Pretend I'm a 5 year old.....

[Wrex]

..... and explain to me why we can't make the following changes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are excellent and valid reasons why the following are'nt possible, whether it be safety, cost etc.

But what are they?

I could've posted this in about 5 other threads at the moment (F1 in crisis, Cost cutting etc) as this shares some relevance to them all, but I wanted these questions answered specifically.

The following I believe would make Formula 1 more entertaining. Why are'nt we doing them?

[list=1][*]Ban refuelling[*]Return to slick tyres[*]Reduced downforce[*]Extended points spread (down to 10th position)[/list=1]

I think it was Briattori that suggested a ban on refuelling last year and av8rirl mentioned many of the benefits of this in another thread).

As far as I'm concerned the pro's to the above:

• more overtaking (no choice if car in front is slowing you down and on a different strategy, and no pit stop to rely on)
• race outcomes not known until last lap rather than 1st corner
• drivers going hard to the last corner even in 10th / 11th
• more drivers staying in race rather than retiring because they lost a lap
• improved safety (lower downforce reducing corner entry speeds)
• ..... and lets face it, this list could go on and on.

So tell me again why we are not doing this, seriously?

[Champ69]

You have my vote on those options

[f1manoz]

Because the FIA and Bernie are completely full of themselves and think they know what is best for Formula One, when in fact everyone is getting fed up with it but we are too silly to turn the TV off!!!

[DavyboyLT1]

Wrex: Your suggestions sound good to me. Now, if you're 5 years old, quit playing with the computer and GET TO BED!

Increasing the points spread, while still awarding travel money for points, would definitely benefit the "poorer" teams.

[DavyboyLT1]

Originally posted by f1manoz
...everyone is getting fed up with it but we are too silly to turn the TV off!!!

That's a good point. As long as F1 turns a profit in ticket sales and TV revenue, the FIA won't see a need for change.

[mac]

I agree with all of your points, Wrex. I also think that the layout of some of the circuits that are raced on in the World Championship need revision.

[Liz]

If you were five years old I would answer your questions thus:

Because Uncle Bernie and Uncle Max said No. Do you want to go to the ALMS race and see Uncle Sascha and Uncle Lucas?

[Valve Bounce]

I remain unconvinced how banning refuelling could help anyone to overtake or make F1 more interesting. I do enjoy the different pit stop strategies where drivers can do hot laps before they come in. Of course we all would prefer to see more ovretaking on the track, and this could be addressed by reducing the projected frontal area of those huge rear wings/deflectors. I wouldn't ban them simply because they serve the useful purpose of carrying the most prominent on car advertisements. Lifting the front wings even more would also improve the possibility of slipstreaming.
Making the cars slimmer, or using thinner wheels would not affect slipstreaming at all, as Maston Gregory demonstrated at Avus.
The disparity in GP cars is caused by the fact that the poorer teams get poorer each year, and I have already addressed this in another thread by advocating a distribution of TV monies at an inverse proportion to where cars end up in the championship.
Of course there is also another way of evening out the cars'/drivers' performance - impose weight penalties to the drivers who finish on the podium after each race. One kilo for 3rd, two for second and three for a win.

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

[BBKing]

YOu mean to say that you are not really 5 years old? ....LOL

[calais]

yeah, i thought all WRX owners were 5 year olds!!

[Inigo Montoya]

I strongly agree with Wrex on his point 3. For example, here is what Patrick Head had to say about this topic back in 1999 :

The problem is this. Using tyres with a coefficient of say, 1.3, you are able to gain a certain cornering speed, which is governed by the radius of turn and the related lateral forces. To produce the lateral forces, you have got downward forces - in total, the weight of the car plus the aerodynamic force. If the aerodynamic forces are equal to twice the weight of the car, then you have got three times the load of the weight of the car. Multiply that by 1.3 - which is the coefficient of friction - and it will give you the lateral load.

If you are running so close to another competitor that the air running over your car is turbulent, and the mean velocity drops, then instead of having 3w load on the car you will have 1w plus 1.2w, or whatever. So your ability to maintain your clean-air speed through the corner is reduced.

If you have no downforce - zero - then your lateral speed will be 1.3 times 1w, regardless of whether or not you are in the slipstream of another car. If the car was neutral, then your ability to go round corners at the same speed as the driver in front would not be detracted at all.

You would still have drag due to the frontal area of the vehicle and the form coefficient of the vehicle, so you would still get the tow. But if there were no vertical component you wouldn't see any reduction of potential cornering speed by having a lower air velocity over the car.

I am not suggesting that the people who make the rules at the FIA go that far, but they have got to go in that direction. I am not advocating a total elimination of downforce. But to ensure that one car can follow another through a corner without losing grip; I suggest that the racing would be better if you went in that direction.


----
The full article is here: http://www.racetechmag.com/rt199909/insight1.htm

[HillBilly]

I agree that Bernie and the FIA could make a number of changes to make F1 racing better, but I also believe that there should exist a sanctioning organization / race series that explores the very limits of automotive technology.

Now before all of you condemn me; I'm not suggesting that this be F1. Such a series would simply be "he who has the most money wins",... which, come to think of it, is pretty much what we have now. I am saying that the pinnacle of motorsports should be the development grounds for the most advanced technologies. I'll be the first to argue that this would not make for great racing, but where else will the engineers be able to create the level of technological sophistication we enjoy in our road cars today? I think it was sad that you could get traction control, standard, on a low-end Chevy but it was outlawed in our highest form of motorsport. I wish Williams had been allowed to continue to develop their fully-active suspensions. ( Some day our road cars will have no springs ). The list of technologies is long.

I am torn between wanting to see good races whose outcomes are not decided at the first corner, and ensuring there exists an arena to encorage the further development of the automobile as a whole. The real crux is that if the racing gets boring for the viewers, then the money to pay for all this technological development will go away.

So, if there has to be a balance between entertaining races and technology, I feel any rules changes should foster both. I aree with Wrex that we should ban refueling. There is nothing here that will ever translate to our cars. In fact I think it hampers road car development. We need cars that will handle well with various loads and that have usable range.

I also believe there needs to be changes made to the tires. Grooves are OK, but more importantly there should not be a brand of tire made exclusively for one make of car. While the current aliance between Team Red and Bridgestone may push tire technology to new hights, it does little for Bridgestone's OEM market where their product has to work on any number of different makes of automobiles.

In the area of downforce; areodynamics are a fact of life, however engineers should not be designing cars that do not work when following in another car's wake. Granted, the average driver will never explore the limits of traction and downforce in his / her car, but none the less, we don't need autos whose handling characteristics change drastically when we get in bumper-to-bumper traffic. The idea of limiting downforce should help both the entertainment factor and basic auto development. Future cars will need lower drag coeficients not tons of downforce.

Lastly the idea to extend points to at least 10th place is a splendid idea. It only makes good sense. Why eliminate all but six cars from the race shortly after it has begun. There is no motivation for drivers outside the current points-paying-positions to race. They are just there to get TV time. We want to see them race for position.

I believe there needs to be rules changes to foster good racing, but these rules should also ensure the continuation of technological developments. The real key is this: Ultimately it is the consumer who controls the development money. Boring races equal less money.

[StuiE]

but how is there going to be a 300 or so km race without refueling?

[Sato san]

im with you on that one Wrex.

[Wrex]

Originally posted by calais
yeah, i thought all WRX owners were 5 year olds!!

Are'nt calais just big Camira's?

[Wrex]

Originally posted by DavyboyLT1
Now, if you're 5 years old, quit playing with the computer and GET TO BED!

But when you posted davyboyLT1, it was 11:26 in the morning

Originally posted by mac
I also think that the layout of some of the circuits that are raced on in the World Championship need revision.

Thats true. Some of todays tracks don't really lend themselves to overtaking do they?

Originally posted by BBKing
You mean to say that you are not really 5 years old? ....LOL

Yes I am BB, so repect your intellectual elders

Originally posted by gtr69
but how is there going to be a 300 or so km race without refueling?

Of course, can't remember the year it stopped (someone will) but thats they way it used to be. I seem to recall Alesi(???) at Monaco doing a full race before it was manditory.

Inigo, good post. I was hoping someone could give me as strong an argument on why we don't reduce downforce.

[Wrex]

Originally posted by HillBilly
I am torn between wanting to see good races whose outcomes are not decided at the first corner, and ensuring there exists an arena to encorage the further development of the automobile as a whole. The real crux is that if the racing gets boring for the viewers, then the money to pay for all this technological development will go away.

I have to agree with you here. If we just wanted close racing then we can go watch Formula Ford or a one make series. I love the fact F1 cars are the best in the world, and thats why I did'nt put banning electronics on my list.

Originally posted by HillBilly
I aree with Wrex that we should ban refueling. There is nothing here that will ever translate to our cars. In fact I think it hampers road car development. We need cars that will handle well with various loads and that have usable range.

