BBC "Exclusive": Pat Head & Rory Byrne propose "biggest ... change since 1983" in '13

[ASCII Man]

I wouldn't get rid of pit-stops, to be honest.
Just the mandatory compound change really needs to go.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Fox89

In the ways that I suggested. Removing performance differential is only fixing one half of the problem, the other half is allowing cars to get close enough to each other.

Remember: if you have car A and car B 0.5s apart and doing exactly the same laptime, car B will have the slipstream advantage on every straight. So let's assume that all the aero problems are fixed and the cars can run very close together, we then end up looking at performance differential:

scenario 1 (Significant difference): Car B is much faster than Car A. It successfully gets in the slipstream of Car A, passes, and then disappears into the distance because it has a significant raw pace advantage.

scenario 2 (Little difference): Car B is of a very similar raw speed to Car A. Car B gets in the slipstream of Car A and overtakes. Car B cannot get away as the performance difference is too small. Car A now has the slipstream and the possibility to overtake.

However, if cars equally matched and not closely behind each other, overtaking won't happen. If driver A has a five seconds margin to equally matched driver B, he won't have to fear an overtaking attempt. Only a Safety Car deployment or other artificial means could bring driver B in a position to do an overtaking attempt.

It should be mentioned that in your first scenario it appears that one car simply outclasses another one and hence the overtaking manoeuvre you describe will occur rarely. That shouldn't and won't be the consequence of having performance differentials caused by regulatory frameworks lacking an absolute solution. The consequence will be (relative) changing of paces throughout the entire race, just it used to happen in the turbo era when fuel consumption was limited and in 2005 when tyre changes were banned. One should also recognize that the ban on mid-race refuelling is thereby a step in the right direction.

The problem Formula 1 faces is the impossibility to attain the performance differential required for a successful overtaking manoeuvre. With the 2009 aero regulations the OWG aimed for a performance differential of 1 to 1,5 second(s) being enough for an overtaking manoeuvre. But if an one second delay is enough to make a driver start from the seventh instead of second starting row, no successful aero change will make overtaking to happen frequently.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

no successful aero change will make overtaking to happen frequently.

Does this statement only apply to aero changes that are likely to happen only in F1? There are many examples of aero or aero changes that do actually make overtaking much easier. There are many examples where aero isn't even a factor.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Does this statement only apply to aero changes that are likely to happen only in F1? There are many examples of aero or aero changes that do actually make overtaking much easier. There are many examples where aero isn't even a factor.

My statement doesn't apply to aero not being a factor or which artificially facilitate overtake (by using aero that actually generate lift instead of downforce).

[Fox89]

However, if cars equally matched and not closely behind each other, overtaking won't happen

Yeeees it will. And here's why:

the consequence will be (relative) changing of paces throughout the entire race

It doesn't matter whether cars are outclassing the others or whether they are all nearly identical. Different driving styles, rates of fuel consumption, driver errors, tyre wear and so on and so forth will always allow one car to catch or escape from another. So, in my scenario, cars wont outclass each other, but there will still be advantages and disadvantages for each driver at different phases of the race, allowing them to grow or shrink the gap.

It should be mentioned that in your first scenario it appears that one car simply outclasses another one and hence the overtaking manoeuvre you describe will occur rarely. That shouldn't and won't be the consequence

I'm pretty sure it will. How many times did we see exactly that this year? Red Bull 5 seconds ahead of everyone else. Then McLaren and Ferrari 5 seconds ahead of Renault and Mercedes, who were 5 ahead of Williams and Force India. On a normal race, when you have cars with big performance differences that is exactly what you will see every time: the faster ones filter to the front and then disappear into the distance.

[Marbot]

Luca is unhappy......again.

