The Official F1 2021 silly season *contains speculation*
Discussion
I'm with MissChief on the re-fuelling point.
I only recall dull races where instead of today's driver's driving slowly due to tyre management, we had yesterday's drivers driving slowly due to fuel management.
The fastest car is the fastest car. Trying to make a slower car faster through pit stop strategy, be that for fuel or tyres, for the most part seems not to work. The strategists are too clever.
Races need something non-artificial that surprises the teams. Gets them thinking quickly - quick thinking can often lead to mistakes or can lead to genius.
If they have too much time to think, they will have an army of people and/or computers strategising it and it just becomes a plan.
Rain is the most obvious example of this - they don't know when it's coming, how much or for how long. There's rarely a dull race in the wet.
I would look at not revealing the tyre compounds and just giving them a 'soft' and a 'hard' for each race, banning wear sensors.
But the biggest thing I'd do is remove pit-to-car radio transmissions and telemetry, other than for safety information, lap counts, confirmation of position and calls to pit.
I only recall dull races where instead of today's driver's driving slowly due to tyre management, we had yesterday's drivers driving slowly due to fuel management.
The fastest car is the fastest car. Trying to make a slower car faster through pit stop strategy, be that for fuel or tyres, for the most part seems not to work. The strategists are too clever.
Races need something non-artificial that surprises the teams. Gets them thinking quickly - quick thinking can often lead to mistakes or can lead to genius.
If they have too much time to think, they will have an army of people and/or computers strategising it and it just becomes a plan.
Rain is the most obvious example of this - they don't know when it's coming, how much or for how long. There's rarely a dull race in the wet.
I would look at not revealing the tyre compounds and just giving them a 'soft' and a 'hard' for each race, banning wear sensors.
But the biggest thing I'd do is remove pit-to-car radio transmissions and telemetry, other than for safety information, lap counts, confirmation of position and calls to pit.
They could put a downforce limit on the cars, say the design gets tested at an independent station and the car should generate a maximum of 1000lbs downforce at 180mph or something.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
Refuelling ought to be entirely unnecessary with the control tyres.
Instead of having tyres degrade to the point where they disintegrate, it ought to be entirely possible to make them very durable when worn, but substantially faster when new. Increase the delta between phases and bingo, you get pit stops and mixed strategies.
Perhaps Pirelli will figure this out with 18 inch tyres.
Then again, perhaps not.
Instead of having tyres degrade to the point where they disintegrate, it ought to be entirely possible to make them very durable when worn, but substantially faster when new. Increase the delta between phases and bingo, you get pit stops and mixed strategies.
Perhaps Pirelli will figure this out with 18 inch tyres.
Then again, perhaps not.
Maybe re-fuelling isn't the answer, but what else can you do? Mandate 2 stops, but make the tyres more durable to open up strategy?
Adds more strategy elements, but will end up with more overtakes in the pits - Are pit stop strategy passes better than easy DRS passes?
The actual number of overtakes is absolutely irrelevant to me when 99% of them are easy DRS passes. Overtaking should be hard but not impossible, keeping people watching on the edge of their seats is how you improve the perception of how good the racing is.
Adds more strategy elements, but will end up with more overtakes in the pits - Are pit stop strategy passes better than easy DRS passes?
The actual number of overtakes is absolutely irrelevant to me when 99% of them are easy DRS passes. Overtaking should be hard but not impossible, keeping people watching on the edge of their seats is how you improve the perception of how good the racing is.
