[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[old man]

Just watched the highlights of the sports GT race from Austin and will be interested in the position taken on track limits when F1 gets there, from what I saw at several corners they simply redefined the track, made no attempt to stick to the black bit.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by old man

Just watched the highlights of the sports GT race from Austin and will be interested in the position taken on track limits when F1 gets there, from what I saw at several corners they simply redefined the track, made no attempt to stick to the black bit.

WEC policed track limits at COTA with good consistency, very accurately.

IMSA said "we can't guarantee consistency, so if it's paved, go for it".

Two series, same track, same weekend. I can't quite get my head round the latter approach - we manage it in the UK with one person per post at some meetings, so surely IMSA can?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Maurizio Arrivabene questions F1 windtunnel ban.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120951

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Maurizio Arrivabene questions F1 windtunnel ban.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120951

Given that teams inside and outside F1 still have problems taking CFD designs and getting the expected output in the real world, I do NOT think we are ready for a 100% CFD system.

I can see more dynamic flexibility around less tunnel time equals more CFD time/compute power. So large teams that have tunnels, use them, but with less CFD time. For those who have limited or no tunnel access, then they could get more allowed CFD time/compute power. Something similar to engine displacement allowances for atmo to turbo in days of old.

Richard

[wnut]

This is the rule that F1 needs to implement immediately, but for PUs:

"Honda has made no attempt to disguise the shortcomings of its aero kit, and has requested that IndyCar implement rule 9.3, which is a special provision for a manufacturer to make additional bodywork changes during the off-season if the performance disparity is great enough to risk becoming detrimental to the series. IndyCar is yet to respond."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120699

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

This is the rule that F1 needs to implement immediately, but for PUs:

"Honda has made no attempt to disguise the shortcomings of its aero kit, and has requested that IndyCar implement rule 9.3, which is a special provision for a manufacturer to make additional bodywork changes during the off-season if the performance disparity is great enough to risk becoming detrimental to the series. IndyCar is yet to respond."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120699

The rule reads: "In the event that an aero kit is not competitive to such extent that it would be detrimental to the Verizon IndyCar Series, IndyCar may permit in its sole discretion approved suppliers to implement modifications to their respective aero kits."

I always understood rule 9.3 was there to allow changes to be made to aero-kits during the regular season. The manufacturers each have three areas of the car they can update any way in the off season

F1 has borrowed quite a bit from CART/IndyCar over the years and this would be something worth implementing.

[Taxi645]

Disclaimer; these rules changes are not meant to be complete or completely thought through. They are just food for thought from a motorsport enthusiast who is no insider and with some but limited technical insight. Some proposals are just copy paste from others if they made sense to me.


They also are also written from the point of view that close and exciting racing and being the pinnacle of motorsport is most important to the health of F1.




Major goals:

• A more competitive field (through finances and technical regulations)
• Better racing (most important; interesting battles for position)
• Slightly faster cars
• A better balance of influence and finances between teams between the teams, the FIA and the commercial rights holder.

Governing regulations

• Strategy group get a major revision. Top teams have too much influence now. All teams get a vote, but the weight of the votes is distributed similarly than the historic bonus payments. Standard 1 vote per team, if you have been competing for 16 years or more you get 2 votes.

• The arrangement between the FIA, the commercial rights holders and the teams is quite complicated, but it is clear that the sporting organization; the FIA should have more influence and use it in the best interest of competitive and attractive motorracing.

Financial regulations

• GET RID OF ALL PERFORMANCE BONUS PAYMENTS. Performance bonuses makes no sense and do nothing for racing. In fact they only drive up cost and pull the field apart thus reducing the attractiveness of the championship. Performance bonuses increase costs, because it stimulates major parties (say Mercedes) to heavily invest, attract more sponsorship money, because through the performance bonuses they have a very good chance to get a guaranteed return on investment (success and money) and all smaller teams (who not in the same position) must then increase their investment to try to stay competitive or risk being left behind.

To me personally I find it startling that there's a continuous and unsuccessful effort to reduce cost through the technical regulation while a cost ballooning catalyzer like performance bonuses remain in place.

• • Historic payments are not necessaries wrong, of course we want the likes of Ferrari, Williams, McLaren etc to thrive in F1 and not be easily outrun by a new outfit financed from who knows where. A long term commitment should be rewarded in F1. Just remove them from back room negotiations and make them part of a public financial arrangement that is fixed for a long time.

