Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged]

[Guisbro Rod H]

Within this thread I notice a couple of omissions from the usual list of marshals.
Carbon brakes are amazing devices, would steel rotors increase stopping distances with the same downforce & the same downforce?

I have always wanted to see lower profile tyres to enable mechanical grip. Then the suspension could start working and not depending the tyre wall as a new suspension sprimg

[Glen]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
(*1) I've come up with several ideas which I believe would bring the slowest and fastest teams closer together, which is why I then suggest more mechanical and less aero grip to allow those cars running at close speeds to run even closer on the track.

(*2) And I don't believe one can overlook the aesthetics of a low, wide car with big fat slicks on it. A '95 Ferrari looks worlds better than the current model, especially from behind.

(*1) Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment in the idea, I do think you'd be dissappointed at the result - to be close enough to slip-stream the car behind first needs to be be pretty similar in performance... If the relative difference stays the same nothing will happen.

(*2) I gotta take exception to this statement (!) - fine looking cars though they were, the mid-nineties models were nothing compared to the masterpiece that is the F2002. It might not be as wide, but the F2002 re-defines the term "low" and is smaller than even the rest of the 2002 grid, let alone cars of seven years previous. Personally I think it's amazing - the neat tricks, the perfect details, the beautiful curves... anyway, I like it.

As far as driver aids go - again, it's pretty hard to argue in support of them but they aren't all that easy to get rid of. A spec engine management is not really on at the moment, because much of the advantage (not in relation to TC) in a good engine is bound-up in the engine management. Different V-angles, for example, are brought about by the need to maxmise chassis considerations - but in turn they (V-angles) give vibration characteristics that are solved partly by engine management. I don't think it helps that not much is done to reassure the viewing public of the continued importance of driver skill. Only the F1-obsessed realise just how much is still left to the driver... only the faithful will still point to the consistent difference between team-mates as evidence that skill still makes a difference.

[Guisbro Rod H]

Slipstreaming is now difficult because the second car cannot corner close enough to catch up the first car on the straights now used. If aero grip is diminished then the car can start the straight on the tail of the first car and benefit from the slip stream.
That is before we consider the horrendous drag coefficients of the modern aero packages on a straight.
It is a shame this thread cannot show to all readers the marvellous slipstreaming F1 races of the early 70s round circuits like Monza. There was pure mechanical grip and no aero grip in those days. They were Murray Walker's favourites.

[ASCII Man]

Like this? (Monza 1972)

[greg.n]

i like most of Lee Janotta's ideas so won't repeat them but if you look at the Monza picture they have a basic wing for some downforce and stability but the cars (underneath) are not as pitch sensitive then as they are now and they only had 450 bhp to tow those wings through the air. I'm not advocating reduced horsepower but an aerodynamic regime that reduces aerodynamic grip to a stabilising effect and consequently increasing the importance of mechanical grip. Ferrari has an excellent aerodynamic package but the real advantage over the others is its mechanical grip via the tyre package which is what no one else has- a tyre developed specifically to suit that cars characteristics.

[greg.n]

Looking again at the Monza photograph the idea of a compulsory wing comes up. The FIA could mandate a wing that gave a reasonable amount of downforce but not to much. A bit like CART and its speedway rules. (They have a mandated wing for road courses too)That picture is a good idea of what F1 built its reputation on. Real racing. Francois C, Hailwood, Ronnie Peterson, Amon, Gethin and Ganley in the distance. Excellent.

[AMT]

That Monza pic shows, as Greg says, that the only thing that stops current F1 cars racing with each other is reliance on aerodynamic downforce. All the other technology, and anything else that's currently mooted, is neutral from that point of view, but the aeros act as a countermeasure against following cars. FYI I'm currently in the wind tunnel trying to get more downforce from a racecar that already has more of it than any F1 car! And I'm enjoying it... The photo also illustrates that huge power isn't necessary to great racing - those cars would have had around 475bhp

[Glen]

Originally posted by AMT
That Monza pic shows, as Greg says, that the only thing that stops current F1 cars racing with each other is reliance on aerodynamic downforce.

This is a very superficial assessment, I'm afraid. You could look at a photo from any 2002 race and see several cars close together - it doesn't mean that they remained in close formation for very long. Clearly there were great races in years gone by - but equally there have been many instances of certain cars having an unassailable advantage, just like now

Another thing to bear in mind is that speeds today are much higher - acceleration, cornering and braking are all in a different league and ths means that the framework for passing is quite different.

