How to fix F1?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

DRS was terrible in Imola. Cars in front can't defend. And once they are overtaken, they can't get the position back if the rival makes a 1 second gap.

While not a fan of DRS, does your statement not have a logic error? Somehow the following car managed to get within DRS range, passes and then is able to pull away. Does that not indicate that the following car had better overall pace and that this is actually an argument for/positive example of DRS?

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

While not a fan of DRS, does your statement not have a logic error? Somehow the following car managed to get within DRS range, passes and then is able to pull away. Does that not indicate that the following car had better overall pace and that this is actually an argument for/positive example of DRS?

Richard

Can't the car that's overtaking continue to use DRS, after it has overtaken the car in front, therefore allowing it to pull away until DRS is deactivated when it exits the zone?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Can't the car that's overtaking continue to use DRS, after it has overtaken the car in front, therefore allowing it to pull away until DRS is deactivated when it exits the zone?

If I understand the question. I expect yes. That if you are able to deploy DRS, as a driver you should deploy it for as long as you are able to do so. Including if you are able to pass other cars earlier in the deployment zone, keep it deployed.

I think I didn't do a good job with my reply to NaBUru38. He was saying that the lead driver couldn't defend. And then once passed the passing (new lead) driver would create a gap more than the 1sec DRS requirement.

I was pointing out that his logic didn't make sense. If the lead driver could not defend, then once you pass someone with DRS. You are the new lead driver and you are now helpless to prevent the car behind you from getting within the 1sec zone and passing you again. If true, two drivers would spend the entire race swapping positions one zone to the next. But rather if someone catches you, gets in the 1sec zone, deploys DRS, passes you, then extends 1+ second and you don't get DRS on them. The conclusion is... they are just plain faster than you.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

If I understand the question. I expect yes. That if you are able to deploy DRS, as a driver you should deploy it for as long as you are able to do so. Including if you are able to pass other cars earlier in the deployment zone, keep it deployed.

I think I didn't do a good job with my reply to NaBUru38. He was saying that the lead driver couldn't defend. And then once passed the passing (new lead) driver would create a gap more than the 1sec DRS requirement.

I was pointing out that his logic didn't make sense. If the lead driver could not defend, then once you pass someone with DRS. You are the new lead driver and you are now helpless to prevent the car behind you from getting within the 1sec zone and passing you again. If true, two drivers would spend the entire race swapping positions one zone to the next. But rather if someone catches you, gets in the 1sec zone, deploys DRS, passes you, then extends 1+ second and you don't get DRS on them. The conclusion is... they are just plain faster than you.

Richard

I suppose they could be plain faster, or with DRS still activated after they've passed the car in front, that has now put them outside the 1 second margin, in which case the car that's just been passed can't deploy DRS in turn.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I suppose they could be plain faster, or with DRS still activated after they've passed the car in front, that has now put them outside the 1 second margin, in which case the car that's just been passed can't deploy DRS in turn.

It can on the next lap if it is good enough to race the overtaking car, otherwise the faster car has taken its position ahead of the slower, much the same as slipstreaming.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I suppose they could be plain faster, or with DRS still activated after they've passed the car in front, that has now put them outside the 1 second margin, in which case the car that's just been passed can't deploy DRS in turn.

Of course that scenario could happen when you are running out of position (i.e. You just pitted, you are out of sequence from those around you and you are running against cars who are naturally much slower than you, due to raw pace, older tires, etc.) or you are lapping cars and they are getting out of your way. But as to two cars who are really fighting for position? And someone gaps someone by 1+ second via DRS in one zone before the end of the zone?!?! I am not sure we are seeing that. Maybe we are and I am just missing it.

Richard

[NaBUru38]

My point is that the 1 second rule is unfair.


If there's two cars, only one can use it.


If there's a train of cars, the ones in the middle can't overtake.


If a car is alone, they can't use it.


I prefer the IndyCar format, where all drivers have equal rights to use push to pass.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

My point is that the 1 second rule is unfair.


If there's two cars, only one can use it.


If there's a train of cars, the ones in the middle can't overtake.


If a car is alone, they can't use it.


I prefer the IndyCar format, where all drivers have equal rights to use push to pass.

Marcus Ericsson said he prefers the Indycar system. Although I’m not in favour of a boost button in F1 anymore than DRS, it’s no doubt fairer in that regard and you don’t rely on it all the time like DRS

[crmalcolm]

On the use of DRS - personally I am in favour, but with a slight tweak as follows:

If you are the first car in the train (over the detection), then only one other car can gain the DRS.

So for example:-

Car A is running alone. No DRS.
Car A is leading Car B, Car B is behind <1s. Car B gets DRS.
Car A is leading a train of Car B, Car C (and possibly more) all <1s. Car B only gets DRS.

[bjohnsonsmith]

There are basic differences between DRS and Push to Pass. Drivers can only use Push to Pass a number of times and therefore need to use it at their discretion and drivers can also use it to defend from being overtaken.

[wnut]

Off Topic, but live now and worth looking at.

LIVE! 2021 Monaco Historique Race Day | Classic F1 cars race around Monte Carlo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ZMEydQKog

[wnut]

This proposal from Zack Brown to conduct secret ballots in the F1 commission is a good one in my opinion.

https://www.pitpass.com/69538/Horner...llots-on-rules

"Currently, decisions about the future of the sport can be halted by a minority, rather than majority," wrote Brown, "and they are further skewed by some teams' voting power being in favour of their affiliated team partner.

"There have even been instances when an affiliated team, to satisfy its bigger partner, has voted in favour of a clear disadvantage to itself," he added. "This isn't sport. This isn't putting the fans first.

"It is a situation that must be addressed," he insists, "and so we call for secret ballot voting to be implemented in all F1 Commission meetings with immediate effect.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

The integrity and merit of the races are more important than the fans.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

The integrity and merit of the races are more important than the fans.

Refer Toto Wolff and the Mercedes drivers should not be racing one another.

One of the biggest shocks in the aftermath of the clash involving Valtteri Bottas and George Russell in Imola, was Toto Wolff's claim that the Briton should not have been racing the Mercedes driver in the first place.

No fans, no racing! Simples.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by wnut

Refer Toto Wolff and the Mercedes drivers should not be racing one another.

One of the biggest shocks in the aftermath of the clash involving Valtteri Bottas and George Russell in Imola, was Toto Wolff's claim that the Briton should not have been racing the Mercedes driver in the first place.

No fans, no racing! Simples.

Without hearing or reading the quote in a publication. I would put it to you that he meant more like they shouldn't be racing each other as fiercely as legitimate opposition teams would?

No fans, no racing?

I've been to heaps of race meetings that have negligible attendance. Conversely, there have been many races without me.

[bathurst77]

I didnt realise how powerful and influential I am!
------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by bathurst77
12 Oct 2018, 20:32 (Ref:3856208)
How to fix F1?

2 points for pole
1 point for fastest lap in race

-------------------------------------------------
but they went even further!

Points will be awarded for the Saturday sprint race.
First scores three points,
second scores two points,
third scores one point.

Now for my plan to bring back ground effects and customer cars

[BTCC frog]

Here is a change I would like to see in F1:

1. Increase the strictness of the budget cap so the top teams have less of an advantage over the small teams.
2. Decrease the strictness over car designs to allow more innovation.

This way, the best teams would be the ones with the best car designers, rather than the most money. Obviously the richer teams would probably be able to sign the best car designers, but these designers would be able to prove themselves by getting small teams to the top first.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Here is a change I would like to see in F1:

1. Increase the strictness of the budget cap so the top teams have less of an advantage over the small teams.
2. Decrease the strictness over car designs to allow more innovation.

This way, the best teams would be the ones with the best car designers, rather than the most money. Obviously the richer teams would probably be able to sign the best car designers, but these designers would be able to prove themselves by getting small teams to the top first.

I can agree with the first. IMHO, the second is a potential train wreck. Especially in a cost capped environment.

The problem with open regulations is that while it allows for radically new ideas it has the following issues.

1. There is significant risk of failure. Either it doesn't work. Or it takes too long to develop and see a real benefit. So your attempt at "stealing a march" really results in the next issue.
2. You flounder to make it work, while your opponents watch and eventually copy a working solution. So you do all the hard work, sacrifice a season or more and then they benefit.

It can work. But in a situation in which teams are hesitant to even commit to tweaks to established designs for the fear of wasting limited resources, the risk is huge.

The 2015 Nissan LPM1 effort is a perfect example. While there is truth in the fact it was a poorly run effort. For the most part they were torpedoed by how difficult it was to both create and reliably run a radical solution. It was a failure and likely soured Nissan (and others watching from the sidelines) on anything like that again.

If you were a Williams who is struggling to get out of the back of the pack. Would you more likely try to replicate and polish known good solutions and at least work your way up into the mid-field or would you go for a radical attempt for the front and risk a public faceplant. How would you sell that risk vs. reward equation to the new owners when securing funding?

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

If you were a Williams who is struggling to get out of the back of the pack. Would you more likely try to replicate and polish known good solutions and at least work your way up into the mid-field or would you go for a radical attempt for the front and risk a public faceplant. How would you sell that risk vs. reward equation to the new owners when securing funding?

Richard

interesting question.

under a budget cap, particularly for teams which already operate under the max cap, plus a more even distribution of the prize fund (will be even more money once FOM revenue returns to normal post covid), and then add in a couple of pay drivers, a team like Williams will probably become, if they are not already, a profitable enterprise despite coming in last.

so if we accept that premise that finishing last while still being profitable is possible, then why wouldn't a team like Williams take that chance?

for an investment company/hedge fund whose main goal is ostensibly a return on their investment (plus getting invited to all the really cool parties), being 'radical' may even be more rewarding then the tried and tested (read boring) approach of sustained development but never rising higher then the mid field.

i believe this is something that Bernie used to warn about.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so if we accept that premise that finishing last while still being profitable is possible, then why wouldn't a team like Williams take that chance?

I think to a degree, that level of stability is exactly what Liberty is looking to put in place. There will always be a pecking order. Someone on top and someone at the bottom. They just want a healthy grid and ideally not someone who is overly dominant.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for an investment company/hedge fund whose main goal is ostensibly a return on their investment (plus getting invited to all the really cool parties), being 'radical' may even be more rewarding then the tried and tested (read boring) approach of sustained development but never rising higher then the mid field.

Any management team can get sucked into making bad or risky decisions. So never say never, but generally I expect that someone like a Dorilton Capital is more interested in getting a good management structure in place and to ensure money is being spent wisely. So I agree on the "return on investment" aspect of what you say above. But generally disagree that this means they will place significant bets on risky strategy in hopes of large wins. Understand that even in best case scenarios, your advantage may last only a season (length of time until a better funded team replicates your solution and likely does a better job at it than you). Getting it wrong can potentially last longer than a season (you are now a season away from whatever is the "it" solution at the moment and you are playing catchup yet again).

I personally think my examples above are true for radical departures from the norm (i.e. the front wheel drive Nissan LMP1 for example). But the F1 regulations as they exist now, are for the most part about defining a small number of sandboxes in which teams can play in and each of those sandboxes are relatively small. So the likely performance gains (and losses) are also relatively small. So "getting it wrong" may put you at the back of the pack, but hopefully not woefully so. That allows team to engineer themselves to the front, but also to not be a total embarrassment to their sponsors if they don't get it right. In short, the rules are designed to prevent or reduce the amount of radical (i.e. game changing) ideas from squeezing in. Mercedes DAS is a good example. It was unexpected and quickly outlawed because in the end, Mercedes had some level of an advantage for just a year, everyone would eventually do it, and it was just going to be an overall monetary tax on every team due to the introduction of new mechanical complexity that really didn't add much value.

Overall, I think fans want more open regulations than the team might be comfortable with. Because tighter regulations makes things a "bit" more predictable and if you are running a business (like they all are) unpredictability is scary/undesirable.

Richard

[Casper]

So there should be no technical advances and the teams should build the same car year on year? technical advances came about because teams took chances, wings and sliding skirts come to mind so if teams had not gone there we would still be watching cars that were mechanically grip limited...maybe not a bad thing when you think about it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

So there should be no technical advances and the teams should build the same car year on year?

Yes. That is exactly what I said. (We need a facepalm emoji)

Originally Posted by Casper

advances came about because teams took chances, wings and sliding skirts come to mind so if teams had not gone there we would still be watching cars that were mechanically grip limited...maybe not a bad thing when you think about it.

It's not a spec formula. There is room for advancement.

Richard

[Richard C]

While I think my position of... open regulations create unstable business environment, I do think the areas in which the regulations are open and what types of development are outlawed is wrong in a few places.

I have commented on this before, but I think the sport could benefit from allowing active aero and active suspension. My argument is that there could be constraints that ensure the solutions are more "software" vs. "hardware" and that means that it could be cheaper to iterate and develop. So the overall risk of trying something new is lower.

Take suspension for example. The sport is locked into overly complex and likely expensive mechanical solutions only because the regulations prevent progress. I would do it this way...

* Spec ECU just for active suspension.
* Limit the number and type of sensors and actuators.
* Consider even homologating the sensors and actuators.

How teams implement their solution, is broadly up to them. The difference would be mostly in the software. Existing rules on things like wheelbase, etc. still would apply.

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

I agree with the idea of a spec ECU for active suspension,indeed I have in the past advocated using a Raspberry Pi for the job.You can hardly get cheaper and it would give a link to the students who use such a thing in their teenage years and the pool of people from which the future race fans will come.The software itself needn't be complex and in the era of the FW14B you would have been inhibited by the computing power available.I am reasonably confident that all the adjustments would come from entering different numbers in a few boxes that regulate delay,total travel and permitted velocity and you wouldn't be writing new programs to cover each and every possible situation.As a result of the ban on this kind of technology we had many millions spent on such esoteric things as tuned mass dampers,inerters and FRIC systems.With further bans leading to additional research into wings that flex just enough to yield a small advantage,while still passing the latest deflection test.We have limits on weight distribution,engine centre of gravity height and mirror mounts.Yet we can watch cars with venetian blinds,slats,ribs and bumps on floor panels which have cost vast sums in return for tiny performance gains.As was said a long time ago-they spend the money they have got,so why not free things up a bit to allow bigger gains to be realised by creative minds and eliminate the many iterations of a detail for trivial gains?


My concern remains that we are watching the end of an era and in a few years will be obliged to watch Formula EGP.Maybe I ought to trademark that name!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

As a result of the ban on this kind of technology we had many millions spent on such esoteric things as tuned mass dampers,inerters and FRIC systems.

I agree. The items you call out are wonders of mechanical engineering, but to me are very "steampunk" in that it's as the sport exists in a world in which computers were never invented. The regulations ensure that all suspension solutions are purely mechanical. So it creates solutions and levels of complexity (passive mechanical/hydraulic solutions) that would only exist in F1 (to be fair, other top series also want to live in this steampunk universe).

I have also made a comparison to mechanical watches. I personally love (and wear nothing but) mechanical watches. But they are meant to be marvels in industrial design and a showcase for "precision of miniature mechanical machines". But on a curve of performance vs. cost they are extremely poor performers. You can get a cheap quartz that does a much better job of keeping time. F1 suspensions are no different.

Why does this persist? I think it's probably a combination of inertia plus the top teams feel they are the best at solving these problems. That moving to a lower cost active solution in which smaller teams would immediately leap forward would upset the apple cart. It would also put a bunch of highly specialized people out of work.

Interesting article and quote...

https://www.racefans.net/2019/07/19/...nsion-in-2021/

It was evaluated because compared to the very complicated hydraulic suspension that currently get used an active system, even electronic, would be potentially cheaper than what [the] current very complicated hydraulic system is

So they considered it for 2021 (now 2022), but felt it would create cars that are too highly optimized and would make it harder for them to follow. I think there is maybe something in the argument, but I also think that issue could have been solved and resulted in an overall cheaper solution. But we will never know.

Richard