[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Ferrari aero kit for the Dallara DW12?

Richard

Haha.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I really do aggree with everything you say, it's not possible to unlearn what has been learnt ...
..

I wouldn't get too precious with what we've learned!

We've unlearned

Active suspensions
Automatic gearboxes
Traction control
ABS brakes
Rotary Valve engines
Ground effects
Active aero
Diffusers
Water cooled brakes (Haha)
Differential braking
Active differentials
Enclosed cockpits
6 wheeled cars
Fan cars
Load shedding wings
Double chassis cars

and a host of other things

I think there is a fair precedent to unlearn just about anything we have on a current F1 car!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

I wouldn't get too precious with what we've learned!

We've unlearned

Active suspensions
Automatic gearboxes
Traction control
ABS brakes
Rotary Valve engines
Ground effects
Active aero
Diffusers
Water cooled brakes (Haha)
Differential braking
Active differentials
Enclosed cockpits
6 wheeled cars
Fan cars
Load shedding wings
Double chassis cars

and a host of other things

I think there is a fair precedent to unlearn just about anything we have on a current F1 car!

I take it that's the already banned list?

[miatanut]

Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I take it that's the already banned list?

Yup BJ, a small portion of it, compulsory unlearning!

Omitted lightweight and superstrength materials and what is known in energy storage and recovery systems which is just a parody of what it should be!

You cannot and do not have open regs, and anything that gets in the way of racing and/or is too expensive should be unceremoniously dumped!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.

And bring back 3.0L engines, in all their guises.

[Paradise City]

I'm actually OK with that concept (i think). It's more in proportion and meaner looking than the DW12, the latter looks a bit chubby and oversized at the rear by my eyes. I note no cockpit canopy and it's more or less still an open wheeler.

I'm sure it'll remain a concept however.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I'm actually OK with that concept (i think). It's more in proportion and meaner looking than the DW12, the latter looks a bit chubby and oversized at the rear by my eyes. I note no cockpit canopy and it's more or less still an open wheeler.

I'm sure it'll remain a concept however.

It's meant to change again, in 2018 but I won't hold my breath.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by mikuni

These concepts just prove to me that teams shouldn't be involved in regulation changes. If it were up to the teams the cars would be crazy aero rocket ships.

I thought it was interesting that the concept from Ferrari arrived just in time for the latest meeting concerning rule changes ...

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

I wouldn't get too precious with what we've learned!

We've unlearned

Active suspensions
Automatic gearboxes
Traction control
ABS brakes
Rotary Valve engines
Ground effects
Active aero
Diffusers
Water cooled brakes (Haha)
Differential braking


Active differentials
Enclosed cockpits
6 wheeled cars
Fan cars
Load shedding wings
Double chassis cars

and a host of other things

I think there is a fair precedent to unlearn just about anything we have on a current F1 car!

Yes That is quite a list and a good post that reminds us of all the money that has been spent on technology that has ended up being banned ..

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

You cannot and do not have open regs, and anything that gets in the way of racing and/or is too expensive should be unceremoniously dumped!

The irony is the time when F1 had the fastest technical change, the '60's & '70's, was also the time when the Garagistes, with their dinky budgets, were embarrassing Ferrari through innovation!

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

And bring back 3.0L engines, in all their guises.

You can have an 8L V16 if you like! It would probably end up going slower than some little turbo four banger because it's too thirsty, but you would be free to go that way if you wanted.

[taize]

I would be great to see F1 be a technological melting pot for motor sport. Have some basic regulations and then let them see what they can come up with. Basic regulations could be:
X amount of total downforce - how you achieve that is up to you
two types of standard tyres
two types of standard fuel
safety rules

Kym

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The irony is the time when F1 had the fastest technical change, the '60's & '70's, was also the time when the Garagistes, with their dinky budgets, were embarrassing Ferrari through innovation!


You can have an 8L V16 if you like! It would probably end up going slower than some little turbo four banger because it's too thirsty, but you would be free to go that way if you wanted.

If there's something we know from the past, it is:

a) Free technical innovation ends up creating a massive gap between the have and the have-not. It starts all dandy with small guys sometimes making prodigious inventions but quickly the guys with the big bucks end up catching up and taking off.

b) You cannot mix different (normally aspirated / turbo) engines. Either you restrict the turbo so much that it becomes pointless to run them, or the gap is just so wide that there is no point in running atmos.

The other thing we learned (and I truly get gobsmacked on reading this being proposed again) is why F1 moved away from 1000bhp turbos / high downforce cars in the first place. Dennis and Williams were around at the time, so was Bernie, obviously memory is failing them.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by jmlima

If there's something we know from the past, it is:

a) Free technical innovation ends up creating a massive gap between the have and the have-not. It starts all dandy with small guys sometimes making prodigious inventions but quickly the guys with the big bucks end up catching up and taking off.

b) You cannot mix different (normally aspirated / turbo) engines. Either you restrict the turbo so much that it becomes pointless to run them, or the gap is just so wide that there is no point in running atmos.

The other thing we learned (and I truly get gobsmacked on reading this being proposed again) is why F1 moved away from 1000bhp turbos / high downforce cars in the first place. Dennis and Williams were around at the time, so was Bernie, obviously memory is failing them.

I think it was partially due to the cost and Honda was beating everybody by a country mile. in 1988 McLaren-Honda won 15 out of 16 GP's. F1 was also more democratic at that time as the teams were generally speaking as one under Bernie and Max's leadership. How times have changed.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I think it was partially due to the cost and Honda was beating everybody by a country mile. in 1988 McLaren-Honda won 15 out of 16 GP's. F1 was also more democratic at that time as the teams were generally speaking as one under Bernie and Max's leadership. How times have changed.

Oh well luckily Mercedes only won 16 out of 19 last year in what I am told was a stellar season of racing.

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I think it was partially due to the cost and Honda was beating everybody by a country mile. in 1988 McLaren-Honda won 15 out of 16 GP's. F1 was also more democratic at that time as the teams were generally speaking as one under Bernie and Max's leadership. How times have changed.

No, it was way before 1988 and it was because there was a general fear of what would happen on an aero failure. It started on the era of ground effect and ended it, by then there was a general understanding of the real risks that a 1000bhp heavy downforce machine poses when it looses control by virtue of an aero failure.

As to teams being more democratic, not really. To start with there where the 3 non-foca aligned big teams, inside foca there were agendas inside agendas. The front was all dandy and united, the back was all about backstabbing.

You just need to look at the time when, ferociously arguing against turbo engines, some of the foca teams were secretly arranging their own suppliers of turbo engines. This was foca for you. Or when they decided to pay in kind to ken tyrrell over his protest on the legality of turbo engines.

[wolfhound]

I don't remember any big problem or issues with the change to 3.5 litre cars everybody seemed happy to do as it was fresh start even if the piranna's were busy.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I don't remember any big problem or issues with the change to 3.5 litre cars everybody seemed happy to do as it was fresh start even if the piranna's were busy.

The ground effect cars were so harsh to drive that the drivers had blood in their urine, couldn't see properly because of the Gs they were pulling, and if a skirt stuck or failed you committed to a corner about a 100 mph too high and had a huge accident. Fun times.

The only reason for ever increasing horsepower in an F1 is to run more downforce, taking away the wings and ability to generate downforce with the extra hp would even the playing field considerably. Hence why the big 3 or 4 resist reducing aero so vehemently.

[JeremySmith]

Avery worthwhile read I thought ...

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015...narrow-escape/

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

You can have an 8L V16 if you like! It would probably end up going slower than some little turbo four banger because it's too thirsty, but you would be free to go that way if you wanted.

I think that would be going too far.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Avery worthwhile read I thought ...

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015...narrow-escape/

"The structural problems in F1 are what drives away business. Fans don’t like being fleeced to go to races, nor to watch the sport on TV. They don’t like the fact that no one seems to care about them, beyond some token gestures now and then. And they don’t like the financial structures that make F1 an unfair playing field. Fix those problems and fans will watch any shape of car, with any kind of engine."

Would be an excellent start.

As for McKinsey and Company:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/09/...witcher=mobile

[Sodemo]

Just for a comparison, below is the 1997 McLaren, the last of the wider cars at 2000mm, and below that is the 2014 McLaren. I much prefer the lower, wider, more aggressive stance of the 1997 car.

[wnut]

I agree with you Sodemo the wider cars look much better, I do think that there is some justification for keeping the cars narrower to facilitate overtaking however.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by wnut

I agree with you Sodemo the wider cars look much better, I do think that there is some justification for keeping the cars narrower to facilitate overtaking however.

I've heard that comment before, and I really don't agree. After all, many of today's tilkedromes have straights that are 25 metres wide, and personally, I think much of the excitement of racing is anticipating a pass. Having mansell stuck behind Senna at Monaco 92, Alonso keeping Schumacher behind at Imola 2005 and so on. I'm pretty sure it would be a non issue, and as a consequence, passing might actually become easier as drivers *should* be able to follow closer through corners.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by jmlima

If there's something we know from the past, it is:

a) Free technical innovation ends up creating a massive gap between the have and the have-not. It starts all dandy with small guys sometimes making prodigious inventions but quickly the guys with the big bucks end up catching up and taking off.

I disagree. With many technologies being allowed, teams no longer have to or even cannot go the same path. One technology could be used to the expensive of (using all potential of) another technology or performance parameter.

Originally Posted by jmlima

b) You cannot mix different (normally aspirated / turbo) engines.

Well, you can. The ACO does mix them by using a fuel-flow limit. Before the 2014 season, everyone expected Toyota to be behind due to their normally-aspirated engines, but things turned out the quite competitive at least.