46 replies to this topic

[noikeee]

I don't need to remind you all that the drivers need to be much quicker to pass in the dry in F1, that there are large issues with slipstreaming and with dirty air, bla bla bla. We've been discussing this a lot for a long time. So, let's get on to what it matters. I'm proposing a simple way to fix the issue by introducing two systems in Formula 1:

1. Push-to-pass button. Engines get downgraded to a limit to 17K revs. The drivers are then allowed to override that limit for as many revs as they want/can achieve, for 60 seconds during a race.

This can be implemented in a few races time, in this season already. The engines are built to be under the pressure of 18k revs for a whole race - by lowering this limit, you might get them some extra lifetime, that then can be used for the push-to-pass system. This is effectively what we had last season with KERS, except that it can't be marketed as a "revolutionary", "hybrid" - the upside is that this can be implemented for next to nothing, whereas KERS was ****ing expensive.

It's also better than KERS because with KERS they used it at the same point every lap, whereas with this time limit you can spread your usages during the race, which will mean the drivers will use it at different times. I have seen something similar in A1GP and Champcar and it worked quite nicely.

It doesn't quite fix the problem on its own, but it helps.

2. Moveable front and rear wing, to dramatically steep angles, driver adjustable by two switches in the steering wheel. Drivers are only allowed to use it when within 1 second behind of another car racing in the same lap.

We already have moveable front wing flaps on F1. According to Wikipedia, "The flaps could be adjusted by up to six degrees, limited to only two adjustments per lap.". The problem is that this doesn't really do much. With 2 adjustments per lap, basically people are going to be using it for performance only, using the higher angle for the twistier part of the circuit and the lower angle for the rest. Now, what about if they were allowed as many changes as they want, to FAR bigger angles, and if they could only use it when they're behind another car?

We know that the aerodynamic setup of the wings is always a compromise between downforce and drag. The highest the downforce, the better the car is at cornering. The lowest the drag, the better the car is on the straights. However the highest angle you use on the wings, the more downforce AND drag you get. So ideally you'd have a far higher angle for the corners and a far lower angle for the straights. On the straights you'd be on Monza-spec. On the corners you'd be on Monaco-spec. That's exactly what I'm proposing here, but only available when behind another car. When you're in clear air - well, you're gonna have to stick with the old-fashioned compromise.

Shouldn't be too complicated neither too expensive to make a system like this, it'd be a little similar to what they have with the front wing flaps now, but associated to GPS tracking sensors. They should also use a few redundant sensors to make sure the system doesn't fail.

Limitations to both systems

Both systems should NOT be available on qualifying, to avoid team strategies exploiting them, ex: both team cars running close and switching positions all the time to take advantage of the moveable wings.

Possible issues and criticism

a) They go racing and it turns out it's not good enough for passing

Make the wing angles even steeper. Make the rev limit even lower, therefore making the boost in the push-to-pass button even bigger. Connect the push-to-pass system to the GPS tracking sensors just like the moveable wings, effectively giving a huge advantage to the car behind, not just on aerodynamics but also on power.

b) They go racing and it turns out passing is too easy. It goes like a NASCAR oval race.

Lower the available wing angles. Turn down the number of seconds the push-to-pass system is available during a race.

c) It's too dangerous

They're already allowing things like the McLaren f-duct, so what, this isn't much worse. The worst that could possibly happen would be a driver having it on the low-downforce setting down the straight, and forgetting to switch to the high-downforce setting at the moment they brake for the next corner. But you know, drivers aren't morons and should compensate for that.

d) The drivers would have too many switches to work with in the steering wheels

Isn't that a good thing? I mean, people are asking for manual stick gearboxes for drivers to be more busy on the cockpit and make more mistakes. This would be a little less extreme...

e) It's too artificial

A bit, but it's a lot less artificial than reverse grids, weight ballast, soaking up the track on purpose, or Bernie Ecclestone's proposed short-cuts. And people are already considering ideas like these seriously today... All that these 2 systems would do, would be to emulate the old dynamics of F1 racing. Ever heard of races like in Monza in the 60s? The car behind had a huge advantage over the car on clear air...

The obvious benefit

It's very, very CHEAP!! The budget to do this would be nowhere near the budget they spent in the 2009 regulation changes, which ultimately didn't solve anything. The benefits are enormous: a much more entertaining F1 means much better viewing figures. Much better viewing figures, means more sponsorship, means more income... All of this for two CHEAP systems!!

