Are you not entertained? Your F1 top changes

[MissChief]

Have to disagree on this as its fairly evident over the last 3 decades, the tightening of regulations has increased the cost of F1 for all the teams hence why they (FIA) are trying to reduce costs by putting a cap on budgets which I think maybe open to secretive budgets within manufactuers with separate from F1 high performance facilities. When regulations are tight as per now with for example the engine spec (four-stroke, turbocharged 1.6 liter, 90 degree V6 turbo engines, Max 15000 rpm), engine manufacuters NEED to spend millions refining the tecnology to extract an extra 0.1% over their oppostion, with the opposition doing the same resulting in spirraling costs. If regulations where relaxed with the starting point of say 100 litres of fuel, no pre-stored engery (if teams choose to go hybrid), then each of the 3/4 engine manufacturers are able to explore their own designs and you'll get variations and likely the technology they develop will be more applicable to road applications which would be a large part in attracting and keeping engine manufacturers to F1.

A small example. In the last days of the v8's which had restrictions eg 3L and v8's, the teams I'm fairly sure were free on the bore, stroke, rpm limit etc and there was variation to the point that for example Renault was thought to be a bit underpowered compared to Ferrari and the others on power circuits but it was clear on some circuits (Monaco/slower corners), the Renault engine was better than others so while it may have been missing 30-50bhp top end, it seemed to have better traction and mid range grunt (Torque?) which will have been to a large degree due to the differing bank angle, stroke/bore etc. so what they lost on some circuits, then gained on others.

Summary: Variations in design would help produce different winners at different circuit types and probably reduce costs in the medium term given every teams starting point is the current spec PU but they'd be free to chop off 2 cylinders, add 2 cylinders, change bank/stroke/rpm etc to try gain advantage that way rather than millions refining the spec PU to gain 1bhp

I've seen in MotoGP where different engine design philosophies and even frame design philosophies have kept some manufacturers back for years until they eventually capitulate and make a 'normal' engine and normal frame/chassis.

RPM was limited in the V8 era, as were the materials able to be used to prevent exotic, expensive materials being used driving up costs. The current Hybrid designs have resulted in the most thermally efficient engines ever, and not just in F1 either. They're as much as 60% thermally efficient which is unheard of for an internal combustion engine. Your suggestion of allowing manufacturers to create whatever engine they like sounds amazing but again if one manufacturer hits upon the 'magic formula', as Mercedes did when the Hybrid era started then this drives up costs for the other manufacturers. In 2014 Mercedes won 16 of 19 races, with 11 1-2 finishes. 2015 resulted in 16 or 19 races again, this time with 12 1-2 finishes. In 2016 they had 19 of 21 race wins. People were getting bored and still are with the Mercedes and Hamilton Domination. People joke about 'HAM BOT VER' being a meme for something boring and predicatable.

If people want actual racing, tight regulations that result in teams coming together in performance as bigger, richer teams reach the zenith of performance earlier and then eventually other teams begin to catch up is the way to go. Changing regulations can give a chance for a reset in the pecking order but in all honesty it rarely happens, the richer teams can out develop the poorer ones even before the season has started. If you think Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes won't be towards the top end come the start of 2022 then you're sorely mistaken.

 

[MissChief]

Scrap Friday practice

1 hour free practice Saturday morning followed by quali and race on Sunday.

we don’t need 4 hours of them learning exactly how each tyre compound works.

strap on a set of hards in the middle of the race and they don’t work for you, tough ****.

the softs you started on only lasted 8 laps instead of the 20 you hoped for, unlucky.

I could agree with this. To a certain extent there are two free practice runs on a Friday 'for the fans to see the cars on track' which I kind of agree with, but the sessions are far too long. Also they trialed a two day weekend at Imola which seemed to work well. Yet they've not announced any two day race meetings for next season despite running more races than ever before. They should be mixing it up with any race meeting that's a double or triple header having a two day weekend and mandating the mechanics and anyone who goes to the track having a day off in between.

 

[Entai]

Which is why I said ground effect.

Look at cars in the early '80s. Note how they often ran with little to no front wing to speak of (Williams FW07B springs to mind). The floor was doing a good enough job that a front wing was wholly unnecessary.

And look at the crashes when it went wrong.

Ground effect is either all or nothing, there is no halfway point, you either have masses of downforce when it's working well, or zero the instant something breaks, and you are flung off into the armco.

Coupled with the massive speed increases now compared to the eighties, you will just be waiting for the first deaths.

 

[MissChief]

And look at the crashes when it went wrong.

Ground effect is either all or nothing, there is no halfway point, you either have masses of downforce ejike it's working well, or zero the instant something breaks, avd you are flung off into the armco.

Coupled with the massive speed increases now compared to the eighties, you will just be waiting for the first deaths.

It’s expected that with the wing size reduction and the limited by regulation ground effect that the new cars will have in 2022 overall downforce will drop by 20-25%. No doubt the aero engineers will get some of that back over time, but given the ground effect should only make up around half the available downforce, unlike previous efforts where some cars didn’t even have front wings and relied on ground effect completely, losing the ground effect shouldn’t result in cars flying off the track as they used to.

 

[Entai]

Regulations are too tight, there's no real innovation any more and apart from a few minor differences, all the cars look the same. There would be no chance of a fan car, or an active suspension car, or a six wheel car any more, it's just not possible to do anything out of the ordinary.

For as long as I can remember, people have complained that F1 is boring, that's it's a procession and nothing really has been done about that. Many things have been tried but nothing has ever succeeded apart from DRS which is a bit of a cop out. Dreadful circuits don't help.

Things I miss.

Engines that sound like real engines rather than hairdryers. The V10s were fantastic and listening to recordings of old F1 cars makes me smile.

The chance that a driver might run out of fuel on the final lap. Give them enough fuel to complete the race but not enough that they can run flat out for the entirety.

Drivers actually racing in the wet. Get full wet tyres on and allow them to race rather than start behind a safety car and don't put the safety car out when it rains.

It's supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing.

That totally.

Regs need revamping to allow for more engineering creativity.

Inovation to be rewarded not punished.

Reduce aero grip, be it by wings or ground effect to about 25% of current levels maximum.

Increase mechanical grip, wider tyres, active suspension.

Fully manual gearboxes only.

Bring back refuelling, compulsory minimum 3 pit stops per race, only one you can refuel in though, to increase strategy options, stick with two compound rule, but unlimited amounts of each tyre type per race weekend.

 

[MissChief]

That totally.

Regs need revamping to allow for more engineering creativity.

Inovation to be rewarded not punished.

Reduce aero grip, be it by wings or ground effect to about 25% of current levels maximum.

Increase mechanical grip, wider tyres, active suspension.

Fully manual gearboxes only.

Bring back refuelling, compulsory minimum 3 pit stops per race, only one you can refuel in though, to increase strategy options, stick with two compound rule, but unlimited amounts of each tyre type per race weekend.

Regs are so tight because of teams finding loopholes that give them an advantage and other teams complaining they’ll have to spend millions developing the advantage themselves. DAS? Banned for next year after complaints from Ferrari and Red Bull despite it being completely legal. Independent brake pedals as McLaren had? Banned. Double diffuser? Complained about, money spent to develop it by those that didn’t have it, then banned. Allowing innovation sounds great until a team gets a huge advantage and wins every race until other teams have spent millions catching up.

Aero is being reduced and ground effect will mean cars following more closely without losing all downforce.

mechanical grip was increased with wider tyres a couple of years ago, although in conjunction with much higher aero.

manual gearboxes are old technology, I doubt F1 will have them again.

 

[JRS]

And look at the crashes when it went wrong.

Which is why I said to combine it with active ride, minimise the chance of that happening...

Ground effect is either all or nothing, there is no halfway point, you either have masses of downforce when it's working well, or zero the instant something breaks, and you are flung off into the armco.

Fine, add a BT46B fan if it's that much of a concern.

Coupled with the massive speed increases now compared to the eighties, you will just be waiting for the first deaths.

/ticks off "but...but...but people will get killed!!!111one on his OcUK Motorsport Bingo Card Of Justice™

 

[Entai]

Which is why I said to combine it with active ride, minimise the chance of that happening...



