Improving F1

[Pingguest]

I was not referring to posts a document for graduation; the English word 'theorem' might have been a better option.
Arghh, those bloody foreigners not having English as their first language visiting this discussion board!!!!

[mythoughtsareracing]

I love that all the "gimmicks" implemented by F1 were to produce more exciting racing (i.e. on-track overtaking) for spectators because they were apparently bored w/ the single-file parades.
When the "gimmicks" succeed in their goal, hard-liner F1 fans are ****ed off? You're getting what you were screaming for, people!


I see the point about the tires forcing drivers to conserve tires and not go balls-out, which is what defines racing to many people.
Personally, I like what Pirelli has done with the tires and the tire strategies that the teams/drivers need to employ as a result. In my mind, conserving your equipment is part of racing. You burn up your tires quickly by going 10/10 from the green flag, you're going to pay the consequences later in the race. The goal is to drive the fastest over the specified number of laps, not the fastest for a single lap.
This ain't Time Attack.

I'm on the fence about DRS. In my mind, this is the most gimmicky of F1 gimmicks, but it also achieves the intended purpose. In addition, knowing that the driver defending against someone passing w/ DRS has the ability to use the same DRS to pass again in the next DRS zone makes it somewhat a level playing field.
Unless it's a Marussia that gets passed. Why do they even bother w/ DRS?

KERS is great. KERS is the one "gimmick" in F1 that needs to stay put, even expanded. It's also the one technology in modern Formula One that has a direct translation to the vehicles that common schlubs like us get to drive. (No offense to any pro drivers that get to drive better equipment than us poor schlubs!)
I think FIA should let the teams "go crazy with KERS" as a previous poster put it. Perhaps put a cap on the max amount of energy that could be stored. I could see teams developing flywheel-based KERS systems that would regenerate whenever the driver lifts, keeping the system charged close to full capacity nearly all the time, even when the driver has the KERS button mashed all the time.

As far as engines harking back to the 1000hp monsters of yesteryear, that would be cool, but it's also not modern. The world of internal combustion engines has evolved beyond the "no replacement for displacement" mantra. More power and efficiency gains are made with electronic control of FAS ratios & timing, direct injection, and other technologies that auto manufacturers are implementing in passenger cars today.
Will forthcoming V6 lumps sound different? Sure. Will they sound bad? That depends on what's pleasing to your ear. I enjoy the sound of a high-strung Lamborghini V12 as much as I like the throaty grumble of a V8 engine. A good motor will sound good, regardless of whether the engine note is aesthetically pleasing to you personally.

If you want to reminisce and listen to the motors from the cars you fondly recall from your childhood, then go to a F1 Historics race or a festival like Goodwood or Monterrey. Those exist because old-school race fans want to hear the glorious sounds, feel the vibration and smell the exotic explosiviveness of classic racing machinery. You're not going to hear those engines sounding that way in modern Formula One. Get over it.

[Paradise City]

Clear out all the 'quick fix' solutions. I don't mind KERS too much but the rest of it can go. All that and done in tandem with dealing with the question of aerodynamics once and for all so these cars can pass each other.

Don't need those ugly wings and sky-high noses and that horrible gaping yawn on some of these cars, streamline the scaffolding in other words and put controls on the dimensions of the car.

[BSchneiderFan]

A minor thing, I suppose, but I don't understand why the regulations have to specify the format of the engine. The displacement, sure, and whether or not the induction is forced; but if someone wants to run a flat-four and someone else wants to run a V6, what's the problem in allowing a bit of diversity?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

A minor thing, I suppose, but I don't understand why the regulations have to specify the format of the engine. The displacement, sure, and whether or not the induction is forced; but if someone wants to run a flat-four and someone else wants to run a V6, what's the problem in allowing a bit of diversity?

