Discussion
Right, this is gonna be a long one.
IMO there's no 1 thing or for that matter 2,3,4 or 5 things that will "spice" up F1 as some people want it. It's got to be looked at as a whole, how it's constituent elements make up that whole and what long reaching effects could occur from "meddling" with 1 or more of those elements.
You've then gotta decide what kinda F1 do you want? Do you want to see the outright fastest circuit racing cars? How about close wheel to wheel action? Maybe you'd like a greater variety in strategic elements being used in races?
Overall I think this season has been quite exciting and fairly unpredictable even if the end, on paper results don't show it. And the reasons for that....? Basically, the teams and organisers were thrown a massive curveball with the whole Covid situation and race schedules were completely out of whack from what teams are normally used to.
Somehow we need an overarching ruleset which kinda gives teams and drivers a mix-up more often. For me there's too much of the "same" going on in F1. By same, I mean, the samey same kinda tracks and their demands, samey same kinda cars (& tyres) and samey same weekend practice schedule etc.
Let's start with the circuits. I'd say there are too many circuits which try be all things to all people (or should that be cars?) Mostly the modern ones, which place to much emphasis to overall downforce efficiency. A few more lower downforce circuits, or even corners or chicanes removed from current tracks, would give the teams a bigger compromise to work out.
Then we also need differences in the types of kerbs we have. I was greatly looking forward to Imola this year, as I remember from the late 90's, how the precise and careful use of the kerbs there was key to getting a good lap. And there was a fine line between riding the kerb perfectly on mid corner and exit for maximum speed and clouting it hamfistedly like an amateur sim wannabe and grinding out the underneath of your car. Too many tracks, for my liking, have those flat featureless forgiving kerbs that present zero challenge and with that comes zero risk/reward. I get the safety argument but only 2/3 circuits out of the 20 odd need to have this kind of element to them.
A shakeup of the events would be good also. We have "standard" Grand Prix at approx 300km race distance right? Allow 2/3 of the longstanding tracks to apply for "super" Grand Prix status where the race length is 2h. You'd have to allow refuelling and increased tyre allocations but pit rules could be changed so that only tyres or refuelling can be done at a single stop NOT both. If force majeure (puncture, accident etc) means you have to do both, then automatic 10 sec stop go penalty within 3 laps. Multiply points awarded by 1.25/1.5 for greater reward.
By the same token, you could have 2 shorter races at a couple of other tracks where each race nets you half the normal points. Quali for 2nd race is fastest laps from 1st race.
What to do with the cars then? It seems all variety has been written out of the rules and coupled with the lack of variety in the tracks leads to the samey kinda cars being developed.
I would engineer in some variety but with caveats. Give the teams a choice to develop in 1 and only 1 area of the car but with that comes restrictions on other parts. Choose 1 from the following:
How about an increased engine usage allowance or freer development rules... but only if the actual block & head are homologated road going production units from anytime in the last 5-10 years? Blocks can only have cylinder liners to get the correct capacity but heads can be modified freely except melting them down and recasting them.
CVT transmission? In theory offers gains in driveability so peg it back with reduced hybrid power allowance.
Fancy a 55-65kg min weight decrease? Manual gearbox and clutch pedal are required.
Active wings front and rear? Sure but you'll have a narrower floor width and smaller diffuser dimensions.
Active suspension? Yes but the underbody regulation plank is thicker and has a tighter tolerance on post-race wear allowance (actually do they even still have that plank anymore?) and smaller wings.
Tyres: single contracted supplier, 5 compounds, 5 different colours for marking the compound changes. Bring whichever 3 you want to whatever race you want and you must use at least 2 of them in a dry race. BUT you only get a set amount of each for the whole year, it'll up to the teams how they go about allocating them to which races.
My ultimate joker rule would be..... front engined car - gets free choice of tyre manufacturer for the front tyres, rear powered tyres remain same as single mandated supplier.
