|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
1 Nov 2019, 07:14 (Ref:3937914) | #3701 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
I understand they've done away with those daft balconies. Or floors as some would call them.
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
1 Nov 2019, 09:09 (Ref:3937931) | #3702 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
I have no idea. I do know there is some extra materials banned from use and the minimum weight is increased 5kg to compensate. I it was up to me the fuel flow would be limited somewhat more. Sure it will cost some power, but it means everything could be a little lighter and one could reduced the tank size saving further weight. |
|
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
1 Nov 2019, 10:10 (Ref:3937947) | #3703 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,397
|
It's nice it's finally revealed, hopefully it can make the racing better without the need for DRS. There is already talk about cars looking more different from each other. No surprise there. Look at the rules changes in 09 and 14 and cars did tend to be easily distinguishable from each in design as well as livery
Not so sure about the rule that each team has to run a rookie in at least two practice sessions. It seems fine as it is with regards to the teams that do run them. We'll have to see I hope the budget cap works in making it a lot closer as well as cutting costs, otherwise little point having it |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
1 Nov 2019, 10:14 (Ref:3937952) | #3704 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
|||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
4 Nov 2019, 10:15 (Ref:3938488) | #3705 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,174
|
The good;
- Underfloor aero. - Redesigned upper surface rules. The bad; - Not enough restrictions relating to long wheelbase (should be a lot shorter). - Heavier cars? The cars should be getting lighter. - Wide front wing. Its like its just waiting to be knocked off by a small clash of cars. Front wing should be inboard the wheels. - Not a fan of the static wheel covers, they look ugly. |
||
|
4 Nov 2019, 11:03 (Ref:3938498) | #3706 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Add to the good Longer monocoque to accommodate taller drivers The bad Appear to have completely ignored the too expensive engines. The weight as you say Sodemo, up to 768kg from 743kg, going to hit 1000kg soon at this rate. (This would be a good criticism of modern cars in general, they are all getting much too fat!) |
||
|
4 Nov 2019, 11:19 (Ref:3938500) | #3707 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,884
|
I am totally unimpressed. Instead of simplifying the rules, they have further complicated them.
The pictures we have seen look like stylist's renderings. The cost cap has more holes in it than string vest. With the enhanced ground effect, the opportunity was there to get rid of wings and appendages altogether. |
||
__________________
The older I get, the faster I was. |
4 Nov 2019, 21:34 (Ref:3938628) | #3708 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
The rules changes are great, because whatever YOU think you won’t have a say so I choose to continue to ENJOY otherwise leave the building,,,
|
||
|
4 Nov 2019, 21:36 (Ref:3938629) | #3709 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
The rules changes are great, because whatever YOU think you won’t have a say so I choose to continue to ENJOY otherwise leave the building,,,
Last edited by JeremySmith; 4 Nov 2019 at 21:37. Reason: Double post |
||
|
4 Nov 2019, 23:47 (Ref:3938649) | #3710 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Agree with you here Trapeze artist: Rule changes by changing just about nothing at all. The pictures are stylist renderings, and it will be interesting to see if what appears on the grid in Melbourne has anything in common with it. |
||
|
5 Nov 2019, 03:43 (Ref:3938668) | #3711 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,861
|
I have been particularly busy so I have done nothing more than glance at the rules. I am puzzled by the comments that the renderings are stylized. What else could they show? At this point ANY design that matches the rule sets would be a fictional car.
