[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

As the 30 April deadline for engine rules approaches:

"Red Bull's Horner suggested F1 was 'nowhere' on future engine rules ahead of April 30 deadline for cheaper fees and supply guarantees."

The manufacturers are happy with what they will submit.

http://www.f1reader.com/news/merc-fe...e-plans-142841

The look on BE's face when talking to Toto in one of the pics in that link is priceless!!! He looks like a 5 year old who is getting scolded by his teacher.

[Taxi645]

I say again, postpone changes to 2018, except change the tyres to ones that hold up when attacking (same size). People seem to forget that in 2017 the cars will be another 0.5-1.0s faster by natural evolution anyway. So there is no urgent need to speed the cars up for 2017.

First work out what you want to achieve.

My priorities would be:

- Aero and tyres that allows battling for position
- Tyres that are designed to last
- Maintaining current maximum weight (or preferably less)
- No lift and coasting
- Current poweroutput is sufficient
- Get rid off DRS
- Cars may become 1-2s faster on top off their natural evolution by 2018.
- Explore flexible aero (bending wings) to improve lap times and efficiency.





Aero and tyres that allows battling for position
Cars that can follow one another over more than a few corners (both from the aero as from the tyres). This means more aero from the underside directly, less from the wings and make the front wings simpler.




Tyres that are not designed to degrade
Tyres that are designed to last even when attacking.




Maintaining current maximum weight (or preferably less)
The cars are heavy enough already. I would rather prefer the lighter option of widening the track from 1800 to 1900mm while maintaining the current bodies and tyres than increasing the whole car to 2000mm and adding even more weight by increasing the wheel and tyre size. That you will still improve the mechanical grip and looks of the car, but at much lower weight and financial cost.




No lift and coasting and power output
To keep the cars light, better to reduced the fuel flow than to increase fuel total, cars have plenty horsepower already, so surely by 2018 that is the better option.




Get rid of DRS
No explanation needed.




Explore flexible aero
In a high tech environment like F1 it is quite odd that we have fixed wings when their requirements in the corners (high downforce) and straights (low drag) is completely different. Bending wings would allow faster lap times and better efficiency which is both desirable. One does need to ensure by regulation that the wings bend in a linear manner otherwise very dangerous handling characteristics will occur. Further more it gives the aero departments a nice challenge, when the front wings aero is simplified.
Cars may become 1-2s faster on top off their natural evolution by 2018
This is a nice side effect, but not that important. As long as the improvement doesn't come from overly complex front wings it's fine.

[Taxi645]

Here you see two a Super Formula cars (with relatively simple front wings) through 130R at Suzuki. Despite the second car following the first ones by a few metres in can follow an even tighter line (@39min):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSAKmAsZZzQ

This is what allows exciting racing and is impossible with modern F1 cars. That should be the first and foremost priority to address. Nobody asked for cars 7s faster than 2015.

[wnut]

If they are 7 seconds a lap faster, then they can run around at 12 seconds a lap off their ultimate pace, instead of 5 seconds as they do at present, probably more due to increased drag.

[wolfhound]

Quell surprise F1 has not agreed the new engine regs. There are to be furher discussions later in the week with a Saturday deadline.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123990

However did agree to the new aero regs and from what I have learned these will do nothing for racing.

So the odds are that in year or so's time F1's bosses will be wondering why the racing has got worse and wanting new rule changes to spice up the action.

[Mike Harte]

Other reports are stating that there were too many absentees from the F1 Commission (mostly those from the various GP venues), so they will have to conduct an electronic vote by the end of the week.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Other reports are stating that there were too many absentees from the F1 Commission (mostly those from the various GP venues), so they will have to conduct an electronic vote by the end of the week.

So some of the people who have the most interest in shaping the future of F1 cannot be bothered taking the time to participate, that says it all I think.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Quell surprise F1 has not agreed the new engine regs. There are to be furher discussions later in the week with a Saturday deadline.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123990

However did agree to the new aero regs and from what I have learned these will do nothing for racing.

So the odds are that in year or so's time F1's bosses will be wondering why the racing has got worse and wanting new rule changes to spice up the action.

Yeah bigger front wings, who would have thought!

Plus the cars just get bigger fatter and heavier:

"To accommodate the changes, the weight limit of the car has increased 20kg to 722kg, plus the weight of the tyres, which is tabled at an estimated 5kg."

Still no driver weight parity regulation!

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Casper

So some of the people who have the most interest in shaping the future of F1 cannot be bothered taking the time to participate, that says it all I think.

I suspect that the meeting was organized at short notice so those from the circuits, sponsors etc may not have had time to get there. After all it takes almost 24 hours to fly from Australia to London and throw in time differences it can make simple logistics important in how much notice delegates get.

I read somewhere recently that agendas for the commission meeting may only be presented to the delegates at the start of the meetings rather than being available a week before as they are meant to be. This happens because the strategy group meets only hours before commission meets and what it decides ends up on the commission agenda.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I suspect that the meeting was organized at short notice so those from the circuits, sponsors etc may not have had time to get there. After all it takes almost 24 hours to fly from Australia to London and throw in time differences it can make simple logistics important in how much notice delegates get.

I read somewhere recently that agendas for the commission meeting may only be presented to the delegates at the start of the meetings rather than being available a week before as they are meant to be. This happens because the strategy group meets only hours before commission meets and what it decides ends up on the commission agenda.

So we are back to poor management? No matter how it is presented it is a failure of the system and the planning to allow everyone who has to be present to be there. I don't think there is any way to minimise that.

[S griffin]

I can't believe anyone would think more aerodynamics would make for better racing. Bigger tyres would, but not bigger wings. It's just gonna make the racing worse, the gits

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I can't believe anyone would think more aerodynamics would make for better racing. Bigger tyres would, but not bigger wings. It's just gonna make the racing worse, the gits

Will be interesting to see if the cars are actually faster carrying more drag, wings and wheels. When they originally forced the cars onto narrower tyres the lap times were quicker due to the drag reduction.

Are they upping the fuel allowance?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Are they upping the fuel allowance?

I believe that was one of the items that will be part of the e-vote by the F1 Commission, which will then, presumably, be subject to an e-vote by the WMSC.

On this matter of the absentees from the F1 Commission, and I know this would be controversial for the likes of Mr E, why on earth don't they use video conferencing technology for those who find it impractical to fly around the globe to just attend a meeting that may only take a relatively short time.

One of my sons has these e-meetings multiple times a week from London involving colleagues and clients in the Far East and Europe. It means that he isn't required to waste hours in planes when he could be more productive in his office.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe that was one of the items that will be part of the e-vote by the F1 Commission, which will then, presumably, be subject to an e-vote by the WMSC.

On this matter of the absentees from the F1 Commission, and I know this would be controversial for the likes of Mr E, why on earth don't they use video conferencing technology for those who find it impractical to fly around the globe to just attend a meeting that may only take a relatively short time.

One of my sons has these e-meetings multiple times a week from London involving colleagues and clients in the Far East and Europe. It means that he isn't required to waste hours in planes when he could be more productive in his office.

We all know Bernie's dislike for social media.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe that was one of the items that will be part of the e-vote by the F1 Commission, which will then, presumably, be subject to an e-vote by the WMSC.

On this matter of the absentees from the F1 Commission, and I know this would be controversial for the likes of Mr E, why on earth don't they use video conferencing technology for those who find it impractical to fly around the globe to just attend a meeting that may only take a relatively short time.

One of my sons has these e-meetings multiple times a week from London involving colleagues and clients in the Far East and Europe. It means that he isn't required to waste hours in planes when he could be more productive in his office.

Sacrificing the opportunity of 2 weeks overseas 5 star holiday and all the knick knacks in exchange for a two hour meeting on the part of the delegates, and foregoing the opportunity of "building networks" and political capital by Bernie and Todt. Conference calls are a complete no no in this type of organisation don't you think Mike!

[Mike Harte]

The F1 Commission has voted in favour of the new regulations for power-units in a e-vote; it just needs rubber-stamping by the WMSC. The full details should be released later today.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...es-721036/?s=1

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The F1 Commission has voted in favour of the new regulations for power-units in a e-vote; it just needs rubber-stamping by the WMSC. The full details should be released later today.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...es-721036/?s=1

They've rubber stamped it.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124036

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They've rubber stamped it.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124036

The same article if you are running out of Autosport "credit".

It would seem as though the idea for alternative power-units, probably V8s, has been dropped. No wonder Mr E has been going around saying that F1 needs to be controlled by a dictator, one that can get his way over the "cr*p" units that are used currently.

[Taxi645]

There is a poll on autosport.com:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/0...omment-3651034

Which is more of a priority to you?

Close battles and overtaking: 87%, 1.430 votes

Faster, sexier looking F1 cars: 9%, 140 votes

I'm not concerned either way: 4%, 69 votes


Ouch! Seems someone shot themselves massively in the foot.



The thing that even Alonso recently seemed to have misunderstood is that people are not asking for more overtaking. They are asking for better overtaking!


They are asking for the cars to be such that drivers are better equipped to tactically battle each other through a sequence of corners. If they'd done that and got rid of the DRS at the same there would be actually less overtaking, but each overtake was damn well worth watching in the stead of (mostly) the current; flap down, passes, ciao.


We want a close field, where cars are close to each other, fight with each other through the corners (perhaps even multiple laps) and the best racer gets the position. In other words, closer racing or proper motorsport.

[Taxi645]

The manufacturers have gotten their way with not too severe changes to the power supply rules, Red Bull has gotten their way with the aero rules. Everyone in the room has gotten a little something to convince their board and/or ego's they've done well with this ugly compromise and to hell with the racing and the fans.

Only proves that indeed the decision making process and some of the players involved are simply not beneficiary to the health of the sport.

[velly4]

Has there been an increase to the fuel flow limit?
Everything I have seen is just increasing the total limit to 105L

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by velly4

Has there been an increase to the fuel flow limit?
Everything I have seen is just increasing the total limit to 105L

Think so yes. So weight increase would be:

Car: +20kg
Wheels and tires: +5kg
Average fuel: +2.5kg

So +27.5kg in total it seems.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by velly4

Has there been an increase to the fuel flow limit?
Everything I have seen is just increasing the total limit to 105L

They don't need to increase the flow rate to enhance the racing. The problem is that using the maximum flow rate throughout the race, the race would be too long and the cars would run out of fuel before the finish.

By maintaining the flow rate, the Mercedes team are still able to claim the fuel savings to the Daimler Benz board of directors.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

They don't need to increase the flow rate to enhance the racing. The problem is that using the maximum flow rate throughout the race, the race would be too long and the cars would run out of fuel before the finish.

By maintaining the flow rate, the Mercedes team are still able to claim the fuel savings to the Daimler Benz board of directors.

Sorry Mike is right. Misread your Vellly4. Fuel limit increases to 105L, fuel flow limit stays at 100.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

There is a poll on autosport.com:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/0...omment-3651034

Which is more of a priority to you?

Close battles and overtaking: 87%, 1.430 votes

Faster, sexier looking F1 cars: 9%, 140 votes

I'm not concerned either way: 4%, 69 votes
...

What a legendary poll there from JA. Insight at its best. Would you like ten pounds?