Rules How about....

wheelsportaddict · 2 Apr 2012, 22:49 (Ref:3052615)

... A return to the days of relying more on mechanical grip than on downforce? You will remember the days (well most of you will) when we had F1 cars with huge rear tyres.

A return to that sort of racing would sort the men out from the boys wouldn't it? I much prefer those cars to the cars of today. Today's F1 cars all look the same. If you lined them up and sprayed them all white would you be able to tell which was which? No, neither would I!

Also, while I'm on it, lets have cars where you have to take your hand off the wheel to change gear as well.

wolfhound · 2 Apr 2012, 22:55 (Ref:3052619)

Well you might be able to pick out the good looking one!

S14 · 2 Apr 2012, 23:59 (Ref:3052637)

I'm no expert, but I think the issue is less one of grip in absolute terms, or so much of where the grip is coming from, rather it is the proportion of the grip to the power of the car. And if not the power, then to the acceleration the car is capable of in the corners.

I think one problem that may be seen with any regulation of this sort, however, is that lap times would increase. And I think Bernie Ecclestone and the F.I.A. have something of an interest in preventing that.

JeremySmith · 3 Apr 2012, 03:07 (Ref:3052651)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

... A return to the days of relying more on mechanical grip than on downforce? You will remember the days (well most of you will) when we had F1 cars with huge rear tyres.

A return to that sort of racing would sort the men out from the boys wouldn't it? I much prefer those cars to the cars of today. Today's F1 cars all look the same. If you lined them up and sprayed them all white would you be able to tell which was which? No, neither would I!

Also, while I'm on it, lets have cars where you have to take your hand off the wheel to change gear as well.

Where did you come from ?

Stop talking sense, otherwise someone, will ask you to go and stand in the corner and recite The Lords Prayer...

Do yo know it...

I did not think so....

Anymore trouble, and I will get Peter Mallet in here to sort it out..

Knowlesy · 3 Apr 2012, 07:18 (Ref:3052710)

More power (a lot more, I am talking 200 plus horsepower extra) would definitely help.

The weakness of these frozen spec V8's is revolting.

wheelsportaddict · 3 Apr 2012, 08:29 (Ref:3052739)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Well you might be able to pick out the good looking one!

How is that possible when they all look the same? If one of our wonderful members was good with PhotoShop then maybe we could prove the point.

bludvl_x19 · 3 Apr 2012, 08:47 (Ref:3052745)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

How is that possible when they all look the same? If one of our wonderful members was good with PhotoShop then maybe we could prove the point.

I think that he was talking about the only current car that doesn't look like it has a broken nose

wolfhound · 3 Apr 2012, 08:59 (Ref:3052747)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

How is that possible when they all look the same? If one of our wonderful members was good with PhotoShop then maybe we could prove the point.

I was referring to the car Jenson & Lewis drive

Marbot · 3 Apr 2012, 16:57 (Ref:3052992)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

More power (a lot more, I am talking 200 plus horsepower extra) would definitely help.

The weakness of these frozen spec V8's is revolting.

750 bhp was not thought to be 'revolting' when the teams had developed their engines to attain that figure some time ago. Now the teams have already, by way of wind tunnels etc, added a figure pretty close to 200 bhp simply by making the cars have more down force with less drag.

The current cars are still faster than the cars from the eighties and nineties (and most of the cars from the last twelve years), despite them having 1400 bhp turbos and what have you.

Knowlesy · 3 Apr 2012, 17:14 (Ref:3053002)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

750 bhp was not thought to be 'revolting' when the teams had developed their engines to attain that figure some time ago. Now the teams have already, by way of wind tunnels etc, added a figure pretty close to 200 bhp simply by making the cars have more down force with less drag.

The current cars are still faster than the cars from the eighties and nineties (and most of the cars from the last twelve years), despite them having 1400 bhp turbos and what have you.

Faster lap time wise, yes, thanks to grip.

I want an excess of power. I mean these cars should have a minimum of 1000 horses now, given how grippy they are.

The point is not to make them faster, but to make them an absolute handful.

Marbot · 3 Apr 2012, 18:17 (Ref:3053039)

Take the wings off them and they'll be all over the place.

