How do YOU want it?

[mstillhere]

Ok, now that we know so much about Mosley's idea about the cap and how several F1 feel about it, I would like to ask the most important people in F1, YOU, THE FANS, how do you really want it?

I go first. Keeping safety as the most important thing, I want a F1 where there are no restrictions about revs, with V12 turbo engines, anyone can get the engine brand they want. Gas, disel, Hybrid, whatever. Stop and go whenever you want, use as many tires you need. Change pilot in middle of the race if you like. Wins the pilot and the team with most of the points. I could continue, but...you go next :)

PS Almost forgot, rules can be changed once every 5 years.

[CNR]

Q: what about a control car
we know from brawngp that the engine is not that hard to chang the car for
all cars have a control McLaren ECU (wiring cost)
let the teams modify the front and rear wing
and let them use what ever brand they use for suspensions, steering wheel,

[wmcot]

Q: what about a control car
we know from brawngp that the engine is not that hard to chang the car for
all cars have a control McLaren ECU (wiring cost)
let the teams modify the front and rear wing
and let them use what ever brand they use for suspensions, steering wheel,

May as well watch IRL, then.

I'd like to see less rules, more design freedom, let each team spend what its owner's will let it (a budget cap in itself.) I want to return F1 to the top of motor sport.

Right now, I feel that ALMS/LMS cars are far more technologically advanced and varied than F1 cars. So far the rules in ALMS haven't stifled creative design.

[555-04Q2]

Bring back the late 80's and early 90's racing regs. We had some great races back then.

[wmcot]

Bring back the late 80's and early 90's racing regs. We had some great races back then.

And interesting cars!

[Hondo]

First, I think it would be beneficial to incorporate as many things as manufacturers think may help their mainstream business of selling cars. If the majority of manufacturers wanted to pursue an engine with 3.0 liters, I'd set the displacement at 3.0 liters. While I don't believe manufacturers are vital to F1, I believe everybody can benefit from them being in the game if it is done right. Ok, that being said:

3.0 liter engine displacement, in any configuration you want to pursue, inline, radial, vee, etc and using whatever amount cylinders you want. Engine materials restricted to aluminum, cast iron, and steel and common alloys thereof. No rev limits.

Customer engines ok.

No carbon fiber. Carbon fiber isn't a material most manufacturers are going to use en mass anytime soon and it's expensive.

No customer chassis.

Chassis construction steel, aluminum, fiberglass, polymers, and steel-aluminum alloys.

In-house or customer electronics.

Movable aerodynamics on the front and rear wings.

Slick tires.

Tires, within specification, from any manufacturer. No forced tire changes, use the compound that works best for you.

Fuel tank size optional. If you want to carry enough onboard for the entire race then do so.

Electronic aids ok.

No fully automatic transmissions.

Steel brake rotors.

Unlimited testing.

[DexDexter]

Bring back the late 80's and early 90's racing regs. We had some great races back then.

I don't remember that and I watched ALL the races.


My F1 would have:

- V10 engines and a limit on how many engines one can use per year. (the sound)
- Current chassis regulations
- KERS
- Current technical regulations
- No limit on tire usage in practice and quali
- Refuelling
- Current quali format
- 3 official tests during the season
- USGP in Long Beach, Canadian Gp in Montreal
- Regulations that cannot be changed for 5 years, and can NEVER be changed without the approval of 2/3 of the teams
- Income split: 60% teams, 10% race tracks/promotores 30% Bernie
- Starting money for new teams, the possibility to buy a year old chassis for the first year to get going.

[Roamy]

Fiero is pretty close
You need the carbon fiber for safety
driver aids are no good
so we are about back to 1997 when the cars looked decent
back to v-10

[555-04Q2]

I don't remember that and I watched ALL the races.

So did I watch ALL the races, and there was some great wheel to wheel racing back then. I've only missed three live F1 races since 1988.

You must be losing your marbles :p :

[555-04Q2]

Fiero is pretty close
You need the carbon fiber for safety
driver aids are no good
so we are about back to 1997 when the cars looked decent
back to v-10

You forgot the nuke launchers fousto :p :

[F1boat]

Pre-1998 rules will be great IMO.

