89 replies to this topic

[travbrad]

If the rule has been done for saving money, laugh about it and ditch it. There is no rule that help teams to spend less money. After all they are given money from various sides to be competetive.

 

Indeed.  The teams are always going to spend whatever money they can to gain an advantage.  Restricting which areas they spend that money on is arbitrary and pointless, and it could be argued has detracted from the racing with so much of their budget going into aero now (which makes it harder to follow cars through corners).

[HP]

I don't think there's much value in reconsidering individual rules, but taking a completely fresh look at the whole formula.

 

Happy for there to be spec parts, but there needs to be engineering and design effort allowed, but with a specific aim.

 

I would look to readdress the aero/mechanical balance of the cars.  If there are to be aero elements, let it be 'clean' aero.  In with low profile tyres and trick suspension, out with wings and winglets.  Provide a spec floor middle-section with venturi tunnels, which viewers won't see, but allow the teams to play with the outer edges which the viewers can see, to include freedom with the diffusers and skirts but with rules which prevent these from moving, but not preventing flexing, because it's too difficult.  I'm all for flexing.  To keep costs reasonable, the cars will be homologated with only two update points allowed per season, so we won't have Monza or Monaco specials.

 

Blah blah blah etc.  I just think that tweaking rules never really feels like they are really adding to the series, only to the complexity.

While I agree with you that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the rules, that won't be enough. I'm saying since I joined this board, that the rules are a big patch work. Just adding news rules as circumstances (perceivedly) demand it is a sure recipe for failure.

 

However F1 needs a new business model to go with it too. And example: No wings would go a great length to deal with several issues plaguing the racing aspect. The main reason that it's not being done, is commercial. Teams sell advertisement space there. F1 as a sport profits also from it too, as more high profile advertisements means the value of F1 as a whole goes up. In the end monetary considerations trump over other considerations when making rules, followed (this one correctly) by safety issues.

 

Viewed from another standpoint, FIA/FOM and teams all have to shape up ... or ship out. Given the endless stalemates, sadly I think only the ship out part will ever work.

[travbrad]

There's too many rules to remember, I wish their existence evaporated along with my memory of them.

 

I would LOVE to see mandatory running of both compounds removed from the regulations.

 

Yep that mandatory tyre rule was brought in because the Bridestones (after becoming the sole tyre supplier) were way too durable and in a lot of races they could have gone the entire race without changing tyres.  It was an artificial rule to counter-act artificially durable tyres.

 

Now we have artificially less durable tyres that couldn't go a full race anyway, so there is no reason to still have the mandatory tyre rule.

[Bleu]

Yep that mandatory tyre rule was brought in because the Bridestones (after becoming the sole tyre supplier) were way too durable and in a lot of races they could have gone the entire race without changing tyres.  It was an artificial rule to counter-act artificially durable tyres.

 

Now we have artificially less durable tyres that couldn't go a full race anyway, so there is no reason to still have the mandatory tyre rule.

 

Bridgestone's "official" reasoning was that they wanted most of tyres to be used. In the tyre war era (1997-2006 although there was two years of Bridgestone monopoly) the tyre rule was mostly that one compound (of two available) must be used for qualifying and race. Which meant that about half of the tyres brought to the track went unused.

[Sash1]

These rules are believed to have had a massively positive effect on the over-taking, without anything artificial about it. 

In 2008, the cars struggled to run within 2 seconds of each other due to the aero-wash. Under the new rules, especially after the DDD went, they can run within a second without too much penalty. It's virtually impossible to overtake from 2 seconds back, but within a second, it's not so bad.

 

For me it is more about how it looks, especially the rear wing. The low wide wings fitted in the low and slim designs. Now it looks like a race car with a silly wing bolted on the back.

 

And monkey seats should go too btw.

[SenorSjon]

While I agree with you that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the rules, that won't be enough. I'm saying since I joined this board, that the rules are a big patch work. Just adding news rules as circumstances (perceivedly) demand it is a sure recipe for failure.

 

However F1 needs a new business model to go with it too. And example: No wings would go a great length to deal with several issues plaguing the racing aspect. The main reason that it's not being done, is commercial. Teams sell advertisement space there. F1 as a sport profits also from it too, as more high profile advertisements means the value of F1 as a whole goes up. In the end monetary considerations trump over other considerations when making rules, followed (this one correctly) by safety issues.

 

Viewed from another standpoint, FIA/FOM and teams all have to shape up ... or ship out. Given the endless stalemates, sadly I think only the ship out part will ever work.

 

The same reasoning was with the drivers numbers on the car. And then you see a Williams with big white sidespods with tiny numbers on the side. Same for other teams. No sponsorship, but the numbers can't be to big... 

 

 

Bridgestone's "official" reasoning was that they wanted most of tyres to be used. In the tyre war era (1997-2006 although there was two years of Bridgestone monopoly) the tyre rule was mostly that one compound (of two available) must be used for qualifying and race. Which meant that about half of the tyres brought to the track went unused.

 

That was to prevent qualy tires, but it backfired a bit. Now we have the atrocious 'use all compounds' rule. I said it before, but have 3 compounds and let the teams decide which ones they want to use. The last few years, you see teams all over the place when the tire-track-car setup isn't going to work and the next race it works like a charm (Rosberg in China 2012 springs to mind).

 

When rules try to equalize things, racing inevitably suffers.

Parc ferme? Qualy advantage some teams had is gone.

DRS and numerous rules about defending: Defending is a lost art.

[Gyno]

There should be 3 sets of standard wings supplied by the FIA for all teams.

1 set for high downforce tracks and 1 set for medium  and 1 set for low.

 

The rest is open for the teams to do what ever they want with aslong as it meets safety regulations and passes crash tests.

1 team might go with wide cars while anohter keeps these same narrow long cars that look crap.

Anything that brings more mechanical grip to the cars should be allowed.

Mass dampers and active suspensions and what ever they can come up with.

 

If merc wanna run these lawnmover engines then let them.

If Ferrari wanna run proper racing V12 engines and refuel during the race, let them do so.

Unlimited use of engines and no restrictions on anything, like hybrid power and such.

 

The teams themself Decide which tire to use and how many sets they need of which compound.

Like 2 sets of hards and 1 set soft tires for the race 3 sets of super softs for the qualy and some tires for the practice.

[f1fan1998]

All of you complaining about parc ferme rules post qualy are nuts. What benefit does it have to the racing to allow the cars back to the garages to be worked on? None. One major benefit it has is that it allows the mechanics and race team to rest between Saturday and Sunday. Clearly not many of you have been around motorsport paddocks and pit lanes on a race weekend. 

[Motorbreath]

1. Bring back Imola
2. Keep all the classic tracks like Monza, Monaco, SPA...and never drop them.
3. Make the cars look wider.
4. Lower the cost that TV stations have to pay to have F1... F1 should not be on payed channels only, that would bring a lot of viewers back.
5. Keep KERS but remove DRS... Some overtakings are a bit too easy...
6. Teams should stop making drivers be PR robots.
7. Bring back real life flags on podiums, remove fake adverts, remove Eddie Jordan and anyone else from podium after race interviews.
8. If the barrier has been damaged in the race do not stop the race for 1 hour to fix it, just put some tire barriers on the place.
9. Make the rear wing look low downforce on low downforce tracks.

Thats some ideas I have, the engines are fine.

[superden]

1. Retention of existing classic circuits

2. Wide track suspension

3. F1 TV coverage improved, better camera angles focusing on racing, not background advertising and 'celebrities'

4. Removal of DRS

5. Removal of post qualifying parc ferme regulations

6. Removal of the requirement to use two compounds in a race

7. More scope for individuality in design, with less regulation designed specifically to stifle competitive innovation

 

These are just the first seven I thought of, I could come up with dozens of others.

[Boing Ball]

If merc wanna run these lawnmover engines then let them.

If Ferrari wanna run proper racing V12 engines and refuel during the race, let them do so.

Unlimited use of engines and no restrictions on anything, like hybrid power and such.