When recent F1 cars had 950 bhp back in 2005 (compared to todays 750 bhp) the cars didn't really look like they were that much more of an handful than they are now (unless you happened to be on Bridgestone tyres that year).

Knowlesy · 3 Apr 2012, 18:34 (Ref:3053056)

They had traction control.

TrapezeArtist · 3 Apr 2012, 22:40 (Ref:3053195)

I would love to see radical rules introduced to get rid of downforce altogether.

As well as making the cars a real handful to drive, this would have a number of other desirable effects:
No need for elaborate rules to restrict power. They'd all have too much of it and would be more interested in developing drivability.
There would be a real premium on the ability to drive smoothly and look after the tyres.
F1 cars would actually be more like real cars rather than up-turned aeroplanes.
Run-off areas could be much smaller because cornering speeds would be much lower.
The fashion for putting stupid pseudo-wings on road cars might disappear.

It will never happen of course, but I can dream.

**Bononi** · 3 Apr 2012, 22:46 (Ref:3053201)

I wish I could have a time machine.

Marbot · 3 Apr 2012, 23:22 (Ref:3053215)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

They had traction control.

That weird scientific stuff getting in the way of man and machine.

Thank goodness for standard issue FIA ECUs.

I'm off to flog a dead horse, again.

luke g28 · 4 Apr 2012, 00:00 (Ref:3053227)

You can get plenty of downforce from beneath the car without any ugly wings, but thats banned in F1.

You also cannot ban downforce. It is a result of the car moving through the air. Difficult to see how you would measure it either.

miatanut · 4 Apr 2012, 00:59 (Ref:3053234)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke g28

You also cannot ban downforce. It is a result of the car moving through the air. Difficult to see how you would measure it either.

I was in favor of limiting downforce before I moved on to 'dump all the rules but safety and an energy limit.'

The best I could come up with would be load cells belonging to the sanctioning body in the suspension of each car, presumably at the uprights because any other place introduces all sorts of complexities.

wheelsportaddict · 4 Apr 2012, 09:49 (Ref:3053335)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I was referring to the car Jenson & Lewis drive

Ah yes, that had slipped my mind

and I'm glad they didn't go with that ridiculous stepped nose. But putting that aside, the reason why the remainder of the F1 grid looks the same is down to the FIA rules about what I call 'the box system' for car design.

Surely it would be better to simplify the rules on car design down to a few simple regulations, i.e;

Design Rules.
Max/Min Wheelbase.
Max/Min Track.
Max/Min Height.
Minimum Dry Weight of 750kg, plus fluids and driver (Min. driver weight of 80kg).
120 litre fuel tank.
Sequential 6-speed gearbox with gear stick shift.
No DRS, F-Duct or KERS.
Maximum of two "fixed" elements for front (10 position) and rear (6 position) wings.
Max/Min wing width.

Other Rules.
Success Ballast (as in BTCC - 45kg, 36,27,18,9) positioned in FIA designated position (same for all cars).
Single Pit Stop window (5 laps around half distance). Choice to change 2 tyres or all 4, no refueling. Every car MANDATORY PIT STOP.

I will upload a couple of explanatory drawings of wing designs to clarify what I mean by "fixed" 10 and 6 position wings elements. I will clarify any other questions you have, so ask away.

luke g28 · 4 Apr 2012, 10:24 (Ref:3053353)

Quote:

Originally Posted by miatanut

I was in favor of limiting downforce before I moved on to 'dump all the rules but safety and an energy limit.'

The best I could come up with would be load cells belonging to the sanctioning body in the suspension of each car, presumably at the uprights because any other place introduces all sorts of complexities.

Current exhaust systems produce downforce at the wheels and so don't load the suspension.

luke g28 · 4 Apr 2012, 10:58 (Ref:3053367)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

Ah yes, that had slipped my mind

and I'm glad they didn't go with that ridiculous stepped nose. But putting that aside, the reason why the remainder of the F1 grid looks the same is down to the FIA rules about what I call 'the box system' for car design.

