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.
Seriously in hind sight if they had left everything alone in 2021 how would the past few years have been? Possibly epic?
I was downvoted for asking for exactly that.
No voting on this thread?
In response to the question, Be pretty much the same now? You have 2 cars that are massively out in front, miles ahead of the others. Your just missing the occasional battle for the lead.
Is it liberty or the FIA that is causing this issue? Nikolas Tombazis works for the FIA. He is saying they don't want to address the issues of the outwash even though it was understood when they made the rules they may have to do this, and said as much.
My view is that if the FIA think they can make a 'set and forget' ruleset that also allows a lot of freedom for the teams design, they will always fail. It will be impossible for them to word everything perfectly and have no loopholes.... That is not how life works.
Just like the teams, the FIA need to do continuous improvement and innovations in their rule set. They need to learn/validate from on track performance as well. I frankly can't understand their perspective of waiting until the next rules.
I think the simplest thing to implement would be to mandate all 3 tyre compounds to be used in a race (dry race only of course). Place a minimum on the number of laps that a type compound can be used to stop people pitting one lap before the end of the race to put on a less desirable compound.
Might need to be some fine tuning to account for damage sustained in crashes. But I think this one simple change would improve racing. It will stop long boring strategies. Or races where someone starts the race on hards and just goes long, blocking all those who get stuck behind messing up their race.
My view is that if the FIA think they can make a 'set and forget' ruleset that also allows a lot of freedom for the teams design, they will always fail. It will be impossible for them to word everything perfectly and have no loopholes.... That is not how life works.
To be fair Pat Symonds says expressly that they don't want to do that, this is not NASCAR. The whole point is to have rules that can be interpreted, not to say your car must be exactly "this" as that would be boring.
I think the simplest thing to implement would be to mandate all 3 tyre compounds to be used in a race (dry race only of course). Place a minimum on the number of laps that a type compound can be used to stop people pitting one lap before the end of the race to put on a less desirable compound.
Mandatory two stops could definitely help and should be considered IMO.
To be fair Pat Symonds says expressly that they don't want to do that, this is not NASCAR. The whole point is to have rules that can be interpreted, not to say your car must be exactly "this" as that would be boring.
Understood. I just personally think it would be less boring with closer racing, as was originally intended with these rules, and I think it is going to be difficult to achieve without modifying the rules when teams find loopholes that make following harder.
After all there are a lot more interesting and "road relevant" technologies that don't involve creating wake for the following car. For example, they could have less aero freedom but a more challenging weight target. F1 has become all about aerodynamics over everything else, that's a function of the rules and it doesn't have to be.
F1 has become all about aerodynamics over everything else, that's a function of the rules and it doesn't have to be.
Care to elaborate?
Since wings were put on cars in 1967 and Dernie noted in 1979 that adding downforce gave more improvement in laptime than power, suspension or anything else, what else could be the case?
Indeed Williams used the same rear suspension for many seasons as there was very little ROI on investing there, whereas now teams redesign their rear suspension primarily for aerodynamic purposes.
When F2 cars weigh 795kg, you suppose Grand Prix constructors can meet the same safety standards with a 700kg or 600kg car?
Alpine even failed with their calculations to slightly reduce the weight and use an innovative structure for their tub, let alone trying to find reductions of hundreds of kilograms.
Should the minimum weight rule be abolished and a return to the maximum weight rule of the 1930's used? But even then teams preferred to make a car with the largest engine possible (and low drag where applicable) instead of the lowest weight possible.
F1 has become all about aerodynamics over everything else, that's a function of the rules and it doesn't have to be.
Care to elaborate? :?:
Since wings were put on cars in 1967 and Dernie noted in 1979 that adding downforce gave more improvement in laptime than power .....
since wings were put on cars .....
tracks have in response migrated to having far more (and tighter) corners .....
that's what produced design dominated by aero downforce (of course with huge power to drive the aero)
(only Goodwood is unchanged - it was a medium speed track but now is the fastest track in the land)
Paul Frere said if (yes F1) power had been kept at c.200 hp car design wouldn't be so dominated
(btw tyre width had exploded within the 1961-5 1.5 litre F1 - it didn't wait for 3 litre 1966 etc F1)
won't this situation anyway be tested by the 2026 rules ?
(whatever they may be - people should be 'cutting 2026 metal' 9 months from now)
aren't we here being told that ? .....
current under-car DF is the main DF generator but has worse L:D than over-car DF
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 17 Mar 2024, 14:06, edited 2 times in total.
Paul Frere said if power [of Grand Prix cars?] had been held at 200 hp car design wouldn't be so dominated
Grand Prix motorcycles have 200hp (closer to 300hp, about 280hp?) now though, and they also have wings now.
By all means you could spec 750cc NA engines for the four-wheeled Grand Prix cars to have them at that 200hp level, would that be a good idea?
You'd have to continually keep lowering the capacity as the engines get further developed, but that's not a big deal.
In principle the proposed 200hp Formula One cars would be similar to the existing Formula 1000 class (albeit for people with older engines, those with more modern 1000cc bike engines have more than 200hp, hence why it would have to be more like 750cc):
These cars do have wings and some downforce?
As you say, the pictured Mid Ohio circuit would be an ultra-high speed circuit for a current Formula One, but is only a medium speed circuit for a Formula 1000 (indeed the Formula 1000 has a very limited top speed due to only having 200hp or less, yet it is still faster in the category to have some downforce & associated induced drag, than none).
On a generic medium speed circuit (Australia's Barbagello Raceway), the laptime for Formula 1000 car with some downforce is 88% that of a Formula Ford with less power and no downforce. Of course the construction of a Formula 1000 is nowhere close to meeting 2024 Formula One crash test regulations, and weight would likely increase considerably (despite F1 teams using more expensive and exotic materials).
Off-board footage of 200hp Formula 1000 racing at Barbagello Raceway:
Reducing power to 200hp obviously isn't going to turn the clock back to 1964 in and of itself, the Formula 1000 car with not just modern slick tyres, but all-important downforce too, would run rings around a 1964 Formula One Grand Prix car. It says online that the Formula 1000 car corners at between 2.5-3G -- it seems impressive to be able to put that much downforce on a car with so little power, so it seems aero development would still be important if not most important.
Would this fix Formula One? Would those associated with Grand Prix car racing (be it manufacturers, constructors, drivers) be willing to have less power than their Grand Prix motorcycle counterparts?
IIRC there was already quite some backlash at the 1500cc regulations and those were therefore reverted (plus more) to 3000cc in 1966.
Would 750cc regulations be better received by competitors, promoters etc in 2026 than 1500cc in 1961?
By all means 200hp Formula 1000 & Radicals etc while they are not Formula One fast, they are certainly not slow. They are still faster than most GT and touring car categories, so that might be fast and impressive enough for the Formula One World Championship?
Classic Formula 3 is another class with about 200hp where downforce and aerodynamic surfacing was also important.
If I'm not mistaken the Delta Wing was developed somewhat from the above low power premise, except with extra emphasis on minimising drag than F1000's open wheels and a more robust output of 350hp than 200hp.
Would the original Delta Wing concept fix Formula One?
Chip Ganassi says Bowlby’s numbers indicate the car could lap a Superspeedway at 230mph with only 350bhp
Seriously in hind sight if they had left everything alone in 2021 how would the past few years have been? Possibly epic?
I was downvoted for asking for exactly that.
No voting on this thread?
In response to the question, Be pretty much the same now? You have 2 cars that are massively out in front, miles ahead of the others. Your just missing the occasional battle for the lead.
Are you baiting?
Anyway. I'm open to mandatory 2 stop. More driver options like push to pass. With active aero coming in maybe the drivers will have more buttons to play and strategize with.
Are we able to consider 2 stroke v-6s on bespoke synth fuel that sound like high RPM v12s? Maybe 600hp screamers?
Why synth fuel? It has no future in road cars and there is much too little of it; it would just be greenwashing. Use synfuel for areas where alternatives are hardly available, like aviation.
And for f1, just use a bit of regular - and acknowledge that f1 is what it is, an entertainment product with no relevance for day to day automotive products. A sports that is a relic of the past, like archery, but can be entertaining nevertheless.
(Australia's Barbagello Raceway), the laptime for Formula 1000 car with some downforce is 88% that of a Formula Ford with less power and no downforce. Of course the construction of a Formula 1000 is nowhere close to meeting 2024 Formula One crash test regulations, and weight would likely increase considerably (despite F1 teams using more expensive and exotic materials).