There you go, an easy recipe to fix F1 and you didn't need to lock Ross Brawn into a wind-tunnel for 3 months to think of it. Unless I'm missing something - I know very little about aerodynamics, after all. If so, please comment.

[olliek88]

not the worst idea i've heard suggested but it won't be able to be introduced this season, esp the moveable rear wing part, the work required to get that intergrated into the cars, which will be so tightly packaged, would make it extremely difficult without redesigning alot of the car, esp the rear end. Plus making sure it 100% safe without in season testing is pretty impossible, the rev's idea good but again can't see it happening this season.

[Sakae]

I am voting this idea down. Too many simple reasons for that to name them all in here.

[Dragonfly]

Voted no because seems to me not that simple and cost effective. Besides it is still restrictive.
I say let the team override the rev limiter by a button, to 19000 rpm for example, as long as they decide, but keep the number of engines per season. Let them manage their resourced, not giving them prescriptions. They are racing teams and how they manage their engines is a part of the competition. This way they will use the additional boost only when really needed. Some will take risks, some will not. Some will make it some will not.

Edited by Dragonfly, 28 March 2010 - 19:37.

[Bloggsworth]

BAN FRONT WINGS

Edited by Bloggsworth, 28 March 2010 - 19:41.

[domhnall]

What do we need push to pass for?? We saw today that if you're faster and can get close enough, you can can slipstream and make a move. Let's get the cars running closer and forget these stupid rev limit gimmicks

[F1Champion]

Monza spec front wing and rear wing. Barring this, a completely flat front wing and rear wing and a single element. No angle allowed. Only if teams complain, give them a couple of degrees for advertising if required on the rear wing. Ideally stick to flat profiles and raise the camera angles, or allow the advertisers to become more creative to sell the space.

[raiseyourfistfor]

They need to wash the racing line before the race so the defender doesn't have more grip.

[olliek88]

What do we need push to pass for?? We saw today that if you're faster and can get close enough, you can can slipstream and make a move. Let's get the cars running closer and forget these stupid rev limit gimmicks

The problem is getting close enough to slipstream in normal conditions, the rain at the start just meant more mistakes and people were out of position which in turn created different strategys, don't get me wrong i loved it but sadly for me todays race was the anomaly, i fear bahrain style races will become the norm, i hope im wrong thou.

[noikeee]

not the worst idea i've heard suggested but it won't be able to be introduced this season, esp the moveable rear wing part, the work required to get that intergrated into the cars, which will be so tightly packaged, would make it extremely difficult without redesigning alot of the car, esp the rear end. Plus making sure it 100% safe without in season testing is pretty impossible, the rev's idea good but again can't see it happening this season.

The push-to-pass could be done this season, just needs a little bit of work on software. It's fairly simple really.

The moveable wings I was thinking for 2011. I think those would be cost-effective because the teams wouldn't need to re-design almost anything... unlike other ideas around.

[noikeee]

What do we need push to pass for?? We saw today that if you're faster and can get close enough, you can can slipstream and make a move. Let's get the cars running closer and forget these stupid rev limit gimmicks

We had a damp track today, it was far easier to pass. I'm pretty sure we're going to be back to Bahrain-dull races once we're back to the dry.

In Bahrain we had Hamilton with the f-duct unable to make a move on Rosberg, Rosberg with the faster Merc engine and 1 cylinder more unable to make a move on Vettel... the car behind needs more power and needs an aerodynamic advantage to counter the dirty air issue.

[jez6363]

Sorry, but I voted no. I want to see racing, not a Playstation game. The key elements of racing / driver skills include:

- Choosing braking points
- Choosing cornering speeds (and bravery in doing so)
- Brake and throttle control while braking cornering and accelerating
- Positioning on track to gain max performance
- Overtaking and the game of move, countermove etc, until someone makes a mistake
- Setting up the car perfectly before the race
- Getting the best out of the car without trashing it - smoothness and efficiency
- Ability to recover from mistakes
- Race strategy
- etc. etc.

The proposal allows some driver skill - but you may as well give them a few handfuls of nails to throw over the side and call it driver skill if they get them into someones tyres - its just not racing.

