Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[outer_bongolia]

I really don't know if this belongs to here, but it seems like efforts of FIA to slow down the cars by reducing the downforce have always resulted in ugliness that we got used to.
They are trying to achieve this by controlling the dimensions and the geometry of the car very heavily. And this makes the teams waste millions on a tip of a wing.
Just from some simple physics, the lateral acceleration as a function of speed should be something like:

So, why doesn't FIA say
[*]The maximum dimensions of the car is x, y, and z.
[*]If the official measurements of lateral acceleration at a given speed exceeds a certain value given by f(v), the car gets a drive-thru. If it exceeds it by more than 2%, the car gets disqualified from the race.
[*]Now, you can go play with your car as long as it obeys the safety regulations listed somewhere else.

And for cost cutting, they could allow only a certain number of design changes to front wings, floors, rear wings, and the rest of the parts. So, if you start the season with a dog car, you will still have some options to throw in through the season. For example, something like 4 front wing design changes per season would be plenty (of course, one can adjust the winglets with a screwdriver, so on, so forth).

Is this too dumb of a proposal?

[WhiteBlue]

I've been saying for a number of years that they should limit downforce. I would be happy enough to have them use lateral acceleration instead, but one would have to carefully analyse how that would be adapted to the individual circuits in order to have the properties of the tracks considered adequately.

[xpensive]

I've been saying for a number of years that they should limit downforce.
...

While I've been saying for years that a flat-bottom rule, as long as there is car to measure, would fix that for good.

[beelsebob]

[*]The maximum dimensions of the car is x, y, and z.
[*]If the official measurements of lateral acceleration at a given speed exceeds a certain value given by f(v), the car gets a drive-thru. If it exceeds it by more than 2%, the car gets disqualified from the race.
[*]Now, you can go play with your car as long as it obeys the safety regulations listed somewhere else.

To me, this is the absolute worst possible form of regulation.

Using the current system of regulation, teams are given a set of specs to work to, and have to produce the best car they possibly can – this is what Formula 1 has always been about – producing the best car you possibly can within a set of constraints.

With the regulation change you're proposing it asks the teams to design a car exactly on a certain limit, and it stops them from having any motivation to come up with an interesting new device to work around constraints.

Wouldn't the race be boring if every single car was on the exact same maximum downforce/lateral acceleration limit at a particular track... you simply couldn't overtake, because going any faster round the corner would cause you to be in violation of the rules.

[MIKEY_!]

So we only have driver skill to count on (maybe not such a bad thing) and straight line speed. Um... won't teams now waste millions on the tip of a wing to reduce the drag.

[dren]

I've been saying for a number of years that they should limit downforce.
...

While I've been saying for years that a flat-bottom rule, as long as there is car to measure, would fix that for good.

That would be a good idea. Open up other areas and can the diffusers.

[thearmofbarlow]

The biggest issue I have with F1 right now is that there are hundreds of niggly little rules, whining about who's breaking what, is this the spirit or the intent, all this politicking BS... screw it all.

Burn the rulebook. The whole damn thing. Institute standards for wheelbase, width, and height. Put limitations on front and rear wing surface area. Determine an engine specification. Concentrate the bulk of the rules on safety equipment. That is all you need. This isn't 1994. Last year Sergio Perez survived a crash that would have killed him twenty years ago. Mark Webber did a backflip and walked away. Car and track safety has improved to such a degree that the concerns that led to certain technologies being banned have fallen by the wayside. If F1 is going to survive and thrive it needs to be the pinnacle of speed and technology. By removing the restrictions you give every team its own way of doing things, rather than being sledgehammered into doing things one exact way and having to fiddle with vanes to get things to run right.

[MIKEY_!]

+1!!

[WhiteBlue]

The best opportunity to cull a lot of rules are primary restrictions that directly address the concerns. If you limit fuel flow, the budget, and cornering performance via a suitable parameter there is only safety and ecological compliance that remains. I reckon that 90% of the other rules can be abolished. Even the outer dimensions could fall into those rules. So one would only restrict the width of the cars in order to fit enough of them into the racing environment (garages, grid). Length and height may not even be a concern. The safety rules could contain a standardized safety cell which would be ballasted to a certain weight to make it equal for all drivers. So you could eliminate car and engine minimum weight. You probably would have to have some rules about power train supply to ensure that all competitors have at least access to an affordable power unit.

[MIKEY_!]

Maybe not a standardized safety cell but I certainly like the ballasting idea. There should be a minimum CoG for the cell as well. Other than that I like your thinking so far.

[outer_bongolia]

[*]The maximum dimensions of the car is x, y, and z.
[*]If the official measurements of lateral acceleration at a given speed exceeds a certain value given by f(v), the car gets a drive-thru. If it exceeds it by more than 2%, the car gets disqualified from the race.
[*]Now, you can go play with your car as long as it obeys the safety regulations listed somewhere else.

To me, this is the absolute worst possible form of regulation.

Using the current system of regulation, teams are given a set of specs to work to, and have to produce the best car they possibly can – this is what Formula 1 has always been about – producing the best car you possibly can within a set of constraints.

With the regulation change you're proposing it asks the teams to design a car exactly on a certain limit, and it stops them from having any motivation to come up with an interesting new device to work around constraints.

Wouldn't the race be boring if every single car was on the exact same maximum downforce/lateral acceleration limit at a particular track... you simply couldn't overtake, because going any faster round the corner would cause you to be in violation of the rules.

Current system of regulations is what makes the racing boring. They are trying to make the cars pretty much "stock" by limiting them to tiny little pieces in geometry that they can change. As Mikey commented, the developments are not in things that can be used in daily life as FIA's mission states (tips of front wings or a very innovative blown front wing through an F-duct that operates with the DRS system, very useless anywhere else).

By limiting the lateral acceleration for a given speed, you limit the downforce. The vertical (straight) acceleration will not be limited. So, you can pass someone by drafting behind it, and if you have an engine that will give you a better straight line acceleration. You will need to improve your aerodynamics to get better drafting.

One thing that I neglected to put in my suggestion was of course the technical regulations: tires, engines, etc.. Those are the places were the real developments should take place, not a double diffuser (very innovative, though).

I think the current state of regulations that are trying to limit the downforce by limiting the geometry forces engineers and aerodynamicists to learn how to read like lawyers to find a hole in the regulations.

As WhiteBlue said, the expenditures need to be limited, but you cannot really police that really hard when teams can bring an update to every race. A team could go "oh, there is this company that does research that costs $1000000 and sells me the parts that it makes for $5". Limiting the number of updates would be the best solution, IMO.

[beelsebob]

Current system of regulations is what makes the racing boring. They are trying to make the cars pretty much "stock" by limiting them to tiny little pieces in geometry that they can change. As Mikey commented, the developments are not in things that can be used in daily life as FIA's mission states (tips of front wings or a very innovative blown front wing through an F-duct that operates with the DRS system, very useless anywhere else).

3 problems:
1. The races aren't boring – we've just had 2 of the most exciting formula 1 seasons we've ever had.
2. Still teams come out with cars that can do a qualifying lap of australia in anything between 1:24 and 1:34, despite only being able to make "tiny" changes.
3. Still, we're able to fill threads and threads and threads looking at all the differences between the cars.

I hate this "reasoning" – the rules allow for enormous variety in the cars, but attempt to guarantee a minimum lap time by restricting the absolute limit of the development that can be done. The result is exciting racing, and lots of interesting and exciting cars.

By limiting the lateral acceleration for a given speed, you limit the downforce. The vertical (straight) acceleration will not be limited. So, you can pass someone by drafting behind it, and if you have an engine that will give you a better straight line acceleration. You will need to improve your aerodynamics to get better drafting.

So you reduce formula 1 to where it was a few years ago – a sport in which the only way to overtake is to drive faster down a straight – boring.

[outer_bongolia]

Hey Bob,
I reallly enjoy the discussion, don't take anything personally - just wanted to get that out of the way first.

3 problems:
1. The races aren't boring – we've just had 2 of the most exciting formula 1 seasons we've ever had.

Thanks to new tires and artificial things that require external timing and other junk to allow cars to pass each other. I'm very happy about the tires. But cannot say the same about DRS. That is not pure racing, that is some excitement added with DRS zones and timing locations where you have to be within a certain distance of the car you are trying to pass. It's more like Disney style excitement - when in doubt add some more explosions using CGI.

2. Still teams come out with cars that can do a qualifying lap of australia in anything between 1:24 and 1:34, despite only being able to make "tiny" changes.

HRT? C'mon!
Give me an F1 engine, I can come up with something that takes 10 minutes to make a lap and still within regulations.
If you exclude the bottom teams, the difference is only 2 seconds. The difference between Alonso and Massa is 1 second - and Massa is not the worst on the grid. At the end of the day, the tiny changes give you about 1-1.5 seconds. The rest is driving.
My proposal would let the designers to come up with something that will enable most efficient aero when you are trying to pass someone. Instead of FIA trying to find a way to pass, it'd be the teams and aero engineers working on that.

3. Still, we're able to fill threads and threads and threads looking at all the differences between the cars.

Because we can't see the dumb little F-ducts.

I hate this "reasoning" – the rules allow for enormous variety in the cars, but attempt to guarantee a minimum lap time by restricting the absolute limit of the development that can be done. The result is exciting racing, and lots of interesting and exciting cars.

I agree, there is a lot of variety. But only within the confines of very small boxes drawn by FIA.

So you reduce formula 1 to where it was a few years ago – a sport in which the only way to overtake is to drive faster down a straight – boring.

Not really. We owe the current passing to DRS and Pirelli's. Give them the old Bridgestone, take away DRS and then tell me what the FIA aero regulations have given us.

[WhiteBlue]

Give them the old Bridgestone, take away DRS and then tell me what the FIA aero regulations have given us.

It constantly amazes me who people hold responsible for regulation changes. Particularly that they almost always get it wrong. The last bunch of the aero configuration is a brain child of the team's overtaking working group. Actually DRS and the tyres are as well. Ultimately all regulations must pass the F1 commission in which the teams have the voting majority.

If there is one single bit of regulation that has been actively pushed by the FIA and can be claimed as their brain child it is the 2014 turbo engine with the fuel flow limit.

[skgoa]

And DRS wasn't even responsible for most of the overtakes last year.


People who claim that reaces are boring and nobody can overtake nowadays should rewatch races from the nineties. Almost nothing happens, apart from technical issues. Today's race kept me engaged for every lap, I remember (having to fight) falling asleep during many races ten years (and longer) ago.