Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[ISLAMATRON]

I'd rather a cost cap than a single aero setup for the year

[WhiteBlue]

I'd rather a cost cap than a single aero setup for the year

Well, you know the horse trading they do. One annual homologation becomes three homologations by negotiation. The thing that is wrong is having F1 aero as the main field of competitive advantage. In order to achieve this teams are constantly changing the aero configuration to start all over again. Next year they will go without DDDs and with a 125 mm single diffusor instead of a 175 mm diffusor. What is the point of this? Nothing but expense for no reason. Competitive advantage should be derived from finding performance by higher fuel efficiency. There is plenty technology still needing development for that.

[ISLAMATRON]

What does it mean though? no more Monza specs or Monaco specs... only 1 spec adjustable per track with an alotted number of updates per year? As much as I "hate" aero I cant dig that. They need technical freedom, and the only way I can see that coming(within reasonable costs) is a cost cap... then they can get rid of alot of the tech specs and say here you go 100L, now finish the race first.

[djos]

I'd rather a cost cap than a single aero setup for the year

Motion seconded!

[autogyro]

Well well, looks like Max was right then.
Such a shame about FOTA and the oil companies.
Of course there should be an opening for aero development but one that is relevent to reducing drag and fuel efficiency and within far stiffer cost restraints.
At present aero dominates and ordinary fans do not have a clue what is different between cars anyway as they all look basicaly the same.
Sorry to all the experts who constantly discus fluid dynamics and the latest spy pictures on little aerofoils etc.

[f1db]

It'll be good to make autodroms more diferent lenght. from ~4 to 10km

[outer_bongolia]

My dream is allowing teams to have anything that fits a box with 4(l)x1.8(w)x1(h) meters in dimension as long as it meets safety regulations. I want the cars to be shorter for two reasons: (1) it will take 20% less time to pass a car that is 4m long compared to the 5+ m long cars of these days; (2) a shorter car is harder to control and every driver mistake is more amplified, so it is more fun to watch them spin.

Any and every development is allowed even for the engines. The only limit would be a top RPM and top engine power (including KERS or any other aid) that they can't exceed.

Each team would be only allowed only three wing set ups (low-medium-high downforce) and aero setup all of which have to be homologated by FIA before the season. They can't bring a new component to every race. They could be allowed to implement changes a couple of times in the season. Allowing some development during the season will ensure that they will have a chance to recover if they start with a dog of a car, but in the mean time limiting it will save money.

And finally, instead of capping the expense, for every $ that each team spends (for development, drivers, races), they have to put a $ in a central reserve which gets distributed equally between the rest of the teams. So, if your team spends way less than any other team, the other teams are actually paying your team for their development. This will enable small teams to be competitive and sustainable. If Ferrari decided to spend $300e6 on their car development, they would need to put another $300e6 in the pool and each of the remaining 12 teams (assuming there were 13 teams to start with) would get $25e6. Not a bad deal...

Of course, these will never fly with FIA limiting everything down to the millimeter in every portion of the car.

[Richard]

Quite simply, the performance levels across the grid are too similar because they are too close to optimal.

The cars and tracks need to be set up to deliver more variability in performance and strategy. That means making them sub-optimal. For example ....

- Wheel base and aero package has to last 3 consecutive races. The exception would be a single street circuit kit for Monaco, Singapore & Valencia. In return for that cost saving, teams would be allowed a one day test session on the Monday after every 3rd race, to be driven by the reserve driver or young driver.

- Tyres that drop off so varying pit stop strategies are more likely.

- Fixed fuel allowance, but open up how the energy is used (ie KERS and turbos). Any innovation has to be available to three customer teams at a set tariff. Ie a customer team could purchase a Merc KERS unit for the same price as the Ferrari or Williams units. Or 4 teams could collaborate on development.

- Manual clutch & gear shift - brings human fallibility back into the equation.

If I had to say one of the above, I'd go for the fixed aero, we'd end up with a tortoise and hare scenario. Red Bull and Ferrari may have done well this week, but McL and Merc might have a better package for Montreal.

[Green Genes]

Ban wings altogether, front and back. I'm no aero genius, but if the wings don't work in dirty air then chop 'em off. If the worry is that nobody wants GP2 cars posting F1 lap times then chop 'em off all the junior FIA open wheel formulae.

Each team brings X litres of today's fuel to each race weekend. It should be enough for two cars to run three practices, two runs in each qualifying session and the race distance with today's engines, minus 10 percent each season. Each year you must either skimp on practice or be more efficient.

Each team can bring X sets of tires of any compound from any manufacturer they like. Having one tire supplier makes as much sense as having one engine supplier or one brake supplier.

Refuelling during the race is ok, but any type of tire heaters are not. Leave 'em out in the sun if you like. One of the things I liked best about pit stops is that a car was quite vulnerable during the outlap.

All internal combustion engines on a car must be naturally aspirated. That is all. (God I miss the sound of V10s over revving. They sounded like things possessed, like demons bringing forth unholy violence. In comparison these V8s just sound pathetic.)

KERS and similar is OK. No restrictions at all on how much energy they can store and how much power they can produce or how often they can be used over a lap.

Any team may opt to use any engine and/or KERS package used in the previous season for a pittance.

You must race with the same drive train and chassis used to set your qualifying time. Replace anything and start from the pit lane. Other than that, no lifespan requirements at all.

A nice even twenty races a year. Every year Bernie, the teams and the fans each get to vote one track off the calendar and vote another one on.

[djos]

I'd like to see a return to simple 2 element front wings (180cm wide) and shallower 2 element rear wings (same heights as currently) with the rear wing back to 100cm wide (like 80's and 90's) and have maximum angles of attack allowed and no blown wings.

Then put twin ground-effect under-body tunnels back on the cars to generate most of the down force as these are not generally sensitive to being behind another car (proof: champ car & Indy car - following has never been a big issue).

I would keep the current tire sizes as they look good but I would also widen the cars track back to 200cm to improve mechanical grip.

I would also un-shackle the engines but provide a couple of restrictions, 1 engine per entire weekend and if you change it you go to back back of grid. Each engine manufacturer is only allowed to introduce 4 physical evolutions per year and is restricted to spending 10 million per year on development (engine dept must be setup as a separate company and audited). Current 5 million dollar per year engine cost must be maintained for customer teams and same spec engine must be provided to all customers inc factory team. (this forces the engine company to make the engines cheaply)

For 2013 I would change to 1.8ltr twin turbo v6's with a maximum tank size for the cars, run 100% biofuel (non-crop sourced, must be made from waste material and a petrol equiv eg ethanol @ 100RON) and give drivers control over the total engine power. No max boost rule would be needed because the engine has to last the whole weekend and make use of a limited fuel supply in the race.


imo, this would give us the excitement of the turbo era in a sensible controlled manner with great racing!

[Germanengineering]

New Rule Suggestions

Let’s put a budget cap on all the teams. Spending $400 million a year is crazy and you still have no guarantee that you will still win.

•$100 million dollar budget cap
•Unlimited amount of engine use
-Let the teams go back to using engines for just qualifying and engines for the race.
•Melt the engine freeze
•Bring back turbo engines
•Qualify with everyone on the track fasted time gets the pole and so on.
•New Point system. Points are awarded 1st to 6th place. Also you get a point for pole position, leading the most laps and fastest lap of the day.
•Whole new euro package shorten the front wing and make the rear wing cover the rear tires only like Max wanted
•Make the nose of the car more pointier and downward
•Get rid of the paddle shifters shift by hand shifter
•An American race at Daytona
•Goodyear vs. Michelin tires
•Broadcasting more footage in the pits
•Bring some of the old race tracks back
•Race in the streets of Manhattan and Miami

[wesley123]

really, germanengeneering, your suggestions are pretty much stupid.

1. you put a cost cap in of 100 mil, then you put back unlimited engines, that wont change a damn thing as they wont be able to increase the number of engines used.
2. a point system where the first 6 gets points is stupid too, that means 20 other drivers wil not score any points, thus overall making half the field at least be without points at the end of the season
3. the CDG wing is also a bad idea, it was rejected for something actually
4. The f1 cars arent made for american circuits, certainly not for ovals, it is simply just dangerous and cars need a complete revamp only for those races

[adam2007]

I would like to see

1. bridgestone vs michlien
2. refueling aloud again
3. 3.0 v10 - 900bhp
4. reverse grid maybe? then you would see overtakes loads but i wouldnt like that lol

[Germanengineering]

really, germanengeneering, your suggestions are pretty much stupid.

1. you put a cost cap in of 100 mil, then you put back unlimited engines, that wont change a damn thing as they wont be able to increase the number of engines used.
2. a point system where the first 6 gets points is stupid too, that means 20 other drivers wil not score any points, thus overall making half the field at least be without points at the end of the season
3. the CDG wing is also a bad idea, it was rejected for something actually
4. The f1 cars arent made for american circuits, certainly not for ovals, it is simply just dangerous and cars need a complete revamp only for those races

No you can still make points by making the pole, fastest lap of the race and most led laps. If you want it to be the Pinnacle of motorsports you still need to make it hard to win the championship.

[Germanengineering]

I would like to see

1. bridgestone vs michlien
2. refueling aloud again
3. 3.0 v10 - 900bhp
4. reverse grid maybe? then you would see overtakes loads but i wouldnt like that lol

Goodyear has the most wins in f1 history. Bring back the best slicks.