How to fix F1?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Mr Hamilton's view is that F! has some fundamental issues that need addressing.

"It's got the potential to be the greatest racing series there is, but you look at MotoGP and they are wheel to wheel, fighting from corner to corner." Hamilton

Why I watch F1 in a nut shell, and why I am so, disappointed!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

This is backwards. The reason they have to have so much data is because there have been so many attempts to introduce 'randomness' that the teams are required to crunch the data in order to respond. If you close off one area, teams will just find another. And it's always the same, try to force 'unpredictability' and it will bite you in the ass because it always only works in the very short term.

No they won't. Restrict the sensors on the cars and ban GPS for a start then ban data transmission back to the factories. No live data from the cars and get rid of the wall of engineers on the pit wall who are the defacto drivers of the car. Restriction of data is the exact thing that engineers hate because it makes them redundant which then introduces more random results.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

This is backwards. The reason they have to have so much data is because there have been so many attempts to introduce 'randomness' that the teams are required to crunch the data in order to respond. If you close off one area, teams will just find another. And it's always the same, try to force 'unpredictability' and it will bite you in the ass because it always only works in the very short term.

Brawn's comments are so completely misguided, to me he hasn't said anything of value about F1 since he left Mercedes. It's like he never actually paid attention to F1 while he was neck-deep in it (a common problem). He correctly identifies that one of the reasons the US GP was good was because there were people on different strategies, but then once again stops thinking there. Why was the USGP good? Because Verstappen was able to use an alternate strategy to get into the mix. Why was he able to do that? Because he started outside the top 10 and so he had a choice of starting tyre instead of being forced to start on his Q2 tyre. The evidence is always overwhelming, teams in F1 need more choices and options and not fewer. People in charge of F1 get that consistently the wrong way around. And yes even if you give teams more choices the majority of the races will be boring. But that's a fact of life, 90% of all football matches are dull affairs too but nobody is suggesting the sprinklers get turned on only on the losing side's half midway through the game or something.

Agreed. (especially the emboldened; the cream always rises to the top, as it should)

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Well what do you know, artificially crappy tyres make for bad racing. Who'd have thought?!

Disagreed. (unless you're referring to inferior quality, i.e. failures thereof) Less grip and race length endurance would put increased driver's percentage back into the mix without screwing with any other tech, whatever the rules required.
'Extreme exaggeration, of course, but all the downforce/horsepower on earth wouldn't help on ice.

[Teretonga]

I have walked away from regularly watching this sport five years ago and only follow it sporadically as and when I can catch up with what is happening.

I knew everything was going awry at the end of the 90's and that Mosley's influence wasn't what the sport needed.
Neither is Ross Brawn. He is technical but in a technocratic way, not a visionary way. Nothing wrong with Ross and I have enormous respect for what he has achieved in his career but he is not the right person for this job.

Here is something to think about.
Get rid of aero development. Mandate front wing size, length and depth, and reduce to single (or two) plane. Common rear wing in size, shape, materials or just provide a supply chain all made by one company. No barge boards, only clean up side pods and other elements. No extra appendages. flat bottom with a little down force simply to provide some stability but even it and stop the aero craziness, have even a common set of 'under-body aero' or a range of three standard variations that they would purchase and interchange if they wanted to (3 levels of down force-drag?). Simpler looking cars. Late 88-92 Mclaren, Ferrari, Onyx, dallara were all simpler looking, cleaner cars.

The current thinking by Liberty looks like some diecast or plastic toy racer designed for a living room toy set. So F1 is heading toward a very 'commercial' image at present. That may not work for long, because people only believe in that for a brief period of time. A year or two and you outgrow it.

Technical development has more freedom. We are stuck (maybe ) with hybrids at present so lets not fiddle with the engines. The cost is awful but deal with reality. changing the engine formula is not the answer, it only adds expense, unless we went back to 3 litre combustion engines no turbo, max 12 cylinders, (allowing 1.6 litre 1600 turbos on a stock block......?)

Suspension? Allow active suspension? If so this would redirect the spending to items with wider application. Ultimately those with the money would hit the nearly perfect but you cannot legislate advantage away, only provide opportunity for creativity.

Tyres. If we can learn from NASCAR. Only 4 people in total 'over the wall' and mandate 5 or 6 stud wheels with stud guns so that if you decide to change tyres it costs you something realistic on time. If you are light on tyres, better handling or driving and can run the race on a single set you have a real advantage. Dont legislate how many tyre stops just make them an issue so people can choose a wider variety of options. Pirelli or whoever can make a tyre to go the distance.....

Fuel: Basically pump fuel, no witches brews. Tank capacity should be enough to go without a pit stop. Refueling yes but the device used should have a limited fuel rate and safe. Half the tank in about 15-20 seconds. Single design for everyone to use. The longer fuel rate because if you short fuel you may gain some advantage depending on how much you choose to add. But if you can make your tyres last the whole length why should you have to stop?
All this adds to the ability to make strategy work for you and scheme and plan, but if you get it wrong..... its on your head. But races can become more interesting.

Will they be slower? Only around corners (but we went to narrower tyres for that purpose, only to let aero go rampant so they could recover it in an era that has no automative engineering application).... car racing should be about cars..... not planes...

Don't play with race lengths or force drivers to retire after 12 years or whatever. All this daft.