President Luca di Montezemolo said: "We're not going to build four-cylinder engines for our road cars. A four-cylinder engine seems a bit weak for the pinnacle of motorsport. Why could not agree on a turbo V6? If there is the slightest possibility of delaying the four-cylinder, I'll try to get it. I sense a possibility and we need to drive to do it. "

[Another Bob]

Ahhh, I could grow to like this Luca fellow.

If we have a set standard fuel flow supply system like they are talking about why do we have to set any other engine parameters apart from engine weight?

Think about it, it's all about engineering the most fuel efficient engine possible, (I said efficient not conservative), if someone wanted to build a 6 litre V16 revving at 7000rpm and it was happy being fed the fuel allowed and the engine was a competitive weight so be it. Someone else may think a 3 cylinder 1500cc twin inter-cooled turbo revving at 25,000rpm may be a winner, if the engine mass is not underweight and its happy with the fuel flow system and you think its a winner go for it.

What could be more relevant to road cars than this?

Why do we need to regulate down to the last nut and bolt, innovation is what F1 is meant to be all about.

[Sodemo]

Why not allow;

- V6 turbo 1.4L
- Straight 4 turbo 1.6L

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Why not allow;

- V6 turbo 1.4L
- Straight 4 turbo 1.6L

Because even I know that an inline 4 will be just as powerful and will use less fuel than a V6.

I've no doubt that Luca will want everyone to use V6's.

[duke_toaster]

I'd consider allowing both V6 and inline four units at 1600cc, with different rev limits a la Super 2000 touring cars. You could even dyno test the engines. The issue is V6 engines are more theatrical for F1, but they are rarely used at that sort of size - the only 1600cc V6 car I can think of is the early 90s Mitsubishi lump that got stuck in the Lancer and might be plodding around in a few Protons?

I see advantages to both V6s (show, prestige manufacturers) and I4s (road relevancy) exclusively; I suppose allowing both is a reasonable compromise.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I see advantages to both V6s (show, prestige manufacturers) and I4s (road relevancy) exclusively; I suppose allowing both is a reasonable compromise.

An I3 makes a much better 'noise' than an I4, so why not I3's? Come to think of it, V2's, V3's, V4's, I5's and V5's do too! I guess that the important thing isn't what they sound like, nor should it be.

To add to this, Yamaha's flat plane crank I4 sounds awesome!!!!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Fox89

Yeeees it will. And here's why:



It doesn't matter whether cars are outclassing the others or whether they are all nearly identical. Different driving styles, rates of fuel consumption, driver errors, tyre wear and so on and so forth will always allow one car to catch or escape from another. So, in my scenario, cars wont outclass each other, but there will still be advantages and disadvantages for each driver at different phases of the race, allowing them to grow or shrink the gap.

Isn't this illusionary? As cars become increasingly identical, one absolute point of perfection is provided. Not only regarding the strategy and setup, but also regarding the driving style that suits the car best. With cars being (de facto) standardized variables as fuel consumption and tyre wear will be more or less identical.

Until 2006 we saw Bridgestone and Michelin competitors having (relative) paces throughout the entire race, particularly during the Hungarian Grand Prix. However, from 2007 all competitors are on the same tyres. Since then there were no major differences in tyre wear and hence pace, other than artificially created by the mandatory compound change. Some teams and drivers had no troubles with adopting to the new tyres (as the new tyres already suited them), some had to adopt and some were really struggling. But those struggling with the adaptation were not to be overtaken, because they were already behind.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I'd consider allowing both V6 and inline four units at 1600cc, with different rev limits a la Super 2000 touring cars. You could even dyno test the engines. The issue is V6 engines are more theatrical for F1, but they are rarely used at that sort of size - the only 1600cc V6 car I can think of is the early 90s Mitsubishi lump that got stuck in the Lancer and might be plodding around in a few Protons?

I see advantages to both V6s (show, prestige manufacturers) and I4s (road relevancy) exclusively; I suppose allowing both is a reasonable compromise.

