Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

How to rejuvenate F1


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#1 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:59

I've seen a lot of discussion across the board about the changes to F1 in recent years - V6 engines, increased reliability, new teams etc, and I thought it'd be an excellent idea to have a thread created specifically to discuss what we'd do to improve F1.

Whether these changes are designed to make races more interesting, make life easier for newer teams, or to attract more manufacturers, feel free to post your opinions and reasoning here!

My theory:

Keep budget caps but reduce well-chosen technical regulations. I feel this would allow smaller teams to compete, but it would make life easier as an ingenious idea well-implemented could lead to teams rising the ranks and scoring points, much like Brawn and RBR did in 2009, but every season!

This would also make races more interesting as the field would be mixed up and cars could look and sound dramatically different.

Feel free to critique my theory and post your own!

Advertisement

#2 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 7,587 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:04

My main bugbear is that the regs have had to become so tight with the 'boxes', that the cars all look hideous now.

They no longer look like 'the fastest racing cars IN THE WORLD', more like brutal 'solutions' to the regs.

But, i don't know how you can un-invent stuff without making F1 even more of a spec-series than it already is.

#3 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 6,410 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:06

This is what I said.

Bring budget caps. It will make rule changes easier (you don't have to be afraid they would be too expensive for some teams). It will reduce the amount of paydrivers in the field. It will probably allow more teams to fight at the front on a consistent basis (if they make a good job of course).

Bring more fair share of FOM money for backmarkers. They will not be forced to go with 2 pay-drivers and will be able to reduce gaps.

Then change rules. Bring more freedom to them so the teams can explore new areas and new innovations. Make cars better suited to wheel-to-wheel battles so races can become more interesting even without DRS and supersoft tyres,

#4 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:07

My main bugbear is that the regs have had to become so tight with the 'boxes', that the cars all look hideous now.

They no longer look like 'the fastest racing cars IN THE WORLD', more like brutal 'solutions' to the regs.

But, i don't know how you can un-invent stuff without making F1 even more of a spec-series than it already is.


I figure if you lift some of the regs it'll give designers so many avenues to explore they'll choose a select few, but not all, meaning cars'll all look quite different!

From what Newey's said I'd gather he agrees. He's never complained about resource restriction but constantly about regulation restriction. Give him a fair budget that smaller teams can match, with open regs, and it'd be amazing to see how different the cars him, Fry and Lowe would make... And who'd be faster.

Edited by mattferg, 05 February 2013 - 08:12.


#5 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 3,111 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:04

I'm agreeing with this. Also, I think computer simulation is over the top and should be reduced. Not the testing in the sims, it's a reasonable alternative to missing out on track, but the amount of help from strategists and data analysis is simply too much. The job of watching on track action and deciding the strategy should come down to humans more. Much more.

#6 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:35

I figure if you lift some of the regs it'll give designers so many avenues to explore they'll choose a select few, but not all, meaning cars'll all look quite different!

From what Newey's said I'd gather he agrees. He's never complained about resource restriction but constantly about regulation restriction. Give him a fair budget that smaller teams can match, with open regs, and it'd be amazing to see how different the cars him, Fry and Lowe would make... And who'd be faster.


That would be nice from a technical point of view, not sure about racing. It would probably end with a car being the fastest by a long margin and no chance to catch up.

#7 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 15,209 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:36

Ban CFD. :p

Serious. They spend more money in windtunnels and computer modelling than they ever did testing. I would love to see the time were a talented driver brings a second to the car instead of 1 tenth now.

* Give us back the early nineties, after the active suspension/CVT era. Beautiful cars, excellent sound and drivers racing. :D
* Use wider cars for more stability behind another car.
* Overpower the cars so more racing lines could be viable. Now there is only one fast line around a track.
* Stop the nonsense stewarding, let guys race.
* Stop the non-push tires
* Stop PS3-like button overtakes.
* Stop Tilke, how many tries does he get at developing a track? Although he is seriously hampered by restrictive FIA rules for designing a track. Most old tracks could not pas FIA rules for corners etc nowadays.
* Stop tracks that are as wide as they are long.
* Develop tires that can actually be used during a wet track instead of SC until it is bone dry.
* Clearer markings on the cars for the two different drivers, for example better readable start numbers, markings like on the T-Cam on the wings. Half the time you can't see who is in it. The helmets are almost completely surrounded by the cockpit now.
* Bring back refuelling to open up tactics.
* Rebuild Hockenheim.
* Stop parc ferme
* 12 lap qualy
* Three compounds, free to choose during the weekend, or perhaps choose one type and stick to it from Q onwards.
* T-cars. just red flag a first corner pile-up. We want more racers, not less.
* 1-3 car teams. Works in almost every other class.
* Cars in the same team can use a different livery to attract more sponsorship. Again, very common outside F1.
* Helmet and/or mirror cam.
* Update the Live timing on the F1 site, it is stone age internet nowadays.
* More races to open channels. Everything is ending up behind settop boxes.