Fine, add a BT46B fan if it's that much of a concern.



/ticks off "but...but...but people will get killed!!!111one on his OcUK Motorsport Bingo Card Of Justice™

I just don't like ground effect, it is just too much of a cop out.

It first came about purely as no one had any real knowledge of proper aerodynamics.

We have the opposite now, far too much knowledge, and the costs are massive in developing the final 0.05% efficiency of the the aero package, reduce that, you instantly reduce the complexity and costs involved.

Aero in any way should not be more than 20 - 25% of total grip.

Ultimately in my view we need to get a set of regulations to give us a formula that is all about driver skill, not who can design and build the faster car.

Not quite a spec formula, there must be some scope for innovation and creativity on some areas, exactly how to get that, to be honest I'm not totally certain.

However that is why I'd prefer a return to totally manual gearboxes, its purely the driver in charge not the engineers and software programmers.

The driver misses a gear, that's down to him, and the guy following to take immediate advantage.

Also I'd love a return to extremely limited areo, and 80 to 90% mechanical grip, it is then entirely the driver balancing the car on a knife edge, it also, again removes a massive amount of the costs involved.

Imagine cars 4 wheel drifting almost every corner again, the odd scandi flick into power oversteer, if the car starts understeering, imagine the entertainment, harking back to the 50's and 60's, pure driving.

Absolute wheel to wheel racing.

 

[JRS]

I just don't like ground effect, it is just too much of a cop out.

It first came about purely as no one had any real knowledge of proper aerodynamics.

That will possibly come as a surprise to Bernoulli...

We have the opposite now, far too much knowledge, and the costs are massive in developing the final 0.05% efficiency of the the aero package, reduce that, you instantly reduce the complexity and costs involved.

Aero in any way should not be more than 20 - 25% of total grip.

Yeah, well, the genie is out of that particular bottle.

Ultimately in my view we need to get a set of regulations to give us a formula that is all about driver skill, not who can design and build the faster car.

Fine. Just don't call it Formula One.

Not quite a spec formula, there must be some scope for innovation and creativity on some areas, exactly how to get that, to be honest I'm not totally certain.

It can't be done. The mess that the sport has subsided into proves that.

Either free it all up, or lock it down tight into spec racing. The in-between that we have now just ends up with insane money spent to get that final 0.05% that you mentioned above.

However that is why I'd prefer a return to totally manual gearboxes, its purely the driver in charge not the engineers and software programmers.

The driver misses a gear, that's down to him, and the guy following to take immediate advantage.

We-e-e-ell...

Yeah, on the one hand I think a lot of us would like to see this sort of skill return to the sport.

(Formula One block embedding of their vids so that'll have to stay as a link, but it's Senna at Monaco so it's worth the click)

On the other hand...again, the genie is out of the bottle.

Also I'd love a return to extremely limited areo, and 80 to 90% mechanical grip, it is then entirely the driver balancing the car on a knife edge, it also, again removes a massive amount of the costs involved.

Imagine cars 4 wheel drifting almost every corner again, the odd scandi flick into power oversteer, if the car starts understeering, imagine the entertainment, harking back to the 50's and 60's, pure driving.

Absolute wheel to wheel racing.

I don't know that it would reduce the costs all that much. How much d'you reckon would be spent on shaping the car to claw back any kind of extra hint of downforce? At least when the floor is doing all the work with ground effect the wings are reduced/gotten rid of - and that would result in a saving.

The cars are much tougher now than when proper ground effect, sliding skirts and all, was allowed. Carbon fibre construction, proper crash testing and all that. I think the dangerous aspects could be mitigated against. But hell - Grosjean proved recently that this is still a vaguely dangerous sport. And I know this isn't a popular opinion, especially on this forum, but it bloody well should be dangerous. Otherwise, what's the point? What do we learn about these drivers? Why do they command the salaries, the prize money, the fame and adulation if they're not in danger of suffering anything more inconvenient than a hangnail?

I'm not saying get rid of all the safety gear. By all means, mandate the halo (though I'd have preferred something a little more elegant). Mandate the HANS. Mandate safety structures in the tub, aircraft-grade fuel tanks, wheel tethers. Stuff that stops drivers, spectators, marshals and other track workers getting killed. But don't dilute the challenge of the tracks by tarmac'ing over all the runoffs and moving the barriers back into a different postcode, don't bring the safety car out every time a cloud wombles into view and stop forcing the teams into a car design box that results in something that can't follow another car at all with a wheelbase and polar moment of inertia to rival a London bus.

Ground effect is the answer. It solves several things at a stroke:

1. Massively reduced importance of wings
2. Ability to follow in the wake of another car is increased
3. Allows for the spectacle of high cornering speeds to remain

Any slowing down of cars can be done with tyres - either through altering the compound and/or dimensions, or simply reducing the sets available so they have to be nursed a bit.

 

[Entai]

That will possibly come as a surprise to Bernoulli...



Yeah, well, the genie is out of that particular bottle.



Fine. Just don't call it Formula One.



It can't be done. The mess that the sport has subsided into proves that.

Either free it all up, or lock it down tight into spec racing. The in-between that we have now just ends up with insane money spent to get that final 0.05% that you mentioned above.



We-e-e-ell...

Yeah, on the one hand I think a lot of us would like to see this sort of skill return to the sport.

(Formula One block embedding of their vids so that'll have to stay as a link, but it's Senna at Monaco so it's worth the click)

On the other hand...again, the genie is out of the bottle.



I don't know that it would reduce the costs all that much. How much d'you reckon would be spent on shaping the car to claw back any kind of extra hint of downforce? At least when the floor is doing all the work with ground effect the wings are reduced/gotten rid of - and that would result in a saving.

The cars are much tougher now than when proper ground effect, sliding skirts and all, was allowed. Carbon fibre construction, proper crash testing and all that. I think the dangerous aspects could be mitigated against. But hell - Grosjean proved recently that this is still a vaguely dangerous sport. And I know this isn't a popular opinion, especially on this forum, but it bloody well should be dangerous. Otherwise, what's the point? What do we learn about these drivers? Why do they command the salaries, the prize money, the fame and adulation if they're not in danger of suffering anything more inconvenient than a hangnail?

I'm not saying get rid of all the safety gear. By all means, mandate the halo (though I'd have preferred something a little more elegant). Mandate the HANS. Mandate safety structures in the tub, aircraft-grade fuel tanks, wheel tethers. Stuff that stops drivers, spectators, marshals and other track workers getting killed. But don't dilute the challenge of the tracks by tarmac'ing over all the runoffs and moving the barriers back into a different postcode, don't bring the safety car out every time a cloud wombles into view and stop forcing the teams into a car design box that results in something that can't follow another car at all with a wheelbase and polar moment of inertia to rival a London bus.

Ground effect is the answer. It solves several things at a stroke:

1. Massively reduced importance of wings
2. Ability to follow in the wake of another car is increased
3. Allows for the spectacle of high cornering speeds to remain

Any slowing down of cars can be done with tyres - either through altering the compound and/or dimensions, or simply reducing the sets available so they have to be nursed a bit.

Number three there is exactly what makes the sport so damn boring in my view.

Obviously I appear to be in the minority, but a car hurtling round any corner as if on rails, is just dull with a capital D U L L.

Sliding, skidding, drifting, on the edge of control, that's exciting, that's entertaining, that takes driver skill.

 

[Hagar]

Sliding, skidding, drifting, on the edge of control, that's exciting, that's entertaining, that takes driver skill.

While doing a stick change down the box.

 

[Participant]

Set up a separate company to produce the same car for every team, with advertising livery and tyre strategy the only difference.

I'm sure F1 fans will tell me why this is a stupid idea, but it would be so good to have every team use the same car.

 

[deuse]

Set up a separate company to produce the same car for every team, with advertising livery and tyre strategy the only difference.

I'm sure F1 fans will tell me why this is a stupid idea, but it would be so good to have every team use the same car.

Just bring in ground effect fully.

No more £250,000 front wings.

But they will have ground affect lite

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/145115/video-how-2021-ground-effect-differs-from-before

 

[MissChief]

Just bring in ground effect fully.

No more £250,000 front wings.

But they will have ground affect lite

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/145115/video-how-2021-ground-effect-differs-from-before

For the exact reasons stated previously. If you go fully ground effect with no wings then any sudden loss of downforce will be complete. As in the car will have none. That means high speed crashes which they will do their utmost to avoid. The front wing size is being reduced and the number of elements limited by the regulations. This will mean an overall reduction in downforce by as much as 30%.

As for spec cars, that's not what F1 has been about for years and years. The very wording of the regulations forbids buying whole cars. The overall teams championship is called the World CONSTRUCTORS Championship. The teams MUST make their own cars, although restrictions on what you can buy in have been relaxed and tightened at various times. This was what the whole kerfuffle about the Racing Point brake ducts was about earlier this season. It wasn't that they copied them, indeed I believe Mercedes actually sold them the plans, it was WHEN they were sold as the sharing of plans for those parts was restricted on Jan 1st 2020.

 

[deuse]

For the exact reasons stated previously. If you go fully ground effect with no wings then any sudden loss of downforce will be complete. As in the car will have none. That means high speed crashes which they will do their utmost to avoid. The front wing size is being reduced and the number of elements limited by the regulations. This will mean an overall reduction in downforce by as much as 30%.

As for spec cars, that's not what F1 has been about for years and years. The very wording of the regulations forbids buying whole cars. The overall teams championship is called the World CONSTRUCTORS Championship. The teams MUST make their own cars, although restrictions on what you can buy in have been relaxed and tightened at various times. This was what the whole kerfuffle about the Racing Point brake ducts was about earlier this season. It wasn't that they copied them, indeed I believe Mercedes actually sold them the plans, it was WHEN they were sold as the sharing of plans for those parts was restricted on Jan 1st 2020.

We don't know any of that with todays tech.
They could invent something new.

in 2022 ground effect will start to come in.
Brawn is all for it.

 

[this_is_gav]

We don't know any of that with todays tech.

Yes, let's go full 2020 for years to come. The world isn't chaotic enough.

We've just got away with probably the worst accident I've seen since I started watching F1 31 years ago (and yes, I include the five fatal accidents in that time) yet you want to throw common sense out of the window and see what happens before passing judgement?

F1 has been safe for years. We've had very few lives lost for years. We've all heard it before. The time frame between de Angelis' and Ratzenberger's deaths was eight years, between race weekends (Paletti and Ratzenberger) it was twelve years. The time frame between Bianchi's death and Grosjean's miracle is five. Motorsport can never be too safe and if you begin to think that for a second then watch back those horrifying few minutes in Bahrain. If you get beyond that and think "meh" then look at Antoine Hubert's accident at Spa, or ask Correa about it.

Yes, ground effect would go a little way in solving some of F1's problems and I'm all for them in general, but it will also create other issues. Huge spray is one (which will already mean more red flags and safety cars even with the watered down 2022 version). With a full ground effect (and presumably minimal wings) you'd also have massive, massive straight line speed - like late 90's Michigan 500 speed, which can't be a good thing on tracks with medium speed corners, chicanes and hairpins - and frankly what you want are longer braking distances and cars on the straight for longer, not less.



On a related note I completely disagree with Brundle on what you need for a good track to allow good racing. He's always banged on about "mistake generators" (off camber corners in particular) and especially needing a slow corner leading onto a long straight. The best example of that on the F1 calendar is... Abu Dhabi. Oh dear. As much as I love him, Brundle's last race in an F1 car was at Suzuka 24 years ago and he's never raced at any of the "new age" tracks (ie Sepang onwards) in any category as far as I know.

F1's issues aren't slow corners leading onto long straights. They are about 1) having tracks which encourages different racing lines to avoid the dirty air (as well as the obvious car issues positive cambers helps here) and 2) having "mistake generators" that aren't negative camber corners (which by their nature are front limited already) and instead having bumpy and difficult corners. Cold weather (not necessarily wet) historically seems to help too - many good races are unseasonably cool - I've noticed this trend since the early 2000s.

 

[MissChief]

Yes, let's go full 2020 for years to come. The world isn't chaotic enough.

We've just got away with probably the worst accident I've seen since I started watching F1 31 years ago (and yes, I include the five fatal accidents in that time) yet you want to throw common sense out of the window and see what happens before passing judgement?

F1 has been safe for years. We've had very few lives lost for years. We've all heard it before. The time frame between de Angelis' and Ratzenberger's deaths was eight years, between race weekends (Paletti and Ratzenberger) it was twelve years. The time frame between Bianchi's death and Grosjean's miracle is five. Motorsport can never be too safe and if you begin to think that for a second then watch back those horrifying few minutes in Bahrain. If you get beyond that and think "meh" then look at Antoine Hubert's accident at Spa, or ask Correa about it.

Yes, ground effect would go a little way in solving some of F1's problems and I'm all for them in general, but it will also create other issues. Huge spray is one (which will already mean more red flags and safety cars even with the watered down 2022 version). With a full ground effect (and presumably minimal wings) you'd also have massive, massive straight line speed - like late 90's Michigan 500 speed, which can't be a good thing on tracks with medium speed corners, chicanes and hairpins - and frankly what you want are longer braking distances and cars on the straight for longer, not less.



On a related note I completely disagree with Brundle on what you need for a good track to allow good racing. He's always banged on about "mistake generators" (off camber corners in particular) and especially needing a slow corner leading onto a long straight. The best example of that on the F1 calendar is... Abu Dhabi. Oh dear. As much as I love him, Brundle's last race in an F1 car was at Suzuka 24 years ago and he's never raced at any of the "new age" tracks (ie Sepang onwards) in any category as far as I know.

F1's issues aren't slow corners leading onto long straights. They are about 1) having tracks which encourages different racing lines to avoid the dirty air (as well as the obvious car issues positive cambers helps here) and 2) having "mistake generators" that aren't negative camber corners (which by their nature are front limited already) and instead having bumpy and difficult corners. Cold weather (not necessarily wet) historically seems to help too - many good races are unseasonably cool - I've noticed this trend since the early 2000s.

Fast corners inevitably are fast because of aerodynamics. This then means the car behind loses anything up to 20% if it’s downforce which means lower cornering speed so the car in front pulls away. What you need is a slow corner so aerodynamic loads are low to non-existent so any grip is purely tyre. Then a longish straight so the following driver can use the slipstream (or DRS as most straights are not long enough to give the advantage to the following car) to get closer and then a slowish corner with a longish braking zone so a driver can try and get down the inside or even hang it our round the outside, especially if there’s an opposite corner immediately afterwards. Abu Dhabi is crap because it’s straights aren’t long enough and it was designed to fit around the harbour. Most modern tracks are now bulldozed onto the land available with any dips and inclines part of the plans. Most classic circuits were never initially racetracks at all or have developed and had changes made over the decades and they usually followed or were guided by the inclines, slopes, dips and hollows that were already there. Brundle is right when he says elevation changes can make what would be a flat, dull circuit into something amazing. Would Eau Rouge be as spectacular if there was no climb and crest of the hill? No it would be just another high speed corner.

 

[chrcoluk]

Harder tryes - less grip, but more endurance as well so drivers push more. Increases emphasis on driver skill.
Refuelling (although so many seem to object this). Adds variability and more strategy.
Q3 on race fuel.
Ban team to driver radio.
Driver picks strategy. If team overrules called to stewards office, any reason other than safety docked points on constructors.
SC only if stewards need to come on track.
Allow engine mode changes again during race. Stop dumbing the sport down.
Dont ban innovations.
Ditch blue flags.
If SC called and stewards out before SC issued, race director, has to answer to FIA, and dismissed if they deem SC only deployed for closing the pack excitement.
If SC called, do not allow cars to unlap.

Have to disagree on this as its fairly evident over the last 3 decades, the tightening of regulations has increased the cost of F1 for all the teams hence why they (FIA) are trying to reduce costs by putting a cap on budgets which I think maybe open to secretive budgets within manufactuers with separate from F1 high performance facilities.

Yeah I agree, its cheaper to copy an innovation than to make a new one, and making a innovation as a small team could be your entire budget then its lost when its banned.