Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2021 engine formula: political wrangling, technical details, aesthetics...


  • Please log in to reply
5295 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (514 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (463 votes [90.08%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.08%

  2. Nay (51 votes [9.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.92%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (260 votes [50.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.58%

  2. Nay (254 votes [49.42%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 49.42%

Removing MGU-H, more tactical use of MGU-K

  1. Yay (375 votes [72.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 72.96%

  2. Nay (139 votes [27.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.04%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#5251 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,204 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 12 October 2019 - 19:39

You are speaking for yourself and not the masses. It is absolutely a big problem but we set the bar so low that we talk about great races if something happens during a race.

The dirty air issue is a massive problem, not being able to follow a car is everything that can be wrong with a sport.

The die hards accept it now, the bigger public won't in the future.

It's the other way around IMO.

Once you get more involved into a sport you set certain standards that said sport should achieve. Somebody who is new to the sport doesnt have those standards. For them the current Ferrari fallout could be enough to get them hooked up, and after a couple of years when they are in the bubble they also create different standards.

Why do you think has the Netflix documentary worked so well? Because it sold narratives. It's plain simple. Of course that narrative could also be action-packed races, I'm not denying that, but it isnt a necessity. As again, the refuelling era showed: I too thought it was amazing back then, because I lacked knowledge, but upon re-watching races I realized that they were extremely dull.

Unless somebody has already background it isnt the action on the track that will get them interested into a sport. That's rarely the case.



Advertisement

#5252 Neno

Neno
  • Member

  • 1,782 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 12 October 2019 - 19:39

It's fairly obvious that you just want to spout off and not have your ideas challenged, even if people have good arguments.

If rules are staying same means there is no improvement of F1 as sport which means those arent good arguments, my friend. 



#5253 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 12 October 2019 - 19:47

It's the other way around IMO.

Once you get more involved into a sport you set certain standards that said sport should achieve. Somebody who is new to the sport doesnt have those standards. For them the current Ferrari fallout could be enough to get them hooked up, and after a couple of years when they are in the bubble they also create different standards.

Why do you think has the Netflix documentary worked so well? Because it sold narratives. It's plain simple. Of course that narrative could also be action-packed races, I'm not denying that, but it isnt a necessity. As again, the refuelling era showed: I too thought it was amazing back then, because I lacked knowledge, but upon re-watching races I realized that they were extremely dull.

Unless somebody has already background it isnt the action on the track that will get them interested into a sport. That's rarely the case.

I agree that understanding and appreciating the narrative of the sport is a huge factor. I distinctly remember loving F1 for years and having peers tell me that it was dull and boring...only for those same peers to join the bandwagon when Lewis Hamilton arrived on the scene. His arrival was a tangible story that they could hook into and follow to become a fan. 

 

In my case though, F1 has become like a long running TV series that has lost some of the characters that made me fall in love with it, and to compound issues there's been change in the writing team and I do not like the direction they've take things. 

 

The perceived narrative is very important, but depending on how it evolves it can lead to loosing people as much as it can to gaining them in my opinion. 


Edited by Ben1445, 12 October 2019 - 19:47.


#5254 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,467 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 October 2019 - 19:47

If rules are staying same means there is no improvement of F1 as sport which means those arent good arguments, my friend. 

 

I think the new rules will be an improvement. However, I'm interested if people have other ideas. I'd welcome any well reasoned arguments from those who think the new rules might not be said improvement.

 

After all, things could be a lot worse, we could still have grooved tyres and cars that can't get within two seconds of each other. The current rules are not the worst they could possibly be, and this season have produced a string of great races.



#5255 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,052 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 October 2019 - 21:15

If you make the electrical side more significant, the amount of fuel saving will be less significant as the actual burning of fuel becomes less important to performance.

Not if the fuel allowance is also reduced.

#5256 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,052 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 October 2019 - 21:18

I think the new rules will be an improvement. However, I'm interested if people have other ideas. I'd welcome any well reasoned arguments from those who think the new rules might not be said improvement.

After all, things could be a lot worse, we could still have grooved tyres and cars that can't get within two seconds of each other. The current rules are not the worst they could possibly be, and this season have produced a string of great races.


