Making F1 more competitive
 

Reading the NASCAR thread has me thinking...

I love F1, but there are times when it gets a little dull. I would love to see the field shaken up a little, a bit more overtaking etc.
But how do you do that without fiddling it like NASCAR?

All practicalities aside, what about allowing the drivers to qualify as normal but awarding points for qualifying position. Then allocating cars to drivers for the race on the basis of 'fastest driver gets slowest car' for the race with the same points system used for finishing position?

How about banning wings or other aerodynamic down-force generating devices, and raising the minimum ground clearance to 12"?

Making the driver get out and change his own tires and refuel?

Pit-stops where the crews have to wear giant size gloves? :D

What would you like to see?

Throw out some ideas, who cares about the real world!

You would get a lot more and better responses if the options were more serious.

Come on, 12 inch ground clearance on cars? Why not make them race "lifted pickup trucks" then? Swapping drivers around in various cars is never going to happen due to the contracts that take months to work out.

This last season was one of the best in the last 5-6 years but they are getting a bit silly at times IMHO. Finally allowing the cars to have tire changes helped, but this two race engine limit is at times a bit much. We should be racing, not in an endurance contest.

Max Mosley needs to find a job driving a street sweeper and let some fresh blood in the sport. Maybe he can take Bernie with him...

The new 2008 engine rules are also a joke. We need to curb costs somehow but Formula One has always been a chance to engineer the best ideas, not stop all development as is proposed for an entire year.

If they'd just get rid of the carbon brakes, I think there'd be a lot more passing.

It’s kind of hard to have it both ways. Either you have a spec series, like Champ Car, where everyone has the same chassis, engine and tires, or you require (F1) or allow innovation.

With a spec series, you end up like NASCAR or IRL, where they have way more wing and tire than engine. They can go three wide all the way around an oval track. I suppose this is exciting to some, but to me it is even more boring than an F1 race where one team dominates due to their technical superiority.

For me, the technical side of F1 is one of the things that fascinates me about the sport. I don’t want anything to take away from this, and mandating things like wings and engines, etc, can do that. This new “run your engine for two years” rule bothers me a bit. I want to see technical advancement on a regular basis. Holding them back artificially seems counter to the idea of F1.

The downside of this can be boring races when one team is way ahead of the rest of the field, but historically this is rather rare. Mostly there are a few teams capable of a win, a few in mid-pack and a few at the back of the field. Which team is where can vary year to year. Remember when Williams and McLaren were at the top of the field?

I would rather risk the occasional year or two of boring races than turn F1 into IRL or NASCAR.

Also, remember that next year they will all be on the same tire. This will tighten things up a bit.

machine guns

Joeaksa - I wasn't being totally serious, I just wanted to get some different ideas. I know realistically these things are not going to get anywhere, but I wanted to see the results of some far-out thinking (or no to little thinking! :D ).

I hate the thought of really making F1 a circus, but I would like to see a return to the mid 60's style of cars with no aero. Obviously the 60's cars were very dangerous, but what could you do with similar cars to modern standards?
The 12" ground clearance, OK ridiculously excessive, but it would stop ground effects from being considered.
Swapping drivers in cars isn't going to work realistically, but imagine IF it was possible, you would really see who can drive anything fast, and who can set up their own car to be fast. I just think it would be interesting that's all.

I agree that F1 is an engineers sport, but costs do need to be kept in control, so how would you do it?

Maybe giving everyone a set of components, such as brakes, transmission etc. then letting them put it together in a car of their own design is the way to go. That way you would be able to do things like stopping the use of carbon brakes, as 125shifter suggested.

This has been posted before, but it is still way cool:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7393939630149644203

Make 22" spinnaz a requirement.

How about a 100% no-limit "run what you brung" race. That would surely make it interesting.

Why do cost need to be kept in control? F1 has always been expensive and will continue to be so if they want to stay the most advanced from of motor racing.

With your question you're assuming that F1 is about the driver. That's not the case. F1 is not a spec series where the abilities of the driver, or any one team member are paramount. It has always been a test of the driver, the engineer, the mechanic, the team organizer, the people who get the sponsorship money, the accountants, essentially everyone who is involved with the team all at the same time.

Personally I don't think that the F1 formula is broken and would like to see it go back to less restrictive rules, not more. All the new regulations for engines are crap. Let them inovate and let the best team win.

And, F1 costs are kept in check. They can only spend as much money as they can gather, and no more. That's the way it should be.

Want to see innovation? Get rid of the rules.

Simply say "vehicle must be a 4-wheeled vehicle, all 4 wheels must remain in contact with the ground at all times and power must be transmitted via those wheels to move the vehicle (no rocket or jet engines using thrust to create the movement). Maybe an overall size or weight limit, no deliberate running other vehicles off the track - that's it. Race starts on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a time, first guy to the line wins".

Then you'd see some REAL innovation.

leave it alone, except make the tracks bigger, wider, with longer straights.
That way there would be a much bigger trade off between downforce and top speed.

Limit areo to front and rear wing only, limit the total area of those wings but unlimited shape.

Maximum length, width, and weight limits.

No active suspension or traction control.

Unlimited engine, tires, and brakes.

one of the big issues (if you believe Steve Matchett) is that the aero packages make the trailing car unstable when they get close to the car in front. Modify the aero requirements to address that and it could go a long way.

I'm against a spec series. We already have those. I don't mind some sort of engine rules though, as it is great to see how the engineers deal with certain limitations (ie two races). Maybe just make the penalty for a blown engine a bit less.

Run every race in the wet? That was an entertaining one this last season.

How about giving each team an energy limit? Any fuel and engine type within reason. Everyone gets the same number of BTUs. That might open up some innovation.

mike
'78SC

The biggest problem is that some of the tracks used, just don't cater for such fast cars and simply dont have enough room for over taking. I can forgive Monaco because it has such hugh character but other especialy the Hungary should be axed.

No suggestions for "Push to Pass"? :p

I love Champ Car but utterly can't stand that rule. . .

This is what it used to be then the sport got regulated. Gone downhill since.

Personally I would really like to see the auto gearbox removed and make the guys have to shift a lever again. It was a joy watching Monaco years ago and the guys dicing against everyone.

Do not like the way the sport is going. I was sent a survey by the FIA earlier this year and filled it out but guess that there were not enough votes like mine.

Eliminate all driver aids (including semiauto boxes).

Narrower tires and track (width of the tire centerlines not the racetrack).

Limit downforce at a given speed. (measure in a wind tunnel - team pays).

There hasn't been a real "Driver's" championship for years.

I like the idea of less driver aids and less contact patch. Maybe removing from and read aero devices is another option, I'm sure a ton of $$ is spent there.

One thing I dont like about F1 is how fragile the cars seem to be. Rather than grenade with the smallest but of contact I would much rather see a driver work his way back up to the front. The last thing I want to see is the bump pass, or whatever it's called in Nascar, but making the cars a little more durable would be nice.

I agree entirely. That and a Le Mans style start.

F1 needs drivers that believe rubbin' is racin'. You can get Dale Jr and Tony Stewart to mix things up a bit. ;)

I look at the "official F1 site" to get time and location of the races.

Someone posted a link to "a good F1 site" but I'm too lazy to dig up the NASCAR thread.

Anyone want to clue me in to some good F1 sites?


How about they limit the teams to two set of tires a race, one wet and one dry? Of course they would be allowed to change tires in the even of a flat.

I also don't get the "keeping expenses" excuse... that would be great if it were armature racing but this is supposed to be the exact opposite... the pinnacle of automobile racing.

Good F1 sites: atlasf1 (aka autosport.com - $50 yr), pitpass.com, grandprix.com
OK F1 sites: planetf1.com, itv-f1.com

Proposal: Maximum total surface area for wings. No flex. The shape and number of wings is free. Non-wing aero devices - with an engine air intake exception - a maximum of two inches above or below their mounting surface.

Mosely did make an interesting point recently - stating current F1 tech no longer has a beneficial impact on road car technology. The manufacturer's use F1 as a training ground for select engineers. Manufacturer's are concerned the over emphasis on aero development in F1 has no positive value for street cars. ROI is terrible. So. Expect to see a very large reduction in aero cost and development thru regulation change and a corresponding increase in mechanical, electrical, fuel, tech development in F1's future. We may even see different fuels for different engine capacities. We will see a lot of heat-loss and energy recyclable engine systems in the future. Tiny engines with turbos. The turbo era will return!!

Everything they do to slow the cars down hurts the sport. 2.4 liter v-8 engines, no turbochargers, limited downforce, limited tires, limited qualifying, bah. If I wanted to watch indy car racing I would. Don't turn F-1 into indy or champ cars.

Why does slowing the cars down hurt the sport? Adding chicanes to the tracks - I can see that hurts the racing, but slowing the cars down? As long as the cars are travelling at about the same speed as each other there will be racing.

A couple of other people have mentioned track size. Do you think that the tracks have effectively become 'smaller' with the increase in speed? I can see that this may be the case, a car doing 150mph will need a lot less space than a car doing 200mph. Maybe the straights do need to be longer, the corners wider. I wonder if there is a corner configuration that would allow multiple entry/exit lines?

What about running the cars on methanol, like the champ cars use? Or even a high concentration of Methanol or Ethanol in gasoline? You get an immediate reduction in the calorific value of the fuel with the added enviromental benefits. It could also encourage interest and development into the oil-alternative fuels and be closer to what we will be seeing in road vehicles in the future.

I guess that your unfavorable opinion of Champ cars is based upon the current series rather than the series that was, back until end of 2004? It USED to be a good series...

I have no objection to the slamming of Indy car.

The problem with some of these aerodynamic rules is that they get very difficult to control.
For instance, if you have a rule to limit the turbulence that a car generates how do you measure that? You can't realistically put every car in the wind tunnel each race.

One of the comments on the relevance of aerodynamic downforce on road cars is valid. While a lot of other technologies have made their way from the track to the road, the use of downforce isn't very practical on a road car. The sport has definitely developed in that direction for the last 30-odd years, but a part of me wonders how interesting it would be to cut that line off and see what the next 'revolution' the innovators could come up with.

Re - aero rule enforcement. You're right - measuring downforce is difficult and expensive. IMHO, measuring surface area is cheaper and can be done at each race with laser scanning technology. You control a range of downforce and thereby its effect on leading and trailing cars by controling the effective working area of a wing - its upper and lower surfaces and leading and trailing edges. It would be cool to see a lot of different sized and curved wings or number of wings and elements, at different tracks - you could have four smaller rear wings or one big rear wing - up to the designer and lap times.

Regarding track size - changing the aero rules and maybe maximum brake pad square inches - would go the farthest to increase passing and different passing lines. Hungary was a great race this year just because of the rain. Rain has the same effect as reduced aero - it lowers grip which in turn increases skill requirements.

F-1 is supposedly the pinnacle of open wheel racing because of the speed, power, and technology.
If you dummy down F-1 by putting more and more restrictions on power, down force, technology, it just becomes another series (like champ or indy).

Focus on what makes F-1 better and emphasize it.

What? F1 was the "pinnacle of motorsport" well before down force was ever a commonly used term.

If you want to make F1 competitive again with passing and stupid stuff like that, introducing the human error (by eliminating driver aids) and forcing the cars to go a different direction than wings etc is quite reasonable. If downforce is your karma, why don't you write to Bernie & Max telling them to bring back the "Fan" car?

I think snipers would spice things up.

I guess no one watched last season because there were a LOT of very exciting races last year.

This next season should be very exciting too due to all the driver changes.

I wish they would lift the 1 engine 2 races deal its making more costs not saving money.

I actually like the new qualifying formet a lot its very cool and does not give anyone and advantage when it rains they are all out in it together.

Its like 3 little races with the best one last. I think its the best format yet.

I would like to see less downforce and loss of traction control. Leave anti lock brakes because they help a driver dive deeper and brake later.

I would also like to see them lift a lmit on engine size and only limit output. This would allow teams to invent more.

F-1 was the pinnacle of motor sports before downforce because it featured the best technology, the best teams, the best drivers, it has always been the major league.
Slowing it down, taking away more technology, taking away tires, or engines, or whatever puts it closer to minor league.

If they slowed the F-1 cars down so that they all ran the same speed, say roughly the same speed as ther go-karts at the local fun zone or miniature golf course, they would not go fast enough to generate down force and there would be more passing.

If they take away all the tires and spare parts (including engines), the drivers would wave each other past with no blocking because they would be afraid to take a chance on breaking anything.

How about if they are only allowed 10 gallons of fuel per weekend? i bet drafting and passing would really come into play then.

How many of us have actually watched an F-1 car run in person? i have, it is simply unbeleivable.
The sound, the speed, no way to describe it. Don't take that away or we might as well be watching malibu grand prix go-karts.

I absolutely loved ther old can am series, where basically anything goes. Big engines, big power, huge wings, and small cars.
That was racing.

If F-1 becomes a spec racing series, I will not watch. Hear that Bernie?
Yeah like he really cares.

