etsmc wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:42 am
What people thought about not changing the rules if there is a 2018 season?
It would be a valid option. Yet, there are other valid options to consider.
First, I'd like to talk about why it would not
be a goog option, since you already pointed out the pros:
- the technical know-how gathered on this kind of cars
by the top teams is so big that not many newcomers would be able to catch up in a reasonable period of time.
- there is still some performance gain to be made, so we can expect the top teams to grow further more, keeping the performance gap as big as it is now.
So what about a new formula?
- many design concepts to explore, which may shake up the situation quite a bit, as well as making the design challenge even more entertaining. But yes, as CAEdevice pointed out, those with bigger computational resources would have an advantage.
- potentially simpler cars to design and develope (I find it very time consuming to design or modify car of the current layout. An open wheeler, for example, is quite a bit better by this point of view). I think this characteristic would encourage a good number of people to join the challenge.
- potentially less time consuming for the guy who checks rules compliance.
CAEdevice wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:00 pm
2) Increasing points (maybe LeMans could bring double/triple points) in order to keep the final result uncertain but also beacuse the bast car in last race is usually the best car/team, since we don't have other variable parameters than aerodynamics (no drivers errors, no strategy). See TF 2016 for example (the best car but not the challenge winner)
I don't fully agree. The winner of the first race deserves a lot of credit too, for example. I would rather keep the points constant. Possibly with a different distribution (i.e. 10pts for 1st, 8 for 2nd,...), as we don't have to encourage any overtake of spectacular action "during the race".
So... my proposal looks like this:
1 - only simple and essential rules >> easy to check, easy to interpret, less useless limitations
2 - linear points distribution (10, 8, 6, ...) >> closer to reflecting actual preformance gaps, championship open untill the end
3 - CFD images (as remarked by machin) >> catchy for the eye, more interest, more oportunities to learn
4 - intro class with no power penalty >> enough penalty from the frozen bodywork, equal dignity
5 - more schematic rulebook, with clear titles >> easier to read and catch infos
6 - more linear rules templates and quotes >> easier design phase