New F1 rules that work.

New F1 rules that work.

Author
Discussion

sweetmate

Original Poster:

51 posts

120 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
Thought id start this topic as clearly F1 rules for most teams drivers fans aren't working and there is no proper thought process on the prose and cons of everything.

Makes me laugh going on about fuel saving when you have 50 to 100,000 people traveling to watch the races mostly with cars helicopters etc the whole race circus for one event probably uses up more fuel then all the cars racing all year by miles. But i understand the point in trying to develop new technologies for the future which i think is great but better allowing that to develop in other ways.

heres some ideas I'm going to throw out there

Engines: sound st firstly and are too expensive for the teams. Rules are also restrictive.

Cost cap on 100,000 per power unit for everyone max 1 engine per race weekend when a manufacturer has an engine anyone can buy it prices fixed parts all transparent on price. Engine is unlimited revs etc except for max 2.4 litres normally aspirated all form of power recovery unlimited. Have to sort the rules so that engine hasn't got massive manufacturer subsidy hidden behind the price i.e. to manufacture the engine won't cost more then 100,000 in parts prices etc.

Bring back 1 allocation of a spare car per team and bring back testing only reserve drivers can test the car away from race weekends and the engine has to be a used unit after a race weekend allow some constructive testing but not millions of miles pounding round far batter then it all going on simulators back at the factory. Test days are better for young up and coming drivers better for spectators and for sponsors then a machine in a factory.

All formula 1 money to be spread equal between all teams including freight etc and prize money given to top 3 finishes 50% to go to the driver to try and even out the prize money for low paid skilled drivers coming in who drive a good race. Team prize not to large so as a team that successful doesn't gain a too big advantage.

All cars get 100 litres of fuel for a race thats it or come up with a amount that works no fuel flow limit.

Ban all live data logging of the car to the pits only what is allowed is gps data showed on FIA cameras of throttle break engine revs and speed. Data allowed when car is obviously in the pit garage.

Im sure other can come up with stuff just started the ball rolling for discussions .

Also cars need to be made harder and more challenging to drive like in the old years.

Edited by sweetmate on Wednesday 29th October 12:52

Vocal Minority

8,582 posts

151 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
Engines: Is the £100,000 just for materials and man hours to assemble each engine? Or does it include R & D?

I have no idea how much these things cost, but I rather expect the figure is not enough for the former. It certainly won't be for the latter

How will you police R&D spending.

zac510

5,546 posts

205 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
Thank goodness, F1's new knight in shining armour is here to save F1!

KaraK

13,177 posts

208 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
sweetmate said:
Thought id start this topic as clearly F1 rules for most teams drivers fans aren't working and there is no proper thought process on the prose and cons of everything.

Makes me laugh going on about fuel saving when you have 50 to 100,000 people traveling to watch the races mostly with cars helicopters etc the whole race circus for one event probably uses up more fuel then all the cars racing all year by miles. But i understand the point in trying to develop new technologies for the future which i think is great but better allowing that to develop in other ways.

heres some ideas I'm going to throw out there

Engines: sound st firstly and are too expensive for the teams. Rules are also restrictive.
Yes the fuel the cars use is insignificant in terms of everything that they use but that's not what it's about - it's about allowing manufacturers to present a message to their potential customers and also giving them a technology development arena.

The sound is subjective and I know I preferred the previous sound but I honestly didn't get why it was such a big deal for everyone earlier in the season - I know I don't even really notice it any more to be honest. prepared to accept that I'm in the minority there though! Agreed that they are very expensive at the moment but changing them all again would only produce more cost, as probably would making the rules more flexible. Leaving the engine rules stable is the best way of getting the costs down as this would curtail R&D which is by far the most expensive bit. You could go back to the previous engine regs I suppose but that would most likely cause you to lose a great deal of enthusiasm from the engine manufacturers.

sweetmate said:
Cost cap on 100,000 per power unit for everyone max 1 engine per race weekend when a manufacturer has an engine anyone can buy it prices fixed parts all transparent on price. Engine is unlimited revs etc except for max 2.4 litres normally aspirated all form of power recovery unlimited. Have to sort the rules so that engine hasn't got massive manufacturer subsidy hidden behind the price i.e. to manufacture the engine won't cost more then 100,000 in parts prices etc.
A more open-ended set of engine design regs would be interesting if you had a price cap on them but this price cap would have to include the R&D as well which would be nigh-on impossible to police - 100k is far too low IMHO though. As above though I'm struggling to see how you'd do this and bring the costs down in real terms.

Not sure how you see 1 engine per race weekend working - do you mean that they literally can't have a spare or that they have 1 engine per race but can distribute them as they see fit?

sweetmate said:
Bring back 1 allocation of a spare car per team and bring back testing only reserve drivers can test the car away from race weekends and the engine has to be a used unit after a race weekend allow some constructive testing but not millions of miles pounding round far batter then it all going on simulators back at the factory. Test days are better for young up and coming drivers better for spectators and for sponsors then a machine in a factory.
Non-race drivers for testing sounds good to me. I'd introduce a mileage limit for testing rather than a day limit or anything like that and otherwise let the teams choose when and where they test. These would combine to mean that teams aren't wasting resources going to tests they aren't ready for yet and also prevent them losing out massively in the development race because they had a failure or similar early on during a day.

sweetmate said:
All formula 1 money to be spread equal between all teams including freight etc and prize money given to top 3 finishes 50% to go to the driver to try and even out the prize money for low paid skilled drivers coming in who drive a good race. Team prize not to large so as a team that successful doesn't gain a too big advantage.
More even split of the money in the sport would be a good thing - although I would still advocate that the team/drivers who finish in the top three say should get a prize money fund. You could potentially temper any team getting on a roll and running away with it by limiting them in other ways, say by reducing their test mileage allowance?


sweetmate said:
All cars get 100 litres of fuel for a race thats it or come up with a amount that works no fuel flow limit.
The fuel flow limit is actually good for the racing - it prevents someone who is on pole just making use of the clear track at the start to up the fuel flow and build a massive gap.

sweetmate said:
Ban all live data logging of the car to the pits only what is allowed is gps data showed on FIA cameras of throttle break engine revs and speed. Data allowed when car is obviously in the pit garage.
Why? I really can't see any racing benefit to doing this and having the data has benefits for safety and reliability. I'd imagine that the cost of any data logging system is paid back many times over the first time it lets you save an engine from grenading itself. And the ability to spot damage/excessive wear to suspension/tires/brakes has probably saved more than one driver having a nasty shunt.

Im sure other can come up with stuff just started the ball rolling for discussions .

sweetmate said:
Also cars need to be made harder and more challenging to drive like in the old years.
This is a pet hate of mine, I've not driven either a "new" or "old" F1 car but I seriously doubt they aren't challenging to drive - yes they challenges have changed over the years which probably makes comparing them a futile effort as an example - the "old years" method of a manual gearlever was no doubt much harder than using the paddleshifts they have now - but then again in the "old years" they weren't also making multiple adjustments per lap to brake bias, fuel mixture, ERS settings, DRS etc and the modern era is faster which means that all this thinking and adjustments has to be done in shorter and shorter windows of time and whilst undergoing higher G-forces as well. The current ruleset with regards driver "aids" like TC and ABS etc strike a good balance to my mind.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
so, having collectively spent some $2Bn on these new powertrains, you want them to scrap them and start again?


Europa1

10,923 posts

187 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
KaraK said:
This is a pet hate of mine, I've not driven either a "new" or "old" F1 car but I seriously doubt they aren't challenging to drive - yes they challenges have changed over the years which probably makes comparing them a futile effort as an example - the "old years" method of a manual gearlever was no doubt much harder than using the paddleshifts they have now - but then again in the "old years" they weren't also making multiple adjustments per lap to brake bias, fuel mixture, ERS settings, DRS etc and the modern era is faster which means that all this thinking and adjustments has to be done in shorter and shorter windows of time and whilst undergoing higher G-forces as well. The current ruleset with regards driver "aids" like TC and ABS etc strike a good balance to my mind.
This. The challenges are different, not removed. As well as the challnges inherent in all the new controls (as against 3 pedals, gearlever, steering wheel, revcounter and a couple of ancillaries) and the higher speeds, witness how much of a handful these cars are if the driver gets the ambition/talent equation wrong applying the power out of a bend - huge dollop of torque, matched by a large serving of oversteer (exhibit A being Bottas on the final corner of qualifying in Sochi).

sweetmate

Original Poster:

51 posts

120 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
i never said get rid of data logging what i said was it being live streaming to the pits with loads of analysts sitting there monitoring it and informing the drivers where there losing out that should be about the driver figuring it all out. but there trying to stop that with radio ban chatter.

