Max Moseley's stated ambition is to turn F1 into a driver's championship. To that end (at least in part), the FIA has introduced rafts of regulation intended to "equalize" vehicle performance. In a move to reduce costs, in season testing has also been prohibited. The relative performance of different drivers during the 2009 season, particularly variations in performance, have demonstrated that Moseley's ambition is far from being realised.

Many of the regulations have actually increased the cost of competing in F1. Aero regulations mean that it is more difficult & more costly to find performance improvements. Mechanical restrictions mean that alternative "fixes" are required. For example, lateral balance is perhaps the single most important driver requirement & non-adjustable bars & no (late) spring changes imply that a complex & expensive electronically controlled diff. has become an important driver "aid".

The whole concept of equalized vehicle performance is flawed, in my opinion. An examination of "spec series" results will demonstrate that, on average, consistently good performance is achieved by a small number of teams, suggesting that good team discipline and engineering knowledge is just as important as driving skills. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the more restrictive the series, the less important is the contribution of the driver. The reason is not simply lack of driver seat time (although that is important), it is because a less successful engineering team has no opportunity to understand why performance eludes them, so the team is unable to develop. It is no coincidence that, in such series, results tend to follow engineers if & when they move from team to team.

Theoreticians may say that mathematical modelling is the solution. F1 probably has the best modelling skills available anywhere. Again, performance issues during the 2009 season have demonstrated unequivocally that modelling does not necessarily provide the answers (Ross Brawn, post Spa: "Our tyre temperature gremlins have returned"), especially when models cannot be validated by track tests.

Tyres are very important to vehicle performance. Vehicle set-up, both aero and mechanical, is important for "managing" tyre performance in the context of a particular vehicle. Tyre manufacturers are very capable, but they don't generally have the knowledge to produce tyres that will perform consistently across a "field" of vehicles, even when those vehicles are regulated tightly. Currently, F1 uses spec tyres produced by a manufacturer that chooses tyre types for a circuit, & teams even have to accommodate two different compounds during a race. I have serious problems with that whole concept. Tyres (even F1 tyres) are not exactly expensive compared with, for example, a KERS battery pack, so how is it that an important performance differentiator has been handed to a supplier who has no requirement to produce the best, or even suitable, products for its customers? The only analogy I can offer is for a gearbox manufacturer, largely ignorant of vehicle, engine & even track characteristics, making the decision about the gear ratios to be used for a race. It wouldn't happen, or if it did it would impose significant constraints on much else about the vehicle. So it is with tyres.

Lack of in-season testing means that F1 race weekend "practice" sessions have become test sessions. It is not always a good spectacle to see vehicles grinding round a track gathering constant airspeed "aero" data. The short response times between test and qualifying mean that large numbers of engineers are required to analyse and assess track measurements. Their conclusions must take account of drivers that may be learning the circuit and track characteristics that are "evolving" with time. Not surprisingly, their contributions are not always wholly successful.

In my opinion, the F1 "show" could be improved by acknowledging that it is not a "driver's series". Remove all but a very basic set of regulations (minimum weight, planform, tyre sizes, safety). Want to be more "green" & limit performance? Mandate a maximum quantity of energy available for the race weekend. Still too fast? Reduce the energy limit. Want to pit-stop? OK, but no refueling & cold tyres. Above all, permit in-season testing, to be limited by the imposition of a (maximum) overall team budget - to include ALL expenditure & renumeration.

Is any of the above likely to happen? Please discuss.

Not likely, no.

Mostly good suggestions though - I am of the opinion that the rules should be there to ensure the level of safety is appropriate, and little else. Performance could easily be kept within safe levels by restrictions on the amount of energy the teams can use during a race - this even introduces an additional element of driver tactic - when is it best to use the limited energy?

I disagree with the financial limits - not on principle, because I would love for the series to be equalised in such a way, but because there is no practical way of framing, enforcing and administering penalties under such a system. Nobody wants to see the championship results changed because at the end of the financial year team x was found to have overspent. Conversely, if it doesn’t affect the championship results if they overspend, then what’s the point.

Thank you, bigginge. The problem with F1 as of last year was that it had become an increasingly expensive, & therefore exclusive, club, so change was required. The alternative to freedom within an overall spending limit is detailed regulations such as those that were proposed by the FIA (e.g. 9-5 W/T testing, limit on computer clusters, no track testing, etc. with, no doubt, more such nonsense to follow). Personally, I think it makes more sense to allow the freedom to deploy limited resources in the most effective way to solve issues of the moment.

I agree that policing a budget limit will not be easy, but FOTA has accepted the need for a limit, & I believe that a way of policing it has been proposed that teams believe to be acceptable. My suggested variation was to include drivers, superstar designers & team principals within the limit (shareholder dividends would be below the bottom line, as in a more normal business).

So spending wasn't a problem for the last 20 years???? F1 hasn't been elitist in the last 20 years? Wow, I guess I missed out on tha paddock pass I wanted back in '94.

Frankly, I think any notion of a spending limit is absolute BS. We're talking about some of the richest people on the planet. Like in politics, money will always find a way to people who are interested in spending it. Do you seriously think that someone who is filthy stinking rich is going to be limited in terms of the money they put up to finance a team? I really really doubt it.

Well said and I agree for the most part. If you want a drivers' series you need to use pedal cars drawn by straws as the grid is formed. Engines, transmissions, all that "tech" stuff will obviously detract from the goal of a drivers' series.

Seriously though, the whole idea of a drivers' series is ludicrous on its face and completely contrary to the historic spirit of F1. Anyone who would propose such nonsense has no clue and oughtn't to be allowed anywhere near the controls of the sport. Spending caps will obviously not work as designed, just as "cost control measures" that don't include cheap vehicle claiming never will either.

The only remaining hope I see for F1 is that Max dies before the sport itself does.

I think (hope) you understand my point.



You have a valid point. But the absurdly rich didn't get there by giving money away (making a small fortune from motor racing springs to mind). Hence I hope sanity will prevail ultimately. Gloomy future for F1 otherwise.

Saying that F1 "had become an increasingly expensive" (assuming their are objective data to support that claim) seems to me just an unclever and misleading way of saying that the teams had decided that the sport was a great investment, and thus adjusted their budgets voluntarily to maximize their profit potential from their association with F1. Nothing at all in the tech regs can be blamed for the amounts spent, and similarly nothing in the tech regs can lower those amounts. I reckon the people drawing up the budgets wouldn't know a camshaft from a crankshaft in any case, so it would be literally impossible for the regs to affect their decision making processes.

The problem of budgets being "too large" is simply a testament to and side effect of the series' success, and the most effective way to reduce the sums spent would obviously be to make the series less attractive to sponsors and advertisers so they would be less inclined to invest in the teams. If interest in the sport can be decreased (and I think Max is inadvertently well on the road to accomplishing this), then the "costs" aka budgets will obviously decrease proportionately. The ultimate and probably only realistic hope of affecting "cost control" is to reduce their viewership and prestige of the sport so that sponsors and manufacturers won't be "forced" to invest large sums in it.

The change mantra and all the ensuing incessant regulatory jiggery pokery is just shallow meaningless rhetoric to fool those watching sufficiently credible into thinking the boys in charge are actually doing something substantive to earn their obscene profits.

I can't disagree with you (& I hate even to think that Max might have been right). However, I think David Richards et al, might have different views. The evidence is that Honda, BMW &, perhaps, Renault & Toyota might also think differently....

p.s. Published evidence exists for the spending of leading F1 teams. I know that a reasonably well-funded F1 team employed, perhaps, 50 people when I first became loosely involved with F1. Now that number is more than 500.

I do. Do you understand mine (aside from the sarcasm and "confrontational-ness?")