I think a HP rule would be good, you could run a turbo 4 or 6 or 8 or a V-10 or V-12 the only requirment is that you cannot exceed a given amount of HP be it 700 or 900 HP.

As we all know HP curves can vary greatly, suddenly you have a team developing an engine that has lots of power through the entire bend. Then we can benefit from better designed engines and turbo setups.

I personally love the way it is now, these drivers are akin to fighter pilots except their fighter jets have wheels. I am blown away by how these car corner and how hard they can brake.

I really do not think it is broke, except for Bernie and Max screwing with the rules to cut costs, last time I checked the whole appeal of this sport was the no expense spared approach to it. Right down to the motor homes.

I just finished reading Steve Matchett's book "Chariot Makers" (great read) and I guess my thought on going back to steel brakes is not true. He said when they thought carbon brakes would be outlawed they started testing steel brakes and the braking distances were the same. He said the real benefit of carbon brakes is weight.

F1 has modified rules and regulations since the thirties and it has done so with no real reduction in status, excitement, or innovation. Regulation adjustment is necessary as new technology is introduced.

Simply not true. They continue to do more with less engine, grooved tires etc. Slowing the cars down by reducing engine displacement, turbos, footprint, contact patch or aero makes manufacturer's develop other things that can make the cars faster.

Furthermore, even if cars have the same or different speeds, a missed downshift or upshift not only can break the car, but allows passing in the corners and reintroduces the importance of the driver - which has been sorely lacking. Then we'd get to see if Alonso is really as bad as others say or whether Schumacher is as good as some people think.


Just to let you know - they did restrict fuel at one point.

Probably been said before, but I would:

Put in fuel metering, you can burn it however you want, but you only get XX cc/sec maximum, plus a limited tank capacity.

Get rid of all but front and rear wings, limit their area, but shape is free.

Minimum ride height, with flat bottoms to eliminate ground effects

Set a maximum wetted area for entire car, preferably less than to day to make streamlining (and hopefully turbulence) smaller

Limit brake size, material and tire width to smaller than today

I agree with Max's concerns, just not his methods to get there. F1 will always be expensive and as long as people are willing to pay..why not?

Dennis

Apart from the lack of overtaking, which as Jim has pointed out seems to have been a bit better recently, the biggest issue still seems to be that there is a huge void between the top teams and the also-rans. This is why the cost cutting measures came about surely?
I wonder, when you break down the expenses of a top team, where the majority of the development money goes?
Looking just at the car systems, not including engine, I would guess that aerodynamics is top of the list. The amount of time cars spend in the wind tunnel must get quite costly. Of course, most of the big boys have their own wind tunnels, and very sophisticated ones at that. The small teams have to buy their wind tunnel time, probably in a much less sophisticated tunnel.
So would trimmimg down the benefit of aero make a difference? Maybe eliminating downforce and concentrating purely on drag?

I would like to see a reintroduction of fuel limiting. I like the idea of a limited quantity for the race, but this brings substantial cost to an engine development program which is exactly what they are trying to avoid. On the otherhand, it is a benefitial development.

What if teams had to submit technical papers to the FIA for every innovation before it is approved. The FIA then holds onto it until the end of the season and then release all the papers from all the teams at the end of the season. This would help advance technology in areas away from racing, while still allowing teams to develop their own ideas. I don't think that this would cut costs, but at least it makes the development beneficial to the world as a whole.

Aero is definitely the big dog in team expense. The top teams run 2 tunnels 24/7. And it has the least relevance to street cars which is why the manufacturer's want to reduce its importance in F1 and concentrate on other areas of development. Like fuel efficiency. Less heat loss.

FIA already requires teams to submit design specs and crash test results on each new chassis and car and every year. Every major change during the season also requires design spec submission and sign off by FIA tech (Charley Whiting). Case in point is the Renault mass damper. FIA had approved the submitted designs and use description and allowed Renault to put it on the cars. Renault ran it for a season and a half before FIA decided it was a movable aerodynamic device and really shouldn't have been allowed, after all. OOPS ;)

Easiest way to control downforce and reduce aero interference with passing is to reduce surface (wetted) area of wings like Dennis said. Then reduce the maximum braking pad area to increase braking zones and you get more passing. The rain races are exciting, fun, and show more driver skill simply because grip levels are reduces. The line between adhesion and slipping narrows and rewards the most sensitive drivers.