Other than asthetics were the grooved tyres that bad? We have slicks now, but are we any better off?

#5257 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 3,893 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 12 October 2019 - 21:30

Other than asthetics were the grooved tyres that bad? We have slicks now, but are we any better off?


Impossible to say with Pirelli but the reason we went back to slicks was that the grooved tyres had a tendency to grain badly when following others/abusing them. Slicks were to he less sensitive. Obviously we only got two years of that.

#5258 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 12 October 2019 - 21:53

I think the new rules will be an improvement. However, I'm interested if people have other ideas. I'd welcome any well reasoned arguments from those who think the new rules might not be said improvement.

 

After all, things could be a lot worse, we could still have grooved tyres and cars that can't get within two seconds of each other. The current rules are not the worst they could possibly be, and this season have produced a string of great races.

"cars that can't get within two seconds of each other" I just watched the 2005 Japanese GP and it looks like they haven't been able to solve that till today.

 

Hamilton just made some comments about DRS probably staying. If they don't manage to get rid of it for 2021, the new rules will be considered by many to be a failure. It will mean that they were not able to fix following closely.

 

They renewed Pirelli till 2023. If that's a sign of improvement, I don't want to see the rest, unless Pirelli really come up with the best tyre they have ever produced for F1. 

 

I haven't seen any discussions about such easy and obvious things to change as the current park ferme and mandatory tyre use rules, so that's a bad precedent.

 

Ferrari have already given a hint that they may be forced to use their veto and no one has responded. Mercedes and the rest of the top teams don't seem to be in a very changy mood, so that's worrying. 

 

They are talking about trying reverse grids, which tells us that they are really pretty desperate and hints at an inability or unwillingness to discuss the really important issues.  

 

The halo was supposed to be temporary and a better (looking) solution to be implemented soon, but have we seen any advancement in this front?

 

Has there even been talk about making the cars smaller and lighter? 

 

I could go on.



#5259 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 9,520 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 October 2019 - 22:03

I haven't watched an F1 race since I think the Austrian GP this year. I also used to be inseparable from the sport.

 

There's a whole host of reasons why, from Mercedes being largely unbeatable to dull races to a lack of enthusiasm for the characters at the sharp end of the grid to the lack of respect in wheel to wheel racing that seems to have emerged... the list goes on and on. 

 

What F1 is today is not the sport I fell in love with. I complained about it in this forum and took it to heart when it was pointed out that I don't have to watch it if I don't like it. Well, as it is evident that I don't enjoy it anymore, now I do not watch it. 

 

I'm interested in what they will do in 2021 and beyond, that's why I'm here in this thread. But if its more of the same then I doubt I will be tempted back. 

 

You picked a bad time to stop watching, as this season has been superb since Austria. The races have been good and unpredictable, grid order has rarely decided race order, Mercedes have fallen behind Ferrari, there's been interesting inter and intra team narratives, etc.

 

2009 new rules and the whole field was within a second, this whole converging is a myth reduce downforce will help as that is where the big teams gain the most.

 

A freak occurrence. By 2010 that close field had spread itself back into the usual several seconds gap between big and small teams, and that's excluding the season's new entries. 



Advertisement

#5260 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 9,520 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 October 2019 - 22:03

I was watching the 2003 and 2005 season reviews yesterday and surprised just how many drivers made mistakes. Not sure if it was overall standards or the difficulty of finding the limits. It was crazy.

 

Maybe it was watching edited highlights of a season..?



#5261 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 12 October 2019 - 22:26

You picked a bad time to stop watching, as this season has been superb since Austria. The races have been good and unpredictable, grid order has rarely decided race order, Mercedes have fallen behind Ferrari, there's been interesting inter and intra team narratives, etc.

So I hear, but I am not convinced it would have made a difference. My issues with F1 apparently run deeper than anything a string of half decent-ish races can solve. I think it will take a big shift in the status quo to bring me back, with new names and faces being front and centre, not the same old teams and drivers with the same old champion year after year. I need another 2005. 


Edited by Ben1445, 12 October 2019 - 22:28.


#5262 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,193 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 13 October 2019 - 00:07

If you make the electrical side more significant, the amount of fuel saving will be less significant as the actual burning of fuel becomes less important to performance.


That is fallacy. Even everybody's favorite hybrid class, the LMP1s, do a ridiculous amount of lift and coast. What does “make the electric side more significant” even mean? The rules around the H are quite free, and its harvesting is directly proportional to the power output of the ICE. The K depends on the amount of braking zones on a track. Making it “more significant” would only have a very limited effect at most tracks, unless they add it to the front wheels as well.

At that point they’ll be so far away from the spirit of F1, that I really don’t see a point in the series.

#5263 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,467 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 October 2019 - 01:12

That is fallacy. Even everybody's favorite hybrid class, the LMP1s, do a ridiculous amount of lift and coast. What does “make the electric side more significant” even mean? The rules around the H are quite free, and its harvesting is directly proportional to the power output of the ICE. The K depends on the amount of braking zones on a track. Making it “more significant” would only have a very limited effect at most tracks, unless they add it to the front wheels as well.
At that point they’ll be so far away from the spirit of F1, that I really don’t see a point in the series.


The total harvested energy is limited quite strictly right now, as are the power of some of the energy transfers. There’s a lot to be found.

LMP1 go endurance racing. It’s not a fair comparison. In a relative sprint like a Grand Prix, if you kept the same amount of fuel but improved the energy recovery, you’d have to do less fuel saving.

#5264 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 14 October 2019 - 05:26

2009 new rules and the whole field was within a second, this whole converging is a myth reduce downforce will help as that is where the big teams gain the most.


I think 2009 had some special circumstances. Ferrari and McLaren were fighting right through 2007-2008 and missed the boat on the initial 2009 designs. The manufacturers over committed to KERS and some couldn't even do it without being overweight. The aero philosophies were flipped on their head as well.

But we also saw in 2007-2008 how Renault fell away and couldn't get back, BMW couldn't close down the gap despite spending big, and Red Bull didn't even try as they were waiting for the new regulations.

For 2021 who knows whether the midfield will catch up, if there will be new winners or just the status quo. Even the budget cap won't save the small teams, as those with money are just upgrading their infrastructures now whilst their spending is still uncapped.

#5265 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 4,546 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 16 October 2019 - 14:43

"I don't support 'GP1 style' racing" says Principal of team that buys it's cars. 



#5266 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 719 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 16 October 2019 - 16:37

The total harvested energy is limited quite strictly right now, as are the power of some of the energy transfers. There’s a lot to be found.

 

Well, the regulations only allow cars to be so-called 'mild hybrids'. The MGU-K is connected to the crankshaft and is severely limited in every way. The MGU-H is unlimited, but is only connected to the turbocharger. Hence, a Formula One car does not have one or more electric motors to propel the car - they only support the internal combustion engine in certain ways. 

If Formula One is serious about hybridization and having road-relevant power units, the motor-generator units should become connected to the drive-train. This could be done to directly link them to either the gearbox or the differential. In-wheel motors are another possibility of course, but they would allow for torque vectoring. 



#5267 Pete_f1

Pete_f1
  • Member

  • 1,467 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 16 October 2019 - 17:08

So, I wonder what went down in the meeting today.

Oh to be a fly on the wall

#5268 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,204 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 16 October 2019 - 18:56

 

 

RaceFans understands the new rules, which include a significantly overhauled aerodynamics package, have received only minor alterations following objections from some teams who felt they left too little room for innovation.

[...]


While some concession to the teams’ demands have been made, these have only been in areas which it is believed will not affect the work done to reduce the negative effect of turbulence from one car upon another.

Other aerodynamic changes to the cars were also accepted at a meeting of F1, FIA and teams’ representatives in Paris today. These included an increase in the size of the endplates in order to create more room for sponsors’ logos.

Among the other aspects of the rules discussed today included the possibility of reintroducing a partial freeze on engine development in order to limit costs. As reported previously, the plan to introduced standardised braking systems has been dropped.

The possibility of postponing the regulations changes to 2022 to allow more time for them to be finessed was also discussed, RaceFans has learned, but this is not thought to be a popular option. Ferrari will retain limited veto powers after 2020, but these will be subject to specific conditions.

https://www.racefans...-over-gp1-cars/



#5269 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,769 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 17 October 2019 - 00:06

I would prefer they keep the 2019 wing endplates (front and rear), so that's good if that's what they are doing.

 

h3SBAu5.jpg


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 17 October 2019 - 00:30.


#5270 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,204 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 October 2019 - 14:32

Horner: "I think Boris Johnson is closer to a deal than we are"


Roflmao

https://amp.autobild...impression=true

#5271 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 7,421 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 17 October 2019 - 17:52

Roflmao

https://amp.autobild...impression=true


Well yeah, cos he's agreed the deal. These guys haven't :p

#5272 chrisj

chrisj
  • Member

  • 874 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 17 October 2019 - 18:18

Turns out, Ross Brawn's dumb ideas aren't any better than Bernie's — and he has less control over the teams than Bernie did. The best Liberty can do now is give Ferrari whatever they want and tell everyone else to take it or leave it.



#5273 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,052 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 October 2019 - 18:21

Turns out, Ross Brawn's dumb ideas aren't any better than Bernie's — and he has less control over the teams than Bernie did. The best Liberty can do now is give Ferrari whatever they want and tell everyone else to take it or leave it.

Don't think Brawn ever had control, he is just someone tasked to come up with ideas. I suspect it was thought he could come up with ideas that the teams could agree on.

Edited by Clatter, 17 October 2019 - 18:22.


#5274 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 17 October 2019 - 19:07

Turns out, Ross Brawn's dumb ideas aren't any better than Bernie's — and he has less control over the teams than Bernie did. The best Liberty can do now is give Ferrari whatever they want and tell everyone else to take it or leave it.

I'm confused by this statement.

 

My take is that the work done by Brawn and the FIA will be voted through with minor changes. Future technical regulation changes/tweaks will be possible as long as they allow the cars to follow closely. It does seem that the teams will get their way with respect to standardised parts, although I suspect that this move was always a strategic misdirection by Ross—give the teams an illusion of achieving some victory. Think about it, what's the point in having standardized parts with a budget cap.

 

The concorde agreement is over for 2021 and Ferrari's veto for 2021 regulations is not worth the paper it's written on.

 

Who do you think will refuse to sign up? Ferrari? No way.

 

Mercedes? The new regulations will save corporate money, make Toto money, and make F1 more spectacular (advertising exposure).

 

Red Bull? no way will they bail and lose their investment. Even if they want to sell, they would join the championship and then try to sell active teams. Selling without an entry would cut 80% off the value of the teams.

 

So i'm curious, who exactly is not going to sign up? Besides, the arguments put forward by the teams is all BS; they were consulted every step of the way and only raised objections at the last hour.



#5275 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 20 October 2019 - 11:20

sounds like Bernie was right, there's no place for democracy. Overrule them and push it through.

 

Alex Wurz (GPDA) commented on the structure in Motorsport Magazine (translation):

 

With the current structures, Formula 1 is a heavy tanker.
Alex Wurz: That's right. It is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. I do not know any democracy that needs 100 percent of the votes to make a decision. It's actually doomed to failure.
 
on the new rules:
 
Alex Wurz: We are all very happy internally. We see the direction of aerodynamics as a real success. We have been lobbying for many years, even before Liberty came. You have to get it in the heads first. Then the journalists have to talk about it and then it will eventually become dynamic and agenda. It is clear to everyone that the last 30 years of Formula 1 have had a clear trend. Even though we had some really exciting races right now. The problem is, following other cars. The problem has been around for 30 years, because the regulations have changed only slightly and it has actually become increasingly difficult with the step floor and the high front wing. Now they go back to the ground effect where we used to be. This is much better. That's a revolution. That's absolutely the right direction. Chapeau to all who help to make this happen.

Edited by statman, 20 October 2019 - 11:27.


#5276 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,467 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 20 October 2019 - 21:00

Who do you think will refuse to sign up?....

 

Mercedes? The new regulations will save corporate money, make Toto money, and make F1 more spectacular (advertising exposure).

