Treatise for a new F1
Discussion
Liberty are announcing the next iteration of their plans at Bahrain.
My ideas for F1... might be a load of rubbish but some idle thoughts. General principal to get a fuller grid, more of an engine/power formula with massively reduced aero and less technology. So the most powerful and hardest to drive formula, though overall lap times may drop.
Design principles
As now for F1, capped at 20 races. Extend winter. 3 tests (2 preseason, one summer)
Addition of a feeder race:
Aero; not my idea but I like this approach. Teams would probably end up converging on one design, but it would be worth investigating:
My ideas for F1... might be a load of rubbish but some idle thoughts. General principal to get a fuller grid, more of an engine/power formula with massively reduced aero and less technology. So the most powerful and hardest to drive formula, though overall lap times may drop.
Design principles
- Increased competition by lowering the barriers to entry
- Focus on mechanical grip with massively reduced aero grip
- Increase engine power
- Increase the opportunities for a driver error to contribute to an error (e.g. gearchange)
- Less fuel limited
- Increased standardization of parts whilst retaining a large perimeter for innovation
- More flexibility for teams to adjust strategy at a race
- Higher laptimes, outside of some tracks (Monza)
- Increased visual spectacle (sliding), more driver errors
- Lower barriers to entry with higher parts standardization
- Goal that a team could make a viable entry for <£50M per annum
- Cost cap would be nice, but hard to police. Rebalance funding by using fines/penalties that go to the smaller teams
- ~450kg dry weight + driver + fuel
- Massively reduced aero – significant use of standardized parts and design freedom only in selected areas (see below)
- Simplified controls; maybe a set of just 5/6 parameters that a driver can control from the steering wheel
- Wheels, hubs, axles, etc – parts that bring relatively low differentiation – all standardized
- A standard 6 speed “Smart” manual gearbox – with interlocks to prevent driver blowing up the engine, but they can still fluff a change. I’d compromise that they could be an electrohydraulic manual transmission - but still with a H style box and no “autoshifting”
- Ratios chosen by teams up to and including race weekend
- Minimal car to pit data. No pit to car controls
- No 4wd, no traction control, etc
- No exotic materials
- Tyres – pretty much as-is; they aren’t an issue in my view
- Single tyre supplier; no tyre wars
- 2 sets ultra sticky quali tyre, lasts ~2 laps. Cannot be used in race.
- 1.5 litre twin turbo engines, goal of 1200-1400hp in quali mode, ~1000 in race trim
- Either 4 or 6 cylinder from a common core block (all the bits on top can be manufacturer)
- Uncapped power
- One engine per race (the goal is for engines to be <€200k). I have no idea if this is achievable, or how significant fuel rates become
- Take another engine, back of the grid. Sliding scale of financial penalties based on constructor points (if you have lots of points you pay for an engine AND a fine; if you have no points, you just have to buy an engine).
- Standard KERS and ECU units.
- No exotic materials
- Manufacturer teams must sell their current year unit to non-manufacturers for €4m/20 engines. Defined common connections, mounting points to make it easier to change supplier.
- ~125 litres of fuel (wider range of fuels - drive energy density up, but within reason that the fumes aren’t poisonous)
- No refueling
As now for F1, capped at 20 races. Extend winter. 3 tests (2 preseason, one summer)
Addition of a feeder race:
- Which is contested by the 3rd team drivers (one car, which can become a T-Car for Sunday)
- One lap quali timed session after FP3 to determine grid.
- Race run after qualifying on Saturday. 50% race distance / 1 hr
- Prize money at end of season.
Aero; not my idea but I like this approach. Teams would probably end up converging on one design, but it would be worth investigating:
The Surveyor said:
Maybe limit the number or aero components a car is allowed to carry to say 10 'elements'. A rear wing with separate DRS blade would be two elements, a further 4 elements from a pair of side-pod canards each side, one element from the little flap added along the top of the halo, that McLaren front wing would circa 62 elements..... Give the teams some flexibility but let them optimise the aero around a simpler design.
