[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[ASCII Man]

I'm so grateful that pit stop fanatics are an absolute minority in F1's fan base...

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

I'm so grateful that pit stop fanatics are an absolute minority in F1's fan base...

I certainly wouldn't class myself as a pit stop fanatic (although I presume that is supposed to be a derogatory description), but in the modern restricted era where the performance of the cars have been pretty much equalised, having different tyre performances, strategies and grip lives can make the races far more interesting than they would have been had the tyre performances also all been equalised!

[chillibowl]

that for me as well Viva.

wouldnt want to see a mandated minimum number of stops though.

i think that would just result in everyone adopting the same strategy.

having to use two different compound, all be it contrived, does work for me in that, well so far this year at least, we are seeing teams really guessing who is going to 1-stop vs 2-stop. it opens things up tremendously.

i would even go so far as to say i hope we can see a race where a team finds a way to use the hypersofts in some sort of 3-stop strategy that can win a race....maybe i am a pitstop fanatic.

[loon]

ban pit stops and bring 2 or 3 more tyres companies, that would mix things up

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by loon

ban pit stops and bring 2 or 3 more tyres companies, that would mix things up

Bringing in another 2 or 3 more tyre companies, would ramp up the cost of the tyres.

I like the tyre stops and seeing the different strategies the teams use. Though having said that, I do miss the more attritional aspects of F1, when cars/drivers had to rely on one set tyres for the entire race.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by loon

ban pit stops and bring 2 or 3 more tyres companies, that would mix things up

There are far more arguments against that than for it, especially for cost reasons. And that was the major factor that brought about the FIA's regulation restricting it to only one supplier.

You would get back to the situation where some teams are being paid to use a company's rubber, whilst other teams are having to pay the supplier. Just like before, it would lead to a tyre war which just ends in escalating costs.

Furthermore, at least one of the companies that could produce tyres for F1 has made it a clear condition for a possible return to F1 that they would only do so as the single supplier. For the reasons stated above, I would imagine that all the producers would also stipulate the same condition.

And think about it logically. If all the teams were forced to buy their tyres from a list of producers, then what is to stop them walking away from a contract with company A when it is obvious to all that the tyres from companies B, C and/or D are far superior, and all other teams followed suit.

[Mike Harte]

I wish people could make up their mind about tyres. One minute they last too long, and the next moment everyone is complaining that they only last for a few laps.

[BSchneiderFan]

A bit like the Chapman mantra, what you really want, I suppose, is tyres that can be leant on for the whole race by the ideal car, but which fall apart on the cool-down lap. But that’s not realistic.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

There are far more arguments against that than for it....

and after all that, Ferrari would just end up ruining for it everyone by forming essentially a bespoke tire deal with one of the suppliers.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I wish people could make up their mind about tyres. One minute they last too long, and the next moment everyone is complaining that they only last for a few laps.

ill admit to once being in that camp. not to rehash the old debate but it did take Pirelli a lot of time to get to where they are now. obvious reasons of course...lack of testing, using an outdated car as their test mule, teams using their tires in backwards ways.

but several years in and far more tire testing, i have to say i have very much changed my opinion of their offerings. so far this year i think they have absolutely gotten their sums right

[loon]

they bring in the halo for reasons of safety but by far the most dangerous aspect of F1 are pitstops , why not bring in a minimum time say 10 seconds and with the pressure off at least the mechanics should be at much less risk.
.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by loon

they bring in the halo for reasons of safety but by far the most dangerous aspect of F1 are pitstops , why not bring in a minimum time say 10 seconds and with the pressure off at least the mechanics should be at much less risk.
.

Motor racing full stop has the potential to be dangerous. Cars going at 200 mph, whizzing round corners, and so on could lead to danger.

Maybe a person waving a red flag should walk in front of each car which should be kept at a responsible distance behind the flag bearer.

[Adam43]

Here is an attempt to get across how everything we collectively ask for is, at best, hard to achieve. Close lap times, enough performance difference for overtaking. Quick cars, simple cars. Design freedom, cheap cars.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature...t-a-perfect-f1

It isn’t clear what people actually want. Some know what the answer is, but aren’t sure what the question is.

So I suppose all suggestions are good ones, but it is hard to achieve.

(Oh and paywall article, world is evil, yawn, etc...)

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Here is an attempt to get across how everything we collectively ask for is, at best, hard to achieve. Close lap times, enough performance difference for overtaking. Quick cars, simple cars. Design freedom, cheap cars.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature...t-a-perfect-f1

It isn’t clear what people actually want. Some know what the answer is, but aren’t sure what the question is.

So I suppose all suggestions are good ones, but it is hard to achieve.

(Oh and paywall article, world is evil, yawn, etc...)

On target! Fans have contradictory desires. Its why every thread that delves into "how to fix F1" generally is some type of a trainwreck. Because we can't agree. Clearly a no-win situation for those running the business (or is it a sport! )

Richard

[Adam43]

“Sport!”

Through all this that is the one thing that bothers me. When we get into suggestions that work against the driver and team doing the best job. So reverse grids and things like that I do not like. It can become closer, it can become harder to manage all the variables and hence provide more opportunity, there can even be a little luck, but on the day the best driver, car and team who make the right decisions should win. Even if sometimes that also mean we get the same winner a lot because they do a much better job consistently.

Start to actually target the best and penalise them and that is a huge turn off for me.

[Casper]

I am surprised that Pirelli actually continues to be the supplier TTTT. They are given a tyre spec by the promotors and deliver on that spec and then cop it in the neck because they delivered what was wanted. What is the problem with that? It is certainly not Pirelli's fault for delivering a product on spec.

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by loon

they bring in the halo for reasons of safety but by far the most dangerous aspect of F1 are pitstops , why not bring in a minimum time say 10 seconds and with the pressure off at least the mechanics should be at much less risk.
.

All the teams have lines on the ground showing the rough space the car occupies in the stop.
The Ferrari mechanic was standing inside those lines hence he was run over.
Stay outside the lines and there is no (well less) danger.

[chillibowl]

If we all agreed all the time then that's the real yawn imo.

Like minded individuals disagreeing is the only thing that makes drinking fun!

[E.B]

Originally Posted by sizzle

Stay outside the lines and there is no (well less) danger.

And had the Ferrari automated system not given a false green light, thinking as it did that the yet to be removed sticking wheel had already been changed then there would have been even less risk of injury. The damaged mechanic/wheel-changer would have done his job and been out of the way.

A lot to be said for the traditional lollypop man with real eyes being better than an electric sensor that assumes the car has been stopped for two seconds and therefore the wheel has 'obviously' been changed.....

Less people involved may slow the process but the intensity and drama is still there.

Mind you that comes from one who remembers pit stops and tyre changers with hammers and eared spinners and fuel sloshed into funnels.

[S griffin]

They need to do something, these unsafe releases have happened too often so far. Personally I feel they should rid of this two compound rule and make it so the drivers have the option to run non-stop. Sort of ruins a close battle sometimes when you remember they have to pit

[bathurst77]

Bring back side skirts and full ground effects ala late 1970s

[S griffin]

No chance, skirts were banned for safety reasons and quite right too

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

No chance, skirts were banned for safety reasons and quite right too

You're quite right. One of my former partners was a real killer in a skirt, causing untold damage to male driver's cars when their attention to their driving wandered.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by S griffin

No chance, skirts were banned for safety reasons and quite right too

Exactly, it's not like they would've been able to improve on the designs in the 35 years after the ban, or anything. Ground effect technology has remained entirely stagnant since 1983.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

A bit like the Chapman mantra, what you really want, I suppose, is tyres that can be leant on for the whole race by the ideal car, but which fall apart on the cool-down lap. But that’s not realistic.

It's not necessarily unrealistic. Generally, racing tyres gradually taper off from the very first lap but the MGs (Brazilian-made, I think) that we used in Formula Rotax karts a few years back had an amazingly flat performance before they eventually fell off the cliff. We used to do two meetings on a set, could set a fastest lap right at the end of the second meeting, then bring them out for testing the next weekend and they would immediately go off 0.5sec/lap each lap.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Exactly, it's not like they would've been able to improve on the designs in the 35 years after the ban, or anything. Ground effect technology has remained entirely stagnant since 1983.

That's not true. When Adrian Newey worked for March in the '80s on their CART/IndyCar project, he did a lot to develop ground effect minus skirts. He penned the March 85C, which won the 500 and the Constructors' Cup in '85, as well as the March 86C, which also won the 500 and the Constructors' Cup in '86 and '87. Subsequent CART/IndyCar programmes run by Lola, Penske, Reynard and Swift, all used ground effect cars. With the unification of Champ Car with the IRL and the adoption of the Dallara DW12, before the Chevrolet and Honda aero-kit period, that too was a ground effect car. The DW12 or IR 12, in it's current incarnation with the Universal Aero-kit, is a ground effect car.