kiseca said:
They could put a downforce limit on the cars, say the design gets tested at an independent station and the car should generate a maximum of 1000lbs downforce at 180mph or something.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
If they were to do that then the designers, having achieved their maximum 1000lbs easily, would concentrate their efforts on making the car as difficult as possible to follow, by screwing with the aero wake behind the car! Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
Sandpit Steve said:
kiseca said:
They could put a downforce limit on the cars, say the design gets tested at an independent station and the car should generate a maximum of 1000lbs downforce at 180mph or something.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
If they were to do that then the designers, having achieved their maximum 1000lbs easily, would concentrate their efforts on making the car as difficult as possible to follow, by screwing with the aero wake behind the car! Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
andburg said:
Sandpit Steve said:
kiseca said:
They could put a downforce limit on the cars, say the design gets tested at an independent station and the car should generate a maximum of 1000lbs downforce at 180mph or something.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
If they were to do that then the designers, having achieved their maximum 1000lbs easily, would concentrate their efforts on making the car as difficult as possible to follow, by screwing with the aero wake behind the car! Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
kiseca said:
andburg said:
Sandpit Steve said:
kiseca said:
They could put a downforce limit on the cars, say the design gets tested at an independent station and the car should generate a maximum of 1000lbs downforce at 180mph or something.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
If they were to do that then the designers, having achieved their maximum 1000lbs easily, would concentrate their efforts on making the car as difficult as possible to follow, by screwing with the aero wake behind the car! Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
In the previous downforce era the teams were developing faster than the regs could keep up (the teams knew more than the regulators about what was possible/how..) and the levels of ground effect downforce they were achieving was dangerous, the cars became limpets, bonded to the track - right up until the point something happened to break the ground effect and suddenly the car was a mid corner torpedo that's just lost nearly all it's downforce... So GE was for the most part made impossible by the regs.
Now they need 'some' GE back to reduce the aero downforce messy air issues - the regulators now seem to understand how they can make this new balance possible without risking the teams running away with GE to a dangerous level.
So we're getting what we want/need, no need to throw forced jeopardy into the mix with pointless re-fuelling..
TheDeuce said:
kiseca said:
andburg said:
Sandpit Steve said:
kiseca said:
They could put a downforce limit on the cars, say the design gets tested at an independent station and the car should generate a maximum of 1000lbs downforce at 180mph or something.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
If they were to do that then the designers, having achieved their maximum 1000lbs easily, would concentrate their efforts on making the car as difficult as possible to follow, by screwing with the aero wake behind the car! Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
In the previous downforce era the teams were developing faster than the regs could keep up (the teams knew more than the regulators about what was possible/how..) and the levels of ground effect downforce they were achieving was dangerous, the cars became limpets, bonded to the track - right up until the point something happened to break the ground effect and suddenly the car was a mid corner torpedo that's just lost nearly all it's downforce... So GE was for the most part made impossible by the regs.
Now they need 'some' GE back to reduce the aero downforce messy air issues - the regulators now seem to understand how they can make this new balance possible without risking the teams running away with GE to a dangerous level.
So we're getting what we want/need, no need to throw forced jeopardy into the mix with pointless re-fuelling..
That's not what they're doing now. Now, they're putting limits on the known ways the car can generate downforce. There's no limit on how much downforce a car can generate, if a designer can find a way to do it.
kiseca said:
TheDeuce said:
kiseca said:
andburg said:
Sandpit Steve said:
kiseca said:
They could put a downforce limit on the cars, say the design gets tested at an independent station and the car should generate a maximum of 1000lbs downforce at 180mph or something.
Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
If they were to do that then the designers, having achieved their maximum 1000lbs easily, would concentrate their efforts on making the car as difficult as possible to follow, by screwing with the aero wake behind the car! Then it doesn't matter how the team achieve that downforce, some will find more efficient ways than others, but it might reduce the problem of following other cars.
In the previous downforce era the teams were developing faster than the regs could keep up (the teams knew more than the regulators about what was possible/how..) and the levels of ground effect downforce they were achieving was dangerous, the cars became limpets, bonded to the track - right up until the point something happened to break the ground effect and suddenly the car was a mid corner torpedo that's just lost nearly all it's downforce... So GE was for the most part made impossible by the regs.
Now they need 'some' GE back to reduce the aero downforce messy air issues - the regulators now seem to understand how they can make this new balance possible without risking the teams running away with GE to a dangerous level.
So we're getting what we want/need, no need to throw forced jeopardy into the mix with pointless re-fuelling..
That's not what they're doing now. Now, they're putting limits on the known ways the car can generate downforce. There's no limit on how much downforce a car can generate, if a designer can find a way to do it.
The regs do limit the amount of either type of downforce that is practical already, albeit a particularly gifted aero genius can find the odd extra here and there, and sometimes quite a lot extra if they can find a gap in the regs! But that's easily patched up by adjusting the regs. What F1 are seeking to do now is not drastically reduce downforce, but switch from messy aero downforce to neater, albeit heavily regulated, increased allowance of ground effect downforce.
It will achieve the same thing you're asking for. It will reduce drag and dirty air problems quite significantly whilst keeping the cars roughy as dynamically impressive - at least after a few seasons once they're all on top of the new regs.
