Big F-1 changes for 2013 back to the good ole days? Maybe ........
 

Formula One could see a return to turbo engines and ground effect cars for the 2013 Championship.

With F1 looking to become more environmentally friendly and keep costs to a minimum, the sport has put together several Working Groups to look at various ways that F1 could achieve those aims.

According to Autosport, one idea being discussed is the use of a 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo engine that would be handed a power boost through Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS).

Added to that, Williams' technical director Sam Michael revealed that the teams are also keen to introduce a fuel flow rate limit.

"Rather than dump as much fuel in as we can at the moment, there will be a fuel flow metre - so you won't be able to blow more than a certain amount of fuel. It is a good chunk less than we had at the moment," he said.

As for ground effect cars, Michael added: "They are talking about putting a greater proportion of downforce to the diffuser, a ground effect car - like the early 1980's.

"They have been looking at that, as well as increasing crash protection at the front of the car by moving the sidepods further forwards."

I guess the fuel flow restrictor is just a different way to limit the power like an air restrictor. Either way the power will be limited but restricting fuel will sound “greener” since everyone buys gas and not the air.

I think they should go back to real manual trannys, 1200hp, and no driver aides!

Those of you with short memories need to be reminded of the old Group C fuel economy regs that were universally condemned back in the 80's.

The heck with making F1 "green" and any other PC crap. There's absolutely no point to it. Who cares how much fuel the cars burn? The spectators coming to the race will burn a vast amount more...

The more things they regulate, the worse the sport will get. Don't believe it? See you in a couple of years...

JR

Agreed, dump the "fuel flow rate limit" and "Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems" krap.

I would however like to see turbos make a comeback to F1.

Dump any of the green techno - what precisely is the point? F1 is about spectacle.

Lose a bunch of the aero, but let them go to town with ground effects. If a car can't perform when behind another car due to loss of downforce, you're killing your passing opportunities.

And yes, turbos rock!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1283929389.jpg


No Carbon Fiber
No Computers
3 liters, or 1.5 with power adders
9" wide slicks

Let's watch race drivers, not technicians and gizmos race

I think racing should improve the breed. The question is, what are we breeding ?

F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle in automotive sport. It used to be. Now it is a watered down version of its former self. I used to love watching cars go through some corners at 300kmh, sideways at 200kmh on the exit of some corners. It required a skill set few drivers had or have. It was a learned art.

Having been on the design end and the racing end of such open wheel, single seaters, the topic of what would make the best Formula 1 ruleset came up quite often. A friend of mine came up with, what I think, are the best rules:

1. Here are your tires. You car must use four of them. Not two, not six.

2. Here is your fuel (makes box shape with hands). You get this type and this much for the entire race. No more, no less.

3. Here are two boxes: in one, the wheelbase and trackwidth of the car must be contained. In the other larger box, all the bodywork/aero of the car must be contained.



And that is it. those three rules. Turbine power? do it. active suspension? who cares. active aero? yes please.

The fuel restriction limits the cars to a fundamental achievable average horsepower (average.. but no peak).

The volume limits the aero devices from getting too silly and the sizes of the cars to be similar.

The tires maintain that there will be a set performance limit of all the vehicles. No matter what crazy cars the manufacture comes up with, the tires will always limit the available grip and thus speed of the vehicles.

It has been said that today is what the "good ol' days" will be in a few years.

I've longed for race cars to be what they once were, but that don't sell to the grandkids.

Guys, let it go. If the things become space ships, so be it. I'm sure there were people that knew good racing ended when mechanics stopped riding in the car.

As for me, I like 70's race cars and 70's looking girls:

http://digilander.libero.it/guido_19...quel-welch.jpg

This is what F1 looks like to me these days:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._5894583_n.jpg

The crazy technology days are over. F1 has gone backwards in the last 10 years.

1993 saw the most advanced suspension technology.

The 80's turbo 1.5L cars saw the most power. The early 2000's V10's saw similar power with lots more technology and reliability.

The mid 80's cars had the best ground effects, while 2008 saw the most advanced aero concepts thanks to modern CFD simulation capability.

The last of the V10's saw the greatest in traction control and launch control computers in 2005-2006.

And the current crop of gearboxes and chassis safety are the best they've been.

So what makes the ultimate combination of the rules?

A car with full ground effects allowed, the wing envelopes of the late 80's, unlimited active aero, the turbo rules of the late 80's, the active suspension rules of the early 90's, the CFD simulation of today, the engine reliability and simulation of today, the traction control of 2005, the tires of today (although they drive comparisons to the tires used around 1993-94, pre grooves) and you've got yourself cars that aren't just slightly faster around a circuit- but several seconds quicker. And just as safe.


For those looking to the golden days of F1- from an engineer's standpoint, 1990-1993 had to be it for me. Big aero, active suspension, V8, V10, and V12's all together...

Suppose you built an F 1 car under "unlimited" rules such as Schumi described.

Seems to me you'd use aero aggressively and actively. When the car is braking hard, all the aero should configure for max downforce and air brakes should deploy. When the car is turning, air brakes are replaced by tail stab/rudder for steering. When the car is accelerating, configure for low drag and just enough downforce for steering control. The car would act like a hawk, constantly changing shape and size. Talk about dirty air behind. Passing might be even harder.

Also seems the suspension would be aggressively active. Spring rate, roll stiffness, camber would all be constantly changing to the optimal setup for the exact location on the track and the maneuver being performed. A computer programmer's wet dream?

Also seems to me you'd want to use every bit of driver assistance possible. Would the driver actually steer the car, or would his input on the control be translated by computer to the ideal slip angle for each of the four steered wheels, in coordination with the swiveling aero rudders and traction control software?

I think the cars would have stunning performance. Perhaps they might also cost $1BN a season, there might only be three teams on the lead lap, and the ideal driver might be a bulemic midget triple amputee with great joystick skills. You know - light and easily packaged.

They wouldn't go that radical.... The electronics and cylinders to actuate all the changes would weigh to much... Sure that stuff would be there to some degree.... But weight would be a factor as well.

Sid-

They have active aero devices now. Their use is just very limited.

They had active suspension up til 1993. It didn't weight too much then, and now it could be made incredibly light. The mass of the actuators would be made light and their use would be highly specialized- that is part of the beautiful design problem posed by such limitless rules- there is a fine balance between all the benefit of actuated/articulated aero surfaces and the inertial and mass increase that comes with them.


The computer work has already been done. I worked for some time on a research program studying simulations involving active aerodynamics.

I'll admit. I'm not all up to speed on F1. But why all the limitations?

They keep trying to slow the car down to safer speeds. With Schumi's ultimate car the top speeds on the long tracks would be astounding. The G-forces would be inhumane, and the costs would be HUGE.

The only reason they race is for entertainment of the audience. Just like any televised sport, it is all about getting viewers and fans. When the races get boring the fans quit watching. F1 really needs to have more passing and lead changes to make it exciting. It is great when your favorite driver starts on the pole, leads for every single lap and has the fastest race lap. It is boring when you are a fan of the rest of the field.

My solution is eliminate all the electronic drivers’ aids. No more paddle shifting, put a stick and a clutch pedal back in the car. No ABS, NO traction control, and only minimal aero to keep the cars on the ground. We don’t want cars flying into the air like some of the Lemans cars did. I can see the need to an air restrictor to limit HP.

I do like the current rule of no refueling. Everyone starts with a fixed fuel load. You have to make it to the finish line to win. One spec of tire for everyone.

And bring back refueling with the above. Tired of all the electronic crap as it allows anyone to drive the car. Try hand shifting around Monaco for the entire race then we will call you a driver.