77 replies to this topic

[JHSingo]

As you'll have heard by now, this year is the last in the current ruleset. Next year will see a significant change, so I thought now might be as good as any time to start debating whether they've been a success or failure. 

 

Watching yesterday's dull race had me thinking back to when these current rules were first announced, to great fanfare. It's interesting to go back and rewatch some of the first videos about them - although FOM/Liberty Media may not thank me for reminding you of these. 


(Remember when these were going to be from 2021...wonder how that would have affected the course of history.  )

 

 

'The 2022 Formula One car has been designed specifically to promote better racing'.

 

Looking back now, I'm not sure that these rules have really achieved what they were set out to do. After that promising start for the first few races of 2022, since then dirty air seems to have become as big a problem as ever before. And along the way, we've had porpoising, the single most dominant season in the sport's history and still a sizeable gap between the top teams and the rest. 

As a more general discussion topic, what do you think the sport should learn from this era, or is there anything you'd particularly like to change from 2026 onwards?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts. 

[LolaB0860]

The cars are prettier, otherwise everything is pretty much exactly the same as before and overtakes are just as DRS-dependent as they used to be.

[Risil]

Thanks for this. I'll go and review those videos so I can remind myself what the goals of the 2022 rules were.

 

I do feel we're as far off doing without DRS as ever, and for me that's a major disappointment whether or not that was what F1 hoped to achieve.

[Jops14]

I think broadly 2022 nailed it and it was some of the best racing id ever seen…

They gradually got worse, but overall i still think the racing is better and product improved. Problem is the spate of 1 stop races, we have refuelling with undercut instead of overcut.

[Risil]

I think broadly 2022 nailed it and it was some of the best racing id ever seen…

 

There was a very good race at Silverstone in 2022 which I don't think could've been achieved with the older ruleset. Some good following in the fast bits.

[Anja]

It definitely didn't get any worse. We've seen some glimpses of the rules delivering what they promised but probably not often enough. At least the cars look much better than the monstrosities before them. 

Edited by Anja, 24 March 2025 - 15:27.

[vlado]

Overall I’d say yes but it would’ve been even better without the initial TD039 and the following rule changes for 2023 which made the cars harder to follow again.

I actually think they should keep this ruleset for another 4-5 years instead of whatever they are doing for 2026

[Risil]

Overall I’d say yes but it would’ve been even better without the initial TD039 and the following rule changes for 2023 which made the cars harder to follow again.

 

Could somebody with the technical knowledge hazard an explanation about why exactly the mid-2022 technical directives and then subsequent rule changes undermined the goals of the 2022 aero regs? I understand their explicit goal was to reduce the severe (and potentially dangerous?) porpoising that several cars exhibited, but beyond that I'm at sea.

[mclarensmps]

- The looks are infinitely better
- The sound is still not good
- The racing is just about the same

- The shakeup and reset was necessary

- We have had more chaotic/interesting races in this ruleset than we had in the previous (in my opinion)

Based on that, I think for the most part, the rules have been a success, but we can do much much better!

 

Edited by mclarensmps, 24 March 2025 - 15:22.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Could somebody with the technical knowledge hazard an explanation about why exactly the mid-2022 technical directives and then subsequent rule changes undermined the goals of the 2022 aero regs? I understand their explicit goal was to reduce the severe (and potentially dangerous?) porpoising that several cars exhibited, but beyond that I'm at sea.

 

Pushed more reliance on downforce from the wings as ground effect was reduced, which made dirty air a problem again. That's my understanding of it anyway, without doing any digging.

 

It really was a noticeable difference pre/post TD, IMO, you could tell that the cars couldn't follow as well. I remember being pleasantly surprised at Bahrain how well the cars were stacked behind each other.

Edited by IrvTheSwerve, 24 March 2025 - 15:35.

[juicy sushi]

The rules were a dramatic improvement in terms of the cars ability to follow each other and potentially overtake.  They were not a cure-all for all of the other problems the cars also had.  To some extent, you can never replicate the success some spec-chassis series will have because the open aerodynamic development means the racing will always be knee-capped.  

