i like.

for sure want 'greatly entertaining' which for me includes 'nobody dominating' and 'safe for all involved' because people getting hurt is not entertainment for me, which then means excluding 'extremely fast'.

tough choice! a Kobayashi Maru if you will!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

tough choice! a Kobayashi Maru if you will!

Indeed!

Made even more complicated by the money behind, well, everything. Everyone at every level wants all of the above *and* unlimited profits.

As Captain Kirk would perhaps have it - they don't need to think outside the box, they need to recognise that it's a quantum box. It both exists and doesn't, at the same time.

Cod Philosophy 101

[codename_47]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im all in favour of smaller lighter cars, return to v8/v10 engines while promoting sustainable fuels, get rid of KERS for the weight (even tho KERS is cool), and im probably in the minority of being ok with tire changes and a return to refueling.

If there's one thing that F1 must hold true to, its to never EVER return to refueling

I grew up in that era so you'd think I have rose tinted glasses syndrome to it, but its clear it was the absolute wrong thing to bring to the sport in 1994 as all it meant was the teams would find the optimal strategy and all do the same thing, meaning the only hope to pass your rival would be to extreme fuel save for the majority of a stint then blast 1-3 qualifying laps in the hope of overcutting your rival.
The ideals they had of some teams fueling up for a one stop vs others running lighter for a 2 or even 3 stop happened so rarely it was pathetic
Plus, a car with considerably lighter fuel and fresher tyres passing one that's tanked up is just as artificial as a DRS pass, if not more so as at least the DRS zone is only on one part of the track

The worst thing about it was it took tyres out of the equation too.

Fresh tyres to attack? Sorry, you have a full tank of fuel so the car is sluggish

Low fuel to attack? Sorry, your tyres have gone off from lugging all the fuel around.

There are many solutions to f1s problems, but adding the expense and danger of in race refueling just to reduce the quality of the racing is not it


F1 is a business and will write the rules to fit whatever they think will be the best business proposition to entice the most manufacturers into the sport, it'll have little to nothing to do with what the hardcore fans want to see

I'll just be happy if they somehow manage to considerably lower the amount of downforce generated by topside aerodynamics, the true bane of great racing
Sometimes they manage this and the racing gets better (2009) and sometimes they do the exact opposite and the racing gets considerably worse (2017) but honestly, that feels like secondary considerations to those writing the rules.

[Sodemo]

The old cars from the early 90s were 505kg? What exactly has changed which means we now have cars that are almost 300kg heavier?

I can appreciate batteries and the turbo engine is likely some of that, but I am led to believe that some of the additional weight comes from safety improvements? So what safety improvements have come in and how much do they contribute? I know the Halo makes up for something like 20kg?

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The old cars from the early 90s were 505kg? What exactly has changed which means we now have cars that are almost 300kg heavier?

I can appreciate batteries and the turbo engine is likely some of that, but I am led to believe that some of the additional weight comes from safety improvements? So what safety improvements have come in and how much do they contribute? I know the Halo makes up for something like 20kg?

Current engine/PU spec is 145kg for the ICU, 8kg for the turbo, unspecified for all the MGU bits. Max fuel load (from 2023 regs) is 110kg. Front wing is 10kg or so, nose cone probably about the same. Rear wing plus DRS assembly unknown. Wheels+tyres are approx 65kg per set. Driver weight is 80kg.

That's already almost 430kg, roughly, and that doesn't include brakes, gearbox, suspension, halo, bodywork, radiators, coolant, oil, steering, transmission components exc gearbox, wiring looms, connectors, fasteners etc and definitely doesn't include the tub or energy storage systems and associated wiring (which is pretty chunky).

It adds up pretty quickly!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The old cars from the early 90s were 505kg? What exactly has changed which means we now have cars that are almost 300kg heavier?

Since 1995, the following changes have been made to the minimum weight of an F1 car:

The minimum weight increasing from 505kg in 1994 to 595kg in 1995 to include the driver.

Minimum car weight only increased slightly between 1995 and 2009, from 595kg to 605kg.

35kg was added to the overall weight between 2009 and 2011 for KERS.

Between 2013 and 2015 another 62kg was added to the minimum weight, firstly to accommodate the turbo-hybrid power units (batteries, turbo and intercooler, MGU-H, MGU-K...etc), and then following concerns about some of the drivers being dangerously underweight to meet the 690kg limit.

Since 2016 another 32kg has been added, firstly for the wider cars and wider tyres introduced in the 2017 regulations and then the halo head protection system.

There have also been changes such as a 1kg increase because of a mandatory second fuel sensor.

In total, the majority of the increase from 505kg comes from:
Driver weight included (90kg).
KERs (35kg).
Hybrid (42kg).
Drivers' Health Concerns (12kg).
Wider wheels / tyres (22kg).
Halo (10kg).
Reduction in exotic materials (cost-saving) (10kg).