What F1 rules should be?

[Jnovak]

Ok guys, been reading all the posts about what the F1 rules should be an thought this is a good fall and winter project.

I will start of with what I think are some of the important factors.

1. Lots of HP. Perhaps simple 5L V8 turning 10k or maybe a small engine turbo. Maybe both, who knows.
2. Lots of tire on the ground. At least 15" diameter wheels.
3. Limited downforce. When I say limited I mean something in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 times the vehicle weight of total Df at 200 mph. So if the car weighed 1000 lbs ready to race then the aero could be about 1000 lbs to 1500 lbs total Df at 200 mph. Even this is too much IMO to allow wheel to wheel racing.
4. Fuel limits???
5. Cost limits are tough but a MUST IMO. How about a maximum budget in $$/year for the cars and team but not including the drivers pay?

Perhaps we discuss the giant picture as above before we start coming up with actual rules.

[Peter Olivola]

The world has changed from the 1960's and racing has to change to stay relevant. It might be appealing to older F1 fans to go back to the "good old days," but that just sounds like a slightly updated version of the dinosaurs clamoring for a return to front engined cars at the Indy 500. Both groups are dying out and the sport must appeal to generations weaned on computers and electronics or risk joining those older fans.

Bernie and Co. may not have it right, and I'm certainly no fan of the ugly old git, but they're trying to produce something relevant to the changed world.

[DaveW]

...Perhaps we discuss the giant picture as above before we start coming up with actual rules.

And what would WE do with these rules? Tell Bernie what to do? I don't think he listens very well, especially to us common folks...

[Jnovak]

And what would WE do with these rules? Tell Bernie what to do? I don't think he listens very well, especially to us common folks...

Just for fun.

[B Farnham]

I'd like to see a series with open wheel cars without wings. That way the cars could follow more closely and they'd be harder to drive.

N/A V8s with LS and Ford 4v motors.

Steel brakes and spec suspension components. Shocks and chassis are free game.

[Jnovak]

The world has changed from the 1960's and racing has to change to stay relevant. It might be appealing to older F1 fans to go back to the "good old days," but that just sounds like a slightly updated version of the dinosaurs clamoring for a return to front engined cars at the Indy 500. Both groups are dying out and the sport must appeal to generations weaned on computers and electronics or risk joining those older fans.

Bernie and Co. may not have it right, and I'm certainly no fan of the ugly old git, but they're trying to produce something relevant to the changed world.

I am also not a fan of the older cars. What I am a fan of is closer racing that allows the cars to actually race together without artificial enhancements.

Right now there is little passing unless one driver is out of tires or something else is wrong.

The reason they have to have movable wings is that the cars cannot run close to each other due to the aerodynamics rules.

A new set of rules does not need to eliminate technology. My goal is simply lower costs and better racing.

PS, I hate the sound of the new cars.

[KodaBear]

The world has changed from the 1960's and racing has to change to stay relevant. It might be appealing to older F1 fans to go back to the "good old days," but that just sounds like a slightly updated version of the dinosaurs clamoring for a return to front engined cars at the Indy 500. Both groups are dying out and the sport must appeal to generations weaned on computers and electronics or risk joining those older fans.

Bernie and Co. may not have it right, and I'm certainly no fan of the ugly old git, but they're trying to produce something relevant to the changed world.

Formula One has never been relevant to any average joe. Neither has baseball soccer or football. People don't watch these things because they are relevant to their daily lives, but rather as an escape from their daily lives where they get to see spectacles they would not normally get to see. Baseball and football are losing fans too. But it's not because of a lack of relevance...rather it's due to new forms of entertainment, and shifting social behaviors.

[Mark_Silverberg]

Race length 180 miles

Maximum fuel tank capacity 25 gallons - no refueling (down from 33.8 in 2014)

Minimum weight 1100 lbs

Existing width and length limits

Fuel tank capacity drops 0.5 gal per year for next 10 year

Maintain all existing driver protection rules.

No other rules / restrictions.

No spending limits - let free market value of participation set budget.

Maximum 4 cars per team.

Customer cars/ engines. transmissions, components allowed.

[rickb99]

....Customer cars/ engines. transmissions, components allowed.

Agree with that. I'm sure there are people in the world talented enough to go F1 racing that just do not have the budget to build their own cars. But if you could buy a Ferrari, Lotus, McLaren, Mercedes F1 car you might see 40 car grids (then again that might not work either).