 

The rule change did nothing to get me more interested in F1 as I'd checked out a decade and a half before that, and other series offered me more of what I wanted.

 

The 2026 rules might move a little closer still to what I want, but not enough to make a meaningful difference.

[SenorSjon]

The first few races of 2022 were fine. Then came the TD's and other stuff to curtail porpoising and RB, but affected Mercedes and Ferrari. Along the line came the winglets, floor edges, etc.

[DW46]

The first 2 races of 22 were great after that it was a Red Bull dominated snooze fest until mid last year, made slightly more monotonous by the no1 / no2 set up at Red Bull and the growing calendar length. 22/23 seasons were like being back in 2002 with Charles as JPM, Max as Michael and Checo as Rubens.

Last year was great but with all the talk of taking something off the Red Bull to achieve parity in Miami how much of that season was engineered takes away from it somewhat.

[MattK9]

If it wasnt for Max we would have had some cracking seasons of F1.

 

The racing is definitely better than the previous rule set which is what this rule set was supposed to address.

For me, like most people on this forum, I have seen rule sets come and go, and sort of, but not fully do what it was set out to achieve and ususually with some unintended consequences.

 

I dont think we will look back on this period with roses tinted specs, because the big picture is that none of the drivers championships have been memorable. (unless the incoming Norris vs Piastri battle lights up and goes to the wire)

[guiporsche]

I'm one of those who voted the '22 rules as a failure, and I'm afraid my interest in the sport actually decreased ever since.

As usual, the first year of competition with a new rules-set was/will be the most interesting, with many diverging approaches. That is, until the anti-porpoising TD.

And as the 22-25 rules were already so incredibly prescriptive, from 23 onwards pretty much everyone followed the same RB template. The designers are literally desiging around the box, and the box is getting bigger with every ruleset.

I'm quite technical-minded, and I love my Giorgio Piola books, but I just can't bother to keep following the last micro-debate on some micro-thing that is differentiating performance between cars that are actually quite close to each other. You have to blink to understand where the cars changed from year to year, which was not the case, say, until 2017. 

 

So the cars are too similar, way too big (sound's not a problem for me) and the racing did not get much better but all of this, however, pales in insignificance with F1's real problem since 2009: tyres. The controlled deg. era really needs to end: if they want to see good racing from beginning to end, they must let the drivers drive. What's the point of building spaceships that for 90% of the time are being driven under their real potential? 

[Sterzo]

The rules were one small step for mankind. They were never going to achieve enough, and part of the gain was lost due to a school of porpoises.

 

The problem is: technology and sport conflict. You have to either (a) accept that technology will rule or (b) improve sport by drastic trimming of the technology. We've long passed the point where fudging it half-heartedly isn't enough. Radical thinking would be welcome, but isn't even on the horizon.

[TomNokoe]

2022 had some really bright moments, especially in the first half: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Barcelona, Silverstone, Austria, Hungary. Great races with great racing.

But it has tailed off badly since, into the tyre dominated malaise we have now, so I voted failure.

Something that has dawned on me recently is that we no longer correlate car strengths to circuits when reviewing or previewing events, for example straight line speed, corner performance. Now, we look at tyre characteristics, for example, "this is a front graining track which means team X will be strong" or "this track really spikes the rear temperatures". I'm not saying this is a brand new phenomena, but it is now the dominant factor in F1, by a long, long way.

[frosty125]

I think overall the grid is more competitive and the racing is closer. Overtaking has been a mixed bag I think there has been marginally more on average per race.

 

A key question is do we want the Formula to so dominated by tyre deg.

[Ali623]

The cars can certainly follow better than before, but has the racing been 'better' or more exciting? Personally I don't think so, we're still completely reliant on DRS, more than ever (despite the fact it was potentially meant to be removed entirely with these regs) and the cars and generally too heavy and not as exciting to watch on track compared to cars of the past. 

 

The cost cap has been successful so far in my opinion, grid is tighter than ever and for most of the ruleset there hasn't really been a clear backmarker team(s). Midfield teams have, on occasion, managed to get results over the 'big teams' on merit, something that wasn't possible in the previous regs really.