Clearly, it is an accepted fact these days that the difficulty in following a car through anything but a very slow corver means that slipstreaming down the straight becomes much harder - but that is completely ignoring the fact that cars need to get close-ish in the first place. We often now see a spread of ten or more seconds from first to sixth after as few as five or ten laps - no amount of slipsteaming is going to make up that gap.

I still think that the biggest factor of all is money abd development - if something is not done to address that then the pecking order will remain roughly similar no matter what. So - steps to reduce the benefit of extreme expense are the number one priority. By all means combine that with measures to enable more wheel-to-wheel, but on their own those measures aren't going to fix it.

[Red]

Originally posted by Guisbro Rod H
Slipstreaming is now difficult because the second car cannot corner close enough to catch up the first car on the straights now used.

True, but that's not exactly the main reason. I think we now have to recognise that with modern cars and aerodynamics, slipstreaming as we knew it in the Sixties does not exist anymore. In those days, at high speed a following driver could pick up the slipstream of the car in front from 100 metres or more. I am told that the distance has now been reduced to 30 metres or so because the cars are so much more aerodynamically efficient. The cars of the Sixties were not developed in rolling-road wind tunnels with endless resources and technical facilities ... (by the way, the "I" from "I am told" it is not me, is Max Mosley... And he continues: ) The key to overtaking is to allow the cars to have as much grip off-line as they have when they are on the normal racing line. When you have more equal grip on different lines, together with longer braking distances, there are more opportunities for overtaking.

Well, he tried to increase the braking zone. He introduced grooves. He also tried hard to "have more grip when off-line" also. That is the current cars (narrower, grooves, 3 elements rear wing, higher front wing) have perhaps less grip than the 1997 Formula, but perhaps the differences between off-line and racing-line are smaller in current Formula. Actually the traction control helps too. But the overtakings moves are not as many as in Motosport. I believe that this is because the World Championship is not supposed to mean overtakings. It's supposed to mean winning the World Championship. Perhaps the drivers are not willing to take risks (especially when you're Michael Schumacher and have Ross Brawn as a strategist). Or perhaps they are told not to risk a DNF if the gains are insignificant. (that's why I don't see the 10-8-6 point system as a great improvement)

[AMT]

<<I still think that the biggest factor of all is money abd development - if something is not done to address that then the pecking order will remain roughly similar no matter what. So - steps to reduce the benefit of extreme expense are the number one priority. By all means combine that with measures to enable more wheel-to-wheel, but on their own those measures aren't going to fix it. >>

Surely it doesn't matter how expensive the sport is provided someone is willing to pay. At the moment, it seems that no-one is willing to pay because it's not an exciting spectacle. You won't control the teams' budgets by technical regulations because, as I've said before, if there's any spare cash they will spend it in other areas such as rig-testing or simulation. If you try to turn F1 into NASCAR, or even F3000, you totally lose its unique selling point. The only way to achieve what you want is by handicapping success, as in FIA GT.

<<Clearly, it is an accepted fact these days that the difficulty in following a car through anything but a very slow corver means that slipstreaming down the straight becomes much harder - but that is completely ignoring the fact that cars need to get close-ish in the first place. We often now see a spread of ten or more seconds from first to sixth after as few as five or ten laps - no amount of slipsteaming is going to make up that gap. >>

The way to stop that is to cap horsepower and to decimate the downforce - see my first post.

[Glen]

Not suggesting controlling budgets - suggesting regulating some of the practice that gets big rewards from silly investment.

For example - regulating front/rear weight distribution would be an easy way to take away some of the point of developing ultra-light engines, gearboxes and chassis. This would redress the balance towards the smaller money teams, taking the emphasis away from extreme solutions and towards straightforward good race-car preparation.

Another example would be to limit engine revs, as I have also suggested. Again, this removes the point of extreme development for ever higher revs an bhp and re-focus attention on relaibilty and driveability.

It matters very much how much F1 costs. Smaller teams are going to the wall at a frightening rate, and as if that wasn't bad enough even the bigger teams rely largely on the dubious backing of tobacco companies. When sponsorship starts to run out we've got a big, big problem. And this is happening now - Spa is axed because the sponsors demand so much; Prost has gone, Arrows and Minardi are hanging by a thread; Jordan could be next and even Jaguar are faced with tough choices.

I'm not interested in turning F1 into a spec formula - that would totally ruin the appeal for me. But I do think it's entirely possible to bring in measures which encourage good solid design and engineering, rather than extreme envelope-pushing and mega-investment.

To be extra clear: Focus on areas that cost so much (already done by trying to limit testing, but there are loopholes with simulation) - good focus points would be weight reduction and ballast placement, exotic materials, exotic engines... By default the edge between teams will be more to do with organisation, set-up and attention to detail - all the teams can afford to excel in those areas.