[DexDexter]

So did I watch ALL the races, and there was some great wheel to wheel racing back then. I've only missed three live F1 races since 1988.

You must be losing your marbles :p :

I missed a couple in 2004 when I got tired of MS winning...
I would put the emphasis on the word some. 1988 was a joke, 89 as well, 90 ok, 91 pretty good, 92 a joke again.... You must have better glasses than I do. :) V12 Ferraris sounded nice though.

[Donney]

I would also introduce H-pattern gearboxes, that would show some driving skills I believe, the rest I like the fiero/fousto formula.

[V12]

Agree with those who want the regs opened up as much as safety would reasonably allow. With rules stability for a long period of time unless the cars start to get dangerously quick. No control parts, perhaps with the exception of the ECU, but definitely no control tyres.

No entry bonds or franchising, and pay equal starting money to all entrants qualifying for a race whether they come first or last, and equal TV championship/TV money whether a team wins the CC or fails to score a point.

If a team wants to spend their way to the title, well that's nothing new to be honest, if teams quit, then making it as easy as possible for start-ups to get a hold in the sport will ensure the flow of fresh blood.

[Dave B]

Here's a sensible budget (say £100M).

Here's a finite quantity of fuel.

Here's a box into which your car must fit.

Now design a car and go racing.

[wedge]

Keep it as it is.

Mosley's idea is good except I don't like the gimmicky strings attached like 4 wheel drivetrains just to sweeten teams/engineers.

[SGWilko]

First, I think it would be beneficial to incorporate as many things as manufacturers think may help their mainstream business of selling cars. If the majority of manufacturers wanted to pursue an engine with 3.0 liters, I'd set the displacement at 3.0 liters. While I don't believe manufacturers are vital to F1, I believe everybody can benefit from them being in the game if it is done right. Ok, that being said:

3.0 liter engine displacement, in any configuration you want to pursue, inline, radial, vee, etc and using whatever amount cylinders you want. Engine materials restricted to aluminum, cast iron, and steel and common alloys thereof. No rev limits.

Customer engines ok.

No carbon fiber. Carbon fiber isn't a material most manufacturers are going to use en mass anytime soon and it's expensive.

No customer chassis.

Chassis construction steel, aluminum, fiberglass, polymers, and steel-aluminum alloys.

In-house or customer electronics.

Movable aerodynamics on the front and rear wings.

Slick tires.

Tires, within specification, from any manufacturer. No forced tire changes, use the compound that works best for you.

Fuel tank size optional. If you want to carry enough onboard for the entire race then do so.

Electronic aids ok.

No fully automatic transmissions.

Steel brake rotors.

Unlimited testing.

You pretty much tick all boxes. WHat I would change is testing - make it unlimited testing on the Thursday & Friday of each race weekend. That way, the tracks get more income and the fans see more. As the cars are already at the venue, it saves a fortune.

[SGWilko]

I missed a couple in 2004 when I got tired of MS winning...
I would put the emphasis on the word some. 1988 was a joke, 89 as well, 90 ok, 91 pretty good, 92 a joke again.... You must have better glasses than I do. :) V12 Ferraris sounded nice though.

88 was interesting - if you ignored the McLaren Hondas. I recall Mansell regularly hauled his Williams Judd onto the second row in qualifying. Shame the car overheated after 5 laps in the race.....

I recall one headline from that year, was an article on Mansell/WIlliams;

'Not So Fonda Honda'

[AndyL]

Here's a finite quantity of fuel.

:up:
I don't understand why this wasn't done years ago. They've introduced all sorts of contrived methods to regulate speed and engine power, when limiting fuel quantity would be a really simple method of doing that whilst still permitting innovation. Plus you could reduce the fuel quantity every few years as a bit of greenwashing.


Here's a box into which your car must fit.

Now design a car and go racing.

If you have no aerodynamic restrictions you're going to end up with cars that can't overtake each other I think. I would ban flip-ups etc (as now) and just allow front and rear wings within set bounding boxes. Possibly also setting a limit on frontal projected area for each wing too. So you could design a steep, narrow wing, or a wider one with a shallower angle.

[Knock-on]

There's so many ways to do it.

Main rules are maximum size, give them 140l of fuel and reduce it by 10l per year until down to 100, maximum downforce figure at 50, 100 and 150mph, standard ECU, no driver aids.

The rest is up to them.

[Hondo]

I was trying to cut down on construction expenses while still giving designers and innovators a free hand.

[Tazio]

I would only like to add that all races should have free admission,
and venues that provide fountains with an endless supply of free Kool-Aid :love:

[maximilian]

I don't really care WHAT they drive as far as technical regulations or engine formulas, but I would want a field of 30+ cars and drivers with a good mix of factory and privateer teams who are actually able to compete with each other... and enough seats in the formula to give some drivers a chance. I hate this current franchise system, and the small fields.

In an ultimate dream scenario, all the great names in racing would battle it out in the top formula... including some of the famous traditional racing constructors (Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Aston Martin, Jaguar, Bugatti, Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus) and some of the all time classic/revived privateers (Williams, Lotus?, Cosworth?, Penske, Lola, Minardi, Reynard?).

I also wish they'd do away with some of these tracks that result in parades (like Hungary), and bring back some of the lost classic names instead. Things like NOT having a British, French, Italian GP, or not running at tracks like Imola, Monza, Hockenheim, Spa are just unthinkable to me.

[SGWilko]

I also wish they'd do away with some of these tracks that result in parades (like Hungary)


I deffo would not want to see Hungary go. The whole reason for processional races is twofold - cars that are difficult to overtake and a lack of incentive to go for the move.......

You CAN overtake at Hungary. 1989 - 12th on the grid and Mansell won.....

[wedge]

maximum downforce figure at 50, 100 and 150mph,

I find that idea absolutely ludicrous. You might as well run spec cars.

[V12]

My absolute utopia to be honest would be Dave's bounding box and limited fuel idea, with absolutely anything goes after that. The only problem is safety considerations would need to be written in (crash testing, rollover protection etc. Also the cars would no doubt be so quick around corners that we'd be getting into g-suit territory unless you restricted the fuel so much to the point that the cars were no faster down the straights than they were in the corners. It would still be an amazing spectacle, but probably not sustainable :(

[yodasarmpit]

Personally, I would love there to be no limits, well ok, some.
FIA to specify overall maximum dimensions, and a safety crash test. It also has to be constructed in a way that it doesn't endanger other drivers i.e. no big pointy steel spikes :)

Let the engineers go mad.
However with the current financial situation I want to see at least some teams on the grid other than Ferrari and McLaren, so there is a valid point to having a budget cap.

[V12]

To be honest, when all is said and done, I'd actually prefer a budget cap in principle as opposed to a technology restrictions such as all of this "standard non-performance-differentiating parts" rubbish, which actually puts me further towards the FIA's standpoint* than FOTA's ironically.

My problems with the budget cap, like most people I imagine, are 1) enforcing it, and 2) this "optional" two-tier nonsense.



*For this month anyway. I'm sure Max will be back to his standard engines/parts nonsense before long!

[Wasted Talent]

First, I think it would be beneficial to incorporate as many things as manufacturers think may help their mainstream business of selling cars. If the majority of manufacturers wanted to pursue an engine with 3.0 liters, I'd set the displacement at 3.0 liters. While I don't believe manufacturers are vital to F1, I believe everybody can benefit from them being in the game if it is done right. Ok, that being said:

3.0 liter engine displacement, in any configuration you want to pursue, inline, radial, vee, etc and using whatever amount cylinders you want. Engine materials restricted to aluminum, cast iron, and steel and common alloys thereof. No rev limits.

Customer engines ok.

No carbon fiber. Carbon fiber isn't a material most manufacturers are going to use en mass anytime soon and it's expensive.

No customer chassis.

Chassis construction steel, aluminum, fiberglass, polymers, and steel-aluminum alloys.

In-house or customer electronics.

Movable aerodynamics on the front and rear wings.

Slick tires.

Tires, within specification, from any manufacturer. No forced tire changes, use the compound that works best for you.

Fuel tank size optional. If you want to carry enough onboard for the entire race then do so.

Electronic aids ok.

No fully automatic transmissions.

Steel brake rotors.

Unlimited testing.

Interesting start point.....sounds like you haven't heard of the recession.

Rev limits, control tyres, and no testing are there to ensure teams can find sensible budgets.

Electronic aids take as much of the drivers skill out of the equation as aerodymanics.

Carbon fibre is vital for safety - nothing else offers the performance that it offers.

Customer chassis are okay to get numbers up on the grid in hard times - having the McLaren chassis hasn't meant any advantage for Force India.

KERS should be mandatory - preferably a standard system to save development costs - possibly with a limit on how many times it may be made in a GP. Energy capture systems will be a future part of roadcars so should be encouraged.

Moveable aerodynamics are a waste of time - what effect are they supposed to have apart from reducing drag down trhe straights.


.....

As for my suggestions:

All GP's must have at least one high speed corner kept wet throughout the race.

Fuel consumption should be penalised - not by limiting fuel, but by making cars carry perhaps 0.5kg of ballast for every 5 litres of fuel put into the car for the race.

All cars must have a standard rear section - a flat vertical panel, 1.5m wide by 1.0m high. This will cause a high level of drag and give following cars a large tow down the straights, so it will be easier to overtake.

As cars have more downforce above 100mph than they weigh, (including the driver and fuel etc), every track should have an upside-down straight section so that they travel upside down for 50m....


Actually I think it is pretty good this season........

WT

[wmcot]

Keep it as it is.

Mosley's idea is good except I don't like the gimmicky strings attached like 4 wheel drivetrains just to sweeten teams/engineers.

The problem is that Max won't keep it as it is. Every year he throws in some radical rule that results in the teams spending huge amounts of money and then he wants to control costs. You can't have it both ways, Max (well, maybe in your personal life but we don't want to hear about that :) )

[leopard]

I'd rather agree new rules implemented periodically, let's say every two season bears new rules, regardless that it is already introduced in seasons backwards. That's the way to keep the race entertaining to give teams new different challenges.

We don't want to get bored by prolonged strong domination of one or two teams. New regulation, including the radical ones, should be introduced a breakthrough to give the weaker teams the same opportunity getting stronger, since all teams will have to reset their strength from zero or at state relatively equal.

Teams who have objection on new rules introduced may reflect disappointment over their inability to follow trough the rules. The fast learners have quicker adjustment and hence their performance may exceed expectation. Customer engine teams can outpace their main team. Redbull and RB GP are concrete form to justify my opinion ...

[Knock-on]

I find that idea absolutely ludicrous. You might as well run spec cars.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Aerodynamic downforce causes a trailing wake that disrupts the airflow for the following car.

If you reduce the amount of downforce it reduces the disruption because cars will have to be cleaner through the air.

Designers will have to rely more on mechanical grip instead.

[V12]

KERS should be mandatory - preferably a standard system to save development costs

But then what's the point? If everyone is forced to run the same system then it stops being an interesting area of development and just becomes another "green" gimmick :o or a dressed up push-to-pass button :s nore:. What they need to do it get rid of this stupid restriction that you can only use it for 8.71546234 seconds per lap or whatever and just let the cars use as much energy as they can generate, then you'd get more people using it.

[wedge]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Aerodynamic downforce causes a trailing wake that disrupts the airflow for the following car.

If you reduce the amount of downforce it reduces the disruption because cars will have to be cleaner through the air.

Designers will have to rely more on mechanical grip instead.

The current rules are fine. Aerodynamicists should, IMO, should be allowed some freedom to innovate but not tot the same level as say last year.

IMO it would be quite silly to ban a car, say for example a certain wing mirror design just happens to condition air flow to the rear wing and creates another 10kg of downforce. As with Mass Dampers which are arguably moveable aero aids, creating downforce limits will open a can of worms.

[Knock-on]

I'm not saying ban this type of device and all another.

I am saying that you can have X amount of downforce at a particular speed.

How they distribute that downforce is up to them but it will mean they have to be very precise and not waste it on disrupting the airflow for a trailing car.

[wedge]

I'm not saying ban this type of device and all another.

I am saying that you can have X amount of downforce at a particular speed.

You're missing the point.

It's another way of homogenising the cars.

Setting a limit goes completely against what F1 is about ie. being the pinnacle by constantly pushing the envelope. Aerodynamicists are there to create more downforce and greater aero efficiency and therefore we marvel how one car is different to the other.

What is there to innovate if you have a downforce limit? Mechanical grip? You might as well run spec cars.

[Knock-on]

You're missing the point.

It's another way of homogenising the cars.

Setting a limit goes completely against what F1 is about ie. being the pinnacle by constantly pushing the envelope. Aerodynamicists are there to create more downforce and greater aero efficiency and therefore we marvel how one car is different to the other.

What is there to innovate if you have a downforce limit? Mechanical grip? You might as well run spec cars.

Well, there we fundementally agree.

Why limit the size of the cars or how much fuel they can use? Must they have 4 wheels or what about 2 or 6?

You put a line in the sand, say "there you go" and let them get on with it.

Restricting downforce is a positive thing as it encourages advances in aerodynamic efficiency which has far more relevance than aerodynamic downforce to todays world. It also reduces fuel consumption, encourages development of mechanical grip and reduces the effect of "dirty air" allowing following cars more opportunity.

What is the point of aero downforce other than to weld the cars to the tarmac and stop overtaking?

[V12]

You put a line in the sand, say "there you go" and let them get on with it.

Regardless of individual opinions on exact rules and so on, I think the above point is something that surely nobody could disagree with.

No equivalency or two-tier regulations, no homologation, standardisation or equalisation, any form of motorsport should be about black and white unambiguous technical regulations that builders of racing cars are able to operate freely within.

[555-04Q2]

What is the point of aero downforce other than to weld the cars to the tarmac and stop overtaking?

Give them each an Atom. No aero, no body panels, just pure mechanical grip :D

[wedge]

Restricting downforce is a positive thing as it encourages advances in aerodynamic efficiency which has far more relevance than aerodynamic downforce to todays world. It also reduces fuel consumption, encourages development of mechanical grip and reduces the effect of "dirty air" allowing following cars more opportunity.

What is the point of aero downforce other than to weld the cars to the tarmac and stop overtaking?

I think you're getting mixed up with teams building cars that affect the wake.

I'm not sure you don't fully understand meaning of aerodynamic efficiency which is to create downforce with the least amount of drag produced: be it vortice inducing winglets which conditioned air flow for greater aero efficiency ie. cleaner air flow to the rear of the car eg. dumbo wings, viking horns, twin towers; in previous years you had rear wing designs with folds and curvatures designed to produce sufficient downforce with minimal drag penalty.

Single seaters' aero is unique. It bare no relevance to the real world, the man on the street. The biggest drag penalty comes from the exposed wheels, suspension pieces and wings. Endurance racers, road cars have fenders which you can get away with shaping cars into a bullet.

Aero is a very sensitive issue. There are numerous theories but little done to put into practice eg. CDG wing. Gordon Murray did an interesting interview for Racecar Engineering mag (worth tracking down in Borders if you've got minutes to spare! has some interesting things he gets off his chest) he reckons there should be more ground effects freedom for greater centre of pressure.

[K-Pu]

Well, I think F1 should be about knowing the limits and them breaking them, but there should be some restrictions.

First: Aero. We have seen what happens when you have total freedom in this field. Cars are impossible to overtake, and a plastic bag turns your car into a piece of junk (as Kubica suffered in Valencia 2008). You should get rid of that aerodynamic dependency, by encouraging mechanical grip over aero, and this could be a good start to keep downforce levels in the right place in order to avoid the aero madness we have witnessed (and suffered). Take out all winglets, flaps and sprouts. Front and rear wings and go for it.

No movable aero parts.

Grond effect anyone?

Engine: Let turbos in. And diesel, electric, hydrogen and nuclear powerplants. Make the cars rely on power instead of on aero, and limit their materials.

Fuel limitations: A hard point... You should spend quite a long time trying to sort out this one... With the engine variety it´s hard to find a limit. Anyway, refuelling would be allowed, but it would not be compulsory.

Limited tires, but not unified compounds. Obviously, slick tires.

Standard ECU. No doubt about it.

KERS... V12´s idea is quite good. Allow people to get as much power as they can. Push the button and then jump to hyperspace!

High safety standards. The carbon fibre would be almost necessary, because it offers the best performance.

Limited testing. Only allowed in the GP weekends, and as much as they want. Well, we could even have 1 or 2 testing sessions more, but that should be enough.

Points system. Forget about medals. They never existed, they´ll never exist.

Choose the tracks with the head and not with the pocket. Get rid of places like Abu Dhabi, Hunga -snort- ring and Valencia Street Sedation (to name a few of them). Think about places like Spa, Gilles Villeneuve, Silverstone...

Money: Encourage the teams to participate. Ergo: Get Bernie and put him into a rocket and send him to the Moon. Or Mars, or wherever he doesn´t bother us. And make sure he does not come back.

If you use budget caps, make them high. F1 is a high Formula, if I wanted to see cheaper Formulas (which does not meen poor racing) I´d go for GP2, Formula Ford... If not, make sure teams get enough money to keep on running, and give them money even if they score no WCC points.

And now I have to go somewhere else ;)

[Knock-on]

I appreciate what you're saying and am not too sure we are at opposit ends on this.

Downforce, I agree that cars need it but I suggest limiting it so that engineers have to concentrate on mechanical grip. However, I fully agree with what you are saying in that it is better to create that downforce from the underside of the car and make the outside as aerodynamic as possible thereby reducing drag. This will ensure the wake is minimised.

I also suggested limiting the amount of fuel to force the teams to make both the engines and aeros as efficient as possible otherwise they will increase the outer aero and engine power to disrupt the trailing wake.

[DexDexter]

Looking at this thread, most people are totally unrealistic. I don't think there is fundamentally anything wrong with the chassis/aero and engine rules we have today. Some of you want to turn F1 back into stone age with steel brakes etc. It wouldn't be any more exciting, just different. Not much needs to be changed...Or maybe I'm just dull.

[Ghostwalker]

Looking at this thread, most people are totally unrealistic. I don't think there is fundamentally anything wrong with the chassis/aero and engine rules we have today. Some of you want to turn F1 back into stone age with steel brakes etc. It wouldn't be any more exciting, just different. Not much needs to be changed...Or maybe I'm just dull.

well honestly you prefer V8's over v10s or v12's? the sound from a F1 V12 is so much better then from a v8 :P

[Ghostwalker]

i have one thing to add to my post above and that is F1 should be a few classes above all other motorsport classes and imo F1 should definitely dont use the "same" engine (v8) since many other motortsport classes (american openwheel series, Nascar, stockcars, DTM...) also use it.

IF all these budget cuts will continue F1 will end up as asingle seater/open wheel verison of ETCC.

i am sorry for double post but edit function doesnt seems to be available?

[Dave B]

i am sorry for double post but edit function doesnt seems to be available?
No worries, you only get about 5 minutes to edit your post. :)

[DexDexter]

well honestly you prefer V8's over v10s or v12's? the sound from a F1 V12 is so much better then from a v8 :P

How much is the sound worth? A couple of hundred millions? Don't think so.

[Wasted Talent]

But then what's the point? If everyone is forced to run the same system then it stops being an interesting area of development and just becomes another "green" gimmick :o or a dressed up push-to-pass button :s nore:. What they need to do it get rid of this stupid restriction that you can only use it for 8.71546234 seconds per lap or whatever and just let the cars use as much energy as they can generate, then you'd get more people using it.


Fair idea, but even with a standard KERS there would be some differences when drivers use it. Happy with your change though

WT

[wmcot]

How much is the sound worth? A couple of hundred millions? Don't think so.

I think the arrangement of the engine should be up to the team. Allow V8s, V10s, V12s, Turbo-4s, Flat 12s or Kawasaki motorcycle engines. As long as the car meets basic specs and can go fast enough to qualify, I don't think the FIA has a right to tell a team how to build (or buy) an engine.

[DexDexter]

I think the arrangement of the engine should be up to the team. Allow V8s, V10s, V12s, Turbo-4s, Flat 12s or Kawasaki motorcycle engines. As long as the car meets basic specs and can go fast enough to qualify, I don't think the FIA has a right to tell a team how to build (or buy) an engine.

Yep, and the difference between the front and the back would immediately go back to being over 5 seconds a lap. I certainly don't want that.