New regs ----good or bad for F1?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

These are the 2011 technical and sporting regulations:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public...10-12-2010.pdf

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public...10-12-2010.pdf

The FIA have changed art. 3.3 of the Technical Regulations. The 180 cm width is now with the tyres excluded. Will we see wider cars for 2011?

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The FIA have changed art. 3.3 of the Technical Regulations. The 180 cm width is now with the tyres excluded. Will we see wider cars for 2011?

Not unless they change: "Bodywork width between the front and the rear wheel centre lines must not exceed 1400mm.".

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The FIA have changed art. 3.3 of the Technical Regulations. The 180 cm width is now with the tyres excluded. Will we see wider cars for 2011?

No, it excludes tyres but doesn't say anything about excluding wheels.

Here's a rundown of the changes.

Sporting

New penalties that the strwards may impose, including one race bans.
Clarifying the driving rules.
Pit lane fast lane limited to 3.5 metres wide.
Competitors must show when a car was released - presumably that means lollipops, or lights must be visible from the front.
The race director may shut the pit lane.
Three sets of tyres for Friday, eight for Saturday and Sunday.
30 second penalty for not using both types of tyres in a red flagged race, otherwise disqualification.
Changes to the weighing procedure.
Five race gearboxes
One ratio change allowed if needed.
Joker gearbox
Pit lane delta time will normally be 145% of the best P1 or P2 time.
Teams get must get out the circuit for a six hour rest period per day, four individual exceptions per year.
One mandatory autograph session.
107% rule, stewards may allow a car to start though.
Changes to SC procedure.

Technical

Overall width is measured without tyres (but still with wheels).
Smaller diffusers
Different rear wing height.
Movable rear wing item.
20mm bend permitted with 1000N load
Driver controlled bodywork may be used before the start of the race but is locked out for the first two laps, and the first two laps after an SC.
Driver may only enable the movable bodywork once told by the ECU it he is within a second of the car in front, and will be disabled when the driver uses the brakes.
640kg total minimum weight, front axle weight minimum of 291kg, 342kg rear maximum.
Beefier wheel teathers

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

For Formula 1 the author proposes a hybrid parametric framework. I can't see why that shouldn't be adopted. In fact, with the refuelling ban Formula 1 took a step towards it.

It's like I said. Some have already got themselves into positions where it would be difficult to propose anything too radical that might shake up the status quo. The 2013 regulations are merely another step towards maintaining that. Thank goodness there wasn't a breakaway series!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Marbot

One worth thinking about for circuits such as Sepang etc.

Why is Sepang a worse case over any other circuit?
It can't be the rain, because if it rains the dry tyre rule is irrelevant anyway.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Not unless they change: "Bodywork width between the front and the rear wheel centre lines must not exceed 1400mm.".

The car is more than its bodywork. The bodywork width has been 140 cm since the 1970s, but the maximum car width was 215 cm then.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Why is Sepang a worse case over any other circuit?
It can't be the rain, because if it rains the dry tyre rule is irrelevant anyway.

I was thinking about the really bad fog they get there from time to time.

Point taken.

Yes, it would have to be some other act of God or whatever, I suppose.

Having said that, it could be the case that the rain was so heavy that some didn't actually manage to get wet weather tyres fitted before the race was stopped!

"Unless he has used intermediate or wet-weather tyres during the race, each driver must use at least
one set of each specification of dry-weather tyres during the race."

[wnut]

So effectively push to pass enters F1 with the movable rear wing shedding the aero load to facilitate passing.

Still artificial as push to pass is, it may make the racing, with actual overtaking, a lot more interesting and will probably lead to mistakes when the corner entry speed suddenly changes for the overtaking car.

Value some comments from the IRL contingent here regarding the effects of push to pass on the racing.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The car is more than its bodywork. The bodywork width has been 140 cm since the 1970s, but the maximum car width was 215 cm then.

Aha!
So there is still hope...

[Wims]

Originally Posted by wnut

...

Value some comments from the IRL contingent here regarding the effects of push to pass on the racing.

I dont follow IRL, but the push to pass button in champcar was often reffered to as "push to defend". Thats not going to happen in F1 tho, as its controlled by the ECU and its only allowed to be used for a car following another car

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by wnut

So effectively push to pass enters F1 with the movable rear wing shedding the aero load to facilitate passing.

Still artificial as push to pass is, it may make the racing, with actual overtaking, a lot more interesting and will probably lead to mistakes when the corner entry speed suddenly changes for the overtaking car.

Value some comments from the IRL contingent here regarding the effects of push to pass on the racing.

That remains to be seen anyway...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It's like I said. Some have already got themselves into positions where it would be difficult to propose anything too radical that might shake up the status quo. The 2013 regulations are merely another step towards maintaining that. Thank goodness there wasn't a breakaway series!

Democracy isn't such a good system after all.

Originally Posted by Wims

I dont follow IRL, but the push to pass button in champcar was often reffered to as "push to defend". Thats not going to happen in F1 tho, as its controlled by the ECU and its only allowed to be used for a car following another car

It all sounds very artificial to me. Because of its addiction to downforce Formula 1 can't accept that the current concept is flawed.

[JamesH]

Is it flawed?

F1 needs to be the fastest race series. Get rid of downforce and you suddenly become slower than GP2. There is no other option (except ground effect and people don't seem to want that), you need high cornering speeds. You cannot just make the engine bigger to compensate, because that just makes the cars too fast for the tracks, and with the lower cornering speed makes little difference anyway.

So, how do you keep F1 as the fastest series?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Is it flawed?