[Dragonfly]

There are more than one racing line in the wet as the rain equalizes (almost) the traction. As soon as a drying line begins to form, we have a single optimal racing line.

[noikeee]

Sorry, but I voted no. I want to see racing, not a Playstation game. The key elements of racing / driver skills include:

- Choosing braking points
- Choosing cornering speeds (and bravery in doing so)
- Brake and throttle control while braking cornering and accelerating
- Positioning on track to gain max performance
- Overtaking and the game of move, countermove etc, until someone makes a mistake
- Setting up the car perfectly before the race
- Getting the best out of the car without trashing it - smoothness and efficiency
- Ability to recover from mistakes
- Race strategy
- etc. etc.

Those skills would still all be absolutely key under these proposals. Some would become even harder, such as choosing a braking point when right behind another car and messing with the wing angles for every corner entry and corner exit.

It's not much different from when they changed the brake bias for every corner, or when they changed turbo boost during the race.

[Gilles12]

If I'm the fastest driver (or you are/insert your opinion), driving the fastest car built by the cleverest engineers (insert who you think these are) why should some artificial element be introduced to the detriment of my talent and that of my engineers?

If you want a single specs series where the driver means everything there are alternatives to F1?

What is the point of the concept of a qualifying session where drivers start ahead of competitors who have less talent, driving cars which are slower?

Surely, this is designed to provide an advantage to those who are harder to overtake - the weather and Hamilton today proved there can be variation

If you want the pinnacle of driving talent and technology then you put up with years like 1982 just as much as you would with years like 1988

Dominance happens and variation happens

This is motorsport

Get over it

[noikeee]

If I'm the fastest driver (or you are/insert your opinion), driving the fastest car built by the cleverest engineers (insert who you think these are) why should some artificial element be introduced to the detriment of my talent and that of my engineers?

If you want a single specs series where the driver means everything there are alternatives to F1?

What is the point of the concept of a qualifying session where drivers start ahead of competitors who have less talent, driving cars which are slower?

Surely, this is designed to provide an advantage to those who are harder to overtake - the weather and Hamilton today proved there can be variation

If you want the pinnacle of driving talent and technology then you put up with years like 1982 just as much as you would with years like 1988

Dominance happens and variation happens

This is motorsport

Get over it

I think you have misunderstood me because I absolutely agree with that. I am completely against disadvantaging fast, talented cars and drivers which is why I prefer this system to changes like reverse grids.

Please notice that the moveable aero parts would only be available when within 1 second of the car ahead. If you can pull a gap on track you wouldn't be under threat. And if the car behind gets within 1 second and overtakes, well then you get the advantage back as long as you can stay within 1 second of him.

This isn't an anti-success system or necessarily a catch-up logic system. It's a counter-measure to the dirty air issue, which didn't use to be the natural state of things in F1. Again, look at old races in the 60s and 70s in Monza and the Osterreichring when people switched positions all the time because being under the slipstream of the car ahead was an advantage. I don't even want this system to be as extreme as that.

[ensign14]

It seems that the major difficulties in overtaking came when the raised nose became de rigeur. Could be coincidental.

[Gilles12]

I think you have misunderstood me because I absolutely agree with that. I am completely against disadvantaging fast, talented cars and drivers which is why I prefer this system to changes like reverse grids.

Please notice that the moveable aero parts would only be available when within 1 second of the car ahead. If you can pull a gap on track you wouldn't be under threat. And if the car behind gets within 1 second and overtakes, well then you get the advantage back as long as you can stay within 1 second of him.

This isn't an anti-success system or necessarily a catch-up logic system. It's a counter-measure to the dirty air issue, which didn't use to be the natural state of things in F1. Again, look at old races in the 60s and 70s in Monza and the Osterreichring when people switched positions all the time because being under the slipstream of the car ahead was an advantage. I don't even want this system to be as extreme as that.

Hey P

If the dirty air issue is something that is understood to prevent a faster car and driver behind overtaking a faster car driver combo ahead then the technical regulations need to be changed with regards to how grip is generated over the whole course of a session, not with moveable aero limited to several times per race

Dirty air in F1 has been quoted for the last 30 years, at least since the late eighties.

