[Tech Issue] Formula One: The Next Generation. What would you like to see?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

However, as the sports becomes increasingly regulated and certain configurations become mandated, sound definitely is a valid argument.

I wouldn't argue with that. You don't have to be an engineer to realise that the main reason that the new engines are to be V6s is that Ferrari didn't think that an in-line 4 engine would appeal to the fans or its customers, but had realised that it would be inferior to an in-line 4 in almost every other way.

The fact that an in-line 3 engine would beat most engine sounds hands down seems to have not been taken into account by anyone. Ask any Triumph triple owner what the things they like most about their bike are, and I would guarantee that the engine noise gets into the top 3 reasons every time.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Rennen

After Aero, what's wrong currently (talking to drivers who have driven in F1 in recent years) is the small engines! The old big V10's (or Turbo's) allowed drivers to power their cars around, and not have to depend upon just keeping the momentum up.

The addition of a turbo on the new V6 engines should make them more tractable. In the meantime they'll simply have to put up with having no more flywheel torque than your average 2.4 litre naturally aspirated road car.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

I'm no lover of F1, but to me, the best sounding F1 and indeed sports car motor was the 70s Matra-Simca V12 unit. Hearing its wail coming over the trees from the main straight of the Brands GP circuit was something else.

As for the way forward, abandon all engine regulations, and simply specify the amount of fuel available to complete a race. That way, it should be the cream that comes to the top, and not the scum....

Totally agree with you about the Matra-Simca V12.

The problem with banning all engine regulations is that manufacturers with the massive financial resources, will out spend those manufacturers who don't have massive financial resources.

[Pingguest]

For some reason the 1991 Honda RA121E 3.5-litre V12 sounded distinctively.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gs2h924smY

Besides the above footage shows qualifying practised at it very best: Ayrton Senna driving his McLaren around Suzuka with tyres, an engine and a set-up specifically for qualifying and without having to bother about the strategy for next day's race.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

For some reason the 1991 Honda RA121E 3.5-litre V12 sounded distinctively.

Well, it had 12 cylinders, 700 bhp and revved to a maximum of 13,000 rpm. It was no Cosworth V8, that's for sure!

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Besides the above footage shows qualifying practised at it very best: Ayrton Senna driving his McLaren around Suzuka with tyres, an engine and a set-up specifically for qualifying and without having to bother about the strategy for next day's race.

Ah! those were the days! Qualifying tyres, a car built just strong enough to last through the rigours of a few minutes of qualifying, and an engine that would most likely explode into a million pieces at the thought of doing another timed lap.

Then the next day (or the day after that, because the whole thing was repeated on a Saturday, weather permitting) as if by magic, you find yourself in a completely different car to the one you had qualified in the day(s) before! New tyres, brand new (but detuned) engine, stronger chassis and suspension, and so on and so forth.

It was complete and utter madness!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well, it had 12 cylinders, 700 bhp and revved to a maximum of 13,000 rpm. It was no Cosworth V8, that's for sure!

Well, it sounded distinctively from other V12s.

Ah! those were the days! Qualifying tyres, a car built just strong enough to last through the rigours of a few minutes of qualifying, and an engine that would most likely explode into a million pieces at the thought of doing another timed lap.

Then the next day (or the day after that, because the whole thing was repeated on a Saturday, weather permitting) as if by magic, you find yourself in a completely different car to the one you had qualified in the day(s) before! New tyres, brand new (but detuned) engine, stronger chassis and suspension, and so on and so forth.

It was complete and utter madness!

No, it was Formula 1 at the very fullest!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

No, it was Formula 1 at the very fullest!

Definitely and very expensive, with funding from the tobacco industry to keep it all going.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Well, it sounded distinctively from other V12s.

Firing order, exhaust system, aerodynamics, V-angle, etc, can all combine to make an engine sound different.

You could argue that the W12 engine in the 'LIFE' car was the most distinctive and innovative engine of that period. But just being distinctive and innovative wasn't what F1 was about back then.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

No, it was Formula 1 at the very fullest!

So, why did it not continue like that?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Firing order, exhaust system, aerodynamics, V-angle, etc, can all combine to make an engine sound different.

