2024 Season Bickering and Moaning

[Jdn1327]

Ever since refueling was banned the cars have been like buses. They need to bring back refuelling and change the weight limits back to 600Kg, put new crash test requirments and put fuel limit per race to 110kg. Allow the teams to choose how they get there.

I posted this up in the forum before but no one answered. In the very unlikely event someone does suggest it...what would be the cost implications of going back to the previous regulations?

[DChemTech]

Ever since refueling was banned the cars have been like buses. They need to bring back refuelling and change the weight limits back to 600Kg, put new crash test requirments and put fuel limit per race to 110kg. Allow the teams to choose how they get there.

I posted this up in the forum before but no one answered. In the very unlikely event someone does suggest it...what would be the cost implications of going back to the previous regulations?

That would be rather ridiculous and reset all the efforts of the teams with the new regulation set thus far. And again surprised this comes up now, and not when there were similar periods of Mercedes dominance.
If anything, the experience of the previous regulations shows convergence will come, so it makes more sense to keep the current regulations stable (or have them develop predictably rather than ad-hoc), than to revert to prior regulation sets.

[Matt2725]

FIA f'ed up. In the land of the blind, Newey is the only one who as a clear understanding. If that was not the case - explain me how it is possible that so many teams were troubled by porpoising?

FIA gave this on a silver platter to RBR. We've seen how many times Merc innovations were called back. Haven't seen any with RB.

Sure, it’s all one great conspiracy. Next stop, UFOs are really extraterrestrial

As to Merc innovations that were called back: DAS wasn’t stopped, it was outlawed a year later but they were allowed to race it for the season. Didn’t have any material impact on their season or the next.
Anything else?

TD39 was called for by Toto to nerf RB19 except it didn’t…

Bit late to the party, but wasn't Merc's FRIC suspension outlawed in 2014 within a few months of them starting to use it?
Their endplate design in 2022 was banned for 2023 and beyond. Obviously the slot gap separator vanes were banned then reinstated when Ferrari took advantage instead.

Could also be argued that the changes relating to banning of changing engine modes once in parc fermé from Monza in 2020 were quite obviously targeted at Mercedes also.

[Sevach]

Bit late to the party, but wasn't Merc's FRIC suspension outlawed in 2014 within a few months of them starting to use it?
Their endplate design in 2022 was banned for 2023 and beyond. Obviously the slot gap separator vanes were banned then reinstated when Ferrari took advantage instead.

Could also be argued that the changes relating to banning of changing engine modes once in parc fermé from Monza in 2020 were quite obviously targeted at Mercedes also.

FRIC is indeed a good case for Mercedes being pegged back(or at least an attempt), Mercedes already had that system up and running in 2013(maybe 2012) and it was banned under the same logic as mass dampers almost a decade before.
Mercedes repurposed the system but instead of interconnected it was just front to rear.
And so was the 2020 engine map thing.

There was some clean up on the regulations between 2022 and 23, yes the Merc front endplates had a loophole kinda closed(but not really, you just need a small connecting piece) but so was the Aston rear endplate design.
Things that were contrary to "the spirit" of the regulations but allowed to run for a year.

Mercedes has also done a fair bit of lobbying to get things removed, often succeeding with immediate effect unlike some of their innovations which they were allowed to take advantage for a year.
Things like the Ferrari secondary oil tank were banned immediately, despite the fact that Mercedes was also using oil in the combustion chamber, Ferrari system was just better.
Or Red Bull pit stops being deemed "dangerous".

They also got very close to pulling off a larger regulation change mid 2022, until the other teams stopped it.

[PlatinumZealot]

Nope. Same crash safety. Lighter cars need lighter crash structures and lighter safety devices. I still stand firm at 600kg.

Do you have data to show it would be possible to meet Indianapolis Motor Speedway 370kph crash requirements with a 600kg car?

Alpine already failed with efforts to lightweight their 2024 monocoque while meeting 2024 crash test requirements:

The weight problem is primarily down to the monocoque failing the side-impact test.

The monocoque was designed with weight-saving measures incorporated in the internal structure where there is an amount of empty space among the carbon fibre. Simulations said the design was strong enough, but it’s understood the monocoque failed the test emphatically.

