So road cars don't have traction control, or paddle shifters and aren't reliant on aerodynamics?

Most F1 technology does make it to the street in one form or another eventually. You can also claim that some technology from the street may eventually make it into NASCAR.

NASCAR has traction control.

It is officially against the rules. It is implemented through the ignition module (and they still use distributors). It is impossible to detect as it is in a computer program that retards/advances ignition.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens in F1.

Re-read my sentence Aerkuld. I am saying exactly what you are saying. We are in complete agreement. :)

If F1 didn't have restraints on the designs, we'd have some incredible machines. It would be great for a year or two.

But then I think we'd see the problems. First, only a couple of teams would be left competing for podium, everyone else would be Minardis. Second, the cars would be far beyond the drivers' abilities. Third, many of the older tracks would have to be abandoned, for safety.

Suppose F1 designs were genuinely and literally "unlimited", with no rules other than required safety equipment and using four wheels. (See P-O-P's post for example.)

Imagine what a F1 car with unlimited engine and fuel technology (turbos, turbine, electric, nitromethane, anything), unlimited active suspension control (variable geometry and spring/damping, using inertial and GPS positioning and track maps), unlimited aero (moving airfoils and ground effects), unlimited driver assistance (traction control, stability control, braking assistance, proximity sensing), unlimited communications (real-time two-way data/commands from car to pits) would be like.

Yes, it would have incredible performance. Sort of like a uber-F15 with wheels. 0-60 in <1 sec, >8g's in turns and braking, 300+ mph on straights. But how long could the drivers stay conscious? And how much would they really be "driving" the car, as opposed to the car's computers doing the inputs based on track maps, proximity of other cars, inertial and GPS guidance, and hundreds of sensors?

By the way, it would cost $2BN/yr and the richest team would always win.

Explain to me how the above three paragraphs aren't happening now?

And Ferrari seems to have bought itself drivers/constructors championships this season by hampering McLaren on and off the track.

so stupid, it must be true.

I guess even developments in weight reduction, size reduction, etc will not be permitted. Really dumb...

Lets see what happens.......

Personally, I think they should make the engine rule a challenge for the competitors. Something along the lines of:

Engine may have no more displacement than 3 liters per 360 degrees of crank rotation. Have fun.


When the manufacturers have mastered hyperfast speeds with 3 liters, then drop it to 2.5 liters... etc.

I just feel that you will always need an area for open development to keep F1 from becoming a spec series. Challenging the manufacturers to excel within some engine limit would provide an avenue for development and keep it interesting for us to watch.


Or really screw with the manufacturers and randomly change the formula every year. One year allow engine mods. Next year, allow aero mods. The following year, require each team to use Alonso for at least one event. and so on. :D

Again?
Sorry, I'm not used to people agreeing with me. :D

+1, I want to see the best of the best, not this crap.

Clearly, you are a married man.

I believe jyl has a point. Is that the reasoning behind the decision maybe or what are their motives ? I wonder what the drivers position on this would be ?

As long as we are playing "what if"...
I would keep things pretty much the same, 2.4L, no TC, no active suspension, no forced induction, everyone runs the same fuel.
Also limit areo to nose and tail wings only with nothing allowed between the axles and no active areo.
Then to make things interesting, unlimited tires and unlimited revs.

I remember a few years ago some team was doing prototype engines with rotary valves. The FIA squashed it before it ever hit the track.

Too bad, it could have been a great success or a huge failure. We will never know.

It almost seems they want to run a packaged car and let the drivers fight it out.

Personally I think that it's a negotiating ploy by Max Mosley. I suspect that at least one of the engine manufactures wasn't "playing ball" in regards to reaching a consensus on the new engine package -- so he threw out the "worst possible" scenario to wake them up.

In regards to HP, the current engine specs were fixed as of the British GP last year, at which time most observers agreed that all of the engines were pretty much at parity for HP. The difference in straight line speed most likely has less to do with gross HP as it does with the efficiency of the aero package. Those who have their aero package optimized can generate the most downforce while still using the least amount of wing. Wings are very draggy and not a particularly efficient means of generating downforce. Those with poor downforce packages have to pile on the wing in order to keep their cornering speeds up. Those teams who also have good mechanical grip can also trim out their wings a little which will also increase their straight line speed.

In the coming years they're also talking about changing the aero rules such that there can not be any overlapping surfaces on the car's body when viewed on the vertical or horizontal axis between virtual boxes where the wings will exist (for tuning purposes). That will do away with the exhaust stacks, "Viking's horns", "X-wings","barge boards", "kick-ups", extended undertrays and other such do-dads which are used for generating downforce on the current cars. Once they do that, I would expect that the cars will start to look more like pre-1970 formula cars!

Was, but I'm slowly adjusting!

I would guess that the motivation here was cost saving. But I would think that the engine is an increasingly insignificant part of an F1 teams budget. I would guess that a lot more money gets spent on chassis development and wind tunnel testing among the top teams than would ever be spent on engines. What might be interesting here though is that, while a manufacturer is not permitted to develop an engine or some parts of an engine for ten years, there is presumably nothing to stop new engine manufacturers from joining the party. Maybe this will reopen the door to allow smaller engine manufacturers back into F1?

Completely agree!
Which brings me back to aero and wind tunnels being a large part of a top F1 team's budget. Assuming the engines are pretty much equal then the biggest difference between a top team and the back of the grid is aero. I would think that there will be very little financial benefit for teams due to engine change rules. I am fairly sure that the way to close up the grid and to save money is to restrict the aero. I like the ideas that are listed above and a coupke of us in the office have been talking about the possibility of single plane wings, or maybe even a spec wing, for sometime. I honestly believe that we would see much closer racing if down force was massively reduced. Heck - what about banning the use of a wing or any down force generating surface in front of the front axle line?
Why don't they just put Jackie Stewart in charge? He'd sort it out I'm sure.

Great idea. Max, give your best buddy Jackie a call and ask him to help you out. ;)

It would be happening far worse than it is happening now.

Basically you'd have something like fighter planes/missiles, where there are no limits except physics and money.

One or two teams would have F15's, all the rest would have MIG23's, and races would simply be watching the MIGs get splashed over and over and over. Fun the first couple times but ultimately a yawner.

Oh man, that's what I'm talking about.
F1 should be leading edge technology, not a spec racing series.