How to fix F1?

[DaviePHD]

I think we need 24 cars,

• 8 Manufacturer Teams with 2 cars each
  8 Independent teams with 1 car each supplied by one of the manufacturers
  Independent Teams should have the current car, not a year old one.
  Independent Teams running the same set up as their supplier must run a "young driver" with less than 3yrs experience in F1.
  There should be an "Independent Teams" and "young drivers cup" but if you win it you no longer qualify for it.
  If you come last in the Manufacturers Title you are relegated to the Independents
  The winner of which is promoted on a supported ladder
  The last Independent Team also gets relegated but out of the sport
  Teams from other series can then bid for the slot (but on merit not money)

What would this achieve? well in my view what do Alfa Haas and Williams add at the moment except a Mobile Chicane?

Let's look at an alternative where instead of building slow cars for the past 2 years, Williams were running a 3rd Mercedes for George Russell? Wouldn't that have been better for everyone?

Alfa could be running Schumacher Jr in a 3rd Ferrari next year!

I think this could lead to the hungry young drivers getting into a competitive car on day 1 instead of fighting tooth and nail for the chance to drive around at the back.

We could also see new teams emerge, imagine for example 888 racing wanted to try F1, and they could do it by dipping a toe in the water by running a customer car in the Independent Championship? rather than spending a fortune to build a car which though unique would likely be crap and finishing plum last?

[S griffin]

I agree with increasing grid numbers, but not increasing the number of drivers in teams. It will make it harder for teams lower down to get a result

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Overtaking is usually produced by the variance in pace, even if it's very temporary. Without unreliability, missed shifts or vastly overpowered tyres etc, current cars produce little variance in pace, aside from tyre wear.

Originally Posted by Casper

I forgot to include in my last post the biggest thing to encourage overtaking is slower lap speeds as that lengthens the time needed to overtake in any given part of the track. Either that or lengthen the tracks to effectively do the same thing...

these 2 things for me.

my controversial contribution to this though is that i like DRS and if i have a problem its the difficulty in setting the activations zones correctly before knowing what the lap times and/or how the tires or going to behave on any given weekend.

for me, i have always assumed most passing will happen at the end of long straights so i dont think there is anything unusual about that.

and when passes do not happen at the end of the long straight, then we see a car able to more closely follow the car ahead of them for the remainder on the that lap.

the ability to be in the mirrors of the car in front of you, the tactical battle that goes on between drivers in these moments is what creates the tension and overtaking drama i am looking for....i love this!

honestly though, anything that fosters this can and will be seen by some as a 'gimmick'. others may just describe it as 'engineering'.

[S griffin]

For me a great race is not necessarily defined by how many overtakes. The thing that DRS has killed is tension. They say catching is one thing passing is another and I think that’s how it should be. Catching shouldn’t automatically mean passing, it should be up to the driver to find a way past using his skill. For sure overtaking should never be nigh on impossible, which thanks to too much aero it has been in the past, but nor should it be too easy. As I said it’s about quality not quantity

[Greem]

If we're going to keep DRS, then a simple "fix" is to time-limit the usage, akin to PTP in IndyCar (and other series). Make it available anywhere, but a given car can only have the wing open for 120 seconds during each race. Or 300 seconds, or whatever.

That way we have an extra bit of strategy, and the chance for the more ballsy drivers to try laps in "full send" mode towards the end of a race, attacking those who have no DRS left.

That prevents it being a purely engineered advantage and turns it into more of a strategic weapon, playing into the hands of those who can use it best.

[NaBUru38]

DRS is stupid, but many stupid things work. The problem is that the cars in front can't use them, and the cars behind can use them.


A solution could be to remove the 1 second rule, and instead limit activations, say once for every 6 laps.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

If we're going to keep DRS, then a simple "fix" is to time-limit the usage, akin to PTP in IndyCar (and other series). Make it available anywhere, but a given car can only have the wing open for 120 seconds during each race. Or 300 seconds, or whatever.

That way we have an extra bit of strategy, and the chance for the more ballsy drivers to try laps in "full send" mode towards the end of a race, attacking those who have no DRS left.

That prevents it being a purely engineered advantage and turns it into more of a strategic weapon, playing into the hands of those who can use it best.

I agree that something like a "push to pass" system that is both dynamic in when it can be used, but also restrained in total capacity allows for more strategic usage. Use it a bit occasionally, or save it up for the right moment for example. Right now, when and how DRS can be used is overly prescriptive.

Richard

[S griffin]

While I’m no a fan of P2P either, I do agree it is not as bad as DRS. Marcus Ericsson when he first went to Indycar said he far preferred P2P to DRS, because you couldn’t use it all the time, therefore meaning you had to work out when to use it and also without DRS zones where on the track to use it

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Greem

If we're going to keep DRS, then a simple "fix" is to time-limit the usage, akin to PTP in IndyCar (and other series). Make it available anywhere, but a given car can only have the wing open for 120 seconds during each race. Or 300 seconds, or whatever.

That way we have an extra bit of strategy, and the chance for the more ballsy drivers to try laps in "full send" mode towards the end of a race, attacking those who have no DRS left.

That prevents it being a purely engineered advantage and turns it into more of a strategic weapon, playing into the hands of those who can use it best.

Yes I think this is a much better idea than DRS. It would be great for those needing to recover from a poor start or bad grid position in the early stages and offer a great prospect for late race action too. 😀👍🏻

[Kato]

Originally Posted by Greem

If we're going to keep DRS, then a simple "fix" is to time-limit the usage, akin to PTP in IndyCar (and other series). Make it available anywhere, but a given car can only have the wing open for 120 seconds during each race. Or 300 seconds, or whatever.

That way we have an extra bit of strategy, and the chance for the more ballsy drivers to try laps in "full send" mode towards the end of a race, attacking those who have no DRS left.

That prevents it being a purely engineered advantage and turns it into more of a strategic weapon, playing into the hands of those who can use it best.

That's not a bad idea, if we are going to have a gimmick, make it more gimmicky!

[chillibowl]

Surely being able to use DRS without an activation zone and at will would just lead to LH/Merc/frontrunner just using for every straight?

Less drag in clean air would just be a further advantage to the car that is already the fastest no?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Surely being able to use DRS without an activation zone and at will would just lead to LH/Merc/frontrunner just using for every straight?

Less drag in clean air would just be a further advantage to the car that is already the fastest no?

I have been a proponent of two things that I think would help level the field a bit. Active suspension and active aero.

My logic is that the solutions today either use a combination of arcane technology (mechanical suspension) and highly specialized knowledge (aero) to highly optimize the solution. So they have to produce a car that works in a wide envelope (long straights, fast sweepers, low speed corners) but at the same time be relatively static in setup (limited changes after parc ferme).

Having active suspension and aero it allows teams to optimal solutions for less money. How would you control this to prevent it being a new money sink? Set a fixed number of sensors and actuators. Homologate them plus the processing unit that is then used to contain the code. Code and physical implementation details would be free. Aero may need to have a fixed number of surfaces that can move (or some other limitation)

Richard

[chillibowl]

For sure i agree there... A reimagining or modern apprach to active suspension and active aero would hold the public interest far more then DRS ever could.

[john ruston]

Answer,dig up most of Tilke tracks!

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Answer,dig up most of Tilke tracks!

Yes, that would probably help, I agree! And good job you said most, he has made the occasional good one. Isanbul, Sepang and COTA are his better ones

[john ruston]

Only problem is two of three are not used very often snd CoTA could have problems with dosh,
Abu Dhabi must be the worst although it cost the most!
Threading through the hotels and arena didn’t help!

[Kato]

Maybe we should go back to the source. How to fix F1? Listen to Bernie. It has got us this far after all.

[S griffin]

Bernie stayed on too long though. He seemed to be more concerned with making a mint by the end than anything else

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Kato

Maybe we should go back to the source. How to fix F1? Listen to Bernie. It has got us this far after all.

He did. But he also dug the hole the sport is in as well. F1 needs to stay far away from BE.

Richard

[Taxi645]

New cars delayed till 2023?


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...paign=widget-1

F1 is strongly denying it.

I think the only scenario where this would be desirable is when it's combined with strongly simplified power units.

[S griffin]

I hope not. Those cars are supposed to provide better racing and I would hate for everybody to wait even longer to get the racing we need

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

New cars delayed till 2023?


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...paign=widget-1

F1 is strongly denying it.

I think the only scenario where this would be desirable is when it's combined with strongly simplified power units.

I was just thinking the other day that this might happen. And I agree it would be a bad move. I also agree that the only positive reason to delay would be to sync up with a new power unit spec. But I doubt that would happen because

1. I don't think they are close on figuring that out.
2. It's likely that a new power unit specification would also trigger changes to the chassis specification/design (likely different dimensionally in both size and weight, likely different fuel capacity needs, different cooling needs, etc. lots of knock on effects on the chassis and aero design)
3. I expect teams are already very deep into 2022 designs. So a pause (to add new PSU) would mean much (not all) of that was money down the drain.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

3. I expect teams are already very deep into 2022 designs. So a pause (to add new PSU) would mean much (not all) of that was money down the drain.

Richard

Although true, this is also very relative. All money F1 teams spend is down the drain all the time. It's not as if they are building useful things like bridges that are then demolishes. They are continuously building stuff which use is very specific and shortlived. They pay their personal and they produce stuff. You don't have to pay them twice if they have to start over. Your pool of engineers will stay the same size.

I say this because this argument is often used (falsely) by teams if something doesn't suit their agenda.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Although true, this is also very relative. All money F1 teams spend is down the drain all the time. It's not as if they are building useful things like bridges that are then demolishes. They are continuously building stuff which use is very specific and shortlived. They pay their personal and they produce stuff. You don't have to pay them twice if they have to start over. Your pool of engineers will stay the same size.

I say this because this argument is often used (falsely) by teams if something doesn't suit their agenda.

Yeah, I understand. I think it can somewhat fall into the "sunk cost fallacy". But I tend to have heartburn on some of the logic with "sunk cost fallacy". I know its real, but how it is applied to some situations, I question it's logic.

It's like I walk into McDonalds and buy a Big Mac. They give me my Big Mac and I think think... "You know, I really think I want a Quarter Pounder instead." Sunk cost fallacy says... Well, you already bought it. The cash is gone. If you don't want the Big Mac, cut your losses, just dump it into the trash and buy a Quarter Pounder instead. Of course, my pockets are not infinitely deep to keep buying burger after burger while I remain hungry. I should just stop being fickle, eat the Big Mac and get on with my day and buy the Quarter Pounder tomorrow!

I think that even if they did hit pause button (and even rework the technical regulations) that whatever they came up with would be close to the 2022 regulations. And some of the R&D into the 2022 cars would carry forward. But again, teams don't have infinitely deep pockets to just retool frequently. That is why they want stable technical regulations. If you view the money already spent as an investment, then it would be good to let them get something out of it.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

2. It's likely that a new power unit specification would also trigger changes to the chassis specification/design (likely different dimensionally in both size and weight, likely different fuel capacity needs, different cooling needs, etc. lots of knock on effects on the chassis and aero design) Richard

Without doubt the PU is the biggest problem F1 has and they are truly between a rock and a hard place. To make a change still using an IC core in the system with a life span into the early 2030's places them at risk of being totally out of step with societal changes as the major nations ban or heavily restrict the use of IC engines. I would think that they will continue to use what they have now to avoid washing millions of dollars down the nearest drain in development that eventually and not to far into the future is going to be seen as ant social at the very least.