Ban front wings

I think a reverse grid is a very bad idea. I can't help but think you're going to get drivers who deliberately throw it away for the sake of a better starting position on Sunday. You could always award points for qualifying, but the emphasis should be on the race itself.

For me, the ideal qualifying format would be a combination of the current knockout rules and the 2005 system: each driver gets one do-or-die run in Q1 - in reverse championship order - with the bottom seven falling out. Then the same thing happens for Q2 and again for Q3. Sure, it would take longer than one hour, but I think it would really create a bit of tension.


I don't think it's that much of a problem. Formula 1 cars are travelling at 100km/h in the pits, so they clear the 50m mark pretty quickly.

You misunderstood. I said reverse grid based on championship position. That would mean that qualy will either be scrapped completely or become an event all unto itself with minor points awarded - it would have no influence whatsoever on the starting lineup.

The problem is aero not tyres. Just have limited ground effect cars and no/simple diffuser. Get rid of the aerodynamic junk thats causing the dirty air behind the car.

Just pullout the GP2 car from 2005/06 and copy that ;)

Martin Whitmarsh wants to spice up the show, so one quick fix might be a ban on radio transmissions from the pits to the driver during the race for anything other than safety calls.

Listening to the radio chat from Bahrain, the drivers are being micro-managed from the pits and mission control back at base to such an extent that almost every move they make has to be approved by committee before they are allowed to do anything. Calls on pit stops, when to push, when to save fuel, when to conserve the tyres, when to cool down the engine, and even calls to give them the authority to pass the guy in front are all diluting the show to an enormous degree, as we are being denied the opportunity to see who really is the best driver.

The teams could still communicate with the drivers via the pit board (like they used to) and any essential mechanical advice could be be passed on in this way.

What the continuous radio chatter has done is to remove the driver's responsibility to manage his car, which under the current regulations has contributed significantly to the bore-fest that was yesterday's race.

It is a quick fix, it costs nothing, and would IMHO improve the quality of the races enormously.

We aren't going to see dramatic changes such as no wings on the cars etc until a new concorde agreement starts in 2013.

We need some changes now and the only thing that can be done is to play around with the tyres. James Allen has suggested making the two compounds softer and only one grade apart forcing two stops. Only problem is the races will have to be shortened because the cars can't carry enough fuel for three sprints.

In the long run a change to a completely flat under floor with no plank and no diffuser is probably the answer. Bigger tyres and a return to elegant rear wings may then be necessary to provide an appropriate level of grip.

I don't remember there being any problems with cars following closely under similar rules in the 80s

Can't compare 1980's to now. The level of aerodynamic sophistication at top teams then was far below that of Lotus and Virgin today. And Virgin did overtake a Lotus yesterday!

In other words, the reason why the cars could follow closely in 1980s was that they were basically awful. Not aero rules.

F1 Overtaking group should get input from Panoz who designed DP-01 60% of the downforce was from under the car!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoz_DP01


They better set these rules in place soon for 2011 or else the teams will already be designing their 2011 cars and complain they need another year to prepare.

Bahrain is a boring track. Always has been. If they replaced it with somewhere like the A1 ring it would be a good start.

They also maybe need to have stickier tyres with a shorter life. Then there would be more chance of overtaking regardless of how many pitstops.

The aero argument is valid, and maybe the diffusers should have been banned....

It's funny to see how many people are in favor of elaborate methods of enforcing overtaking.

If you are all for artificial overtaking, why not just simply say: "Each competitor has to let by another competitor if he is closer than 1 second behind him".

Still, I don't see where people have seen all that better racing before refuelling was banned? Tell me!

Last year was an exception anyway, because the whole field was mixed up.

But folks, get your memories straight: This has very little to do with the refuelling ban! You remember the processions of last year? You remember processions at Monza ever since I can think about it? It's quite cheap and convenient to say it has all started with the refuelling ban...

Introduce mandatory stops or even just ban the refuelling ban, and you'll have processions chopped into 3 parts instead of 2!

I still think it's a bad idea.

Can't say I like Webber much but at least he's not afraid to speak his mind. We need more people inside the world of F1 doing this.

The drivers can tell what is affecting things, they cannot get close enough because of the aero. There are numerous other problems and solutions, but first thing should be first : scrap the aero dependent cars so another driver can at least have a chance of overtaking.

And I think saying that something is a bad idea with no reasoning or explanation is a bad idea.

Make F1 a spec series and you'll have your close racing and overtaking, because the cars can be designed for it.

I think we are wishing for is a myth/fantasy.

All those stats on number of overtakings per season is just bullshit. Turbo days were just different.

It's mainly just a shock compared to recent years. We already thought it was difficult to overtake during 2005-2009 but now it seems to have become way worse. Last year it wasn't even that bad at all.

I also doubt anything can be done short-term to have a big effect on it.

Can you just look up the lap time difference for GP2 for starters. GP2 race was also boring i believe.

What you say here sounds entirely reasonable. But it is not. Because if both Massa and Alonso were vying in the last race for the WDC, Ferrari would already have won the championship. Hence Massa deliberately making a mistake would not happen.

And if they were vying for the championship together, perhaps things might get complicated. But they'd start one place apart no matter what happened. And since the cars could overtake with ease, then it would be a great race. And being one place behind your team mate would not be a genuine dis-advantage.

Anyway, that's enough posts for me.

I just hope that people realise, the only way to improve overtaking, is to give the R&D guys a reason to develop cars that overtake. And that idea is not mine: it comes directly from the Renault director, a key member of the OWG.

The issue is, how can one make a workable system to give a benefit to cars that overtake? So far, there has only been a few suggestions:
Reverse Grids
Paired Qualifying
Maximum downforce via telemetry feeding load cells on each wheel to the FIA in real time
Downforce produced only between the wheels in the fore /aft position, hence the air stream exhaust would travel over the rear wheels and not interfere with the car behind. (A suction fan would do the same but it has been des-credited for having some long term downsides!)
A limited power inpulse, such as a stock of nitro or KERS, that would only work if you are in close proximity behind a car
A cord that hangs out the back (or streamer) of the rear of the F1 car in the air stream, that if it hits another car results in the streamer attached car having to immediately replace the cord (or ballasted streamer) - the idea being to force teams to have the air flow go higher over the car behind

I've forgotten the rest of the ideas ... Someone might create a list.

I just don't think it would add any incentive to developers to design cars that have more reliance on mechanical grip. All it would do is artifically influene race results - I doubt that while the likes of Alonso and Schumacher could easily pass a Virgin or a Lotus, could they take on a Force India so easily?

Mark Webber on Twitter:

Haven't read the thread yet, so appologies if this is repeated.

Without wishing to jump to conclusions the problem with the new rules is mainly:

1. Tyres lasting the stints so racing is about driving a 9/10ths to preserve tyres and fuel.
2. Overtaking impossible because of the skinny front tyres lack grip close to a car infront, rear diffusors advantage the lead car too much
3. Getting close to the car infront gives less downforce which buggers up your tyres which your trying to look after


Solutions:

1. BRIDGESTONE TO SUPPLY 2 COMPOUNDS, OF VERY SOFT, VERY FAST AND GOOD FOR NO MORE THAN 10 LAPS, THE OTHER VERY DURABLE.
2. MANDATE 2 STOPS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AFTER TYRES.
3. BAN DDD AND FIA PROVIDE COMMON DIFFUSOR FOR THE SEASON.

Drastic, but you want racing?

Bingo. There's the problem right there. That's why we have all these fancy front wing end-plates - which are incredibly sensitive (and thus make the cars overall incredibly sensitive) to changing airflows.



Yep, and we can all probably point out exactly the reasons why. Plenty have done so when the regulations have been announced. If we mere plebs can see it, how come these highly qualified and paid engineers can't?

Double-deckers are being banned from 2011 on, but only because that was the earliest the FIA could get them banned. Given the emphasis on the part and the way the car is designed around it, banning it now would be almost impossible. Look at Red Bull: Adrian Newey knew the advantages of the part, but the team had to wait until Silverstone before they were able to get one fo their own because of the RB5's push-rod suspension.

more pit stops won't change anything, it would just be another sprint procession

just make the tyres softer, restrict aerodynamic development in key areas and ban mandatory tyre stops

Yeah, but what does this message say. It says, loud and clear 'we're still thinking like in the refuelling era. We dare not try something different.'

They did - it's the way the regulations are worded that causes the issues...hole...slot..and all that.

Bann DD anyway and do it now--simple fix.


Put a flat plank under the WHOLE car. Chop wings to one element.
No winglets

They are deliberately desgining the aero now to create turbulence in their wake to make it harder to pass.
One whole body plank will fix that...
So it upsets some folks. And turns the entire field upside down.

Big deal. That is creating excitement that goes beyond broken pipes.....

It actually says - "why keep dicking with the rules"......lost in translation?

And get rid of the staggered rule. That way, drivers on the harder prime will stand a chance of being a genuine challenger in Q3 because there will be less difference between the prime and option tyres.

While I agree somewhat, I can't see Bridgestone (or the teams) agreeing to this.. Because the racing is so focused on tyres and tyre performance, I can't see Bridgestone agreeing to create a tyre, that is meant to be their ultimate tyre, and then having all the teams publically stating how they had to "race" around the "problems" with the tyres..

For me, the fundamental problem is a function of how the sport operates in todays economy.. Because large investment and sponsorship is required to compete, even bigger expectations and contractual obligations are implied.. IMO This has basically driven the sport away from being the ultimate "pursuit of speed", to the "cost of speed" where EVERYTHING is simulated, measured, calculated and recalibrated, so that ultimately costs and thus relative performance can be justified to investors / sponsors..

As a result, the teams carefully calculate and predetermine "acceptable" or expected results based on simulations and calculations.. anything that deviates from these simulations and calculations is immediately pulled back to match the expectation.. Someone in one of the threads suggested banning pit->car radio communications.. I can kind of agree with the sentiment here.. with all the data and facilities available, the pits/factories are dictating too much of the race to the driver.. the drivers should be allowed to show their racecraft on track, not be told how to craft the race to deliver the expectation..

Anyway, this is all a monday morning rambling / rant.. Still don't really know how I feel about the race overall.. I'm glad that F1 is back after the long winter break, but somehow feel deflated or almost robbed after all the preseason hype.. I'll give it a few more races before I deliver a final verdict...

The problem is that current qualifying takes the emphasis away from the race. It is much better to qualify well than race well. Which gives qualification a massively disproportionate impact.

Looking at it from another aspect, people complain about lack of overtaking, then the cars line up in speed order, with the fastest given a head start...logically there should never be any overtaking ever.

If we want racing we should scrap qualifying. Everyone starts the 100m final at the same place. That is sadly impossible for motor racing, but look how they did it in the past; elapsed time rather than "racing" pure. So nobody was given a startline advantage. It is only the 1930s that timing qualifying sorted out the start order. So just line them up in reverse championship order, and for the first race in reverse number order. That will put far more emphasis on the race, and you imagine how quickly the big nobs would sort out regulations to permit overtaking...

Not sure if I am just wearing rose tinted glasses but was the old qualy not MUCH better when there was one 45 minute session (or was it an hour?) with a maximum of 12 laps per car?

Point taken, I guess my point is they gave them more front areo and less mechanical grip when the reality appears it should have gone the other way. What else can they do that can be regulated?

Other thoughts include teams getting a new engine (the 9th) free when/if 7 of the 8 engines reach a minimum mileage. Encourages teams to run in practise and push a little harder in the races. If an engine fails prior to the min. mileage teams would have to take a penalty to replace it if they need a 9th engine.

Bigger brake ducts and radiators to prevent cars (mandated) running hot and not being able to follow one another.

A requirement to produce a blueprint of the car and circulate to all other teams by the end of september each year - though direct copies of a rivals car wouldn't be allowed the following season. Save on redunant R&D i.e. the smaller, slower teams don't have to carry out the same R&D that's been done 8 times already.

I think Villeneuve got it absolutely right in the post race BBC interview.. it's got nothing to do with refueling or no refueling, it's all about the aero grip being dominant over mechanical grip.

And he is exactly right. The problem with F1 is this crazy scenario where if you get within 1 second of the driver infront you are hindered with your handling, hindered with your tyres, hindered with your engine. And so it's impossible to string together a pass and it's better to back off and remain just outside that window and hope for the best.

That isn't racing. If they can work the rules so that a car can get within 1 second and still be competative and string together a pass.. or at least an attempt at a pass, then this whole mess will be fixed.

Gone are the days when you'd watch a driver slowly but surely close a gap lap after lap and then string together a pass which eventually stuck. Now you see them claw the gap back to 1 second and then it's all over.. bar any mistakes. No point system in the world is going to get past the fact drivers simply can't get close enough to the car infront without being disadvantaged.

What I don't understand is they've known this for years. Whatever happened to that standard rear wing idea that was floated a few years ago? It's as if the teams just prefer the boring races because it's easier for them to collect up points after a good off-season. "Ohh we've developed a great car, excellent.. that's our job done for this year". The thought of passing seems to scare the teams.

Another example, take Massa yesterday, being told to "think of Melbourne" with quite some laps to go. Crazy situation. So not only is the race decided on Saturday and the first lap, but it's also over by 75% point because the teams are too busy turning down the engines to last until Melbourne. So what hope we did have that the tyre drop off at the end of the race would lead to passing is killed off because the teams are too paranoid about the engine reliability rules.

The problem is that it's always changing. Sure that old method worked just fine but so did the current knockout format IMO - until this years refueling rules, new teams and bigger gaps made it boring again.

The quali also isn't as exciting. With 7 drivers out in the first session, it's basically the 6 new cars + most likely a toro rosso or a sauber. So little to no tension in that session.