F1 needs to be the fastest race series. Get rid of downforce and you suddenly become slower than GP2. There is no other option (except ground effect and people don't seem to want that), you need high cornering speeds. You cannot just make the engine bigger to compensate, because that just makes the cars too fast for the tracks, and with the lower cornering speed makes little difference anyway.

So, how do you keep F1 as the fastest series?

From an FIA point of view, it's "fastest" race series isn't actually F1, and probably never will be, unless dragsters have to go 'electric'.

You could also say, that on average, IRL is a faster series than F1.

I don't understand why F1 has to be the fastest? Why can't it buck the trend and do something really different to other race series instead of always trying to compete with series that if they really wanted to could introduce regulations that would easily make them faster than F1 and at a fraction of the cost. Just bigger grippier tyres would be a cheap way to achieve this.

Superleague have 750bhp 4.2 litre cars that are in a relatively mild state of tune and aero regs that don't produce anywhere near as much downforce as they could.

It was always said that the only thing that Champcar ever needed to do to be the "fastest" was turn up the boost!

Perhaps the FIA needs to look at the overall downforce levels of all its series?

[F.O.F.]

Just curious, does anybody have a clear understanding of what the change in the rule about the width (of the car) being measured without the tires means?

I read it that Pirelli are maybe turning up with a fatter tire for the same rims, or they don't know themselves exactly how wide their final, race spec product is going to be, in terms of unintentional sidewall bulge or indeed intentional extra width in case their compounds aren't up to scratch and they need to widen the contact patch slightly. And maybe this has been agreed with the teams/FIA so that every car on the grid isn't ruled to be illegal at the first race...

[sarcasm]Apart from a certain Italian contingent who mysteriously turn up with a few sets of bridgestones in the truck[/sarcasm]...Or am I totally on the wrong track?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Is it flawed?

If drivers can't race each other, teams can't do nothing but to use increasingly more resources, making the legislator to standardize or 'semi-standardize' key components and artificial regulations necessary to add spectacle, the concept is flawed.

F1 needs to be the fastest race series.

I doubt it. The Can Am car were somewhat faster, but no-one complained about it. Formula 1 should the ultimate drivers' championship and therefore needs to be the fastest and most challenging open-wheel racing series, but not necessarily the fastest racing series.

Get rid of downforce and you suddenly become slower than GP2.

A massive reduction or elimination of downforce could ceteris paribus indeed make GP2 cars faster. But GP2 is a feeder series and expected to follow suit.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Wims

I dont follow IRL, but the push to pass button in champcar was often reffered to as "push to defend". Thats not going to happen in F1 tho, as its controlled by the ECU and its only allowed to be used for a car following another car

But what if the car in question is ahead of the other car, but also behind another car?
How does that work, then?

How can the ECU differentiate between defending, and overtaking?

[Peralta]

I really don't understand the whole adjustable rear wing concept except that it is a big waste a time and money just like KERS. It's all artificial racing and doesn't belong in F1. KERS can be developed my motor companies. I think going with more horsepower say 800-900 and with much less aero (50%) with the same tyre width is the way to go to make F1 more exciting to watch and more challenging for the driver. I'd rather see 3 or 4 great earned passes than 20 assisted passes any day.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Peralta

I really don't understand the whole adjustable rear wing concept except that it is a big waste a time and money just like KERS. It's all artificial racing and doesn't belong in F1. KERS can be developed my motor companies. I think going with more horsepower say 800-900 and with much less aero (50%) with the same tyre width is the way to go to make F1 more exciting to watch and more challenging for the driver. I'd rather see 3 or 4 great earned passes than 20 assisted passes any day.

Agreed, my sentiments exactly!

[ECW Dan Selby]

I'm going to give this thing a chance, you know.

I was dead against it, but until we see it working in anger, on track, we won't really know.

Have we not considered that maybe this is a modern day way of dealing with the issue, rather than taking a step back in time? I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it'll be interesting to see what effect it has, nonetheless.

Selby

[F.O.F.]

That's it really; a modern day solution. It might not turn out to be the best but then again it might work. A lot of the suggestions on here, including ones I've said before are a bit unrealistic. F1 has never been a side by side all-action overtaking fest.

I would LOVE to see a big-power single seater series that had no wings, like a super formula ford, say, but that aint Formula 1.

[Pingguest]

If it's believed that Formula 1 should have downforce, the amount should be no more than most road-going sports car have. This could be done by introducing a downforce limit of, let's say, 600 kg, enforced by using sensors. This would allow for a massive deregulation. It won't matter whether teams use sculpted underbodies or massive wings. The introduction of the movable rear wing wouldn't be necessary at all.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by F.O.F.

I would LOVE to see a big-power single seater series that had no wings, like a super formula ford, say, but that aint Formula 1.

Well, it used to be.

Do F1 cars need to have wings? The only reason I can see that F1 cars need to have wings is because it doesn't then leave millions of pounds worth of wind tunnels standing idle.

We have spec series and then we have F1. Now, why is it that F1 cars look exactly like all other open wheel series cars if they are supposed to be so different? There isn't anything that you can see that tells you that F1 cars are unlike others. They all have four wheels and a wing, front and back. They are all the same size with the same engines and yet we are supposed to believe that they are somehow different to say, Superleague cars.

[ASCII Man]

I don't think wind tunnels would cease to have any use simply because of the lack of wings on an F1 car.
Wind tunnels are used for more than just wings, AFAIK.

[duke_toaster]

I think we'll need to see how well the movable rear wing works, if they put the movable element on it's not too difficult to adjust how they used it. They could change it for other purposes, such as allowing it to be used once per lap and once back like the movable front wing bits.