Absolutley Yet another reason.

Originally posted by HillBilly
In the area of downforce; areodynamics are a fact of life, however engineers should not be designing cars that do not work when following in another car's wake.

Some excellent points HillBilly, and welcome to the forum.

[Glen]

Having sworn to stay off the board until next week - I just can't resist sticking my tuppence's-worth in - nearly time for me to clear off early for the weekend anyway!

Whilst it might be true that some incentive to overtake is taken away by pit-stops, I thinks it's nonsense to imagine that taking away the stops will somehow give us loads of overtaking... The key reason that one car doesn't overtake another is that the car in front is faster - simple as that. You can't expect some magic to happen and the Renaults are suddenly right behind the Williams (or whatever example) because the science of F1 is so highly developed that the relative performance of any two cars will remain just the same throughout a whole race. Added to which the non-refuelling era produced some stupid tactics and cock-ups - cars would sit in front of one another and block, and then turn up the gas only where needed to avoid being passed - that gives you cars circulating closely, but not what I'd call racing.

You can easily pick examples where the faster car being hed up has helped to produce results that are against the expected, where the faster car has done less well. Ralf held Rubens up at Imola for ages for example, which stopped him waltzing off straight away. That Ralf was unable to get past his brother in the previous race, by contrast, was simply a case of the Ferrari being cleverly set up to have the advantage in the sector coming on to the straight - more of a circuit issue.

I like the idea of a control diffuser which would limit total downforce and make the air cleaner for the car behind. Bear in mid though that it is the disrupted air that creates the slipstream - the reason that this does not result in overtaking is that virtually all circuits lack straights that are preceeded by non-downforce-sensitive corners - if you're following you just can't get "on" the car in front in the first place.

I agree with the idea of having cars that have less downforce and more progressive tyres - but think that many fans take the opportunity to say "wide track" and "slicks" for purely nostalgic reasons. Nothing wrong with nostalgia, if that's your thing, but you might as well be honest about it. Wide track actually reduces the amount of room to go wheel to wheel - and that offsets the advantage of making a bigger hole in the air. Even motorcycles and bicycles get a good "tow", so narrow does not really play any part in the overtaking discussion.

Extend the points spread - great idea. At the end of a season when all the reliability is sorted you currently get all the points going to the big three.

At the end of the day I am convinced that you can shake the technical regs any way you like, and the same team(s) will come out on top - and just as consistently. Possibly a truly radical re-think with different engine and chassis choices combined with different weight limits (like the new MotoGP) might enliven it - but the sport would be right to worry about the public still recognising it as F1.

[kdr]

liz

after careful consideration of this thread, i think i'd prefer going to see uncle sascha and uncle lucas

and i think you would as well

[strad]

Now Wrexy we've talked about this...Uncle Max and Aunt Bernie would be very upset if they heard you talking this way...you know uncle Max doesn't like it if they go round them corners too fast, and your aunt Bernie doesn't like it if anybody passes the red cars....

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by Wrex
Inigo, good post. I was hoping someone could give me as strong an argument on why we don't reduce downforce.

I think Valve Bounce hit on the real reason for that - drastically reduced advertising space on the cars.

[Liz]

kdr, you are absolutely right. If I wanted to see "junkyard wars goes high tech" I would be watching the Nerd Channel. I tuned in to see RACING! And the last time I checked, this involved a lot of guys in fast cars with some doubt as to which one would make it under the chequered flag first.

Or am I missing something here?

[Gt_R]

"1.Ban refuelling"
Why would it improve overtaking?? It increase the need to force drivers to overtake, but it doesn't increase the cars ability to overtake... In fact, it would decrease overtaking... a slower car on lighter fuel may be able to get past a faster car on heavier fuel, but if they are on same fuel level, theoretically if performance is based on quals, there would be nil overtaking~

"2.Return to slick tyres"
With the tire war ongoing now, the grooved tyres do provide a hell lot of grip...so i don't quite tooo miss slicks.

"3.Extended points spread (down to 10th position)"
Oh yes, i do agree with this like i had mentioned quite some time ago... make things more rewarding for the other participitating teams...worth to discuss and look into.

[Speedworx]

To make F1 more interesting it needs:

- points down to 12th
- point for pole
- one chassis
- more tyre companies
- no front wing

[neilap]

I like the refuelling. Its adds another factor to the racing. In a way it makes it even more of a team sport. However I agree on the other points.