You could argue that the W12 engine in the 'LIFE' car was the most distinctive and innovative engine of that period. But just being distinctive and innovative wasn't what F1 was about back then.

So, why did it not continue like that?

Cost and without the money from the tobacco companies to bank roll it, teams had to rein in their expenditure.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Cost and without the money from the tobacco companies to bank roll it, teams had to rein in their expenditure.

Indeed. It was a sort of rhetorical question, but you gave the correct answer anyway.

Here's a pic of the LIFE W12 engine. It looks good........

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

So, why did it not continue like that?

In 2003 the post-qualifying parc fermé was introduced to stop Ferrari from dominating and hence to 'spice up the racing'. But that turned out to be a joke.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In 2003 the post-qualifying parc fermé was introduced to stop Ferrari from dominating and hence to 'spice up the racing'. But that turned out to be a joke.

If the FIA had introduced new parc-ferme rules in order to stop Ferrari from dominating, then you're right, that would indeed have been a joke. Fortunately for them, the reason of cost was the main point of the new rules.

The teams were asked in the autumn of 2002 to come up with their own cost reduction measures or the FIA would initiate theirs. The teams did nothing, and so the FIA regulations came to be. It was a bit of an urban myth that they were brought in to hinder Ferrari, because the rules affected many teams who had the resources to build 'Qualifying Specials'.

[Bononi]

It was Formula One !

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If the FIA had introduced new parc-ferme rules in order to stop Ferrari from dominating, then you're right, that would indeed have been a joke. Fortunately for them, the reason of cost was the main point of the new rules.

The teams were asked in the autumn of 2002 to come up with their own cost reduction measures or the FIA would initiate theirs. The teams did nothing, and so the FIA regulations came to be. It was a bit of an urban myth that they were brought in to hinder Ferrari, because the rules affected many teams who had the resources to build 'Qualifying Specials'.

The assumption that the post-qualifying parc fermé was introduced for the sole reason of cost reduction makes the prohibition of any set-up change simply incomprehensible. It does not cost any penny to change the fuel load, tyres or the set-up of the suspension, bodywork or engine. In fact, since the introduction of this regulation driver are allowed to change the front wing set-up and since the 2010 season all driver may change the fuel load and for all driver outside the top-ten it is allowed to change tyres.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The assumption that the post-qualifying parc fermé was introduced for the sole reason of cost reduction makes the prohibition of any set-up change simply incomprehensible.

The 'Qualifying Specials' were built to overcome the new timed qualifying sessions. The FIA brought in the new parc-ferme rules to stop the almost certain guarantee that a qualifying special would end up on pole. The fact that the FIA also took things a stage further and prohibited set up changes tells you all that you need to know about how some of the teams might have got around the regulations.

It's little wonder that some teams complained - they had just spent most of their budget on making components that were designed to last for about one lap.

I would dearly have loved to have seen all the teams with 'Qualifying Specials' have to start the race with those cars. That really would have made for some very interesting results! The sight of those cars suffering from blown engines, leaky radiators, broken suspension, molten metal brakes, wobbly bodywork, shot tyres, broken gearboxes, etc, so on and so forth, and all within the first couple of laps, would also have provided many a journalist with enough material to last the entire season.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The 'Qualifying Specials' were built to overcome the new timed qualifying sessions. The FIA brought in the new parc-ferme rules to stop the almost certain guarantee that a qualifying special would end up on pole. The fact that the FIA also took things a stage further and prohibited set up changes tells you all that you need to know about how some of the teams might have got around the regulations.

It's little wonder that some teams complained - they had just spent most of their budget on making components that were designed to last for about one lap.

I would dearly have loved to have seen all the teams with 'Qualifying Specials' have to start the race with those cars. That really would have made for some very interesting results! The sight of those cars suffering from blown engines, leaky radiators, broken suspension, molten metal brakes, wobbly bodywork, shot tyres, broken gearboxes, etc, so on and so forth, and all within the first couple of laps, would also have provided many a journalist with enough material to last the entire season.

But that never happened and would never...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

But that never happened and would never...

Agreed.