Surely it would be better to simplify the rules on car design down to a few simple regulations, i.e;

Design Rules.
Max/Min Wheelbase.
Max/Min Track.
Max/Min Height.
Minimum Dry Weight of 750kg, plus fluids and driver (Min. driver weight of 80kg).
120 litre fuel tank.
Sequential 6-speed gearbox with gear stick shift.
No DRS, F-Duct or KERS.
Maximum of two "fixed" elements for front (10 position) and rear (6 position) wings.
Max/Min wing width.

Other Rules.
Success Ballast (as in BTCC - 45kg, 36,27,18,9) positioned in FIA designated position (same for all cars).
Single Pit Stop window (5 laps around half distance). Choice to change 2 tyres or all 4, no refueling. Every car MANDATORY PIT STOP.

I will upload a couple of explanatory drawings of wing designs to clarify what I mean by "fixed" 10 and 6 position wings elements. I will clarify any other questions you have, so ask away.

You dont specifiy a fuel type or engine size, is this intentional? If it is then why ban KERS and effectively hamstring an electrical drivetrain?

You also specify a size for the fuel tank. What about batteries? What about storing a pressurised gas such as nitrous?

If you say no F duct, then you will have a team making the same thing and calling it an S duct or whatever.

Nothing about adjustable ride height?
Nothing about traction control?
Nothing about exhaust blowing?
Nothing about flexible sealing side skirts?

If you want all of those things to come back then great, if you do not then you need to have more prescriptive rules.

**Bononi** · 4 Apr 2012, 12:01 (Ref:3053396)

This thread is turning into this one : http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132252... keep it that way and I'm going to merge both threads.

Marbot · 4 Apr 2012, 14:16 (Ref:3053467)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

... A return to the days of relying more on mechanical grip than on downforce? You will remember the days (well most of you will) when we had F1 cars with huge rear tyres.

Huge rear tyres were required back then, just to get a car to the end of the race without too much trouble. I don't think that any tyre company would want to make a tyre that was that bad any more. Certainly, the later introduction of radial tyres to F1 made things quite a bit different to the design of F1 tyres.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

A return to that sort of racing would sort the men out from the boys wouldn't it? I much prefer those cars to the cars of today. Today's F1 cars all look the same. If you lined them up and sprayed them all white would you be able to tell which was which? No, neither would I!

They still had regulations back then, just not as tight as they are today. They generally get tighter mainly for safety reasons (smaller wings, smaller engines, narrower tyres etc) rather than for anything else, and you can't be vague about those sorts of things. The end result is what you see today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

Also, while I'm on it, lets have cars where you have to take your hand off the wheel to change gear as well.

Many would agree, but isn't that a backward step from a technological point of view?

cerdic · 4 Apr 2012, 15:45 (Ref:3053512)

Depends what you want F1 to be. Do you want to focus on high-tech or entertainment?

Marbot · 4 Apr 2012, 16:35 (Ref:3053533)

I believe that if you asked the majority of people who have anything to do with F1, they will say that, currently, the entertainment side of things is far more important to the sustainability of the sport.

wheelsportaddict · 4 Apr 2012, 18:02 (Ref:3053592)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke g28

You dont specifiy a fuel type or engine size, is this intentional? If it is then why ban KERS and effectively hamstring an electrical drivetrain?

You also specify a size for the fuel tank. What about batteries? What about storing a pressurised gas such as nitrous?

If you say no F duct, then you will have a team making the same thing and calling it an S duct or whatever.

Nothing about adjustable ride height?
Nothing about traction control?
Nothing about exhaust blowing?
Nothing about flexible sealing side skirts?

If you want all of those things to come back then great, if you do not then you need to have more prescriptive rules.

When I said "No F Duct" what I meant was "no rear wing stalling device". There would be no adjustable ride height, no traction control, no exhaust blowing and no flexible sealing side skirts (sometimes known as "ground control").

As for fuel, they would use current spec race fuel, engines would be 3.5ltr "big block" V8s with up to 1000bhp (governed by an FIA control ECU) and tyres would be as current regulations (determined by manufacturer for each race and colour coded) with the rear tyres of a bigger profile and bigger wheel rim size, front tyres would stay as 270/55 R13 and rear tyres would be 375/65 R15.