I can go on forever. :p


#8 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:40

Remove CVC and Ecclestone... maybe then we'd see some decent circuits return.

Technically, I'd like to see an open engine choice (petrol naturally asp. V6 V8 V10 or V12) that must conform to a set amount of fuel per event, like Group C used to. I'd also have a set chassis size that does not alter from one year to another to avoid excessive costs but allow complete freedom in body shape but only allowing a set amount of carbon fibre in surface area on the car, so if you want winglets you have to sacrifice something else. I'd also reduce the planes available on the rear wing so mechanical downforce is required through shaped underbodies etc whilst reducing the wake created along with a front wing that cannot extend beyond half the front tyres.

I'd only have 16 races a year, with a test session after every 3rd race. 2 qualifying sessions Friday afternoon and Saturday morning, both counting for grid positions, point for pole position and point for fastest lap, no telemetry, no car radio and no movable brake bias, I'd rather see the driver, drive, not act as a robot for his engineer...



#9 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 2,806 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:56

I've seen a lot of discussion across the board about the changes to F1 in recent years - V6 engines, increased reliability, new teams etc, and I thought it'd be an excellent idea to have a thread created specifically to discuss what we'd do to improve F1.

Whether these changes are designed to make races more interesting, make life easier for newer teams, or to attract more manufacturers, feel free to post your opinions and reasoning here!

My theory:

Keep budget caps but reduce well-chosen technical regulations. I feel this would allow smaller teams to compete, but it would make life easier as an ingenious idea well-implemented could lead to teams rising the ranks and scoring points, much like Brawn and RBR did in 2009, but every season!

This would also make races more interesting as the field would be mixed up and cars could look and sound dramatically different.

Feel free to critique my theory and post your own!


I like it in principle. It would make it much more interesting from a technical point of view.

However, my fear is it would lead to uncompetitive racing - as a killer idea or approach came through, one team would dominate for a spell and races would become dull as ditchwater, even if the engineering was interesting.

In all honesty I also feel that succeeding in F1 through financial power is part of the game - if you can attract the sponsors, you can compete. This completely holds true for teams like Ferrari who finance the team through profits based on their brand, which is based on their F1 team. Though maybe the theory is flawed when you look at certain teams in history getting massive cash injections which they haven't 'earned'. So maybe scrap this element of my theory.

So in summary:- while I agree the purest form of racing would be to scrap the technical rules that don't relate to safety, in practise I just don't think it would work.

Edited by Treads, 05 February 2013 - 12:57.


#10 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 3,143 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 13:07

Keep budget caps but reduce well-chosen technical regulations. I feel this would allow smaller teams to compete, but it would make life easier as an ingenious idea well-implemented could lead to teams rising the ranks and scoring points, much like Brawn and RBR did in 2009, but every season!


I'm sorry, I know it isn't the point of your thread, but Honda spent an absolute fortune on that 2009 Brawn - it wasn't a cheap car that Ross knocked up in a shed overnight. A lot of budget went into that car.

I quite like the idea of budget caps, but in reality I just don't think they could be imposed 'fairly' in F1.

#11 labarte

labarte
  • Member

  • 199 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 13:16

Er... we just had the probably the best season of F1 ever and people think it needs rejuvenating -- madness!

There is probably too much emphasis on aero though. Hopefully the new engines next season will spice things up a bit.

#12 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 14:24

Er... we just had the probably the best season of F1 ever and people think it needs rejuvenating -- madness!

There is probably too much emphasis on aero though. Hopefully the new engines next season will spice things up a bit.


With teams dropping out and struggling for finances, and the loss of four manufacturers as constructors in four years, it needs to be more stable. Also, the only reason 2012 was excitingwp was the first few races, and that was due to the tyres - something most people complained about. After Spain it was terribly predictable.