Not sure the absurdly rich are "giving it away." If you take a trip to a place where the rich hang out, they tend to spend money on things that demonstrate their wealth. Take a trip to Sag Harbor, NY (or Monaco), in the summer and you'll see what I mean. Big yachts with helicopters, cigarette boats, etc. Those toys hardly seem like an investment and seem more like a demonstration of penis size.

I do, actually. But the facts are manufacturers are leaving F1, & "appointed" successors are having second (& 3rd) thoughts about replacing them, given the budgets they (think they) will require in order to be remotely competitive. Even FOTA admits to the need to reduce costs. I had hoped this thread might be more technical (as the title of the sub-forum suggests), & focus on how you think the F1 "show" might progress.



I'm afraid you have the advantage over me (in recent times, anyway).

I would like to see F1 move to downsized turbocharged engines with exhaust heat recovery and brake energy recovery on all four wheels. Basically developing energy efficiency techologies. I would also been keen to open up the series to alternative fuels, with equalisation via a limit on the amount of stored energy available per race.

I would like an investigation into modified aerodynamics to discover why following cars is so difficult, and develop solutions with real track testing before committing to regulation changes.

I would also like to see an investigation into tyres and circuit construction (ie the tarmac) in addition to circuit layout to allow multiple lines to be available through corners - eliminating the 'marbles' basically.

As I said earlier, I don't really think there's much that can be done through the technical regulations to reduce costs effectively. If people are hell bent on spending money there's no way to stop them. So we can discuss the best technical directions F1 might take or we can discuss cost control philosophies but conflating the two is probably a bad idea. The manufacturers have hardly ever been reliable partners in F1 or other high level motorsport- they come and go as they go through their predestined cyclical direction changes in corporate course, binge and purge, rinse and repeat. They'll leave. They'll be back. In spite of whatever is done to the formula.



I would suggest that the best way to see efficiency innovations arise is not to push the technology in any preconceived direction but simply to allow X quantity of fuel/BTUs and let the teams sort out the best strategies for using that. Like it is in the real world. The way KERS was implemented, where the "innovation" is micromanaged by some arbitrary ruleset, is exactly the wrong way to try to add an element of innovation to F1.



Here I think the answer is clear, less downforce is really the answer. I don't think it really needs to be studied when we are already well aware what makes following difficult- loss of that aforementioned downforce. The only cogent argument I can recall against slashing DF is that F1 might no longer be the fastest motorsports formula. To which my reply would be, "Yes maybe, so what?"

The problem is not so much the high costs, but that the costs of running a team are higher than the income. You can't build a successful team by using only sponsorship money and money from the commercial side of F1. To fund a successful team you also need a strong owner that is prepared to keep investing money in the team. Since no one has endless resources, eventually the team owner will be forced to look at the situation from an economic prespecive. What do we get out from racing in F1? What is this really worth in terms of money and can this amount of money provide a bigger advantage if spent somewhere else? That's why car manufacturers generally doesn't stay for long.

There is as you say no way the technical regulations can stop people from spending money on F1, the regulations will only affect how much $1 million can buy you in terms of lap time. If we want to prevent people from spendning large sums of money in F1 it can only be achieved by some form of cost cap, unless everybody for some reason loses interrest in F1. If the costs of running a team can be kept lower than the income for a team, including sponsorship money, there is no need for a team owner to exit F1 because of economy.

Personally, I would favour freeing up downforce, provided safety isn't affected & provided it is accompanied by drag. I think there may be a couple of ways to achieve that: impose an underbody profile, or limit aero "efficiency" (L/D). A fixed, uninterrupted underbody profile would be easiest to police, & would inhibit the re-introduction of skirts. Wake would remain a potential issue, but I suspect that the drive to minimize energy consumption would result in an improvement compared with today's vehicles. "Push to pass" would also be available, of course.

