[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ?

[Pingguest]

The Safety Car should be abolished any way, although that's another discussion. Or no, we were discussing about new rules, weren't we?

[csirl]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Ageed.Cars running out of fuel tend to give a driver ample warning of the inevitable.So it would take a maneuver of Schumacher/Monaco proportions for a car running out of fuel to do much harm.

There will always be drivers who chance it - what driver would pull of the circuit with 1 lap to go if he gets a low fuel warning?

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I remember the days when drivers were instructed that if they stalled or had a poor getaway on the grid, they should put the car in gear, leave it on the racing line and turn of the engine so as to get a restart - this was before they introduced the marshals "N" button.

Roll onto to 2010. You're about to run out of fuel and your team mate is not in the lead. What do you do? You make sure that you stop on the racing line at a spot where the car cant be recovered under yellow flags.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by csirl

Roll onto to 2010. You're about to run out of fuel and your team mate is not in the lead. What do you do? You make sure that you stop on the racing line at a spot where the car cant be recovered under yellow flags.

I would think that some sort of software will be used (ECU regs allowing) that prevents the car from running out of fuel in the race.

It's done in MotoGP and it isn't rocket science.The ECU ensures that the fuel in the bikes tank (21 litres max capacity) will last by measuring the amount in the tank and the distance to the end of the race.The computer cuts back on the fuel (regardless of the demands from the rider) to ensure that the Bike reaches the required distance.

Obviously if you put far too little fuel in your vehicle then your performance throughout the race will be poor,but you will ultimately finish the race.Too much (bigger tank capacity) fuel will allow you to use more fuel but could also hinder performance.

[Pingguest]

Besides, teams and their drivers could always decide to burn the exact amount of fuel they should do on average per lap.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Besides, teams and their drivers could always decided to burn the exact amount of fuel they should do on average per lap.

That's how you would want it to work out,but it's not always that simple,as some found to their cost pre-94.No one ever parked their car in an awkward place back then either IIRC.

[duke_toaster]

Also, lots of other series (GP2, almost all touring cars, F3 etc) have no refuelling but no incidents like that.

[Marbot]

I suppose the best place to 'stop' is in the entrance to the pit lane.

Pit wall: "No don't come in n.......oh ****!"

[Pingguest]

With a 'fuel formula' teams would need to reduce fuel consumption: without the necessary fuel efficiency their drivers will run out of fuel. But there's an alternative providing a softer and less visible incentive to improve the fuel economy:

• Allowance of any engine configuration.
• Ban on mid-race refuelling.
• Mandatory use of bio-ethanol.
• Ban on all driver aids (including drive-by-wire, semi-automatic gearboxes and tyre warmers).
• Reduction of downforce to the range of 1,000-1,200 kg.
• Abolition of the minimum weight.
• Reduced pit lane speed limit of 60 km/h.

Teams could theoretically use engines with a power output of 1,500-2,000 bhp, but they will have to pay a high price for that! The more powerful engines tend to be heavy and thirsty and may ruin the tyres faster.

[Marbot]

Grosjean tells us what we already know.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...ow-cars-in-f1/

Maybe a shift to GP2 type downforce would make the difference?

[duke_toaster]

The challenge with a venturi based set of regulations would be to keep things in check. Max's proposed maximum downforce cap (to be enforced by putting a weight on the car at srutineering that had to cause the plank to touch the ground) was unworkable though. I think the best tweak would be to eliminate the double diffusers, really.

[Pingguest]

Eliminating diffusers would be an even better idea.

[duke_toaster]

But how would that affect lap times though? The reason I'm suggesting eliminating the double diffusers is mainly to reduce the wakes as the OWG intended, but the reduction in downforce would be useful. Then I guess things like the dustbin lids and engine cover fins could be looked at. Aside from that things get difficult.

Major engine changes are off the table theoretically until 2013, realistically pushing it for 2011. The main factor must be engine life there.

[jab]

Taking out diffusers would take off loads of grip, which would be great. I don't see why F1 cars need them, and Gary Anderson was saying that it would've been better to get rid of them completely to help overtaking instead of just making them smaller, which just resulted in the DDDs

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

But how would that affect lap times though? The reason I'm suggesting eliminating the double diffusers is mainly to reduce the wakes as the OWG intended, but the reduction in downforce would be useful. Then I guess things like the dustbin lids and engine cover fins could be looked at. Aside from that things get difficult.