Posts in various threads give the impression that Mercedes would never agree to tighter engine restrictions, or to common chassis or aero components. Makes you wonder who used that three pointed star badge in DTM and have now entered Formula E.



#5277 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 70 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 20 October 2019 - 22:52

Posts in various threads give the impression that Mercedes would never agree to tighter engine restrictions, or to common chassis or aero components. Makes you wonder who used that three pointed star badge in DTM and have now entered Formula E.

 

Makes you wonder why a manufacturer can't have different goals and opinions about different sports...



#5278 shure

shure
  • Member

  • 1,483 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 21 October 2019 - 07:59

Posts in various threads give the impression that Mercedes would never agree to tighter engine restrictions, or to common chassis or aero components. Makes you wonder who used that three pointed star badge in DTM and have now entered Formula E.

This is a strange post.  What would their plans for FE have to do with their plans for F1?  They are entirely different series with different philosophies behind them



#5279 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 21 October 2019 - 08:15

This is a strange post. What would their plans for FE have to do with their plans for F1? They are entirely different series with different philosophies behind them


Random point which may or may not be connected... the Merc FE powertrain team is set up within Mercedes HPP, drawing from and exchanging knowledge with the F1 PU team.

Advertisement

#5280 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,467 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 21 October 2019 - 09:00

Makes you wonder why a manufacturer can't have different goals and opinions about different sports...

 

 

This is a strange post.  What would their plans for FE have to do with their plans for F1?  They are entirely different series with different philosophies behind them

 

It's the same company with the same decision makers, They are indeed happy with different approaches. The point is that they don't have a rigid philosophy which is a condition of Mercedes participartion in motor sport, as is implied by those who claim they'd pull out if F1 introduced restrictive rules.



#5281 shure

shure
  • Member

  • 1,483 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 21 October 2019 - 09:41

It's the same company with the same decision makers, They are indeed happy with different approaches. The point is that they don't have a rigid philosophy which is a condition of Mercedes participartion in motor sport, as is implied by those who claim they'd pull out if F1 introduced restrictive rules.

But whatever they do in another series doesn't necessarily have a bearing on what they do in F1 and your original post makes it seem as though there's a connection.  They could be happy to work under the restrictions imposed in FE but baulk at them when it comes to F1.  F1 has a completely different philosophy where the differences between the teams have always been central and Mercedes may feel that if that's diluted it might make it less attractive, particularly given the costs involved in F1 compared to e.g. FE.  



#5282 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 70 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 21 October 2019 - 21:53

It's the same company with the same decision makers, They are indeed happy with different approaches. The point is that they don't have a rigid philosophy which is a condition of Mercedes participartion in motor sport, as is implied by those who claim they'd pull out if F1 introduced restrictive rules.

 

As I said, different goals different sports - F1 isnt FE.  A teams goals in F1 may be wildly different to that of FE and that is perfectly legitimate - they don't have to accept changes which they don't like in F1 just because those changes are similar to whatever they already operate under in FE.



#5283 Neno

Neno
  • Member

  • 1,782 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 21 October 2019 - 22:28

Didnt deadline for rules to be set already passed? Where is the hiccup?



#5284 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,499 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 October 2019 - 23:27

Didnt deadline for rules to be set already passed? Where is the hiccup?

It was moved to end of October.



#5285 chrisj

chrisj
  • Member

  • 874 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 22 October 2019 - 02:38

As I said, different goals different sports - F1 isnt FE.  A teams goals in F1 may be wildly different to that of FE and that is perfectly legitimate - they don't have to accept changes which they don't like in F1 just because those changes are similar to whatever they already operate under in FE.

 

Or Mercedes will just pull out of F1 when they stop dominating, it becomes even more non-PC, etc. I wouldn't give the MB board too much credit.



#5286 SonGoku

SonGoku
  • Member

  • 3,819 posts
  • Joined: July 17

Posted 22 October 2019 - 03:07

I give Merc another 3-5 years, there is way too much speculation going on, also very trusted journalists don't even ignore it anymore.

Maybe back to only engine supplier.

