F1: 2009 rules or 2013 rules?

[N12ck]

Lets start this off, i think they are completely going against innovation and 2009 rules will be better to carry on with to keep development going instead of starting from scratch every few years,

how long will it be before they get sick of the 2013 f1 rules and decide to completely start again for the 3rd time in a decade, i say stay with 2009 rules!!

[HampusA]

What development? the engines are from the stone age, everything is old and all the engineers do now is fine tuning stuff.

I´m all for a clean sheet. I love todays F1 cars which i hated when i first saw them but now, looking back at the 08 cars i think they are plain ugly and look old.

Less aero, more mechanical.

[ESPImperium]

Id kind of like a mix, id like to see some refinements of todays regs, mainly on the front wing. BUT, id also like to see a diffrent way than the next regs being discussed.

Id like theese issues to be brought in:

* V6s and not the I4s that will come in
* Open up the V6 engine regs and allow open development for 2 years
* Spec fuel tank to 100kg
* Refueling back (Only as a refueling only stop, using the NASCAR style shoulder fillers that put in up to 15kg per fill)
* Allow KERS to be effectivly tripled in power

The things of the current regs id like to see changed are theese:

* Front wing to be reduced in width by 20cm overall
* Front wing to be increased in height by 8cm
* Outlaw of high noses, bring them down in height by 15cm to 20cm
* Banning of front wings that have all those stupid step plains, make them like McLarens 2009 launch wing in look.

Other than that im a happy camper.

[richard_leeds]

i think they are completely going against innovation and 2009 rules will be better to carry on with to keep development going instead of starting from scratch every few years,

Change is the biggest catalyst for innovation.

[astracrazy]

Id like these issues to be brought in:

* V6s and not the I4s that will come in
* Open up the V6 engine regs and allow open development for 2 years
* Spec fuel tank to 100kg
* Refueling back (Only as a refueling only stop, using the NASCAR style shoulder fillers that put in up to 15kg per fill)
* Allow KERS to be effectivly tripled in power

- Perhaps keep the current v8's but open then engine regs so engineers can develop some new ideas to old engines. Gotta save money compared to building a new engine?

- 100kg fuel tank yes but no refuelling (safety reasons for me). But what about as part of the v8's they have to make it more fuel efficient for the fuel tank and also regulate the fuel flow which is planned anyway.

- ye better kers power. Perhaps with this they could reduce the drs wing slightly so it doesn't loose as much drag?

The things of the current regs id like to see changed are theese:

* Front wing to be reduced in width by 20cm overall
* Front wing to be increased in height by 8cm
* Outlaw of high noses, bring them down in height by 15cm to 20cm
* Banning of front wings that have all those stupid step plains, make them like McLarens 2009 launch wing in look.

I agree, make it sort of a phase 2 of the current rules

[Diesel]

I'm not sure about a 4 cylinder engine, it just doesn't sound right for Formula 1. Maybe a V6, and lets drop the rev limit? Why do we need to rev limit the engines? The restrictions should be on fuel, force the teams to make their engines more efficient. They will do it, and they'll probably make them faster at the same time. This in my opinion is road relevant. Perhaps open up KERS development a bit more? Give teams the option of using KERS energy to save fuel, that's the whole idea of such a system right?

As far as aero goes, the current regulations are pretty good, banning the double diffusers has reset things to how they SHOULD have been in 2009, and I think it's worked. Dirty air doesn't seem as much of a problem anymore, even before you think about KERS/DRS.

If there were changes to aero, I would say possible reduce the width of the front wing, it's too wide really, perhaps give them back some of the aera in the middle? I would like to see more downforce generated from the underbody, as this is pretty much immune for the turbulent air effect, more ground effect.

[astracrazy]

why did they bring down the rev limiter? make them more reliable?

I'm sure if they open up the regs on the current V8's all could be achieved for half the cost of designing a new one

- higher rev limiter but still as reliable
- more fuel efficient
- bit more power to help maintain current f1 times

im guessing though so please correct me if i'm wrong

[Tozza Mazza]

You'd get much more innovation with new regulations than you would by sticking with the same ones. There are no good aerodynamic innovations this year, so we need a change.

[ESPImperium]

I think the 2013 rules are going in the right direction, but the areas of contention aer as follows:

* Engines - V8s or I4s, i think this argument is going to reach a head soon, and i think it will fall on a middle ground
* Front Wing - Already in hand, and pretty much to how i decribed above, but with diffrent dimentions
* Rear wings - Unsure how this is gonna be brough into line, but Spa/Monza spec wings are widly rumored to be the profiile they are looking at.
* Diffusers & Floors - Pretty much the same floor, but the diffuser rules are to change seemingly


How easy or hard it should be to pass a car, and how to reduce the drag profile of the cars at present, 2008 cars were on average 1.8 to 2.2 seconds behind before the following car hit the car infronts wall of drag and hot air. 2009/2010 the cars went to arround 0.9 to 1.2 seconds behing before the same thing happened. The big question is how to get this to the target of 0.6 to 0.8 seconds for the "wall" to affect the following car.

Also the other question is how to tighten up the grid and bring 24 cars within the target of 2.0 to 2.5 seconds of each other on Quali pace, and to bring the quali pace to the 1.4 to 1.7 seconds that typically covered the top 20 cars in 2008/2009. All dependant on the track and conditions.

[N12ck]

i would rather it is an adjustment of the 2009 rules rather than a massive change into brand new regs as that would defeat the point of bringing the 2009 rules in the first spot, in my view f1 should be continuous development, not chop and changing rules, i think if they made the front wing less wide that would be okay, and i am completely against the engine, I4's IT WILL SOUND LIKE GP3 CARS!! doesnt sound like f1 to me, f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport not the small engined aero cars, as thats what its turning into, i would be happy for a v6 turbo but I4?

[WhiteBlue]

As always the rules will be decided by the teams and confirmed by the FiA. No F1technical discussion will change that.

In all likelihood the rules will remain pretty much as they have been fixed in December 2010. The reason is the length of time that engine suppliers need to prepare for a new engine. The chassis rules are custom made for the new drive train and I do not expect them to change massively either.

In my opinion the current 2013 regulations plan is brilliant. It would be a shame if anything major is changed. We will get hybrid high tech turbo power with electric compounding and dual torque power control. I can't wait for it to begin.

KERS with push to pass will be discarded and not one moment to early. In fact I think they should bring dual torque forward to 2012. DRS is enough for the drivers to play with in terms of aiding the overtaking.

[Rob01]

The 2013 rules are dropping like flies already. No new aero packages. Big Four set to veto the new engine reg. And if needed they(teams)can continue with current engine package until agreement can be reach within the teams

[mudinveins]

I feel sad they are going to drop the chassis regulations in favor of something more F1 conventional ie boring.

[agip]

Im also dissapointed. They're missing the oportunity of researching completely new things wih ground-effects- Instead they choose to patch some little things like front wing width abd that.

[N12ck]

I think stick with 2009 for a few more years yet