[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Of course that only lasts for a few races.

sorry for the delayed response...

fair point..these sorts of changes/gimmicks only yield a temporary boost at best. the teams (the top ones certainly) have an amazing ability to adapt.

but surely then if we accept that premise then any proposed change can be discounted so should we instead just advocate for continuity and more of the same each year?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but surely then if we accept that premise then any proposed change can be discounted so should we instead just advocate for continuity and more of the same each year?

Hopefully I am correct in saying that after longish periods of rule stability, the racing has been,on the whole, far closer with more teams/drivers able to compete against each other.



It seems to me that every time a new rule set is introduced, you have one or maybe two teams that come out clearly on top. And it then takes years for the other teams to catch up.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but surely then if we accept that premise then any proposed change can be discounted so should we instead just advocate for continuity and more of the same each year?

I don't accept that premise. It only goes for rule changes purely for the sake of rule changes, something F1 is very fond of. Any attempt to inject 'randomness' for the sake of drama always backfires. We're still stuck with a few of those rules that only have a negative effect on the actual racing.

I agree very much with what Mike Hart wrote above.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It seems to me that every time a new rule set is introduced, you have one or maybe two teams that come out clearly on top. And it then takes years for the other teams to catch up.

are the other teams catching up though?

Ferrari certainly has but then they have the budget to do so.

as for the rest of the teams (and i would have to look at the race times more closely) but it seems to me that apart from Merc and Ferrari (and RB on occasion) that the gap between the top teams and the mid to lower field has been increasing as of late.

the last few races, if memory serves, outside the top runners every one else is around a 30sec to 1 lap down on the podium winners.

that said, if i do look back at this season and then other seasons these sorts of gaps in the field probably isnt all that uncommon.

but nevertheless, if continuity over time is an equalizer and with 4 or so years of relative rules stability, should we not be seeing this gap shrinking?

anyways...as the life of engines are required to last longer i am really ok with tires being used to alter (or even manipulate) performance levels. fair trade off for me.

[Adam43]

A period of stability leads to smaller gaps between teams, but more consistent gaps.

I’m for regular changes announced relatively close to the following season. Of course the big teams are more likely to get it right, but it gives an opportunity for someone to steal a march on the others. Any stability means that the others teams will just catch up with resources.

It’s also fair as each team hasn’t the opportunity.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

A period of stability leads to smaller gaps between teams, but more consistent gaps.

I’m for regular changes announced relatively close to the following season. Of course the big teams are more likely to get it right, but it gives an opportunity for someone to steal a march on the others. Any stability means that the others teams will just catch up with resources.

It’s also fair as each team hasn’t the opportunity.

Yes, there was a time when keeping things the same helped close the field.

I recall lamenting the change of regs at the end of '97 as Williams had been caught up by Ferrari, Mclaren, and Benetton had begun to get over their post Schumacher wobbles. Stewart and Jordan were also knocking on the door and even Arrows showed serious signs of breaking through. Then it took another 3 or 4 years before we got more than 2 teams wining all the time.

But nowadays the budgets and technical advances maintain the advantages of the manufacturer elite teams are probably beyond the reaches of most entrants and definitely have deterred others from coming in.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by chunterer

But nowadays the budgets and technical advances maintain the advantages of the manufacturer elite teams are probably beyond the reaches of most entrants and definitely have deterred others from coming in.

...add to that the rules being written in such a way as to make almost all actual technical advances illegal before they've been thought of.

The only way F1 can plausibly develop into something to face the future is to have a rulebook which is thinner, which allows development of real novel solutions (not using unobtainium, mind you. Or toluene) without rendering them immediately illegal. That way the clever people behind the DDD, or full active cars, or mass dampers, or j-tubes (or whatever they were called) could develop ideas instead of being forced to watch endless CFD simulations on whether a front wing endplate makes the low pressure vortices spilling off that 5mm section affects the braking efficiency of the left rear, or something equally detailed.

Free up the method of producing motive power. Limit the fuel/energy on board, or available over a weekend.

Do *something*!

[wnut]

The other problem is that the only place you are going to make a decisive difference in an engine based formula is the engine, and there are only 4 manufacturers, one of which is light years ahead of the others.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Yes, there was a time when keeping things the same helped close the field.



I recall lamenting the change of regs at the end of '97 as Williams had been caught up by Ferrari, Mclaren, and Benetton had begun to get over their post Schumacher wobbles. Stewart and Jordan were also knocking on the door and even Arrows showed serious signs of breaking through. Then it took another 3 or 4 years before we got more than 2 teams wining all the time.



But nowadays the budgets and technical advances maintain the advantages of the manufacturer elite teams are probably beyond the reaches of most entrants and definitely have deterred others from coming in.

Don’t forget though that 97 was helped by there being a tyre war again. That’s what helped Prost, Stewart and Arrows were up there several times. Although Jordan were definitely up there and Gary Anderson says that if Barrichello had stayed with the team they would have got their first win. But it was a shame they came up with that rule change, which split the pack up, especially those horrible grooved tyres.

