[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The regulations actually differentiate a technical problem from a rule infringement, as a broken part of the power unit does not automatically result in a penalty. The regulations have split the power unit in a number of specified components and all are limited to four units per driver per season.
However, a technical problem being a rule infringement at the same time, is not something new. The regulations do not tolerate a car to be underweight due to a leakage either.

Under the current regulations the power units have to meet a number of standards. These standards include the use of certain consumables. As using an excessive amount of fuel will automatically and regardless of its cause result in a disqualification, using an excessive number of specified power units parts will only result in grid penalty and potentially in an additional time penalty. Hence, failing to comply with certain aspects of the regulations is penalized unequally.

You complained about the current regulations not differentiating a technical issue from a rule infringement. I cannot see any different in that respect between the current regulations and your proposal.

My proposal isn't meant to differentiate between a technical issue and a rule infringement, it's an alternative to grid penalties. I obviously didn't make that clear.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by mikuni

Thanks for sharing. The idea does have merit. I would just add that a couple of others could possibly sit alongside to avoid any crazy ideas rolling through.

I have a huge amount of respect for Gary Anderson, however his recent proposals seem absolutely bazaar for someone from a chief design engineer position. Reverse qualifying positions and all that rubbish is the last thing true motorsport enthusiasts want to see.

The just need to tweak the basics and scrap some of the crap around the sides, retain the proper tracks and have realistic ticket prices that people can afford, with coverage going out free to air, downloadable or on an ad free pay TV channel world wide.

F1 is not as broken as some people on here make out when you look at the world at the moment (most sports are struggling from what I can see), they just need to go back to basics to move forward.

I think you should stick with an individual. He is free to consult, and if he
gets it wrong it is his responsibility and he can be dumped.
Look at how well the F1 Strategy Group works ... not at all.

Most of NASCAR's success was sue to Bill France and his technical guru, BJ will remember his name, setting the rules and enforcing them, sometimes somewhat murkily, but the manufacturers did not get to dictate!

[bjohnsonsmith]

The review on penalties is a step in the right direction, though I'm not too sure about the rest of the suggestions.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119791

[wnut]

Fiddling while Rome burns!

[Mike Harte]

The Strategy Group, certainly in it's current guise, is not fit for purpose and I would go so far as to say that it is bringing F1 into disrepute.

At the meetings of this group earlier this year, they were proposing that customer cars should be considered and that refuelling should be re-introduced.

However, this week's meeting has kicked both of these ideas out. Considering that both of these proposals were unpopular, to say the least, amongst at least 50% of the entrants, one really has to wonder why they felt that they needed to waste so much time and energy putting them forward in the first place.

It really is time that a truly independent voice was put in charge of promoting rule changes in F1. It is becoming an embarrassment having the current group running the show!

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Fiddling while Rome burns!

Come on its not that bad is it now...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Come on its not that bad is it now...

Never say never, I guess.

The F1 Strategy Group finally got something right !!!!???

Manual Clutches!

"F1 Strategy Group meeting that took place on Wednesday and which were announced yesterday, particularly the restriction on driver aids, things like the manual clutch, from the Belgian Grand Prix onwards."

http://www.pitpass.com/54219/British...ess-Conference

[S griffin]

Guess it show that if they keep trying they'll eventually get something right

[Sodemo]

So the fake launch control ive been bleating on about is finally going to get banned? Great.

We might even get wheel spin at the starts again.

[AoB Special Stage]

and a lot of gearbox related retirements; they have more buttons than horsepower, so I can't see that ending well.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Manual Clutches!

Yes and no. As best as I can tell this is moving from a two to one stage clutch for starts (starting from a stop such as race starts, pit exit, after spins, etc.). Currently the first stage being the automated release up to and including the bite point. The second stage being the hand clutch release that handles the final amount of slippage via the driver. With all other up and down shifts being clutchless (from a drivers perspective).

In the future there would be no procedure to find and set the bite point. Drivers would have to find the bite point on their own each time they engage the clutch. It would still be a hand clutch (paddle and rheostat), still software controlled (clutch by wire) and still no driver action for up and down shifts other than gear selection. I can remember if launch engine mappings are allowed today (I don't think so). If so, I would expect that and any type of throttle (RPM) hold to be gone as well.

It will make starts more interesting. Think of Webber and his typical horrible starts.

Richard

[chillibowl]

a rather simple and 'straight away' solution from Juan Pablo...get rid of tire temperature sensors.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/0...straight-away/

would put more onus on the drivers to feel their own way around a track and could radically shake up the grid as the balance shifts back to drivers skill.

[Mike Harte]

I apologise if I sound like a broken record, but I have advocated for years that F1 should dump all the electronic gizmos on the cars, and so that the drivers can return to the art of driving and controlling the cars by themselves. By getting rid of all the electronic bits and pieces on the car that assist the drivers starting and stopping, and even changing gears, and stripping the cars of all the sensors so that the drivers (and the teams) have to rely on their skill to understand what is happening in and around them.

By doing this we would drive down costs on the construction of the cars, and also dramatically reduce the personnel cost as they will be able to divest themselves of the countless bods that they employ in the back of the garages as well as those stuck in the bunkers back at their bases. Going one step further, ban car to pits radios and with no support operations in the bases any more, you have at one stroke slashed your telecoms budget.

Furthermore, mandate standard electronics, as they do with the ECUs now, on the cars with a standardised fuel flow system. This would mean that the drivers would need to control their fuel supply by judicious use of their right feet. And so on ad infinitum.

With all of these regressive changes we might even be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, drivers wise, and who knows, it might even spice up the show. And if that happened, it might even bring back some of the lost enthusiasts like myself who have been bored by the modern form of racing.

[chillibowl]

i like the idea of scaling back the amount of electronic gizmos but i do fear that doing away with them all together would make F1 irrelevant to a modern audience.

but as far as removing them incrementally to see what adds to and what subtracts from the sporting challenge is worth a go imo.

for example im totally fine with a driver receiving step by step instructions from their race engineer on the pit wall but i dont like pit wall receiving real time instructions from race control back at headquarters.

no doubt each one of us have a different idea of where that line should be but i do like JPM's idea.

[P38 in workshop]

I don't know how many posters to this thread have read Peter Wright's comprehensive article on spinal injuries and I have to wonder whether it might lead to a change in seating posture being mandated.Which might be a way to push the shape of the cars into a different development path.

[Paradise City]

Yeah, I'd get rid of all the garbage gizmos save the bits n' pieces to do with safety. Modern audiences can chew on those.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I don't know how many posters to this thread have read Peter Wright's comprehensive article on spinal injuries and I have to wonder whether it might lead to a change in seating posture being mandated.Which might be a way to push the shape of the cars into a different development path.

Have not seen the article P38, but I have always wondered what the spinal compression of hitting something head on in a current F1 car would be like given that your butt is captive and the momentum of the whole of your torso will be stopped by your tail bone. Probably be three inches shorter after a high G frontal impact!

Has anybody got a link to the article?

[S griffin]

I agree 100% with JPM

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by wnut

Have not seen the article P38, but I have always wondered what the spinal compression of hitting something head on in a current F1 car would be like given that your butt is captive and the momentum of the whole of your torso will be stopped by your tail bone. Probably be three inches shorter after a high G frontal impact!

Has anybody got a link to the article?

Probably not available online.Read Racecar Engineering V25 No8.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Probably not available online.Read Racecar Engineering V25 No8.

Thanks P38, will get a copy.

[bjohnsonsmith]

This is a step in the right direction.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119936

[AoB Special Stage]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119938

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119853

[wnut]

If the F1 legislative muppets are looking for a blueprint, they could do way worse than look at the current Indycar car. They seem to be very good at running close to one another. Too close for some apparently!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119739

[chillibowl]

i dont often watch Indy but yesterdays race had me glued to the TV.

[Sodemo]

There is this thing called Formula Ford, some of the F1 people may have heard of it. It gives great racing and for a tiny cost (compared to F1). If they want a blueprint for future F1, you could do a lot worse than start there.