But only because the teams stuck to the new Parc-Ferme rules. They didn't build 'qualifying specials' in 2003.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The 'Qualifying Specials' were built to overcome the new timed qualifying sessions. The FIA brought in the new parc-ferme rules to stop the almost certain guarantee that a qualifying special would end up on pole. The fact that the FIA also took things a stage further and prohibited set up changes tells you all that you need to know about how some of the teams might have got around the regulations.

It's little wonder that some teams complained - they had just spent most of their budget on making components that were designed to last for about one lap.

As far as I know, the introduction of the post-qualifying parc fermé coincided with that of the one lap qualifying.
Any way, it does not make any sense to ban any proper set-up change. Considering that it does not cost a penny to change the front wing setting - something that is allowed under the post-qualifying parc fermé - it certainly would not cost billions to change the rear wing settings - something that is not allowed under the post-qualifying parc ferme -, or does it?

[wnut]

Up the capacity, keep the minimum weight really low, get rid of any wing in front of the front axle and let's see what we have got!

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

Up the capacity, keep the minimum weight really low, get rid of any wing in front of the front axle and let's see what we have got!

That sounds like a Delta wing with a big motor or a dragster!!!!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

As far as I know, the introduction of the post-qualifying parc fermé coincided with that of the one lap qualifying.

2003: Drivers do a single low-fuel qualifying lap on Friday to determine running order for Saturday. On Saturday they set a lap with race fuel to determine their starting position.

Just the thing for any car that was likely to fall to pieces on its way back to the pits.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Any way, it does not make any sense to ban any proper set-up change. Considering that it does not cost a penny to change the front wing setting - something that is allowed under the post-qualifying parc fermé - it certainly would not cost billions to change the rear wing settings - something that is not allowed under the post-qualifying parc ferme -, or does it?

You can change the front wing settings, but you can't change the rear wing settings. In other words, you cannot fundamentally change the balance of the car from qualifying to the race.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

2003: Drivers do a single low-fuel qualifying lap on Friday to determine running order for Saturday. On Saturday they set a lap with race fuel to determine their starting position.

Just the thing for any car that was likely to fall to pieces on its way back to the pits.

In a qualifying format with only one lap for each driver and no post-qualifying parc fermé the one lap pace would have been as important as it was in 2002.

You can change the front wing settings, but you can't change the rear wing settings. In other words, you cannot fundamentally change the balance of the car from qualifying to the race.

So far, I have not seen any prove supporting the theorem that fundamental set-up changes cost an awful lot of money. In fact, allowing teams to adjust the front wing setting is completely arbitrary. The same counts for prohibition to add or remove fuel between qualifying and race. Ironically, in a world-wide economic depression the regulation regarding the removal and addition of fuel changed radically: as mid-race refuelling has been banned since 2010, teams are allowed again to remove and add fuel to their cars between qualifying and race.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In a qualifying format with only one lap for each driver and no post-qualifying parc fermé the one lap pace would have been as important as it was in 2002.

Indeed. So 'Qualifying Specials' got banned.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

So far, I have not seen any prove supporting the theorem that fundamental set-up changes cost an awful lot of money. In fact, allowing teams to adjust the front wing setting is completely arbitrary. The same counts for prohibition to add or remove fuel between qualifying and race. Ironically, in a world-wide economic depression the regulation regarding the removal and addition of fuel changed radically: as mid-race refuelling has been banned since 2010, teams are allowed again to remove and add fuel to their cars between qualifying and race.

Not all regulations are there to stop teams spending money. Sometimes they are put in place just to make things less complicated.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed. So 'Qualifying Specials' got banned.

To 'spice up' the racing, indeed. Which, again, turned out to be a joke.

Not all regulations are there to stop teams spending money. Sometimes they are put in place just to make things less complicated.

That is another argument against the piece of regulation: the regulations have become simply unexplainable.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

To 'spice up' the racing, indeed. Which, again, turned out to be a joke.

So we're back to your original point about why the rule came to exist. The rule came to exist because it stopped teams from building qualifying specials. The rules could not have been introduced to hinder any one team, only to hinder any teams that had the resources to build a qualifying special.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

That is another argument against the piece of regulation: the regulations have become simply unexplainable.

Let's imagine for a moment that the FIA said at the end of 2011: The regulations are thus: A wheel at each corner and one motive power unit. How long do you think it will be before the protests start flying in?