 

The proper V12 engines that Ferrari gave up voluntarily for the V10s that everyone else were using? F1 has never had open engine formula anyway. The diversity promised would never happen and even if it did, it would not last for long. Sorry, but that bubble just needs to be busted every time it is proposed.

[Gyno]

The proper V12 engines that Ferrari gave up voluntarily for the V10s that everyone else were using? F1 has never had open engine formula anyway. The diversity promised would never happen and even if it did, it would not last for long. Sorry, but that bubble just needs to be busted every time it is proposed.

 

What I mean is, let the teams run what they want.

How do you know it wouldn't last for long?

[ardbeg]

What I mean is, let the teams run what they want.

How do you know it wouldn't last for long?

History will teach us nothing?

[Rob]

They should go back to 1998, grooved tires and narrow cars and all that jazz...

 

Nope, you're one year out. It should be 1997 that we go back to.

[ardbeg]

I kind of like the Indycar rules, although I admit I am not too familiar with them. The races are good, teams make a difference but not too much. What counts most are what the team, including the driver, does on race day. And they can race close to each other. I think it is time drop the the snobbery and super hi-tech now when the cars no longer are allowed to be faster. It gives us nothing.

[Rob]

I think F1 needs to realise that less is more and cut down on the number of rules. The formula is heavily over-regulated.

[Boing Ball]

What I mean is, let the teams run what they want.

How do you know it wouldn't last for long?

 

Because the history of F1 shows that different engine configurations are not equal. The teams will learn which one is the best. It would probably be an I4 with a massive turbo charger and a small hybrid system to keep it spinning out of throttle. 

[ardbeg]

If F1 is to continue as a prototype series heavily dependant on hysterically expensive R&D, they should identify what areas of R&D that makes sense to explore. Currently I guess the PU's should be the primary target and how ironic is it not that they are frozen. So where do the money go? Making some kind of mechanical active suspension for $millions that could have been easily achieved with electronics for $29? Saving a kilogram for another million when a increased minimum weight of 20kg would have solved the problem? Finding ways to make their car produce a bit down-force while at the same time destroying the air as much as possible for the car behind while all the fans want the opposite?

What, apart from the PU's, are really worth spending money on within the current regs?

[Tourgott]

What I mean is, let the teams run what they want.

 

Would be pretty cool but the V10 would blow the V6 out of the orbit.

[Fastcake]

Because the history of F1 shows that different engine configurations are not equal. The teams will learn which one is the best. It would probably be an I4 with a massive turbo charger and a small hybrid system to keep it spinning out of throttle. 

 

I have noticed some of those advocating an open engine formula seem to be under the impression the manufacturers would all bring back big thirsty V10s again and abandon the current configuration they hate so much. Now in an ideal world I'd like to see that happen, but as you said the best configuration would undoubtedly be a small, fuel-efficient, turbocharged engine with energy recovery systems - that would only becoming more important as the technology develops.

[Henri Greuter]

I wonder how fast the pree 2009 cars would be with these current engines.

 

I doubt if a 2009 car could work with the 2014 engines. Don't forget the 2009 chassis were designed around the 2009 engines if it comes to size, shape weight balance etc. and the aerodynamics possible with the engine in question.

 

Henri

[chrcol]

in my view.

 

allow blown diffusers

no rpm limit on engines

allow FRIC

allow swap tryes

no red flag wet race

allow flexi wing

all trye compounds each race

bridgestone toughness

[sabjit]

It's only there to let the mechanics rest and not have to work on the car all night long.

 

It's not about cost cutting.

The teams will keep spending their money no matter what.

This whole cost cutting is just BULL***T

 

SHEER IGNORANCE.

 

Without Parc Ferme, the teams will have two cars. One for Qualy and one for the race. Half the teams cannot afford that. Therefore Parc Ferme is extremely important.

 

Unfortunately some people simply do not understand.

[Doughnut King]

If F1 is to continue as a prototype series heavily dependant on hysterically expensive R&D, they should identify what areas of R&D that makes sense to explore. Currently I guess the PU's should be the primary target and how ironic is it not that they are frozen. So where do the money go? Making some kind of mechanical active suspension for $millions that could have been easily achieved with electronics for $29? Saving a kilogram for another million when a increased minimum weight of 20kg would have solved the problem? Finding ways to make their car produce a bit down-force while at the same time destroying the air as much as possible for the car behind while all the fans want the opposite?

