[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In that article Force India's deputy team principal Bob Fernley talks about the front wing being more of a trim wing.

Yes and that is going to have to be legislated for if there is a spec floor because the aero guys will get to work maximizing total downforce and not worry about the cars ability to follow another car.

[Sodemo]

Again, ive been saying it for years, but why not offer a maximum surface area rule where teams are free to design what they want, but only have a maximum of X surface area. That way teams are still free to develop it, but the amount you can gain from it is limited as it will be a small surface area...

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Again, ive been saying it for years, but why not offer a maximum surface area rule where teams are free to design what they want, but only have a maximum of X surface area. That way teams are still free to develop it, but the amount you can gain from it is limited as it will be a small surface area...

I think that's a tremendous idea.

Would keep the cars all looking different, too!

Selby

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In that article Force India's deputy team principal Bob Fernley talks about the front wing being more of a trim wing.

The problem with running the front wing as a trim wing is, as soon as you are in turbulent air behind another car your trim wing ceases to function, and you lose your aero performance and cannot race it.

There is only one solution, take the front wing off the car!

Lowering and increasing the rear wing size is also counter productive, leave it where it is, higher up it will have less of an effect on the aero of the trailing car, that is what we are aiming for isn't it??

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

The problem with running the front wing as a trim wing is, as soon as you are in turbulent air behind another car your trim wing ceases to function, and you lose your aero performance and cannot race it.

There is only one solution, take the front wing off the car!

Lowering and increasing the rear wing size is also counter productive, leave it where it is, higher up it will have less of an effect on the aero of the trailing car, that is what we are aiming for isn't it??

They never had that problem with the original ground effect cars and the car could run with or without the trim wing. Just watch footage of those races and you can see how close the cars get to each other.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They never had that problem with the original ground effect cars and the car could run with or without the trim wing. Just watch footage of those races and you can see how close the cars get to each other.

The original ground effect cars would have been pretty crude devices in terms of aerodynamic sophistication compared to current cars which spend 24/7 in wind tunnels. So any small effect that running in disturbed air has on a trim tab will have a greater effect on the cars ultimate performance and its ability to race against a similar car.
It is exactly the point I am developing though BJ, the original cars could run without front wings, so make damn sure the new cars never get the opportunity of running front wings. Let's get ahead of the problem for a change!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They never had that problem with the original ground effect cars and the car could run with or without the trim wing. Just watch footage of those races and you can see how close the cars get to each other.

The ground effect were used in a time modern media were unavailable and things were pretty amateurish to the current standards, but it is said in those days cars often generated more downforce than the tires could cope with. As a consequence, losing some downforce in the slipstream had no real effect on the cars' behavior.
In fact, Brabham occasionally used a (positive) lift generating front wing!

[Taxi645]

By the sound of if it the ground effect proposals if properly balanced may produce very exciting racing from 2017 onwards if they simultaniously drop DRS and keep the engine rules stable and allow the other manufacturers catch up.

They should probably also limit the number of surfaces and possibly the total surface area of the front wing to make the aero less sophisticated. Perhaps there are more effective rule sets to accomplish that, but that's up to the aero engineers (as long as the interest is exciting racing anx not protecting their own jobs).

Now tone down the performance bonusses so the smaller teams become more competitive and I might actually become excited about F1 again.

[Mike Harte]

Reading this article on the Autosport website, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120520 , I really do despair at the attitude of the FIA.

The proposal is to introduce the new bodywork and aero rules for 2017 which with other changes are supposed to reduce lap times by about 5 seconds.

However, Charlie Whiting is quite clear that he does not expect the new regulations will allow more overtaking opportunities, and in fact it is believed by some that it will be more difficult for cars to follow each other closely because of the changes.

And they then wonder why more and more people are being turned off by Formula 1. The only good news is that the snore fests will finish quicker!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And they then wonder why more and more people are being turned off by Formula 1. The only good news is that the snore fests will finish quicker!

haha. that is good news!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Reading this article on the Autosport website, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120520 , I really do despair at the attitude of the FIA.

However, Charlie Whiting is quite clear that he does not expect the new regulations will allow more overtaking opportunities, and in fact it is believed by some that it will be more difficult for cars to follow each other closely because of the changes.

And they then wonder why more and more people are being turned off by Formula 1. The only good news is that the snore fests will finish quicker!

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Reading this article on the Autosport website, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120520 , I really do despair at the attitude of the FIA.

The proposal is to introduce the new bodywork and aero rules for 2017 which with other changes are supposed to reduce lap times by about 5 seconds.

However, Charlie Whiting is quite clear that he does not expect the new regulations will allow more overtaking opportunities, and in fact it is believed by some that it will be more difficult for cars to follow each other closely because of the changes.

And they then wonder why more and more people are being turned off by Formula 1. The only good news is that the snore fests will finish quicker!

I thought the idea was to increase lap times?

[TRuss]

It is hard to imagine anything more frustrating than F1.

[JeremySmith]

They are trying to re invent the wheel aren't they .. Is there really that *much* wrong with our sport, IMHO don't think so...

To the powers that be...Make it more fan friendly and stop talking it down otherwise you breed a feeling of dissatisfaction.. Give some people the excuse to complain and you will never hear the end of it..