A team can claim a modest historic bonus after competing continuously in F1 under the same name for 8 years. That amount would double after 16 years and triple after 32 years. The right of this historic bonus is therefore transferable to a new owner as long the new owner competes under the same name. Years before a laps in competition only count as half.






Engine regulations

• Major engine configuration rules (engine capacity/layout, turbo/non-turbo etc) must be fixed for a certain amount of years to reduce cost, allow newcomers return of investment and to allow smaller competitors to catch up more before the engine configuration changes again. Engine configuration can still be decided to be changed prematurely but only if their is major agreement that it is necessary.

• Anyone who want to run it's engine in F1 must be able and willing to supply an sufficient amount of teams with the current engine hardware only (overseen by the FIA) for fixed price and will not be able to choose which teams get the engine. Teams get offer more for a better engine (at a maximum set price), but the least demanded engine will be available for the the pre-season set price so that small teams will always get a decent engine for a acceptable price.

• It's already bad enough that the major teams/manufacturers can always threaten with leaving and also now have too much influence in the strategy group. No need to give them additional influence by being able to choose what other teams can be competitive and which not. You either run and supply a minimal amount of engines or you don't. In return ways could be sought to guarantee engine suppliers a minimum amount of exposure if races and/or championships are won with their engine.

• Teams can buy a complete engine package including the software they get supplied by the manufacturers or choose to only buy the hardware and handle the software themselves. Certain conditions must be met to allow teams to be able to develop this software in a timely and cost effectively manner.

• i.e. 2016 Red Bull could get a 2016 Mercedes or Ferrari engines, but they are not forced to supply the latest software. Red Bull could choose to develop their own or even choose to do so working together with other customer teams.
  
  

• The token system remains but major configuration is not locked down any more and tokens don't expire at the end of the year. An engine supplier can then choose to spend tokens on continuously improving the engines in minor areas (most likely someone with an already competitive/state of art configuration) or save up tokens to make a major revision to it's configuration.

This would allow suppliers trailing behind to choose between improving steadily or do a major rethink of their configuration without the token system being stretched beyond use so costs won't balloon. Unlike the current situation where the ability to alter the engine gets increasingly reduced over the years.


Further more the token system should be arranged that new comers have a good chance to become competitive, given reasonable resources, within a reasonably time frame.




Other technical regulations

• Slightly larger fuel tank (105-110kg) to put a bit more emphasis on racing rather than fuel saving. (Side benefit: average race speed would increase). Fuel efficiency still highly important, you would still want the maximum performance from the lightest possible fuel load.

• Rigorously reduce the amount of telemetry sent to the team. Only things vital for safety should be sent. This makes the feel of the driver more important again and also puts more emphasis on his driving and racing skill rather than …..dozens of switches on the steering wheel.

• An adjustment in the brake balance is only allow in one direction per lap unless their is a major safety concern. Again we want the driver to be driving and not playing with buttons on the steering wheel.

• A continued push to limit drivers aids to a minimum.

Aero

• Get rid of DRS. It's a gimmick and a gimmick that is not even tackling the proper symptom. The symptom is not lack of overtaking, the symptom is the current cars not being able to battle for position because of their aerodynamic layout. The change in position is not what is important that's a mere change on a leader board screen, it's the battle for position that makes the hart rate go up for fans and what set's apart the really good racers.

In the process a bit of weight (how much?) and button finickery is saved.

• Get more aero from the underside/middle of the car and less from the wings. Allow for closer racing around corners. Also allowing for a far more subtle positioning of battling cars running out of the corner onto the straight, thus a overtaking might or might not work braking at the other end and is not just a matter of pushing button without much race craft involved. It also tackles the one second dirty air syndrome and probably reduce the size of the “plank” thus saving some weight.

• Reduces the complexity of the front wings by reducing the number of surfaces and limiting the complexity of their shapes. This makes the cars again less vulnerable to dirty air and would significantly reduce it's development cost.

• Allow the front and rear wing surfaces to bent and just regulate how strong they must be instead. A flexing wing is not weaker in fact it is stronger (less carbon bit's on track). This will reduce lap times and fuel consumption at the same time by increasing corner speed and reducing air resistance on the straights. Another benefit; no need to check teams on this and no possibility of having an outer regulatory benefit.

[Mike Harte]

The latest from BCE plus Mosley ( http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ec...nship/?v=2&s=1 ) except that this week his favourite driver is Alain Prost, rather than last week's choice of Jochen Rindt.

