[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

More power, less downforce please
http://gordonkirby.com/categories/co..._is_no446.html

As ever an excellent, comprehensive article from Gordon Kirby, with a constructive look at F1, IndyCar and NASCAR.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

More power, less downforce please
http://gordonkirby.com/categories/co..._is_no446.html

There is a rock of sence in what Gordon Kirby has written.

I have for some time believed that the only way to open up regulations is to put a restriction on the cost of racing and car construction. Restricting downforce can also be achieved with some clever rules. Large rear tyres would also help to restrict downforce as well but you have also to ensure the engines have more torque/power than the rest of the car can handle.

I have not been a fan of spec car racing in all but the most basic of classes for some time as identical cars will all be fast or slow in the same places meaning there is no real performance difference between the cars.

If you have a multi chassis formula it will allow cars to have performance differences around any given track even if the actual lap times are similar. Some cars will be better under braking while others might have greater straight line speed while another might be very good in slow corners etc.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

There is a rock of sence in what Gordon Kirby has written.

I have for some time believed that the only way to open up regulations is to put a restriction on the cost of racing and car construction. Restricting downforce can also be achieved with some clever rules. Large rear tyres would also help to restrict downforce as well but you have also to ensure the engines have more torque/power than the rest of the car can handle.

I have not been a fan of spec car racing in all but the most basic of classes for some time as identical cars will all be fast or slow in the same places meaning there is no real performance difference between the cars.

If you have a multi chassis formula it will allow cars to have performance differences around any given track even if the actual lap times are similar. Some cars will be better under braking while others might have greater straight line speed while another might be very good in slow corners etc.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As ever an excellent, comprehensive article from Gordon Kirby, with a constructive look at F1, IndyCar and NASCAR.

What power do you believe should have a present F1?
1500 HP?

[miatanut]

I've never understood the "F1 needs more power" argument.

The DFV gave us years of absolutely FABULOUS racing, with less than 500 HP.

The problem is now the cars have too much grip, and 500 HP is nothing when you are pushing around that much aero drag. Halve (or less) the downforce and you will more or less halve the drag, and for straight line speed, it's like having several hundred more horsepower.

I think the going back to bias ply tires is a little extreme. I love four wheel drifts, but technology should march on, and radials are more advanced than bias ply tires. The back ends would still hang out any time a driver felt under pressure. They just wouldn't have the cool driving sideways attitude at every turn.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

What power do you believe should have a present F1?
1500 HP?

Its not the actual HP that counts but a mixture of torque, power and grip levels.
In the current F1 situation the power to grip ratio is giving us a lot more sideways moments. I suspect there is more development in the power units and as long as tyre grip and down force do not develop faster than the power units I suspect we will have interesting racing.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I've never understood the "F1 needs more power" argument.

The DFV gave us years of absolutely FABULOUS racing, with less than 500 HP.

The problem is now the cars have too much grip, and 500 HP is nothing when you are pushing around that much aero drag. Halve (or less) the downforce and you will more or less halve the drag, and for straight line speed, it's like having several hundred more horsepower.

I think the going back to bias ply tires is a little extreme. I love four wheel drifts, but technology should march on, and radials are more advanced than bias ply tires. The back ends would still hang out any time a driver felt under pressure. They just wouldn't have the cool driving sideways attitude at every turn.

500hp, hard tyres, no aero, no assistance from electronics and steel brakes makes for interesting racing. No radios meant drivers had to manage it on their own which would be a novel concept these days. Better or worse? That is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Pingguest]

Without the introduction of the current V6T-engines Renault and Mercedes-Benz would have left Formula One, as last year's V8-engines were dinosaurs. Do not expect any manufacturer to stay in Formula One if this series is turned into an open-wheel version of NASCAR.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Better or worse? That is in the eyes of the beholder.

How can there be any question if it was better?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Without the introduction of the current V6T-engines Renault and Mercedes-Benz would have left Formula One, as last year's V8-engines were dinosaurs. Do not expect any manufacturer to stay in Formula One if this series is turned into an open-wheel version of NASCAR.

The manufacturers were not involved in F1 for many years, and frankly it was better without them!

As long as F1 can attract a huge audience and provide a marketing vehicle for the manufacturers they will be there, currently F1 is being held hostage, and ruined by said manufacturers.

[wnut]

Interesting piece regarding the effect of brake by wire on Vettel:

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28674.html

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

The manufacturers were not involved in F1 for many years, and frankly it was better without them!

As long as F1 can attract a huge audience and provide a marketing vehicle for the manufacturers they will be there, currently F1 is being held hostage, and ruined by said manufacturers.

There have been multiple engine manufacturers involved in F1 since the mid '80s, the difference now is the regulations demand that if a team requests a supply of engines, then a manufacturer must be willing to provide them if they are not already supplying too many outfits, e.g. we have Ferrari supplying Sauber and Marussia and Mercedes supplying Force India and McLaren.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

500hp, hard tyres, no aero, no assistance from electronics and steel brakes makes for interesting racing. No radios meant drivers had to manage it on their own which would be a novel concept these days. Better or worse? That is in the eyes of the beholder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daUJc70CjhA



cf. Comments at the end

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

The manufacturers were not involved in F1 for many years, and frankly it was better without them!

As long as F1 can attract a huge audience and provide a marketing vehicle for the manufacturers they will be there, currently F1 is being held hostage, and ruined by said manufacturers.

In what way do the engine manufacturers effectively rule Formula One?

The concept of Formula One as a marketing tool only is outdated. In the current economic situation stakeholders need more to justify their presence and thus expenditures.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In what way do the engine manufacturers effectively rule Formula One?

The concept of Formula One as a marketing tool only is outdated. In the current economic situation stakeholders need more to justify their presence and thus expenditures.

The engine manufacturers determined the current PU configuration with batteries and KERS to try and legitimize the fraud they are perpetrating on their customers and the environment with batteries and KERS by legitimizing it at the pinnacle of motor racing!

[wnut]

Is this the driving standard of modern F1 drivers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opzzn9sl1kU

Alexander Rossi at Circuit of the Americas in a Lotus 49.

Point and squirt and crunching the box!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

The engine manufacturers determined the current PU configuration with batteries and KERS to try and legitimize the fraud they are perpetrating on their customers and the environment with batteries and KERS by legitimizing it at the pinnacle of motor racing!

To get your point clear, could you explain this a bit more?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

The engine manufacturers determined the current PU configuration with batteries and KERS to try and legitimize the fraud they are perpetrating on their customers and the environment with batteries and KERS by legitimizing it at the pinnacle of motor racing!

One of my favorites is "Do you know how much environmental destruction lithium mining causes?!!!'

Yeah, you drill a well, like any farmer, and then evaporate the water in the sun, like people have been doing for thousands of years to harvest salt. It's hard to imagine a more benign "mining" process.

How can an approximately 1/3 reduction in fuel consumption for essentially the same lap time be a fraud? I think that is extremely impressive and definitely the sort of direction all cars need to go.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

One of my favorites is "Do you know how much environmental destruction lithium mining causes?!!!'

Yeah, you drill a well, like any farmer, and then evaporate the water in the sun, like people have been doing for thousands of years to harvest salt. It's hard to imagine a more benign "mining" process.

How can an approximately 1/3 reduction in fuel consumption for essentially the same lap time be a fraud? I think that is extremely impressive and definitely the sort of direction all cars need to go.

Lithium mines are hardly noticeable really!

LiPo batteries also contain Cadmium, Lead, Mercury and LiPF6, an organic carcinogen.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114357

Rosberg ran half the Canadian GP with a totally failed MGU-K unit and finished second 4.2 seconds behind Danni Ricc, so much for the fuel saving and energy recovery from the KERS system, it would be far more efficient and a huge performance advantage just to throw the 200 kg of rubbish over the nearest fence and go racing with the fuel limited 1.6 litre turbo!

That would however mean there was no marketing value for the engine manufacturers KERS systems though.

Allow 400kg cars without KERS to run against cars carrying KERS as a penalty! Newey found ballast more useful than KERS, and looking at Rosberg's result in Canada it probably still is!

Sorry Miatanut, I am not a convert here.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

To get your point clear, could you explain this a bit more?

Renault and Mercedes


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113363

"Never before were we so close technology-wise to the technology we need in road cars today. The engine downsizing, turbochargers and hybrid technology. That's the name of the game now in F1."

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Lithium mines are hardly noticeable really!

LiPo batteries also contain Cadmium, Lead, Mercury and LiPF6, an organic carcinogen.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114357

Rosberg ran half the Canadian GP with a totally failed MGU-K unit and finished second 4.2 seconds behind Danni Ricc, so much for the fuel saving and energy recovery from the KERS system, it would be far more efficient and a huge performance advantage just to throw the 200 kg of rubbish over the nearest fence and go racing with the fuel limited 1.6 litre turbo!

That would however mean there was no marketing value for the engine manufacturers KERS systems though.

Allow 400kg cars without KERS to run against cars carrying KERS as a penalty! Newey found ballast more useful than KERS, and looking at Rosberg's result in Canada it probably still is!

Sorry Miatanut, I am not a convert here.

Looks a lot like the Kennecott mine in SLC when I visited it. Should we stop using copper?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0DaXNiBQLU

So there wasn't a big difference on one of the most fuel-miserly tracks on the schedule. I'm sure Monza would be a different story, as that is what the systems were designed for. The energy recovery systems are the reason the cars made an almost 1/3 improvement in one year.

That's where the rubber really meets the road.

I prefer the flywheel concept. I think it's more elegant. Best of all would be just limiting the fuel, throwing the technical rules open and seeing what happened. The 2014 cars would seem like fuel pigs by comparison.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Looks a lot like the Kennecott mine in SLC when I visited it. Should we stop using copper?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0DaXNiBQLU

So there wasn't a big difference on one of the most fuel-miserly tracks on the schedule. I'm sure Monza would be a different story, as that is what the systems were designed for. The energy recovery systems are the reason the cars made an almost 1/3 improvement in one year.

That's where the rubber really meets the road.

I prefer the flywheel concept. I think it's more elegant. Best of all would be just limiting the fuel, throwing the technical rules open and seeing what happened. The 2014 cars would seem like fuel pigs by comparison.

Or Palabora South Africa, or Sunrise Damn New Mexico, anyway another dirty great open cut mine.
I hope the Bolivians maintain the ownership of their resource and reap the benefits from it, even if it ends up as another huge open cut mine, which it will, strip mine?

I think the fuel improvement is mainly due to the limitation in fuel flow and driving an economy run, than the KERs systems. The KERS comes at the cost of having to accelerate all the extra hardware, you are never going to get a 100% energy conversion and you lose when you harvest and you lose when you drive the car, it costs more energy than it generates.
If they reduced the car weight to say 450 kg and then carried the KERS unrestricted on top of the base weight it would have more credibility.

The cars would have been fuelled to the minimum in Canada, so Rosberg pretty well proved that the KERS is just window dressing.

I agree Miatanut that flywheel KERS would be more interesting as it has a higher energy density. I don't believe batteries have a long term future in cars unless the energy density can be dramatically improved, and lugging batteries around will never make a better racing car. Nice marketing sell though!

P.S. What did you think of Rossi's efforts in the Lotus 49 at Circuit of the Americas above, Miatanut?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

Renault and Mercedes


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113363

"Never before were we so close technology-wise to the technology we need in road cars today. The engine downsizing, turbochargers and hybrid technology. That's the name of the game now in F1."

Originally Posted by wnut

I think the fuel improvement is mainly due to the limitation in fuel flow and driving an economy run, than the KERs systems. The KERS comes at the cost of having to accelerate all the extra hardware, you are never going to get a 100% energy conversion and you lose when you harvest and you lose when you drive the car, it costs more energy than it generates.
If they reduced the car weight to say 450 kg and then carried the KERS unrestricted on top of the base weight it would have more credibility.

The cars would have been fuelled to the minimum in Canada, so Rosberg pretty well proved that the KERS is just window dressing.

The regulations limiting both fuel consumption as well as fuel-flow have indeed caused - more precise: guaranteed - an increased fuel-efficiency. However, no piece of legislation mandates teams to use any energy recovery system.
Even with the existence of a(n ever increasing) minimum weight renouncing the use of any energy recovery systems will provide a huge advantage in terms of weight: as the car become too light, teams opting not to use any energy recovery system will have to ballast, but can do such in any way they like and will thereby gain an incredible set-up advantage. It is generally assumed, thought, that using energy recoversy systems will (ultimately) be more energy-efficient.

With free regulations approaching a state of nature Formula Libre and thus without a minimum weight denouncing energy recovery systems might indeed provide a bigger advantage, particularly on low- and medium-speed tracks. But this does not fit the current paradigm.

[Adam43]

It also makes road cars I've had more efficient and there is not weight penalty there. I like that and the extra power they can give

Although as W O Nut once said "To put energy recovery on an F1 car is to pervert the design and corrupt its performance".

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Or Palabora South Africa, or Sunrise Damn New Mexico, anyway another dirty great open cut mine.
I hope the Bolivians maintain the ownership of their resource and reap the benefits from it, even if it ends up as another huge open cut mine, which it will, strip mine?

We have open pit mines for other things, so I don't think that is an argument against open pit mining that allows conserving energy. The Bolivian thing will be just pumping and evaporating salt water. No open pits.

Originally Posted by wnut

I think the fuel improvement is mainly due to the limitation in fuel flow and driving an economy run, than the KERs systems. The KERS comes at the cost of having to accelerate all the extra hardware, you are never going to get a 100% energy conversion and you lose when you harvest and you lose when you drive the car, it costs more energy than it generates.
If they reduced the car weight to say 450 kg and then carried the KERS unrestricted on top of the base weight it would have more credibility.

The lap times are nearly the same as last year, so it's not happening by economy runs.

I would welcome the weight reduction and unrestricted KERS scenario too.

Originally Posted by wnut

I agree Miatanut that flywheel KERS would be more interesting as it has a higher energy density. I don't believe batteries have a long term future in cars unless the energy density can be dramatically improved, and lugging batteries around will never make a better racing car. Nice marketing sell though!

I don't understand any KERS system that stores more than the largest braking event. After you've accomplished that, the rest of it is wasted weight. I'm sure a simulation would show that even storing all of the largest braking event is too much. Optimum would probably be closer to storing all of an average baking event.

Originally Posted by wnut

P.S. What did you think of Rossi's efforts in the Lotus 49 at Circuit of the Americas above, Miatanut?

Loved it, loved it, loved it!

It's been forever since I tried it, but I had GPL installed on my Mac and my first reaction was 'He's not driving that car right.' The way to drive it is to pretend you are driving it on snow. I think if they had an English test driver who was racing karts in the rain from about the time he could walk, he would have gotten more out of the car, but it did make a great demonstration of how hard they are to drive, even for a really good racing driver.

[wolfhound]

Another team boss has come out against the stupid double points rule this time its Vijay Mallya.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115373

The sooner this stupid rule goes the better.