Major engine changes are off the table theoretically until 2013, realistically pushing it for 2011. The main factor must be engine life there.

Keeping the engines unchanged is a shame and will harm the sport. Nowadays, the FIA is creating a whole generation of drivers not knowing to contribute to the development in a number of areas.

Originally Posted by jab

Taking out diffusers would take off loads of grip, which would be great. I don't see why F1 cars need them, and Gary Anderson was saying that it would've been better to get rid of them completely to help overtaking instead of just making them smaller, which just resulted in the DDDs

Banning the diffusers would indeed reduce grip and improve overtaking opportunities. Formula 1 would also get rid of the madness of 'stalling aerodynamics.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66073

[Marbot]

Maybe a complete re-think on the whole car/aerodynamics concept thing? Maybe if we want to see aerodynamics at work we should perhaps go to an air-show?

[duke_toaster]

The problem with completely removing aerodynamics is that the cars would then become slower than GP2. Realisically, lap times need to be kept around current levels.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

The problem with completely removing aerodynamics is that the cars would then become slower than GP2. Realisically, lap times need to be kept around current levels.

Or simply undriveable with their current power outputs!!

I still think that something should still be done to make the front and rear wings less significant, cars are still too dependent on them.

[Spritle]

I believe a new fuel rule will be introduced whereby a team in need of more fuel just arranges the release of a convicted terrorist in exchange for a petrol deal.

[Mike E]

With the refuelling ban next year (hooray!) has the requirement to use two different tyre compounds in the race also been dropped? I hope so.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Mike E

With the refuelling ban next year (hooray!) has the requirement to use two different tyre compounds in the race also been dropped? I hope so.

The cars still have to stop to change to the 'other' tyre as the rules for 2010 stand.It could actually make things more interesting I think.

But once again we saw why refuelling is being banned.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The cars still have to stop to change to the 'other' tyre as the rules for 2010 stand.It could actually make things more interesting I think.

But once again we saw why refuelling is being banned.

And as well as the safety issues refuelling makes the timing of pitstops predictable and reduces overtaking on the track. I for one will be delighted to see the back of it.

[strider]

I don't mind refuelling being banned, but there is a safety issue, which was highlighted by today's race.

We all saw what happened when Mark Webber's right front disc disintegrated and several other drivers were having to nurse their cars home for the same reason. That's not racing and it's actually downright dangerous.

Next year the cars will be heavier with the extra fuel, so the problem will increase.

In the post-race show on the BBC's red button Martin Whitmarsh highlighted this and said that most of the teams within FOTA are in favour of the thickness of the discs being increased from 28mm to 32mm, which sounds like very good sense to me.

There is one team objecting, namely Williams, and I don't know why. They are also the odd ones out so far as abandoning KERS goes. If they want to pursue their own path on these things, I don't understand why they have re-joined FOTA.

[duke_toaster]

Can't the FIA force it through as a safety measure? Shame that by this rate they will have to wait for a hefty shunt for Williams to do so.

[JeremySmith]

I think the problem stems from the fact that the quality of the carbon fibre used for the discs is better these days, but the quality of the callipers used has not quite kept up...

I think that is what is happening?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by strider

In the post-race show on the BBC's red button Martin Whitmarsh highlighted this and said that most of the teams within FOTA are in favour of the thickness of the discs being increased from 28mm to 32mm, which sounds like very good sense to me.

There is one team objecting, namely Williams, and I don't know why. They are also the odd ones out so far as abandoning KERS goes. If they want to pursue their own path on these things, I don't understand why they have re-joined FOTA.

Normally there are only two reasons for a team to take this kind of line, either:

1. they expect to gain an advantage relative to the others, which implies brake wear will be less of a problem for them than for others next year, which seems unlikely.

or

2. they will in the end concede the point but intend to gain some other concession in exchange.

Looks like 2 to me, ie it's posturing to gain other concessions, in fact stating their intention to use KERS is probably the same thing, if they realy planned to use it why tell everyone?