Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Spoutnik
Spoutnik
1
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:02 pm

Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

On many race thread, or team topics we are discussing a bit how do we feel as a Formula One fan regarding these new regulations. I think we can merge all this in one place, also to see how things will evolve over time.

Personally I would say I don't like the cars when they're racing because they look big, sluggish and heavy it's quite annoying to be honest, even in comparison to last years cars. It's clearly the worst in very slow corner. I think Monaco will be... strange this year.
But I think, racing improved not only because of the aero but also because tyres seems to overheat less when you follow/attack a car. The main issue is DRS/DRS train ofc. When you think about it there would be almost no need for DRS if all tracks were "overtaking friendly".
Finally, I would say I'm disappointed by the gap between the competitors. Ferrari and RB are the Merc and RB of last season. Like last season, apart from a crazy race, you can't see someone else win. 2012, 2010 or even 2018 were much closer and enjoyable in that aspect. Seem like changing rule always favor the best while stability is allowing for closer racing.

Share your thoughts ! Cheers.

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
76
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

For the first season after a mayor rule change, I don’t find the difference that extreme. Yes 2 teams are faster than the rest, but the other 8 are pretty close.

Also we have seen close racing most races.

It wil probably become even better before the end of this season. But yeah cars are to heavy. Maybe the 2026 PU can change that.

Spoutnik
Spoutnik
1
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:02 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 11:23 am
For the first season after a mayor rule change, I don’t find the difference that extreme. Yes 2 teams are faster than the rest, but the other 8 are pretty close.

Also we have seen close racing most races.

It wil probably become even better before the end of this season. But yeah cars are to heavy. Maybe the 2026 PU can change that.
Yes the racing is close because everyone is trying fo find their feet, but it's not close for the lead I mean the 3rd team (McLaren at Imola or Mercedes/Alfa) are losing 0.7-1.0s per lap on race pace on average. I know it's (very) early but I'm quite disappointed in that aspect.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
41
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Spoutnik wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 am
On many race thread, or team topics we are discussing a bit how do we feel as a Formula One fan regarding these new regulations. I think we can merge all this in one place, also to see how things will evolve over time.

Personally I would say I don't like the cars when they're racing because they look big, sluggish and heavy it's quite annoying to be honest, even in comparison to last years cars. It's clearly the worst in very slow corner. I think Monaco will be... strange this year.
But I think, racing improved not only because of the aero but also because tyres seems to overheat less when you follow/attack a car. The main issue is DRS/DRS train ofc. When you think about it there would be almost no need for DRS if all tracks were "overtaking friendly".
Finally, I would say I'm disappointed by the gap between the competitors. Ferrari and RB are the Merc and RB of last season. Like last season, apart from a crazy race, you can't see someone else win. 2012, 2010 or even 2018 were much closer and enjoyable in that aspect. Seem like changing rule always favor the best while stability is allowing for closer racing.

Share your thoughts ! Cheers.
Well said, I agree

SAEED
SAEED
1
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:17 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Any idea why they banned holes in the pads?


User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

I didn’t know that they had (or that pads were previously being supplied with holes in), there was a restriction on holes in the disc introduced this year - hole count had been on the increase as production methods have improved over the last decade.
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

DChemTech
DChemTech
39
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 11:23 am
For the first season after a mayor rule change, I don’t find the difference that extreme. Yes 2 teams are faster than the rest, but the other 8 are pretty close.

Also we have seen close racing most races.

It wil probably become even better before the end of this season. But yeah cars are to heavy. Maybe the 2026 PU can change that.
Indeed, compared to previous years, it seems to be quite a bit better. The distance between the top 2 and rest has not increased (maybe even slightly decreased), and at least there's a top 2 rather than top 1.

I vented my frustrations about the tour bus sized cars before. It's not great, I'd rather see them smaller and lighter. But in terms of close racing and action, and of bringing the field somewhat more together, things seem to deliver, and that's the most important part for now.

bas550
bas550
0
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:31 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Lets start with the positives first:

I love that cars are able to follow each other closer for a long time now, without the tyres overheating or indeed performance suffering as much. For me, close following is what makes racing great. Mistakes are punished, instead of the 2+ second gap we got used to seeing before...where a mistake is rarely punished. Also with drivers following each other closer the chances of making a mistake due to pressure is higher. Excellent to see this!

Now for the downsides, and sadly that's longer but it's not just an annoyance with the 2022 regs but long term regs.

1) DRS. This was the perfect opportunity to get rid of DRS, yet they kept it. In all their years of talking about the 2022 regs they could've easily bought a couple of old F2 chassis, extended to suit F1 wheelbase, add the type of floor and change wings to what we have now. I'm sure they could dig up a few out of work drivers and start doing some real world testing and get a good baseline. DRS overtakes are lazy and we see drivers play games to get the DRS for an overtake rather than take an overtake when the opportunity arrives...because they'll know if they take one outside the DRS zone it's likely they'll get passed on the DRS zone. Stupid and unnecessary.