BTW I am not in favour of imposing a minimum static ride height. NASCAR demonstrates weekly that the concept isn't effective, but it does encourage solutions that can compromise vehicle safety on-track.

How are we paying for this?

Apologies, but "we" being?

I've got some coppers I found down the back of the sofa, will that do it?

I agree, trying to use technology to solve a people problem is the wrong approach. Not to say it hasn't been tried before ... ...

As they do in just about every sport - it's nearly down to a case of if the current CEO likes the sport or not and the next CEO may be a tennis.




DF is surely to what level you want it to be visually a drivers championship, it's not DF in itself that prevents passing but we have been over the topic too many times.

I say a flat plate of say 800mm x 300mm (example size only) to be placed at an appropriate spot behind the rear wheels that the bodywork must form to ought to about solve all the problems as well as give ample sponsors area. Doesn't matter how much money they spend, theres always going to be that hole in the air behind them then.

I find it interesting that the person who now runs the world rally championship was quoted as saying four manufacturer teams was what he wanted. With four teams they all should win events but more may mean some won't win and would be likely to leave the championship quite quickly. The rest of the field would be made up with "privateer" entries. Honda and BMW would presumably be still in F1 if they were winning, I doubt that their budgets would be low. Having a lot of money doesn't guarantee winning, efficient use of what you have is more important. Red Bull is owned by a man who is rich enough to have two F1 teams, I understand a lot of football teams survive by having rich patrons. The money is out there.
As far as rules go I think keep the safety requirements and require a maximum starting (on the grid including driver) weight of say 500kg. No more rules.

Why must everything be so complicated? An underbody profile that just happens to be flat from the front of the front wheels to the rear of the rear wheels with my flat plate idea and larger wings would be just fine - for all classes of motorsport to lower cost everywhere and maintain F1 as the fastest.

Push to pass is crap, it's a fake way to have passing and we just saw an example of it at Spa yesterday - design the darn rules to include the potential for passing and you don't need it.

IMO they should introduce a development freeze for the flyaway races, basically meaning thorughout the European season you can develop freely but before and after you can't. This might stop teams from spending millions on a downforce package for one race. As for the show its track dependant as much as it is car dependant, compare Spa to Valencia for example. Also I think the TWG and OWG should do some research into the effects Double Decker Diffusers have on overtaking and if they have to ban them and standardise diffusers.

I think theres some logic there to freezing certain areas while allowing free development in others.

Why standard or DD diffusers, please tell me why have diffusers at all? What purpose do they serve in the greater scheme of things?

I just mean the business/sponsorship model for a series where we try to increase the team/technology aspect and lessen the driver/entertainment factor.

Why no refueling ?!
GP racing had refueling for most of its existence, 1906 to 1957, 82-83 and 94 - currents days.

Cold tires ?!
Are you kidding me, I remember 2008 Monaco, Massa's tires quickly temperature and if he would have lost it he would have injured maybe killed in the pits.

I agree to free up the rules, but no cap. Teams will spend as much money as they can get their hands onto.

Ground-effect downforce.
Though I'd prefer GE undertrays a la CART.

Only for 20 years ?!

What about the great spending spree of the 1920s, or the MB and Auto Union mega-teams of 30s.
Or what the expensive BRMs, Vanwalls and MBs of the 50s ?!

Mark Donohue, in 1971, compared F1 to Formula A/american F5000 and was surprised why for a few extra seconds F1 required 10x more money.

Apart from the late 50s to mid-late 60s, GP racing was always (relatively) expensive (if really you wanted to win).

It was an elitist sport for it's very beginning, that being part of its appeal.

Push to pass does or could help and it's not artificial.
KERS, a proper unlimited version, could the be link to production car technology as well as a true driver aid that helps passing considering the street courses. Champcar managed to get P2P to work/aid on the streets circuits once the went to 100 extra horse.

Image what an unlimited F1 KERS could do.