GP2 pole position lap time is the same as the tail end of the F1 cars that shouldn't be the case.

this is all hypothetical guys.

2 to 2.5 million for an engine package for the season I'm sure its enough. R&D is up to the engine manufacturers keeping the engine unit price low will naturally stem the R&D going to ballistic. go and see what there spending across the pond in USA and in the DTM see what you get for your money. Allot of the DTM engines are manufactured by UK small companies.

they need to create it so the smaller teams are sustainable financially also helps for keeping the big teams in the sport. Also open up the engineering so creativity can allow lower teams the chance.

suffolk009

5,344 posts

164 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
The cars cost too much.

My proposal is Points For Parts. (In Britain the DVLA issues these for kit cars).

Points are awarded for:

Tub/chassis
Engine
Gearbox
Wings
Suspension
Non-wing aero
Brakes
Electronics
other stuff I haven't thought of yet(?)

I don't know enough about F1 car design to determine the actual points. You would need to make a minimum number of points to qualify as a constructor.

It seems to me a great deal of money is spent by 9 teams making chassis and having them tested. They all design their own aero. Yet only Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari build engines (this year). I'm not sure how many gearboxes there are.

The Points For Parts idea allows teams to use whatever is available at a competitive price and then whilst remaining as constructors they can choose where they spend their R&D £millions.

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
so, having collectively spent some $2Bn on these new powertrains, you want them to scrap them and start again?
It's what the FIA did to the 2.4 V8s. Just dumped them. All that knowledge, all that tooling, all that research wasted.

The reason? To cut costs they said and to make the cars more relevant.

Yup, got that: relevant.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Scuffers said:
so, having collectively spent some $2Bn on these new powertrains, you want them to scrap them and start again?
It's what the FIA did to the 2.4 V8s. Just dumped them. All that knowledge, all that tooling, all that research wasted.

The reason? To cut costs they said and to make the cars more relevant.

Yup, got that: relevant.
The v8s never cost anything like the same (they were cut down from the v10s)


anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
I don't recall the FIA saying the new engines were introduced to cut costs.

The old NA V8's were dinosaurs, if they stuck with them you would only be moaning about how dumbed down they are from the old V10 20Krpm engines that used to be used.

If we still had last years 2.4 V8's, some teams would still be closing or in financial hardship right now, some teams always have been and always will be going to the wall. That's the nature of any sport that rewards the winners and doesn't reward the losers, not just in terms of prize money, but media exposure.

MartG

20,620 posts

203 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
A few ideas - feel free to shoot them down smile

Fuel - to negate the 'fuel is ballast' aspect and underfuelling the cars expecting a safety car/drivers having to lift&coast to conserve fuel, all cars to start the race with 100kg plus whatever is needed for a fuel sample ( or more than 100kg - whatever would be needed for flat-out pace for the full race ). Filling supervised by FIA, and maybe car weighed before start too. Fuel flow monitored by FIA to ensure no-one jettisons fuel or deliberately runs rich early on to lose weight quickly.

Test drivers & spare cars - teams to bring a test car & driver to each race - they can take part in all free practice sessions and test drivers get a 20min sprint race on the Saturday afternoon after F1 qualy, after which the car is available as a spare. Spare car can have different sponsors/livery from main team cars. A bit more spectacle for the audience and gives test drivers a bit of F1 race experience.

Double waved yellows anywhere on track triggers drivers getting the signal to drive at safety-car speed, though without the SC being on track

Chuggaboom

1,152 posts

247 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
Front and rear wings should be single element only.

Every 2 years reduce total surface area allowed on the whole car to be used to provide downforce by 20%.

Teams lodge a dwg of their car showing -ve pressure areas with FIA at season start to be used for scruit puposes. If they want to change during the season fine...simply lodge a new dwg with a days notice prior to FP1. If scruit think they are non compliant, FIA pull the car on Monday for full check.