Organisation: Look at NASCAR and Indycar. Drivers generally need to be more accessible, less aloof but don't be excessive in either direction. Financially there needs to be the reorganization to even things up.As it stands those with the most money get the most but it is out of proportion to to those who make up the field. Do you want a performance incentive? Then give everyone the same amount with end of season bonuses (20% of the total fund) based on the number of points scored during the season...... That would be simple. your team scores 60000 a point ($600,000,000 in total, 20% is 120 million, approx 2000 points are up for grabs so that is $60000 a point) and 10 teams split the other $480 million evenly. If your team scores 600 points in the season you get an additional $36 million. if you don't score at all you get nothing more than your $48 million. This would even up the playing field.
If a team scored 10 firsts and 15 seconds with its two cars it would receive 520 points for that performance. That would be $31.2 million in bonuses so $79.2 million in total or 165% of the base rate $48 million. They score 26% of the points on offer so get 26% of the bonus money.....

Ideally we want cars to be smaller with wheelbases around 96-100 inches (they look better) but other current issues create complexity.

Senna once said the ultimate in racing purity was a 100cc kart like he drove before cars. No bodywork. Engine, frame, seat, steering wheel, chain (transmission), 4 tyres, number plate. Karting has drifted away from that purity with add-ons and so has F1. Keep It Simple S........

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Here is something to think about.
Get rid of aero development. Mandate front wing size, length and depth, and reduce to single (or two) plane. Common rear wing in size, shape, materials or just provide a supply chain all made by one company. No barge boards, only clean up side pods and other elements. No extra appendages. flat bottom with a little down force simply to provide some stability but even it and stop the aero craziness, have even a common set of 'under-body aero' or a range of three standard variations that they would purchase and interchange if they wanted to (3 levels of down force-drag?). Simpler looking cars. Late 88-92 Mclaren, Ferrari, Onyx, dallara were all simpler looking, cleaner cars.

Why are people continuing to be so completely unimaginative?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Why are people continuing to be so completely unimaginative?

It is a reply to what needs to happen to get closer racing. The teams want to spend on aero because everything else restricted so the ONLY real advantage is to be imaginative with aero. hence you get millions spent on minute advantages that reduce the ability to circulate closely together.

If you think I am being unimaginative then give us a solution that allows unrestricted aero development and yet enables the cars to run round high speed corners nose to tail without a loss of downforce/grip.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

enables the cars to run round high speed corners nose to tail without a loss of downforce/grip.

Well, that's physically impossible.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Well, that's physically impossible.

Remember the Handford device, used by CART?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Remember the Handford device, used by CART?

What is a Hanford device?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRh0a7D63mI

Why did they stop using the Hanford device BJ?

On another front, the type of things you can get up to with unlimited budgets, Mercedes cooling the rims/ creating aero efficiency with hundreds of little holes in the hub and rim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVlbL5lGPg8

[wnut]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Well, that's physically impossible.

Not if you allow ground effect.

Still just be better to go to spec aero. Airfoil profiles that are less sensitive to stalling and turbulent air, but that are not as efficient in clean air would go an awful long way toward allowing the cars to run much closer together.

Using technology to promote better racing, rather than just time trial machinery?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

What is a Hanford device?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRh0a7D63mI

Why did they stop using the Hanford device BJ?

On another front, the type of things you can get up to with unlimited budgets, Mercedes cooling the rims/ creating aero efficiency with hundreds of little holes in the hub and rim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVlbL5lGPg8

It stopped being used after CART imploded in 2003 and morphed into Champ Car. The last race it was going to be used was Fontana The King Taco 500, the season finale but the race was cancelled because of wildfires.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Well, that's physically impossible.

No loss of downforce in high speed corners here.

[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?

[S griffin]

It's a single seater

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

That's because there is none to begin with.

Precisely.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's a single seater

Capable of good close racing!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Why are people continuing to be so completely unimaginative?

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

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It stopped being used after CART imploded in 2003 and morphed into Champ Car. The last race it was going to be used was Fontana The King Taco 500, the season finale but the race was cancelled because of wildfires.

Thanks BJ, how well did the Hanford device work?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Thanks BJ, how well did the Hanford device work?

No probs wnut. Check out the final laps of the 1999 US 500 at Michigan.

Those cars were amazing, just the sound alone was awesome.

https://youtu.be/s0VEvQZa6_M

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

No probs wnut. Check out the final laps of the 1999 US 500 at Michigan.

Those cars were amazing, just the sound alone was awesome.

https://youtu.be/s0VEvQZa6_M

They do sound good, and can certainly run all over one another!

Guess they were fine with the Hanford device.

Heart breaker for Papis there!


Thinking about things, running on an oval would probably force F1 to fix the aero problems immediately!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

No probs wnut. Check out the final laps of the 1999 US 500 at Michigan.

Those cars were amazing, just the sound alone was awesome.

https://youtu.be/s0VEvQZa6_M

Great video, and this too -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25bHlzCbLuA

Because passing was "easy", it turned it into a chess match. You could pass, but did passing put you at a disadvantage? Where there other cars around to use? Should you pass because you can? It totally changed the racing on the big ovals and it was amazing.

There was also the Swift Mushroom Buster which was used to great effectiveness in the Swift Formula Nippon car. http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...ar-2012-swift/

[V8 Fireworks]

I had forgotten the things that used to be piled onto the F1 sidepods when there wasn't a minimum radius rule over the engine cover...

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by wnut

Thinking about things, running on an oval

F1 on an oval/ovals?

B_L_A_S_P_H_E_M_Y !!!!!!!!

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by wnut

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

To what dead end do you refer? What other cars/series can match the tech of F1? (Allright, I'll give ya the soon defunct LMP1...) Nothing else comes close.

[Aysedasi]

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