[pdac]

All metrics seem to show that F1 is bigger now than in the previous regulations. So if the aim was to avoid a decline in F1, then it's a success. Personally, my interest in F1 has declined. But that has little to do with the nitty gritty of the regulations and more about the general trend. But, clearly, I'm still around and F1 is growing, so even if my interest wains to zero, it will still be a success for F1 (just not for me)

Edited by pdac, 24 March 2025 - 17:17.

[AustinF1]

This ruleset was doing great until they basically threw away the outstanding, hard work of the OWG. Until that happened, the cars could follow very closely and the racing was very good.

 

Now it's just back to the same old crap.

[AustinF1]

The cars can certainly follow better than before, but has the racing been 'better' or more exciting? Personally I don't think so, we're still completely reliant on DRS, more than ever (despite the fact it was potentially meant to be removed entirely with these regs) and the cars and generally too heavy and not as exciting to watch on track compared to cars of the past. 

 

The cost cap has been successful so far in my opinion, grid is tighter than ever and for most of the ruleset there hasn't really been a clear backmarker team(s). Midfield teams have, on occasion, managed to get results over the 'big teams' on merit, something that wasn't possible in the previous regs really.

The cars could follow better before this ruleset was watered down, but since then it's been a steady march back to the old status quo. Had they stuck with it, they may have actually been able to eliminate DRS, or at least diminish its use vs expanding it the way they've been doing.

[balmybaldwin]

I for one am very glad we see a lot less dirty air, and at least the cars don't all fan out in the first 5 laps.  I think we also see a lot more non drs overtakes than we did, but with DRs still in place the teams will always take the easy option if its there

[DutchQuicksilver]

They keep regulations too short really. 2009-2013 was short, 2014-2016 was short, 2017-2021 was short and now 2022-2025. Just when racing is as close as ever, they go with a new set of regulations. Have to say I liked the cars from these regulations, hopefully estheticaly the ones from 2026 will look just as nice.

[P123]

The technical regulations have been a total failure.  Cumbersome overweight cars that are extremely fast but somehow look slow, shod with tyres that aren't up to the job.  They can follow 2 tenths closer than before, but thanks to a negligible tow, they are more reliant than ever on DRS to create overtaking, so all in all, an expensive and pointless exercise.

 

The budget cap however has been a success, as that has helped to close up the grid by preventing those with unlimited funds going wild with updates. 

[FNG]

They keep regulations too short really. 2009-2013 was short, 2014-2016 was short, 2017-2021 was short and now 2022-2025. Just when racing is as close as ever, they go with a new set of regulations. Have to say I liked the cars from these regulations, hopefully estheticaly the ones from 2026 will look just as nice.

exactly. When you change the rules you spread the field for a few years. Q1 was a 1 second spread from 1st to last. Change the rules again and that will be right back up to 2-3 seconds. Quit changing the rules. Reg changes are only good for 4 years? That seems silly

[Risil]

I also want to say that I enjoyed early 2022 when against some people's expectations most of the cars that debuted looked substantially different to each other. It didn't last and many of the ideas were wrong ones, but that was part of the fun.

[RedRabbit]

Nothing will change until the tires do. These aero regulations are entirely pointless because nobody can push the tires hard for more than 3 laps.

[Gravelngrass]

Ok, so it’s a 4 year period of which, one could argue, 2 years have been good competition (not necessarily racing): a grosso modo, the first half of 2022, the second half of 2024 and, let’s project, the whole of 2025. So, adding those, 2 good years, which is 50% of the “era”, I guess is not too bad for such a short period of time.
However, the rules, the true spirit of the rules, died the first year when FIA caved to the pressure and interests of a few teams. In that sense, it already has been an utter failure in that it failed to fulfill one of its main objectives: to make close following easier and with that, achieve better racing. Add to that, that it has been unable to eliminate or change bad rules and concepts (DRS, parc ferme, mandatory use of compounds, bad tyres, formula conservation, etc.), and the failure is even more significant.
However, in my view, it has achieved a closer field and convergence in a relatively short time, which is probably the only redeeming aspect (which ironically will not be taken enough advantage of as the next rule change is happening too soon).
Don’t know if the sprints can be considered a part of this rule set exclusively, but IMO, they have been successful and there should be more of them (if not a rethink of the main races).