Reliability is also very much a freak occurrence these days (although Esteban Ocon might disagree, did he not have 3 straight DNFs through technical troubles midseason?). I recall Martin Brundle commenting about how parc ferme rules and lack of mechanical fiddling after qualifying and pre-race seems to have brought about a big boost in finishing numbers. Allow post-quali engine changes and gearbox changes but only from allocated numbers. If teams want to have specific quali engines and gearboxes, let them but they still have to abide by personnel hours rules and total units used throughout season etc.
I'm broadly in favour of the upcoming financial and budget restriction rules because I haven't looked into them much in depth so I'll leave the rest of PH to school me on that if they think it can be tweaked or junked to suit whatever they want to achieve.
Right there you go.... have it PH, tear it to shreds or tears of laughter? Dissect, discuss, disagree....
IMO there's no 1 thing or for that matter 2,3,4 or 5 things that will "spice" up F1 as some people want it. It's got to be looked at as a whole, how it's constituent elements make up that whole and what long reaching effects could occur from "meddling" with 1 or more of those elements.
You've then gotta decide what kinda F1 do you want? Do you want to see the outright fastest circuit racing cars? How about close wheel to wheel action? Maybe you'd like a greater variety in strategic elements being used in races?
Overall I think this season has been quite exciting and fairly unpredictable even if the end, on paper results don't show it. And the reasons for that....? Basically, the teams and organisers were thrown a massive curveball with the whole Covid situation and race schedules were completely out of whack from what teams are normally used to.
Somehow we need an overarching ruleset which kinda gives teams and drivers a mix-up more often. For me there's too much of the "same" going on in F1. By same, I mean, the samey same kinda tracks and their demands, samey same kinda cars (& tyres) and samey same weekend practice schedule etc.
Let's start with the circuits. I'd say there are too many circuits which try be all things to all people (or should that be cars?) Mostly the modern ones, which place to much emphasis to overall downforce efficiency. A few more lower downforce circuits, or even corners or chicanes removed from current tracks, would give the teams a bigger compromise to work out.
Then we also need differences in the types of kerbs we have. I was greatly looking forward to Imola this year, as I remember from the late 90's, how the precise and careful use of the kerbs there was key to getting a good lap. And there was a fine line between riding the kerb perfectly on mid corner and exit for maximum speed and clouting it hamfistedly like an amateur sim wannabe and grinding out the underneath of your car. Too many tracks, for my liking, have those flat featureless forgiving kerbs that present zero challenge and with that comes zero risk/reward. I get the safety argument but only 2/3 circuits out of the 20 odd need to have this kind of element to them.
A shakeup of the events would be good also. We have "standard" Grand Prix at approx 300km race distance right? Allow 2/3 of the longstanding tracks to apply for "super" Grand Prix status where the race length is 2h. You'd have to allow refuelling and increased tyre allocations but pit rules could be changed so that only tyres or refuelling can be done at a single stop NOT both. If force majeure (puncture, accident etc) means you have to do both, then automatic 10 sec stop go penalty within 3 laps. Multiply points awarded by 1.25/1.5 for greater reward.
By the same token, you could have 2 shorter races at a couple of other tracks where each race nets you half the normal points. Quali for 2nd race is fastest laps from 1st race.
What to do with the cars then? It seems all variety has been written out of the rules and coupled with the lack of variety in the tracks leads to the samey kinda cars being developed.
I would engineer in some variety but with caveats. Give the teams a choice to develop in 1 and only 1 area of the car but with that comes restrictions on other parts. Choose 1 from the following:
How about an increased engine usage allowance or freer development rules... but only if the actual block & head are homologated road going production units from anytime in the last 5-10 years? Blocks can only have cylinder liners to get the correct capacity but heads can be modified freely except melting them down and recasting them.
CVT transmission? In theory offers gains in driveability so peg it back with reduced hybrid power allowance.
Fancy a 55-65kg min weight decrease? Manual gearbox and clutch pedal are required.
Active wings front and rear? Sure but you'll have a narrower floor width and smaller diffuser dimensions.
Active suspension? Yes but the underbody regulation plank is thicker and has a tighter tolerance on post-race wear allowance (actually do they even still have that plank anymore?) and smaller wings.
Tyres: single contracted supplier, 5 compounds, 5 different colours for marking the compound changes. Bring whichever 3 you want to whatever race you want and you must use at least 2 of them in a dry race. BUT you only get a set amount of each for the whole year, it'll up to the teams how they go about allocating them to which races.
My ultimate joker rule would be..... front engined car - gets free choice of tyre manufacturer for the front tyres, rear powered tyres remain same as single mandated supplier.
Reliability is also very much a freak occurrence these days (although Esteban Ocon might disagree, did he not have 3 straight DNFs through technical troubles midseason?). I recall Martin Brundle commenting about how parc ferme rules and lack of mechanical fiddling after qualifying and pre-race seems to have brought about a big boost in finishing numbers. Allow post-quali engine changes and gearbox changes but only from allocated numbers. If teams want to have specific quali engines and gearboxes, let them but they still have to abide by personnel hours rules and total units used throughout season etc.
I'm broadly in favour of the upcoming financial and budget restriction rules because I haven't looked into them much in depth so I'll leave the rest of PH to school me on that if they think it can be tweaked or junked to suit whatever they want to achieve.
Right there you go.... have it PH, tear it to shreds or tears of laughter? Dissect, discuss, disagree....
It doesn't need spicing up IMO
And anyway it's a competition to design, build and race the best car to win big bucks, marketing exposure and company kudos. Entertainment is secondary. If it's contrived too much (it's already massively contrived), the main players will leave.
It's contradictory in its nature. Supposedly the cutting edge of tech, but if you innovate and gain an advantage, it is shut down as soon as the lawyers can be brought to bear.
If you absolutely must have unpredictability to be entertained, perhaps a sport where engineering is 90% of the result probably isn't for you.
Then there are the other feeder series for equal machinery racing...
And anyway it's a competition to design, build and race the best car to win big bucks, marketing exposure and company kudos. Entertainment is secondary. If it's contrived too much (it's already massively contrived), the main players will leave.
It's contradictory in its nature. Supposedly the cutting edge of tech, but if you innovate and gain an advantage, it is shut down as soon as the lawyers can be brought to bear.
If you absolutely must have unpredictability to be entertained, perhaps a sport where engineering is 90% of the result probably isn't for you.
Then there are the other feeder series for equal machinery racing...
Seeing recent images of older f1 cars next to hybrid cars, I was a bit surprised at just how big the current cars are. Seems like a little scaling down might help.
Reduced turbulence is a very positive move. I hope it’s effective.
I don’t know the answer to this but would be nice to see some motivator to promote more diversity of pit strategy.
But generally I think f1 is in pretty rude health. Need to be careful not to meddle too much.
Reduced turbulence is a very positive move. I hope it’s effective.
I don’t know the answer to this but would be nice to see some motivator to promote more diversity of pit strategy.
But generally I think f1 is in pretty rude health. Need to be careful not to meddle too much.
entropy said:
Muzzer79 said:
Take this the right way please, but how would that spice things up?
Drivers rarely get it wrong, as in crashing, in Qualifying now so surely your Q4 would just be a repeat of the times in Q3?
I think that Qualifying is one of the things they shouldn't mess around with and works well as-is.
One lap shoot out, all-or-nothing for pole - more pressure, greater chance of error.Drivers rarely get it wrong, as in crashing, in Qualifying now so surely your Q4 would just be a repeat of the times in Q3?
I think that Qualifying is one of the things they shouldn't mess around with and works well as-is.
Q4 participants get an extra set of tyres of their choice that then must be handed back after the session.
There would be 2 or 3 drivers under pressure going for pole, the rest going for a good lap - just as in current Q3.
They also get extra tyres in Q3 now?
Integrator_Type_R said:
Then we also need differences in the types of kerbs we have. I was greatly looking forward to Imola this year, as I remember from the late 90's, how the precise and careful use of the kerbs there was key to getting a good lap. And there was a fine line between riding the kerb perfectly on mid corner and exit for maximum speed and clouting it hamfistedly like an amateur sim wannabe and grinding out the underneath of your car. Too many tracks, for my liking, have those flat featureless forgiving kerbs that present zero challenge and with that comes zero risk/reward. I get the safety argument but only 2/3 circuits out of the 20 odd need to have this kind of element to them.
Most of what you said I agree with, except for this. And the only reason why I disagree is because of what happened in the F2 race at Monza last year, where the long lad was punted up in to the air by the sausage kerbs and smashed in to the catch fencing. Well, he was lucky to get to the fencing put it that way!I don't think kerbs are the issue, but it's the run offs. You put tarmac on the other side of the kerb and the drivers creep over the kerb to use that run off. You can't really put gravel there given the tendancy to flip the car. So why not a puddle of water? Or something that's quite spectacular but not dangerous, and it slows the driver down considerably so there is no real gain from encroaching over the kerbs?
HardtopManual said:
In fact, most of what posters want F1 to be exists in F2 and F3.
So come on, do you like racing, or celebrity?
Celebrity, obviously So come on, do you like racing, or celebrity?
To a certain degree, rivalry and personalities are necessary for a popular sport. Having unidentifiable drivers in equal cars doesn't give much interest to a lot of people.
I would like to see tyres that may wear out but don't overheat so can be thrashed and slid about more without destroying them.
But overall, I have enjoyed the races in the modern era.
They could give each driver the "George Sakhir" challenge !
Toto Wolff: "One must not forget, George Russell actually does not fit into this car. If you look at the pictures from above, you can see how he is squeezed in the cockpit. He had bloody fists, he was hitting his knees everywhere."
Toto Wolff: "He can't build up enough brake pressure. During hard braking he was always 20% too little because he can't press the leg at the right angle. He had to wear smaller shoes to fit in there."
Toto Wolff: "But also with the clutch pedal, the drivers' fingers fit exactly into the clutch pedal so that they can release it correctly at the start and George Russell hands and fingers are too big for the clutch pedal."
Toto Wolff: "One must not forget, George Russell actually does not fit into this car. If you look at the pictures from above, you can see how he is squeezed in the cockpit. He had bloody fists, he was hitting his knees everywhere."
Toto Wolff: "He can't build up enough brake pressure. During hard braking he was always 20% too little because he can't press the leg at the right angle. He had to wear smaller shoes to fit in there."
Toto Wolff: "But also with the clutch pedal, the drivers' fingers fit exactly into the clutch pedal so that they can release it correctly at the start and George Russell hands and fingers are too big for the clutch pedal."
Gary C said:
Maybe F1 could do with being less 'relevant' and loose the manufactures buying titles for marketing purposes and get back to racing teams racing for racings sake.
But then it wouldn't be F1.
Has it ever been that? Surely for the engine manufacturers at least it’s always been about exposure and sales. Win on Sunday sell on Monday and all that But then it wouldn't be F1.
Random brake bias.
Each car must run with a FIA device that randomly adjusts the brake bias (front/back and left/right) by up to 2% each time the brake is used. This will see the drivers get on the brakes earlier (to allow time to find out what they have now), and test their skill, thus promoting more overtakes in the braking zone, and reducing the benefit of having the best engine or aero.
Each car must run with a FIA device that randomly adjusts the brake bias (front/back and left/right) by up to 2% each time the brake is used. This will see the drivers get on the brakes earlier (to allow time to find out what they have now), and test their skill, thus promoting more overtakes in the braking zone, and reducing the benefit of having the best engine or aero.
Munter said:
Random brake bias.
Each car must run with a FIA device that randomly adjusts the brake bias (front/back and left/right) by up to 2% each time the brake is used. This will see the drivers get on the brakes earlier (to allow time to find out what they have now), and test their skill, thus promoting more overtakes in the braking zone, and reducing the benefit of having the best engine or aero.
And end up causing a crash.Each car must run with a FIA device that randomly adjusts the brake bias (front/back and left/right) by up to 2% each time the brake is used. This will see the drivers get on the brakes earlier (to allow time to find out what they have now), and test their skill, thus promoting more overtakes in the braking zone, and reducing the benefit of having the best engine or aero.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff