[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So I suggest we close this thread since to disagree with the majority is just not correct.

Alternatively, don't read and don't post in it and let the people who don't have all the answers yet have a chance to find out for themselves?

[Peter Mallett]

Sadly I can't do that since as a mod I have to make sure the posters are playing nicely. And when someone posts something that makes my eyes bleed I comment. You may not like it and frankly you've taken the thread off course so I suggest you back away.

[ApexTurtle]

You still haven't answered any of my previous questions, which are very much related to the subject at hand. crmalcom also posed an interesting question that you ignored. So once again, what is your problem with these 'young people' that seemingly have no idea? And where are they?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

No. If someone expresses an opinion then that's fine. But to dismiss something with words such as "yawn" etc. is purile.

Ah - I hadn't picked up on the comment about young people not understanding being linked to a 'yawn'. Which leads me to ask also - what about someone's attitude to a series makes it an age matter?

IMO, the age of an individual is irrelevant when it comes to the perceived quality of an opinion, other than the fact that if the only individuals who are interested in a sport are more elderly, then the sport will eventually die with its supporters.

Future Rule Changes have to strike the balance between the sport's history, establishing a legacy, and building for future sustainment. One of those must surely then look at what younger fans want from their sporting entertainment. To dismiss the younger audience because of a less reasoned approach to comment only increases the divide between those who have been connected to the sport for a while, and the potential future supporter.

[S griffin]

I like hearing from Brundle because it's clear he cares about the sport and wants to make it better, so will offer constructive views on how to do it. Certainly one of the most rounded people in the paddock, not afraid to speak his mind against anyone and I think he has admitted it is easier to appreciate your career in F1 once you retire

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Then I will ask again, and this is probably the final time, what do those people know about what F1 'should' be? What qualifies them as having an opinion worth sharing?

So you listen to journalists and don't consider them capable of forming a rational and possibly correct analysis of the current state of Formula 1? Yet all we see repeated in this thread is cost caps, not a return to proper cars with proper engines.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I find this a strange point. What leads you to think that young people have no grasp - is it because the general opinion of more youthful fans (or who would like to be fans) have a different opinion on what F1 should be to your own?

I did provide an answer to this point.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

1,133 posts (currently) in a thread titled 'How to fix F1' would suggest that their is a significant proportion of individuals who think it needs fixing - ergo what F1 is today is not what most feel it should be.

Indeed and in and of itself that is good. However none of the popular ideas go far enough and most miss the point that the cars are just not exciting to watch, nor are the artifical aids making them more so.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm fairly confident that all of those who would like to see F1 change include people from all age brackets.

Again yes indeed Midgetman is almost as old as me and he has a different opinion to me.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Or is it more a case of - those who think F1 today is what the sport should be about tend to be more mature?

Doubtful.

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

You still haven't answered any of my previous questions, which are very much related to the subject at hand. crmalcom also posed an interesting question that you ignored. So once again, what is your problem with these 'young people' that seemingly have no idea? And where are they?

See above.

Incidentally this is the start of the age issue:

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I was somewhat with him until he started to wax lyrical about the 'good old times' like so many old dudes do. Yaaaawn.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Herein lies the problem. It's boring because young people appear to have no grasp of what this sport is supposed to be about. As evidenced by the above disparaging remark. I note the remark has no actual response other than childishness.

Fact is, whether you like it or not Brundle, Needell etc. know what racing is about and their thoughts and opinions are far more important than some anonymous keyboard warrior.

Young people have other things to entertain themselves with, primarily computer games. I play computer games myself. They are good fun because you as a player, are immersed in the game as the main game character, or characters and are given tasks to perform and workout within the game. With motorsport, you are passive, watching from the outside.

The immersion from motorsport, comes from a knowlege and understanding of the sport, that needs to be acquired and a lot of that can seem very dry, compared to a computer game. To follow any form of motorsport, one also has to have some technical understanding, of what's behind it and compared to a computer game, tech stuff can be very boring.

The other big turn off, for young people, will be the lack of any noticeable competition. Seeing Mercedes constantly finishing 1-2, is hardly inspiring and is boring, with gaming there is that competition and it's not always predictable, what the outcome is.

I can speak with authority, as I have a 21 year old son, who has no interest at all. It's just a bunch of cars going round in circles.

As for myself, I'm finding F1 boring. I will watch Canada, as it can produce a good race and I'll watch Monaco because of tradition. Otherwise it will be highlights on C4, until they can turn the series round. During the Schumacher/Ferrari era, I actually stopped watching, after Barrichello was gifted that win.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

However none of the popular ideas go far enough and most miss the point that the cars are just not exciting to watch, nor are the artifical aids making them more so.

I think the cars are plenty exciting on the limit in qualifying. By design, they are low to the ground, have lots of downforce, and therefore handle extremely well... But even so, there is enough of a sense of drivers on the limit as long as the track is not too wide and dull (cough, Paul Ricard circuit).

I guess the tyre conservation in the race does not help.

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm, not really for me; they don't dance like they did at one time and there's very little twitching of the steering wheel due to the damping effects of the power steering. Also you can't really see the driver working the wheel anymore, unless you use the on board camera.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hmm, not really for me; they don't dance like they did at one time

Do you mean in the 1990's and early 2000's?

E.g., Frentzen, Jordan-Mugen, onboard at Spa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpAVOiT2evo

That was just because the cars had poorly sorted handling at that time, compared to the modern day where the non-active-suspensions are far better sorted with various hydraulic widgets and heave springs and various fanciness to optimise the handling.

If it was up to me, I would rather allow ONE conventional coil spring and shock absorber on each corner, ONE conventional anti-roll-bar per axle and then ban any other heave springs, additional shock absorbers or hydraulic suspension devices.

-----

While back in the 1970's they drifted around the turns because, of course, the crossply tyres used at that time worked best at large slip!

[It must be said those 1970's F1s are particularly enjoyable to drive in computer racing games, because of the smooth, predictable, gradual characteristics of those crossply tyres drifting very controllably around bends, unlike the snappy characteristics of later radial tyres.]

-----


-- Obviously the narrow track and, in particular, grooved tyres were mistakes too. If I was up to me, I would restore the car width to the pre-93 width of 2.15m (up from current 2m) and restore the smaller front tyre size as used up to 2016. Between the wide rears (which are already about the same size as '92) and narrow fronts (the legacy size which was carried through from the late 80's up until when the fronts and rears were scaled equally in 2017, despite *only* the rears being scaled down in 93), that would give the tyre proportions as on those iconic 1990-1992 grand prix cars.

Narrower fronts would by necessity mean a more rearward weight bias, and remove the incentive to make extremely long wheelbase cars (as are current being raced) --- of course you could just make a maximum wheelbase rule as proposed for 2021. [The front tyre width will also go down from 305mm to 270mm in the 2021 rule package, which is a great step!]

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So you listen to journalists and don't consider them capable of forming a rational and possibly correct analysis of the current state of Formula 1? Yet all we see repeated in this thread is cost caps, not a return to proper cars with proper engines.

No, that's what I'm saying. Please refrain from strawmanning. I'm not actually stating anything in particular, I'm asking you a question which you continue to dodge. I am certain there are many people, including journalists, who can make a rational and possibly correct analysis of F1. All I'm asking is, why are certain people's opinions more valuable than others according to you? Why do young people seemingly have no idea what racing should be, according to you?

Secondly, you seem to have already decided what the 'correct' analysis is and everyone who is not on board with that is wrong. See your assertion above, you seem to imply that the current F1 cars are not 'proper' and neither are the engines. I find that highly curious so my next question is, what's not proper about them? What does proper even mean?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by midgetman

No, no, no, no, no to more standardisation. This is the pinnacle of motor sport engineering not Formula Renault Eurocup.

What the Brundle article shows is he hasn't got a bloody clue what to do, either. If he wants a "train of 26 drivers" then he needs a late 20th century Formal Ford revival, not an engineering formula for the most aerodynamically efficient cars on the planet. That was very much a Boris Johnson article, full of "what's wrong" and light on "what to do."

Me? I don't have any ideas either but then I'm not paid £1000s for my clueless comments.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Indeed. it is meant to be the pinnacle of motor sport engineering, but something isn't right because it is producing a very dull product.

[Richard C]

IBTL!!!!!

Let me say... as I am in my early 50's, I am not sure if I should be insulted as being too young or too old! I think I am just... right!

IMHO trying to rank value of opinion based upon age is a line of attack that should die off. Please let that part of this discussion die. There is nothing good that can come from it.

Originally Posted by wnut

From what I understand from the press, this agreement has to be in place by the end of May, and any extension will require the agreement of all the teams, that seems unlikely.
So how will it be swung?

I didn't want this question to me to be lost in the current drama...

Wnut... I don't know. To be honest my earlier post is as deep as I understand regarding timings and deadlines.

Originally Posted by chunterer

Anyone seen the piece by Brundle.

My comment is that like most commentary of this type, it is about "goals" and not a great deal about solutions. And everyone has their own perspective which drive the goals they feel are important. Telling quote from the article by a former F1 driver...

F1 must be a drivers' championship, not an engineers' tech fest.

It seems to me that the requirements for F1 are...

* Pinnacle of Motorsports (better than everything else by any measure we can imagine!)
* Drivers championship (we want this to be about the drivers!)
* Constructors championship (we want this to be about the technology!)
* Entertainment (we want close racing that fans enjoy!)
* Keep our roots (we want Garagistas to be able to win!)
* Makes money (must keep shareholders happy!)

The list is endless and clearly a number of those are at odds with each other as well as significant segments of the larger sport (fans, teams, drivers, business entities, shareholders, etc.) value some of each of those dearly.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Sadly I can't do that since as a mod I have to...

I have found from acting as an Admin/Moderator in other forums that it is a tough and thankless job. It's hard as at times you actually have to just step away from the keyboard vs. getting sucked into a muddy discussion that exhibits behavior you would otherwise discourage when you are wearing your moderator hat. So... my condolences Peter.

(By the way... IMHO we are way off topic. I tend to think this thread is about discussion of concrete rule issues such as active proposals and changes vs. "what if", but that is just my opinion)

Richard

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

No, that's what I'm saying. Please refrain from strawmanning. I'm not actually stating anything in particular, I'm asking you a question which you continue to dodge. I am certain there are many people, including journalists, who can make a rational and possibly correct analysis of F1. All I'm asking is, why are certain people's opinions more valuable than others according to you? Why do young people seemingly have no idea what racing should be, according to you?

Secondly, you seem to have already decided what the 'correct' analysis is and everyone who is not on board with that is wrong. See your assertion above, you seem to imply that the current F1 cars are not 'proper' and neither are the engines. I find that highly curious so my next question is, what's not proper about them? What does proper even mean?

You've lost me. What is the question you are asking? I've told you what my thoughts are I'm dodging nothing. I stated quite clearly that any one is entitled to an opinion and whether it agrees with mine is unimportant. But dismissing opinions because, as you did, when you thought someone who is old just repeats the old days were good etc. Is not expressing an opinion. And if you keep baiting me I shall take action.

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But dismissing opinions because, as you did, when you thought someone who is old just repeats the old days were good etc. Is not expressing an opinion.

It is, but admittedly a rather lazy one. I'll definitely concede that and will try to avoid that in the future. But I've tried to enlarge on it in further posts which you react to with senseless oneliners and personal attacks and refuse to answer any questions about your very strong statements. Not a very good look, especially for a mod.

The frustration that led me to post that lazy oneliner is valid though, I feel. I dismiss Brundle's opinion because of the following reason: F1 is run by old dudes, in every layer of the organization. And that includes most of the journalists. That's just a fact, not a judgement about age in itself. But it's perhaps one of the reasons why so many of them can't seem to do anything but point out how many things were better in the 'good old days' but offering no actual solution on the current issues. And it's the same in the top layer. Ross Brawn is 64 years old and is tasked with bringing F1 into the future. Of course it's no surprise nobody can actually come up with something except stuff that has already been tried and rejected many times. F1 is completely insular and that has lead to a complete lack of critical thinking.

See the 2019 front wing rules which were brought forward for no other reason than people complaining about the boring race at Albert Park in 2018. Everybody with any sense already knew it was never going to make any difference, in fact it's made things worse. There's now another area where teams can't make the difference anymore (in practice this means the established top teams win out) and the gaps have increased while the racing is no different, maybe even worse. And all they can do is go further down this road with more spec parts and even more restrictive rules. And after all that is said and done and Brawn's tenure is over he'll get a nice golden handshake and nobody will hold him responsible. It's toxic.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

It is, but admittedly a rather lazy one. I'll definitely concede that and will try to avoid that in the future. But I've tried to enlarge on it in further posts which you react to with senseless oneliners and personal attacks and refuse to answer any questions about your very strong statements. Not a very good look, especially for a mod.

Ok, I'll accept the criticism if you continue in the vein of your post.

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

The frustration that led me to post that lazy oneliner is valid though, I feel. I dismiss Brundle's opinion because of the following reason: F1 is run by old dudes, in every layer of the organization. And that includes most of the journalists. That's just a fact, not a judgement about age in itself. But it's perhaps one of the reasons why so many of them can't seem to do anything but point out how many things were better in the 'good old days' but offering no actual solution on the current issues. And it's the same in the top layer. Ross Brawn is 64 years old and is tasked with bringing F1 into the future. Of course it's no surprise nobody can actually come up with something except stuff that has already been tried and rejected many times. F1 is completely insular and that has lead to a complete lack of critical thinking.

Yes, again I can see why it would grate when the organisers etc. are of that generation. Indeed if you consider their approach, which appears to be to keep on going along the lines of more tech less driver input, it's somewhat surprising. But whilst the "good old days" weren't that "good", what they had was a much more interactive feel. The cars were obviously a handful, there was less reliability, tyres weren't manipulated to create good racing, the costs, whilst extreme weren't gargantuan. So, for me there should be a compromise. Bring back lighter more realistic, if you will, cars and remove the falseness of degrading tyres and drs etc.

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

See the 2019 front wing rules which were brought forward for no other reason than people complaining about the boring race at Albert Park in 2018. Everybody with any sense already knew it was never going to make any difference, in fact it's made things worse. There's now another area where teams can't make the difference anymore (in practice this means the established top teams win out) and the gaps have increased while the racing is no different, maybe even worse. And all they can do is go further down this road with more spec parts and even more restrictive rules. And after all that is said and done and Brawn's tenure is over he'll get a nice golden handshake and nobody will hold him responsible. It's toxic.

Well at the risk of raising those "good old days" again, the FIA club has always been run that way, it's what prompted BCE to set up the FOCA in order to remove the likes of JM Balestre. Sadly all that happened was we got Max Mosely who began the effort to turn the Sport into a soap opera, concentrating on lifestyle themes rather than the racing.

Yes it had to be made more safe and it was, but we still lost Senna and Ratzenberger before radical changes were made. But, in making those changes they opened the door to technologies that have brought us to here. Basically the costs of building a chassis became so prohibitive with all the tests etc. that only a well funded organisation could hope to participate. Ergo the manufacturers moved in and at first simply provided engines in return for naming rights (BMW). We all know now how that went.

So for me the only way to get back to some form of reality is to bite that bullet and make the sport more accessible. It's not about domination because that happens in any sport, it's about variety and entertainment.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Indeed if you consider their approach, which appears to be to keep on going along the lines of more tech less driver input, it's somewhat surprising. But whilst the "good old days" weren't that "good", what they had was a much more interactive feel. The cars were obviously a handful, there was less reliability, tyres weren't manipulated to create good racing, the costs, whilst extreme weren't gargantuan. So, for me there should be a compromise. Bring back lighter more realistic, if you will, cars and remove the falseness of degrading tyres and drs etc.

imo, the pursuit of more tech is exactly why so many of the ideas/changes proposed are aimed at limiting the amount of money being spent.

granted a budget cap will be difficult (perhaps even impossible but i'll tend to stick to just difficult) because as you say, 'you can't stop people developing solutions to problems'.

but surly this is also why solutions aimed at making cars lighter and less reliable will also not work...because you also cant stop people from solving these problems.

you can, however, limit the amount of money they have with which to solve those problems. it limit the types of materials they can buy and apply to making their cars lighter and more reliable. it limits the tools they have to design, analyse, and build with. it limits how much staff and equipment they can buy.

it limits how quickly they can adapt to any new set of rule changes. . i probably tend to focus too much on finances but it is the silver bullet imo.

overall though i agree, a better compromise is needed as more than one approach will be needed to right this ship.

having cars which are visibly more difficult to drive is far more entertaining imo and far more of a valuable tool in promoting the 'lifestyle' image the drivers and their PR firms are trying to exude. this should be seen as a win win for all involved.

and even if it still turns out to be a procession, for myself at least i wouldn't mind the procession so much if it meant 20odd drivers had to throw their cars around the track in order to maintain that procession.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My comment is that like most commentary of this type, it is about "goals" and not a great deal about solutions. And everyone has their own perspective which drive the goals they feel are important.

decided to separate this part as some feel the age aspect is not really relevant here but in a way i think it does.

some might say beauty is in the eye of the beholder but there is another reason why so many look back at old cars and think they are far more beautiful then what we have now and imo it comes down to so much more then just the nostalgia of old people.

perhaps future generations will see this differently, perhaps the younger generation already does, but for myself (in my 40's), and i suspect also for those older than myself, i tend to side on the opinion that things, art, machines, buildings etc that are designed, made, and operated by people hold a significantly greater amount of value then things that are not. rather, there is a reason why the connection we feel is greater.

im not saying i am anti technology or that all tech should be removed from F1...cars, after all, are of course in and of themselves a technological thing.

now i dont know where the balance should be set but i feel right now its both out of balance and moving in the wrong direction.

that there are what, at least 200 engineers and programmers to every 1 athlete in the paddock? to me seems like a rather daft ratio for a sporting endeavor....for a mission to the Moon its great but for a sport it doesnt make any sense.

and frankly everyone can plainly see this. the racing is not exciting but rather moving towards sterile and clinical. the cars are not beautiful but inelegant and soulless. it resembles the inside of a laboratory rather than a modern field of battle.

just my opinion but there is something to be said about sports which place a value on maintaining the rules of competition to as close as possible as the original set of rules established. there is something true and real to this. something far more tangible then can ever be achieved by a computer simulation.

impossible i know but that spirit/ethos is 'the goal' i think the changes proposed by the rulemakers should aspire to.

or maybe im off my rapidly aging rocker!

[Peter Mallett]

Ok, so we have a cost cap. What does it do? The whole Concord Agreement is a contract between the Teams and the Organizers. Perhaps if I use the analogy of a complex construction contract you will see my argument.

You have a contract for a scope of work, in this case a massive bridge. You've agreed a lump sum for the scope of work of say $500m. You've also agreed a schedule which is for the Contractor to use as he sees best as long as the bridge is built by (say) August 2021.

You are all happy to follow the schedule etc. until something arises; the bridge design as agreed doesn't meet the new requirements for traffic weights etc. All of a sudden the Contractor arrives at your door and tells you he can't finish the job without a major re design and it will cost another 20%. Bearing in mind you, the client, decided the budget and the design, you have to pay the extra cost to meet your schedule.

Now, take that to your cost cap theory. You've set out the regs, prescribed the design criteria and then agreed with the teams a cost cap. By making those impositions as the organizer you've accepted responsibility for, among other things, safety structure design, engine longevity etc. As a result, the teams will be seeking shortcuts in order to stay afloat. And those short cuts will inevitably involve safety in terms of the structure of the car, engine longevity and all other things where a manufacturer can control expenditure or they will be banging on the door seeking additional funds and there will be no racing anywhere.

So, IMO we don't need cost caps, we need to make the whole thing cheaper to enter and that means returning to realistic technology.

[ApexTurtle]

Very simple question, what is 'realistic' technology?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Ross Brawn is 64 years old and is tasked with bringing F1 into the future.

See the 2019 front wing rules which were brought forward for no other reason than people complaining about the boring race at Albert Park in 2018. ... It's toxic.

(1) As far as I can tell, Brawn's proposal for Champcar style aerodynamics in 2021 (as pictured below ) will allow for closer racing and less disturbance when running behind another car. Y250 vortex is eliminated by attaching front wing elements directly to nose = less sensitive to turbulence. The ground effect is produced by a venturi tunnel floor, instead of a raked flat plate that needs finicky aerodynamic sealing = less sensitive to turbulence. That is backed up with data. Not guesswork.



(2) No. The 2019 rules produce a quantifiable reduction in the width of the wake behind the cars, as pictured below. The front wing not having outwash elements makes the wake narrower, while the higher and larger rear wing kicks the wake of the car up higher into the air and thus away from the ground and away from disturbing the following car. This is a measurable and genuine reduciton in distrubance to the following car. Backed up with data. Not guesswork.



TOP: Wake simulation for 2019 car
BOTTOM: Wake simulation for 2018 car
Source: https://www.f1technical.net/features/21995

[ApexTurtle]

Does it improve the on-track product as advertised? No. That's fact, not guesswork.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Very simple question, what is 'realistic' technology?

Simple answer. Pure fueled engines without all the gubbins and weight of electric recovery, steel brakes etc. Something that proper engineers can get their teeth into to outperform their competition.

Since we are running petrol engines down I can't see it lasting but by the time it's kicked into the weeds everything will be electric anyway so who cares?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Very simple question, what is 'realistic' technology?

I would say realistic technology is a simple non-hybrid 2.4L twin-turbo V6 with 1000hp (the Indycar engine regulations for 2021), or (even better) a simple non-hybrid 2.1L twin-turbo V8 (made by adding two cylinders to the current V6 and getting rid of the hybrid stuff). Direct injection is likely here to stay, and is unlikely to be done away with.

Of course, a 3L V10 or 3.5L V12 would be even better again, but seems the least likely solution sadly.

However Mercedes, Honda and Renault particularly enjoy the "hybrid" marketing angle. So what can you do!? They don't want these manufacturers to quit, even if the vacuum could be filled by simpler non-hybrid units from a variety of smaller manufacturers...

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Does it improve the on-track product as advertised? No. That's fact, not guesswork.

Lol. Many drivers have said that it is now easier to follow: fact.

Romain Grosjean:

The new rules for the aero, it's easy to follow another car, which is good.

https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/gr...tyres/4354406/

You must appreciate it is an incremental change, that is all that was possible due to F1 committee rule making structure. The 2021 change is the big change -- if Brawn's 2021 Champcar-style cars still produce processional racing then you can complain.

It's very unlikely the 2021 cars will produce processional racing. They will be much more like a F2 aero concept, and the F2 cars can follow and race closely on tracks where F1 produces processions. I would be very surprised if the 2021 aero package is a failure.