#13 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 14:32

Also, the only reason 2012 was excitingwp was the first few races, and that was due to the tyres - something most people complained about. After Spain it was terribly predictable.


:drunk: :drunk: :drunk: :drunk:

#14 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 14:34

:drunk: :drunk: :drunk: :drunk:


Webber and Hamilton winning, then the wins being shared between McLaren and Alonso for a while, Vettel stringing a few wins together while struggling with reliability, Webber losing it near the end, "Fernando is faster than you" and McLaren throwing it away. All pretty standard.

#15 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 14:41

I'd actually ban wind tunnels and the like, let teams figure it out without simulations. Not to mention ban the ridiculous front wings.

Let teams run whatever engine they want, but give them a set amount of fuel for the entire race weekend so they have to take that into consideration.

Bring back fat tires on the rear. Get rid of the overly sterile environments.

#16 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,319 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 15:00

Allow tobacco to sponsor again. That is why the 80's and 90's where what they were.

Or do what I think racing needs; bubble bombs and jumps!

Posted Image

#17 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,042 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2013 - 15:06

- Allow customer chassis. It would help teams share development costs and provide smaller teams with a reasonably proven and less expensive car to race;

- At the same time, it would encourage manufacturers to join simply as engines suppliers (which is their deal afterall, people don't buy Mercedes or Ferraris because of their multimillion F1 diffusers and winglets) and not have to put up with the entire cost of running a team from scratch;

- Last but not least, open up the engine regulations so teams don't remain hell bent on gaining the smallest fraction of performance through hours and hours of expensive simulation and wind tunnel work because their is no other way to improve the car.

#18 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 15:13

- Allow customer chassis. It would help teams share development costs and provide smaller teams with a reasonably proven and less expensive car to race;

- At the same time, it would encourage manufacturers to join simply as engines suppliers (which is their deal afterall, people don't buy Mercedes or Ferraris because of their multimillion F1 diffusers and winglets) and not have to put up with the entire cost of running a team from scratch;

- Last but not least, open up the engine regulations so teams don't remain hell bent on gaining the smallest fraction of performance through hours and hours of expensive simulation and wind tunnel work because their is no other way to improve the car.


I completely agree with the customer chassis point, but think this needs to be regulated so that a big team can only supply one small team, and that team can't be owned by the larger. It'd support low budget teams as well, like that team that was going to run old Macca stuff.

#19 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 15:18

Allow tobacco to sponsor again. That is why the 80's and 90's where what they were.


I don't think Tobacco companies are doing as well as they used to. Nor will they.

Advertisement

#20 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 15,209 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 15:28

Er... we just had the probably the best season of F1 ever and people think it needs rejuvenating -- madness!

There is probably too much emphasis on aero though. Hopefully the new engines next season will spice things up a bit.

Speak for yourself. It just felt like the soccermatches now under scrutiny. I want sport, not an enterainmentbonanza due to Mario Kart rules.

#21 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 656 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 15:34

Not suggesting it's possible, practical or legal, but I think introducing meritocracy for drivers, rather than having pay drivers, would help ensure the best drivers and not simply those with the biggest pocket/sponsorship deal get on the ladder.

Ban pay drivers and ensure all drivers are paid at least £x.

Again, not suggesting that's at all possible or practical, but I want to see the best drivers in F1 right across the field.

#22 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,056 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 05 February 2013 - 15:39

Connect the throttle pedal to the butterflies (or whatever they use nowadays) by a piece of Bowden Cable with no electronic gizmos attatched at either end or anywhere in the middle.

#23 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 16:17

Webber and Hamilton winning, then the wins being shared between McLaren and Alonso for a while, Vettel stringing a few wins together while struggling with reliability, Webber losing it near the end, "Fernando is faster than you" and McLaren throwing it away. All pretty standard.


Big teams and drivers winning is what decides a season´s entertainment value? :drunk:

Let´s get real. We´ve just seen something epic. The title did swing a couple of times during last race, we saw heroic wins and performances, we had 4 drivers totally inspired, barely had 4-5 boring races, and loads of racing and drama. Really hope this fitted as "standard" to me, but sadly having watched for 15 years now it does not. This was just outstanding.

#24 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 3,192 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 16:45

Easy. Fire Bernie, Herman & Charlie. You'll see instant improvement.

#25 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 February 2013 - 16:51

make engines matter again...

#26 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,082 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 17:43

Ban CFD. :p

Serious. They spend more money in windtunnels and computer modelling than they ever did testing. I would love to see the time were a talented driver brings a second to the car instead of 1 tenth now.


I've heard people say that a few times now, but no ones ever proven it. Care to explain?


Allow tobacco to sponsor again. That is why the 80's and 90's where what they were.


In what way did tobacco sponsorship contribute to the sport that other financial sources could not? It's out of F1's hands anyway.

Not suggesting it's possible, practical or legal, but I think introducing meritocracy for drivers, rather than having pay drivers, would help ensure the best drivers and not simply those with the biggest pocket/sponsorship deal get on the ladder.

Ban pay drivers and ensure all drivers are paid at least £x.

Again, not suggesting that's at all possible or practical, but I want to see the best drivers in F1 right across the field.


It's not possible or practical, sorry :p As admirable as the idea is, I don't see how the FIA will be able to stop drivers bringing sponsorship, and besides while the feeder series are almost solely full of pay-drivers it's rather academic.

#27 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 3,597 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:14

It's not possible or practical, sorry :p As admirable as the idea is, I don't see how the FIA will be able to stop drivers bringing sponsorship, and besides while the feeder series are almost solely full of pay-drivers it's rather academic.


This is probably the answer to your question right here. It's almost impossible for a driver from a small market without government backing to break into F1 at the moment.

#28 BackmarkerUK

BackmarkerUK
  • Member

  • 348 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:43

Definitely

- Budget caps. Stop the championship being decided by the team that spends the most.
- Reduce the amount of aerodynamic grip the teams are able to find, forcing them to rely on mechanical grip.
- Customer chassis.
- More testing, especially for rookie drivers. Maybe something like forcing teams to run rookies on Fridays.
- Stop banning clever exploits the teams find to the rules! Enstone's adaptive ride height thing probably was illegal, but other clever things like Renault's Tuned Mass Dampers etc. are clever and should be encouraged.
- Open up applications for 12th and 13th teams. At the moment there's a risk that we'll be reduced to a 20 car grid, which would be tiny.

Maybe

- Steel brake pads instead of carbon. I have heard people argue either way about whether this would improve racing, or be too unsafe, and I don't entirely understand the technical side. My base understanding is that steel brakes would not allow the drivers to stop as quickly for corners, and therefore would misjudge braking more often, allowing more passing opportunities.
- Get rid of DRS. Artificial gimmick. Presumably if they reduced aerodynamic grip it wouldn't be so necessary.

#29 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,042 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2013 - 19:12

If budget caps worked or even matered half as much as imagined, Toyota would have left after taking a collection of wins and some titles and grown bored.

#30 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 2,405 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 19:16

Carbon brakes are that good mostly because they reduce unsprung weight (and overall weight as well), not because they're that more effective at stopping the cars. Though the can absorb more energy without overheating problems.

A longer braking distance won't make drivers misjudge braking more often imho. They will just start it earlier. Very late braking isn't exactly easy :) More space/time for a manoeuvre, though. But I'd personally increase the distance by increasing the top speed they have to brake from

I've posted my opinion in so many such topics I've lost count and also a bit interest. It doesn't change anything.
But in short:
1. Ground effects. About the same downforce level, but with much less wing generated one. This should be a proper solution of the problem, if implemented correctly
2. Proper power (V10 era levels or a bit more)
3. No green racing BS
4. Less banning and constant rule changes
5. No gimmicks
6. Reasonable reliability rules, so the drivers won't have to nurse the cars all the time but the spending aren't absurd
7. Weight - 600 KG is reasonable
8. Tires should allow hard racing without disintegrating. Allow the teams to choose whatever compound they like whenever they want to.
9. Allow more active aero, for cooling etc.
10. Rules shouldn't bound every inch of the cars, every mm on the engines. More reasonable freedom.
11. A bit bigger track. (Wider cars)
12. Allow much more testing - for young drivers (extra sessions just for them during the weekend), and for the teams (testing sessions after or before the races, to reduce costs)
13. Less part ferme restrictions. More racing in the wet (and not driving behind the SC).
14. Better tracks, with character, should have priority over tracks with rich owners etc.
15. Last, but not least, more freedom for the mechanical grip stuff. I don't see any reason to ban TMDs or systems like to one Lotus/Renault wanted to use.

I would actually evaluate using different means to generate downforce, like fans.. Though probably it wouldn't be feasible
I'd also consider reintroducing refueling, but I'm not sure.

Edited by DrProzac, 05 February 2013 - 19:35.


#31 scarsurfing

scarsurfing
  • Member

  • 82 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 19:56

Wider cars Alla 1997 and previous years.
Wider rear tires with low profile rims.
Unrestricted total engine cylinders.

Edited by scarsurfing, 05 February 2013 - 19:57.


#32 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 February 2013 - 20:31

i think part of the reason they close stuff off like the f duct is there scared of a speed rabbit hole, where cars suddenly gain alot of speed, and the safety level isnt up to that new standard.

id rather cripple the aero side, and unlock engine and kers side


but the teams will spend whatever they can, and we and they need to awknowledge that.

modern f1 cars arent so glourious anymore, we need to get that back, having proper cutting edge engines would help alot with that.

#33 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 February 2013 - 20:49

F1 needs to be run by people who do this for fun and love of racing (like owners who do love NFL), and not by an equity firm. Things will sort out themselves. Maybe the partnership with FiA has run its course as well.

#34 Arska

Arska
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 05 February 2013 - 21:10

Ban front and rear wings. And if that's not possible sponsorwise, make them extremely inefficient so they don't really matter but sponsors still are visible.

#35 Fulcrum

Fulcrum
  • Member

  • 246 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 21:14

Ban front and rear wings. And if that's not possible sponsorwise, make them extremely inefficient so they don't really matter but sponsors still are visible.


Posted Image

:D

#36 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 05 February 2013 - 21:21

1: Back to V10's with no pathetic rev limiter, let the teams work on engine development
2: Scrap KERS and DRS
3: Reduce the amount of buttons on the steering wheel and re-introduce manual gearboxes
4: Common sense rules, instead of stewards enquiry over every little thing
5: Wider rear tyres
6: Old-style 12 lap qualifying
7: Decent tyres that you don't have to 'nurse'
8: Cars less restricted, encourage teams to develop new ideas. (sick of cars almost looking the same!)
9: Dump dull soul-less tracks ie Valencia, Abu Dhabi etc


#37 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 21:24

1: Back to V10's with no pathetic rev limiter, let the teams work on engine development
2: Scrap KERS and DRS
3: Reduce the amount of buttons on the steering wheel and re-introduce manual gearboxes
4: Common sense rules, instead of stewards enquiry over every little thing
5: Wider rear tyres
6: Old-style 12 lap qualifying
7: Decent tyres that you don't have to 'nurse'
8: Cars less restricted, encourage teams to develop new ideas. (sick of cars almost looking the same!)
9: Dump dull soul-less tracks ie Valencia, Abu Dhabi etc

Sounds perfect to me as long as they allow V12's too

Our best bet would probably be to build a time machine though......

#38 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 2,806 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 21:44

Posted Image

:D

No just no. Don't even Joke.

#39 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 674 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 21:48

I have a lot of opinions on this topic, but for now I'll limit them to one area, partly because I think it's the easiest one to fix: do something about the cars being so offensively ugly.

Beaks, high noses, front wings ridiculously low, wide, and complicated, rear wings ridiculously high and narrow, cars too narrow, tires too narrow, ratio of rear tire size to front too small, and more. None of these are necessary and really damp my enthusiasm for watching races and for "evangelizing" F1 to my friends. It's pretty easy to make an F1 car look awesome.

Advertisement

#40 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 22:11

1: Back to V10's with no pathetic rev limiter, let the teams work on engine development
2: Scrap KERS and DRS
3: Reduce the amount of buttons on the steering wheel and re-introduce manual gearboxes
4: Common sense rules, instead of stewards enquiry over every little thing
5: Wider rear tyres
6: Old-style 12 lap qualifying
7: Decent tyres that you don't have to 'nurse'
8: Cars less restricted, encourage teams to develop new ideas. (sick of cars almost looking the same!)
9: Dump dull soul-less tracks ie Valencia, Abu Dhabi etc


Thread is about "how to rejuvenate F1", not about how to make it old. :lol:




#41 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 05 February 2013 - 22:26

Thread is about "how to rejuvenate F1", not about how to make it old. :lol:


But the olden days were (mostly) golden. :p


#42 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 05 February 2013 - 22:29

* The FIA should focus relentlessly on making it easy for one car to follow another, and on tyres that don't produce a sea of marbles. DRS is only needed to make up for turbulent air holding the second car back in the corners, so if the FIA does what I tell them to do, we shouldn't need it any more.

I wonder if I could get a job at the head of the FIA with sod all experience of motorsport.

#43 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,966 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 February 2013 - 22:32

Roll the clocks back 40+ years or so.

#44 Gold

Gold
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 February 2013 - 00:38

My main bugbear is that the regs have had to become so tight with the 'boxes', that the cars all look hideous now.

They no longer look like 'the fastest racing cars IN THE WORLD', more like brutal 'solutions' to the regs.

But, i don't know how you can un-invent stuff without making F1 even more of a spec-series than it already is.


Couldn't have said it better. Brutal solutions to regs. Perfectly worded. They are an aggregate of regulated parts resembling the rubber tire strips hire karts use to stop the wheels interlocking between novice drivers. An aggregate of safety regulations hiding a racing car.

F1 cars got wider and lower (the universal characteristics for a sportscar),
From 1950 until 1993. After that it reversed.

Get rid of that god awful wooden plank underneath the car and the stepped bottom and give us a true sparking, fire breathing flat bottomed racer. Most people on this forum have never seen an onboard of a driver following someone at 300 kph with fire flying into his face.

Get rid of the regulation that changed the width of the cars from 220cm to 180cm that gave us the meeky weak looking pointy thin F1 cars.

Get rid of the Lego / Playmobil looking cartoonish wide front wing.

Give us a wider rear wing.

Ban high noses, the massive gap under the nose of a modern F1 car just looks like a brick moving through air.

Edited by Gold, 06 February 2013 - 00:52.


#45 tjkoyen

tjkoyen
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:29

As much as you want it not to, F1 must maintain some level of relevance to road car technologies, or manufacturers (who are fast becoming the only ones with the money to compete) will leave for WEC.

I agree with the idea of a budget cap. Cap the budgets and open development. Let them do whatever they want (or almost) within their budget.

Budget cap eliminates the need for so many pay drivers, it reduces the gap from the front of the grid to the back, it encourages innovation, it encourages more teams to compete, and you end up with cars that would vary a lot more rather than the current "fit-to-spec" cars we have.

Edited by tjkoyen, 06 February 2013 - 03:29.


#46 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:32

Ban CFD. :p

Yep, just ban all microchips - no computers, no ECUs, not even any Iphones or Ipads allowed in the pitlane (Bernie can keep his hearing aids of course).

Carbys in the cars, stopwatches on the timing stand, abacus and pen in hand at the engineering debrief. As Mr. Burn's would say "Excellent"

#47 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:21

A part of this thread needs to be remembered - rejuvenation must take into account teams being financially able to and want to stay in F1, and bring manufacturers back. Making cars dangerous and expensive won't do that. Like I said, it needs to be improved for fans and teams.

#48 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 15,209 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:25

But what makes F1 so expensive?

Is it finding the last 0.001s due to absurd computer modelling and wind tunnel testing, only to see your creation fail on track? Most of those things won't even work, see races where drivers raced on with a damaged car and no serious speed deficit afterwards. Look at the damage Vettel's car sustained and he could race on without much fuss. In the windtunnel that would be a big nono.

Same goes for the engine. Having a 40 hp gap on a 1.000 hp engine is 4%, but the same gap on a 500hp is 8% and makes more of a difference in the race. So smaller technology needs to get pushed more and more at the expense of more money,

Or perhaps it is the rules changing every 4 years that warrant a complete redesign of the car instead of evolving cars?

#49 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 06 February 2013 - 10:40

Cars should look like this:

Posted Image

Or this:

Posted Image

#50 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:18

But what makes F1 so expensive?

Is it finding the last 0.001s due to absurd computer modelling and wind tunnel testing, only to see your creation fail on track? Most of those things won't even work, see races where drivers raced on with a damaged car and no serious speed deficit afterwards. Look at the damage Vettel's car sustained and he could race on without much fuss. In the windtunnel that would be a big nono.

Same goes for the engine. Having a 40 hp gap on a 1.000 hp engine is 4%, but the same gap on a 500hp is 8% and makes more of a difference in the race. So smaller technology needs to get pushed more and more at the expense of more money,

Or perhaps it is the rules changing every 4 years that warrant a complete redesign of the car instead of evolving cars?

I am nodding in agreement...