With just allowing 4ILs and V6s, Formula 1 will actually have two different classes. If multiple engine configurations are to be allowed, the only justifiable compromise would be to allow all engine configurations.

[duke_toaster]

It wouldn't be any more a case of two classes than the situation in Super 2000 with multiple configurations and fuels permitted, the option of 1000cc 4-cyl or 1200cc 2-cyl in Superbikes, or F1 in 1988 when both 1500cc turbo and 3500cc naturally aspirated engines were permitted.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

It wouldn't be any more a case of two classes than the situation in Super 2000 with multiple configurations and fuels permitted, the option of 1000cc 4-cyl or 1200cc 2-cyl in Superbikes, or F1 in 1988 when both 1500cc turbo and 3500cc naturally aspirated engines were permitted.

And those examples show that parity among inherently different and regulated classes can only be achieved with a complex, opaque and artificial set of rules. A working alternative would be to allow any engine configuration and set practical, soft boundaries to control performance parameters.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

And those examples show that parity among inherently different and regulated classes can only be achieved with a complex, opaque and artificial set of rules. A working alternative would be to allow any engine configuration and set practical, soft boundaries to control performance parameters.

In an ideal world, that would be amazing, and I totally agree that an open engine formula would be extremely interesting and offer great variety. However at the moment we aren't living in an ideal world, we are in a global recession, so spending has to be cut, which means F1 has to cut stuff too, and I doubt an engine spending war is what the beancounters want who are in charge of the F1 team accounts.

[TRuss]

I'm stoked on the the new rules proposal. I haven't said that regarding F1 since...never. I've only been watching since '94 though.

And to Mr. Montezemolo; If you want to race cars with engines more akin to the architecture to those of your road cars there is always LeMans. Who wouldn't love to see a Ferrari proto again?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

In an ideal world, that would be amazing, and I totally agree that an open engine formula would be extremely interesting and offer great variety. However at the moment we aren't living in an ideal world, we are in a global recession, so spending has to be cut, which means F1 has to cut stuff too, and I doubt an engine spending war is what the beancounters want who are in charge of the F1 team accounts.

This all makes sense with the assumption that a free set of rules will cause costs to rise. But I disagree. With free set of rules, lacking an absolute point of perfection, designing an engine is not only a matter of development, but also of strategy and human instincts.

[wnut]

This article describing the changes to the cars in 1998 prvides an insight into design compromise.

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00289.html

Note the commentd wrt front wings.

[TrapezeArtist]

How about completely free engines and no wings or ground-effect? The need for power would be limited by the ability to transmit it to the road. Thus the preferred engine would (I would expect) be fairly large capacity, torquey and relatively slow revving. Throw in some restrictions on exotic materials, and a fuel limit if you must.

As others have said, the current penchant for regulating everything down to the last molecule results in a single solution to the problem of making the fastest car. More freedom of rules opens up the possibility of multiple solutions. Taking the above proposal, one team might go for power, giving them speed on the straight at the expense of tyre wear and driveability. Another team might opt for a nimbler car that can look after it's tyres, at the expense of a bit of straight-line speed.

[Marbot]

Maybe in an ideal world, but some would be loath to throw their wind tunnels on the scrap heap.

And there's many that would say it's only the aerodynamics that keep F1 at the pinnacle.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

How about completely free engines and no wings or ground-effect? The need for power would be limited by the ability to transmit it to the road.

Exactly my thought.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Maybe in an ideal world, but some would be loath to throw their wind tunnels on the scrap heap.

And there's many that would say it's only the aerodynamics that keep F1 at the pinnacle.

Aerodynamics would still be an important factor, but for other purposes.

[Marbot]

"completely free engines" ?

[duke_toaster]

Yeah, could build a nice car with off the shelf parts, just make sure the donor vehicle is a Eurofighter ...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Yeah, could build a nice car with off the shelf parts, just make sure the donor vehicle is a Eurofighter ...

And that's why the regulations are as tight as they are.