How to fix F1?

[Richard C]

The remainder of Stefan Johansson's articles showed up last week, but I only saw them this morning.

Parts 2...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/j...ition/4374275/

And my thoughts...

70% Downforce reduction
Basically he is looking to not just reduce downforce, but to fix it at a specific level for everyone. This would be done by using load cells on suspension and fixed at a 70% reduction from current levels. This would be similar to how the FIA monitors fuel flow in the current engines.

He says this will shift engineering focus to mechanical grip and not aero. In the next section of the article (the one that is focused on the "looks" of the car) he has this quote...

Any aero development will be more focused on drag and aero efficiency, which will then also translate to road relevance eventually.

To be frank... I think he is out of his mind. My earlier post said much of this was "I think this is what they will do", but does not actually explain why he thinks that will happen.

I suspect teams are already extremely good at solving mechanical grip. I expect the issue is blending mechanical and aero in all scenarios. And he is correct about one aspect. If downforce is fixed, then team WILL focus on drag reduction. Plus, is he talking about maximum downforce (at high speed) or is there some type of speed dependent curve? How is the enforced?

For enforcement, he suggests that race control would somehow be able to adjust ride height remotely and dynamically. Or if this is not controlled by race control then the car itself trims itself out to stay under the maximum. Basically... "movable aero" as a rule is gone. I don't disagree with that, but he should state it explicitly.

I expect this will be VERY hard to do. Especially given the potential for transient spikes. You hit a slight wind gust and then your downforce temporarily goes above the specified maximum. How is this handled?

He feels that a safe way will be found (I assume to not upset the balance of the car while at speed. I would hate to be at the limit one "Curva grande" at Monza and then have the car decide... Sorry! Too much downforce... let me fix that for you!

He suggests active suspension (which I agree with), but it will be difficult to do safely and police. But lets lets say this enforcement method is achieved. So now teams will either try to achieve as much downforce as they can in all conditions. With high downforce being easy at high speed, but what about lower speeds? I expect the aero spending will be no different and will be even less relevant to anything else, but F1. The aero solutions could become weirder and weirder as they engineer around the downforce limits. Especially if active suspension is allowed AND potentially active aero. Not that I am saying they will generate more downforce, but in that they will engineer the solutions to give them as much downforce as they can in all situations. Not to mention low drag at high speed.

Make the cars look attractive, aggressive, fast

He has a quote that says...

No add-on aero bits will be allowed on any of the car’s surfaces.

First... if anyone can write rules that define beauty, please give me some examples. As we know the goal of the engineer is to not look good, but to go fast. Beauty is really not a priority for anyone who cares about winning. Second... as to the no add-on aero bits. Write me some rules that define that. And then... lets check in later with his goals of simple rules.

Increase power by 30-40 percent, formula based on thermal efficiency and energy consumption
Broadly speaking I don't have large issues with his ideas of reworking the power units. I will say that he is leaving it open for all types of creative solutions. I will say this will only re-create a Mercedes style situation in which someone dumps a bunch of money into creating a number of private prototype solutions to find the best one. Those who are less well funded will bring knives to a gun fight. At some point (probably years into the new formula) everyone will gravitate to the same solution. So if everyone ends up huddling around a single solution in the end, why not...

IMHO, it's probably just easier to create a fixed spec that is less complex than the current one, but still also relatively closed box. I am thinking something like non-turbo v8/v10 solution that hearkens back prior v8/v10 solutions.

Noise
Sure. Why not. Might be hard to legislate, but could be done. Might conflict with high efficiency power units. Noise is wasted energy.

More power, higher top speeds, less downforce, longer braking distances, slower cornering speeds, more passing
I can't disagree with the goals.

Weight reduction
Sure why not. I suspect it's a combo of complex power units and maybe lack of refueling, and safety features. I would say that everything except for safety features are negotiable. So we can't compromise safety.

Car's of prior eras (particularly a LONG time ago) were light because they were death traps. I know I am comparing apples to oranges here, but has anyone looked at the space-frame for a Porsche 917 and thought about driver safety? Non-existent.

Quote from article...

And if a good portion of the money currently being spent on the endless and worthless aero development would instead be spent on material technologies and more efficient engine technologies, we would very soon find some very exciting alternatives that would eventually filter down to road relevance.

