Add weight to faster cars

[sgth0mas]

Uhhmm.. neither of the two you mentitled are spec series. In fact, in NASCAR. Everything is hand-built and two "identical" cars handle differently.

Go ahead and define Spec series for me...then tell me where it mentions the handling of identical cars. Even in kart racing the handling may be different between chassis.

I'm a fan of nascar road racing and enjoy watching it...but there is no room for expansive creativity like there is in formula 1 racing. That makes the racing closer and better, but the cars less interesting. Almost every aspect of design and performance is dictated by specs in nascar.

Indycar is a spec series in the literal sense. Meaning the definition of spec series.

Maybe it will make you feel better if i say those leagues are not open formula?

Dude seriously, a series with four different engines of the same size and configuration and several teams building their own cars from the ground up but all on a control tire, NASCAR has more similarity to f1 than any series in the world.

I dont think you understand nascar rules 1 bit after this comment. Nascar is nothing like F1...in nascar they control AoA of the wings, size and shape. They specify suspension type and body geometry. They control materials over most of the car. They control even the most intricate details of engine specifications. Theres also that whole open wheel thing...

How would you describe the "Car of Tomorrow" if not as "spec"?

[bill shoe]

Here's a fair and competitive way to add weight to the cars...

Every team must meet a universal base minimum weight, i.e. the current minimum weight. In addition every car must run ballast that weighs the gold equivalent of their annual payment from Bernie/FOM. Teams are allowed to drop this ballast at any time, but they must pay the equivalent money back to FOM to subsidize free-to-air and commercial-free race broadcasts. Hey, this is easy.

[Pierce89]

Go ahead and define Spec series for me...then tell me where it mentions the handling of identical cars. Even in kart racing the handling may be different between chassis.

I'm a fan of nascar road racing and enjoy watching it...but there is no room for expansive creativity like there is in formula 1 racing. That makes the racing closer and better, but the cars less interesting. Almost every aspect of design and performance is dictated by specs in nascar.

Indycar is a spec series in the literal sense. Meaning the definition of spec series.

Maybe it will make you feel better if i say those leagues are not open formula?

Dude seriously, a series with four different engines of the same size and configuration and several teams building their own cars from the ground up but all on a control tire, NASCAR has more similarity to f1 than any series in the world.

I dont think you understand nascar rules 1 bit after this comment. Nascar is nothing like F1...in nascar they control AoA of the wings, size and shape. They specify suspension type and body geometry. They control materials over most of the car. They control even the most intricate details of engine specifications. Theres also that whole open wheel thing...

How would you describe the "Car of Tomorrow" if not as "spec"?

"Car of Tomorrow" hasn't existed since 2013. Suspension geometry is different each car. Bodies are different in areas away from the nose. NASCAR has less similarity between cars of the same "make" than V8SC or WTCC for example. I haven't heard those labeled as "spec".

Indycar is "spec" only in the actual chassis. A Honda has no aerodynamic nor engine nor cooling architecture that is the same as a Chevy.

I'm afraid you're the one who doesnt understand the rules. In a spec series(such as gp2)everyone has the same cards to play from.

That's not IndyCar and it sure as hell isn't NASCAR.

Edit: I read back and on engines in nascar, did you not realize that there can be as much as 75hp difference between the different engines. Also as an aside, NASCAR has the highest budgets of any national series in the world, with corresponding levels of engineering. Hendrick spends ~ 40mil per season per car. That's a larger overall budget budget(for four cars ) than some f1 teams.

[zac510]

Here's a fair and competitive way to add weight to the cars...

Every team must meet a universal base minimum weight, i.e. the current minimum weight. In addition every car must run ballast that weighs the gold equivalent of their annual payment from Bernie/FOM. Teams are allowed to drop this ballast at any time, but they must pay the equivalent money back to FOM to subsidize free-to-air and commercial-free race broadcasts. Hey, this is easy.

very good!

In all seriousness, I'm a pretty diehard F1 tech fan (just check my join date to this forum) but I don't think a success penalty would be that bad. A success ballast alone would not reduce the technical freedom; we'd still have this forum, regular tech updates in all the regular media sources.
As F1 tech fans we really should be worrying far more about rule restrictions that reduce technical freedom and other environmental issues like homogenisation of track design that have an impact on technical diversity. A success ballast is a sporting restriction, not a technical restriction.
Ultimately I'd prefer not to have success ballast, but if a success ballast was put on the table at the same time as an opening up of technical rules, I think that would be a very worthwhile tradeoff.

[bauc]

I think there are enough artificial things in F1. We don't need more.

Exactly, well said.

[ESPImperium]

Ive always thought that a time ballast idea in quail may be a good idea. Basically for the top ten in the WDC the drivers get a time ballast in Q1 meaning they are at greater jeopardy of going out. I was thinking a look like this, based on the points system in a way as well:

01: 2.5s
02: 1.8s
03: 1.5s
04: 1.2s
05: 1.0s
06: 0.8s
07: 0.6s
08: 0.4s
09: 0.2s
10: 0.1s

Basically, the top guys need to get out and be on it straight off to mean they can't sit in the pits as they would be in the drop zone in Q1. As for Q2 on the 2015 system, its as it is, no bull, no time ballast.

[Tim.Wright]

I dont like success ballast because it masks true pace.

As strange as it sounds superficially, starting the race in reverse order of the championship standings lets everyone race at their true limit (tyres permitting). Its a system you cant screw (you need to give points to all finishers to avoid intentional drop outs) and theres no way in hell you can say that the resulting winner of this championship only did it because of their car as they will have had to pull off hundereds of passing maneuvers to win it which puts a massive focus on racecraft instead of outright pace.

The more you think about it, lining the cars up from fastest to slowest then complaining about lack of action is pretty daft if you ask me.

Replace qually with a one make sprint race on saturday and it would be a killer weekend.

[Fulcrum]

Precisely. Unless there is a huge differential in performance amongst cars when running full tanks vs. empty tanks, the cars that qualify at the front stay there. The field remains largely static or spreads out, which describes 80% of all F1 racing. The 20% comes from cars being out of position, almost exclusively a function of making a mistake during qualifying, taking a penalty, rain, etc...

I'd have the Sprint race as half-distance and half points of the main event. Grid determined by Championship position. Sunday grid determined by race outcomes from the Sprint. Normal points allocation.

[henry]

As I see it the problem is that what is wanted is a Driver's championship and what we have is a Constructor's championship in which 2 and occasionally a couple more drivers have a chance to go for the big prize.

So how about a sprint race for the Constructor's and a ballasted ( based on constructor position) Driver's race on Sunday, qualifying in the morning using a nice short format because the promoters will be happy with a much closer race.

There would still be a best team and best car to be in but it wouldn't be the sort of procession we've suffered for most of this century.

[hurril]

If you don't want the best car(s) to win, then which one should? The next best? The worst? Either way you cut it, a rule that imposes some sort of handicap or performance penalty is merely going to translate the current results onto a new list, just as static as the one you think you want to change. Nothing gained. This is a stupid idea.

[henry]

If you don't want the best car(s) to win, then which one should? The next best? The worst? Either way you cut it, a rule that imposes some sort of handicap or performance penalty is merely going to translate the current results onto a new list, just as static as the one you think you want to change. Nothing gained. This is a stupid idea.

I think many more people care which driver wins rather than which car. In my proposal all the Constructors would race for their championship and the drivers theirs. To help find the best driver the cars would be handicapped to keep them, the cars, closer in capability. I wouldn't agree that the list would be as static. Right now just 2 drivers have the opportunity to be WDC and another 2 on the podium. I think by handicap we might get another 3 or 4 into contention.

But all this is just we fans tinkering with a broken system. I have proposed before, (http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ng#p605270 ), that the drivers should each drive one race in each of the cars so separating the two championships, albeit not perfectly. So this was another try a bit less perfect. You didn't like it.

[SunsAnvil]

The idea of slowing down faster cars is stupid. Teams will work around that with smarter sandbagging!

[TzeiTzei]

Slow down the fast cars? Why? It's supposed to be a competition.

[hurril]

If you don't want the best car(s) to win, then which one should? The next best? The worst? Either way you cut it, a rule that imposes some sort of handicap or performance penalty is merely going to translate the current results onto a new list, just as static as the one you think you want to change. Nothing gained. This is a stupid idea.

I think many more people care which driver wins rather than which car. In my proposal all the Constructors would race for their championship and the drivers theirs. To help find the best driver the cars would be handicapped to keep them, the cars, closer in capability. I wouldn't agree that the list would be as static. Right now just 2 drivers have the opportunity to be WDC and another 2 on the podium. I think by handicap we might get another 3 or 4 into contention.

But all this is just we fans tinkering with a broken system. I have proposed before, (http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ng#p605270 ), that the drivers should each drive one race in each of the cars so separating the two championships, albeit not perfectly. So this was another try a bit less perfect. You didn't like it.

Right but my criticism remains since you're negating any technical development; nothing in it for the constructors then. An optimum strategy for them would be to save the money since there's no return on investment marketingwise.

If you want to testo only the drivers, then standardize the cars. That is a different sport.

[henry]

If you don't want the best car(s) to win, then which one should? The next best? The worst? Either way you cut it, a rule that imposes some sort of handicap or performance penalty is merely going to translate the current results onto a new list, just as static as the one you think you want to change. Nothing gained. This is a stupid idea.

I think many more people care which driver wins rather than which car. In my proposal all the Constructors would race for their championship and the drivers theirs. To help find the best driver the cars would be handicapped to keep them, the cars, closer in capability. I wouldn't agree that the list would be as static. Right now just 2 drivers have the opportunity to be WDC and another 2 on the podium. I think by handicap we might get another 3 or 4 into contention.

But all this is just we fans tinkering with a broken system. I have proposed before, (http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ng#p605270 ), that the drivers should each drive one race in each of the cars so separating the two championships, albeit not perfectly. So this was another try a bit less perfect. You didn't like it.

Right but my criticism remains since you're negating any technical development; nothing in it for the constructors then. An optimum strategy for them would be to save the money since there's no return on investment marketingwise.

If you want to testo only the drivers, then standardize the cars. That is a different sport.

No, my proposal was to separate WCC from WDC. Saturday WCC, Sunday WDC. If you want to win one and be the team for the latter there are a lot of reasons to continuously improve.

The problem is that the general public only care about WDC. Try asking people for a list of names of F1 world champions since 2000. I'd be surprised if more than 10% mention a team as opposed to drivers.