[chillibowl]

sort of feels like they are doubling down on CFD and aero imo.

as much as i like to complain (and much of it because there is not much fun stuff to talk about in F1 these days) most of my issues get solved if a) there is a more equitable division of the profits and b) all teams spend that extra money on development leading to a formula where several teams can compete at the sharp end at the same time.

[Sodemo]

Is there any news on when Charlie Whiting might retire?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Is there any news on when Charlie Whiting might retire?

The thought had crossed my mind, the sport needs a changing of the guard..

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Is there any news on when Charlie Whiting might retire?

What is Charlie Whiting meant to do?

There is a view expressed that there is not enough close racing in F1.

Everybody knows what the problem is.

Then the FWG (F1 Working Group) proposes a solution to "the problem" which stands no chance whatsoever of fixing the problem they say they are addressing with the changes!

Charlie is at least experienced and technically savvy to know the solution is just a bad joke and has the stones to say so, and the solution is accept the rubbish and get rid of Charlie and install a yes man in his place?

Perfect, that will fix everything!

[JeremySmith]

I meant a changing of the guard as far as management of the sportt is concerned ..
Charlie is a very experienced deligate and does a great job ..

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by wnut

What is Charlie Whiting meant to do?

There is a view expressed that there is not enough close racing in F1.

Everybody knows what the problem is.

Then the FWG (F1 Working Group) proposes a solution to "the problem" which stands no chance whatsoever of fixing the problem they say they are addressing with the changes!

Charlie is at least experienced and technically savvy to know the solution is just a bad joke and has the stones to say so, and the solution is accept the rubbish and get rid of Charlie and install a yes man in his place?

Perfect, that will fix everything!

For years now the FIA has been rubber stamping technical regulations that defy logic in every sense of the word. In 1997 they unveiled the tech regs for 1998 which had narrower cars and grooved tyres, which proved to be a disaster. The cars were extremely nervous for the first two seasons and actually all it did was make the cars faster in a straight line and made it more difficult to follow through corners.

Then throughout the 2000's they proceeded to progressively raise the front wing, again, a terrible idea. This just meant that the aero device designed the bring front end grip was being brought higher and higher and more likely to suffer from dirty air.

I don't know who exactly has come up with the latest rules, whether its some "working group" or whatever, but to me they actually sound pretty decent. The only thing I think sounds like a mis-step is making the front wing wider. I mean why? So it can get knocked off easier? The ground FX; sounds like a good idea, making the tyres wider; good idea. I haven't heard anything about making the cars wider which was previously on the menu, but that too would be a good idea.

If Charlie can't see that these proposals are what is needed and are likely to work (in my opinion) then words fail me. Then he goes on to say "if it don't work, we can basically bring in even more DRS" - yea, which is exactly what the fans want to see, more highway passes!

Essentially, the FIA cocked up royally with the 1998 regulations and I think it knows that. Whoever came up with a design solution that reduces mechanical grip and reduces the track width of a car has a basic lack of understanding of what produces good racing. If I recall correctly, these measures were introduced because of the increased corner speeds of the 1997 season, so instead of actually tackling the problem; namely aero, they decide to attack another attribute of the car because "its easier".

[TRuss]

The whole thing started in May of 1994.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by TRuss

The whole thing started in May of 1994.

Actually they messed with the rules during 1993 and brought a raft of changes in for 1994, banned active suspension and driver aids.
Senna was on record as saying that he feared for the unpredictability the new cars would show under the new spec!

[Adam43]

[OT !]Senna was on record more saying how he hated all the driver aids and how they should be banned.
Change of regs. always has the potential to upset the potential to get it right. We should have it more often. [/ OT !]

[bobec]

Originally Posted by Adam43

[OT !]Senna was on record more saying how he hated all the driver aids and how they should be banned.
Change of regs. always has the potential to upset the potential to get it right. We should have it more often. [/ OT !]

I think the 1994 rules changes were obviously done wrong. The cars were indeed unpredictable. Just look at the number of accidents and incidents. Aside from the obvious ones, cars were going off track very out of control, way too often. Wendlinger in a coma for weeks, Raztenberger's replacement with a huge shunt in Spain.
For some reason, things didn't really get better until after Hakkinen's horrific accident in 1995 - then they decided they should do something that really improves safety.
Technically it wasn't just about the driver's aids, but how come all hell broke loose in 1994, while 1993 was such a nice and clean season? And 1992 too, even 1991.
I personally think they should have left the active suspension, at least for a few season.

It's ironic, but while the rule changes in 1994 made the FW-16A lack competitiveness, at least in the first two races, I believe the rule changes were not a factor in Senna's accident.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bobec

I think the 1994 rules changes were obviously done wrong. The cars were indeed unpredictable. Just look at the number of accidents and incidents. Aside from the obvious ones, cars were going off track very out of control, way too often. Wendlinger in a coma for weeks, Raztenberger's replacement with a huge shunt in Spain.
For some reason, things didn't really get better until after Hakkinen's horrific accident in 1995 - then they decided they should do something that really improves safety.
Technically it wasn't just about the driver's aids, but how come all hell broke loose in 1994, while 1993 was such a nice and clean season? And 1992 too, even 1991.
I personally think they should have left the active suspension, at least for a few season.

It's ironic, but while the rule changes in 1994 made the FW-16A lack competitiveness, at least in the first two races, I believe the rule changes were not a factor in Senna's accident.

The Williams FW16 had a number of shortcomings. If I remember correctly, one of them was its wheelbase being too long for the mandated passive suspension.