You can't have that in a standardised category such as F1. Any such innovative thinking is not allowed which has led to the situation of gimmicks being needed to try and spice it up for the audience.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

A minor thing, I suppose, but I don't understand why the regulations have to specify the format of the engine. The displacement, sure, and whether or not the induction is forced; but if someone wants to run a flat-four and someone else wants to run a V6, what's the problem in allowing a bit of diversity?

If someone wants to build a flat four, then they will also want someone to build a chassis for it. No one can afford to be stuck with a W12 engine (remember the 'LIFE' team?) that's quite interesting from a technical point of view, but as slow as hell on the track. So what we have now, or will have, are V6 engines with the mounting holes all in the same place, so that if an engine manufacturer leaves, or joins F1, then there are plenty of options available for the teams and the engine manufacturers with regard to the compatibility of both of their products.

[cerdic]

It might be sensible for everyone to have all their holes in the same place but isn't it just a bit boring? I remember watching F1 in the late 70s and early 80s and having different types of engines was great.

I feel the regulations should be freed up in many areas. While I understand the potential cost implications, if it makes the racing more interesting the sport will become more popular which will encourage more sponsors.

The one area that really needs sorting is aero. Cars need to be able to overtake. Either have regulations that massively reduce aero or allow DRS to be used wherever the driver wants.

Finally, to lob a left field grenade of an idea into the discussion, get rid of qualifying! Why are motor racing grids always arranged with the fastest car at the front? It doesn't happen in other sports. Usain Bolt isn't given a head start. The favourite at the Grand National doesn't start in front of all the other horses. But in motor racing we work out which car is fastest and allow it to start in front of all the others! Then complain when that car drives off into the distance!

If the regulations allow cars to overtake we can arrange the grids in reverse championship order. Whoever is bottom of the championship starts on pole and the leader starts at the back. That should provide plenty of entertainment and make the drivers work for their money!

[BtccLee]

This thread has come up with some very sensible discussion. I like F1 how it is now in terms of the sport of Motor Racing. The finances need dealing with though. And fast.

Personally I am just glad that the first discussion at each race is who will be the fastest as opposed to contemplating tragedies from previous meetings like the fans used to in the "better" ( in some people's opinion) eras.

[Paradise City]

I've made the suggestion a couple of times.

Ban all team to driver radio communications during the race. All of it. No read outs even. Pitboards only.

Race control can keep a radio channel to the driver open to alert the driver to any on-track emergencies but no team to driver radio communications whatsoever.

That'd make strategy very knife edge, nervous and unpredictable if drivers are reduced to once again squinting at pitboards and making their own calls should conditions suddenly change.

[JeremySmith]

Get rid of Bernie it's time...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by cerdic

It might be sensible for everyone to have all their holes in the same place but isn't it just a bit boring? I remember watching F1 in the late 70s and early 80s and having different types of engines was great.

Indeed it was, but it was also a relatively cheap proposition at that time. Unless F1 cuts the cost of competing in F1, then we are likely to stay with regulations that limit, to some degree, what can be done with regard to technical improvements.

However, the 2014 regulations, to my mind, are about as open as the regulations should be if the cost of competing in F1 is not going to go down. Even with those regulations there are fears that F1 might have opened the regulations up just that bit too far for around 50% of the grid. Remember that more than 50% of the grid couldn't give a rats ass what sort of engine they use as long as its relatively cheap and relatively competitive. Fingers crossed that we see 11 teams on the grid for next season.

[F1Pete]

Since 1976 regulations were brought up earlier....bring back an updated version of the 6 wheeled Tyrrel P34!

When was the last time a car was radically different from any other?? I liked the days when a team introduced something totally new, yet unproven. Another example was the Renault Turbo (I think it was Renault).

[Casper]

We are back to that old hoary problem of costs. It is the technology that is driving up costs so I say again , is F1 a technology racing series or a RACE series that is determined by the talent of the drivers?

Take the trinkets away and the costs will dive, they can't continue to spend money on pointless aero development which is where a lot of it goes during the season I would think and on the other hand bleat about costs. If it is to stay the way it is then everyone shuts up, spends what they have and gets on with it.

To do that is a path to boredom and falling values as a racing category but I suspect there are too many pigs at the trough to reverse the path now unless Bernie's successor can see the light. It is quite clear that the discussion here does not understand the systemic problems that have been built into the series through self interest of those involved and have along the way totally disregarded the value of the series as a race series for the audience.

Aero is not the total answer to the cars passing each other on the track. Fix the systemic issues and thinking and entertainment will follow.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by F1Pete

Since 1976 regulations were brought up earlier....bring back an updated version of the 6 wheeled Tyrrel P34!

One of the reasons why Tyrell dropped the idea was that Goodyear were unwilling to develop the odd sized tyres for that car because, ironically, it was concentrating on its more conventional tyres that were battling with the other conventionally tyred cars further up the grid.

Tyrell never really recovered from that. The 1984 season saw them as the only team not using a turbo powered car. They also got themselves banned for 3 races for illegal use of ballast and were thrown out of the championship. Also with some irony, this was what the rest of the teams had been hoping for in order to have a unanimous vito on plans to reduce fuel allowance for their turbo cars for the following season, and thereby finally sounding the death knell for non-turbo engined cars.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

A minor thing, I suppose, but I don't understand why the regulations have to specify the format of the engine. The displacement, sure, and whether or not the induction is forced; but if someone wants to run a flat-four and someone else wants to run a V6, what's the problem in allowing a bit of diversity?

Engine configuration is not a minor issue. You should look up how Ferrari made itself non-competitive for half of a decade in the 90s because they insisted on using a V12 3.5L naturally aspirated engine when FIA was trying to make everyone use a V8. Redesigning the engine from a clean sheet can take years. At least Ferrari being F1 team first stayed. Others were not so patient. For, example Porsche quit supplying its V12 engine. Standard engine type is to make sure that all engine companies start the development on equal footing and no one quits because of a costly design mistake early on.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by cerdic

It might be sensible for everyone to have all their holes in the same place but isn't it just a bit boring? I remember watching F1 in the late 70s and early 80s and having different types of engines was great.

I remember the engine variety in early 90s was also huge. Honda, Mugen, Porsche, Renault, Ford, Yamaha, Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc. V8, V10, and V12. I really didn't like that era. Anyone without Honda or Renault was screwed. Getting hands on a good engine was hard for midfield teams and performance deltas were huge. In fact, I think right now, the engine situation is much better. Every team, except Marussia, has access to a race and championship winning engine. There is nothing boring about having only 3-4 engines of the same type. The competition in chassis development is far more interesting IMHO.

I disagree about getting rid of qualifying. In F1, qualifying is a big show and almost like a part of the race. Any attempt at putting faster cars behind sound gimmicky to me. May be the race organizers should consider instead splitting at least some 2 hour races into two 1 hour sprint races, with the starting grid positions determined by each driver's best and second best qualifying lap time. Getting pole position for both races would be much harder. This format is used in Australian V8 Supercars.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed it was, but it was also a relatively cheap proposition at that time. Unless F1 cuts the cost of competing in F1, then we are likely to stay with regulations that limit, to some degree, what can be done with regard to technical improvements.

However, the 2014 regulations, to my mind, are about as open as the regulations should be if the cost of competing in F1 is not going to go down. Even with those regulations there are fears that F1 might have opened the regulations up just that bit too far for around 50% of the grid. Remember that more than 50% of the grid couldn't give a rats ass what sort of engine they use as long as its relatively cheap and relatively competitive. Fingers crossed that we see 11 teams on the grid for next season.

I think that it is incorrect that the teams need to cut costs.
The cost they need to cut is the percentages that go to Bernie and the bankers that have paid him an exorbitant amount of money to "own" the series. It is time the teams had direct access to the money the series is generating and not losing money putting on the show!

[NaBUru38]

First of all, much cheaper cars. So allow customer cars, as long as they are 20kg heavier or so. Mid-pack teams should be abled to race for 20-30 million a season.

Allow much less fuel, like 80-100 liters per race. That will force teams to put less aero downforce on cars.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

First of all, much cheaper cars. So allow customer cars, as long as they are 20kg heavier or so. Mid-pack teams should be abled to race for 20-30 million a season.

Allow much less fuel, like 80-100 liters per race. That will force teams to put less aero downforce on cars.

This will change F1 irreversibly, and not in a good way. Why spend tenths of millions on chassis manufacturing when you can buy a customer chassis? Eventually every team, except for the top 3-4 teams, will lose its chassis manufacturing capability.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think that it is incorrect that the teams need to cut costs.
The cost they need to cut is the percentages that go to Bernie and the bankers that have paid him an exorbitant amount of money to "own" the series. It is time the teams had direct access to the money the series is generating and not losing money putting on the show!

The teams now get 60% of a substantial amount of money created by Ecclestone's ability to get deals done with people who want to spend a substantial amount of money on a GP. The FIA 'owns' the series, CVC have the 'rights' to the 'show'.

It's interesting that the teams never make an offer to own the series outright for themselves. They know that 60% of what Ecclestone brings in, is a lot more than the 100% that they could ever create for themselves. The phrase 'Don't bite the hand that feeds you' springs to mind.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The teams now get 60% of a substantial amount of money created by Ecclestone's ability to get deals done with people who want to spend a substantial amount of money on a GP. The FIA 'owns' the series, CVC have the 'rights' to the 'show'.

It's interesting that the teams never make an offer to own the series outright for themselves. They know that 60% of what Ecclestone brings in, is a lot more than the 100% that they could ever create for themselves. The phrase 'Don't bite the hand that feeds you' springs to mind.

Much as I want to despise Bernie, I have to give credit where's it due. He promised the FIA and the teams that he would substantially increase the income generated by GP racing, and he did that, and then some.

The problem is, for an old fogey like me, there's no going back. Oh how I long for a varied entry list , just for one race. Or a one-off non-championship race put on by a renegade promoter, just to spite him. Won't happen, can't happen.

[stripedcat]

I am think I am pretty much of a mind that DRS is wrong for F1 now. Sadly, it is used as a sticking plaster for the old "dirty air problem". I think that on some tracks it's implemented better - but it does feel "artificial". I think we want to see cars be able to get alongside one another, but then have to fight it out in the braking zone of the corners. Simply pressing a button and "whoosh" doesn't feel right.

A lot of the Tilkedromes look terrible. Here's the irony with them - they seem to have massive straights and yet it's still very difficult to race on them and hence the DRS. I suspect that they probably look okay in a CAD program, but in real life they look some dreary. A lot of them don't have much elevation(a possible consequence of the CAD program, perhaps?) and that is a problem. Likewise with bringing back the use of banked corners in F1(remember Indy's one and that seemed to allow slipstreaming without DRS).

I don't think that a tyre war would help. It would bring lap times down and we get more modifications to the car and circuits to slow things down. Plus, F1 needs to cut costs.

I think scrapping the new safety car procedure, which allows the lapped cars to unlap themselves, would be good. It slows things down and isn't needed.

Likewise I do think that scrapping the blue flags would improve racing now. Getting cars to overtake the backmarkers seems like a good idea. Plus, it is a skill that F1 drivers need to show.

I don't know if the whole corporate culture of F1 helps. Perhaps looking at the way other race car series do things might help out. Like NASCAR and BTCC. I don't know if opening up the paddock or something like that can be done nowadays.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

I don't know if opening up the paddock or something like that can be done nowadays.

Surely the cost of that many pairs of wire-cutters would be totally prohibitive?

[MarkG]

Dramatically reduce wing dimensions, raise the cars about an inch, one set of tyres for use in qually and the race (plus wets and intermediates of course). Other than that, let them design the cars as they wish to encourage innovation.

[Paradise City]

I hate that unlapping cars after the safety car. Are nominations closed for the FIA Presidency? I'd have alot work to do