As a result, it has been reinforced - and that has come at a significant weight cost.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/why- ... yet-again/

Your notion seems dubious IMO, as surely there is a reason Indycars weighed 150kg more than Grand Prix cars in 1993 and for why they now they weigh about the same with more aligned crash safety levels (no more F399 MSC broken legs for the most part)?



Is Mansell wildly mistaken about the need for things to be "strong" and "solid" when a lightweight car would offer the same speedway and superspeedway crash safety (which F1 now duplicates for the most part even though F1 does not race on superspeedways)?

It's not a matter of crumple zones. It is matter of the monocoque and roll hoop now needing to remain intact no matter what you hit and how fast you hit it, which is the not the case for F1 in the past -- be it monocoques snapping in half in Schumacher's era or Zhou's roll hoop shearing off, this is all unacceptable now.

The monocoque needs to be virtually indestructible like an Indycar now, no?

If that was possible at 600kg, would not Indycar have done so? Would not F1 have added things like the halo with no increase in minimum weight?

Your implication seems to be that "same crash safety" = lower force in crash test to account for lighter car & lower momentum, not the same force (so the SAME crash safety) but just make your car lighter and good luck with that?

Surely Zhou's failed roll hoop, however, shows that F1 teams are not to be trusted? It did not have any reserve margin beyond a now outdated roll hoop test.

The inability to trust F1 teams to overbuild crash structures is why the halo and side impact structures are control parts, no? Why the front, rear and side impact tests should be as severe as possible to prevent subpar designs like the Alpine, NOT scaled down in line with reduced momentum of a lower minimum weight?

I am not concerned about how it will be done or how close they can get to it. Leave that to the engineers!!

The minimum weight LIMIT shall be 600kg in this rule-set. Only the most clever engineers will get close to this while meeting the stringent safety requirements.

It is a total statement of intent. There is no safety net for teams that can't make the lightest car with driver. Tall, heavy drivers will pay a handicap again and those drivers genetically blessed with a small stature will hold an advantage again. Just like basketball and swimming and other sports genetics should play a part. In my opinion.

[dialtone]

I am not concerned about how it will be done or how close they can get to it. Leave that to the engineers!!

The minimum weight LIMIT shall be 600kg in this rule-set. Only the most clever engineers will get close to this while meeting the stringent safety requirements.

It is a total statement of intent. There is no safety net for teams that can't make the lightest car with driver. Tall, heavy drivers will pay a handicap again and those drivers genetically blessed with a small stature will hold an advantage again. Just like basketball and swimming and other sports genetics should play a part. In my opinion.

That's not quite how the crash test would be setup though, so the weight limit would anyway be considered after a number of other considerations. Basically when FIA/FOM say "Safety first" they can't then say "600kg first". They first need to prove that you can make a safety cell part of a car that weighs 600kg, then they can make that limit real.

[Watto]

I am not concerned about how it will be done or how close they can get to it. Leave that to the engineers!!

The minimum weight LIMIT shall be 600kg in this rule-set. Only the most clever engineers will get close to this while meeting the stringent safety requirements.

It is a total statement of intent. There is no safety net for teams that can't make the lightest car with driver. Tall, heavy drivers will pay a handicap again and those drivers genetically blessed with a small stature will hold an advantage again. Just like basketball and swimming and other sports genetics should play a part. In my opinion.

That's not quite how the crash test would be setup though, so the weight limit would anyway be considered after a number of other considerations. Basically when FIA/FOM say "Safety first" they can't then say "600kg first". They first need to prove that you can make a safety cell part of a car that weighs 600kg, then they can make that limit real.

Would be interesting to see an in depth physics/engineering analysis on it, which I think you're right in pointing out would have to be the starting point, not the end point.

[PlatinumZealot]

I am not concerned about how it will be done or how close they can get to it. Leave that to the engineers!!

The minimum weight LIMIT shall be 600kg in this rule-set. Only the most clever engineers will get close to this while meeting the stringent safety requirements.

It is a total statement of intent. There is no safety net for teams that can't make the lightest car with driver. Tall, heavy drivers will pay a handicap again and those drivers genetically blessed with a small stature will hold an advantage again. Just like basketball and swimming and other sports genetics should play a part. In my opinion.

