Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What is F1's vision for the future? Does one even exist?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,502 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 13 February 2014 - 06:21

Great questions about F1's future posed here by F1B's Negative Camber (Todd McCandless):
 
 

 

Editor’s Note: I was just thinking, which is never good, and decided that F1 either needs to find a future or get back to its past. I then decided to do a little brainstorming with the F1B community. Remember, no idea is stupid because we’re just brainstorming here. throwing out outlandish ideas to see if we can find an interesting direction (ok, this is kind of a dumb idea but what the heck, maybe it’ll start a good conversation). I’ll start…here goes:

What does Formula 1 owe society? Anything? I’ve become more convinced over time that the DNA of F1 is at risk of being completely changed with constructs such as high degradation tires, Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS), Energy Recovery Systems (ERS), engine size reductions, double-point races, racing and qualifying format changes and much more.
 
Are we betraying the core precept of Formula 1 from, say, 1967? Are we chucking it all out of the window due to this quirky concept that F1 is merely entertainment wrapped in the giftwrapping of competition?
 
...
 
What if F1 became a competition not only on track but off the track as well? What if Formula 1 was a name for technology innovation and became the “Intel Inside” of road car standards? It would be sort of like saying that that your Cadillac was developed on the Nurburgring but without the James May stigma that is attached to it.
 
...
 
If Formula 1 opened technology up and allowed Williams to use their most creative hybrid systems, Ferrari to use their massive engine might and Mercedes to use their incredible engineering as well as McLaren’s fanatical attention to detail and performance, perhaps F1 could become more than just “the show”.
 
...
 
Why place a limit on cylinders in 2014? Why not create a competition that demands 850hp from an engine that uses one third less fuel flow rate than 2013? Is that even possible? You may think so no but then landing on the moon wasn’t possible either. Creating nuclear fusion wasn’t possible either. If a team could make an engine with 12 or 4 cylinders that could produce 850hp at a third less fuel flow, why stand in their way?
 
What if the competition was intended to create aerodynamic downforce of X pounds at under 100mph? Like the Michelin Green X Challenge in ALMS, what if the competition was to create tires that could withstand F1 punishment but decrease rolling resistance and increase fuel mileage by 5-10%? These innovations could also produce some interesting racing to be sure.
 
...

 

 

 
Re: the point about number of cylinders, I totally agree. Go ahead and limit fuel flow and displacement to place the pressure on efficiency, but why dictate engine configuration? I just don’t get it. If F1 is truly looking for road car relevance, then why not allow the creative freedom to discover something that might truly revolutionize automotive travel? 
 
Also, why dictate methods of aspiration, ERS, etc. Let the teams determine how to get the most from limited resources, and they might just come up with something really special.

Edited by AustinF1, 13 February 2014 - 06:22.


Advertisement

#2 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 February 2014 - 06:26

 

Also, why dictate methods of aspiration, ERS, etc. Let the teams determine how to get the most from limited resources, and they might just come up with something really special.

 

 

Of course but they are SCARED they do NOT LIKE CHANGE.   :well:

 

Teams (or specifically Mercedes, Ferrari etc) do not like big change as it risks their investment as things can go horribly wrong.  Heaven forbid Caterhams might lap the field while the hapless Mercedes bring up the rear.  Hence they always choose to tweak existing aero regulations.  It's all about incremental improvements that build on previous development funding - playing to the strength of the wealthy F1 teams; it spares the risk that the big works teams could have a stinker and a lower order team could dominate the championships.

 

Hence restrictive regulations that guarantee relative uniformity...   :yawnface:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 13 February 2014 - 06:27.


#3 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 13 February 2014 - 06:33

The future of F1, it is as a game show/reality TV hybrid.



#4 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 791 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 06:37

Everything he is saying is a match for what F1 used to be. I think hitting reverse and back up 15-20 years is a good start.

#5 Tapz63

Tapz63
  • Member

  • 645 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 07:10

I want the future of f1 to hold more track records. Cars should be going faster not slower. Also they should sort out the camera angles, they make the cars look like they are going really slow.

#6 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:48

 


 why not allow the creative freedom to discover something that might truly revolutionize automotive travel? 
 
Also, why dictate methods of aspiration, ERS, etc.

 

 

 

Because one of the multitude of methods is the quickest.

Which one?

The rich teams have the resources to investigate 10 at the same time, the poor teams can only do one or two.

Thus: the rich teams will find the most optimal answer the soonest, with the poor teams taking the next year or two to throw away everything they had and start again with that more optimal idea.

 

Furthermore, the rich teams may find different optimal answers for different tracks.

I recall back in the days of engine freedom of the 90's, that Ferrari had plans to make V8, V10 and V12 engines, and run them all through the course of one season, using the most optimal engine for that track.  Monaco vs Hockenheim, etc.

 

And in the end, ALL teams will end up using the most optimal answer anyway... as they will all probably do by the end of this year with the stupidnoses.



#7 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 13 February 2014 - 10:46

Fuel: Current petrol chemistry regulations. Limit fuel flow to 120kg per hour, no fuel-rpm specification or lap-consumption specification. Create a seasonal fuel allotment of 120kg per car per round. No fuel tank capacity specification. The FIA will disclose how much fuel each team used after race end. Driver/Constructor championship each receive a 20kg penalty from the season fuel allocation. Total fuel penalty is capped at 20kg per season. Create some kind of formula to govern accumulation of fuel penalties and removal of fuel penalties over the seasons.

 

Engines: Create a box, similar to the chassis boxes, with a 90 degree V or 120 degree V. Let the teams figure out what cylinder, bore, stroke, valve, cam, turbos, engine layout, revs, etc. No energy recapture. Pointless danger to the driver and safety workers. Doesn't save the planet. F1 systems are too sophisticated and powerful for mass market passenger cars, anyway.

 

Gearbox: Same homologation rules as now, but back to 7 gears.

 

Aerodynamics/Chassis: Reduce aerodynamic downforce over time. Switch to regulations that permit "x" kg of downforce at various speeds. Test on rolling road wind tunnel. Homologate. Allow shark fins and viking horns and innovative designs that don't pose major safety risks. No movable aero, but passive flex shouldn't be a problem. No active suspension. Common safety cell, and many of the same dimensional boxes for the chassis.

 

Tires: As downforce is reduced, tire degradation will happen naturally again. Eliminate control tire. Allow tire manufacturers to homologate 4 dry tires designs and one rain tire. The tire manufacturers bring 1-2 dry compounds and the wet compound to each race. The teams pay to use the tires they want at price set by FIA, but teams can only get tires from one manufacturer for the race. Championship-winning tire manufacturer penalized 1 dry tire homologation for next season. Create a formula to govern accumulation of homologation penalties and removal of penalties over the seasons.

 

Electronics: :confused: Tough to keep out the junk driver-aids with so many different engine configs.



#8 ReeVe

ReeVe
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 11:58

I think F1 is primarily a business therefore the vision centers around maximizing cashflow, not keeping die hard fans happy



#9 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,548 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:09

It's just another "this is how I want F1 to be" rant, with the typical hand in the sand as to why their ideas can't be implemented.

Electronics: :confused: Tough to keep out the junk driver-aids with so many different engine configs.


Presumably you'll keep the spec ECU in your situation.

#10 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,394 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:11

Yes it exists, it is make more and more money for Bernie Ecclestone.



#11 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:20

Yes it exists, it is make more and more money for Bernie Ecclestone.

 

Funny...but unfortunately, probably true.



#12 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:48

I don't know if they have defined it clearly, but I guess F1's vision in 10-20 year perspective is about...

 

- green racing, possibly merge into Formula E; perhaps includes showcasing top-notch green technology;

- attractive "entertaining" series for a wide range of racing competition fans;

- finding further avenues in being a global business, which yet again means a lot of Asian circuits, as the world economic power is gradually shifting away from Europe to there.