I am doubtful that making F1 cars lighter has road relevancy. Road cars weight as much as they do today because of economics. Maybe someday will will be driving around in "mass produced" and "cheap" carbon composite cars, but not today and not tomorrow.

It's the same reason we don't ALL have personal jet packs and fly to work. The technology exists, but it's always going to be cheaper to take the bus or drive your inexpensive four cylinder Honda to work. Also the reason why super sonic jet transport is not pervasive. It's just so much darn cheaper to fly sub-sonic and always will be.

Improve tire technology, make them wider and bigger in diameter
I am fine with this.

Allow more than one tire manufacturer
I have mixed feelings. I think at it's core this is to get away from the spec tires we have today. Spec in that they purposefully perform badly. I would like to see an intermediate step tried first which is to allow a single provider to provide the "best" they can. If that doesn't work, then I guess the next step is a tire war. But those don't always work as planned.

18-inch rims to correlate to road car technology
Yes

Reduce the importance of electronics
As driver aids... yes. I still see a value in them elsewhere.

Eliminate designers and engineers in the rule-making process, simplify the rules
Generally I think this is nothing more than... "They experts have tried, so let someone else give it a go".

Quote...

The rules have become more and more complicated each year to the point where the team principals no longer bother to even try to understand them.

I think what everyone forgets is that the rules did start out simple. And then they have been tweaked again and again and again. Either to outright outlaw specific ideas and in others to try to move the rules closer to the "spirit of the rules" (which we know doesn't exist, but is the "intent" of the rules.)

I absolutely think the rules could be rewritten to condense them and make them easier to understand, but I think that that they can be "simplified" (in a substantial way) is complete folly. That is... unless the goal is to open up a slew of unintended loopholes so that the resulting drama is defined as "entertainment".

Also... look at my comments earlier regarding aero restrictions. SJ proposes a slew of new restrictive rules in many areas of the car. Overall his ideas and "simple rules" are completely at odds with each other.

Modify race tracks to make them more difficult to drive and more interesting to watch
Admirable goal. I can't disagree, but financial costly. Not that I am saying it shouldn't be done.

Replace DRS with push-to-pass (P2P)
I have no problem with this. If a revised formula shows this is not needed, then remove it. I suspect it might be needed.

Richard

[Richard C]

Part 3...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/j...nment/4374294/

And my thoughts...

Make the drivers more accessible
Absolutely

Make the racing less predictable
Agree. However.. VERY hard to do without forcing it. Such as DRS or P2P. Many of this core changes will help, but professional teams and drivers will still cause the gaps to be close. Budget disparity between teams will continue to make this hard nut to crack.

Bring back the “awesome” factor
Agree

Improve the broadcast and the graphics
Agree. I think one HUGE topic he missed (which this is part of) is fan access to the sport. Be that ability to easily watch via free OTA or via online. The sport should consider a freemium model for broadcasting. Pay to get extra stuff such as multiple car views, extensive integrated graphics, etc.

I know that many don't like a large number of graphics on the screen. I say make that something that can be turned on/off in an online delivery mechanism. Broadcast TV in the classic sense is dead. Enhanced viewing in which you can layer on additional information (per your preference) is what should be done. That could be the next generation of online streaming. F1 could lead that charge.

Beyond ability to easily and cheaply view remotely... In person costs are high.

Richard

[Richard C]

Part 4...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/j...vancy/4374312/

And my thoughts...

Does motorsport need to be “relevant”?
No. And this small section of his larger articles is also a way to state the fact that F1 doesn't know what it is. And that to move forward it needs to define it's core values. And then build a business based upon those values.

F1 could become the global leader in innovative thinking and implementation of new technologies
Sounds good, but generally speaking is completely counter to most all of his proposals.

Eliminate the importance of aerodynamics

Quote...

Aerodynamics have the least relevance of anything on a racecar, except making the car go fast.

That quote and that fact that he includes it boggles my mind. IMHO, it puts a large nail in the coffin of his argument. Short of creating a spec aero package or reducing the speeds of the cars to the point that aero doesn't matter (not in any way realistic for F1) then aero will always matter. I think on this topic he is out of his mind and makes zero logical sense. I like what he is trying to do, but he just ignores the facts.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

The difference is they are designed to fail now. They are also supposed to 'spice up the action'. Whatever that means. Has all the tinkering with the tyre regulations since about 2010 ever accomplished anything?

