TR Forums

Wed May 28, 2008 9:31 pm

Here are the rule changes I think they should implement. This is all hearsay and just here for discussion. What do you guys think?

Use of the same body shape for all cars with smaller wings, ground effect, and slick tires for similar cornering performance as what they have now. I could care less about aerodynamics tweaking that make no difference to the way my car is made.
Allow (require?) the use of turbochargers. A "power to pass" button that increases charge pressure would be cool too, to liven things up.
itty bitty engines! straight 6 would be fun. With turbochargers and 20,000 RPM or so top speed, it wouldn't take a very big engine to reach 800hp or so, maybe 1,000 with power to pass. I would guess a 1.0-1.4L or so engine could get them where they need to be. Perhaps even spec the engines for lower power due to increased aerodynamic efficiency (due to smaller wings), better tires, and the inevitable advance in engine power.
Increase the minimum weight of the car, and force a "weight of driver" of something like 185 pounds. I would like to see an emphasis on reliability, too, so an increased weight and reliability requirements would be nice. Nothing ruins a race like your favorite getting a borked gearbox or something.

Wed May 28, 2008 10:35 pm

Mine is easy. No performance-related rules. What rules exist do so solely for driver safety. Stop trying to manage the competition ala NASCAR and let's see what those cubic dollars can really do once unleashed from Max Mosely's fetters.

cubical10 · Thu May 29, 2008 9:38 am

SpotTheCat wrote:
Use of the same body shape for all cars with smaller wings, ground effect, and slick tires for similar cornering performance as what they have now. I could care less about aerodynamics tweaking that make no difference to the way my car is made.

For the most part you have described the now dead Champ Car World Series formula.
It made for good racing, as essentially the drivers made 90% of the difference, where as in the current F1, the cars make 90% of the difference.

SpotTheCat wrote:
I would guess a 1.0-1.4L or so engine could get them where they need to be.

The return of 1.4 liter turbo engines would take us right back to the early 80's. 1400bhp engines that would last long enough for qualifying on Saturday, get torn out and thrown away Saturday night, and replaced with a lower spec engine that could (usually) last the Sunday race.

The good news is that F1 is already moving in the right direction for next year, bigger slick tires and big changes to the aero rules to hopefully allow cars to run nose to tail. The introduction of KERS in 2010 should offer the equivalent of push-to-pass.

One thing I would like to see is that each car is only allowed 2 sets of tires per race. If the driver cannot manage his equipment, then he can bobble around on squared tires.

dragmor · Fri May 30, 2008 12:18 am

I'd like to see two races.

1) No limits i.e. What ever they can build.
2) A race limited by fuel (and maybe battery power). You get a limit e.g. 100L to complete the race with. Use it all and you out. Still aiming to finish as fast as possible.

UberGerbil · Fri May 30, 2008 12:31 am

dragmor wrote:
1) No limits i.e. What ever they can build.
2) A race limited by fuel (and maybe battery power). You get a limit e.g. 100L to complete the race with. Use it all and you out. Still aiming to finish as fast as possible.

Ditto, except for #1 I'd require that they keep four wheels in contact with the ground at all times (this isn't Reno) and for #2 I'd want the winner to be the max of (average speed over entire race) / (fuel used) -- if you restricted it to, say, gasoline (or ethanol or biodiesel or whatever). If you allowed any fuel, then divide the speed by total carbon in the fuel (setting some reasonable non-zero number for electric power, since not all of it is hydro or solar generated). Alternatively you could use carbon-seconds, ie time to finish the race multiplied by total carbon used, lowest wins.

Either way, you mandate a rather low maximum time to complete the race without disqualification, to force people to actually go fast rather than creep around at a boring speed where air resistance is negligible.

Fri May 30, 2008 8:52 am

dragmor wrote:
1) No limits i.e. What ever they can build.

You can't do that, they'd kill the drivers. Watch the accelerometer when they brake and turn in. I already have no idea how they don't pop the drivers' heads off their necks during the race.

dragmor wrote:
2) A race limited by fuel (and maybe battery power). You get a limit e.g. 100L to complete the race with. Use it all and you out. Still aiming to finish as fast as possible.

This is a lot closer to what I would like to see.

1)Clean up all the aerodynamics so you can actually see the car and the numbers on it to aid the fans in identifying the cars. Have an aero package that is tested in the wind tunnel with two cars following each other and only causes a loss of X% (a small number) of downforce on the following car. This should allow following through the corners and more overtaking.

2)Engines including energy recovery braking systems and gearboxes are completely unlimited. They can run what they like, unlimited cylinders, rotaries, gas turbines, Mr Fusion, whatever. Start off with the amount of fuel that they get through currently at each race and reduce it a bit each year to stop the cars going faster. Allow energy equivalents in other fuel types. These are some of the smartest engineers in the world, they'll solve the worlds energy problems in a couple of years with the spin off technology. To keep it even and to inform the fans, the teams have to produce full technical details on their engines two races after they are introduced.

mattsteg · Fri May 30, 2008 9:13 am

UberGerbil wrote:
dragmor wrote:
1) No limits i.e. What ever they can build.
2) A race limited by fuel (and maybe battery power). You get a limit e.g. 100L to complete the race with. Use it all and you out. Still aiming to finish as fast as possible.
Ditto, except for #1 I'd require that they keep four wheels in contact with the ground at all times (this isn't Reno) and for #2 I'd want the winner to be the max of (average speed over entire race) / (fuel used) -- if you restricted it to, say, gasoline (or ethanol or biodiesel or whatever). If you allowed any fuel, then divide the speed by total carbon in the fuel (setting some reasonable non-zero number for electric power, since not all of it is hydro or solar generated). Alternatively you could use carbon-seconds, ie time to finish the race multiplied by total carbon used, lowest wins.