As to not much in the way of changes. I am really not sure what people were expecting. For the most part they delivered exactly what they said they would be doing. They have moved from a flat bottom to larger ground effects tunnel. They have put in effort to simplify the front and rear wings a well as reduce or remove appendages (barge boards, etc). I think someone was saying they were expecting both front and rear wings to be gone? That puzzles me as even with a ground effects car, they would need some method to trim front rear balance via an aero solution. That means front and rear wings. Plus, they clearly didn't want to radically change the look of the cars. So large wingless 1000 HP formula fords was never going to happen. While it would have been nice to see DRS go away, there really is no way they can know for sure that this new formula will delivery (from a following close and passing perspective) as advertised. So keeping DRS is the safety net for 2020. If the formula works as expected, maybe they will be able to phase out DRS in the future. I have an open mind regarding the wheel covers and the potential to use them to display info to the fans. There was also zero indication that power unit rules would radically change. Anything and everything was speculated upon, but in the end, all reports leading up to this said nobody wanted to change them right now. I personally would have liked to have seen a simpler setup, but I expect everyone didn't want to just fully reboot the entire formula. They did make a number of relatively minor changes (more restriction on exotic engine materials, some spec parts) so there will be some redesign of the 2019 units. The costs to develop both new cars and all new power units would have been crazy. Even if the power units had a simple spec. They are trying to remove the natural advantage that power unit manufactures have by requiring them to offer up the same custom fuels and software/mapping to their customers. Larger cockpits for larger drivers is a good thing. But the growing weight of the car is not good. As to the financial stuff having a bunch of holes in it. Lets see how they enforce the rules. From my first reading there are a number of broad rules that I think could stomp out many of the suggested ways to circumvent the rules. I think 2020 is a dry run years where all of the reporting and examination will take place, but there will not be a cap in place? I personally think they will be able to find the blatant/significant cheating when/if it happens. The real question is, how aggressive will they be with respect to enforcement once the cap is in place. There are a few things that jumped out at me that I puzzle over. One is the limited number of development that can take place with respect to aero over the season. I think the are looking to stop the mid-season development arms race. The problem here is that this reminds me of the engine development token system which tried to limit power unit development (and ultimately power unit development costs). My concern here is that it will result in some teams getting the aero right and others who may have gotten it wrong not having the ability to catch up over the course of a season. The switch to a three day weekend makes some sense, but it does restrict what testing a team can do. And I am a fan of allowing teams to test when it is cost effective to do so. And I think FP1 testing of parts that they don't plan to race (or may not pass scrutineering) is a good thing. But I think that is NOT being allowed (or easy to do) in the new three day schedule. One thing that I think is making it hard when trying to compare the 2019 and 2020 regulations is that typically each year they highlight the year to year changes in red text. So it's easy to spot what is new. That was not done with 2020 due to the large number of edits. While many of the top level Article numbering (e.g. "ARTICLE 9: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM") is the same from 2019 to 202, there are a number that are not. The 2019 doc has 22 Articles and three Appendixes. The 2020 doc has 18 Articles and six Appendixes. Then within the Articles, the sub sections or paragraphs are much more different than before. I suspect there was not any section that was left untouched. They rewrote quite a bit of the technical regulations. That is a huge thing. I suspect one reason there hasn't been much extensive analysis is due to the quantity of rewording even of areas that have not been otherwise highlighted as areas of focus for 2020. Overall, I am curious to see how it all works out and am broadly happy with what I see. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
5 Nov 2019, 20:17 (Ref:3938756) | #3712 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
I'm going against the trend and saving heavier cars are better. A lot of development is done to drive the weight of the cars down. Having heavier cars no longer penalises you for a car that's a little bit tubby.
From a drivers point of view, they have more weight transfer to control. That's a new challenge. |
|
|
6 Nov 2019, 06:01 (Ref:3938816) | #3713 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,375
|
Quote:
I'm not a fan of the current "power units" but where they really, really got it hugely wrong was the restriction on development early on. Having new regulations and then limiting development is likely to result (again) in 1 or 2 teams getting it completely right and the others going with a different concept that ends up not delivering but being unable to close the gap due to the development restriction. Hopefully they've been smart enough to learn from the PU experience and have some kind of allowance in place if only for the 1st or 2nd seasons. |
|||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
6 Nov 2019, 08:02 (Ref:3938832) | #3714 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,397
|
At least we don't have multiple grid penalties like we did a couple of seasons ago
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
6 Nov 2019, 14:52 (Ref:3938880) | #3715 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,861
|
Quote:
I think teams exist on a scale that ranges from "Full understanding" to "Completely Puzzled". I am talking here about understanding that making change X results in Y performance. I am also focusing here on chassis design and setup and not power unit. So I think you have someone like Williams who are closer to the bad side of that scale. While having the money to product development parts may be a problem, if they truly understood the problem they should be able to create a solution, or at least make a big jump forward in pace even if they don't move up the grid. But yet they continue to struggle. Now there may be a core defect in the car they can't resolve until next year, but I suspect that can't account for all of their issues. I suspect Williams is lost in the wilderness. They may be throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks. And they don't have the funds to create many things to try. Haas is probably similar to Williams right now, but just better funded. Now, not to pick on someone like Williams or Haas as few teams probably really fully understand how to make the current regulations work. Some show up at the start of the season fast out of the gate. They are on the other end of the scale. This is a Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull (in that order). McLaren seems to be getting it together as well. Drop these teams into a new set of technical regulations and it is much more likely that the teams that both product quick cars AND understand "why" they are quick will produce a good solution out of the gate next year. Those that are still unable to unlock the current regulations are very likely to be just as lost in the new regulations. Some might stumble into a good solution (in hindsight that might be Haas in their first year), but as development continues they can't replicate the success as they never really understood "why" in the first place. Will the new cars be simpler in the sense that the solutions may be less complex and easier for those that are lost to find their way out of the woods? Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
6 Nov 2019, 22:43 (Ref:3938961) | #3716 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,745
|
I hope that with time and if implemented adequately, the budget cap will shrink the performance gap between teams. All things being equal, a smaller gap combined with spending limits should make it easier (financially at least) for a team lost in the woods to catch back up.
Perhaps not within a given season but over time...as it should be to be honest. And reducing the number of upgrades allowed a season while limiting spending may well prevent a top team from moving ahead too quickly as well. I do think the battlefield will move towards greater infrastructure spending/capital investments which may in time prove a greater obstacle to difference in operational budgets so this may all be moot...the more things change and all that. Anyways, i do really like how the new cars/renderings look. For sure the look will change but if all that comes out of these changes is a more aesthetically pleasing nose and less fiddly bits then the new rule set will be a big win for me. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
7 Nov 2019, 10:20 (Ref:3939041) | #3717 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,397
|
I hope the budget caps work in closing the field up too, otherwise it will be seen as a failure in that regard.
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
7 Nov 2019, 14:09 (Ref:3939068) | #3718 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,861
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
|||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Nov 2019, 22:59 (Ref:3939132) | #3719 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,745
|
Indeed time will tell.
Bit of a side question...the rules have been ratified but have all the teams signed up to the new Concorde agreement? |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
8 Nov 2019, 00:34 (Ref:3939148) | #3720 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,228
|
Is the Concorde Agreement still alive?
Last edited by bjohnsonsmith; 8 Nov 2019 at 00:40. |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
8 Nov 2019, 00:54 (Ref:3939152) | #3721 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Apparently not. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...er-draft-given The current agreement runs to the end of the 2020 season BJ. I think the boards of Mercedes and Ferrari may yet have a bit to say about the cost-cap rules and the meddling in their affairs. Add Honda and Renault too. |
||
|
8 Nov 2019, 16:09 (Ref:3939255) | #3722 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,745
|
im not to worried about Merc leaving..even if they do, they will remain an engine supplier most notably with Mclaren running from 2021 to 2024. also, given the size of their investment, i dont see them leaving until they break a few more records.
Ferrari always talk about leaving and while it would be tragic to see them go, my personal feeling is that they are just not as popular as they once were. 10 years of staff and driver turnover, so many many mistakes at the track, and an aging fan base/tifosi...they probably still have the largest fan base (judging by the amount of kit you see trackside) but where would that fan base go if Ferrari left F1? leaving on a down note does not necessarily encourage your fans to follow you over to another series. no one follows the kid who took their ball home crying. that kid just gets beat up and their ball taken away so the game can continue without them. this might be weird to say, but if they do go and it becomes RB-Honda (max fighting for titles) and Mclaren (return to glory and/or a LH return to Mclaren) at the top then that might be the single best thing to happen to F1. all that said though, i hope Merc and Ferrari stay...i would like to see them have to honestly compete against teams with similar budgets and with the possibility of getting beaten on track. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
8 Nov 2019, 16:27 (Ref:3939258) | #3723 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,397
|
If Mercedes do pull out from running their own team, would Toto do a Brawn and buy the team from the manufacturer? Who knows, I wouldn’t rule it out
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
8 Nov 2019, 16:33 (Ref:3939260) | #3724 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,228
|
Have Mercedes suggested they may leave F1?
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
8 Nov 2019, 16:43 (Ref:3939263) | #3725 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,397
|
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |