Rules I'd like to see

[Giblet]

Yeah, that's why it's called a Formula. Most of those things you mentioned were a major change to performance, and made a huge upset to the balance of the sport. All the teams using the same brakes don't apply to that list. All the other teams had to simply follow suit if the fan car was allowed to continue.

These brakes have been around for quite a while, and the distances have not that greatly increased over the years since their introduction.

After doing some more reading, I was surprised to find out that steel brakes at a decent temperature are not as inferior to carbon as I thought, if heat issues and weight issues are non existent.

F1 is about being in a restricted Formula, that is supposed to be the fastest in the world. The quickest around a circuit. Going back to steel brakes would make the cars slower overall, and less technically advanced.

The other thing about the brakes, is this tech is offloaded to Brembro and Hitco anyways and the teams don't have to do much with them except replace used parts and keep running them.

One major disadvantage to carbon brakes is the fact that each time they are used, carbon fibres are clouded into air, and some I assume must get in their lungs over the years.

[sinspawn1024]

The braking distance is determined by the grip between the tyres and the ground. Not by the brake disk or pads material or even performance. A steel rotor could brake in the same distance, however it is heavier and braking stability can differ (due to temp management)

While tyre grip is incredibly important to braking performance, the brakes themselves are still the devices that dissipate the energy and stop the car, and the properties of the brake are ultimately more important that the properties of the tyre.

First off, the coefficient of friction between the rotor and the pad has a large effect. Carbon on carbon has a very large coefficient of friction (especially at temps around 650 C), which is important since power brakes are banned (if the coefficient is low, then the driver has to push harder to stop). Second, thermal management is extremely important. All a brake does is turn kinetic energy into thermal energy, and if the brake materials can't either handle the heat or cool off quickly enough, the brakes will either fail to work adequately, melt, or break.

I personally think that the carbon fiber rotors are the way to go. They're more reliable, they're safer, and they work really well.

[sinspawn1024]

• All cars use reciprocating piston gasoline engines displacing 1500cc, naturally aspirated or 800cc supercharged
• All cars have four open wheels
• All cars have a maximum width of 1800mm, maximum height of 950mm, and maximum length of 4600mm
• Maximum annual expenditure of $400,000,000

Other some safety regs, that's it. I think the formula should fit on one or two pages (rather than 63 for the 2009 formula). I like the idea of a budget cap (although BernieMax's low ball figure was insulting) combined with huge amounts of design freedom. That way, it's all about who can come up with the best way to use the money with the most creative solutions. (and there's way more likelihood of seeing F1 technologies trickle into the main market.... as it is, so much is banned that the run of the mill econobox has more sophisticated technology than the most expensive race cars in the world)

[riff_raff]

Both Belatti and sinspawn1024 are correct.

As Belatti noted brakes only stop the wheel. It's the tire that stops the car.

But as sinspawn1024 points out, the function of the brake system is to convert the kinetic energy of the car into thermal energy, and quickly transfer it to the passing airflow. While the thermal conductivity of CRC is much lower than cast iron or steel, a CRC rotor structure is able to withstand a much higher temperature rise without mechanical failure than iron or steel. So a lighter CRC rotor mass can absorb and dissipate more energy, more quickly, than an iron or steel rotor can. CRC also has the added benefit of a Mu value that increases with temperature, as opposed to steel which does the opposite.

Regarding cost, the last time I saw prices on race CRC rotors and pads (15 years ago?), they were about $1500 (US) per corner. The CRC rotors and pads wear equally, and must be replaced every race. I'm sure they're somewhat cheaper now, as with any high-tech product, but even at $6000 (US) per race, that's still a bargain in F1.

As for motor racing with limited aero devices, manual shifting, lots of sliding in the corners, lots of passing, no pit stops, and a major premium on driver throttle control and driving ability, take a look at GP bike racing. Now that's a series where skill and courage still matter.

Regards,
Terry

[Scotracer]

• All cars use reciprocating piston gasoline engines displacing 1500cc, naturally aspirated or 800cc supercharged
• All cars have four open wheels
• All cars have a maximum width of 1800mm, maximum height of 950mm, and maximum length of 4600mm
• Maximum annual expenditure of $400,000,000

Other some safety regs, that's it. I think the formula should fit on one or two pages (rather than 63 for the 2009 formula). I like the idea of a budget cap (although BernieMax's low ball figure was insulting) combined with huge amounts of design freedom. That way, it's all about who can come up with the best way to use the money with the most creative solutions. (and there's way more likelihood of seeing F1 technologies trickle into the main market.... as it is, so much is banned that the run of the mill econobox has more sophisticated technology than the most expensive race cars in the world)

Not enough power. The cars don't have enough as they are just now.

[mike]

-Open engine development on engines any size,shape,displacement, with minimum weight and 10,000rpm rev limit(road related)
-turbo or supercharge or both with maximum boost(12-13psi)
-1 engine map allowed, no quali modes
-allow HERS as long as its from the engine
-Limit of 150 litres of fuel per race and quali and decrease every year to increase efficiency
-decrease front and rear overhangs to allow cars to drive avoid damage when driving close
-strength and test suspensions for more wheel to wheel action and ban wheel covers
-trial and test all kinds of ideas on aero influence/chassis with real track driving tests to improve overtaking

[sinspawn1024]

I think it'd be awesome to go back to the rules of 1950, the inaugural season. How awesome would it be if the cars relied almost entirely internal mechanics rather than aerodynamics?

[noname]

I think it'd be awesome to go back to the rules of 1950, the inaugural season. How awesome would it be if the cars relied almost entirely internal mechanics rather than aerodynamics?

there are series when mechanical grip is the key factor, WTCC for example.

it's the aerodynamics which creates huge amount of grip and allows cars to "fly" trough the corners with amazing speed. I, personally, would not like too much aero to be taken away from F1 (to clarify - I am fully behind increasing importance of mechanical grip). I would rather prefer changing the rules in such a way that aero grip would be more depended on the car's body rather than wings. like it was in Indy when I was following the series.

I do not like the idea of steel brakes and gear stick. you can find much more sophisticated technologies in the road cars without the need to look at supercars.

as I would like F1 to be the top of the automotive technology, pls open it to advanced materials (many were banned) also.

[noname]

I used "quote" instead of "edit", again... sorry

[James_graham]

Hmm how about setting a maximum energy allowed in a race (not sure what a good value is as I am not an engine person). this controls fuels and also allows deveopment of other fuels and engine types

Then you can have four wheels

Keep the requirements for safety

Everything else free? Actually get some innovation back into the sport! I think there will be more road relevence with developing lots of ideas no matter how carzy they seem at first!

Aerodynamics play a major part in road cars as well so I wouldn't take them away!

Maybe a good idea to put a limit of spending as well say 250million. Not sure that you can police it though!

[gibells]

A rule I'd like to see is fuel consumption restriction. Unfreeze engine development, and reduce the size of the fuel tanks to say 150L or something (combined with the upcoming refueling ban). That way I think we'd get environmental engine advancements in a positive sense. Manufacturer's would have to come up with ways to make the engine's more efficient rather than an producing outright power.

MotoGP have a rule limiting tank size (+ no refueling). Don't know if any of you saw motoGP last year, but the Honda used to be quite thirsty, and the engine management system would basically restrict power (automatically) in order to not run out of fuel. So at the end of the race, Dani Pedrosa's lap times would drop of by about 2 seconds a lap as the ECU resctricted consumption via different map settings [for some reason the computer would only do the calculation periodically- like once every 2-3 laps].

This fuel management would be quite interesting because it could be a way of giving the drivers a way of a quick boost, but then having to manage the consumption over the whole race. Almost like a tortoise and hare scenario.

[James_graham]

Yeah completely

think the amount of energy they could use would be a great way to do all that and plus give teams the ability to explore different fuels/ engine tubo combinations

[KevlarUSA]

The braking distance is determined by the grip between the tyres and the ground. Not by the brake disk or pads material or even performance. A steel rotor could brake in the same distance, however it is heavier and braking stability can differ (due to temp management)

During the BBC conerage of the German GP second practice, Frank Dernie was twitting to the commentators and basically said this exact thing. So steel discs wouldn't affect performance at all and would more than likely suffer cracking failures.

[ISLAMATRON]

While that is true at lower speeds, at maximum speed the rate of deceleration is not dictated by the amount of tire grip, it is dictated by the friction coefficient between the pad and the rotor. There is no F1 brake system/driver right now that can instantly lock the brakes at 300+kph

[tommylommykins]

Isn't one thing with brakes that there is a practically constant amount of pressure on the tyres, and therefore a set maximum braking force?

With the brakes themselves, you can always add that much more pressure to the pads to give more retarding force (presumably infinite?)

-----

With regards to rules, how about these two rules:

1)Wheels can be the only form of propulsion,
2)Everything else goes

Then a few other safety rules

It would certainly produce interesting racing... and provide lots of fun new designs