What, apart from the PU's, are really worth spending money on within the current regs?

 

F1's trying to balance technical innovation, entertainment, sport and cost saving. I'm not sure this is sustainable, particularly when one team is on it's death bed and many others are one rotten sponsor deal away from from death.

 

Williams posted a lost last year, Torro Rosso is probably only there out of good will, Sauber isn't looking healthy, and Force India needed a boost of cash recently.

[A310V6]

The results of all this “cost savings” are slow, boring, heavy and very expensive cars

[SenorSjon]

All of you complaining about parc ferme rules post qualy are nuts. What benefit does it have to the racing to allow the cars back to the garages to be worked on? None. One major benefit it has is that it allows the mechanics and race team to rest between Saturday and Sunday. Clearly not many of you have been around motorsport paddocks and pit lanes on a race weekend.

 

Rain races

Charlie Whiting

Safety Car

 

Should I add more? The whole Parc Ferme has abolished start crashes, restarts, t-cars, breakfast warm up on Sunday, seperate qualy and race tactics, etc. It wasn't unfamiliair that the fastest on Saturday was not the fastest on Sunday due to last minute changes by the engineers. Now they qualify at the same speed and order as they race.

[kapow]

Get rid of DRS.

I don't care if it sometimes makes the racing "better" (in my opinion it doesn't, track position meaning something and earning an overtake is part of Grand Prix motor racing), I believe it's totally wrong that a driver is punished by having just because they are in front of someone.

If the racing becomes "boring" then change the circuits or the reliance on aero.

[Deluxx]

I think you are gonna get mad when you find out that you been lied to about Global Warming and all that crap.

Infact Polar ice caps are growing not melting.

The globe has been cooling down for the last 17 years, even the global warming folks are admitting to this.

 

I am all for less pollution but to claim that the current PU produce less emissions is really BS.

Just do some research about the batteries used and how much they DESTROY the world before they are even installed into the cars...

V10 used more fuel but they still are greener then todays PU.

 

Not going to get into it much in this thread haha, but it's not just global warming, its climate change in general. And emissions cause problems seen here:

 

Watch this:
 

 

 

Yeah, batteries are an imperfect source, but it burns less emissions, which is the current problem we face.

 

Not saying that ONE CAR is going to cause global climate change, but it is where the future is going and if we don't head there, many places are going to be underwater, fast.

Edited by Deluxx, 18 July 2014 - 19:08.

[superden]

Many places are going to be underwater, fast.

 

http://www.f1h2o.com/

 

There's more to life than F1, even if you are on water.

Edited by superden, 18 July 2014 - 20:31.

[KnucklesAgain]

Would be pretty cool but the V10 would blow the V6 out of the orbit.

 

Not an equally unregulated V6 turbo, I don't think so.

[JHSingo]

It's good to know that all F1 needs to do to address its problems is use a time machine.

[chrcol]

SHEER IGNORANCE.

 

Without Parc Ferme, the teams will have two cars. One for Qualy and one for the race. Half the teams cannot afford that. Therefore Parc Ferme is extremely important.

 

Unfortunately some people simply do not understand.

 

yeah scrap parc ferme, if teams want to leave tough luck.  can make up numbers with 3 carss in top teams.
 

[SenorSjon]

All the cost cutting and reliability rules only made it harder for the poorer teams to score points. In retrospect, they actually went backwards.

[ardbeg]

Rain races

Charlie Whiting

Safety Car

 

Should I add more? The whole Parc Ferme has abolished start crashes, restarts, t-cars, breakfast warm up on Sunday, seperate qualy and race tactics, etc. It wasn't unfamiliair that the fastest on Saturday was not the fastest on Sunday due to last minute changes by the engineers. Now they qualify at the same speed and order as they race.

Is that not the idea? If you qualify with a machine that is different from the race machine, what is then the idea of qualifying?