60s and 70s monza cars had peg wings so had no real turbulent effect

We could go back to that but then we'd need to cut engine power by 50% at least

F1 has always been part of the "unfair advantage" as Coling Chapman coind the phrase mixed with the best driving talent

Flickable wings and boost buttons have no place in that, in my opinion

Although I could easily be very, very wrong

[V8 Fireworks]

Why not ban elaborate diffusers and mandate spec low-turbulence venturis (absolutely no turbulence generating dividers in it), also ban fancy FWEP and mandate rectangular flat ones to also simplify the aerodynamics and reduce potential for dirty air.

[Ali_G]

Why not ban elaborate diffusers and mandate spec low-turbulence venturis (absolutely no turbulence generating dividers in it), also ban fancy FWEP and mandate rectangular flat ones to also simplify the aerodynamics and reduce potential for dirty air.

This is of course the best solution but no one will go for it.

The idea is not to design cars which give off less turbulence. The FIA should mandate cars which will run in turbulence better.

Push to pass is an abomination of an idea and to me is fake racing in the extreme.

1. Give the cars two limited sized venturi tunnels.
2. Give the cars larger tyres
3. Radically limit the size of wings. One element and the front and rear and a hell of a lot smaller than we have now.



Venturi's would create downforce much better in turbulence and due to running venturi's, way less front wing would be needed. During the ground effects era, no front wings were run at Monza for instance.

Edited by Ali_G, 28 March 2010 - 20:49.

[JdB]

I guess the only true way to increase overtaking is to standardise all cars like this :

No problems with collisions anymore as well

[olliek88]

I guess the only true way to increase overtaking is to standardise all cars like this :

No problems with collisions anymore as well ;)

Sorry mate but you must've posted in the wrong thread, your clearly after this http://forums.autosp...w...909&hl=USF1

[Gilles12]

I guess the only true way to increase overtaking is to standardise all cars like this :

No problems with collisions anymore as well ;)

And what is standard here?

Everyone knows red ones go faster

[Louis Siefert]

here are some more "simple" fixes

tires that don't degrade as much
tires that don't have "windows" of prime performance
small wings if any

if the drivers complain of "grip" ... get over it
every year there is a complaint of "lack of grip"
it's all relative ...

recap: predictable performing and wearing tires so that we have more than 1 racing line after 15 laps and adequate and safe grip after a safety car or cold temps and aero performance that is not dictated by free running clean air

[noikeee]

Hey P

If the dirty air issue is something that is understood to prevent a faster car and driver behind overtaking a faster car driver combo ahead then the technical regulations need to be changed with regards to how grip is generated over the whole course of a session, not with moveable aero limited to several times per race

Dirty air in F1 has been quoted for the last 30 years, at least since the late eighties.

60s and 70s monza cars had peg wings so had no real turbulent effect

We could go back to that but then we'd need to cut engine power by 50% at least

F1 has always been part of the "unfair advantage" as Coling Chapman coind the phrase mixed with the best driving talent

Flickable wings and boost buttons have no place in that, in my opinion

Although I could easily be very, very wrong

Yes dirty air has been going on for a very long time, but not to the extremes we've seen in the past few years. Surely a season full of Bahrain processions isn't what F1 needs right now.

There must be some sort of sweet spot in the technical regulations that can get rid of the issue, but they've been trying to do so for 10 years, spent a ton of money on it and still haven't quite figured it out. My solution is cheaper. And easier to fine-tune by the FIA at any given moment: it's too easy to pass, decrease the wing angles range; it's too hard to pass, increase the wing angles range.

Don't forget that cutting engine power, cutting downforce, cutting whatever, makes the F1 cars slower. They need to remain the quickest in the world around a track, for marketing reasons.

[redevil]

I don't need to remind you all that the drivers need to be much quicker to pass in the dry in F1, that there are large issues with slipstreaming and with dirty air, bla bla bla. We've been discussing this a lot for a long time. So, let's get on to what it matters. I'm proposing a simple way to fix the issue by introducing two systems in Formula 1:

1. Push-to-pass button. Engines get downgraded to a limit to 17K revs. The drivers are then allowed to override that limit for as many revs as they want/can achieve, for 60 seconds during a race.

This can be implemented in a few races time, in this season already. The engines are built to be under the pressure of 18k revs for a whole race - by lowering this limit, you might get them some extra lifetime, that then can be used for the push-to-pass system. This is effectively what we had last season with KERS, except that it can't be marketed as a "revolutionary", "hybrid" - the upside is that this can be implemented for next to nothing, whereas KERS was ****ing expensive.

It's also better than KERS because with KERS they used it at the same point every lap, whereas with this time limit you can spread your usages during the race, which will mean the drivers will use it at different times. I have seen something similar in A1GP and Champcar and it worked quite nicely.

It doesn't quite fix the problem on its own, but it helps.

2. Moveable front and rear wing, to dramatically steep angles, driver adjustable by two switches in the steering wheel. Drivers are only allowed to use it when within 1 second behind of another car racing in the same lap.

We already have moveable front wing flaps on F1. According to Wikipedia, "The flaps could be adjusted by up to six degrees, limited to only two adjustments per lap.". The problem is that this doesn't really do much. With 2 adjustments per lap, basically people are going to be using it for performance only, using the higher angle for the twistier part of the circuit and the lower angle for the rest. Now, what about if they were allowed as many changes as they want, to FAR bigger angles, and if they could only use it when they're behind another car?

We know that the aerodynamic setup of the wings is always a compromise between downforce and drag. The highest the downforce, the better the car is at cornering. The lowest the drag, the better the car is on the straights. However the highest angle you use on the wings, the more downforce AND drag you get. So ideally you'd have a far higher angle for the corners and a far lower angle for the straights. On the straights you'd be on Monza-spec. On the corners you'd be on Monaco-spec. That's exactly what I'm proposing here, but only available when behind another car. When you're in clear air - well, you're gonna have to stick with the old-fashioned compromise.

Shouldn't be too complicated neither too expensive to make a system like this, it'd be a little similar to what they have with the front wing flaps now, but associated to GPS tracking sensors. They should also use a few redundant sensors to make sure the system doesn't fail.

Limitations to both systems

Both systems should NOT be available on qualifying, to avoid team strategies exploiting them, ex: both team cars running close and switching positions all the time to take advantage of the moveable wings.

Possible issues and criticism

a) They go racing and it turns out it's not good enough for passing

Make the wing angles even steeper. Make the rev limit even lower, therefore making the boost in the push-to-pass button even bigger. Connect the push-to-pass system to the GPS tracking sensors just like the moveable wings, effectively giving a huge advantage to the car behind, not just on aerodynamics but also on power.

b) They go racing and it turns out passing is too easy. It goes like a NASCAR oval race.

Lower the available wing angles. Turn down the number of seconds the push-to-pass system is available during a race.

c) It's too dangerous

They're already allowing things like the McLaren f-duct, so what, this isn't much worse. The worst that could possibly happen would be a driver having it on the low-downforce setting down the straight, and forgetting to switch to the high-downforce setting at the moment they brake for the next corner. But you know, drivers aren't morons and should compensate for that.

d) The drivers would have too many switches to work with in the steering wheels

Isn't that a good thing? I mean, people are asking for manual stick gearboxes for drivers to be more busy on the cockpit and make more mistakes. This would be a little less extreme...

e) It's too artificial

A bit, but it's a lot less artificial than reverse grids, weight ballast, soaking up the track on purpose, or Bernie Ecclestone's proposed short-cuts. And people are already considering ideas like these seriously today... All that these 2 systems would do, would be to emulate the old dynamics of F1 racing. Ever heard of races like in Monza in the 60s? The car behind had a huge advantage over the car on clear air...

The obvious benefit

It's very, very CHEAP!! The budget to do this would be nowhere near the budget they spent in the 2009 regulation changes, which ultimately didn't solve anything. The benefits are enormous: a much more entertaining F1 means much better viewing figures. Much better viewing figures, means more sponsorship, means more income... All of this for two CHEAP systems!!

There you go, an easy recipe to fix F1 and you didn't need to lock Ross Brawn into a wind-tunnel for 3 months to think of it. Unless I'm missing something - I know very little about aerodynamics, after all. If so, please comment.

How's this for a cheap solution to make racing exciting:

1. Place long perforated hoses all along the race tracks

2. open the water faucets wait until the track is nice and wet

3. start the race.

Can't beat the price and it would be super entairtaining as we saw yestrday

[gillymuse]

What we should reintroduce is manual gear boxes, so mistakes can be made when shifting gears, and introduce someway of lengthening the braking zones by removing front wings, or something of the sort.

[jez6363]

Those skills would still all be absolutely key under these proposals. Some would become even harder, such as choosing a braking point when right behind another car and messing with the wing angles for every corner entry and corner exit.

It's not much different from when they changed the brake bias for every corner, or when they changed turbo boost during the race.

Reconfiguring your car during the lap is definitely not one of those key driver skills. Yes, using the extra controls would change how you used your driving skills, but it is not using them more, just using them differently. You could make the same argument about the nails and that they would have to use their driving skills more to avoid them...

I am no luddite, but every time you introduce a new control, you reduce the reliance on the core driving skills I listed. I have never heard commentators getting all excited about how well a driver uses their wing flap, or brake bias, or even KERS really - they are just side issues - what everyone wants to see is fast cornering, superb timing, dicing and forcing errors, daring braking and so on - and your proposal will do nothing to enhance them.

FWIW I would also not let them change brake bias. Changing boost / turning down the engine - that is OK, as its mainly about not wearing out the engine, but its still something I would probably get rid of as unnecessary.

The more spurious controls they have, the more it becomes about using the gadgets, instead of core driving skills.

Your push to pass idea - yes, it would partly work to increase overtaking, but it is not a core driving skill. You are right though that it is a lot cheaper way of implementing something that is very similar in end result to KERS, as long as you let them use the limit (say 200 seconds, not 60) whenever they want in the race, and we and the drivers get some data about how much each car has left (LEDS along the trailing edge of the wing, and data for the timing screens).

But KERS was and is a compromise because they never actually fix the aero problem (because they don't actually limit downforce, they just say don't do it this way, and the engineers say - ok, we'll do it some other way).

The wing idea - well, from what we read, its overall downforce loss that is the problem for the following car. Being able to use steeper wing angles probably wouldn't help.

The problem is the moveable barrier each car has behind them - sort of like they are towing an oil slick really - that is a the huge elephant in the room, and there is no point pretending its not there. Everything else is just a bandaid. Only solutions that remove the elephant will improve the spectacle.

Yes, F1 purists may say it doesn't matter, and we should appreciate F1 for what it is, but that is not going to work. F1 depends on money, money comes from sponsors and media, they depend on return on investment, that return requires people to watch it. But most people are not F1 geeks, ergo F1 has to appeal at a fairly superficial level, both for the more casual fans, and to draw in new fans without a huge learning barrier to entry. There is a reason football is so popular - low barrier of entry to enjoying it - F1 is going to need a degree to understand and appreciate it, the way its going, and that means less fans, hence less sponsors and media money, hence less money in F1, hence less cool technology and fancy F1dom.

And you say about other proposals being expensive - I have made a proposal that is free, can be implemented with zero changes to the cars. Just force them to use low downforce. They all have low downforce setups (for Monza, Spa etc), just make them use them everywhere.

This would remove the elephant from the room because very low downforce drastically reduces the wake problem, especially at the lower speeds of the current high downforce tracks.

To enforce low downforce, you just require them to reach a minimum top speed for the track that is high, so they have to compromise their downforce hugely to achieve it. They cannot engineer out of it and produce downforce a different way (within current F1 regs minimising ground effect), because however they do it, it will more downforce will mean more drag which lowers your top speed.

The other nice thing about the low downforce proposal is you can fine tune it throughout the season, and if you got it wrong, you can adjust it for the next race, to make them use even less downforce, or allow them a bit more, as required. Basically you allow them as much downforce as keeps F1 very fast, but not so fast the cars become moving barriers to anyone following.

[alfa1]

[b]1. Push-to-pass button.

Controllable by the drivers right foot, yes.



[b]2. Moveable front and rear wing,

Movable to the garbage skip. And once they stay there, we'll have passing again.

[Captain Tightpants]

This one's getting the thumbs-donw from me, too. Adjustable front wings were introduced last year, but no-one used it. I think the only example was when Rubens Barrichello adjusted it when he ost part of his front wing at Albert Park.

More needs to be done about rear-end aero before you start making adjustable rear wings.

[Mox]

Low-downforce fixed aero for the entire season!

Don't let the teams change wing-settings or aero components at all. All aero-kit is to be submitted for approval before the season opener and MUST stay the same for the entire season.
Some teams will have an advantage at some tracks. Other teams at other tracks.

During the season, only mechanical grip will be available as a parameter to adjust.

Add to that: no restrictions on in-race re-fueling and in-race tyre usage (allow two sets of each compound per car per practice session and Q), and let the teams qualify on fumes and whatever tyre they want, without having to carry that tyre on to the race. Some teams will be better on low fuel and softer tyres, others more suited for higher loads and/or harder tyres.

It will allow for increased differentiation, which will increase the action, and if the FIA would then cycle between more tracks, so that every season would be a mix of 19 races out of a possible 30 tracks, it would be really hard for the teams to construct the cars based on "optimum mathematical values".


I also agree with any other suggestion that creates differentiation, i.e. manual gearshifts (or at least manual clutches), harder tyres that need drivers to choose between driving styles and pit-strategies, and even a KERS model that puts a limit on the use per race rather than per lap, which was a complete disaster.

[Ali_G]

Low-downforce fixed aero for the entire season!

Don't let the teams change wing-settings or aero components at all. All aero-kit is to be submitted for approval before the season opener and MUST stay the same for the entire season.
Some teams will have an advantage at some tracks. Other teams at other tracks.

We have no engine development. The last thing this series needs is a complete in season ban on aerodynamic development.

Just change the technical specifications to properly slash downforce coming from the wings and diffuser. Its really as simple as that.

[FenderJaguar]

I am not sure there is that much that needs fixing really. No panic attacks please. You could go for cars that run better behind the other cars. You can look at it but the wonderful race today at Australia wasn't all about the damp track in the beginning. I think it would have been a good race anyway.

The way I see it some tracks produce better racing than others and Australia is one of those tracks. Bahrain has always been boring. Malaysia is usually boring. I think what we saw today was the start of a season which could produce very interesting races thanks to the refueling ban which the teams and drivers just have started learning how to make the most of. You tend to get situations in races where the cars and drivers are catching up to one another and more overtaking.

[FenderJaguar]

I wouldn't mind really big slick tires - they sure look nice.

[DaleCooper]

I thought this one is a pretty easy one to solve. Go read the Frank Dernie article on www.jamesallenonF1. Dernie makes a lot of sense, and I have never heard a better argument yet.

Hard compound tyres, and manual gearboxes would solve the problem easily. I don't know why they don't do it, but I can imagine it's due to more inter-political hogwash, as Dernie insinuates.

As is the case with most organizations, doing the right thing takes a back seat to the bickering. The F1 club of self-important men is no different.


Cooper

[Rob]

I don't like the idea of a push to pass button. That to me is too artificial. I prefer the following.

1. Wings are banned and we go to a body shape that generates downforce from tunnels in the floor.
2. Tyres are increased in size but are made much harder to prevent off-line rubber accumulation.
3. Manual gearboxes.

Edited by Rob, 29 March 2010 - 08:40.

[Stormsky68]

Voted no.


However you look at it, if the fastest guy on Saturday is put at the front and the slowest guy put at the back, you will never get signficiant amounts of overtaking.

Period.

How can there be?

So it makes no sense to solve this with technical gimmicks.

The fan base dynamic has changed over recent years and F1 has an identity crisis. The very first thing to do is for F1 to ask is it primarily about being a wheel-to-wheel racing spectacle, or is it a demonstration in technical excellence?

Once you understand that, the solutions are all really (and I mean really) easy.

Edited by Stormsky68, 29 March 2010 - 08:46.

[arknor]

Voted no.


However you look at it, if the fastest guy on Saturday is put at the front and the slowest guy put at the back, you will never get signficiant amounts of overtaking.

Period.

How can there be?

So it makes no sense to solve this with technical gimmicks.

The fan base dynamic has changed over recent years and F1 has an identity crisis. The very first thing to do is for F1 to ask is it primarily about being a wheel-to-wheel racing spectacle, or is it a demonstration in technical excellence?

Once you understand that, the solutions are all really (and I mean really) easy.

f1 was always wheel to wheel racing not a spectacle...

they need to move back to the massive tyres of old and bring back for mechanical grip so the racing line isnt such an advantage , remove most of the crap aero , move rear wings higher again , make the front wings small like they should be.
the cars need to be made wider again aswell
cars should have a slip stream not a slow stream

Edited by arknor, 29 March 2010 - 08:57.

[Atic Atac]

I think the solution is pretty simple and after the last race i feel that is mucho more simpler than all that stuff:

¿Which was the difference between Bharain and Melbourne?: The rain... but ¿Which is the REAL DIFFERENCE?. Simple: the grip leves on the tyres were much lower during the rain, so you had mistakes, long braking distances, overtaking and fun in general.

So just make the tyres so hard and so indestructible that you have to go 6 to 8 seconds a lap slower. Make them so hard that they are unable to put down the power of the engines. Make them so hard that you don´t get marbles off the racing line. Make them so hard that you can´t brake late due to lack of grip.

Some may argue that F1 going so slow would be stupid and that GP2 cars would be too close to those kind of lap times.... well, i don´t give a damm about lap times. In the old days car´s were much more slower and racing was fun. The car´s were hard to drive. That´s what matters and the actual tyres are killing it.

Aditionally just ban the DDD to lose a few points of downforce and you are done.

[noikeee]

Ok, I just had to bump this after reading in that other thread ("big rule changes in 2011") that F1 is essentially going to use the #2 system for next year, according to AMuS. Going to be rear wings only, but it's the same concept. I'm very much looking forward to this.

[Clatter]

I hate it. Will totally devalue any manouvre.

[hotstickyslick]

I think the solution is pretty simple and after the last race i feel that is mucho more simpler than all that stuff:

¿Which was the difference between Bharain and Melbourne?: The rain... but ¿Which is the REAL DIFFERENCE?. Simple: the grip leves on the tyres were much lower during the rain, so you had mistakes, long braking distances, overtaking and fun in general.

So just make the tyres so hard and so indestructible that you have to go 6 to 8 seconds a lap slower. Make them so hard that they are unable to put down the power of the engines. Make them so hard that you don´t get marbles off the racing line. Make them so hard that you can´t brake late due to lack of grip.

So how will the leading cars lose pace? Won't it just be a procession in the order of the fastest cars to the slowest cars with nothing to stop the fastest cars from slowing down as wearing of the tyres would?

Some may argue that F1 going so slow would be stupid and that GP2 cars would be too close to those kind of lap times.... well, i don´t give a damm about lap times. In the old days car´s were much more slower and racing was fun. The car´s were hard to drive. That´s what matters and the actual tyres are killing it.

Aditionally just ban the DDD to lose a few points of downforce and you are done.

And in the old days there was tyre wear...

[Kooper]

Bernie's idea of short cuts doesn't look so ridiculous at times.

[noikeee]

I hate it. Will totally devalue any manouvre.

Why?

You'd think it'll still be extremely difficult to pull passes to cars that are only slightly slower. The only difference is that (hopefully) you'll need a 5 tenths advantage instead of a 2 seconds advantage. I guarantee it's going to every bit as impressive to watch when the cars go wheel-to-wheel closely, except you'll see it more often than now.

I find it depressing that F1 fans have become so used to dull racing, that they seem to want processions now, so they can glorify the rare bits of action. I don't think that's a good attitude at all.

[Clatter]

Why?

You'd think it'll still be extremely difficult to pull passes to cars that are only slightly slower. The only difference is that (hopefully) you'll need a 5 tenths advantage instead of a 2 seconds advantage. I guarantee it's going to every bit as impressive to watch when the cars go wheel-to-wheel closely, except you'll see it more often than now.

I find it depressing that F1 fans have become so used to dull racing, that they seem to want processions now, so they can glorify the rare bits of action. I don't think that's a good attitude at all.

Nope. Everytime someone overtakes we will simply say it's because they were given an artificial advantage. It's as exciting as watching a car being lapped.

[noikeee]

Nope. Everytime someone overtakes we will simply say it's because they were given an artificial advantage. It's as exciting as watching a car being lapped.

Except a car being lapped doesn't fight back.

It might be an artificial advantage, but the current state of things is that the car behind has an artificial disadvantage. And ONE HELL of a disadvantage!

A long time ago in F1 you'd actually WANT to be behind a car - so you could use the slipstream. It's simply a return to the old dynamics.

[Clatter]

Except a car being lapped doesn't fight back.

It might be an artificial advantage, but the current state of things is that the car behind has an artificial disadvantage. And ONE HELL of a disadvantage!

A long time ago in F1 you'd actually WANT to be behind a car - so you could use the slipstream. It's simply a return to the old dynamics.

I agree there are problems, but this is not the solution.