Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

Post Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:30 pm

I'd rather have no action at all than this artificial action created by the tires and DRS.
wesley123
 
Joined: 23 Feb 2008

Post Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:33 pm

Well, at the end of the day all I'm trying to say is this:
FIA is trying to control the downforce to slow the cars. I am saying there is one other way than trying to control this using draconian and complicated (and often useless) geometry rules.
An F1 cars' lateral acceleration during a turn is a function of its downforce. A car's downforce is a function of its speed as long as movable aerodynamic components are not allowed. By just limiting the lateral acceleration as a function of car's speed instead of current rules, we can see more interesting developments in the aerodynamics of the cars. The designers will come up with shapes that allow them to get closer, use the draft better, and have less drag.

DRS: yeah, keep it if you want. As Whiteblue said, DRS did not account for most of the passes. And tires do give the drivers and the teams a lot more to work on strategy-wise, so I am not against them either.
The reason why I brought them up is that without either of them, the races would be just the same procession similar to the Bridgestone days'. So, why not give the designers the opportunity to experiment with the cars' aerodynamics and push it to a limit that is set by the rules?
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Carl Sagan
outer_bongolia
 
Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Post Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:38 pm

WhiteBlue wrote: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.


I am really excited about that, actually.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Carl Sagan
outer_bongolia
 
Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Post Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:09 pm

wesley123 wrote:I'd rather have no action at all than this artificial action created by the tires and DRS.


By the TIRES? REALLY? I guess the internet will whine about anything. Were turbos also "artificial"? They make the car artificially faster!

No, the real artificiality is courtesy of ever-changing regulations and the constant banning of any sort of real progress.
thearmofbarlow
 
Joined: 23 Feb 2012

Post Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:59 am

thearmofbarlow wrote:
wesley123 wrote:I'd rather have no action at all than this artificial action created by the tires and DRS.


By the TIRES? REALLY? I guess the internet will whine about anything. Were turbos also "artificial"? They make the car artificially faster!

No, the real artificiality is courtesy of ever-changing regulations and the constant banning of any sort of real progress.

its suposed to be a sprint to the finish not an endurance race.
snoop1050
 
Joined: 20 Feb 2012

Post Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:51 pm

wesley123 wrote:I'd rather have no action at all than this artificial action created by the tires and DRS.


+1 a race should be raw racing all the way to the end, not backing off to save tyres or fuel!!!
Budding F1 Engineer
N12ck
 
Joined: 19 Dec 2010

Post Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:06 pm

What happened to Pirelli wanting to increase the rim size from 13"(?) to around 15/16" or bigger.
King Six
 
Joined: 27 May 2008
Location: London, England

Post Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:46 pm

thearmofbarlow wrote:
wesley123 wrote:I'd rather have no action at all than this artificial action created by the tires and DRS.


By the TIRES? REALLY? I guess the internet will whine about anything. Were turbos also "artificial"? They make the car artificially faster!


Yeah by the tires. Dont you understand it? They banned refueling to reduce the 'overtaking done with pitstops', then next year they introduce the pirellis which must be the most stupid tires ever made.

Oh look guys we're gonna ban refuelling so less pit stops will be made and it is less strategy, but lets introduce tires that can barely hold 15 laps and requires teams to stop at least 3 times to increase the strategy in the race.

You can see what is wrong and fully illogical there?

I probably am missing some since I stopped watching around mid 2011 because of this bogus.

Please can anyone explain why these tires are so great? I cannot see it and the only reason why I can see fans liking it is because Jake Humphrey etc. kept saying how great these were, repeat things many times over and people will eventually start believing what is told.
wesley123
 
Joined: 23 Feb 2008

Post Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:38 pm

I thought the idea of fast wearing tyres was to stop somebody from 1 stopping them holding up the frontrunners kinda like petrov at abu dhabi 2010... but frankly DRS alone alleviates that. THe lack of durability does, I think, make strategy interesting because you have an additional limitation in that they don't have much life, but then what ends up happening is you penalize drivers who use the tyres more aggressively and favouring those who are kind to them and perhaps worse, you end up forcing drivers to play a strategy game to try and save them.

Thats the sort of thing that belongs in endurance racing... and certainly it is interesting to watch in, say, the 24 hours of le mans. Is F1 endurance racing? well... no, not really. But I wouldn't call it a sprint race either. Its something in between. so its hard to say whether that sort of thing belongs in F1.

I think ideally, the tyres would offer 2 differing paths to victory... you can push hard, burn em out, pit more, but gain enough of a speed advantage to still win, but you can also win by holding back, saving them, gaining the time back by not stopping, and still win. I think by offering more options to the teams and drivers in that way, it would make things interesting in a non-artificial way, but I suspect its not possible to make tyres like that. There's a lot of convergance in F1, and if this were to happen there would be a bit less of it but at the moment that is not the case with tyres. The pirellis clearly favor a specific driving style and I suspect its a large part of the reason Vettel and Button were so successful last year.
Lycoming
 
Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Post Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:13 am

So we want to go back to banning tire changes? No tire changes, no refueling. Fine. Now you've created a pack of pansies too afraid to step on the right-side pedal lest their tires wear too fast or their fuel be spent too soon.

In the Old Days the friggin' mechanic rode along with the driver. How about we just go back to that? Is that less "artificial"?
thearmofbarlow
 
Joined: 23 Feb 2012

Post Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:46 pm

Alot of people were talking about having a fixed amount of fuel for a season. Looks like it might happen, no reason to think of this one as an April fools either.

In an attempt to make F1 greener, a new proposed mandate from 2015 will see Formula One teams given a limited amount of fuel to last the season, with the fuel allowance decreasing by 15 percent each following year.

In recent years, the sport has attempted to create a greener vision with ideas such as the Kinetic Energy Reduction System (KERS) – to make F1 more environmentally friendly, road relevant whilst continuing to foster innovation – and a move to V6 engines.

The new proposed directive will see teams given a set amount of fuel at the start of the season. Friday practice will be exempt from the fuel saving mandate; All qualifying and race laps must be run using fuel from the teams’ fuel allowance.

It is understood that the fuel allowance is per team, not per driver, therefore tactics may have a huge part to play towards the end of each season with some drivers potentially sitting out some races to help their team-mates title chances.

After the 2015 season, each following season will see the teams’ fuel allowance reducing by 15 percent. This means that Formula One teams will be forced to either make their cars more fuel efficient or find alternative ways to power their cars. Experts have suggested that some alternative sources of energy may include a mini nuclear reactor, gas turbine, pedal power, or wind power.


http://www.forumula1.com/2012/f1/f1-new ... -for-2015/
King Six
 
Joined: 27 May 2008
Location: London, England

Post Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:14 pm

Right, no reason to think an article suggesting the drivers should pedal is an april fools at all.
beelsebob
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Location: Cupertino, California

Post Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:36 pm

thearmofbarlow wrote:So we want to go back to banning tire changes? No tire changes, no refueling. Fine. Now you've created a pack of pansies too afraid to step on the right-side pedal lest their tires wear too fast or their fuel be spent too soon.

In the Old Days the friggin' mechanic rode along with the driver. How about we just go back to that? Is that less "artificial"?


Why dont you compare these tires to the bridgestones for once? They banned refueling as races were won too much in the pits, thus reducing tactics. Then, a year later the Pirelli's are introduced, to increase the tactics, dont you think that is kinda contradicting to each other?

Just for an example, with the Pirelli's you are pretty much forced on a single tactic, since the teams are already using every set to the end of it's life(around 15 laps). So if you start in the back due to a screw up in qualifying you are unable to use a different strategy. With the bridgestones you could say in that case; We stop one time and run the harder tire most of the race.

You can pretty much guess the outcome of the race, since nothing will happen on strategy wise, everyone is on the same tire at the same time. With the bridgestones the driver in second position could run a different tire strategy.

Then I havent even added fuel, adding ore strategy wise. With refuelling and the bridgestones you could sit on the edge of your chair, looking at everything since the second placed driver could as well run another strategy, you didnt know. Now it is so predictable, and the only thing you wonder is when he can use DRS, wow how great and interesting racing.
wesley123
 
Joined: 23 Feb 2008

Post Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:18 pm

My main gripe with the current tires is that they seem to be either on or off. I would like to see a more gradual degradation, without the sudden on or off button, although it already seems to be better this year than before.

And F1 has always been about strategy as much as about anything else. Pit stops belong in F1. I've not yet made up my mind about the DRS, it feels a bit artificial to me, to give the guy behind a better chance of overtaking, but so far it didn't really influence results either.
Speedster
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2012

Post Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:36 pm

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pr ... lie-PC.pdf

An interesting document about this years rule changes. I wasn't aware that the stewards may now start an investigation on their own. They do not need to wait for consent by the race director any more, but they have to talk to him before they take action.

Also the paragraph about limiting the downforce to 1.25 tons was interesting. As we all know it was opposed by the teams and they brought in their own solution. Charlie now confirms that the target has been missed by 100%.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AddThis [Crawler], Cap'n Jack, CCBot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], ooABoo, Pieoter, Twitter [Bot] and 19 guests