Either way, you mandate a rather low maximum time to complete the race without disqualification, to force people to actually go fast rather than creep around at a boring speed where air resistance is negligible.

Well, a 4 wheels in contact with the ground is a bit excessive. Just require that power be deilvered through the wheels. The rpoblem with efficiency races is that you rapidly get to the point where gimmickry, not true efficiency improvements, give the most gains, and you impose severe restrictions on viable racing lines. You risk turning the parade that is F1 into even more of a parade.

Sat May 31, 2008 10:05 pm

Tighter fuel limits instead of engine limits is a great idea.

mattsteg · Sat May 31, 2008 10:34 pm

SpotTheCat wrote:
Tighter fuel limits instead of engine limits is a great idea.

They've hurt the racing in MotoGP, in my opinion. The negative aspects might matter less in a race with pitstops, though.

Farting Bob · Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:08 pm

F1 was far more exciting to watch in the 80's and early 90's, and from what ive seen of clips, the 70's were even better, Very unpredictable with drivers going 100% all the time. Back then the drivers tended to take more risks and werent controlled by the corporate owners and team orders.
Now it seems everyone is just trying to be the most consistant. Get on the podium in 15 of 16 races and your the champ. Win 8 races and spin out in 4 others and you'll be popular but end up miles away from the championship leaders.
The last really exciting driver was Montoya during his first season. He took risks and alot of the time it didnt work, but i watched him in every race. Then in just a few years he became another robot.

I entirely blame Schumacher for this trend. He was the best driver by a big distance, was on the best team and had the best strategic team behind him. Everyone else had to change to compete, and that meant backing off and finishing 2nd rather than push it and finish either first or crash.

Heiwashin · Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:01 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
Mine is easy. No performance-related rules. What rules exist do so solely for driver safety. Stop trying to manage the competition ala NASCAR and let's see what those cubic dollars can really do once unleashed from Max Mosely's fetters.

I agree with you. I do wish there were much bigger tracks though.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:41 pm

Heiwashin wrote:
I agree with you. I do wish there were much bigger tracks though.

The Nordschleife, a/k/a the Green Hell, is ready and waiting.

To return racing to its roots in the '50s and '60s means racing the Nordschleife of today with today's all-out tech. It'd also mean restoring the original Spa Francorchamps track to its 9.06 mile configuration with the Masta Kink taken at over 200 mph, or even the AVUS track in Berlin with the Nordcurve's 43 degree banking. Hell, go to your local video store and rent Grand Prix to see the tracks real F1 drivers competed on.

The F1 of the old era always had the scent of death tagging along behind the racers to remind them of what lay in their future when they drove above their skills. Today's F1 parades where passes occur only upon crash, breakdown, or pit lane stupidity are not real races. A truly fitting test of driver skill would be the Nordschleife in a mid-80's F1 turbo BMW with 1500 bhp but massive turbo lag or a Can/Am Porsche 917/30.

On a complete aside, given my Can/Am reference, that was the last time (IMO) we've ever seen the "build what you want and drive it" rule set. Can/Am seems to be a forgotten piece of racing history but those cars achieved speeds not seen 30 years later in any track series. Hell, back in the early '70s Porsche 917s had trap speeds on Le Mans "Ligne droit des Hunnadieres" in excess of what Don Garlits' crowd could do in the quarter-mile. Seeing as they can hit 340 MPH these days, that's a challenge for the second coming of Can/Am.

mattsteg · Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:03 pm

The problem with going to that extent is that you're all but assured of people, likely including spectators, getting seriously killed in relatively short order. The limits of human and mechanical performance and of existing track designs all conspire to make such series impractical these days.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:32 pm

mattsteg wrote:
The problem with going to that extent is that you're all but assured of people, likely including spectators, getting seriously killed in relatively short order. The limits of human and mechanical performance and of existing track designs all conspire to make such series impractical these days.

Hey, I never said my wish was practical; how may wishes are? It's just my imaginary merger of my favorite course with my favorite class of race cars.

[/wishes for a new racing game based on Can/Am]

Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:18 pm

I don't know how you could make it not a parade and not kill anybody, without a major shift in track design (and location)

maybe portals is the answer.

Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:20 am

I'm not blaming M Schumacher, although he IMO represents that kind of boredom.

IMO it all started when Senna died and Mosley went on a mission in the name of safety. Unfortunately safety somewhat equates to boredom. :cry:

Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:55 pm

I've got a good idea! I was toying with the idea of enforcing an inlet area restriction and allowing any engine of any type. By limiting how much oxygen goes in the engine, you effectively limit maximum power.