[Adam43]

Glen, your front/rear distribution, I quite like it. But it is such a fundamental in how a car handles. I wouldn't like to see it produce cars with certain characteristics. But then maybe it would be up to the designers to sort that out.

It would still be worth making light engines/components etc even with this rule. They would just put the weight lower down.

I like the engine limit a lot more because it is a much simpler rule to enforce. But I'm not sure I like the thought of lower revving engines. The current ones are fantastic (although a bit of variety in configuration would be nice!). While it probably would improve reliability, I'm not sure by how much. At the end of the day they will build engines on the limit of reliability for the sake of performance. Less revs might mean they can use lighter materials, or less material. The engine manufacturers would go as light as possible.

Hmmm, I seem to have mixed feelings about those ideas. However, I don't think either of these would reduce costs.

Banning certain materials and, perhaps, a limited amount of standard parts could keep the costs down?

[greg.n]

I'm sorry Glen but that photo is from the closest Grand prix of all up till the Indy farce in 2002. That was the year that gethin won in that wonderfully close finish>ganley was close with them till the last fifteen laps when he began to lose power. that ran like that for over half the race. it may not be typical but it could never happen now for two reasons. One is circuit design and the other is car aerodynamic design.

[greg.n]

I'm sorry Glen but that photo is from the closest Grand prix of all up till the Indy farce in 2002. That was the year that Gethin won in that wonderfully close finish. Ganley was close with them till the last fifteen laps when he began to lose power. They ran like that for over half the race. It may not be typical but it could never happen now for two reasons. One is circuit design and the other is car aerodynamic design.

[Glen]

Originally posted by greg.n
I'm sorry Glen but that photo is from the closest Grand prix of all up till the Indy farce in 2002. That was the year that Gethin won in that wonderfully close finish. Ganley was close with them till the last fifteen laps when he began to lose power. They ran like that for over half the race. It may not be typical but it could never happen now for two reasons. One is circuit design and the other is car aerodynamic design.

And three, it would be an extraordinary fluke to have several cars so close on performance.

[AMT]

Are engines cheaper now that beryllium alloys aren't permitted? There is already a minimum weight limit, and the fastest cars are heavily ballasted principally to lower the Cg, not to alter fore/aft position. How would you legislate to prevent MacLaren from running their very sophisticated driver simulator run by highly qualified academics, or Williams from spending £25 million on a new wind tunnel, or Ferrari from spending God knows how much on God knows what?

[Glen]

Granted, the other reason for carrying ballast is to get a low c of g - I'm not sure which is worth more, but thefront/rear is certainly easy to regulate. On another board I read a thread about the F2002 - there is a picture of it on the crane, and the weight bias is quite significantly forward... Patrick Head was said to be very impressed that they had managed this, giving rise to my thought.

Perhaps a minimum engine/gearbox weight could be mandated? Or some other way of dissuading designers from producing ever more extreme and expensive light weight cars. A restriction for the location of ballast, or the amount of ballast? Still think it's an area to focus on.

[Adam43]

Sticking with this area:

A minimum engine/gearbox rule is a way to do this. But wouldn't deigners still make really light engines and then weight it near the bottom (or the front)!

Rules on the actual materials allowed could help.

[Dutton]

I think one key thing to remember throughout this debate is that no solution is going to be a pure solution, there will always be ways and means to gain an advantage; the richer teams will be far more able to afford it, and the poorer ones to a far lesser degree. This is a natural situation which will never go away: if regulations are designed by humans then there will be design flaws by humans, which in turn means they can be exploited by humans.

With this is mind perhaps the best things to adopt are the options which are the simplest(providing they do not actively oppose the essence of F1)?

[Drifter]

How about, amongst other things, a minimum suspension travel limit
of say, 80mm?? and big fat slicks, somthing to get the cars sliding about so the over payed, under worked drivers can work up a sweat and give us somthing spectacular to watch. Montoya in a 900hp drift through Eau rouge...that would be nice.

[AMT]

I agree with Dutton - there will always be the "unfair advantage" and money will always play a part in that - and I would like to see the ability to "do a Chapman" made legal again to actively encourage that. If the power were capped to 500bhp, any power plant with that output could in theory be used - a small, high-revving multi-valve, a large-capacity low-revving pushrod, a 2-stroke, a gas turbine - and the emphasis would be on low weight and fuel efficiency. At least then there would be no need to get an engine deal with a major manufacturer before making it on to the bottom rung of the ladder. In the end, the supply of money will be regulated by factors outside the sport, not by retrogressive rules.

[golem]

AMT, Dutton and many other point out the problem of inequality and close racing: Money.
Hence my other post made about salary caps, and that's proven fruitless too. I also like complete radio and telemtry silence for my own reasons of getting it back to a more racer oriented thing. Minimum helmet height is a good one too with mention to increasing visability. Bravo, that's actually a damn clever idea so long as the relevant safety (A front debris deflector) is allowed.

As for engine reliability, I like the 14500rpm limit. One of the major spends on R&D is revvs while using steel in the crank, which is a rule. I like that idea also because it still allows for a fairly screamy exhaust note but also a bit throaty too. Nice. And remember, F1 now realistically, has a duty to put on a show as well and better sounding cars helps.

But as for close racing, well, the aerodynamics and driving line points are the main ones. Concentrate on those.

Aerodynamics is easy. It's mostly the front half aerodynamics that are the problem. They can't generate downforce from the tail of another car. So, the first rule is flat bottoms, no diffuser. Rule: below any point of any unsprung piece of bodywork, no line may be drawn upwards from the ground to more than the ride height minimum. (This cancels diffusers.
Then for the top...
Rule: There may be no lateral trailing edge barring six places on the car. One is the front of the cockpit where the driver sits, one is the rear of the car. Two are the bottom of the radiator flow exit (if the exit covers the centre of the car, then left of centre and right of centre count as 2 edges), two are the top of the radiator flow exit (With the same centre rule).
This does not count any FIA approved zero downforce rear mirrors and up to square 30cm allowed for exhaust pipe portals. (Mirrors and pipes need approval as zero downforce and round pipe respectively before being fitted.)
Definition: Lateral trailing edge: Any unsprung fixed surface of a car that is more than 5 degrees from perpendicular to the road when the car is stationary.

This effectively removed any form of wing, anywhere on the car, and yet allow a fairly free form in car design and a smidgen of downforce created by the flat undertray. Because of the bottom line rule, you can't diffuse air effectively.
That odd centre rule is to stop them making the radiators exit through one lateral edge and leaving edges for wings to be made.

As for creating a better off line route? How will we manage that. And then that idea about the NOS, as stupid and tongue in cheek as I thought it was, made sense along with one other idea. Please read them both and see if you can refine them.

Nos: A spec bottle, with a sensor that tells the FIA that the bottle is in use. Make it fairly small. This gives drivers a single shot, don't waste it, spectator pleasing opportunity to overtake. And owing to the nature of the engines, they'd have to design the engines stronger (So a heavier crank) to use the Nos and give their driver an overtaking shot (Particularly valuable in Monaco), or gain a few hp by keepin it on edge as is but without much chance of Nos not blowing it apart. That compromise of engine design was the thing that made it quite potentially interesting in my book. Sure, people might say that the drivers will hit nos when someone else does, but one driver might only gas up for say, a second, forcing the driver in front to do so, but he might stay on for 1.6 say, and so the guy behind will try and catch, and know he has more in the tank.
It gives everyone a knowledge that the other guy may always have something extra, and tactical use of it can turn a race. And in the race after, everyone will be rewatching to see who used his nos when.
To tell the truth, It may sound corney and like a Playstation game but it almost sounded like it could actually work in the right conditions. It wouldn't affect equality and money and stuff, but it WOULD make for a few breif moments of excitement. And I figure it might be something that favours the guy behind if they use it right.

2. This is as radical but takes the ball from the hands of car makers and hands it to track owners. And to me, this needs to be done more or less anyway as many believe judging by complaints of passing areas on many tracks, and how some think some tracks are boring. (Monaco again.)

Car tracks need one spot on the track where the road splits, and there is a corner series (Most likely to be a chicane because it's a cheap mod) that is identical on the left as it is right. There'd always be one with more rubber on it I figure but at least there's a spot to go if you're desperate.

Idea 3: Many existing tracks have other track sections unused during the GP, and others can be modified to suit. At the end of X laps, the cars pit and the Route A is changed to Route B, while everyone takes a dump, grabs a drink, Maybe a driver change and stuff like that. 3, 2 and 1 points are awarded for the top three as a reward for hard work.
Then, off the cars go on the fairly differant route B. This is actually useful.

Cars with less chance of overall wins, can aim to win just route A, by speccing their car for that while those going for overall will settle for a B course setup as there is a restart. (Unless a rally style, time differance start happens.) A compromise is kinda less helpful. This can also be used as the driver change, though I think super teams would get too much a benefit to outweigh the interest of two man combinations.

That last idea is really dodgey but I figure it cancels fuel stops, a kinda hazard and as Barrichello can tell you, an annoyance when it screw up. It allows for a break, mid race interview, more of a TV spectecal with maybe a mid day race. FFords with the team owners racing or something. Eddie versus Frank, who's the REAL racer? Ok maybe not, but you get how it'd be helping out Bernie and remember, if Bernie's getting helped our sport is getting helped. The cars would have to retain all existing bodywork, and maintain the same tyre compound.
This creates two grid startup chaos, but I was thinking that maybe for the restart, have them spaced further, or a pace car rolling start like happens when the pace car comes off normally.

The major problem I can see is two categories of cars emerging, those racing for Part B and those racing for A. Admittadly there's less to gain by going for B alone but I can see it happening. Still, back cars may do it just to get much needed sponsor air time while those that feel they have a chance will have to go B setup.

4. Mid race break but with no route change or a route change with bodywork mods allowed, and allowing part 1 DNF's to rejoin at the back of the grid. (Allows a dominant team more dominance in ways.)

5. Route B required laps. Route B is open during the race, and has to have a thing like a freeway turning lane that shows other drivers you're headed in. Racers have to complete X laps using the route B sections.

Oh yeah, Slicks are good.

Just a few ideas. I like the Nos, but the restart is a good TV one (Get some of those damn adds outta the way.). Rule 5 is a nice idea too, even if used on just some tracks. Adds variation and a certain unknown. Also handy for passing slower traffic.

Whew... See what you think.

[Red]

Originally posted by golem
As for engine reliability, I like the 14500rpm limit.

Why 14,500? Why not 16000? Or 9,000 rpms for example? 3l, NA engines, limited at 9000rpm. And you really cut the costs dramatically. Just take the engines from a F3000 car and label it F1 and voila.

[avsfan733]

but thats boring.... it takes the technological wonder away from the cars. I do like the idea about multiple track layouts though it would be exciting to have movable barriers at those areas and have them randomly moved every so many laps. imagine going around the course and not knowing which way u r going. That would slow things down because non of todays drivers have the balls they did in the 50's or most other eras for that matter. I do think slicks need to make a comeback if nothing else but to get rid of this stupid "full groove" controversy we have seen. And the NOS seems fun, if a monder day cliche. An easier way to manage downforce would be to make the wing mounts a standard part. they could be made to take a certain amount of force before failing. This would put the focus on getting downforce with little drag and would make rulebreakers actually pay the price rather than just fighting it out later in court. the reality is though that there are no real solutions that won't get trashed in meetings or ignored on the track i say just let them run loose and see which driver has the "cajones" to drive the fastest

[Guisbro Rod H]

Multiple tracks - means more marshals, they are now said to be short because of the way they are treated at Silverstone.

Multiple tracks - Spectators would have to pay less money because they would only see part of the race. One Bernie E would veto less money; maximum numbers of spectators is limited by ability to fill car parks, not space on trackside.

NOs or as I call it NOx, (multiple oxides of Nitrogen) is very similar to the old Palmer Formula Audi. They had a fixed number of short duration boost increases during a race. So its a possible option. In F1, we would have to avoid them using all the NOx before the first corner in combination with launch control by computer.

Yes, that delightful picture of Monza as others said was at the end of the race. Yes, cars did have different performances in still air, but slipstreaming kept them together. The problem with aerodynamic packages in combination with today's powerful engines is they can run what Mosely (see above) calls efficient wings. Very efficient at creating downforce for corners and low lap times. But huge drag that causes difficulty in slipstreaming. What is wrong with trying low drag rules anyway. The cars have all approached a similar design to the TV viewer. A change to low drag would give F1 a new image. New car shapes and designs. After a decade we could revert back if and when required to a high aero design regime.

Money.
The Constructors Championship defines the TV payout. Those at the top get a huge slice of the pot of TV gold available to the manufacturers. Why not allow a 2 year period to prove teams are serious. Then all the TV money is equally shared out. Now Ferrari, Williams and McLaren get the lion's share on top of big advertising revenue. So the TV companies' money pays the teams who dominate to dominate more thoroughly next year. Daft, when the TV's customers want more equality to get closer racing. Todt, Frank and Ron will not want to change this because it could really threaten their continual dominence. We need equal distribution of cash to enhance the Jordens, Saubers, etc and reduce the cash to the top three.

Safety
I suggect simple close fitting cycle type wings (like the front of a Westfield or a pre Super 7 Lotus 7.). Standard design required. This will cut the dangerous spray when wet. It might raise tyre temperatures requiring harder rubber in the dry.

Am I making sense?