[Peter Olivola]

The world, not the average joe. Big difference.

Formula One has never been relevant to any average joe. Neither has baseball soccer or football. People don't watch these things because they are relevant to their daily lives, but rather as an escape from their daily lives where they get to see spectacles they would not normally get to see. Baseball and football are losing fans too. But it's not because of a lack of relevance...rather it's due to new forms of entertainment, and shifting social behaviors.

[dalz]

...But if you could buy a Ferrari, Lotus, McLaren, Mercedes F1 car you might see 40 car grids (then again that might not work either).

They did once. Research the nightmare of "pre-qualifying" in the early '90s.

All the high-tech stuff is what the manufacturers want because they're working on it for road cars. If F1 is the pinnacle then it should be complex. I'm glad they're reducing downforce with elimination of diffusers. They could take if further by dictating only single-element wings--set 'em how you like, pay a big drag price for a lot of grip. Nuthin' wrong with big tires either. Like St. Gilles said--take the downforce away and keep the big tires, they slow you down well if you spin.

Peter O.--you're quite right in that the Central Indiana OW crowd is very bitter that it's not 1959 anymore. Of course there's the minority faction that is very bitter that it's not 1993 anymore.

[chrisw52]

I am also not a fan of the older cars. What I am a fan of is closer racing that allows the cars to actually race together without artificial enhancements.

Right now there is little passing unless one driver is out of tires or something else is wrong.

The reason they have to have movable wings is that the cars cannot run close to each other due to the aerodynamics rules.

A new set of rules does not need to eliminate technology. My goal is simply lower costs and better racing.

PS, I hate the sound of the new cars.

Jay I was listening to the SkyF1 coverage, and Martin Brundle has the opinion that the narrow track of the modern F1 cars has more to do with the lack of passing than the movable aerodynamics. He said, with the wider track, the tires produced more drag, and turbulence which allowed the cars to run closer together.


My F1 rules:

• go back to a full constructor series.
• keep the aero simple. Front wing would be a simple single plane element with 2 side plates, nothing else. Rear wing would be a single element with a single center mounted wing mount. Simple airfoil designs. Cars would remain flat bottomed, and I would eliminate the barge boards and front splitter.
• being a full constructor series, I would limit the engine to be based upon a stock production engine, rebuilt using production parts to "F1 spec". The kers, fancy valve trains, etc.. would only be allowed if the technology was on a production vehicle available to the public in a certain percentage of car sales (this is to offset the cost of the new tech)
• Get rid of these 13" rims and move into the 21st century
• with the larger rims, I could restrict brakes to be "production" units, or some brake system that would be available on a production car.
• reduce the complexity of the steering wheel and possibly go back to a gear shift level instead of paddles. I have Senna's video of Monaco in my mind when thinking of this... that was real driving, something I would like to see again.

[fitfan]

there was a time, in F1. where the "formula" was - simplified of core, wheelbase/track/weight/displacement and umm... not much more.

that brought about a revolution in race car engineering. the majority of the "trickled down (became relevant) to lower series formula cars (formula ford, f5000, atlatnics, etc all... are all downstream relevant F1 trickle down car spec series - ok, maybe not only f1... but certainly the "others" like indy were driven and influenced themselves by F1). and as a result - production car now have bits of what F1 innovated (sequential paddle boxes, active wings, diffusers, turbo development and use, active suspension, electronic diffs, how many sports cars had V-10 until F1 had them? etc)

so... now we have F1 today- does anyone care? what is the innovation in F1 today you think will be in your race car 10 years or your road car in 20 year from now? IMO - therein lies the problem, and the answer.

the answer is very simple:

throw the troll in front of a firing squad... the rest will sort itself out

[Jnovak]

I agree that F1 needs to be MUCH SIMPLIFIED wrt the rules.

Big motor with big hp. Say 5L normally aspirated. Target 900 hp. This is easy as NA NASCAR 6L motors are making that much with pushrod 2 valve heads.

Front wing with a maximum width and chord length. Double element max. Side plates allowed with a max overhang

Rear wing max width max chord. Single element lower, double element upper. Max overhang

Maximum overall width

Maximum overall length

No diffusers

BIG WHEELS AND TIRES, say 15" to 18" diameter wheels with lots of contact patch.

I think paddle shifters are fine, but no computer controlled shifting. Shifting initiated and completed by the driver.

This concept would not detract from the technology and would reduce the costs to race by a factor of 3 or 4. I also think that the dramatic reduction in Df would let the cars race closer together and would encourage draft passing without movable wings.

[JeffW]

I really dislike the overbearing rules that now exist. If it keeps up drivers will not be allowed to go for a pee within 5 mins of the false grid going.

The idea of making F1 "green" by using less gas for example is an absolute farce. How much fuel is consumed flying the entourage hither and thither around the globe, not to mention the transporters and running the "hotel quarters" that every team has to have trackside. And how much petroleum product is used to make the tires......it goes on and on.

Car racing was never green and lets not pretend it is. And when people ask me about this I reply how much fuel (energy) is consumed flying hockey, football and basketball teams all over the NA continent, not to mention the power used to light stadiums and keep a sheet of ice frozen in Miami or LA. Its our society, its the way it is.

And don't get me started on limiting the number of engines, gearboxes etc that can be used.

Glad I had this rant.

JeffW

[fitfan]

i think there is a difference between "green" and "efficiency" and this is where f1 has gone wrong....

endurance racing inherently rewards efficiency. IMO once of the biggest issues with F1 (aside from all the stupid you to use each of the bad tires, must pit, bla boa) is the pit stops are too fast... 4- 5 guys max - pit stops should take about 20-30'ish seconds. make it so no one wants to pit, rather than everyone wants to pit as much as possible.

and fine just give them a 110 liters or whatever of fuel. set the min car weight very low. and now go off and engineer the best power train to get to the end of the race fastest with that fuel. turbo, motor/generator, batteries, big displacement, small... let the teams innovate and figure out the fastest way around. rather then prescribe and an engine spec. want 200 lbs of battery and monster engine... go for it. want a screaming 1.0 liter turbo grenade and nothing else. go for it. what is the most efficient solution? we do not yet know that answer and we never will if the spec is prescribed. allow 2 drive axles, run a M/G on the front end" or pass a drive shaft? let the teams figure it out and do crazy bat **** stuff. that would generate interest. can you imagine williams with a M/g on the front axle, an AWD ferrari with an axle under the drivers arm. a 3 liter battery car and 1 litter sipper that weighs 300 lbs less than anyone else?

bring back the tire wars... why 13" who knows - just spec the cross section and let the teams run whatever they want 13" 20" who cares!?

just like with a displacement formula - it won't take long for everyone to realize, not v8, not v-12 - v10 is the correct answer.... and everyone runs v-10's with an effeieny formula everyone will eventually distill to a engine fuel rate/hybrid weight/ combo.

cars to slow? give them more fuel.
cars to fast? give them less fuel. easy... "formula"

[SpacemanSpiff]

I actually like the fuel limit. It's the ultimate equalizer in racing. You can do whatever you want to the car, but you all have the exact same amount of energy to do it with. It puts emphasis on driving well, strategy, getting every ounce of performance out of the car, and designing the best car you can. Also, F1 doesn' t want pit fires, so refueling is probably done. I would lose the per lap requirement, but I doubt it'd matter much.

I'm not sure where I'd put the other rules, but I don't think the newest crop of supercars should have better tech than F1 cars. Also, I think a move towards spec rules is a mistake. It just pushes the hugely expensive search for the next .1% gain, which is quickly becomes exponentially expensive. And the reality is that Mercedes, Ferrari, etc will spend the money for that .1%, and Caterham will still lose.

It might be fun to open up the rules all the way. Then safety limit the tracks with tire specs.

[Frank Williamson]

I remember back when F1 was deciding on a new engine formula, when they went from V-10's to V-8's, one F1 engineer questioned why they were even having a discussion about engine architecture. He said supply fuel at a regulated pressure through a specified orifice, then build whatever you want to make the best use of it.

I guess that would be too simple.

[grapefarmeral]

Eliminate the wings and the fancy (they take 4 or 5 months to make), brakes. Let all the whizzy "road car" relevant things stay. Make the braking zones longer, then there will be as much passing per lap as a Formula Ford or Formula Vee race...

[rickb99]

..... Make the braking zones longer, then there will be as much passing per lap as a Formula Ford or Formula Vee race...

How does the length of the braking zone effect the rate of deceleration?

[racerdad2]

My guess... lesser brakes make for longer brake zones with a better chance for a late braking pass ?

Less aero. Less braking. Bigger tires. Production based engine. A steering wheel (not a video game controller). Sequential manual trans. Gasoline.