Vaud said:
Liberty are announcing the next iteration of their plans at Bahrain.
My ideas for F1... might be a load of rubbish but some idle thoughts. General principal to get a fuller grid, more of an engine/power formula with massively reduced aero and less technology. So the most powerful and hardest to drive formula, though overall lap times may drop.
Design principles
As now for F1, capped at 20 races. Extend winter. 3 tests (2 preseason, one summer)
Addition of a feeder race:
Aero; not my idea but I like this approach. Teams would probably end up converging on one design, but it would be worth investigating:
CarMy ideas for F1... might be a load of rubbish but some idle thoughts. General principal to get a fuller grid, more of an engine/power formula with massively reduced aero and less technology. So the most powerful and hardest to drive formula, though overall lap times may drop.
Design principles
- Increased competition by lowering the barriers to entry
- Focus on mechanical grip with massively reduced aero grip
- Increase engine power
- Increase the opportunities for a driver error to contribute to an error (e.g. gearchange)
- Less fuel limited
- Increased standardization of parts whilst retaining a large perimeter for innovation
- More flexibility for teams to adjust strategy at a race
- Higher laptimes, outside of some tracks (Monza)
- Increased visual spectacle (sliding), more driver errors
- Lower barriers to entry with higher parts standardization
- Goal that a team could make a viable entry for <£50M per annum
- Cost cap would be nice, but hard to police. Rebalance funding by using fines/penalties that go to the smaller teams
- ~450kg dry weight + driver + fuel
- Massively reduced aero – significant use of standardized parts and design freedom only in selected areas (see below)
- Simplified controls; maybe a set of just 5/6 parameters that a driver can control from the steering wheel
- Wheels, hubs, axles, etc – parts that bring relatively low differentiation – all standardized
- A standard 6 speed “Smart” manual gearbox – with interlocks to prevent driver blowing up the engine, but they can still fluff a change. I’d compromise that they could be an electrohydraulic manual transmission - but still with a H style box and no “autoshifting”
- Ratios chosen by teams up to and including race weekend
- Minimal car to pit data. No pit to car controls
- No 4wd, no traction control, etc
- No exotic materials
- Tyres – pretty much as-is; they aren’t an issue in my view
- Single tyre supplier; no tyre wars
- 2 sets ultra sticky quali tyre, lasts ~2 laps. Cannot be used in race.
- 1.5 litre twin turbo engines, goal of 1200-1400hp in quali mode, ~1000 in race trim
- Either 4 or 6 cylinder from a common core block (all the bits on top can be manufacturer)
- Uncapped power
- One engine per race (the goal is for engines to be <€200k). I have no idea if this is achievable, or how significant fuel rates become
- Take another engine, back of the grid. Sliding scale of financial penalties based on constructor points (if you have lots of points you pay for an engine AND a fine; if you have no points, you just have to buy an engine).
- Standard KERS and ECU units.
- No exotic materials
- Manufacturer teams must sell their current year unit to non-manufacturers for €4m/20 engines. Defined common connections, mounting points to make it easier to change supplier.
- ~125 litres of fuel (wider range of fuels - drive energy density up, but within reason that the fumes aren’t poisonous)
- No refueling
As now for F1, capped at 20 races. Extend winter. 3 tests (2 preseason, one summer)
Addition of a feeder race:
- Which is contested by the 3rd team drivers (one car, which can become a T-Car for Sunday)
- One lap quali timed session after FP3 to determine grid.
- Race run after qualifying on Saturday. 50% race distance / 1 hr
- Prize money at end of season.
Aero; not my idea but I like this approach. Teams would probably end up converging on one design, but it would be worth investigating:
The Surveyor said:
Maybe limit the number or aero components a car is allowed to carry to say 10 'elements'. A rear wing with separate DRS blade would be two elements, a further 4 elements from a pair of side-pod canards each side, one element from the little flap added along the top of the halo, that McLaren front wing would circa 62 elements..... Give the teams some flexibility but let them optimise the aero around a simpler design.