[ardbeg]

F1's trying to balance technical innovation, entertainment, sport and cost saving. I'm not sure this is sustainable, particularly when one team is on it's death bed and many others are one rotten sponsor deal away from from death.

 

Williams posted a lost last year, Torro Rosso is probably only there out of good will, Sauber isn't looking healthy, and Force India needed a boost of cash recently.

And the worst is that the research path is reset at random intervals and whatever they invested is gone.

[Eff One 2002]

First of all get rid of that double points crap. It's idiotic and unnecessary.

Scrap the qualifying system and go back to the 1 hour session on Friday and Saturday, max 12 laps. Best time from either session determines the grid.

Scrap this 1.6 Litre turbo mandatory formula. Let the teams run the engine configuration they want. F1 is dangerously close to becoming a spec series.

Keep the slick tyres. That never should have been changed to start with in 1998.

Let the drivers earn their money and race in the rain with monsoon tyres, just like the good ol' days. Stop the lap after lap under the safety car **** just because it's raining a little. It's simply pathetic and unnecessary.

Allow the use of spare cars again.

Don't even bother introducing that standing re-start crap next year.

Make it easier for new teams to enter. At least 2 more teams are need in F1 right now.

 

That's just a few I've come up with off the top of my head.

Edited by Eff One 2002, 19 July 2014 - 01:37.

[aguri]

I think the FIA should just make a spec safety cell for every team. That would be a good starting point in terms of cost cutting and parity and it would also not compromise the integrity of the formula. 

 

I'm all for open engine development during the season as long as works teams are not favoured over customer teams with updates. 

[Tsarwash]

I think you are gonna get mad when you find out that you been lied to about Global Warming and all that crap.
Infact Polar ice caps are growing not melting.
The globe has been cooling down for the last 17 years, even the global warming folks are admitting to this.
 
I am all for less pollution but to claim that the current PU produce less emissions is really BS.
Just do some research about the batteries used and how much they DESTROY the world before they are even installed into the cars...
V10 used more fuel but they still are greener then todays PU.

So, Nasa is a hippy, dippy organisation who are lying to everybody on the planet to pursue their ultra-left wing agenda ?

[ElDictatore]

I think Lauda has a point in that it might be good to have a bit more of a clearer and analytical view on things. Because now they just introduce new rules in a very short timespan without looking how it affected racing. In a way like "Folks, how can we improve racing?" "Err...I KNOW! Let's make tyres made out of ****!". It's hard to say that way how each rulechange effected racing. It doesn't seem thought out, the same with standing restarts and all that.

 

• No double points, please!
• Let them race in the rain
• Have a better TV-Coverage & internet implementation

 

On some certain tracks, and in some places, 100% utterly yes. 

 

Some places, it does work well, problem is on plenty of places, it veers from completly pointless, to totally overpowered.

 

This, so much this. Essentially it is good when it invites to fights (like Alonso vs Seb last race) but it doesn't really give anything if you can just breeze past with no effort at all. There's no enjoyment with that. You just don't need DRS for tracks like Montreal where we had the best fights even before DRS. However it does spice up tracks like Bahrain.

 

Otherwise I can't really comment on much as there is a lot money related and I, and basically all other forumers here, don't have insight in how it works in F1. Many people in here just hate cost cutting and smaller engines but if you think about it, without that we wouldn't even have participants. No freaking engine manufacturer (bar Ferrari) would have been interested to make more V10 or something like that. And considering that the power unit now is more powerful than the engines we had from '06-'13 it often seems like fans are only interested in the noise.

Edited by ElDictatore, 19 July 2014 - 08:46.

[chipmcdonald]

I think they need to start over, it's too much of a crazy-quilt patchwork of legal restrictions that are effectively making it a spec formula by jurisprudence.

 

Keep it as safe.  1,000 hp, 20,000+ rpm, loud, refueling, no goofy tire rules, neat looking cars, no DRS, no computers between the driver's feet and wheels.  DTM can be the "road car relevance test platform".

Edited by chipmcdonald, 21 July 2014 - 07:22.