[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Virtually everyone agrees that more mechanical grip is what is required and people have been saying that for well over a decade, yet nothing is ever done about it.

The racing is better now that it has been for that decade. Probably because if these rubbish sounding engines.

The more important thing to consider is that Motorsport is inherently dull.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

1990. Probably just before.
But early 90s was when it really took off. Remember the 1994 Benetton traction control code concerns?

It's been that long? Yes, I remember Benetton and their Launch Control/Traction Control, system in 1994. Some pundits at the time reckoned Benetton were still using it in '95 but had ''buried'' the code deep within the system.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Fatter slicks, that's the way!

I disagree. Wider tires will have a smaller slip angle and allow the tire manufacturer(s) to make them softer. With those kind of tires one could expect a more spectacular looking of the cars but not more spectacular racing.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

That aside, you may be overlooking a major factor in why auto-boxes are not as popular over here as they are over where you are. Simply put, Europeans buy cars with much smaller engines with considerably lower power outputs which tend to make the average car with an automatic very sluggish. When you combine that with the somewhat higher fuel consumption and add in the premium for having an automatic in the first place, then they do not pose a really interesting proposition to the car buyer.

Last post on this topic I promise.

Read up on CVT autos. Ideal match to small displacement/low torque engines and it can produce better fuel mileage than manuals. They have been around for awhile, but they are being used more and more in small cars. They hold RPM at an efficient balance of power vs. fuel consumption and then vary the generally infinite gearing to accelerate. They can be odd to drive. They have their limits however as they typically do not work well with higher torque engines. That is the main reason that development continues to progress on traditionally geared autos and dual clutch autos. Including adding more and more gears to increase overall efficiency (keep the engines in the proper rpm range) and that style can be scaled up to be used with powerful engines (such as performance cars and F1 )

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I disagree. Wider tires will have a smaller slip angle and allow the tire manufacturer(s) to make them softer. With those kind of tires one could expect a more spectacular looking of the cars but not more spectacular racing.

It was in '98 when they got rid of wider rear tyres and opted for narrower grooved ones in F1. Across the pond in CART land they used wider rear tyres and I thought that era produced some of the best open wheel racing I've ever seen, far better than F1 at the time.

[Paradise City]

I honestly can't picture any child, teenager, young adult or space alien that would be prejudiced against manual gearboxes. I just don't see these kids thumbing their noses at it or refusing great racing because of it.

And I think it would be shame if we refused something that could enhance the racing in an authentic way for these kind of reasons.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The racing is better now that it has been for that decade. Probably because if these rubbish sounding engines.

The more important thing to consider is that Motorsport is inherently dull.

I'd debate that. However what constitutes "good racing" will differ from person to person. Is "good racing" having a close grid with close times and equal performance, but little passing? Or is it cars passing one another over and over with relative ease?

For me, some of the best "battles" (and they were battles) have been when a car is stuck behind another car and is unable to make that pass. That's when things get exciting. Not cars easily gliding past one another on a straight thanks to DRS. Imola 2005 and Monaco 1992 are two of the more famous examples of this. Drivers don't really fight for position any more, although I did laugh and applaud when Button fought off Perez at Melbourne for last place.

[Adam43]

The fans demanded something different. So it changed. Sorry.

Anyway, I don't disagree, but many of the expectations in this thread are based on simplistic misconceptions IMHO. So I am going to spread the word. Based on people's expectations, it's dull, and in the main, it always has been.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Last post on this topic I promise.

Read up on CVT autos. Ideal match to small displacement/low torque engines and it can produce better fuel mileage than manuals. They have been around for awhile, but they are being used more and more in small cars. They hold RPM at an efficient balance of power vs. fuel consumption and then vary the generally infinite gearing to accelerate. They can be odd to drive. They have their limits however as they typically do not work well with higher torque engines. That is the main reason that development continues to progress on traditionally geared autos and dual clutch autos. Including adding more and more gears to increase overall efficiency (keep the engines in the proper rpm range) and that style can be scaled up to be used with powerful engines (such as performance cars and F1 )

Richard

Note: CVT is banned under F1 regs.
Ratios for gearboxes must be homologated for the season.

By the way in Australia some car models charge a premium for manual over automatic and the vast new car markets of Asia are very much dominated by autos.

[AoB Special Stage]

The issue with F1 is they ban things (e.g. ground effects), usually with good reason (cars lose downforce if the ground effect car bottoms out), then when technology surpasses the danger, the ban is never lifted.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

By the way in Australia some car models charge a premium for manual over automatic and the vast new car markets of Asia are very much dominated by autos.

Automatic boxes are loathsome things that are often not in the right gear and lunch themselves in about 140 000 kms.

Pretty well all the commercial vehicles still use manual boxes.

A skilled operator imo still outperforms an automatic box easily, auto boxes can't think, and are not as smooth as a really skilled driver.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Automatic boxes are loathsome things that are often not in the right gear and lunch themselves in about 140 000 kms.

Pretty well all the commercial vehicles still use manual boxes.

A skilled operator imo still outperforms an automatic box easily, auto boxes can't think, and are not as smooth as a really skilled driver.

Sorry but none of that is true. Every large fleet commercial operator has gone to auto transmissions from cars to the largest interstate trucks. I was working in the industry at all levels until recently and every operator began going auto ten years ago because they could recruit less skilled drivers and the maintenance costs were lower as long as it wasn't a Ford Transit van! Very heavy specialised haulage may still be manual but the average truck is auto when it gets replaced.

[Adam43]

Manuals in trucks. Those were the days
The auto 'boxes are truly amazing now. Maybe on one journey, and then only just, the most skilled driver can beat it. They have more gears, more sensors, the best can read the road and know what is coming up round the next bend because of detailed sat nav systems that work with the 'box. As you say Casper they are a must for fleet managers.

[Paradise City]

Howaabout this....

We re-introduce manual boxes into F1. But - we call it by some cool futuristic term - like "biogearboxes".

We have all the benefits of manual gearboxes but a snazzy word so we can be futuristic too.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

Sorry but none of that is true. Every large fleet commercial operator has gone to auto transmissions from cars to the largest interstate trucks. I was working in the industry at all levels until recently and every operator began going auto ten years ago because they could recruit less skilled drivers and the maintenance costs were lower as long as it wasn't a Ford Transit van! Very heavy specialised haulage may still be manual but the average truck is auto when it gets replaced.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Manuals in trucks. Those were the days
The auto 'boxes are truly amazing now. Maybe on one journey, and then only just, the most skilled driver can beat it. They have more gears, more sensors, the best can read the road and know what is coming up round the next bend because of detailed sat nav systems that work with the 'box. As you say Casper they are a must for fleet managers.

When I drove my first auto truck I said "where has this been all my life"? I was training in the end and the auto trucks make it far safer on every level for everyone concerned and reduce the stress levels immensely.

Back on topic I proposed in a post some time back that the only electronics on a F1 should be what one person can handle with a non-networked laptop and no more. That is after the DBW, carbon brakes and auto trans were taken away and no buttons allowed on the steering wheel. After that the driver has to do some real management and think for himself.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Sorry but none of that is true. Every large fleet commercial operator has gone to auto transmissions from cars to the largest interstate trucks. I was working in the industry at all levels until recently and every operator began going auto ten years ago because they could recruit less skilled drivers and the maintenance costs were lower as long as it wasn't a Ford Transit van! Very heavy specialised haulage may still be manual but the average truck is auto when it gets replaced.

TBF Caspar, I said commercial vehicles, I meant more vans and light trucks, not high end truck market. Scania would probably be the leaders in that!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

TBF Caspar, I said commercial vehicles, I meant more vans and light trucks, not high end truck market. Scania would probably be the leaders in that!

Everyone is going auto, from vans to to the biggest trucks. The biggest fleet of trucks, light trucks and vans in Oz is auto and has been for over twenty years. Manuals for commercial use are dead and will never return. My son works in a dealer and he says to sell an auto is rare these days. The Yanks were the hold out but they eventually came across as well, I haven't driven a Road Ranger in years and have no desire to, hateful things.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It was in '98 when they got rid of wider rear tyres and opted for narrower grooved ones in F1. Across the pond in CART land they used wider rear tyres and I thought that era produced some of the best open wheel racing I've ever seen, far better than F1 at the time.

From 1981 until 1993 a maximum tire width of eighteen inches was allowed. From 1993 it became fifteen inches. Since then only the front wheel width was reduced furthermore, in prevent teams from using the front wheel at the rear and rear wheels at the front - as Tyrrell tried to do in 1997.
At that time CART allowed no wider tires than Formula One did.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

From 1981 until 1993 a maximum tire width of eighteen inches was allowed. From 1993 it became fifteen inches. Since then only the front wheel width was reduced furthermore, in prevent teams from using the front wheel at the rear and rear wheels at the front - as Tyrrell tried to do in 1997.
At that time CART allowed no wider tires than Formula One did.

I stand corrected, with regards to F1 tyres. However CART used 10'' fronts and 16'' rears and had a corresponding diameter of 25'' and 27'' respectively. What about F1 tyre diameters?

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Have they been using software in F1 for that long?

Was already used (sparingly) in the mid-80's.

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Howaabout this....

We re-introduce manual boxes into F1. But - we call it by some cool futuristic term - like "biogearboxes".

We have all the benefits of manual gearboxes but a snazzy word so we can be futuristic too.

That's been suggested on a couple of occasions. I admit - I'd sort of like to see it back in. One of the things with a proper manual box is that you could have fluffed gear changes - and days gone by that was the only way to overtake someone(e.g. at Monaco and Mansell's famous pass on Piquet at Brands Hatch in 1986). It would also be cool to see a driver working a gearshift like that. Nowadays - you could have software in - so as not to over rev the engine if they were in too high a gear.

As we have DRS(and I'm not a fan of it) - how about in the race we limit it to certain number of times that it can be used? It might vary from track to track(depending on the difficulty). Sort of used like IndyCars "push-to-pass" button. It might take away some of DRS's superficiality and stop cars just gliding past - make it a bit more harder to overtake.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I'd like to see the DRS operate slightly differently.

So when it's activated, it opens fully, then slowly closes gradually.

It'd definitely prevent 'highway passes'.

Selby

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

I'd like to see the DRS operate slightly differently.

So when it's activated, it opens fully, then slowly closes gradually.

It'd definitely prevent 'highway passes'.

Selby

DRS is pretty well an emulation of slipstreaming as it occurred in the 60s pre-wing cars and FF Kent.

F1 would be better off without wings, until then we need DRS.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

DRS is pretty well an emulation of slipstreaming as it occurred in the 60s pre-wing cars and FF Kent.

F1 would be better off without wings, until then we need DRS.

From a normative perspective one has to object against wingless cars or for that matter ones without any downforce generating device. With downforce cars tend to separate naturally, as lap times deteriorate in the wake of another car. Thus in principle, with downforce a driver can only overtake in case he is truly faster than his opponent in front. Without downforce a slower driver could effectively be aided by the wake of a faster driver.