If we were creating our own F1 style series, what rules would we change/add?

[Cyco]

I'd prefer to limit engine displacement, but remove restrictions on design.

My prefered method of speed control would be by banning mid race refueling - the team than has a choice to run slower with a lighter, smaller car, or use a larger fuel tank and try and put as much fuel in as possible which will then make the cars components more highly stressed.

I would also tend to think that smaller teams could be made more competitive with extra travel allowences (2 bottom teams - who need it most) will have to pay their own way as it stands now. I t may be viewed as a backward form of socialism, but there is plenty of money in the F1 kitty to get the poorer teams to a minimum budget of say 50% of the biggest teams, if they are not there already. This should help cometition as the speed gap between the fastest and slowest teams will be reduced.

[Matra et Alpine]

Nobody is forced to mid-race refuel, cyco.
It's not like other formulae where a pit stop is mandated.
It's just that it works out best that way.
If they increased the time to pit then it would likely swing if more in the favour of NOT pitting, but tyres take an AWFUL beating with the modern F1 car !!! A car capable of handling with fuel to do a whoel race will handle a LOT differently on full and empty. Stresses on full fuel on codl tyres at the start I think we'd see lots of cars go off in lap 1
Would a team be able to pit to change a tyre ? What if it was a faulty tyre ? What if a car develops a fuel leak, would they be permitted to "top it up" ? The designers and tacticians will look for EVERY angle to take advantage.
I dont think fuel limits will stop speed, unless you also set them an "efficiency target" ( ie fuel limit ) for the cars too.

I do agree tho I'd like to see as much of the design to be NOT stricly controlled. But I can't think of one way that I can't also instantly see a loophole a team would use to take advantage

[Zytek_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cyco

I would also tend to think that smaller teams could be made more competitive with extra travel allowences (2 bottom teams - who need it most) will have to pay their own way as it stands now. I t may be viewed as a backward form of socialism, but there is plenty of money in the F1 kitty to get the poorer teams to a minimum budget of say 50% of the biggest teams, if they are not there already. This should help cometition as the speed gap between the fastest and slowest teams will be reduced.

Renault's F1 budget currently is $105 million, and it's suiting them just fine

[Daz27]

Ok, clearly the points I make are going over peoples heads like the space shuttle, Im looking for the rules on GP2 to find what freedoms the engineers in those categories have, re piston weights, valvetrain design, bore spacings, maximum V angles etc. IM SICK OF SAYING HERE that MY POINT IS NOT ABOUT MAKING F1 a formula of the technical equivalence to GP 2 or indycar or any other series. Read that again. From what I am aware, the GP2 category, as well as F3 etc have huge engine restrictions, if not a standard, sealed series engine, by standard I mean to say spec. Champcar uses a series engine, Cosworth V8 turbo I believe.
Formula one relies far too much on aerodynamics.
Speaking from a mechanical point of view, there is a limit in extracting horsepower from any engine, and, there is no way a 2.4L will make the same power as a 3L V10. No way. Argue whatever you like. Not with the current rules. And even if they had the same materials available, I SERIOUSLY doubt they could.
As I believe I have said somewhere else, there is NO PROBLEM with the current engine design regs as I see them. I DO NOT believe that the engine, complete with design and developmnt costs, is any cheaper than the old V10.
OF COURSE the horsepower levels had to come down. Enough said there.
Penalising a team for what happened the race before ie engine probs, is a ludicrously stupid idea. So it adds an iota of depth to the strategy of one or two teams, big deal. I am sure they have enough to think about with out having to come back 10 grid places.
I say, kill some aero (notice I didnt say ALL), give them slicks, 850hp is more than enough. LISTEN to the FORMULA ONE ENGINEERS, they ALL say current aero efficiency KILLS the cars ability to follow another car close around medium to fast corners. Read your F1 magazines a little better fella's.
Besides, the whole idea wasnt to make F1 better, its to come up with a series, using F1 as the basic model.

[fpv_gtho]

Originally Posted by Daz27

Im looking for the rules on GP2 to find what freedoms the engineers in those categories have, re piston weights, valvetrain design, bore spacings, maximum V angles etc.

Dont waste your time as i can tell you now GP2 run control engines.

Champcar uses a series engine, Cosworth V8 turbo I believe.

2.65L TTV8 iirc

Formula one relies far too much on aerodynamics.

But thats what makes it what it is. If F1 didnt have such high cornering speeds, what would get it attention away from the IRL and the CCWS?

Speaking from a mechanical point of view, there is a limit in extracting horsepower from any engine, and, there is no way a 2.4L will make the same power as a 3L V10. No way. Argue whatever you like. Not with the current rules.

You might want to be careful how you word that. Under equal circumstances, of course a 3L V10 will outpace a 2.4L V8, but of course a 2.4L V8 can have more power than a 3L V10 still.

[Daz27]

explain the power principal ur using

[fpv_gtho]

The sky's the limit. So long as they can keep increasing the revs, they can increase power. They can make better fuels as well. I did say, under equal circumstances the 3L will be better than the 2.4L though remember

[Daz27]

ok, im just not seeing the relationship between displacement and rpm
I fully understand that a V8 will probably rev harder than a V10, due to less reciprocating weight etc, but having said that, the V10 is larger in volume, and therefore can draw more air, thus, burn more fuel, than a 2.4 v8 at similar, even higher rpm. and dont forget the extra torque a 3 litre produces. Mind you, 20000rpm wouldnt do much for torque..

[Daz27]

if it was hell for leather on the 2.4 versus 3.0, the 2.4 would die an extremely loud, 26000rpm death...

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Daz27

if it was hell for leather on the 2.4 versus 3.0, the 2.4 would die an extremely loud, 26000rpm death...

But as was already said, on equal standing the bigger displacement will win.
The point being made is that the V8 will within a season be producing at power/weight ( or speed?) ratio matching last years V10. Engineers focus their investment to make improvements.
So TOMORROWS V8 F1 car WILL be more powerful than last years V10 at some point.

I also was confused about your comments about you NOT wanting to make it GP2.
All we were pointing out is that each of the things you suggest as "changes" for F1 were already in place in GP2 and so it was really just a dumbing down of F1
You are right you did not say you wanted it to be GP2, but each of the things you wanted to do ARE what GP2 has. So you were really
It's not relevant tho' to the on-going discussion of what could we do that would make a "better" F1 for the competition and fans.

[Cyco]

Originally Posted by MetA

Nobody is forced to mid-race refuel, cyco.
It's not like other formulae where a pit stop is mandated.
It's just that it works out best that way.
If they increased the time to pit then it would likely swing if more in the favour of NOT pitting, but tyres take an AWFUL beating with the modern F1 car !!! A car capable of handling with fuel to do a whoel race will handle a LOT differently on full and empty. Stresses on full fuel on codl tyres at the start I think we'd see lots of cars go off in lap 1
Would a team be able to pit to change a tyre ? What if it was a faulty tyre ? What if a car develops a fuel leak, would they be permitted to "top it up" ? The designers and tacticians will look for EVERY angle to take advantage.
I dont think fuel limits will stop speed, unless you also set them an "efficiency target" ( ie fuel limit ) for the cars too.

I'm not saying we should limit tyre changes, but just ban refueling.

If the car has a fuel leak - too bad, thats a failure of the car to finish.

I'd allow any level of fuel in the last qualifing round, and the cars then filled to the amount the engineers calculate will get them to the finish. Iirc the end of the turbo era saw no refueling and limited tank sizes to control speed so its not a new idea, just one that I think could help reduce some speed.

If the cars will be heavier then the stresses on tyres, wheels, suspension, dampers, gerabox, driveshafts, bearings and the like will all be higher requiring stronger, (which is almost always) heavier parts that will inturn reduce speeds.

I'm not a fan of mandating backward part technology (eg steel brakes) for added weight, I just think this would passivly increase it.

[fpv_gtho]

But an increase of weight makes the cars more dangerous in a crash - and when theyre the heaviest is when all the idiot drivers make their impact.

[Cyco]

The cars alread have ballast added to get to the minimum weight - at the moment they can put it where they please, but if the car must be stronger at the load points then the the weight ballance wont be as perfect reducing speed again.

[hec16]

I think I would let every team make their F1 car as they wanted it would be pretty interesting watching the potencial of each team
________
COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

[Kooper]

I think bring back turbo-engines to compete with the 2,4s. limit them to 1,2 litres, limit the turbos (don't know enough about turbos to provide specifics here). Bring back proper slicks, increase the maximum width of the cars back to 2 metres and rather limit the wings. The original argument used when the cars were limited to 1,8 metres proved to be wrong by now, as Max and his goons argued narrower cars would mean easier overtaking. Not so, since the space you have to overtake will always depend on how much room you are given by the guy in front. Am I more or less correct here?

Also, I think it was Martin Brundle that said rather make the focus of downforce on F1 cars the diffusers, as they do not affect the following car's aero as much as wings do, and even if they did, the following car's diffuser would be able to compensate for this, if unlimited enough. So - bring back "ground-effects", now!

And don't get me started on the qualifying format! It should never have been altered in the first place if you ask me! Return it to the way it was, to the way it is supposed to be. a 60 minute free-for-all, with 6 laps to work with. Heck, make it 10 laps if you really want to.

The engine-thing? I believe the current rule isn't cutting it. Rather than penalising the driver with 10 grid positions, penalise the manufacturer. How? Hit 'em where it counts. If your engine blows up, you get less from the yearly TV-profit, regardless of where you end up in the championship. This doesn't affect the actual racing, but I believe it should serve as an effective means to motivate the players to comply.

Of course, the one aspect that should never lose momentum is the pace safety-enhancing systems are developed. If a rule is in direct contradiction to safety, it's void. If decreasing the mass of the cars will increase safety, then decrease the mass.

That's my contribution as far as the cars go. Now, the tracks:

Firstly, get someone other than Mr. Tilke to design the tracks! I for one am tired of seeing more and more of these straights-with-hair-pins tracks popping up all over. And what the heck did he do to Hockenheim??? Return it to the way it was!

Who in their right minds would exclude Spa Francorchamps?

Redesign all the sterile tracks on the calender to feature some more distinguishing features. Focus less on big-wig features such as conference rooms and the like and focus more on the paying public. Build better grand-stands with great parking facilities.


That's my 5 cents.