[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Sodemo]

Lets face it, the FIA dont have a great track record for introducing positive technical changes.

1998 - Narrow cars and grooved tyres.
1999 - Decided the grooved tyres were such a good idea they introduced another groove in the front tyre just for giggles.
2004 - Decided that the front wing should be raised further up from the ground.
2005 - Decided that the front wing should be raised even further up from the ground.

You see, unless there has been a change of good race car dynamics thinking, these tech changes listed above are so unfathomable to think that actually they are actually an act of sabotage.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Lets face it, the FIA dont have a great track record for introducing positive technical changes.

1998 - Narrow cars and grooved tyres.
1999 - Decided the grooved tyres were such a good idea they introduced another groove in the front tyre just for giggles.
2004 - Decided that the front wing should be raised further up from the ground.
2005 - Decided that the front wing should be raised even further up from the ground.

You see, unless there has been a change of good race car dynamics thinking, these tech changes listed above are so unfathomable to think that actually they are actually an act of sabotage.

Grooved tyres were ok in 98, but they made it worse in 99. Really they should have gone back to slicks then. And they should have got rid of body aero like winglets and barge boards a lot sooner

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Grooved tyres were ok in 98, but they made it worse in 99. Really they should have gone back to slicks then. And they should have got rid of body aero like winglets and barge boards a lot sooner

I guess my point (or maybe a question) is, what is the thinking here, who is making these decisions and what is the logic behind them? I can appreciate that there are likely vested interests, political and commercial forces at play too which cloud the decision making.

[S griffin]

Well it seems they have at least learned some lessons from the past, but not enough of them. Still too many rules that shouldn’t be there, which I won’t go into detail about

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Lets face it, the FIA dont have a great track record for introducing positive technical changes.

1998 - Narrow cars and grooved tyres.
1999 - Decided the grooved tyres were such a good idea they introduced another groove in the front tyre just for giggles.
2004 - Decided that the front wing should be raised further up from the ground.
2005 - Decided that the front wing should be raised even further up from the ground.

You see, unless there has been a change of good race car dynamics thinking, these tech changes listed above are so unfathomable to think that actually they are actually an act of sabotage.

Most of the changes that were driven in the Mosley era were because of safety, (something Max was determined to push through and in hindsight, has the made the sport safer), and the others were based on slowing cornering speeds.
So grooved tyres, restrictions on width, less effective aero, are all with the purpose of slowing the cars down.
The present regulations are so contrived I am of the opinion that they are not good, and have given one team a distinct advantage.
There were reasons for this, but it hasn't created a greater spectacle.

Many of the historical changes in formula regulation have been driven by either safety or speed reduction.

[P38 in workshop]

Its hard to argue against safety improvements.It isn't hard to argue that many of the changes from the Balestre era onwards have been to make it appear that the racing is closer and interesting.DRS is a prime example and my personal bugbear is the compulsory tyre stops.I would much rather they simply allocated each car a pile of tyres for the weekend and let the teams find out how to make the best use of them.Whether it be mixing sets,with hard on one side of the car on some circuits or risking an entire race on one compound versus three stops on a soft compound.Adding another three teams would be enough to give the existing investors a dose of the vapours,even if they were still solvent,but it might improve the spectacle.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The present regulations are so contrived I am of the opinion that they are not good, and have given one team a distinct advantage.
There were reasons for this, but it hasn't created a greater spectacle.

Many of the historical changes in formula regulation have been driven by either safety or speed reduction.

The previous regulations also gave one team a distinct advantage.
Having said that I do agree with the points you made.

[Richard C]

More details about the 2026 active aero solution and the future of DRS...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...lans/10599603/

Short version
* An unidentified team said they think a rear wing only solution was viable. Reports of simulations showing undriveable cars was them validating a rear only solution was unrealistic.
* There will be two mode... Normal and low drag
* DRS will go away as structured now. There will be zones that allow low drag to be used, but it's not used to help overtake. So it sounds like anyone can use low drag in the appropriate zone.
* With the removal of DRS as a passing aid what replaces it? A push to pass system!!!

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The present regulations are so contrived I am of the opinion that they are not good, and have given one team a distinct advantage.

It's no more contrived than saying the underneath of the car must be completely flat between the axles, which looks quite silly really!



The world's most advanced racing cars, and they are completely flat underneath (1983-1994) or completely flat with a step (1995-2021).

Completely undoing the advances in Venturi ground effects of the late 1970's.



Within the legality areas prescribed in the 2022 rules, there is quite a lot of flexibility actually. Infamously, cockpit position relative to the axles is quite free. Tunnel height is relative free, centre of pressure is absolutely free, tunnel geometry is relative free, the exact orientation and geometry of the up to four strakes is relatively free et cetera.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Richard C

More details about the 2026 active aero solution and the future of DRS...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...lans/10599603/

Short version
* An unidentified team said they think a rear wing only solution was viable. Reports of simulations showing undriveable cars was them validating a rear only solution was unrealistic.
* There will be two mode... Normal and low drag
* DRS will go away as structured now. There will be zones that allow low drag to be used, but it's not used to help overtake. So it sounds like anyone can use low drag in the appropriate zone.
* With the removal of DRS as a passing aid what replaces it? A push to pass system!!!

Richard

The lack of DRS wouldn't be an issue if they just shrunk the front and rear wings down to about 20% of what they currently are.

[Greem]

All this aero nonsense just demonstrates (again) that neither the teams, the FIA, F1 themselves and all the other involved parties know what F1 is any more.

2026 is, or rather was, a golden opportunity for something really radical to happen. It looks like they're just fiddling.

Give them a reducing cost cap, minimal restrictions on design, and a maximum of 50% of the energy input across a meeting that they have now. That'll force some really radical solutions out of the designers and engineers and give us something genuinely new to watch.

Cheques payable to Greem, c/o my wife, thanks.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The lack of DRS wouldn't be an issue if they just shrunk the front and rear wings down to about 20% of what they currently are.

Explain your thinking. I am curious.

Richard

[Richard C]

Good video that provides more details about 2026 technical specifications.

https://youtu.be/v4rneWBey9M?si=lsRRA0Xaf1qJFEMw

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

It's no more contrived than saying the underneath of the car must be completely flat between the axles, which looks quite silly really!



The world's most advanced racing cars, and they are completely flat underneath (1983-1994) or completely flat with a step (1995-2021).

Completely undoing the advances in Venturi ground effects of the late 1970's.



Within the legality areas prescribed in the 2022 rules, there is quite a lot of flexibility actually. Infamously, cockpit position relative to the axles is quite free. Tunnel height is relative free, centre of pressure is absolutely free, tunnel geometry is relative free, the exact orientation and geometry of the up to four strakes is relatively free et cetera.

My comment about the current regulations can be extended to all regulations since Max became head of the FIA.

The technical regulations governing power trains that lead to Mercedes domination was simply one organisation perfecting the powerplant.
The comment regarding contrived regulations at present was because the present regulations were introduced to end the Mercedes domination but did so by allowing a freedom in aerodynamics and that would automatically put one specific team at an advantage.

That has been the case and it shouldn't have surprised anyone.

If we wanted a real change there would be an abandoning of underbody aero and a focus on mechanical rather than aero induced grip.
Slower lap times and slower cornering speeds initially but probably more interesting racing and technical development.