[Sodemo]

The whole grooved tyres and narrow cars thing in 1997/1998 just shows how clueless, oblivious and illogical the FIA are. I do often wonder who is actually making these decisions and what they are hoping to achieve with them.

In terms of rules as a whole, for me they need to massively simplify the upper surface aero, as in cut it back to 70-80% of its current values. Then what you do is you employ ground effects to claw back some of that lost aero through a method of aero generation which doesn't affect following cars (as much). The new front wing rules dont nearly go far enough and making them wider again is foolhardy. Did they not see countless races when cars bashed wheels and then the front wing fell off because of it...!?! Make the front wing finish well inside the front wheel track, then have it scraping on the ground with skid plates or strakes to stop is stalling through getting too low. Again I shake my head at the rule makers; 2001 - raise the front wing, 2004 - raise the front wing again, 2005 - raise the front wing again further. Pure idiocy.

[S griffin]

And that’s keep the tyres wide too

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The whole grooved tyres and narrow cars thing in 1997/1998 just shows how clueless, oblivious and illogical the FIA are. I do often wonder who is actually making these decisions and what they are hoping to achieve with them.

In terms of rules as a whole, for me they need to massively simplify the upper surface aero, as in cut it back to 70-80% of its current values. Then what you do is you employ ground effects to claw back some of that lost aero through a method of aero generation which doesn't affect following cars (as much).

All of that has been tried and tested multiple times. Why people keep perpetuating this myth is beyond me.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

All of that has been tried and tested multiple times. Why people keep perpetuating this myth is beyond me.

Pardon me for asking, but when was that tried and tested?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by chunterer

But nowadays the budgets and technical advances maintain the advantages of the manufacturer elite teams are probably beyond the reaches of most entrants and definitely have deterred others from coming in.

thats my thought on this as well.

imo, now days, rules stability just reinforces the status quo. perhaps more so now as we approach the last couple of years of the current formula.

good point about it being deterrent to entry as well.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

Do *something*!

I post this idea occasionally and today is a good day to do so because you mentioned active suspension.

Bring back active suspension!

* Spec ECU for active suspension (limited number of data streams in/out and finite compute power)
* Limited number and type of sensors.
* Limited number and type of actuators
* Maybe even homologate sensors and actuators

I think it should do a few things.

1. Move the design of trick suspension from the physical world to the software world. In short, less tricky/complex/expensive mechanical solutions that don't have any real world use outside of F1 (and maybe WEC)
2. Reduce cost as development/testing/turning should "mostly" be doable via simulators. Also potentially easy and cheap to adjust on race weekends.
3. Spec "resources" puts everyone on same playing field. Teams still get to design their own solutions.
4. I am not an aero guy, but I suspect much of aero optimization is getting things to work in relation to the dynamic nature of the car (i.e. ride height and other attitude variations that make it hard to optimize aero). So if the relationship to the road can be more tightly controlled (for less money), then it may be cheaper to create competitive aero.

Downside is it should make the cars easier to drive. Which I know is a heretical position here (and one in which I sometimes espouse). But it should allow a cheaper way for teams to equalize base chassis differences as well as potentially ease cost of aero development.

If this proved successful, next step could be movable aero. Again, this could reduce the importance of a single optimized aero solution. This could also separate F1 from other series as well (capture the technology high-ground without it being extremely expensive)

Richard

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Pardon me for asking, but when was that tried and tested?

2009 and 2014.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

2009 and 2014.

2009 wider wings with adjustable flaps.

2014 front of monocoque dropped and wing narrowed by 75mm.

WOW.

Not at all what Sodemo was suggesting as far as I can see.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by wnut

2009 wider wings with adjustable flaps.

2014 front of monocoque dropped and wing narrowed by 75mm.

WOW.

Not at all what Sodemo was suggesting as far as I can see.

Well 2009 was probably the closest we came to what I suggested, but it was never a 70-80% reduction in upper surface aero, maybe 20-30% after the aero guys had worked their magic, also there was no ground effects either.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Of course there's ground effects. Every aerodynamic race car has that. What you want is more of it. Even though there's zero evidence it does anything good to the racing.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

This is a post I made on Reddit, but it seems people there don't actually read and just reply with pre-programmed robot-like responses. Maybe a better reception here:

Why do Q3 runners need to start the race on Q2 tyres?

In my opinion this is a very silly rule that needs to be scrapped. I believe this rule has no positives to it whatsoever. I can argue that it never did, although some people might disagree. The reason it's there seems to be that one of the top 3 teams might try to 'sneak' through Q2 on a harder compound and that might provide excitement. Except it doesn't since they either get through easily or if they're even close to under threat just bolt on a softer set anyway. There is almost zero risk here. Previously Q3 people had to start on their Q3 tyres but that was scrapped too for obvious reasons.
This rule in my opinion only has negative effects:
- The whole top 10 pretty much always starts on the same tyre compound anyway, except for a rare occasion where a Red Bull or one Ferrari might be on harder tyres
- Because they have to start on a tyre that's already done three laps they need to start saving right away after the start
- The 'best of the rest teams' (Haas and Renault and Force India) have pretty much zero strategy options for the start. They are forced to always do Q2 on the softest compound because they want to get into Q3. For them, starting P11 is usually better than P10.
- Strategy for the race is largely decided after Q2.
In Hungary the top 10 could start on whatever tyre they wanted and because they were brand new the racing was better in the first stint, in my opinion. A lap or two more time to make a move before the tyres overheat while the cars are still close can make a difference. And even though to me this should not matter, but one can also make an argument that it provides extra excitement in the build up because maybe someone in the top 10 will change tyres at the last minute, because it's gotten hotter or whatever. I am of the belief that giving teams more strategy options improves the racing and this seems to me one way to do it without throwing out any babies with the bathwater.
PS: I watch MotoGP a lot and tyre choice is always completely free there. It frequently happens nobody has any idea what tyres people start on until the warm up lap. They can even choose different compounds for the front and rear tyres (3 choices each), but that might be a bit much for F1. So anyway, this idea is not new.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

This is a post I made on Reddit, but it seems people there don't actually read and just reply with pre-programmed robot-like responses. Maybe a better reception here:

Why do Q3 runners need to start the race on Q2 tyres?

I think the theory is the following:

For those teams who make Q3 - the tyres are returned, so they gain nothing by sitting in the garage on tyres that will not be used again. So making them use Q2 tyres means that there is a genuine battle in Q3.

Making teams use the Q2 rubber also means that there is less chance of a team sticking on a tyre that is of no racing value in Q2, just to make Q3 - because they will be stuck with that tyre for the race.

So, we should see the best 10 cars in Q3, and all of them should be challenging for a grid position.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

This is a post I made on Reddit, but it seems people there don't actually read and just reply with pre-programmed robot-like responses. Maybe a better reception here:

Why do Q3 runners need to start the race on Q2 tyres?

Reddit is an echo-chamber of nonsense where the popular opinions get put to the top (even if the post is crap), and anyone questioning anything gets shoved to the bottom. You won't get a decent answer in that environment - you just get downvoted to make you feel bad. Horrible mob mentality site that needs some proper moderators. We should send Adam over there to get them sorted.

My understanding of the Q3 teams using Q2 tyres at the start was it was introduced to allow the teams to do proper qualifying laps, rather than conserve tyres for the race. So if you forced them to use the Q3 tyres, nobody did any running for 10 minutes, then did 1 lap, and that was it. Using the Q2 tyres for the race allowed them to run pure qualifying in Q3, and make it more fun.

That's my understanding. Whether that's right, or whether that even works I don't have the slightest clue!

You may be onto something with the MotoGP thing. If it's a rule that's over complex and has no positive effects, then just get rid of it and let them do whatever they want. If you're no worse off, then at least you've gotten rid of a crap rule.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think the theory is the following:

For those teams who make Q3 - the tyres are returned, so they gain nothing by sitting in the garage on tyres that will not be used again. So making them use Q2 tyres means that there is a genuine battle in Q3.

Making teams use the Q2 rubber also means that there is less chance of a team sticking on a tyre that is of no racing value in Q2, just to make Q3 - because they will be stuck with that tyre for the race.

So, we should see the best 10 cars in Q3, and all of them should be challenging for a grid position.

I mean, thanks for answering the question but also showing what I mean by people on Reddit. I was silly enough to assume people would know the title is simply a rhetorical one meant to provoke thought. In my opinion it's always good to question a rule. What effect does it have on the racing? What purpose does it serve right now? How that rule came to be and what the thought process behind it is seems completely irrelevant to me when discussing what it actually does.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

My understanding of the Q3 teams using Q2 tyres at the start was it was introduced to allow the teams to do proper qualifying laps, rather than conserve tyres for the race. So if you forced them to use the Q3 tyres, nobody did any running for 10 minutes, then did 1 lap, and that was it. Using the Q2 tyres for the race allowed them to run pure qualifying in Q3, and make it more fun.

Again, this is correct. But that's not quite my point, I am advocating for scrapping a rule that serves no purpose (again in my opinion) and nothing else. As I've said in the post itself, let people choose what tyre they start on. Q3 can stay the same as it is now.

I very much agree with you that scrapping rules is a plus in itself, even if it has very little effect. In fact, I'm in favour of tearing up most of the (in my opinion) extremely silly 'sporting regulations'.

[Akrapovic]

Yes, that's what I said at the end of my post, agreeing with you

Now I thought the original rule was purely about improving Q3, not the race. So it seems I've misunderstood the intention of the rule.