2) Car weight. 800kg?! Come on. Ridiculous! The cars look slow in the slow stuff, downright clumsy.

3) Car width. Too wide that makes overtaking harder and kinda goes against F1's own ''eco'' banner, doesn't it? More weight more drag...more fuel used

4) Front wing too wide. Narrowing the wing to within the inside of front tyres would make the risk of wing damage lower therefore provide even closer racing. Also I think the front wing is too high but that's just an aesthetic moot point to me.

5) Engines. The big one. The engines are hugely complex, way too expensive and because of that, the management of engine components leads to worse racing AND specifically makes the sport much harder to follow. Drivers take on new components all the time but we never actually know which component they are using, because they keep being in rotation. We all sit here and analyze driver performances but fact is 99% of us haven't a clue what we're saying is truly accurate because of this enormous spanner thrown into the works. Ive never liked the V6 era but it is what it is. But the limited engines makes it so damn hard to follow.

Of course I'd love an NA V10/12, rev capped to 16K rpm and cost capped, regs much like the V8 era in regards to limitations on weight, materials used etc. Add in some synthetic fuel and the eco lot will be kept happy (or as happy as they can be, which isn't that happy I guess).

Sticking with turbo engines, lets compare costs and posibilities. An indycar engine is around $125K. They rev to 12K rpm and use off the shelf turbos. A full rebuild is around 100K. The Mecachrome V6 in an F2 car is only €80K, needs to be rebuild every 8000km.

A complete F1 engine costs around 13 Million Euros today (a frankly insane amount), and they use 3 a season + any extra components.

I'm simplifying it a little here but lets take that Mecachrome. Make it rev a bit higher to 12K (shorter stroke), add a couple of turbos and hey presto, 1200hp engine. Sell it for 125k. Even if F1 teams used a brand new engine for every day of an F1 weekend, a full season engine supply per car would be less than a single F1 engine used for what, 7 races?

Limit the engines to 2 engines per car per weekend and you can supply your entire team for an entire season for less than a single F1 engine.

Sounds like a no-brainer to me. We get a simplified sport that's easier to follow, can see fire breathing F1 engines, and teams are happy because costs are down by an incredible margin.

CMSMJ1
CMSMJ1
Moderator
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:51 am
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Some great points in here - and I agree with most!
bas550 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 12:53 pm
Lets start with the positives first:

I love that cars are able to follow each other closer for a long time now, without the tyres overheating or indeed performance suffering as much. For me, close following is what makes racing great. Mistakes are punished, instead of the 2+ second gap we got used to seeing before...where a mistake is rarely punished. Also with drivers following each other closer the chances of making a mistake due to pressure is higher. Excellent to see this!

Now for the downsides, and sadly that's longer but it's not just an annoyance with the 2022 regs but long term regs.

1) DRS. This was the perfect opportunity to get rid of DRS, yet they kept it. In all their years of talking about the 2022 regs they could've easily bought a couple of old F2 chassis, extended to suit F1 wheelbase, add the type of floor and change wings to what we have now. I'm sure they could dig up a few out of work drivers and start doing some real world testing and get a good baseline. DRS overtakes are lazy and we see drivers play games to get the DRS for an overtake rather than take an overtake when the opportunity arrives...because they'll know if they take one outside the DRS zone it's likely they'll get passed on the DRS zone. Stupid and unnecessary.

Agreed - I also think they design the cars to the regs and if there is no reason to design a car that can properly follow and overtake without a drag reduction then they'll never do it. If they have to keep DRS - then lets leapfrog that load of crap and have full aero automation and efficiency gains from a slippery car on the straights and a high DF in the corners...

2) Car weight. 800kg?! Come on. Ridiculous! The cars look slow in the slow stuff, downright clumsy.

Agreed (for 2, 3 and 4)- reduce the overall size and thus the weight. If they had smaller plan and were more fuel efficient due to active wings (and a mandated fuel load) - it'd be interesting

3) Car width. Too wide that makes overtaking harder and kinda goes against F1's own ''eco'' banner, doesn't it? More weight more drag...more fuel used

4) Front wing too wide. Narrowing the wing to within the inside of front tyres would make the risk of wing damage lower therefore provide even closer racing. Also I think the front wing is too high but that's just an aesthetic moot point to me.

5) Engines. The big one. The engines are hugely complex, way too expensive and because of that, the management of engine components leads to worse racing AND specifically makes the sport much harder to follow. Drivers take on new components all the time but we never actually know which component they are using, because they keep being in rotation. We all sit here and analyze driver performances but fact is 99% of us haven't a clue what we're saying is truly accurate because of this enormous spanner thrown into the works. Ive never liked the V6 era but it is what it is. But the limited engines makes it so damn hard to follow.

Of course I'd love an NA V10/12, rev capped to 16K rpm and cost capped, regs much like the V8 era in regards to limitations on weight, materials used etc. Add in some synthetic fuel and the eco lot will be kept happy (or as happy as they can be, which isn't that happy I guess).

Sticking with turbo engines, lets compare costs and posibilities. An indycar engine is around $125K. They rev to 12K rpm and use off the shelf turbos. A full rebuild is around 100K. The Mecachrome V6 in an F2 car is only €80K, needs to be rebuild every 8000km.

A complete F1 engine costs around 13 Million Euros today (a frankly insane amount), and they use 3 a season + any extra components.

I'm simplifying it a little here but lets take that Mecachrome. Make it rev a bit higher to 12K (shorter stroke), add a couple of turbos and hey presto, 1200hp engine. Sell it for 125k. Even if F1 teams used a brand new engine for every day of an F1 weekend, a full season engine supply per car would be less than a single F1 engine used for what, 7 races?

Limit the engines to 2 engines per car per weekend and you can supply your entire team for an entire season for less than a single F1 engine.

Sounds like a no-brainer to me. We get a simplified sport that's easier to follow, can see fire breathing F1 engines, and teams are happy because costs are down by an incredible margin.

Engines wise - well - it has to be a differentiator for some of the manufacturers, but I would support an FOM/FIA supply to ensure that there was always a viable engine on the grid.

The efficiency question is not going away so I'd be enforcing a fuel limit and let them go mad on harvesting to supplement that energy store that the fuel can provide. Smaller, lighter cars and with reduced fuel use = what we need to see for good racing.

It'll never happen though as LIberty will be taking us into noddy land and we'll have driver draft, more cost capping (a good thing) and some false anti meritocratic elements that will bring the racing closer together.
IMPERATOR REX ANGLORUM

bas550
bas550
0
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:31 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

CMSMJ1 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 1:35 pm
Some great points in here - and I agree with most!
bas550 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 12:53 pm
Lets start with the positives first:

I love that cars are able to follow each other closer for a long time now, without the tyres overheating or indeed performance suffering as much. For me, close following is what makes racing great. Mistakes are punished, instead of the 2+ second gap we got used to seeing before...where a mistake is rarely punished. Also with drivers following each other closer the chances of making a mistake due to pressure is higher. Excellent to see this!

Now for the downsides, and sadly that's longer but it's not just an annoyance with the 2022 regs but long term regs.

1) DRS. This was the perfect opportunity to get rid of DRS, yet they kept it. In all their years of talking about the 2022 regs they could've easily bought a couple of old F2 chassis, extended to suit F1 wheelbase, add the type of floor and change wings to what we have now. I'm sure they could dig up a few out of work drivers and start doing some real world testing and get a good baseline. DRS overtakes are lazy and we see drivers play games to get the DRS for an overtake rather than take an overtake when the opportunity arrives...because they'll know if they take one outside the DRS zone it's likely they'll get passed on the DRS zone. Stupid and unnecessary.

Agreed - I also think they design the cars to the regs and if there is no reason to design a car that can properly follow and overtake without a drag reduction then they'll never do it. If they have to keep DRS - then lets leapfrog that load of crap and have full aero automation and efficiency gains from a slippery car on the straights and a high DF in the corners...

2) Car weight. 800kg?! Come on. Ridiculous! The cars look slow in the slow stuff, downright clumsy.

Agreed (for 2, 3 and 4)- reduce the overall size and thus the weight. If they had smaller plan and were more fuel efficient due to active wings (and a mandated fuel load) - it'd be interesting

3) Car width. Too wide that makes overtaking harder and kinda goes against F1's own ''eco'' banner, doesn't it? More weight more drag...more fuel used

4) Front wing too wide. Narrowing the wing to within the inside of front tyres would make the risk of wing damage lower therefore provide even closer racing. Also I think the front wing is too high but that's just an aesthetic moot point to me.

5) Engines. The big one. The engines are hugely complex, way too expensive and because of that, the management of engine components leads to worse racing AND specifically makes the sport much harder to follow. Drivers take on new components all the time but we never actually know which component they are using, because they keep being in rotation. We all sit here and analyze driver performances but fact is 99% of us haven't a clue what we're saying is truly accurate because of this enormous spanner thrown into the works. Ive never liked the V6 era but it is what it is. But the limited engines makes it so damn hard to follow.

Of course I'd love an NA V10/12, rev capped to 16K rpm and cost capped, regs much like the V8 era in regards to limitations on weight, materials used etc. Add in some synthetic fuel and the eco lot will be kept happy (or as happy as they can be, which isn't that happy I guess).

Sticking with turbo engines, lets compare costs and posibilities. An indycar engine is around $125K. They rev to 12K rpm and use off the shelf turbos. A full rebuild is around 100K. The Mecachrome V6 in an F2 car is only €80K, needs to be rebuild every 8000km.

A complete F1 engine costs around 13 Million Euros today (a frankly insane amount), and they use 3 a season + any extra components.

I'm simplifying it a little here but lets take that Mecachrome. Make it rev a bit higher to 12K (shorter stroke), add a couple of turbos and hey presto, 1200hp engine. Sell it for 125k. Even if F1 teams used a brand new engine for every day of an F1 weekend, a full season engine supply per car would be less than a single F1 engine used for what, 7 races?

Limit the engines to 2 engines per car per weekend and you can supply your entire team for an entire season for less than a single F1 engine.

Sounds like a no-brainer to me. We get a simplified sport that's easier to follow, can see fire breathing F1 engines, and teams are happy because costs are down by an incredible margin.

Engines wise - well - it has to be a differentiator for some of the manufacturers, but I would support an FOM/FIA supply to ensure that there was always a viable engine on the grid.

The efficiency question is not going away so I'd be enforcing a fuel limit and let them go mad on harvesting to supplement that energy store that the fuel can provide. Smaller, lighter cars and with reduced fuel use = what we need to see for good racing.

It'll never happen though as LIberty will be taking us into noddy land and we'll have driver draft, more cost capping (a good thing) and some false anti meritocratic elements that will bring the racing closer together.
Thanks!

Regarding the engines, I do have to clarify, I'm not advocating for a single supplier, but rather use mecachrome/indycar as a cost indicator. If the engines where simplified to the Mecachrome spec (but higher power), indicated engine cost is quite realistic. I could get really excited about such an engine spec, despite them being V6...can you imagine the anti lag noise in low speed corners. Just wow! The cars would be around 100 or so kg lighter (we have to keep in mind the safety changes are in part to blame for the heavier weight, though of course that is very understandable. F1 would be truly spectacular.

But sadly I think you're right, Liberty seems hell bent on doing what they're doing...

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
76
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Dumb down the technical and Mercedes, Redbull, Ferrari, McLaren will leave. Pretty pointless

bas550
bas550
0
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:31 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:42 pm
Dumb down the technical and Mercedes, Redbull, Ferrari, McLaren will leave. Pretty pointless
Not really. In marketing terms alone F1 is a literal gold mine right now. Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point.

User avatar
NicoS
-1
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:21 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

bas550 wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 8:01 am
NL_Fer wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:42 pm
Dumb down the technical and Mercedes, Redbull, Ferrari, McLaren will leave. Pretty pointless
Not really. In marketing terms alone F1 is a literal gold mine right now. Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point.
Can you supply any data the supports your claim?

User avatar
NicoS
-1
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:21 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

bas550 wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 8:01 am
NL_Fer wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:42 pm
Dumb down the technical and Mercedes, Redbull, Ferrari, McLaren will leave. Pretty pointless
Not really. In marketing terms alone F1 is a literal gold mine right now. Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point.
Can you supply any data the supports your claim?
Obviously without supporting information we can assume the statement to be non fact constructed in your own mind?

bas550
bas550
0
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:31 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

NicoS wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 8:09 am
bas550 wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 8:01 am
NL_Fer wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:42 pm
Dumb down the technical and Mercedes, Redbull, Ferrari, McLaren will leave. Pretty pointless
Not really. In marketing terms alone F1 is a literal gold mine right now. Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point.
Can you supply any data the supports your claim?
Obviously without supporting information we can assume the statement to be non fact constructed in your own mind?
It's tough to put a definitive dollar value on how much a team generates in brand exposure, as much of the running of an F1 team is written of as marketing by parent companies, but here are some quotes. Also lets be quite clear that no board would actually sign off on spending hundreds of millions a year with no guarantee of a reasonable return on investment just so they can go racing.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/anal ... 8/3049999/

“I don’t want to say the precise number, but the marketing contribution from Daimler is around 10 percent of revenue,” Toto Wolff told Motorsport.com.

“Which is a fraction of the exposure they generate. It makes us profitable. The revenue growth is encouraging, and we’ve seen it in all sectors.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1-teams ... s-mclaren/

It's also estimated that Red Bull's investment in F1 around doubles their marketing exposure.

Now with Netflix (yes yes...) exposing many more people to F1 and starting to tune in more and more, and the way the world of marketing is evolving quite rapidly, and the changes Liberty has made (for better or worse), Zak Brown is quite literally on the money that in a few years an F1 team will be worth billions. Frankly speaking the F1 team is Mclaren's best asset right now. Same goes for Renault/Alpine