- Limit number of aero 'package' designs too maybe 5 a year. Put a stop to the endless number of wings that are designed for specific races. An aero package can only include front, rear and side aero designs. This will bring the smaller teams up to the bigger teams by reducing cost's and increasing intellectual input, not how big your wallet and wind tunnels are. (See Haas this year... all there improvement has to be aero!)
- Increase number of engines to maybe 5 a year, cost offset by reducing the aero race. 3 engines per year is just stupid. They're all going to be taking hits on components through wear/unreliability or through crash damage.
- Increase the fuel allowance. No coasting, no backing off, full throttle start to finish.
- Loose all battery power on the next lap, if you exceed the track limits on the previous lap. Drivers used to be stuck in the Gravel, now they get away with it!
If the goal is to reduce the costs and better the racing, the cars need less power rather than more. The minute the top teams are able to extract a chunk more power in a hot mode, any middling team can forget the idea of being competitive. More power isn't the answer, especially when the top teams are nearing or surpassing the 1000bhp mark already (who knows what it might be in max / party / hot mode). These are the quickest cars the formula has ever seen, so making them faster still wont improve racing nor overtaking.
The trouble is when you go down the route of spec engines, spec chassis etc, the teams who are able to manufacture in house, will soon withdraw from the game as they see the ability to make your own parts, and do your own thing as an advantage. A spec engine block handed out to teams would likely result in both Ferrari and Mercedes making more noise about quitting.
Each and every year, in the days following the Oz GP, there's demands to overhaul the formula again due to another Albert Park procession which lacked overtaking, as if it's a litmus test for the whole season. The truth is it's a hopeless track for overtaking, but after the winter break I suppose everyone is hyped up for a ding dong paint swapping afternoon on a Sunday. A better track as a season opener would be the way forward IMO.
History has shown the best racing came when regulations were given the time to settle down for a few years, and a level playing field came around naturally when the team at the top have come across diminishing returns in development, and following teams all bunch up, leaving the grid closer (changing the regs again now might not help the gulf between Red Bull and McLaren, for example).
In terms of practical changes; the ability to burn more fuel per hour - perhaps with an increase in fuel tank size. Essentially a way of reducing the need to turn down engines due to fuel consumption issues.
Number of engines per season; I think 3 for this year is a catastrophic move and the majority of teams will be nursing wounded soldiers by Silverstone or Spa. This itself is probably the most embarrassing issue facing the teams as the level they need to turn down engines just to finish the later races might go beyond what we saw with Renault at the end of last season.
The 'pick 10' aero system is something different and might have some mileage. On a long enough timeline teams would cotton on as to what works best and what doesn't at all, but it might spice up the aesthetics initially.
The trouble is when you go down the route of spec engines, spec chassis etc, the teams who are able to manufacture in house, will soon withdraw from the game as they see the ability to make your own parts, and do your own thing as an advantage. A spec engine block handed out to teams would likely result in both Ferrari and Mercedes making more noise about quitting.
Each and every year, in the days following the Oz GP, there's demands to overhaul the formula again due to another Albert Park procession which lacked overtaking, as if it's a litmus test for the whole season. The truth is it's a hopeless track for overtaking, but after the winter break I suppose everyone is hyped up for a ding dong paint swapping afternoon on a Sunday. A better track as a season opener would be the way forward IMO.
History has shown the best racing came when regulations were given the time to settle down for a few years, and a level playing field came around naturally when the team at the top have come across diminishing returns in development, and following teams all bunch up, leaving the grid closer (changing the regs again now might not help the gulf between Red Bull and McLaren, for example).
In terms of practical changes; the ability to burn more fuel per hour - perhaps with an increase in fuel tank size. Essentially a way of reducing the need to turn down engines due to fuel consumption issues.
Number of engines per season; I think 3 for this year is a catastrophic move and the majority of teams will be nursing wounded soldiers by Silverstone or Spa. This itself is probably the most embarrassing issue facing the teams as the level they need to turn down engines just to finish the later races might go beyond what we saw with Renault at the end of last season.
The 'pick 10' aero system is something different and might have some mileage. On a long enough timeline teams would cotton on as to what works best and what doesn't at all, but it might spice up the aesthetics initially.
Engine manufacturers have to give the customer teams the same engine and the same engine maps this year.... they're not allowed to have their special maps without giving them out. Now whether Ferrari and Renault have a 'special party' map, is another question!
Spec parts could (and should) be used. Drive shafts, hubs and wheels could all be spec parts. most of the braking products are spec parts anyway, being produced by carbone industries/Brembo/AP Racing and the products used being chopped and changed at the drivers whim. The electrics being McLaren or Magnetti Marelli amongst others.
I still reckon the Liberty should give each team the same money each year, get rid of all the bonus's for chamopionships/history etc. The teams can make good of their history and previous success by better sponsorship deals.
Spec parts could (and should) be used. Drive shafts, hubs and wheels could all be spec parts. most of the braking products are spec parts anyway, being produced by carbone industries/Brembo/AP Racing and the products used being chopped and changed at the drivers whim. The electrics being McLaren or Magnetti Marelli amongst others.
I still reckon the Liberty should give each team the same money each year, get rid of all the bonus's for chamopionships/history etc. The teams can make good of their history and previous success by better sponsorship deals.
From what Brawn has been saying since he got his role with Liberty, I think they agree with the popular opinion that the new regs should include less bodywork aero, better engine parity, more lenient seasonal engine limits and maybe reintroduce refuelling.
The only thing in their way is Merc and Ferrari. They don't want their investments in the hybrid engines to go to waste. I'd suspect Renault and Honda aren't keen on it either but will concede that under the current regs they'll never catch Merc. After Q3 in Australia I would've though Ferrari were secretly feeling the same too.
I understand a step has already been taken by the fia to ensure customer teams get the exact same engines as the works teams, but Merc still supposedly have extra engine modes?
Hoping FIA/Liberty/whoever is responsible has the balls to propose these changes and call Ferrari and Merc's bluff. When every other story about F1 from the past 3 or so years is about how boring it has become, you know change is needed.
The only thing in their way is Merc and Ferrari. They don't want their investments in the hybrid engines to go to waste. I'd suspect Renault and Honda aren't keen on it either but will concede that under the current regs they'll never catch Merc. After Q3 in Australia I would've though Ferrari were secretly feeling the same too.
I understand a step has already been taken by the fia to ensure customer teams get the exact same engines as the works teams, but Merc still supposedly have extra engine modes?
Hoping FIA/Liberty/whoever is responsible has the balls to propose these changes and call Ferrari and Merc's bluff. When every other story about F1 from the past 3 or so years is about how boring it has become, you know change is needed.
Edited by Turbojuice on Tuesday 27th March 12:29
Reintroduce N/A engines alongside the Turbo variants which may see interesting battles later on in the season in terms of reliability? Plus the N/A engines may be cheaper as they're simpler, allowing new manufacturers and teams to come in?
Introduce a second tyre manufacturer! Limit the tyres like they do now, but have different philosophies on tyre compounds.
Reintroduce refueling. Make it interesting and less of a safe steady race where people take it easy.
Ban two way telemetry.
Ban that f
king halo!!!!!!
Introduce a second tyre manufacturer! Limit the tyres like they do now, but have different philosophies on tyre compounds.
Reintroduce refueling. Make it interesting and less of a safe steady race where people take it easy.
Ban two way telemetry.
Ban that f
king halo!!!!!!As well as a big list of restrictions you might also want to describe where teams can innovate, because without this ability there's no inducement to run a team. If there's no ability to develop the aero or the engines why would a team bother as it's very difficult to differentiate themselves from the other teams?
I'm not saying some of these changes aren't a good idea but at the end of the day you've got to induce teams to enter & us to pay to watch the result. We know that no-one's interested in a one-make series.
I'm not saying some of these changes aren't a good idea but at the end of the day you've got to induce teams to enter & us to pay to watch the result. We know that no-one's interested in a one-make series.
Mr Pointy said:
As well as a big list of restrictions you might also want to describe where teams can innovate, because without this ability there's no inducement to run a team. If there's no ability to develop the aero or the engines why would a team bother as it's very difficult to differentiate themselves from the other teams?
I'm not saying some of these changes aren't a good idea but at the end of the day you've got to induce teams to enter & us to pay to watch the result. We know that no-one's interested in a one-make series.
Aero positioning of the much more limited selection of aero parts.I'm not saying some of these changes aren't a good idea but at the end of the day you've got to induce teams to enter & us to pay to watch the result. We know that no-one's interested in a one-make series.
Only the block and KERS is standard, . Everything else is innovation.
Fuel - increase energy density - chill it, add chemicals. No more "pump" fuel. (with some limits for safety)
With aero more limited there may even be a market in selling last years car to a new team and it being competitive.
It would become a power/fuel war with less grip.
Edited by Vaud on Tuesday 27th March 12:58
Turbojuice said:
under the current regs they'll never catch Merc. After Q3 in Australia I would've though Ferrari were secretly feeling the same too.
Raikkonen's straight line speeds in his fastest Q3 lap were appreciably higher than those seen during Hamilton's pole lap. Make of that what you will...(IMO last year's Ferrari was draggier than the Mercedes and their qualifying modes weren't quite there, this year I'd say there's a gnat's cock in outright maximum attack power and the longer 2018 Ferrari is probably less draggy than last year's)
super7 said:
- Increase the fuel allowance. No coasting, no backing off, full throttle start to finish.
ETA: I like the idea of doing away with driver selectable engine modes though, at least then the fuel saving vs maximum attack balance would be purely down to driver skill.
There was a big survey (150k sample size) by motorsport.com last year that found the things fans want the most are:
If I had the power, I'd take away one toy from the engine manufacturers in this formula: MGU-H, and watch the field close up.
Where is Bernie when you need him?
- Annual Team Budget Caps to be agreed and policed
- Allowing independent teams to purchase and compete in ‘customer cars’
- Awarding Championship Points for Fastest Lap
- A return to in-race refueling
- The return to V8 engines
- A return to tyre competition
If I had the power, I'd take away one toy from the engine manufacturers in this formula: MGU-H, and watch the field close up.
Where is Bernie when you need him?
[/Devil's Advocate]HustleRussell said:
super7 said:
- Increase the fuel allowance. No coasting, no backing off, full throttle start to finish.
ETA: I like the idea of doing away with driver selectable engine modes though, at least then the fuel saving vs maximum attack balance would be purely down to driver skill.
If you have to have XXX KG at fuel tank height you might as well make it fuel, so no advantage to under-fueling.
Vaud said:
Tyres – pretty much as-is; they aren’t an issue in my view
Part of me* thinks types should be more road-like and designed to last multiple races. Yes it would kill lap times but when people talk about the 'goldren age' of F1 most seem to look back to the 50's and 60's when cars would slip and slide and race wheel-to-wheel. A lot of that was down to the tyres - sliding due to really limited grip and wheel-to-wheel racing because the rubber stayed on the tyre, rather than being thrown off across the track making most of it an ice-like no-go area after 10 laps.- Another part of me thinks it's a terrible idea though
I think there are some really sensible suggestions here but I think there needs to be some reflection over what people are actually looking to achieve.
What we have at present is a formula which is so descriptive, we see cars which look identical and which lap within a fraction of a second of each other despite being designed by different teams from either side of Europe. There is no scope for, or incentive to do anything different so we have multiple teams all trying to do exactly the same thing a micro better.
If we make the formula equally descriptive but try and restrict the budgets, or aero, or engines, we will again end up with a grid of identical looking cars again doing the same thing but again all trying to do it a tiny bit better.
For me, we need to see some flexibility to encourage some design flair. Newey did it recently with the double diffuser and Brawn with their blown diffuser, in the past McLaren did it with the carbon tub and then all the innovative brilliance from Colin Chapman, add in the heroic failures like the Tyrell 6 wheeler, or the dodgy Murray fan-car and it made for an interesting and entertaining grid. Free up some of the formula to let the designers be more innovative, let them design a solution for passing cars in turbulent air using exciting ideas rather than ever more complex aero funded by ever increasing budgets.
The next generation of innovative designers have their wings clipped by the current formula, we need to allow them some flexibility to create exciting cars again.
What we have at present is a formula which is so descriptive, we see cars which look identical and which lap within a fraction of a second of each other despite being designed by different teams from either side of Europe. There is no scope for, or incentive to do anything different so we have multiple teams all trying to do exactly the same thing a micro better.
If we make the formula equally descriptive but try and restrict the budgets, or aero, or engines, we will again end up with a grid of identical looking cars again doing the same thing but again all trying to do it a tiny bit better.
For me, we need to see some flexibility to encourage some design flair. Newey did it recently with the double diffuser and Brawn with their blown diffuser, in the past McLaren did it with the carbon tub and then all the innovative brilliance from Colin Chapman, add in the heroic failures like the Tyrell 6 wheeler, or the dodgy Murray fan-car and it made for an interesting and entertaining grid. Free up some of the formula to let the designers be more innovative, let them design a solution for passing cars in turbulent air using exciting ideas rather than ever more complex aero funded by ever increasing budgets.
The next generation of innovative designers have their wings clipped by the current formula, we need to allow them some flexibility to create exciting cars again.
I would mandate standardised and simplified front and rear wings, floor and diffuser that are designed to give less downforce but still work reasonably well in the wake of another car. Bodywork in between the front and rear axle centrelines would still be relatively free for the teams to play with.
Convert the current engines to twin-turbo without MGU-H, to hopefully give us some more noise and turbo flames. Give them freedom to develop KERS more, to retain their supposed green credentials and link to road car hybrid tech.
Ease the engine usage limits so they aren't turning the engines down and worrying about being penalised for the rest of the season for a failure in the first race. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed a new engine for every race weekend, or at least be able to refresh them inbetween races. Major components such as crank, rods, pistons and head and block castings can all be barcoded/RFID tagged to ensure they are identifiably reused, but things like piston rings and bearings should be able to be replaced without penalty.
I would also like to restrict the number of engineers at the races (those rooms full of people staring at laptops, and somehow ban the live linkup of the race teams back to their headquarters where there is another army of people staring at laptops of live car and race data. This is to put more emphasis on the driver and pitwall to call race strategy on the fly, rather than relying on teams of engineers running computer programmes to tell them what to do next.
Convert the current engines to twin-turbo without MGU-H, to hopefully give us some more noise and turbo flames. Give them freedom to develop KERS more, to retain their supposed green credentials and link to road car hybrid tech.
Ease the engine usage limits so they aren't turning the engines down and worrying about being penalised for the rest of the season for a failure in the first race. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed a new engine for every race weekend, or at least be able to refresh them inbetween races. Major components such as crank, rods, pistons and head and block castings can all be barcoded/RFID tagged to ensure they are identifiably reused, but things like piston rings and bearings should be able to be replaced without penalty.
I would also like to restrict the number of engineers at the races (those rooms full of people staring at laptops, and somehow ban the live linkup of the race teams back to their headquarters where there is another army of people staring at laptops of live car and race data. This is to put more emphasis on the driver and pitwall to call race strategy on the fly, rather than relying on teams of engineers running computer programmes to tell them what to do next.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff