How to fix F1?

[bjohnsonsmith]

I take it back about the Sauber F1.08.

The Red Bull RB4, seen here with David Coulthard in his final race,



and the Honda RA108 are up there.



Just imagine if this had been allowed to continue?

[EffectiveSprinkles]

It would have settled into a standard, as it almost did.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

It would have settled into a standard, as it almost did.

I think they would have grown more appendages. Just compare the 2008 cars with their 2007 predecessors and there is a marked change.

[wnut]

If you look at the 2018 Mercedes, you are pretty much the pot calling the kettle black as far as appendages stack up against the above cars.

http://www.thedrive.com/accelerator/...formula-1-cars

There is an awful lot going on there!

[S griffin]

At least the cars run on proper slicks now though

[Akrapovic]

Grooved tyres was one of the worst technical decisions in the history of the sport. It literally added nothing.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Which of those two cars was more capable of overtaking on track do you think?

The 2009. 2009 F1 had much, much closer racing than in 2008.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Just imagine if this had been allowed to continue?

Much better indeed!

The rules (aside from double diffuser loophole) were very effective at removing most of these add-ons. Another clean-up is very much needed indeed!


Source: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/vi...hp?f=6&t=26955

Note how all the current bargeboard/turning vane fins and winglets exist outside the green "minimum radius rule" area.
So to get rid of them is as easy as simply extending that green zone forwards in the regulations! Easy, peasy, lemon squeasy.

It would also be a good idea to add a rule requiring the nosecone to be a single closed section of a minimum radius -- McLaren is by far the worst offender there, while other teams have their nosecone fins and gilles hidden underneath. Either way: off to be banished!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Greem

If I'm honest, the engineer in me thinks this is quite beautiful. It's taking Ron's (and subsequently Dave Brailsford in cycling) old philosophy of "marginal gains" to an almost infinitesimal level. Every single cut line, curve and slot there has a purpose which is modelled to within a nanometre of perfection.

The problem IMO, is that they can only do this because they have too much time and money: literally hundreds of people working on the problem!

When the entire Williams aerodynamic design team consisted of Frank Dernie and Ross Brawn and that was it, the cars were much straight-forward.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

The 2009. 2009 F1 had much, much closer racing than in 2008.

This is simply untrue. There was no discernable difference except the fact that the 2009 cars were much slower and both the races and championship were not exciting in the least.

[S griffin]

The races may have been a disappointment, but surprisingly despite a rule change, the field remained close. Who can forget Force India on pole at Spa? And the title wasn’t too bad, Button dominated the early part of the season, then the others closed up, but didn’t make most of the opportunity

[chillibowl]

this isnt so much a fix but more of a minor wish list item (well maybe more of a rant for today).

basically i would like to see FOM develop an easily navigable and centrally located stats database with the aim of developing advanced analytic measurement tools (an area i think F1 is sorely behind other sports).

team mate battles just tell us who beat their team mate, raw wins just tells us who won irrespective of the car they drove, lap times dont convey information car advantage, tires, track conditions, grip levels, ambient temp etc etc.

gambling houses are breaking things down in greater detail as are the teams of course...but FOM needs to make more of effort to present this sort of information to the fans.

baseball has been doing this for years but for me it was John Hollinger for basketball who developed some of these formulas to start breaking down the numbers in more meaningful and far more accessible ways.

as a result his 'player efficiency ratings' are, well for me at least, a far more important metric in evaluating players. and not just current players but also effective in comparing players across eras.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hollinger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating

of course there are limitations to this and of course there will still be disagreements in how it is applied but still...as a fan i would love to have similar tools to apply to F1.

generally i like the idea that FOM should be managing an overall database that makes looking up stats an easier task overall.

autosport i think used to offer something like this in the past but as it was behind a paywall i never really looked into it nor do i know if it still exists.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Much better indeed!

The rules (aside from double diffuser loophole) were very effective at removing most of these add-ons. Another clean-up is very much needed indeed!


Source: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/vi...hp?f=6&t=26955

Note how all the current bargeboard/turning vane fins and winglets exist outside the green "minimum radius rule" area.
So to get rid of them is as easy as simply extending that green zone forwards in the regulations! Easy, peasy, lemon squeasy.

It would also be a good idea to add a rule requiring the nosecone to be a single closed section of a minimum radius -- McLaren is by far the worst offender there, while other teams have their nosecone fins and gilles hidden underneath. Either way: off to be banished!

The front wings are still waay too big! They need to be narrower and not go beyond the inner edge of the tyres.

As a response to an earlier post, why would we want a return to active ride? That was mega expensive only those teams with big budgets got it to work and made the cars far easier to drive, increasing their advantage over the lesser outfits. Surely we want to prevent those sort of gains.

[wnut]

^^^ Agreed!

I was wondering if the front wings were allowed to get so big because it is the only way they can make the cars handle with the hybrid weight distribution???

[S griffin]

I think they narrowed it, then widened it again in 2017

[Tourer]

To me the rot set in during the mid nineties or thereabouts. We had fundamental changes to what an F1 car was - large changes made due to "safety" by FIA rather than addressing the underlying issues properly.

We had narrow-gutted cars, grooved tyres, shrinking engine capacities etc. To me, the problem with F1 from then on is that rather than coming up with a workable formula that would allow competition, entertainment and technical development, we have design rules meant to achieve specific aims rather than looking at the overall package - often resulting in unintended (poor racing) consequences.

What's needed is a fundamental change in approach to have on-track action that is sporting, entertaining and edgy. Yes to simplified aero but it's way more than that. To me, the current engines and the over-complicated way that they're managed (development tokens, really?) is a prime example of a sport that has lost its way.

I'm not advocating a "it was all wonderful back in them days" approach so much as a need for the people who make the decisions to suffer less from tunnel vision and be prepared to ignore their own vested interests to produce something that F1 should be.

I have FTA TV and these days only get highlights of each GP so that probably colours my outlook somewhat but F1 has gone from a "must watch" Sunday night experience for me and many friends in Oz to a "record on Monday night and maybe watch sometime over the next week or so - or not bother".

If the sport was truly gripping again, I reckon I'd take out a pay TV subscription to watch it in full and live but unless there is some fundamental change of approach, I can't see that happening any time soon unfortunately.

[Casper]

I have for a long time proposed that one of the key problems in F1 is the teams have too much data and it should be drastically reduced. It seems that Ross Brawn agrees with me but he proposes that reducing running time will do the same thing and produce less of a predictable result. I just think they need less data and make the whole thing more of a guessing competition the way it used to be. They would save a huge amount of money at the same time and everyone reckons that reducing costs is an absolute necessity.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

I have for a long time proposed that one of the key problems in F1 is the teams have too much data and it should be drastically reduced. It seems that Ross Brawn agrees with me but he proposes that reducing running time will do the same thing and produce less of a predictable result. I just think they need less data and make the whole thing more of a guessing competition the way it used to be. They would save a huge amount of money at the same time and everyone reckons that reducing costs is an absolute necessity.

Reducing running time will just skew the formula in the direction of those with the best simulators i.e. Mercedes.

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by Casper

I have for a long time proposed that one of the key problems in F1 is the teams have too much data and it should be drastically reduced. It seems that Ross Brawn agrees with me but he proposes that reducing running time will do the same thing and produce less of a predictable result. I just think they need less data and make the whole thing more of a guessing competition the way it used to be. They would save a huge amount of money at the same time and everyone reckons that reducing costs is an absolute necessity.

Originally Posted by wnut

Reducing running time will just skew the formula in the direction of those with the best simulators i.e. Mercedes.

Removing the live telemetry to the factory might assist a little.
Let the race team deal with any problems not the thousands back at the factory.

[S griffin]

Yes, remove telemetry and leave it to the drivers to work out what is wrong with the car

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chunterer

The front wings are still waay too big! They need to be narrower and not go beyond the inner edge of the tyres.

Agreed! It would be such an easy rule too.



The front-wing endplates used to extend inside of the front wheels, in order to manage the front wheel wakes. No cascades required!

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Casper

I have for a long time proposed that one of the key problems in F1 is the teams have too much data and it should be drastically reduced. It seems that Ross Brawn agrees with me but he proposes that reducing running time will do the same thing and produce less of a predictable result. I just think they need less data and make the whole thing more of a guessing competition the way it used to be. They would save a huge amount of money at the same time and everyone reckons that reducing costs is an absolute necessity.

This is backwards. The reason they have to have so much data is because there have been so many attempts to introduce 'randomness' that the teams are required to crunch the data in order to respond. If you close off one area, teams will just find another. And it's always the same, try to force 'unpredictability' and it will bite you in the ass because it always only works in the very short term.

Brawn's comments are so completely misguided, to me he hasn't said anything of value about F1 since he left Mercedes. It's like he never actually paid attention to F1 while he was neck-deep in it (a common problem). He correctly identifies that one of the reasons the US GP was good was because there were people on different strategies, but then once again stops thinking there. Why was the USGP good? Because Verstappen was able to use an alternate strategy to get into the mix. Why was he able to do that? Because he started outside the top 10 and so he had a choice of starting tyre instead of being forced to start on his Q2 tyre. The evidence is always overwhelming, teams in F1 need more choices and options and not fewer. People in charge of F1 get that consistently the wrong way around. And yes even if you give teams more choices the majority of the races will be boring. But that's a fact of life, 90% of all football matches are dull affairs too but nobody is suggesting the sprinklers get turned on only on the losing side's half midway through the game or something.

[Tourer]

Mr Hamilton's view is that F! has some fundamental issues that need addressing.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Well what do you know, artificially crappy tyres make for bad racing. Who'd have thought?!

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Well what do you know, artificially crappy tyres make for bad racing. Who'd have thought?!

As does too much aero. We need less so DRS can be got rid of