Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17 Aug 2009, 15:49 (Ref:2523069)   #1
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Are more rule changes necessary ?

I have to admit that I'm with Tony Purnell on this one.If you want the sport to 'evolve' then regular rule changes are needed.Rule 'stabilty' is OK,but will always benefit the 'bigger' teams in the long run.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...fia-s-purnell/
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 17 Aug 2009, 21:04 (Ref:2523263)   #2
Gingers4Justice
Veteran
 
Gingers4Justice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
United Kingdom
The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,467
Gingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Rule changes are always needed and if teams weren't spending suge huge amounts they wouldn't disagree that we need them every 4-5 years to keep it interesting.

Mind you, despite what some say, the racing hasn't been too badly lately, but some tweaks will be needed. I still maintain that the cars are too complex for it to be a simple answer like some new wings, but we'll see...this year won't go down as a bore.
Gingers4Justice is offline  
Quote
Old 17 Aug 2009, 21:17 (Ref:2523272)   #3
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
I think rule changes shouldn't be implemented for their own sake, but there are a few tweaks needed occasionally. Sometimes it's like the javelin throw in '86 and '99, the rules caused major head-ache with officiating and possibly the potential of them going in to spectators not being a good idea they had to tweak them.

In my opinion the main rule change needed is a ban on the crash structure diffusers, 10 out of 10 for Brawn, Williams and Toyota for thinking of them but they aren't exactly what the OWG intended. The F1 rules don't operate on a principle of "if in doubt, don't" (which is fine provided that is explicity said) but the double diffusers are one thing that could go. Safety measures and cost cutting measures are good if they genuinely work.

Other things are more long term, such as changes in the engine rules to replace the current 2.4 V8s.
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier."
Quote
Old 17 Aug 2009, 21:22 (Ref:2523274)   #4
Jamesy-18
Veteran
 
Jamesy-18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
United Kingdom
Derbyshire
Posts: 1,136
Jamesy-18 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
The fact of the matter is this: Even though for the past few seasons on track action has been few and far between as far as loads of over takes, the champioships in 2006, 2007 and 2008 have all gone down to the last round. Most notably of course was last year.

It is fair to say that 2009 COULD do the same and even though we've had some dreary processions we've also had some great races and some great drives by certain drivers that have more than made up for the bad races. If it ain't broke, don't fix it as the saying goes and F1 is far from broke currently with more interest than ever in some countries.

Certainly, improvements could be made to improve the show even more, but for two reasons i don't think it's necessary. For one the clsoe championship battle is the main focal point and two i doubt we'll eve get back to the basics of F1 with minimal aero etc. It has how the technology has evolved/improved over the years and in a sense, made the racing worse.
Jamesy-18 is offline  
Quote
Old 17 Aug 2009, 22:53 (Ref:2523346)   #5
Teretonga
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,786
Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!
You need to distinuish between rules changes for safety, procedural, technical or racing rules.

Safety is always valid.
Procedural to improve or validate changes in the way things are managed are usually valid if it results in a genuine improvement.
Technical rule changes that affect safety are always valid, other rule changes to improve the quality of the racing or improve the spectacle of the sport are probably valid.
Rules governing principles of driving, (resulting in judicial and other issues) need to be as constant as possible within reason. Stability and transparency in this area stops confusion and misunderstanding (Spa anyone?).
Teretonga is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Aug 2009, 06:28 (Ref:2523474)   #6
Dutton
Veteran
 
Dutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
United Nations
Not Much North of Montana
Posts: 6,754
Dutton should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridDutton should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridDutton should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridDutton should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teretonga View Post
Safety is always valid
You will have to properly explain and define this. It is entirely possible for things to occur in the interests of safety which are of detriment to motorsport (and can be counter-productive in safety terms).
Dutton is offline  
__________________
"The world is my country, and science is my religion."
- Christian Huygens: 17th century Dutch astronomer.
Quote
Old 18 Aug 2009, 09:42 (Ref:2523558)   #7
csirl
Subscriber
Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Western Hemisphere
Posts: 425
csirl should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
The big issue at the moment is turbulance in the wake of a car reducing the downforce on a following car and total amt of downforce. The OWG changed the rear wings, but the teams were able to produce the turbulance using diffusers instead. In past years, where things have been changed to reduce downforce, the teams have always managed to find it elsewhere. IMHO, no matter what you do, the designers always find a work around to get back anything that is lost and you end up back at square one.

How do you prevent this?

Easy (in theory anyway) - you write the rules in a different way and bring in some additional scrutineering tools.

Turbulance - instead of specifying sizes etc., you put in the rules that it is illegal for any structures on a car to cause a reduction in downforce for a following car - set a % or value OR is not allowed to cause X amount of turbulance. It is possible to devise tests for these. Turbulance can be measured in a wind tunnel. You could also place each car in a wind tunnel with a standard car (or even only a front wing) x metres behind it and if the car causes a loss in downforce, it is banned. May not even need to put the cars in an actual wind tunnel - could be done by computer.

Downforce - this is an easy one to test for. You write in the rules that you are only allowed X amount of downforce full stop. How do you test? Place the car on a scales in a wind tunnel. Weight of the car will increase in proportion to the downforce.
csirl is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Aug 2009, 15:36 (Ref:2523765)   #8
neiltb
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Scotland
toronto
Posts: 275
neiltb should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by csirl View Post
Turbulance - instead of specifying sizes etc., you put in the rules that it is illegal for any structures on a car to cause a reduction in downforce for a following car - set a % or value OR is not allowed to cause X amount of turbulance. It is possible to devise tests for these.
I'm sure if I was a good enough designer I could look at your car and design mine to make yours illegal. I agree turbulence is the problem but it's a problem bigger than the sport at the moment.

Covering the wheels would help a lot (no longer open wheel), skinny tyres reduce downforce required (grip balance), chucking all the wings out would help (cars slower than GP2), reduce engine power significantly, reducing the benefit of big wings might help (same problem as above)

Maybe we have rear wings no more than 500mm tall and front wings at least 1,000mm tall that'll clean the air for everyone.
neiltb is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Aug 2009, 21:23 (Ref:2523990)   #9
Teretonga
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,786
Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutton View Post
You will have to properly explain and define this. It is entirely possible for things to occur in the interests of safety which are of detriment to motorsport (and can be counter-productive in safety terms).

You are correct.
It is possible to introduce rules into motorpsort which ultimately are actually detrimental to safety because they have an influence which actually defeats their purpose.

One example would be bodywork (nosecones and sidepods, and lately rear bumper bars) on CIK karts.

Initially the argument was the protection and safety but the extra safety has infact simply led to driving styles where leaning on people, shoving, barging, and tapping people into spins has in some quarters become de rigueur.

The CIK may argue otherwise but the driving standards of 2008/2009 are not the same standards regarding contact we saw in the 1980's before sidepods became a mandated item.

Similarly if racing cars is so safe you can drive into someone without endangering them or yourself does common sense, sportsmanship and courtesy go out the window?

Valid safety items are those that operate at a personal level in terms of driver and spectator protection, but if the result is a lowering of professional ettiquette that in itself creates a more dangerous practice then that has to be weighed up against the benefit of the introduced item.
Teretonga is offline  
Quote
Old 24 Aug 2009, 08:40 (Ref:2527128)   #10
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Haarlem, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,151
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I think where the priorities lay is wrong. Most development work is done on aerodynamics, because this area is relatively the most unrestricted. No wonder that all the efforts of the OWG have become meaningless. Instead of aerodynamics, most development work should be done on engines, tyres and the chassis.
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 24 Aug 2009, 09:06 (Ref:2527140)   #11
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
Instead of aerodynamics, most development work should be done on engines, tyres and the chassis.
I think we've got to the stage now where development work is done much more effectively by teams that have left or are leaving F1.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 24 Aug 2009, 10:09 (Ref:2527180)   #12
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Haarlem, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,151
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot View Post
I think we've got to the stage now where development work is done much more effectively by teams that have left or are leaving F1.
?
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 24 Aug 2009, 12:35 (Ref:2527261)   #13
DanShenise
Racer
 
DanShenise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
United States
Atlanta, via St. Pete Beach
Posts: 140
DanShenise should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
The only thing I would change is to narrow the front wing. Not back to last year, but between this year's snow plow and last year's. Though they probably should have kept the width of the rear wing from last year and just raised it to the current levels and forced a Monza spec angle of attack. It would have looked much better and probably resulted in similar overtaking results. And no more anvil shaped engine covers!
DanShenise is offline  
__________________
"But wish no more; My life, you can take; To have her, please;
Just one day wake" Gaeta's Lament, Bear McCreary
Quote
Old 24 Aug 2009, 12:43 (Ref:2527266)   #14
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
I think the a key part of the problem is the double diffuser, which ought to have been banned for '10 (but kept legal for this year). After that I think it's other issues that affect the racing.
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier."
Quote
Old 24 Aug 2009, 13:59 (Ref:2527298)   #15
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
?
We seem to be under the impression that if it wasn't for F1,automotive technology would be 20 years behind what it is now.That simply isn't the case;never has been really.

Honda and BMW will probably take just as big a stride with their future technologies (if not bigger having looked at what Honda are up to) than any manufacturer in F1.

We should also realise that in 2010 there will be four manufacturers and nine private teams.Will these private teams (or indeed FOTA) be at all interested in fuel consumption,horsepower gains or tyre development if it means that every year a new set of regulations has to be drawn up in order to keep the cars speeds in check?

N.B. Talk is that over the next few months each team will have to get its personel count down to around 350 and maybe more cuts after that.

F1s future will be leaning more towards being a sport and not as an irrelevant technologies proving ground.
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do you think of this rule?? TilkeWannabe Formula One 1 21 Mar 2009 02:24
Rule changes for 2004? eclectic Formula One 57 4 Oct 2003 21:30
1 engine rule RWC Formula One 4 28 Sep 2003 12:46
7% rule expert Formula One 33 1 Nov 2002 07:54


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 18:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.