A better solution, IMHO, is to specify the fuel (like they do now anyways) and mandate the installation of an FIA supplied "black box" that measures fuel flow going into the engine, and limit this value to some "safe" power level. Then they can allow any engine configuration, any airflow configuration, etc.

I would also like to see active aero, all-wheel drive, a move away from oval courses, traction control, non-grooved tires, under body aero (to eliminate destructive turbulence that prevents passing), etc.

Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:15 pm

SpotTheCat wrote:
I would also like to see active aero, all-wheel drive, a move away from oval courses, traction control, non-grooved tires, under body aero (to eliminate destructive turbulence that prevents passing), etc.

Huh?? The last oval-track race in F1 was the 1961 Italian Grand Prix at the oval track at Monza (used to good effect in the film Grand Prix).

willyolio · Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:47 pm

dragmor wrote:
I'd like to see two races.

1) No limits i.e. What ever they can build.
2) A race limited by fuel (and maybe battery power). You get a limit e.g. 100L to complete the race with. Use it all and you out. Still aiming to finish as fast as possible.

those i might actually watch.

the only rule should be "driver must be safe." that's open to interpretation, but i guess the car should still protect the driver from death during a collision and such.

Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:56 am

I'd like to see Formula 1 where the Stewards are not on the payroll of Ferrari, especially after Hamilton's latest penalty and when they didn't penalise Ferrari for releasing Massa in the pitlane in the previous race.

Jigar · Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:00 am

All i would like to see is the the turbo button back.

BTW i like high drama .. Like the previous race, where Hamilton and Kimi both spun, but still Hamilton was able to beat Kimi...

Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:38 am

Jigar2speed5095 wrote:
All i would like to see is the the turbo button back.

Problem is the current FIA brass thinks that Turbo = Speed = Remember Senna. And with the current "soft" generation of drivers the GPDA will not like it either.

Jigar2speed5095 wrote:
BTW i like high drama .. Like the previous race, where Hamilton and Kimi both spun, but still Hamilton was able to beat Kimi...

That drama was fine, but there is no need for the stewards who feel like they need to give back a victory to Massa for his engine blowup last time. The Ferrari racing team may not have initiated the reviews, but who knows about Luca? :evil:

Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:02 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
SpotTheCat wrote:
I would also like to see active aero, all-wheel drive, a move away from oval courses, traction control, non-grooved tires, under body aero (to eliminate destructive turbulence that prevents passing), etc.

Huh?? The last oval-track race in F1 was the 1961 Italian Grand Prix at the oval track at Monza (used to good effect in the film Grand Prix).

I feel silly, I was mixing up IRL and F1.

cubical10 · Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:12 pm

After watching the last couple races, it appears that the only thing F1 needs to do is make sure that it rains at every event.

Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:26 pm

SpotTheCat wrote:
Here are the rule changes I think they should implement. This is all hearsay and just here for discussion. What do you guys think?

Use of the same body shape for all cars with smaller wings, ground effect, and slick tires for similar cornering performance as what they have now. I could care less about aerodynamics tweaking that make no difference to the way my car is made.
Allow (require?) the use of turbochargers. A "power to pass" button that increases charge pressure would be cool too, to liven things up.
itty bitty engines! straight 6 would be fun. With turbochargers and 20,000 RPM or so top speed, it wouldn't take a very big engine to reach 800hp or so, maybe 1,000 with power to pass. I would guess a 1.0-1.4L or so engine could get them where they need to be. Perhaps even spec the engines for lower power due to increased aerodynamic efficiency (due to smaller wings), better tires, and the inevitable advance in engine power.
Increase the minimum weight of the car, and force a "weight of driver" of something like 185 pounds. I would like to see an emphasis on reliability, too, so an increased weight and reliability requirements would be nice. Nothing ruins a race like your favorite getting a borked gearbox or something.

Looks like I was on to something. The wings are smaller, they're using slick tires, fairly stiff penalties for engine swaps (one free swap allowed).

Then there is my favorite change - Driver controlled variable wing surfaces. I don't know why I didn't think of that before. You guys shot down the idea of active aero (which is more ideal, but less safe) but driver controlled would take away all of the surprise. It also appears to be front only, which means any loss in grip would cause understeer. I suppose this is because loss of the rear end is more dangerous.

Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:09 pm

SpotTheCat wrote:
Driver controlled variable wing surfaces.

Linkage? The last few days is all about Honda's withdrawal and the fallout of that (Max is going to push his cost cutting agenda forward and it will end up like IndyCar or something, standardized everything; while Bernie still grabs the majority of the money starving all the teams to death). :evil:

Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:57 pm

Flying Fox wrote:
SpotTheCat wrote:
Driver controlled variable wing surfaces.

Linkage? The last few days is all about Honda's withdrawal and the fallout of that (Max is going to push his cost cutting agenda forward and it will end up like IndyCar or something, standardized everything; while Bernie still grabs the majority of the money starving all the teams to death).

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/alla ... -come.html

TR Forums

Your ideal formula one

Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Re: Your ideal formula one

Who is online