That's not quite how the crash test would be setup though, so the weight limit would anyway be considered after a number of other considerations. Basically when FIA/FOM say "Safety first" they can't then say "600kg first". They first need to prove that you can make a safety cell part of a car that weighs 600kg, then they can make that limit real.

It is not as you say it is. It is the teams who ask to raise the minimum weight limit because they want to make things easier, more cost effective and also fairer. Also weight limit is sort of congealed from other things like the size of the engine, the wheels, etc.

As I said... 600kg.. The engineers will figure out what engine, perhaps FIA return to 13 inch wheels, and also the Halo can probably be refined to save a few Kg. It's still version 1.

If you want me to be kind I would say 620kg.

Nothing to be afraid of. It's entirely possible. But yeah back to the 2024 season. I went off topic by a bit.

[TeamKoolGreen]

They need to bring back refuelling and change the weight limits back to 600Kg, put new crash test requirments and put fuel limit per race to 110kg

Lower crash requirements? The minimum weight was already 640kg in 2012. Adding a halo (20kg) and the extra crash safety (another 40kg worth) brings it up to at least 700kg even if they were V8 cars with the narrow 13" tyres.

You suppose structural optimisation should be the main battleground for F1?

"How to acheive 2024 crash test passes with a 600kg minimum weight"?

Nope. Same crash safety. Lighter cars need lighter crash structures and lighter safety devices. I still stand firm at 600kg.

That's right. But the elephant in the room is hybrids. The extra weight all stemmed from that. Heavier crash structures were needed because we are packing around batteries and electric motors. But the hybrid defenders always blame the size and weight on safety.

Everyone said they wanted lighter and smaller cars. And yet here we are doubling down on hybrid.

[JordanMugen]

Everyone said they wanted lighter and smaller cars. And yet here we are doubling down on hybrid.

Hybrid is not going anywhere, there is no appetite to remove it by at least three of the five engine suppliers (Mercedes, Renault and Honda).

Perhaps Ford RBPT and Ferrari could be convinced of the merit of V10s or V12s (or rotaries! it would be fun to have four rotors in F1, in theory they are small and light). I don't foresee a situation where the likes of Judd, AER or Cosworth will be able to be competitive as independents building pneumatic valve direct injected V10s or V12s, unless the power unit/engine regulations are simplified drastically. Judd weren't even able to build a competitive Indy turbo engine without the proper funding.

[Chuckjr]

Everyone said they wanted lighter and smaller cars. And yet here we are doubling down on hybrid.

Hybrid is not going anywhere, there is no appetite to remove it by at least three of the five engine suppliers (Mercedes, Renault and Honda).

Perhaps Ford RBPT and Ferrari could be convinced of the merit of V10s or V12s (or rotaries! it would be fun to have four rotors in F1, in theory they are small and light). I don't foresee a situation where the likes of Judd, AER or Cosworth will be able to be competitive as independents building pneumatic valve direct injected V10s or V12s, unless the power unit/engine regulations are simplified drastically. Judd weren't even able to build a competitive Indy turbo engine without the proper funding.

My god rotaries would be EPIC.
What levels of RPM could an F1 engineering team attain with 4 rotor?

[Seanspeed]

Ever since refueling was banned the cars have been like buses. They need to bring back refuelling and change the weight limits back to 600Kg, put new crash test requirments and put fuel limit per race to 110kg. Allow the teams to choose how they get there.

No. No no no no. Banning refueling was one of the best things F1 has ever done and it would be a travesty to bring it back.

Pre-2014 cars still looked extremely light on their feet and nothing like the boats of the current era. It's not just weight, either. The 2017 Ferrari was class of the field in slower corners, being clearly more agile than the Mercedes, and the reason was almost entirely its shorter wheelbase.

No just no. lol. The cars were big old tankers that had nothing close to the agility of 2008 cars and prior. I won't even count 2009 because they were still getting to grips with the new rules.

I'm saying we dont have to go to any extremes here. The idea that cars from like 2013 were 'big old tankers' is a bit absurd when you look at what they are today(actual big old tankers).

There's ways to get more reactive F1 cars again without reintroducing refueling(awful) and creating an insanely low weight maximum that would be nearly impossible to hit. And there would undoubtedly be a clear winner in terms of fuel choice that would rule out any 'fun' that might be had, especially since you'd ideally want to design your car around it rather than having the flexibility to pick and choose based on the weekend.

Another reason the cars feel slow on their feet is not just 'full fuel' at the start, but also tire conservation. And we also know without the higher tire wear, you either make strategy inconsequential with everything being a one stop, or you just turn the whole race into a series of sprints with less overtaking on-track.

You cant have it all, but we could absolutely make the cars more reactive than they are today by reducing the weight limit some and shortening the cars. The refueling aspect of F1 was absolutely terrible. It makes me cringe every time I watch IndyCar...

[JordanMugen]

My God, F1 is borring One team show, total dominance of RB.

Why did the other constructors do such a bad job?! It's quite baffling!

I think the cost cap would have worked if Adrian Newey wasn't allowed to be working on a ground effect "development car" for 4 years before hand. Also maybe if the cfd/wind tunnel was limited even further for first place teams. Ferrari have made a step but they will not be able to develop the car to compete with RB20 this year

Ferrari started the new regulations with the fastest car and took a dominant lead in the championships! Meanwhile Red Bull took 4xDNFs from two rounds, retiring from races they weren't even leading but rather that Ferrari were leading.

How quickly people forget... That Ferrari managed to develop themsleves away from being the fastest car is on Ferrari, but there is no reason Ferrari could not have avoided relying on plank measurement loopholes, made a less unreliable engine and extended their pace advantage from Round 1 2022 onwards.

The midfield is irrelevant. Everyone wants a fight for the win, and there will zero of that for the whole year. And next.

The others should build a better car then? It's not complicated. Formula One is a competition to build the best car, just as MotoGP is a competition to build a best bike. This is tradition in motorsports and provides for much technical interest.

WEC & IMSA are not a competition to build the best car, and are much worse for it. It's more like theatre and a show with different weights and power that rule cars arbitrarily in and out of being competitive -- having the best car carry 69kg more weight than the worst car seems just plain silly really. They are broadly similar prototypes that already match on homologated downforce and drag, such extreme ballast to slow down better designed cars should not be necessary.

[dialtone]

My God, F1 is borring One team show, total dominance of RB.

Why did the other constructors do such a bad job?! It's quite baffling!

I think the cost cap would have worked if Adrian Newey wasn't allowed to be working on a ground effect "development car" for 4 years before hand. Also maybe if the cfd/wind tunnel was limited even further for first place teams. Ferrari have made a step but they will not be able to develop the car to compete with RB20 this year

Ferrari started the new regulations with the fastest car and took a dominant lead in the championships! Meanwhile Red Bull took 4xDNFs from two rounds, retiring from races they weren't even leading but rather that Ferrari were leading.

How quickly people forget... That Ferrari managed to develop themsleves away from being the fastest car is on Ferrari, but there is no reason Ferrari could not have avoided relying on plank measurement loopholes, made a less unreliable engine and extended their pace advantage from Round 1 2022 onwards.

Ferrari was hit by TD39, didn’t develop themselves into anything.

[JordanMugen]

Ferrari was hit by TD39, didn’t develop themselves into anything.

Regardless, they had the fastest car to start with. So the claim that Ferrari were disadvantaged going into these new regulations is obviously demonstrably untrue.

I don't mind Ferrari using a flexible floor, though perhaps it was unwise to be overly reliant on something that was subject to FIA's discretion.

Despite people wanting Red Bull to be slowed, there is nothing (that we know of) that the FIA could target with technical directives on it -- otherwise the FIA would, of course, do so!

This is unwatchable!

Bahrain was dull but I thought the Saudi Arabian race was quite entertaining. Piastri trying to overtake Hamilton (unsuccessfully) was tense as was Magnussen backing the pack up as those behind squabbled.

Bahrain - 5/10
Saudi Arabia - 7/10

IMO.

Well, il be kind and say that at best, this is an uncomfortable watch.

Care to elaborate?

My word does the spectacle need some successful upgrades from the chasing pack.

It’s like two different formulas- even Perez can cruise to 2nd.

The others should build a better car then, seems rather straightforward?