Why the need for stringent regulations?

[beelsebob]

Just to bring the point about tracks being the primary gain re safety, you only need look at Rally to see this. Modern (or even 30 year old) rally cars are massively safer than 50s F1 cars, but race them through trees at nearing 200mph, with no run off areas etc and deaths do happen. Group B especially highlights this. They allowed cars to be significantly faster, and what happened – lots of deaths.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

So effectively Beelsebob, you are saying that overt saftey regs on the cars are not in particular responsible for the decrease in fatalities, in a roundabout way you are not disagreeing with SeijaKessen.
Safety is required, and should never be sidelined for risk of something that could have been averted occurring.

To move on from here, I'm talking specifically in relation to the tech side of things. Forget safety for a moment.

Why limit recuperative technology for instance? KERS is expensive is the usual crap I hear....
So is a bloody EBD
I would hazard that the cost of McLaren's fettling with exhausts last year toing and froing from one to another cost more than their KERS investment. A guess, so I could be wrong.
But how wrong is that?

An idea that burns fuel to create downforce? The irony of it all perplexes me. It's incredibly clever yet also so very indicitive of F1 at the moment....Clever but stupid at the same time.

[beelsebob]

So effectively Beelsebob, you are saying that overt saftey regs on the cars are not in particular responsible for the decrease in fatalities, in a roundabout way you are not disagreeing with SeijaKessen.
Safety is required, and should never be sidelined for risk of something that could have been averted occurring.

To move on from here, I'm talking specifically in relation to the tech side of things. Forget safety for a moment.

Why limit recuperative technology for instance? KERS is expensive is the usual crap I hear....

Agreed, I'd love to see the FIA say "you can use any propulsion systems you like, as long as the only fuel is the stuff we specify, and the maximum flow rate is this.

So is a bloody EBD

Yes and no, depends whether you're deliberately blowing off throttle, and hence running the engine more.

[SeijaKessen]

1) Your sample size is too small, you have no idea what the average number of deaths at that speed would be.
2) Who says the FIA are trying to keep exactly on the fastest possible, rather than leaving a little bit of space.

Well, let me ask you, would you not agree that the bulk of driver deaths or severe injuries in F1 from 1950 to 1994 could have been prevented with better car design?

Actually, the big drop in deaths was associated primarily with the push for safer tracks not cars. Senna's death for example would likely have happened in a modern car, and could only have been prevented by keeping the speed of the car at that point below the maximum safe speed for the track.

The fact that we no longer watch races through forests on narrow, bumpy, 20km long tracks with poor marshal support, and 0 run off is what has improved safety.

We'll agree to disagree to a degree.

Yes, some had to do with the tracks...but the drivers who burned to death would have been saved with modern car technology as it pertains to fuel cells and modern marshal training.

Tom Pryce at Kyalami never happens with today's training.

As for Senna, since we don't quite know what happened when he went into the Tamburello ---I don't buy the steering column BS--- there's a bit of speculation to be had there. I do think a tire barrier might have made a difference...will never understand why they didn't at least put in a tire barrier in front of the wall given what happened with Berger, Piquet, and Pattrese.

[Cam]

Patrick Racing To Bring Natural Gas Race Cars To American Le Mans Series In 2013
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1077 ... es-in-2013
If they can do it, why can't F1 regulations allow something similar?

[Dragonfly]

Just want to note that I agree with the thread starter - JET.
There are 2 approaches - either very explicit and complicated rules, or rules defining the frame for operation. Or, of course, a combination of both where appropriate.
We already see that the cost reduction argument is not quite valid as teams always find ways to spend the money they have and can afford.
From that POV it's a real paradox that 3 or 4 engine manufacturers are actually forced to spend vast amounts of money to design and build one and the same spec engine. I can't call this a strive for economic efficiency. More like great shortsightedness and stupidity.
If, as we are wanted to believe, the goal is road relevance, ecologically friendly technologies and higher economic efficiency, then why not open the competition in those areas? Let those money and efforts be spent for something new with every manufacturer engineering team looking their own ways to achieve it.
It may happen that one will make a leap forward while some other will fail and this I see is regarded with great concern. But this is competition for Christ's sake! It's the way the world goes.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

agree with you on that DragonFly.

This here is a perfect indicator for my bugbear. Taken from a recent F1 technical poll:

Poll
In light of rule clarifications, should the FIA consider a full regulation rewrite for F1?
No, interpretation encourages innovation
52%
Some clarifications could help
21%
A full rewrite is needed to close the loopholes
27%

So the innovation lies in interpretation? For me this is so very wrong.

[SeijaKessen]

I do think F1 needs to take the restrictions off the engines.

Set a limit on fuel rate flow, but teams should be allowed to use whatever they like that can run on normal fuel.

Inline 4 turbo? Fine

V6 turbo? Fine

N/A V8 or twin-turbo V8? Have at it.

N/A or twin-turbo V10? Go for it.

V12, flat 12, turbo 12? Knock yourself out.

I think it would present a great challenge to engineers, and fans would really appreciate the varied approaches that would come from teams opting to go with certain motors.

I do have a question for anyone...how was the decision to narrow car width decided upon?

[SeijaKessen]

I can appreciate the aero aspect, but it has no relevance to most fans since we do not drive street legal cars that have the type of downforce a F1 car has. I think it's amazing how much grip they have, but it isn't something you can really understand unless you are in the car feeling the effect it has. I would rather have more mechanical grip involved.

[DaveKillens]

What once started with good intentions (safety), the technical regulations have steadily evolved into a padded room with little scope for true innovation. Senna's death in 1994 was so traumatic to the sport that the rule makes have deliberately decided to limit performance to a set level. Of course those wonderful engineers claw back performance through amazing innovation, but every few years the regulations clamp down harder, to keep a ceiling on performance in effect.

So here we are where the engines even have strict limits on cylinder bore spacing, center of gravity, and so on to limit acceleration and power output. The wheel diameters limit brake size, so the cars can decelerate only so much, and of course, the aerodynamic regulations limit lateral loading. So on and so on, everything has been squeezed down into an engineer's nightmare, a virtual padded room.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Dave,

Agree this is the case. But how can F1 move forward from here?

There are other less draconian means of limiting performance, than what we have now. I understand the basis of the current Aero reliance of F1 cars has some of its roots in the fatalities of the 90's.
Some people would even argue that since then, there have been no deaths vindicating this route.

Why would giving cars more mechanically biased orientation(grip for instance), be so unsafe for F1?
Is it because once adhesion is lost that cars are in the lap of the gods? I see this being equally applicable to Aerodynamic over reliance.
For me, it makes sense to open up the Formula, limit Aero, and put some sort of energy usage policy(fuel limits), to put the brakes on the speed of the cars.

Once they get to certain thresholds(dangerous laptimes), decrease the amount of fuel required. This would have a big effect on lap times.

[bhall]

I think the aerodynamic limitations enacted for safety reasons specifically concern ground effect downforce, because any deviation in the distance between the floor and the track - especially due to curbs - make such downforce unstable and therefore unsafe.

That said, I think it would be a good idea for F1 to look back at everything, and I do mean everything, that's been banned or otherwise limited over the years to see if perhaps progress has made some of those things viable.

[gato azul]

I think the aerodynamic limitations enacted for safety reasons specifically concern ground effect downforce, because any deviation in the distance between the floor and the track - especially due to curbs - make such downforce unstable and therefore unsafe.
.

partly agree, but on the other hand, a rear wing/front wing failure on a current car, would make it pretty unstable/unsafe as well.

I think, the discussion on here now has involved into a different direction, seems that the "real" question is >> Why do they limit mechanical areas/development so much<< or >> why do we have the rules we have <<.
I guess, that's because that is what most of the teams want - simple. If you see the current "rule making process", it's to 98% the teams who make the rules.

On here, it sometimes sound like that "let's blame the FIA for it" it's a common assumption, but I'm not sure that this is entirely correct. So all the "manufacturers" of engines, are quite happy to "play along" with it.
And if manufacturer XY comes and says I want xxx kJ KERS, then some other teams will block the move, so at the end, it seems that we end up with the smallest common denominator.
Tyre war? was great - No? - well unless you where on the "wrong tyre", and I know, that back at the time, the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Honda etc. where not so happy, that all the talk was about Bridgestone vs. Michelin, and if track XY will be a Michelin or Bridgestone track.

Most of the general media coverage was on that topic, not on the "awesome engines/gearboxes" or whatever.
So the manufacturers felt a little bit "short changed" for all the money the spend, compare to what the general public was talking about --> tyres. ( a bit like today )

Have a look on this Forum, what is the most talk about topic? Aerodynamics !! Why? because people can "see it".
Why not talk about damper curves, injector spray patterns or strategy software algorithm ? - Is it so boring?
Do you think, if we opened up the engine regulations (I'm all for it btw), people on here would start to discuss cam shaft profiles and valve angles?
Or if team xy makes a better KERS battery then team zy?
I don't see much discussion on here about roll centre height, motion ratio's, rocker geometry, damper curves or spring rates used. Why is that?
Are most fans these days aerodynamic experts? Or is it just, that this is the only thing you can see with the naked eye on TV or from the grandstands?

Why do Renault & Mercedes play along, if road car relevance is so important for them?
Why not go and race in LeMans, if this is now perceived as the "holy grail" of "green"-technology & road relevance?

[Dragonfly]

While I could agree on some limits on engines (ICE), they could open for development and creativity the area of energy recovery and reuse. IMHO KERS, even in the planned increase of storage and output is till too less.
With the engines, putting a fuel cap, fixed maximum displacement, common ECU, a list of banned exotic materials and limited number of units per season would be more than enough. Let the manufacturers do what they think is best. It may happen that all will come to a single or very similar design solutions, driven by pure engineering calculations. If this would be the case, then the chosen solution could be taken as the optimal. At the same time there is a possibility for diversity and different approach where every manufacturer can make a showcase of their technological and scientific advance.

[Hail22]

Le mans seems to have more Freedom from 2014 onwards...why aren't they applying this to Formula 1?

Free engine regulation, reduce fossil fuel use by %20 (instead of the le mans 30%) allow all forms of kinetic energy recovery (brakes, turbo energy recovery tools).

If only...