50 replies to this topic

[bigticker]

I know there are numerous posts about the future of F1 but I have tried to put what I percieve to be some of the most popular visions of F1s future into a (fairly) simple poll. The catagories are explained below.

If you would like a combination of 2 of these then you can choose more than one answer.


Largely Unrestricted Formula Racing - Build a car to a basic formula, engine size, basic dimension, no. of wheels, size of tyres etc.. Then use any tyre compound, strategy, setup changes and any other means available to get through the race as fast as possible. Traditional race weekend format. Engineering and Innovation heavily rewarded.

Current Style Formula - Rules governing testing, tyre compounds, compulsory pit stops, racing on quali setup. etc. Current Race weekend format.

Heavily Manipulated Formula - Rules to mix things up even more. Manipulated grids, Modified race formats, Overtake buttons, mandatory pit stops/strategies.

Some Standardised Components to level the playing field - eg, standard wings, floorpans, diffusers, KERS, etc. Put more emphasis on the drivers skills rather than the engineering ability of the teams.

Single Make Racing - Single Chasis and Engine Supplier, Still the fastest Race Formula but driver abillity rules.

Ultra Modern Efficiency Formula - Rules to force modern road car relevent technologies. Limited fuel to finish races, Tiny engines with Maximum help from KERS, Alternative power sources, etc.

None of the above - If you have a different vision of F1 then post details in the thread!

Edited by bigticker, 10 May 2010 - 22:09.

[Stormsky68]

Give each team a 'bucket of fuel' on Saturday and let them use it however they want in whatever engine size or design they want.

Maximum envelope size for the car.

FIA manufactured and supplied standard wings and diffuser with minimal turbulance.

Other than than, let the teams do whatever they want and see where the technology takes us.

Edited by Stormsky68, 10 May 2010 - 22:14.

[bigticker]

Give each team a 'bucket of fuel' on Saturday and let them use it however they want in whatever engine size or design they want.

Maximum envelope size for the car.

FIA manufactured and supplied standard wings and diffuser with minimal turbulance.

Other than than, let the teams do whatever they want and see where the technology takes us.

Now I would love to see that happen under a different name, but to me that isn't where F1 should go.

I think F1 should be about pure uncompromising speed.

It is the current trend for drivers and teams being forced to compromise in so many areas (Set Up, Tyre Choices, Tyre conservation as aposed to driving 100% etc.) that led me to launch this poll.

But obviously, each to their own. The efficiency thing seems very popular already at this early stage!

[Sakae]

I am the one who voted None of the above.

I see fog; unless you can show me the succession plan, we can aimlessly speculate. Does anyone see some anonymous person accompanying BE around the paddock these days, or is it that BE's handlers will simply on last minute notice take a vote and we will be introduced to a new BE we know nothing about?

Edited by Sakae, 10 May 2010 - 22:49.

[Captain Tightpants]

Driver skill first, daylight second, engineering ingenuity and road car relevance third.

[ArnageWRC]

More about engineering ingenuity, drivers skill and less about 'The Show'. And as for road car relevance - leave that to LMS/ALMS, WRC....
And , not that it will happen - less of the Money making, at the expense of the integrity of the sport, i;e going to a country with 3 sheep and 2 fans.

[Captain Tightpants]

More about [...] drivers skill and less about 'The Show'.

That funny, because 'The Show' is synonymous with better racing, and a greater emphasis on driver skill is seen to be a way to produce better racing. Ergo, driver skill = 'The Show'.

[stevewf1]

It should be a driver's championship above all else.

[GiaRossi]

I voted for the unrestricted design process. This is more or less how we started off in 1950, and I'm a stickler for tradition. Designers, engineers and drivers should be given the greatest scope possible, competition breeds innovation and creativity. After all, this is the highest echelon of legalised circuit racing.

Furthermore, I don't subscribe to the theory that the primary duty of Formula One is to entertain. Only mass commercialisation fostered this sense of a "spectacle". I love wheel-to-wheel combat as much as the next guy, but it's not the sole purpose of the sport.

[BenettonB192]

I want cars that are hard to drive. Lots of horsepower but little grip and weak brakes, no gimmicky rules, pure racing. Imo thats the only thing that can safe F1 in the long run. The direction F1 is heading now is a dead end. We have highly sophisticated cars that are not very spectacular to watch compared to the old times and that don't allow good racing. This is just bad.

[30ft penguin]

The annoying thing about the current F1 is that whatever rules people come up with (you have to use both tyre types in the race, you have to use this-and-that size wing, etc.), the teams will just dump all the numbers into their huge computers, and since all of them have GOOD computers, everybody comes up with the mathematically best strategy. So instead of "mixing things up", everybody will do the exact same thing. More restrictions create more boredom because then there is only one best way of doing things, and everybody will figure it out.

So what I would like to see in the future is a less restricted F1 where people are free to come up with "crazy" stuff to make faster cars instead of being restricted in ten thousand different way in how to build there car, and where people are free to do five super short stints with super soft tyres if they want to, instead of HAVING to use both compounds and no refuelling, etc.

But what I think we will actually get is the "Ultra Modern Efficiency Formula", combined with the "Heavily Manipulated Formula"

Edited by 30ft penguin, 11 May 2010 - 10:01.

[One]

I think that Frnch will take over FIA and bring the races to the USA, ex French colonies.

Edited by One, 11 May 2010 - 10:18.

[buzatlas]

I really don't care.
The main target should be watching good racing on Sundays (not Saturdays, tests or technical articles).

[Clatter]

It should be a driver's championship above all else.

Isn't that the definition of a spec series?

[Atreiu]

Customer chassis, fixed ammount of petrol based fuel, any engine goes. V12, V10, V8, turbo, KERS, whatever.

[Captain Tightpants]

I think that Frnch will take over FIA and bring the races to the USA, ex French colonies.

Except that America was settled by the British.

[V8 Fireworks]

I voted for the unrestricted design process. This is more or less how we started off in 1950, and I'm a stickler for tradition. Designers, engineers and drivers should be given the greatest scope possible, competition breeds innovation and creativity. After all, this is the highest echelon of legalised circuit racing.

The formula varied from 10 L racing for outright victory to as little as 1.5 L as the outright class and then back up to bigger 2-3.5L, in the era (20s-50s) I think... so there were definetely changes from monster engines to small ones in the era you suggest I think.



Possibly highly inaccurate but the racing book seems to say it is so :

Was there not a limit of 16 mpg (i.e. maximum of 1 L per 6 km... i.e. 0.77 kg fuel ONLY per modern lap distance!) sometime around 1910s/20s grand prix racing?


So much tougher then mediocre modern regulations.


Bring it back to the future as you request, and also efficiency all in one I think IMO.


I assume unrestricted "rocket" fuel was permitted back then so lets be generous and allow 1 kg per 6 km of modern premium unleaded -> cap of 50 kg of fuel per car for 300km grand prix.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 11 May 2010 - 12:43.

[Fastcake]

Very free regulations, with some caveats on size, weight, basic shape etc, and safety requirements. Otherwise, I'm all for allowing a set amount of fuel for the race and enjoying watching the variety of engines teams will produce. Perhaps even allow re-fuelling, teams could choose to have a smaller car and re-fuel midrace, or carry the full race distance. Allow a full technology and experimentation race between the teams.

Some things (ie. unsafe, ridiculously expensive, negative aero effects) can be banned and modified as and when they appear, but allow teams full reign to discover and design.

[hotstickyslick]

The regulations should be freed in some areas and restricted in others, but I really believe that F1 should focus more on driver ability and team efficiency rather than teams with the biggest amount of money simply spending their way to wins and championships. I really don't want another car like the Williams FW14B being an age more advanced than everything else dominating everything in sight - as far as I'm concerned Williams won the drivers championship, not Mansell in 1992. F1 should be about man and machine, not 15% man and 85% machine.

[OnyxF1]

I want to see engineering ingenuity and efficiency valued over everything else. I intensely dislike the current formula, particularly the engine freeze and the single tyre make. The problem with the formula now is that the only way to make up time is through the aero monstrosities that the teams are creating like the DD, winglets and the F-Duct. The only way to take the focus away from the aerodynamics (which everyone hates) is to give the engineers options to make the car faster in other areas, whether that area is tyres, engines, electronics, KERS or whatever.

[JdB]

If possible, i'd like to see an "anything goes-series" , no restrictions on anything, unlimited testing, fuel stops, give it to me please !
I love it when every detail of the car is made for one purpose, to be as fast as possible. I'm not sure about who said it (Colin Chapman ??), but there was one guy who said the car should fall apart directly after crossing the finish line ... That should be the definiton of the Pinnacle of Racing.

But, i'm afraid it'll turn into a spec-series, with the only difference being the livery ...

gr.Jeroen

[Henrytheeigth]

I want to see F1 without Bernie. And of course all rules out the window lol, well all the stupid rules that is...

[Szoelloe]

none of the above.

carpe diem. I take it as it comes. I simply like it.

[undersquare]

none of the above.

carpe diem. I take it as it comes. I simply like it.

Yeah, there are problems of one sort or another with all the formulae, you can't just not have rules, and the current one does at least dish up something pretty special.

The main thing I'd change is half the money leaving the sport, and spread the money down to the small teams more, then costs wouldn't be quite such an overriding factor.

Having done that, I'd have at least one major rule change for each season - wider cars, bigger wheels, whatever - so the innovators win over the developers.

But the basic recipe of teams making their own chassis with a restricted engine and single tyre supplier is looking pretty good for racing. The idiot DDD is a Max legacy and that'll be gone next year.

[bigticker]

I really believe that F1 should focus more on driver ability and team efficiency rather than teams with the biggest amount of money simply spending their way to wins and championships.

I have never really understood that argument. There isn't a shop where you can buy Innovation. I realise that often the bigger teams can afford better/more engineers and can afford to do more testing, but money alone does not guarantee innovative and sucessful development. There are plenty of examples of high budget teams doing badly. Plus I don't think F1 would have the same aura around it if it was not astronomically expensive.

You could apply the same logic to drivers. More often than not a successful driver will have had more money spent on his racing carreer than another driver and as a result he might end up more successful. I am sure there plenty of Micheal Schumachers out there who didn't have the budget to get into racing. If your family cannot afford to get you into Karting then you have little chance of being an F1 Driver!

I know, lets stop this injustice, to stop racing drivers who have had a lot of money invested in there carreers from "spending their way to wins and championships" lets have identicle FIA supplied robots driving the cars, then F1 can focus on engineering prowess!

[Bloggsworth]

Blinkered................

[hotstickyslick]

I have never really understood that argument. There isn't a shop where you can buy Innovation. I realise that often the bigger teams can afford better/more engineers and can afford to do more testing, but money alone does not guarantee innovative and sucessful development. There are plenty of examples of high budget teams doing badly. Plus I don't think F1 would have the same aura around it if it was not astronomically expensive.

You could apply the same logic to drivers. More often than not a successful driver will have had more money spent on his racing carreer than another driver and as a result he might end up more successful. I am sure there plenty of Micheal Schumachers out there who didn't have the budget to get into racing. If your family cannot afford to get you into Karting then you have little chance of being an F1 Driver!

I know, lets stop this injustice, to stop racing drivers who have had a lot of money invested in there carreers from "spending their way to wins and championships" lets have identicle FIA supplied robots driving the cars, then F1 can focus on engineering prowess!

I merely stated that money has too much of an influence in F1, and you can't put innovation into fruitation if you haven't got alot of green which I find sad. F1 has never been as heavily regulated and fine-tuned as it is now.

What the heck are you talking about??

[pgj]

None of the above.

F1 has to go along with the motor industry and develop technologies that are relevant to road cars. That does not mean that F1 should be made up of stock components. It means that F1 should be a development mechanism for road car technology. With F1 developing a technology to the n'th degree and a road car development being either several generations back or on a parallel development path.

I want F1 to be as extreme as it ever has been, I also want F1 to be relevant to road car R&D programmes.

[Clatter]

None of the above.

F1 has to go along with the motor industry and develop technologies that are relevant to road cars. That does not mean that F1 should be made up of stock components. It means that F1 should be a development mechanism for road car technology. With F1 developing a technology to the n'th degree and a road car development being either several generations back or on a parallel development path.

I want F1 to be as extreme as it ever has been, I also want F1 to be relevant to road car R&D programmes.

There are plenty of other series that can be deemed as road relevant. F1, and opened wheeled racing in general, are too far removed from a road car to ever be relevant.

[pgj]

There are plenty of other series that can be deemed as road relevant. F1, and opened wheeled racing in general, are too far removed from a road car to ever be relevant.

That is why I was careful to say road car technologies. Both Martin Whitmarsh and Nick Fry said that F1 needed to be road car relevant at the weekend. There is a massive massive R&D budget that F1 can tap into. Development programmes are so ponderous for many technologies and F1 can be a fast-track development path for them.

[Clatter]

That is why I was careful to say road car technologies. Both Martin Whitmarsh and Nick Fry said that F1 needed to be road car relevant at the weekend. There is a massive massive R&D budget that F1 can tap into. Development programmes are so ponderous for many technologies and F1 can be a fast-track development path for them.

The same thing has been said for as long as I can remember. If F1 developement could truly be mapped to road cars then we would already be reaping the benefits. The truth is that F1 doesn't come up with that much that is new, they take ideas from many industries and develop them for F1 use, not the other way round.

[Sakae]

I am the one who voted None of the above.

I see fog; unless you can show me the succession plan, we can aimlessly speculate. Does anyone see some anonymous person accompanying BE around the paddock these days, or is it that BE's handlers will simply on last minute notice take a vote and we will be introduced to a new BE we know nothing about?

I add: I wish to see F1 borderless, without hand-cuffs, flying high, free of regulations. Anarchy seems a such good idea, because after MM the unmentionable place will be big disappointment in comparison what he has done to us over duration of his tenure.

[Rob G]

I like the "Largely Unrestricted Formula Racing", as opposed to the "Anything Goes Unrestricted Racing" as you have it phrased in the poll. I want some restrictions as to basic dimensions, number of wheels and so on, because otherwise it becomes Wacky Races.

[bigticker]

I like the "Largely Unrestricted Formula Racing", as opposed to the "Anything Goes Unrestricted Racing" as you have it phrased in the poll. I want some restrictions as to basic dimensions, number of wheels and so on, because otherwise it becomes Wacky Races.

If you read the first post the groups are explained in a bit more detail, I did state that a basic set of limits would apply. Plus I purposely wasn't giving strict options with all the details of the formula, just trying to come up with a few simple groups that allow most common schools of thought can fit into.

[bigticker]

I merely stated that money has too much of an influence in F1, and you can't put innovation into fruitation if you haven't got alot of green which I find sad. F1 has never been as heavily regulated and fine-tuned as it is now.

What the heck are you talking about??

Sorry, I was just being rediculous for a laugh, my strange sense of humour I'm afraid.

I didn't mean to sound as rude as I did. Everyone is welcome to there opinion, and yours just got me thinking.

I just strongly feel that F1 is a Team Sport in which the Engineers and Team Owners are as much a part of the success as the drivers. I like it that way. For me its about following the whole thing all year round, not just watching a good race on a sunday.

Team owners have worked hard to build up there finances and facilities so limitting how much they can spend seems a bit hard on the more successful guys. Engineers have trained for years to become the best in the business so it seems unfair to me to limit what they can do.

I do realise that cost cutting is apparently essential for the survival of the sport, but I just wish it wasn't.

Edited by bigticker, 11 May 2010 - 17:52.

[hotstickyslick]

Sorry, I was just being rediculous for a laugh, my strange sense of humour I'm afraid.

I didn't mean to sound as rude as I did. Everyone is welcome to there opinion, and yours just got me thinking.

I just strongly feel that F1 is a Team Sport in which the Engineers and Team Owners are as much a part of the success as the drivers. I like it that way. For me its about following the whole thing all year round, not just watching a good race on a sunday.

Team owners have worked hard to build up there finances and facilities so limitting how much they can spend seems a bit hard on the more successful guys. Engineers have trained for years to become the best in the business so it seems unfair to me to limit what they can do.

I do realise that cost cutting is apparently essential for the survival of the sport, but I just wish it wasn't.

The problem with F1 for me is that it's more about the car than the driver, unlike MotoGP where success is (in my opinion) far more balanced between the bike and the rider.

I personally value rivalry between drivers rather than teams, though they do come a close second. Like I said the regulations should be more free in some areas and more restricted in others.

[Rob G]

If you read the first post the groups are explained in a bit more detail, I did state that a basic set of limits would apply.

Yep, and I was just reiterating what you were saying in your opening post.

[V8 Fireworks]

I want F1 to be as extreme as it ever has been, I also want F1 to be relevant to road car R&D programmes.

You want ESP & TC on F1 cars?

It will help Joe Bloggs lap Fiorano closer to Alonso in his F430, but Joe Bloggs will STILL be slow in the F1 compared to Alonso AND Alonso will not go any faster with or without.

Why bother?

[Messi10]

is HD too much to ask...?

Edited by Messi10, 12 May 2010 - 00:48.

[V8 Fireworks]

I add: I wish to see F1 borderless, without hand-cuffs, flying high, free of regulations.

How do you balance turbo, rotary, diesel, electric, petrol, petrol/electric, diesel/electric, gas turbine and fuel cell/electric propulsion?

[Without rules you would assume everyone would fit a 5000 hp^, 16L W32 (2*V16) rocket fuel powered car with 10 turbos costing $20m per engine...]

The limit on energy that can be stored in the car at the start (and not added to) seems to be the way to go IMO.

Entries of the likes of Mazda with rotaries, Shanghai Electric Inc. with electric super-motors and high-tech batteries and Audi with diesels would be most welcome



^ Conicidentally this is identical hp/L (312.5) as current cars... maybe they could get 7000 or 8000 hp with all these turbos

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 12 May 2010 - 01:00.

[tifosi]

I think F1 should be about pure uncompromising speed.

By definition you then don't have a "formula".

[tifosi]

Except that America was settled by the British.

Only parts of it. The oldest continuously occupied city in the United States is St Augustine, settled by the Spanish. Large parts of the United States were settled by French, British, and Dutch.

[Andrew Hope]

I don't give a **** what they do, as long as no one is burdened by sweet **** all that has to do with the interest of improving road cars. The planet's premier racing series should not be handcuffed from innovation because of the needs of some rich idiot's Merc.

[V8 Fireworks]

I don't give a **** what they do, as long as no one is burdened by sweet **** all that has to do with the interest of improving road cars. The planet's premier racing series should not be handcuffed from innovation because of the needs of some rich idiot's Merc.

Fixed amount of energy - let the teams work out which propulsion system is best with no restrictions

Put a very small-level cap on wake/turbulence generated by the car - as tested in full-size wind tunnel chosen by FIA, rather than a limit on downforce perhaps? -> fix downforce and no following in one go?

[stevewf1]

is HD too much to ask...?

Wide-screen standard definition looks pretty good. Can't imagine how HD would look.

[stevewf1]

Isn't that the definition of a spec series?

I'm thinking of the (long lost) days when Roger Penske bought a McLaren for Mark Donohue and entered the Canadian GP. He Finished third in his first race.

Donohue was obviously a talent and he got his chance to show it.

These days?

[pgj]

The same thing has been said for as long as I can remember. If F1 developement could truly be mapped to road cars then we would already be reaping the benefits. The truth is that F1 doesn't come up with that much that is new, they take ideas from many industries and develop them for F1 use, not the other way round.

I appreciate that. If this arrangement was to be productive then the motor industry would have to come up with ideas still. F1 can then be given them as an open book to pick and choose any that could be developed for racing. It is the fast track development within F1 that would be the biggest selling point. Once F1 has developed something for a while it can then be handed back to a car division for adaptation.

[craigsimons1993]

As much as I hate to say it, Ultra Modern Technology Efficiency Formula. 2013 regulations are another step towards this. Cars are becoming less and less powerful these days, and that trend shows no sign of halting. Soon they will be too slow to be called F1. Not only that, they'd be much easier to drive. Although it seems like a positive situation, F1 being more accesible to more drivers, it isn't. Driving standards will be lower. F1 shouldn't be about constant over taking and more about the fastest cars in the world. Obviously, we want a decent amount of overtaking. But with all these new technologies arrving like KERS and smaller engines, F1 is becoming green...and ruined. The FIA are shoving their cocks up the enviromentalists arse cracks and killing the sport. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but you tell me that isn't the truth!

[stevewf1]

In 1993, I think, F1 cars were leading the way to road car technology. Active suspension, programmable gearboxes, steering control, anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc. That's coming up on 20 years ago now...

Edited by stevewf1, 13 May 2010 - 10:02.

[V8 Fireworks]

In 1993, I think, F1 cars were leading the way to road car technology. Active suspension, programmable gearboxes, steering control, anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc. That's coming up on 20 years ago now...

Active suspension is lame though... most cars don't need it. ESP is plenty.