F1 2021 Regulation changes
Discussion
thegreenhell said:
And then made the wings bigger because they were too slow. And then made the tyres narrower because they were too fast. And then banned turbos because they were too fast but made the engines bigger because they were also too slow. Then made the engines smaller again because they were too fast after all. Then put grooves in the tyres because they were too fast. Then made the cars narrower because they were still too fast. Then made the wings bigger because they were too slow. Then made the engines smaller because they were too fast. Then took the grooves out of the tyres again because they were too slow. Then made the cars a lot heavier because they were too fast. Then made the cars and the tyres wider again because they were too slow.
There's a pattern in there somewhere.
I agree, and if you throw all the past changes together there is a clue.There's a pattern in there somewhere.
Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
sparta6 said:
I agree, and if you throw all the past changes together there is a clue.
Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
I would love that! It'll never happen because in the mass media the viewers need a simple enough formula to understand. But in the spirit of what F1 began as, it's how it should be.Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
Opens rule book:
"There's the tracks - go build whatever you think will go round most of them the quickest"
Closes rule book.
sparta6 said:
I agree, and if you throw all the past changes together there is a clue.
Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
It worked in an era before mass sponsorship and funding at the current levels.Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
While laudable, I think it would create a massive engine war with spiralling costs... and then a mass exit the moment you get a downturn. It would create bigger gaps from front to back, not smaller.
Vaud said:
It worked in an era before mass sponsorship and funding at the current levels.
While laudable, I think it would create a massive engine war with spiralling costs... and then a mass exit the moment you get a downturn. It would create bigger gaps from front to back, not smaller.
Without doubt.While laudable, I think it would create a massive engine war with spiralling costs... and then a mass exit the moment you get a downturn. It would create bigger gaps from front to back, not smaller.
the question is, do we want to see a dumbed down and moderated F1 last forever, or see a raw sport rise, become captivating and thrilling, and then self implode when the bubble bursts? The answer to that hardly matters of course... F1 is owned by Liberty now, and clearly they will choose the 'last forever' option every time.
TheDeuce said:
sparta6 said:
I agree, and if you throw all the past changes together there is a clue.
Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
I would love that! It'll never happen because in the mass media the viewers need a simple enough formula to understand. Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
HustleRussell said:
TheDeuce said:
sparta6 said:
I agree, and if you throw all the past changes together there is a clue.
Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
I would love that! It'll never happen because in the mass media the viewers need a simple enough formula to understand. Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
It's simple in context of the previous quoted comments. It's simple because their is a framework as opposed to a 'build what you want and rock up' early days of F1.
Is it simple compared to the rule-book of any other sport? No. It's convoluted. F1 has since the first decade or so been convoluted. Whenever friends make the effort show an interest in F1 for my sake, they inevitably ask perfectly reasonable questions and I always find it difficult to answer any of them without confusing them more.
The fact that the rules and tools of play also change every year makes it nigh on impossible to explain to anyone that hasn't at least shown casual interest for a couple of seasons.
In the end, the rules, for those bothered to get their head around them, at least make it possible to see where each team is strong or weak. It enables direct comparison as all teams have to focus development in very limited areas of freedom of design. It gives a constant for the commentators and pundits to obsess over.
TheDeuce said:
HustleRussell said:
TheDeuce said:
sparta6 said:
I agree, and if you throw all the past changes together there is a clue.
Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
I would love that! It'll never happen because in the mass media the viewers need a simple enough formula to understand. Why not have it completely open ?
Run any N/A engine you like. Let's see what laps the fastest.
It has worked well before
It's simple in context of the previous quoted comments. It's simple because their is a framework as opposed to a 'build what you want and rock up' early days of F1.
Is it simple compared to the rule-book of any other sport? No. It's convoluted. F1 has since the first decade or so been convoluted. Whenever friends make the effort show an interest in F1 for my sake, they inevitably ask perfectly reasonable questions and I always find it difficult to answer any of them without confusing them more.
The fact that the rules and tools of play also change every year makes it nigh on impossible to explain to anyone that hasn't at least shown casual interest for a couple of seasons.
In the end, the rules, for those bothered to get their head around them, at least make it possible to see where each team is strong or weak. It enables direct comparison as all teams have to focus development in very limited areas of freedom of design. It gives a constant for the commentators and pundits to obsess over.
HardtopManual said:
Congratulations on making the most self contradictory post ever on PH.
I'm aware it maybe reads that way to a one line response detractor. What part(s) did you feel were contradictory?As an aside, do you have anything to add to the debate other than criticism of my contribution?
TheDeuce said:
I'm aware it maybe reads that way to a one line response detractor. What part(s) did you feel were contradictory?
As an aside, do you have anything to add to the debate other than criticism of my contribution?
Why are you always trying to high road everyone? As an aside, do you have anything to add to the debate other than criticism of my contribution?
I have seen this across multiple threads. Whenever somebody disagrees with you, you always post something exactly like what you have just done there. You seem to take people disagreeing with you very personally. Your default move is to act offended as though the other poster has attacked you.
If people disagree with your opinion, they may say so in short words. Nobody is obligated to provide a full analysis. If you find this so bruising, perhaps online fora aren’t for you?
HustleRussell said:
Why are you always trying to high road everyone?
I have seen this across multiple threads. Whenever somebody disagrees with you, you always post something exactly like what you have just done there. You seem to take people disagreeing with you very personally. Your default move is to act offended as though the other poster has attacked you.
If people disagree with your opinion, they may say so in short words. Nobody is obligated to provide a full analysis. If you find this so bruising, perhaps online fora aren’t for you?
Not always, not everyone. If you were to go through my post history, you will find the vast majority of posts are considered and thoughtful (to the best of my ability) contributions to whatever is being discussed at the time.I have seen this across multiple threads. Whenever somebody disagrees with you, you always post something exactly like what you have just done there. You seem to take people disagreeing with you very personally. Your default move is to act offended as though the other poster has attacked you.
If people disagree with your opinion, they may say so in short words. Nobody is obligated to provide a full analysis. If you find this so bruising, perhaps online fora aren’t for you?
I find a single dismissive comment a rude and odd way to enter any conversation. Imagine if you were chatting F1 in the street and someone stopped, and congratulated you for saying your thoughts were the most ridiculous thing they ever heard. I think it would be normal to enquire as to why they had entered the conversation so rudely, and invite them to explain why they felt such a way. That is all I have done.
It's really nothing to do taking anything personally or feeling attacked. It has everything to do with not understanding such behaviour, so I ask for an explanation. I'm well aware that some people have a tendency to speak more abruptly or provocatively on forums - but I think that is more something those people could improve, rather than I could improve by not questioning the rudeness when such comments are directed at me.
To be perfectly honest, I just want to debate F1 - oddly enough, given this is an F1 forum..
TheDeuce said:
If Pirelli are asked to produce a new tyre that will last an entire race and switch on with a little wheelspin and a couple of med-fast turns then they can.
And I can't help thinking Pirelli would love to do that, not be forced by the FIA to make tyres with the current degredation and behaviour...then get the blaim that the tyres degrade so drivers can't push!TheDeuce said:
I would love that! It'll never happen because in the mass media the viewers need a simple enough formula to understand. But in the spirit of what F1 began as, it's how it should be.
Opens rule book:
"There's the tracks - go build whatever you think will go round most of them the quickest"
Closes rule book.
I've never understood this line of thinking. ABS and traction control were all eliminated because it made the racing too easy, mash the brakes, mash the accelerator.Opens rule book:
"There's the tracks - go build whatever you think will go round most of them the quickest"
Closes rule book.
'Unlimited' rules would just mean the biggest chequebook wins, and we'd all have GPS, radar, self driving cars that won't do anything wrong. Not to mention the incredible cornering speeds that no track (or human) would be able to cope with.
Big Nanas said:
I've never understood this line of thinking. ABS and traction control were all eliminated because it made the racing too easy, mash the brakes, mash the accelerator.
'Unlimited' rules would just mean the biggest chequebook wins, and we'd all have GPS, radar, self driving cars that won't do anything wrong. Not to mention the incredible cornering speeds that no track (or human) would be able to cope with.
My previous thoughts on where it would end up:'Unlimited' rules would just mean the biggest chequebook wins, and we'd all have GPS, radar, self driving cars that won't do anything wrong. Not to mention the incredible cornering speeds that no track (or human) would be able to cope with.
TheDeuce said:
Without doubt.
the question is, do we want to see a dumbed down and moderated F1 last forever, or see a raw sport rise, become captivating and thrilling, and then self implode when the bubble bursts? The answer to that hardly matters of course... F1 is owned by Liberty now, and clearly they will choose the 'last forever' option every time.
Yes, it would likely end up a joke and the biggest spenders would conquer all in the end. Being sensible, there is probably a better middle ground between the two extremes than we have right now, but not by much. F1 is a bizarre sport from start to finish really - regulation over the decades brings the sport closer to being a spec series which isn't what F1 is supposed to be. On the other hand, remove regulation and the sport would fail to make very much sense. There is no other sport like it and there is probably a reason for that.the question is, do we want to see a dumbed down and moderated F1 last forever, or see a raw sport rise, become captivating and thrilling, and then self implode when the bubble bursts? The answer to that hardly matters of course... F1 is owned by Liberty now, and clearly they will choose the 'last forever' option every time.