TheDeuce said:
But there are two ways to generate downforce... Push the car down (aero downforce), pull the car down (ground effect). Ground effect downforce produces a fraction of the drag and also leaves very little in the way of dirty air.
The regs do limit the amount of either type of downforce that is practical already, albeit a particularly gifted aero genius can find the odd extra here and there, and sometimes quite a lot extra if they can find a gap in the regs! But that's easily patched up by adjusting the regs. What F1 are seeking to do now is not drastically reduce downforce, but switch from messy aero downforce to neater, albeit heavily regulated, increased allowance of ground effect downforce.
It will achieve the same thing you're asking for. It will reduce drag and dirty air problems quite significantly whilst keeping the cars roughy as dynamically impressive - at least after a few seasons once they're all on top of the new regs.
All cars produce downforce by the same method, which is simply pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body. The only difference ground effect cars and flat bottom cars have is where that pressure differential occurs and the relative efficiency of the process.The regs do limit the amount of either type of downforce that is practical already, albeit a particularly gifted aero genius can find the odd extra here and there, and sometimes quite a lot extra if they can find a gap in the regs! But that's easily patched up by adjusting the regs. What F1 are seeking to do now is not drastically reduce downforce, but switch from messy aero downforce to neater, albeit heavily regulated, increased allowance of ground effect downforce.
It will achieve the same thing you're asking for. It will reduce drag and dirty air problems quite significantly whilst keeping the cars roughy as dynamically impressive - at least after a few seasons once they're all on top of the new regs.
Flat bottom cars and the current generation of car still have significant ground effect at play.
jsf said:
TheDeuce said:
But there are two ways to generate downforce... Push the car down (aero downforce), pull the car down (ground effect). Ground effect downforce produces a fraction of the drag and also leaves very little in the way of dirty air.
The regs do limit the amount of either type of downforce that is practical already, albeit a particularly gifted aero genius can find the odd extra here and there, and sometimes quite a lot extra if they can find a gap in the regs! But that's easily patched up by adjusting the regs. What F1 are seeking to do now is not drastically reduce downforce, but switch from messy aero downforce to neater, albeit heavily regulated, increased allowance of ground effect downforce.
It will achieve the same thing you're asking for. It will reduce drag and dirty air problems quite significantly whilst keeping the cars roughy as dynamically impressive - at least after a few seasons once they're all on top of the new regs.
All cars produce downforce by the same method, which is simply pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body. The only difference ground effect cars and flat bottom cars have is where that pressure differential occurs and the relative efficiency of the process.The regs do limit the amount of either type of downforce that is practical already, albeit a particularly gifted aero genius can find the odd extra here and there, and sometimes quite a lot extra if they can find a gap in the regs! But that's easily patched up by adjusting the regs. What F1 are seeking to do now is not drastically reduce downforce, but switch from messy aero downforce to neater, albeit heavily regulated, increased allowance of ground effect downforce.
It will achieve the same thing you're asking for. It will reduce drag and dirty air problems quite significantly whilst keeping the cars roughy as dynamically impressive - at least after a few seasons once they're all on top of the new regs.
Flat bottom cars and the current generation of car still have significant ground effect at play.
The current cars do generate GE as much as possible but it's still tightly limited by regs. The 22' regs look to loosen up the GE potential quite considerably.
kiseca said:
Seems to me every time refuelling is introduced it fails both on quality of racing and on safety. Personally I'm happy not to see it return again.
They've tried it, what, 3 times now since Brabham first used the option as a strategic advantage in 1983?
Brabham weren't the first in F1; they did it in the 1950s.They've tried it, what, 3 times now since Brabham first used the option as a strategic advantage in 1983?
TheDeuce said:
Yes but it's easier to explain it as pushing the car in to the ground as opposed to pulling it in to the ground - to someone that thought all methods of achieving downforce equate to the same level of drag and subsequently the same air wake disruption.
The current cars do generate GE as much as possible but it's still tightly limited by regs. The 22' regs look to loosen up the GE potential quite considerably.
Sorry, but this push pull thing is silly. Isn't it better to educate people properly rather than make stuff up?The current cars do generate GE as much as possible but it's still tightly limited by regs. The 22' regs look to loosen up the GE potential quite considerably.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff