How to fix F1?

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

No loss of downforce in high speed corners here.

edit:

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

That's because there is none to begin with. And there's still loss of grip. Besides that, what does Formula Ford have to do with F1?

Zoom! 'Right over you, eh???

(btw, why is there a "loss of grip" when following each other when there's no downforce? I never experienced this reduction...... )

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Was wnut referring just to the tech.....?

But of course not. I still hafta git my two cents in regarding what Sprinkles and I enjoy. 'Still don't know why those that don't "get" F1 give it the time of day when they find it so horrible.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by wnut

You are the one advocating that F1 just stays in the dead end the current rules have produced.

I would advise you to read what I actually propose here

and here

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Precisely.

And that's great for Formula Ford. But irrelevant to F1. Unless you want to mandate spec cars, but then you cannot call it F1 anymore. And even that is not a fix at all, look across the pond for that.

[coppice]

Have you seen the F1 regs? They are so absurdly prescriptive that not only is major innovation stifled , the practical effect is that ten teams are making effectively the same car.



And , ironically , whilst FF1600 was spec in power unit , and much else besides , there was far more diversity in look and even engine position than modern F1 .

[S griffin]

FFord and F3 were the only other single seater series that allowed multi chassis.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

FFord and F3 were the only other single seater series that allowed multi chassis.

What about F2 or F5000? And I am sure there were others, too.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by coppice

Have you seen the F1 regs? They are so absurdly prescriptive that not only is major innovation stifled , the practical effect is that ten teams are making effectively the same car.

Indeed. And it's going to get even worse with the 2019 regulations.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

What about F2 or F5000? And I am sure there were others, too.

In both the 1.6L era the 2.0L era, F2 used multiple chassis before F2 was replaced by F3000 in 1985. When GP2 superseded F3000 in 2005, Dallara was chosen as chassis constructor. However, when F2 was revived from 2009-2012, which competed alongside GP2, the cars were designed by Williams Grand Prix Engineering. With GP2 being rebranded as F2 last year, Dallara continued to supply the chassis.

F5000 used multiple chassis, with Lola emerging as the dominant constructor.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

What about F2 or F5000? And I am sure there were others, too.

I meant in this century

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Indeed. And it's going to get even worse with the 2019 regulations.

It seems you would rather the field be strung out over 3 laps, instead of the current 2 lap spread in Mexico which is already dismal and bad for the show.

Initiatives to close the field are most welcome. Very, very welcome.

The top teams have far too much money to spend on incremental improvements. It makes it too difficult for teams with sensible budgets like Force India to be competitive.

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

And that's great for Formula Ford. But irrelevant to F1. Unless you want to mandate spec cars, \

Formula Ford is not a spec series ! Chassis constructors include van Diemann, Spectrum and others. You can even build your own. The use of a spaceframe chassis means you don't need an autoclave to build a Formula Ford; just a standard fabrication shop which greatly lowers the capital cost to design and build a Formula Ford.

Originally Posted by coppice

Have you seen the F1 regs? They are so absurdly prescriptive that not only is major innovation stifled , the practical effect is that ten teams are making effectively the same car.
.

To an extent.

However wheelbase is free, hence the preposterous Mercedes which is nearly 6 metres long. A maximum length rule would be most welcome.

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Indeed. And it's going to get even worse with the 2019 regulations.

The F1 rules require primitive machined aluminium uprights and nobody complains about that being low-tech. The rules require primitive metal wheels instead of contemporary carbon wheels, again no complaints. Therefore it would eminently sensible to extend these rules: require steel A-arm wishbones (what advantage do carbon fibre wishbones make to the show? ZERO), require aluminium wing endplates that don't shatter. Sensible cost-cutting measures !!!

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Formula Ford is not a spec series !

I didn't say it was. And you can read my proposals earlier in this thread.

[wnut]

F1 is supposedly the pinnacle motor racing; the current problem with F1 is that the cars are impossible to race against one another because of the action of wake turbulence on the sensitive aerodynamics of the following car.

From the man himself following the 2018 U.S.A. Grand Prix at 8:00 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OZ7DBZxKf8

“ The way these cars are designed, even though they are great on their own, we should be able to follow closer than we are and be in train, and be dicing between each other, but you don’t see that in this series. The tyres weren’t too happy today, and also with the aero difference that you need per track, they have to do a better job with the design for twenty / twenty one so that you don’t need a second to follow or get close to another car, it’s usually a second or a second and a half or something like that. If they can design something in a wind tunnel which I am sure that they can that means you only need three tenths loss when you are behind a car then I think you will see some great racing.” Lewis Hamilton.

Lewis has highlighted the problem with the cars, they are basically unfit to race., there will never be a 1 second difference between the lap times of competitive cars,

The FIA has allowed the design parameters to morph to the point where the cars are no longer capable of racing one another.
They, the FIA, have then introduced artificial gimmicks like compulsory pit stops, mandated alternate tyre compounds, artificially degrading tyres, and DRS to try and overcome the design shortcomings of the cars. These cribs have clearly not worked, Lewis above.
Essentially we know how to make cars that are clearly unable to follow one another, F1, and we know how to make cars that are capable of racing one another, F2 and Indycar.
Ground effects, Hanford device.
Correcting the design parameters to allow the cars to run in close proximity to one another will in no way decrease the technical skills or challenge necessary to build them, it will however produce the close racing and entertainment value necessary for the continuation of the sport.
I fail to see how the cars or the challenge of building or driving them would be in anyway reduced by taking these steps.

To jim, F1 has a heritage of running on ovals, Indianapolis, and the current cars with their overly sensitive aerodynamic set-ups would be incapable of running in close proximity to one another on an oval, therefore the bad design would have to be corrected as a matter of necessity.

To Sprinkles, I liked your suggestion to allow the lower scoring teams MotoGP style in season testing concessions and increased engine updates and modifications.

The proposals however, I feel don’t address the elephant in the room, and simply stating: ”Why are people continuing to be so completely unimaginative?” Taking the aero off (Teratonga) is not lacking imagination, it is trying to solve an existing problem with a proven solution. Clawing back the performance is the technical problem the solution will pose.

Everything we currently have in the sport can be preserved with the addition of exciting racing and increased driver input and importance.

[Peter Mallett]

Interesting post. Thank you.

FWIW I was pondering the plan size of the cars at the Mexican GP and it occurred to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with running a car that is physically narrower than its floor. If you look closely you can observe that the floor of the car extends to the outside of the wheel track but the bodywork itself stops short.

I recall that back in the day bodywork was mandated to extend to the width of the wheel track and from just behind the front wheels to just in front of the rear wheels. This was a safety measure to stop wheels interlocking.

It seems that this has been dropped, so why have the floor wider than the side pods, other than for aero reasons?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Interesting post. Thank you.

FWIW I was pondering the plan size of the cars at the Mexican GP and it occurred to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with running a car that is physically narrower than its floor. If you look closely you can observe that the floor of the car extends to the outside of the wheel track but the bodywork itself stops short.

I recall that back in the day bodywork was mandated to extend to the width of the wheel track and from just behind the front wheels to just in front of the rear wheels. This was a safety measure to stop wheels interlocking.

It seems that this has been dropped, so why have the floor wider than the side pods, other than for aero reasons?

That is the only reason I can see for extending the floor, low pressure area under the floor times no of square feet equals downforce generated, the bigger the floor area the more downforce.

The real question being when and why were they allowed to extend the floor area so much? This year?


I cannot recall the body width mandated to be the width of the track though.

[S griffin]

Certainly we need cars that can race closer together without the need for DRS. That way we would see more proper battles, with the onus on the driver to overtake

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by wnut

That is the only reason I can see for extending the floor, low pressure area under the floor times no of square feet equals downforce generated, the bigger the floor area the more downforce.

The real question being when and why were they allowed to extend the floor area so much? This year?


I cannot recall the body width mandated to be the width of the track though.

It was during the 80's and the ground effect era. But I don't think its ever been overruled. Now we have a flat piece of floor which is one more unnecessary aero aid.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by wnut

To Sprinkles, I liked your suggestion to allow the lower scoring teams MotoGP style in season testing concessions and increased engine updates and modifications.

Hooray

As usual I disagree with almost everything else you wrote.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Interesting post. Thank you.

FWIW I was pondering the plan size of the cars at the Mexican GP and it occurred to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with running a car that is physically narrower than its floor. If you look closely you can observe that the floor of the car extends to the outside of the wheel track but the bodywork itself stops short.

I recall that back in the day bodywork was mandated to extend to the width of the wheel track and from just behind the front wheels to just in front of the rear wheels. This was a safety measure to stop wheels interlocking.

It seems that this has been dropped, so why have the floor wider than the side pods, other than for aero reasons?

Because the insanely restrictive exhaust regulations mandate the 'coke bottle' shape on the rear.

[Peter Mallett]

Still doesn't explain why you need a floor wider than the vehicle bodywork though.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

You alluded to it yourself already, to counteract that shape as much as possible for aero reasons.

[Peter Mallett]

No I mean it's illogical to have a floor when the floor doesn't have anything sitting on it. Ergo, it isn't a floor but an aero device. Or to put it another way, it's bullshit.

[chillibowl]

at one point of the coverage, Brundle suggested (probably with some exaggeration but i dont think outside the ballpark) that Merc were now spending over 500mil a year (also not sure if he meant euros or dollars).

either way, whatever the rule set is, the budget divide is such that the smaller teams will never be able to run closely to the big teams.

for sure this is sports and some organizations will always have more resources than others but it wasnt too long ago that RB with their RB money was the team spending the most but now i want to say they are at best 2/3 of where Merc and Ferrari are now at in terms of spending power.

the rest of the teams are considerably further back than that and it shows!

at some point we must all acknowledged that its not the design rules creating this difference in performance....rather the design rules are just a symptom of the real problem imo.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

either way, whatever the rule set is, the budget divide is such that the smaller teams will never be able to run closely to the big teams.

But this is how "sport" works nowadays, regardless of what it is. So, the professional tennis player with the most money available will pay the most (yes, a generality) for their coaching team plus other team members, whilst in the UK, we have maybe half a dozen top soccer teams who probably pay as much for just one player as the lesser teams pay for their entire squads.


Sport now means big business!

[Sodemo]

When you look at that Mexico track, you have to think, what are the circuit designers actually doing when they "design" a track?

Just horrible all those 90 degree turns with point to point apexes. Hey, you love 90 degree turns at street circuits?! We can do that too at permanent road tracks! When you have the longest wheelbase F1 cars in history, which are also (to my knowledge) the heaviest F1 cars in history, navigating their way around 90 degree turns, it just looks horrific. What happened to corners actually being curved? long apexes? Banked corners? That Mexico track really needs to be dug up and start again.