I don't think F1 can improve on being what it is at any one point in time, the original ideas behind F1 were almost immediately problematic as the sport started to grow and money became a big factor. Since then all that has been possible is various different contrived and contorted versions of that original idea.
TheDeuce said:
It's simple in context of the previous quoted comments. It's simple because their is a framework as opposed to a 'build what you want and rock up' early days of F1.
F1 was never like that, though. It has always been framed by a set of rules, or a 'formula'. Looking back from our modern perspective, it may seem like the early days were largely unregulated, but what wasn't defined by the regulations was covered off by the relative lack of knowledge and technology of the time. They were still building complex, state-of-the-art machines for the time, but within a framework of rules appropriate to that technology.They didn't have rules in the 1950s for outwash front wings, double diffusers and hybrid deployment, because those technologies weren't even dreamt of then. Maybe in the future someone will look back at the rules of today and wonder that we had no rules defining the use of time vortex loop accelerators or quantum field manipulators - man, it must have been like the Wild West back then in 2019.
I don't get where people get this idea that "no rules racing" is the best form. I don't know of any series with open technical regs.
Easiest way with open regs is just to get each team to submit the amount they're willing to spend in a season to the FIA who can the award the trophies based on that. Saves a lot of messing about with building cars etc.
Said it before and I'll say it again that coming up with rules etc is meaningless until Liberty and the FIA define 100% what F1 is and what the aim of it is. Defining rules for a series that has it's number one aim to be the pinnacle of technology in racing can be very different from a series that aims to be the number one choice for viewers in prime TV Sunday viewing slots around the world.
Easiest way with open regs is just to get each team to submit the amount they're willing to spend in a season to the FIA who can the award the trophies based on that. Saves a lot of messing about with building cars etc.
Said it before and I'll say it again that coming up with rules etc is meaningless until Liberty and the FIA define 100% what F1 is and what the aim of it is. Defining rules for a series that has it's number one aim to be the pinnacle of technology in racing can be very different from a series that aims to be the number one choice for viewers in prime TV Sunday viewing slots around the world.
thegreenhell said:
F1 was never like that, though. It has always been framed by a set of rules, or a 'formula'. Looking back from our modern perspective, it may seem like the early days were largely unregulated, but what wasn't defined by the regulations was covered off by the relative lack of knowledge and technology of the time. They were still building complex, state-of-the-art machines for the time, but within a framework of rules appropriate to that technology.
They didn't have rules in the 1950s for outwash front wings, double diffusers and hybrid deployment, because those technologies weren't even dreamt of then. Maybe in the future someone will look back at the rules of today and wonder that we had no rules defining the use of time vortex loop accelerators or quantum field manipulators - man, it must have been like the Wild West back then in 2019.
You're right of course - the present does tend to distort our view of the past.They didn't have rules in the 1950s for outwash front wings, double diffusers and hybrid deployment, because those technologies weren't even dreamt of then. Maybe in the future someone will look back at the rules of today and wonder that we had no rules defining the use of time vortex loop accelerators or quantum field manipulators - man, it must have been like the Wild West back then in 2019.
I think the difference is that like most things in life, as F1 grows it learns from it's own history. Back in the early days regulation was brought in to 'fix' developments that were considered bad for the sport in some way. Over time regulation has become more pre-emptive of how the teams could try and work around the rules. The freedom to develop has also been reduced over the years in quite a few areas. Many potential new ideas to improve the car are impossible now because of blanket regulation concerning dimensions, movable surfaces/elements etc. This locks out many areas where in the past radical new ideas (some lasting and worthwhile) were introduced.
It's surely true to say that the scope for development has reduced over the decades - in addition to the fairly steady rate at which specific developments have been banned, which as you say has always been the case.
//j17 said:
TheDeuce said:
If Pirelli are asked to produce a new tyre that will last an entire race and switch on with a little wheelspin and a couple of med-fast turns then they can.
And I can't help thinking Pirelli would love to do that, not be forced by the FIA to make tyres with the current degredation and behaviour...then get the blaim that the tyres degrade so drivers can't push!
k there I see. Those tyres were asked for by the fans in the FIA fan survey because they wanted to see more Canada 2010 races. Nothing to do with Bernie, Pirrelli being unable to make decent tyres, Ferrari wanting them etc etc.The recent LMP1 engine regulations seemed to work very well.
The biggest cheque book will always win. Especially as parc ferme gets longer and off track testing becomes even more important. Merc already have the best testing rigs at Brackley. Red Bull, Sauber, Ferrari and Racing India are investing in these areas but still years behind.
The biggest cheque book will always win. Especially as parc ferme gets longer and off track testing becomes even more important. Merc already have the best testing rigs at Brackley. Red Bull, Sauber, Ferrari and Racing India are investing in these areas but still years behind.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff