How to fix F1?

[mattcanary]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Imagine a race where you didn’t have to pit if you didn’t want or need to

Yeah, make it so that you don;t have to pit if you don;t want to.
But also allow teams/drivers to make tyre pitstops if they wish.

Ie: a driver can easily get to the end of a race without making a pitstop if they choose a conservative tyre compound, or alternatively allow a driver to choose softer tyres to be quicker, but they won;t last the whole race.
No silly rules about having to use different compounds in a race, (although teams/drivers can, if they want to).

This situation existed previously in F1.

[mattcanary]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't follow the WEC that closely but I believe that is the case. I watched GPs in the '70s and '80s and F1 teams would run on one set. They did so as recently 2005.

1989 French GP. Leyton House tried a non stop strategy. No-one expected it and they almost won the race with it, against the normally far quicker McLaren that did make a pitstop.
Nigel Mansell in the 1987 British GP against his team-mate Nelson Piquet when the Brummie famously closed down his team-mate, who ran nonstop. Both Williams were expected to make no pitstops that day.

I'm sure there are many, many other examples.

[S griffin]

Actually it was 1990 Paul Ricard March tried, but yeah you're right. It's also how Berger and Benetton scored their first win in Mexico 86, helped by the Pirellis lasting longer than the Goodyears. Others would gamble on it too, Johansson in the Onyx in Portugal 89 is another

[mattcanary]

I would also:
- allow in-season testing,
- allow unlimited sets of tyres in qualifying, (and just run a 60 minute session for all drivers throughout),
re-introduce proper gearboxes, (when it is possible for a driver to miss a gear),
- ban pit to driver and driver to pit communication, (apart from boards displayed from the pit lane)
- get rid of DRS and hybrid engines
- reduce levels of downforce and increasing braking distances
-introduce a small number of points for qualifying and for getting fastest lap of the race
- Bigger points gap between final positions in a race, and less people gaining points. Means that drivers would push more for a win, rather than settling for second.
- more equal prize-money, (or maybe no prize-money at all for constructors). Just a set, equal amount of money given to each team at the start or end of the season.

Unlike many people here it seems, I don;t like the idea of customer teams.
Just reduces the number of potential teams that can win races.

I'm sure many of the above are pipedreams, but I can always dream!

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by wnut

I transferred this in from the Ferrari thread where it is probably out of place.

In 2014 the FIA allowed the introduction of hybrid ERS power units, the weight limit of the cars was gradually increased year on year until it had increased by around 200 kg by 2014 to compensate for the increased mass of the required KERS systems and batteries, !

For the second time you've tried to peddle this crap. It's simply untrue. Just shouting it again won't help.

[Racer65]

When it comes to fixing anything that has an audience/client base the first thing to do is to identify that base and what motivates them.

To me that is the fundamental issue with F1. They can't make up their mind who they are trying to appeal to and whether those fans or the teams are their clients.

Talk of changing tyre strategies, refuelling, losing/gaining downforce is all lipstick on a pig until the "sport" knows the intended market and accepts that there will always be a noisy element who aren't happy.

As far as I'm concerned it's impossible to please both the purist and the guy who has the choice of watching a football match or F1.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by mattcanary

1989 French GP. Leyton House tried a non stop strategy. No-one expected it and they almost won the race with it, against the normally far quicker McLaren that did make a pitstop.
Nigel Mansell in the 1987 British GP against his team-mate Nelson Piquet when the Brummie famously closed down his team-mate, who ran nonstop. Both Williams were expected to make no pitstops that day.

I'm sure there are many, many other examples.

Mansell did the same thing at the British GP the previous year at Brands Hatch.

[S griffin]

Actually both Williams made pitstops that time and Mansell took the lead when his team mate missed a gear.

The great thing about getting rid of the two compound per race rule would mean we open up the possibility of having more surprises and upsets, as it would open race strategy more. As would having a tyre war

[chillibowl]

i would say we saw the shortcomings of the mandated tire/pre selected compounds at play today.

much hotter race day then the previous two days...it is interesting to think how things might have been different if the teams had a much softer compound available (and one where they wouldnt have been able to utilize until the actual race).

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Actually both Williams made pitstops that time and Mansell took the lead when his team mate missed a gear.

The great thing about getting rid of the two compound per race rule would mean we open up the possibility of having more surprises and upsets, as it would open race strategy more. As would having a tyre war

I went to that race, the last GP to be held at Brands. Yes they did, I meant Mansell did the same thing in beating Piquet at the British GP. IIRC, Mansell pitted second and got out just in front of Piquet.

[S griffin]

Yes that’s right, just held him off the two out laps, helped by a backmarker

[wnut]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

For the second time you've tried to peddle this crap. It's simply untrue. Just shouting it again won't help.

I posted my logic together with references, you are welcome to live with your deluded beliefs. Good day.

[ASCII Man]

Jut ignore him and his nonsense and move on, wnut. I've done the same.

[TrapezeArtist]

The current F1 rules have grown over a very long period until they are totally unwieldy and ridiculous. They are sticking plaster-over-sticking plaster-over-sticking paster, and a bureaucrats wet dream. I would take things back to a much more simple and open set of regulations. Perhaps something along these lines:
- Free engines including hybrid, but limit fuel to x litres for the race, and any other power storage (ie battery) to be discharged at the start. You would also need some sort of limit for qualifying, to prevent engines being turned-up to some inflated qually-spec.
- Minimal downforce, achieved by a total ban on aerofoil sections and "appendages", and some control of underbodies to prevent ground-effect.
- Free choice of tyres from a limited range. As many stops as you like, and use the same compound as many times as you like, or not.

It's cloud cuckoo land, but I too can dream!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

- Minimal downforce, achieved by a total ban on aerofoil sections and "appendages", and some control of underbodies to prevent ground-effect.

Interesting idea. It will make the cars really slow though (as in 20 seconds a lap slower) as downforce makes them go fast by drastically increasing cornering forces.

Say they current make twice their weight in downforce. This means the lateral grip that can be generated at the tyre is tripled ( as the grip is proportional to the normal force on the tyre: car weight force + double car weight force in downforce).

F1 lap with G-meter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRh9FG83d0

So if they can currently pull 5 G of lateral cornering acceleration, they will only be able to pull ~1.7 G without downforce which will make the cars a lot slower.

I rather enjoy how fast the 2017 and 2018 cars are! They are monsters in the bends, and at Suzuka they could still race quite well. Initiatives to revise the aerodynamic regulations to improve the ability to follow closely would be plenty IMO.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

For the second time you've tried to peddle this crap. It's simply untrue. Just shouting it again won't help.

We don't accept this kind of posting style …..

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Interesting idea. It will make the cars really slow though (as in 20 seconds a lap slower) as downforce makes them go fast by drastically increasing cornering forces.

Say they current make twice their weight in downforce. This means the lateral grip that can be generated at the tyre is tripled ( as the grip is proportional to the normal force on the tyre: car weight force + double car weight force in downforce).

F1 lap with G-meter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRh9FG83d0

So if they can currently pull 5 G of lateral cornering acceleration, they will only be able to pull ~1.7 G without downforce which will make the cars a lot slower.

I rather enjoy how fast the 2017 and 2018 cars are! They are monsters in the bends, and at Suzuka they could still race quite well. Initiatives to revise the aerodynamic regulations to improve the ability to follow closely would be plenty IMO.

IMHO 20 seconds per lap slower would not be a problem per se. The only issue would be to slow down all other categories so that F1 was still the fastest. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Formula One.

Watch any video from the Goodwood Revival to see what racing could be like with no aero and rubbish tyres.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

The current F1 rules have grown over a very long period until they are totally unwieldy and ridiculous. They are sticking plaster-over-sticking plaster-over-sticking paster, and a bureaucrats wet dream. I would take things back to a much more simple and open set of regulations. Perhaps something along these lines:
- Free engines including hybrid, but limit fuel to x litres for the race, and any other power storage (ie battery) to be discharged at the start. You would also need some sort of limit for qualifying, to prevent engines being turned-up to some inflated qually-spec.
- Minimal downforce, achieved by a total ban on aerofoil sections and "appendages", and some control of underbodies to prevent ground-effect.
- Free choice of tyres from a limited range. As many stops as you like, and use the same compound as many times as you like, or not.

It's cloud cuckoo land, but I too can dream!

Interesting but I would include ground effect.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Watch any video from the Goodwood Revival to see what racing could be like with no aero and rubbish tyres.

Rubbish? I mean it's fun and all to watch but it's no proper racing.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

what racing could be like with no aero and rubbish tyres.

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Rubbish? I mean it's fun and all to watch but it's no proper racing.

The original 1973 British Grand Prix (and similar) may be what is being referred to rather than Goodwood itself as such....

1973 British Grand Prix: https://youtu.be/lo9ynIrUakg?t=715 4-wheel-drifts through every bend and plenty of "if in doubt, flat out"! Certainly not rubbish or dull, unlike the (indeed) rather more sedate demonstration event at Goodwood.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

It looked good indeed. Emphasis on looked. But the racing itself is hardly any different. As in any race, gaps form and nothing really happens for long stretches of time. Also saying these cars have 'no aero' is being quite a bit ahistorical.

[S griffin]

We got a pass for the lead and no need for pitstops, plus different cars battling at the front, so that would help today

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Rubbish? I mean it's fun and all to watch but it's no proper racing.

I really don't know what to make of this. If cars on the limit, passing and re passing etc. isn't racing, then I've been doing something wrong for the last umpteen years!

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Goodwood is on the limit? Nah.

[coppice]

It's certainly on the limit of what I can afford