Ah.. I didn't make myself clear, sadly. My preamble attempted to promote the idea that a) success in racing is a team effort & always will be, b) the more restricted a series (particularly with no testing), the less a driver can contribute & c) F1 is currently a highly restricted race series.

Specifically, I think that the balance should be redressed. The idea behind my suggestions was to increase both the driver contribution & the entertainment value by removing most of the current restrictions. With in-season testing available, a driver should be able to contribute more to vehicle development. I mentioned "push to pass" as an illustration, but with only a global restriction on available energy an engine could, in principle, deliver as much power as required to pass a slower vehicle quickly... something that doesn't happen right now. Here again a driver would make a significant contribution to race management.

With only a global budget limit, team would be free to deploy resources as they wished. They could concentrate on innovation or refinement, on simulation or testing. That would, hopefully, encourage novel solutions, something that might make F1 more interesting technically (& useful, perhaps).

I know there are issues with my suggestions but, hopefully, rather fewer than there are with the current regulations.

I wrote this "What purpose do they serve in the greater scheme of things?"

You wrote this...



Not connected, try again.

It's artificial when it's use is limited per lap - it is an artificial overtaking or defense device taking away the use of skill and tactics required by the driver.

I didnt say there wasn't any thinking involved as to when and where to push the button but after watching A1GP where they all have it, no thank you.

I believe he means venturi tunnels, as (was) used in CART (now deceased). Therein lies a problem to which I referred earlier. Tunnels generate downforce with little drag. Hence a "freer" series would quickly go back to, e.g. the Lotus 79/80, which a DFV was perfectly capable of pushing round a circuit reasonably quickly. Tunnels were banned because cornering speeds became excessive ("hang on & hope" was a driver's view). Reliability (of skirts) was also an issue. My suggestion was intended to allow D/F, but only if it brought drag (hence a penalty) with it.

No I said "Why standard or DD diffusers, please tell me why have diffusers at all? What purpose do they serve in the greater scheme of things?"

But anyway to answer your post above, you want DF but with drag?

So let me see, you want cars to go slower down the straights and faster around corners?

Brilliant, that will fix the problems.

No... With more freedom to set aero compromises, I think it will be necessary to block the obvious solution, which would be a layout similar to the Lotus 80 with full tunnels & skirts (capable, according to Peter Wright, of going round any corner at any speed - at least until bits fall off or the driver loses consciousness). The only control I proposed would be available energy, but that would be ineffective if downforce came with no drag. Hence the need to limit L/D (lift over drag). I would not intend to reduce current performance, just retain the ability to control it.

There's no such thing as a greater scheme of things in racertainment.

I find it amusing that there are two disparate views, either no regs or other regs, most of which have been tried in the past.

The problem is that unlimited cars, with unlimited speed on current courses would not be allowed by insurance companies in anticipation of another Le Mans disaster.

Look at all the new tracks being built, most of then have the race fans in the next time zone!

In Montreal last weekend the stock cars were about 30 seconds a lap slower than F1 but there were lost of fans for the equivalent of a FFord speeds.

I was there as part of a team and saw for the first time that the spec tires varied by as much as an inch in circumference. No wonder they have to keep "ajustin on the cars"

So with speeds increasing on the slow cars, and if F1 cars are to be kept as the top of the heap, there has to be some way to accommodate the fans without increasing speeds.

That is not a small challenge as one of the problems at Indianapolis is, for several years, the phrase "...... and that's a new track record" has been absent and no more talk about track records would hurt in F1 as well.

Engineering and entertainment are both going to have to be accommodated.

Yes I don't like the limitation and find artificial.

Overtaking has had little to nothing to do with the driver, historically. And this is not a driver-sport, the most important thing are the team and the car.

In the old days there was rule written or unwritten (depending of the time period) for the driver in front that was slower, to let the faster driver-car behind pass. There was also great gaps in the performance of the cars and in their reliability.

The dominant silver arrows and/or scarlet red cars of Italy of old times didn't need KERS, because, they had 80 or more extra horses on the most of field au naturel .


Technical/reliability issues (for the car in front), (great) performance gaps, team orders and the slipstream effect are the reasons overtaking happened, not the drivers.

**** the drivers and their skills and tactics just let the better/best car win, it's as simple as that.

And you want a field covered by 6 or 7 seconds again, with only 1 or 2 teams maximum being able to fight for the championship whilst at the same time spending untold amounts of money?

Well, I'd better get saving if I were you as no one is going to fund that.

If it means bringing back technological relevance/the direct link and innovation to the motor-sport, them yes.
GP racing was historically a zig-zag between 1 dominant car-team and 2 (, rarely 3,) dominant car-teams, and I don't have problem with that.

Well you are, by a long way, in the minority. You are quite entitled to an opinion but when your opinion demands that millions upon millions of dollars spring out ex nihilo then you opinion can be wrong.

ROI, budget vs. sponsorship are more important to health of racing that the overall budgets.

And when you get just one or two teams vying for position, the other teams who aren't at the fore-front of victory lane get poorer as no one wants to sponsor them.

We have reached the apex - motorsport will never and can never be how it used to be. You cannot just forget the past 20 years of engineering and manufacturing technologies and as such, can never return to the spending levels of the 90s or the same diversity of the same period. It is analogous to evolutionary biology - at the beginning you get many vibrant and diverse archetypes but as time progresses the animals is honed and smoothed out into something that just works. The best solution is found and that's that. As such, there is highly unlikely to be a paradigm shift unless you severely change the rules. You will never again get one engine producing 80-100BHP more than the others purely on the manufacturer that made it. We get smaller differences for bigger costs.

I am all for technological freedom - I'd be a horrid engineer if I thought otherwise but it's just not sensible. This thread is about proposing a viable future for F1 and what you are suggesting just wont work. The only way it could work is if they switched completely to electric engines ASAP and have a technological arms race trickling down into the rest of the automotive industry.

And I agree with that, and furthermore wish just that. Hybrids and EVs should be what GP racing should look into.
A direct link with present and/or upcoming production cars is a sine qua non necessity.

Manufactures spend billions on R&D each year, and those billions could go into F1.

I'm hearing a lot of what sounds from here to be eschatolgical hysteria. I suppose it's a useful gambit for motivating people to listen to your end of days spiel, but really- c'mon. F1 is in far more danger from a kneejerk capitulation to the nutters with the "The End is Near" placards and their own immoderate agenda to peddle as the only road to salvation, than to a cooler and less breathlessly alarmist assessment.

Hybrids and EV are something that is already happening in the auto industry, and F1 will have to take that route one day.
They can either lead or follow.

No one cares as they haven't for all the EV's and Hybrids for the last 100 years. There is some more publicity about it so some car companies can look a little more green but look what they sell in bulk at the end of the day.

If you want to do that spiel then stick to something such as fuel flow restrictions that would be relevant.

Agree on the fuel or fuel flow restrictions. Don't see your point on hybrid and EV. These are emerging technologies that are becoming increasingly viable by the day as:
1. The technology improves and
2. Hydrocarbon fuels increase in price and scarcity

Removing the diffuser will do little except to reduce the downforce produced by the undertray. Well, it might increase drag a bit but that is about it.

The question then becomes how to compensate for the lost downforce. FIA have tried to reduce the downforce levels many times and aside from slowing the cars down a bit it have had very little effect, in most cases the regulations meant to slow down the cars have actually just made overtaking more difficult as the cars have become more and more dependant on aerodynamic downforce in order to find faster lap times and increased sensitivity of the aerodynamics.



Effective downforce (high L/D values) have to be compensated by the use of less powerful engines. With less power wasted to overcome the drag a smaller powerplant will do the trick while also consuming less fuel. Most supercars for the roads produce their downforce by ground effects these days rather than with wings.

With skirts, skirt reliability can be an issue, but at the same time the angle of the car relative to the ground have a smaller effect on downforce levels.

I don't think cornering speeds was significantly higher back then than it has been in the modern era.



Aside from the lap time difference, how will that make it different from now? It may be one or two seconds time difference between the cars in a field these days, but still, there are only a few teams that wins the races. If we look at the last decade, how large a percentage of the races have been won by a Ferrari, McLaren or Renault?



Electric cars and hybrids have been around for over a hundred years and no, F1 will not have to take that route one day.

If we look at an typical automobile it requires on average around 5-15 kW of power. Most of the time the cars travel slowly or even stand still with the engine running for very little purpose. Even if we drive at say 130 km/h (faster is rarely allowed) the power required by the typical automobile is just around 30 kW. Yet most automobiles are equipped with engines producing 100-400 kW and that means the engines, for most of the time, are running with low loads resulting in a low efficiency. Here's where electrics and hybrids come into the picture. With a hybrid we can downsize the engine and at the same time also shut it off where we normally would keep it idling. The result is a much higher overall efficiency. With a car consuming only around 5-15 kW of power it's also realisticly possible to produce a battery powered vehicle with a reasonable range.

F1 and competition cars are very different from road cars. Say that a typical F1 car produces 500 kW during full throttle and full throttle is used 50% of the time during a race. This means that the car consumes on average 250 kW. As for the other half of time, it's mostly spent off the throttle. So the average efficiency of a racing engine in its application is higher than that of road car engine in its application. Beside kinetic energy recovery there is very little hybrid technology can do for a race car.

For a battery powered vehicle we would need to use more than three tons of batteries during a one and a half hour race. Assuming we use modern lithium ion batteries.

I believe there are problems with restricting fuel flow, at least there were when I investigated the idea in a previous life.

a) Accurate flow meters are (or were) delicate, & would probably not survive a race vehicle environment without a complete redesign.
b) Fuel is (or was) used as a heat sink, so a proportion of fuel pumped from the tank is returned.
c) Fuel volume is not a measure of energy available.
d) Restricting fuel flow would probably force the adoption of intermediate storage devices (e.g. collector tanks, hybrids).

Defining the usable energy content of fuel is (& I suppose always will be) an issue, but certainly translating that into an in-vehicle volumetric measurement would introduce many possibilities for gaining an advantage.

There is an argument for limiting the total energy consumption of a race vehicle, & that is probably controlled most easily at the start of a race meeting, rather than at intermediate points during the meeting. In other words, limit the energy available for the meeting rather than individual practice/race sessions.

More generally, most race series today attempt to limit power available at the wheels in one way or another and, my view, this is the principal reason for "processional" races.

At last.... Thank you.


True. But I would argue that you are starting down the traditional FIA regulation path again, & my objective was to explore a more holistic approach. I like the efficiency of venturis, but they expose a practical weakness of my suggestions & the potential they offer must be controlled in some way. Your point about cornering speeds is correct, I think, but only because the Lotus 80 didn't work dynamically. The cornering speeds of the '79 (of 30 years ago) were similar to those of today's vehicles, but the '80 was a (major) step too far for the technology of the time and it didn't start a race in its original configuration. However, if the '80 body shape were to be grafted onto a good race vehicle today, I'm reasonably certain that tyre grip (by itself) would not be the parameter that limited cornering speeds.


I appreciate your analysis, & don't disagree with it, but I can't accept your conclusion, I'm afraid. I think an electronically controlled PC motor/generator in each wheel would replace much of the existing transmission hardware & would "free up" the mechanical layout of a race vehicle considerably. Whilst the result might not reduce basic weight (electrical power cabling always weighs more than expected), the concept would allow huge scope for the adoption novel power sources, for controlling the dynamics of the vehicle, for managing tyres, etc., much of which would be applicable directly to road vehicles. Encouraging this kind of development is sufficient reason for rethinking F1 regulations, I believe.