#5287 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 29 October 2019 - 10:51

Brawn: new rules can't come soon enough

 

https://www.autospor...ome-soon-enough

 

Thursday will be the day:  the FIA World Motor Sport Council will rule on the regulation package for 2021, which we presented along with the FIA."



#5288 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,489 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 October 2019 - 17:29

So what happens when F1 is left with just Mercedes and Ferrari supplying engines after 2020? This is what many of us have been worried about all along, and really, who knows what Mercedes is going to do, either. We all know that at some point, any manufacturer not named Ferrari WILL leave F1. It's not a matter of 'if'. It's a matter of 'when'. What then? How does F1 replace them in this crazy PU formula?
 
Renault may not be the only engine builder wavering over its F1 future: https://www.racefans...-its-f1-future/


#5289 LightningMcQueen

LightningMcQueen
  • Member

  • 146 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 30 October 2019 - 17:52

Engines are far too complex without doubt.need to attract new manufacturers.

#5290 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,467 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 30 October 2019 - 18:12

 

So what happens when F1 is left with just Mercedes and Ferrari supplying engines after 2020? This is what many of us have been worried about all along, and really, who knows what Mercedes is going to do, either. We all know that at some point, any manufacturer not named Ferrari WILL leave F1. It's not a matter of 'if'. It's a matter of 'when'. What then? How does F1 replace them in this crazy PU formula?
 
Renault may not be the only engine builder wavering over its F1 future: https://www.racefans...-its-f1-future/

 

 

The optimistic view would be a repeat of the era when Cosworth and Ferrari were the only realistic games in town. At least the racing would probably be more competitive as another variable is taken away.



#5291 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,920 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 October 2019 - 19:09

The optimistic view would be a repeat of the era when Cosworth and Ferrari were the only realistic games in town. At least the racing would probably be more competitive as another variable is taken away.

 

 

With very likely one big difference: a few more than only 2 Ferrari engines in the starting field for the Ferrari factory cars only. But the question remains if these extra Ferrari engines other than the two factory cars are close enough, let alone equal to the factory engines.



#5292 JeePee

JeePee
  • Member

  • 3,047 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 31 October 2019 - 09:09

etimPYn.png

 

f1g65LuhIvbEv5XhWUIeWQVoj2mNRPEEP9FV5w_d


Edited by JeePee, 31 October 2019 - 09:12.


#5293 Otaku

Otaku
  • Member

  • 1,400 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 01 November 2019 - 20:13

I would like the look of the cars if they were a metre shorter and 70kg lighter.

 

Make that 170 kg.



#5294 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,920 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 November 2019 - 00:00

Make that 170 kg.

 

 

Only if they become so much slower that high speed impacts are no longer possible. You want cars with weights of about the '70 and '80 so for crying out loud let we make them as fast as in those years as well. Chassis of that era slamming into the walls with the speeds possible nowadays don't offer enough protection for drivers to be saved from serious injuries or even their lives.

Is that what you want as well in addition to cars losing 170 kg weight?



#5295 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 02 November 2019 - 04:13

Only if they become so much slower that high speed impacts are no longer possible. You want cars with weights of about the '70 and '80 so for crying out loud let we make them as fast as in those years as well. Chassis of that era slamming into the walls with the speeds possible nowadays don't offer enough protection for drivers to be saved from serious injuries or even their lives.
Is that what you want as well in addition to cars losing 170 kg weight?


I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion.

Today’s car are no faster in the corners than the V10’s and certainly not the exhaust blown V8’s. Look at the lap speed of the V8’s and remember that they were doing that with about 250hp less than today. That lap speed certainly wasn’t coming from straight line speed, and yet the lap times are similar.

Considering some of the accidents we saw during the V8 and even V10 era, despite being considerably lighter they certainly weren’t rolling death traps. In fact, we know these cars were running as much 90kg of ballast to get up to 600kg. That ballast added nothing to making the car stronger or safer in an accident, so a light fast car doesn’t mean dangerous.

#5296 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,489 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 08 November 2019 - 18:54

Looks pretty good imho, but I just can't understand why brake pads & rotors are being limited. What are they thinking?
 
 
F1’s 2021 rule changes: 10 things you need to know 
 
 

Edited by AustinF1, 08 November 2019 - 18:55.