[Boxerevo]

1-  Narrower window to operate these tyres.

 

2- Overtakes became harder again.

[loki]

Yes

[Ruudbackus]

It's hard to say if the rules were good or not, Engine wise the freeze helped the gap on thaty side not getting bigger and the field closed a whole lot during these aearo regulations. I mean the start of 22 untill the td hit ferrari was good. 23 wasn't good competitive wise but on the achievements RedBull and Verstappen managed to get that year there wasa enough to keep following it (for me at least) Last year started off as looking even more dominant then 23 and then Miami came. And since Miami alst year has really been fun with Ferrari,Mclaren and Mercedes all winning races and Redbull having to wait to Brazil for atheir next win. Each gp it could be a different team on top. This year starts again with the 23 vibes of a team being qwuite far ahead. But its too early to call.

 

In general we have had quite some fun races the last few years, more then in the rea before (the best era before this for me was 2007-2010).

 

Are the rules a succes? I missed the option i dont know in the poll so I voted end of season.

- The aim was to make overtaking possible by letting cars follow more closely. Well I still think 90% of the overtakes are DRS driven, and following was possible in the early stages but seems just as hard now as it has been before these rules. So there i must say they failed.

- Cars would look better (according to the video that was a goal) I do agree they look good, but they are oversized in both weight and width it seems. So this is a neutral for me

- Tires, well yeah no, failure

- Budget Cap; had it starting problems but I do feel this is the main reason teams have gotten close (both at the top as in the class behind). I mean 1 seconds between 1st and 20st in qualification is something we haven't seen much if even at all. So definetely a possitive there

- Sprints; I might be an odd one out here but some of those I really enjoy and the challenges it gives teams to get the right setup also is kinda good to see. The latest chances to put the sprint before qualification for the main gp was the right direction

[Ali_G]

Racing: Big improvement until that mid season TD which seemed to scupper things. We truly don’t know how good the cars were in the first half of 2022 as DRS meant that drivers waited until DRS zones to even attempt passing.

Interest: as good as before. Verstappen dominating did not detract or at least I can separate this from the rule set. Now that it has settled we have 4 teams very close to each other. Madness changing the rules again when they just required tweaking.

Looks: best looking cars since the very early 90s. They may be too long but at least from side profile, they look balanced. We finally got rid of wing struts and the ****ing things are making a return next year. Infuriating. Reducing width the 1.9m is an incredibly bad move too give it will make the cars more stable.

[CharlesWinstone]

I voted succes. But also the cost cap plays a big part in this bringing the cars a lot closer. With every year and small technical changes overtaking got more and more difficult though.

[Ali623]

The cars could follow better before this ruleset was watered down, but since then it's been a steady march back to the old status quo. Had they stuck with it, they may have actually been able to eliminate DRS, or at least diminish its use vs expanding it the way they've been doing.

 

There was no way they were ever going to eliminate DRS regardless of TD39 or not. As someone else mentioned above, the lesser dirty air with these regs meant there's ended up being less slipstream and DRS is actually become even more reliant on.

[Sterzo]

- Sprints; I might be an odd one out here but some of those I really enjoy and the challenges it gives teams to get the right setup also is kinda good to see. The latest chances to put the sprint before qualification for the main gp was the right direction

I join you in being odd. I enjoy the sprint races because they are pure races, without the nonsense of pretending pit stops are necessary. Compulsory stops remind me of a pony gymkhana for children, where they have to stop and pick an apple out of a bucket with their teeth. Come to think of it, they should do that in a GP instead of changing tyres. It would save waste.

[Ali_G]

There was no way they were ever going to eliminate DRS regardless of TD39 or not. As someone else mentioned above, the lesser dirty air with these regs meant there's ended up being less slipstream and DRS is actually become even more reliant on.

It’s impossible to tell. The only way to see if DRS was no longer required before TD39 was to run a race without DRS.

DRS fundamentally changes how the cars are driven and where on the track drivers try to attack.


The biggest generator of drag by the way are the cars wheels. The wheels are bigger than ever under the current rule set.

Edited by Ali_G, 25 March 2025 - 12:13.

[Analog]

I don't like these rules at all. The almighty floor is magic and invisible, breaks easily and make the driving more like science than music.

[Alfisti]

People are not understanding that the tyres are not Pirelli's fault or F1's fault or whatever, the engineers have just gotten too smart. If we went to a firmer tyre the drivers could lean on it would be all one stoppers without fail and just a train of cars like we saw in China but faster. If they go super soft and effectively force two stoppers they will redesign the cars to make sure they can turn most two stoppers into one stoppers.

 

The only possible solution is to increase pit lane speeds to like 120kmh and reduce the penalty for stopping, I touched on this in another thread last year saying I could not understand why so many teams were two stopping when clearly the one stopper worked, it costs near 30 seconds to stop, that is near impossible to make up on track. 

[Muppetmad]

I'm not technically minded, so I defer to the expertise of others here, but from what I've read, I wonder how different things would look if active suspensions were allowed. Ground effect is the right way to go, but I get the sense it has been weirdly implemented, which has caused a lot of problems across the formula.

[Sterzo]

People are not understanding that the tyres are not Pirelli's fault or F1's fault or whatever, the engineers have just gotten too smart. If we went to a firmer tyre the drivers could lean on it would be all one stoppers without fail and just a train of cars like we saw in China but faster. If they go super soft and effectively force two stoppers they will redesign the cars to make sure they can turn most two stoppers into one stoppers.

 

The only possible solution is to increase pit lane speeds to like 120kmh and reduce the penalty for stopping, I touched on this in another thread last year saying I could not understand why so many teams were two stopping when clearly the one stopper worked, it costs near 30 seconds to stop, that is near impossible to make up on track. 

Disagree. We had decades of decent F1 racing with no tyre changes. The current cars should provide good racing without the nonsense of cheese tyres and compulsory stops. They already do in sprints. And if, repeat if, there are problems in following etc, then solve those problems, don't impose silly rules in an attempt to distract from them.

[TomNokoe]

The only possible solution is to increase pit lane speeds to like 120kmh and reduce the penalty for stopping, I touched on this in another thread last year saying I could not understand why so many teams were two stopping when clearly the one stopper worked, it costs near 30 seconds to stop, that is near impossible to make up on track.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is compounded by some tracks having incredibly long pit lanes, like Imola.

The pit lane speed is so slow now that it was quicker during the refuelling era! I agree a modest bump to 100 or 120kph would be a great help.

[Risil]

People are not understanding that the tyres are not Pirelli's fault or F1's fault or whatever, the engineers have just gotten too smart. If we went to a firmer tyre the drivers could lean on it would be all one stoppers without fail and just a train of cars like we saw in China but faster. If they go super soft and effectively force two stoppers they will redesign the cars to make sure they can turn most two stoppers into one stoppers.

 

The only possible solution is to increase pit lane speeds to like 120kmh and reduce the penalty for stopping, I touched on this in another thread last year saying I could not understand why so many teams were two stopping when clearly the one stopper worked, it costs near 30 seconds to stop, that is near impossible to make up on track. 

 

The tyres Firestone make for Indycar seem to provide a much better balance of being able to push them hard and then for them to degrade and lose performance. The budgets are an order of magnitude smaller but the engineers and drivers know how to use the equipment in the most effective manner.

 

Of course in Indycar the fuel situation means 2 or 3 stops are required at most tracks. Which I'm sure changes the picture somewhat. The best Indycar road course races are reliably the ones where the teams go in not knowing if 2 or 3 stops will be faster.

[OvDrone]

I am one of the most vehement counter voices on this set of regulations in this forum I think. The cars look like huge boats that just look awkward on track. There is no element I like from them, the sidepods, all the fiddly bits around the floor, the huge cartoon like rear wings, the simplified front wings, I don't know, it just doesn't look like F1 to me. I liked 2009-2013. I did not mind 2014-2016 and I think 2017-2921 was up there with 2005ish and 1998ish beasts. They were fantastic and looked on point. Now ? Ugh.

The first 2.5 seasons were terrible. Especially 2023 and even now I barely tune in to half of the season. I think people have a way too positive view of last season and how competitive these cars have been. They still cook the tires following a car and it's mostly DRS passes. Yes the field is more together, but that is due to the teams converging. Yes the 2022 Ferrari looked great but it sucked results wise ultimately. 

I was shocked with just how sleek, shorter and more fascinating the WEC Hypercars looked compared to F1s beast boats - remember Alpine's launch together with their Sportscar prototype. The sooner we get rid of these regs the better and hopefully the FIA have much better ideas than the overhyped product this turned out to be. But I am not holding my breath on that.

[IrvTheSwerve]

I was shocked with just how sleek, shorter and more fascinating the WEC Hypercars looked compared to F1s beast boats - remember Alpine's launch together with their Sportscar prototype. The sooner we get rid of these regs the better and hopefully the FIA have much better ideas than the overhyped product this turned out to be. But I am not holding my breath on that.

 

Modern WEC Hypercars look more intimidating, aggressive and 'sexier' than F1 cars, now - which is something I thought I'd never say 10+ years ago.

[SenorSjon]

People are not understanding that the tyres are not Pirelli's fault or F1's fault or whatever, the engineers have just gotten too smart. If we went to a firmer tyre the drivers could lean on it would be all one stoppers without fail and just a train of cars like we saw in China but faster. If they go super soft and effectively force two stoppers they will redesign the cars to make sure they can turn most two stoppers into one stoppers.

 

The only possible solution is to increase pit lane speeds to like 120kmh and reduce the penalty for stopping, I touched on this in another thread last year saying I could not understand why so many teams were two stopping when clearly the one stopper worked, it costs near 30 seconds to stop, that is near impossible to make up on track. 

 

When Pirelli mandates pressures that when used with helium, the cars would float, we can most certainly lay the blame on Pirelli. 

 

Even this weekend, almost 2.0 bar pressures https://www.racefans...icant-graining/

 

That used to be around 1.0 in the tire wars.

[Alfisti]

Disagree. We had decades of decent F1 racing with no tyre changes. The current cars should provide good racing without the nonsense of cheese tyres and compulsory stops. They already do in sprints. And if, repeat if, there are problems in following etc, then solve those problems, don't impose silly rules in an attempt to distract from them.

 

It's not 1991 anymore and tbh some of the racing you guys describe is through VERY rose coloured glasses. The racing from about 1998 through 2008 was absolute garbage, tyres could be pushed hard during tyre wars and it was still rubbish. Technology and knowledge has moved on, EVERYTHING is optimised, look at how hard rookies and drivers who move teams are finding it to beat the incumbent, everything is squeezed to within an inch of it's life.  

 

Fact is, you need a tyre a solid 2 seconds a lap faster to bridge the 25 or so seconds you lose in a stint. It takes way too long to make a stop, there's the issue. 

[Anderis]

Disagree. We had decades of decent F1 racing with no tyre changes.

That was ages ago with much different technology.

 

Not saying current tyre approach is a necessity but so many things that worked in the past would end up being extremely uninspiring with today's technological advances.

[Alfisti]

When Pirelli mandates pressures that when used with helium, the cars would float, we can most certainly lay the blame on Pirelli. 

 

Again though, they are just reacting to what the teams are doing. The teams engineer the car and the driving style etc to put more load on the tyre than you'd expect, the goal posts keep shifting.

 

The genie is out of the bottle, we know what we know, the only way to end all this is to make two stopping faster than one stopping and without refueling that is INCREDIBLY difficult. 

[Anderis]

The only possible solution is to increase pit lane speeds to like 120kmh and reduce the penalty for stopping,

I doubt anyone in F1 will dare to advocate for that only to face enormous scrunity for the first serious pit lane accident that's going to happen after this change.

 

Perhaps a more acceptable solution would be to rebuild pit lane exits so that they're kind of shorrtcuts (like in Montreal, for example, just more extreme). But of course it would cost a lot of money and not every track has space to be modified like that.