More tyre compounds than any other series; 5 not including inters and wet weather tyres?

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think on this topic he is out of his mind and makes zero logical sense. I like what he is trying to do, but he just ignores the facts.

I kept waiting for a section entitled "I have here a historically correct but entirely up-to-date and pertinent unicorn for sale".

I'm not going to dissect much of what you've quoted (and dissected yourself) except to say that there's a massive elephant in the corner of Mr Johanssen's room with large symbols of the currencies of the world painted all over it.

There is simply too much invested in F1 in terms of business finance and the profits thereof to make any form of swinging (that's a soft 'g' in the middle there, like in 'age') change of spec, design, management or rulemaking.

Bernie really was a terribly clever man - he sold a racing series back to its' own participants, charged for the privilege of entering, charged circuits for the privilege of holding a race and chortled all the way to the bank as a result. Even now, whilst he's not holding the purse strings any more, I'm sure he's still chortling, albeit perhaps not as openly as previously, and he won't be laughing at all when it all goes over the cliff. The only questions now are how far away is the edge, and can the bus be turned away...?

[Casper]

In the end there is no chance of major changes so eventually the whole thing will fall away into irrelevance but I have no crystal ball for time or what will eventuate. Motor sport as a whole will suffer a parallel path most probably as the IC is withdrawn from universal service and becomes a niche power unit for a particular job such as in the less populated areas of the world. Like all trends as the fall off occurs then it will accelerate and I think we can safely say it has already begun.

[sizzle]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...rakes-and-rims

Can we make them steel and increase braking distances please.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by sizzle

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...rakes-and-rims

Can we make them steel and increase braking distances please.

Allowing passive bending of aero surfaces accomplishes the same; higher speeds with less downforce at initial braking.


Further advantages:

- Bending helps against braking of parts.
- More consistent ride height across the lap.
- Improves laptimes, thus allows downforce reduction which aided cars being able to follow each other.
- Drag reduction, thus fuel use reduction, thus less weight in fuel needed to be carried.


Just make sure it bends within a linear threshold for both ends of the car to prevent any tricks and handling to remain predictable and safe.


P.S. Political argument: The aerodynamic consequences of bending aero surfaces gives aero departments something to do after aero is strongly simplified to allow better following.

[S griffin]

I think that’s a good idea, I don’t see why not, especially if it improves racing

It’s one that should be looked at, not just for aesthetic to reasons, but for better racing, closer action and all that

I think it would good to implement it, it can work

[chillibowl]

thought i would bring this discussion over here as i have a feeling my following post would have taken things too far off topic in the Williams thread. hope thats ok.

Originally Posted by wnut

Martin Brundle's take on what an F1 car/F1 should be:

"F1 must be a drivers' championship, not an engineers' tech fest. The cars must be the angriest, flightiest most challenging machines on the planet. I don't want to see teenagers jumping in them and having it all mastered by lunchtime, and fully on the pace." Brundle

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24...future-visions

Originally Posted by chillibowl

maybe they should force everyone to use the Williams car?

im sure there are a lot of fingers to be pointed and blame to be apportioned but what Williams are going through, their lack of understanding of their problems and the lack of money to fix them is, quite frankly sirs, the predicament i would like to see every F1 team in.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think I made the same point in a round about way in the a thread recently (maybe in the "How to fix F1?" other the other that had that same topic recently).

Basically in a way... we are seeing what a cost capped team might look like. The car is not perfect. It has measurable deficiencies. But in the grand scheme of things, gets around the track quickly. Just not quick when compared to it's peers.

If everyone was driving around in something similar to the current Williams it might not be a bad thing. The top cars are so nearly "perfect" that they don't break, work well in most all situations, are likely a dream for the driver to drive and yet... are quite boring to watch most of the time.

Richard

yeah it might not be such a bad thing right and yes this is very much could be what cost capped teams may look like.

if Williams' relative shortcomings to other teams were less pronounced (everyone operating with less chance to financially achieve 'perfection') i very much think we would be looking at a field of cars that would appear to be very much harder to drive and without a noticeable decline in speed/lap times (and i would hope without any sacrifices to safety).

so i guess the question then becomes 'would we as fans enjoy that?'

rather, now that we know what a half billion dollar race car looks like would we as fans ever be able to go back to watching something that costs a fraction of the past and were organizational and design failures were more common?

obviously im a big believer in cost caps, budgets caps, resource restriction etc but i have to admit that if F1 went into some sort of low cost phase where it looked like a budget/anemic version of its former self i might not be able to watch.

my hope is that lower budgets means we will get cars that are harder to drive and then that means a more enjoyable sport to watch...but, admittedly, there is much risk in pursing this approach.

[chillibowl]

i suppose i should add that I just dont have the kinds of numbers I would need to back up many of these assertions i have made and thats pretty frustrating.

i know some people dont think a drivers salary is relevant for fan consumption or they accept the fact that detailed budgets will never made public but speaking for myself, i long for such transparency.

in this case it would be nice to see where Williams' budget shortfalls are relative to other teams so we can at least start t make more educated assertions about 'X' being an acceptable amount to spend on aero and 'Y' and reasonable number to spend materials etc etc.

i guess to put it another way, is Williams' ineptitude something that is even replicable and without seeing numbers how would we ever know?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so i guess the question then becomes 'would we as fans enjoy that?

I tend to think that we would enjoy it. Especially given that broadly speaking the current Williams is "bad" mostly in comparison to its current peers.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i know some people dont think a drivers salary is relevant for fan consumption or they accept the fact that detailed budgets will never made public but speaking for myself, i long for such transparency.

I don't think actual details are public, but I think that drivers salaries was to be excluded from the caps. I think full transparency would satisfy curiosity, but may not add other value. I expect teams would expect that details of how they devote resources will be confidential (viewable by those enforcing the caps, but not viewable by their peers)

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i guess to put it another way, is Williams' ineptitude something that is even replicable and without seeing numbers how would we ever know?

I am not totally sure what you are saying, but while I use the current Williams situation as an example of what a cost capped world might look like, I fully expect a number of teams to produce a better car than what Williams has this year. I guess what I am saying is that I expect the field as a whole to be closer to a 2019 Williams than a 2019 Mercedes. With the attributes in question being things like reliability, variability in performance between tracks, etc. Not internal drama and ineptitude, if that makes sense.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am not totally sure what you are saying, but while I use the current Williams situation as an example of what a cost capped world might look like, I fully expect a number of teams to produce a better car than what Williams has this year. I guess what I am saying is that I expect the field as a whole to be closer to a 2019 Williams than a 2019 Mercedes. With the attributes in question being things like reliability, variability in performance between tracks, etc. Not internal drama and ineptitude, if that makes sense.

Richard

that does...and to be honest im not sure exactly what i was getting at there either.

along the lines of seeing teams struggle to adapt to decreasing budgets and the mistakes that will ensue as a result is my best guess at what i was getting at.

in hindsight, ineptitude was too harsh a word to use.

[Richard C]

Misc stuff related to 2021 regulations....

Ferrari likely to keep veto. I tend to believe this will happen. But it's clearly a point of discussion by the teams in the 2021 negotiations.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/06/03/...keep-its-veto/

https://racer.com/2019/06/04/rival-t...2021-shake-up/

It's clear there is games being played around the procedure for adopting new rules. If I understanding this correctly, a plan could be taken to the FIA World Motor Sport Council (sometime this month) and that plan would not require unanimous agreement by the teams. But I think it would need to be a complete proposal. So teams are delaying so that final decision will take place later, but that would then require unanimous agreement from the teams. Which means it elevates the power of the teams over the FIA.

I think a point (that I don't know if it is valid or not) is that the more complete the proposal that is likely to be presented to the WMSC, then the less likely (or valid) that any major surgery can be applied to it later in the year. So there remains a rush (probably by the smaller teams) to get as much done now so that it prevents strong armed changes later.

I swear I found an article that mentioned something about if the proposal is not made public in the WMSC venue that somehow that extended the deadline for triggering unanimous agreement, but I can't seem to find that article after looking for it again.

A few articles that talk about this topic...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...-near/4414594/

https://racer.com/2019/05/30/abitebo...ns-80-90-done/

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

With the attributes in question being things like reliability, variability in performance between tracks, etc

If all the cars were like that, it would make a better show. Liberty would definitely be keen on that!

[Armco Bender]

Is Formula 1 actually broken or have they simply been overtaken by all the other forms of motorsport and sports on TV these days that are doing it better?.

[Adam43]

Read any other motorsport (sub) forum, or any other sport forum and it is full of people whinging about how the sport isn’t what it was. This doesn’t apply to sport either, I recently read a great post bemoaning that the world wasn’t like it was in the ‘40s. When there was a war.

The only conclusion that can come from this is that people enjoy not enjoying things.

As such, will it save a lot of time, if we can just set the rate the next race a 4 now.

[Last2LiftOff]

There's other motorsport forums!?

[Adam43]

I meant other parts of 10-10ths

[Casper]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thought i would bring this discussion over here as i have a feeling my following post would have taken things too far off topic in the Williams thread. hope thats ok.







yeah it might not be such a bad thing right and yes this is very much could be what cost capped teams may look like.

if Williams' relative shortcomings to other teams were less pronounced (everyone operating with less chance to financially achieve 'perfection') i very much think we would be looking at a field of cars that would appear to be very much harder to drive and without a noticeable decline in speed/lap times (and i would hope without any sacrifices to safety).

so i guess the question then becomes 'would we as fans enjoy that?'

rather, now that we know what a half billion dollar race car looks like would we as fans ever be able to go back to watching something that costs a fraction of the past and were organizational and design failures were more common?

obviously im a big believer in cost caps, budgets caps, resource restriction etc but i have to admit that if F1 went into some sort of low cost phase where it looked like a budget/anemic version of its former self i might not be able to watch.

my hope is that lower budgets means we will get cars that are harder to drive and then that means a more enjoyable sport to watch...but, admittedly, there is much risk in pursing this approach.

The elephant in the room regarding F1 taking a step backwards is every category would have to do the same to ensure that the steps remain as as they are. I have commented before on F1 becoming a wankfest for engineers and having encountered it myself in our own racing. There are some resources that could legitimately be denied them to make it a bit more difficult, banning all digital communications with the factory from the race track would be one but who suffers the most, the top teams or the stragglers if that was to be imposed? I don't think that would be seen as a gimmick as other things are but everyone has an opinion.

Another thing that might be seen as a gimmick and again who would suffer the most is debatable is to cap the number of channels for data and those used have to be nominated before the race. This would mean they cannot log everything in the car and the teams have to make educated guesses at what will be important. This hopefully would add some randomness into the event but nothing is certain in this world.

[Armco Bender]

I've been watching F1 for over 50 years its always been boring...

[S griffin]

The problem is it's become too over complicated and things like DRS have been put in as a gimmick to improve racing, instead of attacking the route cause of the problem

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

The elephant in the room regarding F1 taking a step backwards is every category would have to do the same to ensure that the steps remain as as they are. I have commented before on F1 becoming a wankfest for engineers and having encountered it myself in our own racing. There are some resources that could legitimately be denied them to make it a bit more difficult, banning all digital communications with the factory from the race track would be one but who suffers the most, the top teams or the stragglers if that was to be imposed? I don't think that would be seen as a gimmick as other things are but everyone has an opinion.

Another thing that might be seen as a gimmick and again who would suffer the most is debatable is to cap the number of channels for data and those used have to be nominated before the race. This would mean they cannot log everything in the car and the teams have to make educated guesses at what will be important. This hopefully would add some randomness into the event but nothing is certain in this world.

If F1 returned to manual H pattern gearboxes with driver foot operated clutches and analogue throttles, they would place the driver at the centre of the performance equation and open up the racing to driver errors and mistakes as well as limiting the input that a tech 3000 miles away could have on the car's performance. The lap times would also suffer very little in the hands of a skilled driver while significantly reducing and cutting the cost of the technical "wfest".

[S griffin]

I agree, bringing back manual gearboxes would make a big difference. It used to be the best way to pass at somewhere like Monaco

[Armco Bender]

The races are too long,this is the age of 20/20 cricket.
I want action and I want it quick....after 5 laps of watching a GP on TV I'm channel surfing.