What annoys me is that Mr E is as much responsible for the state of F1, and the way that it is ruled, as anyone else.

[wolfhound]

Bernie and Jean Todt are looking at the possablity of a low cost 2.2turbo V6 for F1.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fi...turbo-package/

That will go down like a lead balloon with the manufacturers on less it is a ploy to get lower cost power units from them.

[wnut]

Why not just adopt the Indycar engines significantly widen the pool in both series?

[wolfhound]

F1 using an Indy engine, Manor has a better chance of winning the world championship.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

Why not just adopt the Indycar engines significantly widen the pool in both series?

If Formula One is going to share engines with another series, it should be LMP1.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If Formula One is going to share engines with another series, it should be LMP1.

Should not be too difficult as LMP1 allow pretty much anything provided it hates stopping for fuel.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If Formula One is going to share engines with another series, it should be LMP1.

But there's only 3 of those and a dodgy Nissan engine!!

Big the same as we've got with F1, ironically.

[Casper]

They should decide on a capacity limit, forced or NA inlet and let the designers at it and anyone can build it just like they used to. OR specify a stock block and heads and let anyone build it themselves.

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by Casper

They should decide on a capacity limit, forced or NA inlet and let the designers at it and anyone can build it just like they used to...

That would be far too logic and simple for he byzantine power structures in F1.

(or as some people seem to think, that was the past hence its bad)

[chillibowl]

i dont recall who said this, one of the younger drivers perhaps, but he made a comment about reducing the amount of available practice time.

no doubt it would have less impact on all dry weekends, but getting rid of a one maybe even two practice sessions or reducing their length would help in creating less predictable weekends.

worthy of consideration by the rules committee imo.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i dont recall who said this, one of the younger drivers perhaps, but he made a comment about reducing the amount of available practice time.

no doubt it would have less impact on all dry weekends, but getting rid of a one maybe even two practice sessions or reducing their length would help in creating less predictable weekends.

worthy of consideration by the rules committee imo.

Just advantage the bigger teams more, they have the ability to run better simulations that the secondary teams, and advantage established drivers over the newcomers who would be unable to learn F1 craft anywhere.

Must be scared the Friday driver is faster than he is!

[wnut]

Perhaps with the advent of Formula Roboseries, there will be enough interest in a drivers series to make the technology of F1 enhance the racing rather than detract from it.

http://www.skynews.com.au/business/t...f1-team_011215

'We are all here (in Formula One) mostly because we like to see racing drivers racing each other, gladiators in machines that are fascinating to watch,' added the motorsport director, whose team have won both F1 titles for the last two years.'So that (a driverless series) is not at all what I would consider a sport. That is a technological or RD (research and development) playing field.' Toto Wolff would you believe!

I really thought he just did not get it.

FOM and the FIA don't seem to.

[wolfhound]

The world motorsport council has given the Jean Todt and Bernie Eccelstone the power to make changes to F1. Whatever that means?

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fi...-to-change-f1/

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122104

[wolfhound]

There have also been changes to the engine rules to allow previous year engines to be used in the future. This will allow Toro Rosso to use 2015 spec Ferrari motors next year. There will also be more engine tokens available up from 25 to 32 next year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122106

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The world motorsport council has given the Jean Todt and Bernie Eccelstone the power to make changes to F1. Whatever that means?

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fi...-to-change-f1/

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122104

Case of, be careful what you wish for, it may come true?

Be interesting to see if they can finally sort out the problems.
Will Bernie be prepared to stick it to CVC and the Manufacturers?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Mercedes' engineering director Aldo Costa, thinks Formula 1's major rules changes for 2017 will make overtaking more difficult.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122215

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Mercedes' engineering director Aldo Costa, thinks Formula 1's major rules changes for 2017 will make overtaking more difficult.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122215

Is this a bit like going to the doctors? You see 3 different GPs and you get 3 different opinions...

Bottom line for me, less aero and more mechanical grip can only be a good thing.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Mercedes' engineering director Aldo Costa, thinks Formula 1's major rules changes for 2017 will make overtaking more difficult.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122215

Thanks BJ, good article.

"By going to a car that has an enormous amount of downforce and a very complex aerodynamic shape, in our opinion it will make overtaking more difficult. That's our fear at this moment." Albert Costa; Mercedes

Well DUH!



And


"We want to win next year, but we also dream of winning through a big rule change.
"That would be fantastic for us as an organisation. It would be a demonstration of really strong engineering."

In other words

We are going to outspend everyone again?