Lets get back to more mechanical grip in the braking zone to improve the likelyhood of drivers competing for corners rather than waiting for the DRS zone. wink


RemarkLima

2,366 posts

211 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
so, having collectively spent some $2Bn on these new powertrains, you want them to scrap them and start again?
Exactly this. Also, remember a large part of that 2bn went to pay for many people's wages for many years, and will continue to do so... That's no bad thing right?

Edited by RemarkLima on Thursday 30th October 19:52

slipstream 1985

12,125 posts

178 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Based on the seasons results teams get a reverse sliding scale of extra testing for next season. So normal testing days for everyone plus 100km for winner 200 km for 2nd place 300km for 3rd etc.

VictorCharlie

30 posts

113 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
to make the cars more relevant.

Yup, got that: relevant.
F1 engines are more relevant now than they have been in a long time. In 10-20 years time most cars are going to be electric/hybrid and the kids that are being born today will look at internal combustion engines the same way 18 year olds today look at landline telephones, 56k dialup modems or steam engines. Old fashioned curiosities.

You don't get the ground shaking roar from the new power trains, but is that really such a bad thing?

F1 should have fast new shiny technology and not be locked into stuff that was designed a decade ago.

The whole noise argument is a bit like parents vs kids over music. Dad tells teenage son to turn down the god awful racket, and whenever Dad plays his Smashing Pumpkins CDs the son drowns it out with Skream in his headphones that's being streamed via spotify.


Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
VictorCharlie said:
F1 engines are more relevant now than they have been in a long time. In 10-20 years time most cars are going to be electric/hybrid and the kids that are being born today will look at internal combustion engines the same way 18 year olds today look at landline telephones, 56k dialup modems or steam engines. Old fashioned curiosities.

You don't get the ground shaking roar from the new power trains, but is that really such a bad thing?

F1 should have fast new shiny technology and not be locked into stuff that was designed a decade ago.

The whole noise argument is a bit like parents vs kids over music. Dad tells teenage son to turn down the god awful racket, and whenever Dad plays his Smashing Pumpkins CDs the son drowns it out with Skream in his headphones that's being streamed via spotify.
sorry, but that's horlicks

current F1 engines are less hi-tech than your everyday Toyota

stop believing the rhetoric and look at the detail

Europa1

10,923 posts

187 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
VictorCharlie said:
F1 engines are more relevant now than they have been in a long time. In 10-20 years time most cars are going to be electric/hybrid and the kids that are being born today will look at internal combustion engines the same way 18 year olds today look at landline telephones, 56k dialup modems or steam engines. Old fashioned curiosities.

You don't get the ground shaking roar from the new power trains, but is that really such a bad thing?

F1 should have fast new shiny technology and not be locked into stuff that was designed a decade ago.

The whole noise argument is a bit like parents vs kids over music. Dad tells teenage son to turn down the god awful racket, and whenever Dad plays his Smashing Pumpkins CDs the son drowns it out with Skream in his headphones that's being streamed via spotify.
sorry, but that's horlicks

current F1 engines are less hi-tech than your everyday Toyota

stop believing the rhetoric and look at the detail
But they are undeniably a whole lot more hi-tech than a normally aspirated V8.

KaraK

13,177 posts

208 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
sweetmate said:
i never said get rid of data logging what i said was it being live streaming to the pits with loads of analysts sitting there monitoring it and informing the drivers where there losing out that should be about the driver figuring it all out. but there trying to stop that with radio ban chatter.
Erm.. without wanting to sound like I'm being an arse that's not what you said, I quoted exactly what you said. The use of telemetry for driver coaching is a Bad Thing(TM) but as you point out they have already taken steps to tackle that problem and I'd say that the difference you've seen in how well some of the rookies are coping since they brought that in shows that it's working. Restricting the data gathering to the pit stops brings about the safety/cost concerns I mentioned in my post.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Europa1 said:
But they are undeniably a whole lot more hi-tech than a normally aspirated V8.
actually, not really, no.

the IC part is arguably much simpler.

Look, if everyday road cars can have MMC blocks, variavle valve timming/lift, variable compression, compound turbo's, variable vein turbo's, etc etc etc. yet F1 can spend millions on something all together simpler?

how is that ground breaking, hi-tech, etc?