F1technical.net

Zynerji wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:41

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 18:23

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 17:46

And this is why the FIA's insistence on listening to "fans" that say "we want lots of overtaking" is bad for the sport. Lots of overtaking is not exciting. Lots of chances to overtake, where the skill of both drivers is tested and an pass is not guaranteed, that's exciting.

If F1 just becomes a sport where there are 200 overtakes each race and the winner just happens to be the guy that pulls off the last pass in the race, then that's not going to be much fun, is it? It'd be novel the first time, sure, but after that it would be as dull as a single team dominating from the front.

It's occasionally fun - but long term no. This is partly where F1's future direction worries me. While I hated Mosely and Ecclestone - at least they had a vision. We'd have had a proper budget cap 12 years ago.

Some day, I hope someone writes a book on the designs that never saw light with the 2010 40M$, run what you want ruleset...

A proper budget cap and an almost empty rule book! Sounds like heaven!! I think that it got canned before any regulations were even thought about.

Stu wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:44

Zynerji wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:41

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 18:23

It's occasionally fun - but long term no. This is partly where F1's future direction worries me. While I hated Mosely and Ecclestone - at least they had a vision. We'd have had a proper budget cap 12 years ago.

Some day, I hope someone writes a book on the designs that never saw light with the 2010 40M$, run what you want ruleset...

A proper budget cap and an almost empty rule book! Sounds like heaven!! I think that it got canned before any regulations were even thought about.

Marussa, Virgin,, and HRT signed something that they were paid to tear up. There was something set in stone. I often wonder what would have happened if they refused, and showed up to race 1 and had everyone else DQd... would have been fabulous!

Zynerji wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:49

Stu wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:44

Zynerji wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:41

Some day, I hope someone writes a book on the designs that never saw light with the 2010 40M$, run what you want ruleset...

A proper budget cap and an almost empty rule book! Sounds like heaven!! I think that it got canned before any regulations were even thought about.

Marussa, Virgin,, and HRT signed something that they were paid to tear up. There was something set in stone. I often wonder what would have happened if they refused, and showed up to race 1 and had everyone else DQd... would have been fabulous!

Bernie would have had a fit!!

Stu wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 20:36

Zynerji wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:49

Stu wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:44

A proper budget cap and an almost empty rule book! Sounds like heaven!! I think that it got canned before any regulations were even thought about.

Marussa, Virgin,, and HRT signed something that they were paid to tear up. There was something set in stone. I often wonder what would have happened if they refused, and showed up to race 1 and had everyone else DQd... would have been fabulous!

Bernie would have had a fit!!

Bernie did not make mistakes like that. If Bernie made a mistake, he intended to.

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 17:46

And this is why the FIA's insistence on listening to "fans" that say "we want lots of overtaking" is bad for the sport.

I think that's a misinterpretation or a poorly formed survey. I'd be very surprised if fans actually wanted lots of overtaking, I think what they really want is close racing where there's always a possibility to overtake or at least at attack an opponent causing them to defend.

Stu wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:44

A proper budget cap and an almost empty rule book! Sounds like heaven!! I think that it got canned before any regulations were even thought about.

They'd spend 100M hiding their circumventions of a 40M cap, wouldn't they?

OO7 wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 21:07

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 17:46

And this is why the FIA's insistence on listening to "fans" that say "we want lots of overtaking" is bad for the sport.

I think that's a misinterpretation or a poorly formed survey. I'd be very surprised if fans actually wanted lots of overtaking, I think what they really want is close racing where there's always a possibility to overtake or at least at attack an opponent causing them to defend.

It seems to me that most 'fans' I see express an opinion just want their driver to win no matter what. If their driver is not winning they want a rule change.

TBH this is probably not so for most posters on this site, but there is a smattering. Not wanting to wind anyone up, most are fine, just saying in general on social media

vorticism wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 21:42

Stu wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:44

A proper budget cap and an almost empty rule book! Sounds like heaven!! I think that it got canned before any regulations were even thought about.

They'd spend 100M hiding their circumventions of a 40M cap, wouldn't they?

And the current implementation cures that same conspiracy theory, how?

I’ve been thinking on floor regs, would it be advantageous to to have the underfloor flex downwards?

I would assume that the flexing floor tests are carried out with a mass placed on top of the floor and measure any deflection downwards. Would the tests be able to be carried out by suspending a mass from the underside of the floor though, they’d need some pretty strong sticky tape to test that.

I’m thinking of a double skinned floor, where the top half is rigid enough to pass the static FIA tests and the bottom half is much more flexible where I don’t think tests could be carried out. With all of the energy under the floor would there be enough of a vacuum to deform the bottom half of the floor enough to give any advantage?

FIA 3.5.1 Floor Body wrote:
Furthermore:
e. Its complete surface, when intersected with any X-plane must produce only a single section that is continuous, closed and with all parts of the section visible from either above or below.
f. Its complete surface, when intersected with any Y-plane must produce only a single section that is continuous, closed and with all parts of the section visible from either above or below. Two such sections will be permitted outboard of Y=595, provided:
i. these two sections are not closer than 50mm to each other on any Y-plane, except for a transition between one and two sections that is contained within two Y-planes up to 10mm apart.
ii. the rearward-most point of the forward-most section is aft of XF=1700.

I feel these regulations try to encourage a solid floor but don’t go as far as to say that.

I’m not suggesting a double skinned floor with a void in between, more of a carbon sandwich where the lower half would deform to create a void, I know there would need to be a way to allow air in and out of the void. As for the X/Y cross sections, if a floor was theoretically cross sectioned couldn’t the team just claim it has been cut, structural integrity blah blah blah that why there’s now a gap?

I don’t have answers and it might be a terrible idea, but could it be done and would it be advantageous?

Zynerji wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 23:33

And the current implementation cures that same conspiracy theory, how?

They probably don't--just a general statement about how budget caps might be fallible. Like with large organizations generally (corporate, governmental, etc.) the bigger, more resourced the group, the more bureaucratic or legalistic activities they can engage in. So, could a bigger teams remain at an advantage despite sudden implementation of a budget cap?

JordanMugen wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 16:13

I can't imagine that creating Formula Ford-like racing in Formula One is possible, sadly. I believe the goal rather is to allow a closely matched car to follow closely behind another without the second car killing the tyres or losing the aero balance, or ultimately without needing to rely on DRS to catch back up on the straights after losing time in the corners, such that DRS can eventually be eliminated?

Of course it's possible. F1 was like that until 1967.

mzso wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2022, 15:52

JordanMugen wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 16:13

I can't imagine that creating Formula Ford-like racing in Formula One is possible, sadly. I believe the goal rather is to allow a closely matched car to follow closely behind another without the second car killing the tyres or losing the aero balance, or ultimately without needing to rely on DRS to catch back up on the straights after losing time in the corners, such that DRS can eventually be eliminated?

Of course it's possible. F1 was like that until 1967.

Good point!

I wonder, did the 1500cc cars produce better racing than the 2500cc cars due to having less power (and therefore slipstreaming being more important, if that is even a correct notion)? If so, why a change to 3000cc that would make the racing worse?!

KeiKo403 wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 23:45

I’m not suggesting a double skinned floor with a void in between, more of a carbon sandwich where the lower half would deform to create a void, I know there would need to be a way to allow air in and out of the void. As for the X/Y cross sections, if a floor was theoretically cross sectioned couldn’t the team just claim it has been cut, structural integrity blah blah blah that why there’s now a gap?

I don’t have answers and it might be a terrible idea, but could it be done and would it be advantageous?

Wouldn't that be blatant cheating?

vorticism wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 21:42

Stu wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 19:44

A proper budget cap and an almost empty rule book! Sounds like heaven!! I think that it got canned before any regulations were even thought about.

They'd spend 100M hiding their circumventions of a 40M cap, wouldn't they?

mzso wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2022, 15:52

JordanMugen wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2022, 16:13

I can't imagine that creating Formula Ford-like racing in Formula One is possible, sadly. I believe the goal rather is to allow a closely matched car to follow closely behind another without the second car killing the tyres or losing the aero balance, or ultimately without needing to rely on DRS to catch back up on the straights after losing time in the corners, such that DRS can eventually be eliminated?

Of course it's possible. F1 was like that until 1967.

Yes, but back then the cars were just very powerful Formula Fords, in effect. Simple chassis, excess power, no downforce.

Watch vintage racing today and the cars are comically slow by modern standards. Indeed they weren't even as quick as a modern BTCC car.