There seems to be massive panic and over reaction to the new rules making "boring" races when we've only had one race, at a venue that I can't recall any exciting races having been anyway.

More knee-jerk reactions is not what is needed. The constant fiddling with the regulations are more damaging to the sport than the occasional boring race. It just never stops, does it? The same guys complaining are the same guys supposed to predict the consequences of today's regulations. They failed to do so, so their credibility is pretty low, I gotta say.

Not during the sessions with literally everyone sat in their garage for 40 minutes before doing two single runs.

I think the current qualifying rules work really well, although this year it looks as though it wil be relatively easy to predict who drops out in each session.

Yes, apart from perhaps the first event there, it hasn't given us huge amounts of passing. The cars still don't like to follow each other.

Start by buying a bulk order of carbon fibre plates and block up the diffusers before the next race (you get my meaning). Sure it will mean all the teams performance data will be wrong, and the cars will be a lot harder to drive - gosh, that might actually produce some interesting racing - I am just hoping we have a lot of wet races this year, because its the only chance of anything interesting happening on track.

I long for the sort of TV coverage they had 40-50 years ago, when what were essentially very slow cars were going whistling past fixed cameras, and it looked terrifyingly fast. Now, when cars can pull 5g in corners, it looks as if they are out for a Sunday drive.

The first thing that should be done is ANYONE involved in deciding what coverage looks like should be banned from watching the race except from the feeds we see, including commentators (so they nag the FIA), so they actually see the clinical coverage we see. Sure, super slo mo is amazing, but watching cars flick left right through chicanes at incredible speeds - we just don't get any sense of the awesomeness of it all.

The only way Melbourne will be any different to yesterdays borefest is if the tyres behave worse than they did in bahrain. Or teams decide to take mad risks.

While were all in panic mode, lets not forget about one major thing. We are talking about Bahrain. The track was never anything else then boring. You could have cars from the 60s, 70, 80s whatever F1 era racing there and it would still be boring.

This was no Spa, no Suzuka and no Interlagos, it is Bahrain race we are talking about. Lets not forget that

Yes. I think that Bridgestone need to bring more kind of tyres. The supersoft is not supersoft at all... it is semi-hard. I am thinking about real supersoft that are 3 sec a lap quicker than the current soft tyre... but goes up in smoke after three laps. It is incredible that a supersoft tyre lasts 17 laps. Mind you, fantastic craftmanship by Bridgestone, but not good for racing.

For the last couple of years I think the opening races have been pretty bland. After a few races, desperation starts to creep into the minds of teams and drivers and they will start taking chances. Things will become more exciting and hopefully less predictable as the season moves along. Having said that, there have been boring seasons for as long as I can remember.

Did you see the GP2 Asia race there a couple of weeks back? It was fantastic.

One thing about having to use more tyres: the number of tyres available is severely restricted this year. So the teams would run out of tyres by Saturday if the tyre life was much shortened. The teams would not be able to develop their cars at all on Fridays if tyre life was shortened ...

Lots of good new ideas recently put, and some old ones ... but the only way to fix things IMO, is to give teams an incentive to make the rear aero wake clean. Without that incentive, the teams will simply design around whatever is done. Removing DDD will not fix dirty wakes. For all we know, it might make things even worse. The only way to get a clean rear aero situation, is to make it a benefit to each team, to improve the clean aero wake.

And IMO, the only way to do that, is to force the teams to run both their cars together in qualifying, and to combine their times. Its a very simple - even elegant - fix IMO. Even DDD could stay if that was done IMO.

Cheers all ...

How did Sato pass Alonso at Canada, for instane, if aero is to blame? Just curious. I guess we need more bonsai drivers with balls in F1? lol

What about this, as a way to give the incentive to reduce wake, simply and easily, and for the 2010 season:

At every race weekend, each car has to be able to achieve a minimum top speed on the main straight.
This top speed will be set to ensure they HAVE to use a very minimal downforce setup to achieve it
This top speed would be set in a fourth qualifying session, which happens before the other three, and after that they are in parc ferme so they can't change it back again.
They would have to achieve this minimum top speed at least once during the race before the last 10 laps, or get a drive-through.

Because engine outputs are all the same, this shouldn't disadvantage any particular set of teams.

Apart from the reduction of wake, it would also mean driver skill was a bigger part of the equation because cars would be harder to drive.

A side benefit would be that it seems the smaller teams are a lot more effective on low downforce tracks, probably because its a lot easier to develop the suspension etc than fancy high downforce aero.

This could be implemented for the race after next and would involve just about no negative impacts for anyone. They would need to balance safety against this at a few races such as Monaco.

You making fun of Sato's small size?