[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[S griffin]

Who cares about how good the aero is? As Gilles Villeneuve once said, people don’t come to F1 to see the best aerodynamicists. Faster is not always more exciting. Seeing cars on the edge is more exciting, rather than seeing them on rails. And too much aero as we know kills close racing. So what if cars are slowed down a bit? It’s still faster than other series. Let’s have more challenge to the drivers

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

My argument is that the cost and effort that goes into aero development of such aero development would be better spent and more relevant to automotive engineering, both in the end result and the training of people, if it was focused more on engineering skills than wind tunnel exploitation.

You won't stop dominant periods outright, but mechanical engineering solutions are easier to assimilate than aerodynamic underbody advantage

I don't think this is true. The vast majority of road cars do not use hydraulic suspension unlike previous generation Grand Prix cars, manufacturers who championed it like Citroen and Austin have abandoned it. There is only McLaren but even they substitute rudimentary steel suspension in base model McLarens.

Meanwhile every road car is styled to reduce aerodynamic drag, especially those like the Tatra T87 and in the modern day Hyundai Ioniq 6 and Mercedes EQS.

The FIA removed hydraulic suspension elements or front-rear interconnects and so on expressly because it was hard for them to determine the function and to police the legality of it.

Meanwhile aerodynamic surfaces are simple,it's just your pressure distribution and flow field (sharp edges shed vortices, it's all very simple). Easy. Change the shape a little bit and your pressure distribution changes a little bit. Too easy.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Who cares about how good the aero is? As Gilles Villeneuve once said, people don’t come to F1 to see the best aerodynamicists.

I care and yes they do. F1 is precisely a contest of the Dernies and Neweys, no? [And the Duckworths and Cowells too, of course.] That's the point.

A lovely discussion of the Red Bull RB20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zl-epBrHY

You don't get a discussion of the Indycar or an interview with it's smug designer after the race ["it's an extreme evolution of the RB18" - Newey], because guess what, it's exactly the same... It lacks the intrigue, no?

No "Inspector Seb" or "Inspector Lewis" or $50,000 fines for Verstappen being sent to investigate Newey's hunch about a flexible Mercedes trailing edge rear wing in Indycar... They just race the same cars at the same tracks over and over again, you could watch the race from 5 years ago instead of this year's race and not realise.

You are entitled to your calls for less downforce of course. The 2009 rules with a very shallow diffuser and very narrow rear wing did set out to achieve that, but obviously they had loopholes and then blown diffusers given the goal of the team is to build the fastest car possible. Exhaust blown diffuser engine mapping -- how's that for mechanical engineering!

The 2014 cars were then the realisation of the 2009 rules without loopholes but IMO those cars seemed slow and ponderous with their lack of downforce. 2014 cars were FAR from producing the better racing as claimed lower downforce would.

Originally Posted by S griffin

And too much aero as we know kills close racing. So what if cars are slowed down a bit? It’s still faster than other series. Let’s have more challenge to the drivers

To the contrary to your claim,the drivers found those slower 2014 cars less stimulating and less challenging. How is lower cornering G meant to be less challenging, rather than easier?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I care and yes they do. F1 is precisely a contest of the Dernies and Neweys, no? [And the Duckworths and Cowells too, of course.] That's the point.

A lovely discussion of the Red Bull RB20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zl-epBrHY

You don't get a discussion of the Indycar or an interview with it's smug designer after the race ["it's an extreme evolution of the RB18" - Newey], because guess what, it's exactly the same... It lacks the intrigue, no?

No "Inspector Seb" or "Inspector Lewis" or $50,000 fines for Verstappen being sent to investigate Newey's hunch about a flexible Mercedes trailing edge rear wing in Indycar... They just race the same cars at the same tracks over and over again, you could watch the race from 5 years ago instead of this year's race and not realise.

You are entitled to your calls for less downforce of course. The 2009 rules with a very shallow diffuser and very narrow rear wing did set out to achieve that, but obviously they had loopholes and then blown diffusers given the goal of the team is to build the fastest car possible. Exhaust blown diffuser engine mapping -- how's that for mechanical engineering!

The 2014 cars were then the realisation of the 2009 rules without loopholes but IMO those cars seemed slow and ponderous with their lack of downforce. 2014 cars were FAR from producing the better racing as claimed lower downforce would.




To the contrary to your claim,the drivers found those slower 2014 cars less stimulating and less challenging. How is lower cornering G meant to be less challenging, rather than easier?

Good for you that you care, but do you really think F1 is should only be a battle between designers? Of course it plays a part, but the fact is fans and the media care more about the drivers championship and always have.

And does it really matter that Indycar hasn’t got the technical innovation of F1? The fact is it has close competitive racing suggests not. And that’s what matters. Of course I do miss the days they had different chassis, but that’s a different story

Fact is we don’t need cars with loads of downforce or super fast lap times. MotoGP, at least before they added in winglets, always had a better spectacle despite having neither.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Good for you that you care, but do you really think F1 is should only be a battle between designers? Of course it plays a part, but the fact is fans and the media care more about the drivers championship and always have.

Exactly. It's the drivers that the fans primarily want to watch, whether that's at the track or on TV.

I remember the very first F1 race I went to. The GKN-Daily Express Silver Jubilee International Trophy Race, in 1973. I knew who the drivers were and for which team they drove for. I knew who had designed the cars but what I wanted to see was those drivers race.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I don't think this is true. The vast majority of road cars do not use hydraulic suspension unlike previous generation Grand Prix cars, manufacturers who championed it like Citroen and Austin have abandoned it. There is only McLaren but even they substitute rudimentary steel suspension in base model McLarens.

Meanwhile every road car is styled to reduce aerodynamic drag, especially those like the Tatra T87 and in the modern day Hyundai Ioniq 6 and Mercedes EQS.

The FIA removed hydraulic suspension elements or front-rear interconnects and so on expressly because it was hard for them to determine the function and to police the legality of it.

Meanwhile aerodynamic surfaces are simple,it's just your pressure distribution and flow field (sharp edges shed vortices, it's all very simple). Easy. Change the shape a little bit and your pressure distribution changes a little bit. Too easy.

But in reality, it is NOT simple.
History during the 80's is littered with false assumptions made in trying to copy the Lotus 79, particularly by McLaren and Tyrrell, and some others.
And in the present era no one has come close to Newey's design, just as it was the case with blown diffusers.
Which is in part what led to the change that enabled Mercedes to lead the next set of regulations.
Then we had a new set of regulations that went back to the underbody downforce they had wanted to escape and what happened?
We have the most single constructor dominance in any season since 1988 but we're getting it three and maybe four years in a row!

If it was simple Mercedes would have it mastered and so would everyone else.
But that is not the case.

[Teretonga]

[QUOTE=V8 Fireworks;4205576]Aerodynamics IS a field in mechanical engineering, as is acoustics, vibration, combustion and so on as well as solid mechanics (structures), mechanics, kinematics and vehicle dynamics. You will find a wind tunnel in the mechanical engineering department of every University.

I do not follow your point.

Technically you are correct. Aero engineering is a form of mechanical engineering.

I am being deliberately simplistic.
I'm suggesting that there is too much focus on aerodynamics as an aid to roadholding and cornering speed and in the current era it is not adding anything to the sport that would be seriously missed.

Rather than go into detail about what I would regard as useful I will say little, other than to point people to simpler wings and nose spoilers (80's single plane elements) as an aid the stability without the complexity of the current era.

[P38 in workshop]

Anybody else read this? https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/e...ture/10601483/. To my somewhat cynical mind it looks like an attempt to "improve" the image of those teams that don't often get any points as this state of affairs must do little to impress potential partners.A few points on the board gives the impression that they might be less uncompetitive.

[Sodemo]

Simplifying the upper surface aero is again, something that needs to happen. Why do we still have 5 separate wing elements on the front wing?

A separate point, but why is it still the whole width of the car? Do these rule makers not realise that the wider the wing, the more likely it is to get damaged in a wheel banging session?

[S griffin]

To be fair they have simplified the front wings to get rid of the add-ons they previously had on there. The problem is it's still producing a lot of downforce, which doesn't help following another car

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by S griffin

To be fair they have simplified the front wings to get rid of the add-ons they previously had on there. The problem is it's still producing a lot of downforce, which doesn't help following another car

Well exactly, which is why (in my opinion) it needs to be hugely simplified and shrunk in size.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Anybody else read this? https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/e...ture/10601483/. To my somewhat cynical mind it looks like an attempt to "improve" the image of those teams that don't often get any points as this state of affairs must do little to impress potential partners.A few points on the board gives the impression that they might be less uncompetitive.

I was curious to see what the argument was. Before reading the article I felt it was financial (which I think in a way it still is), but this section made sense to me...

At the moment, teams can find themselves losing out in a constructors’ championship battle with a rival if there is a freak race where their competitor lucks into a one-off good result.

This makes sense to me. I think it helps create less of a wall for rear of the field battles with respect to points. It might take a bit of the randomness out of the tail end of the field. However it can be exciting as a fan of one of those teams to see them score points while their rivals don't.

I am not a mathematician, but I was graphing out the current vs. potential system to understand the distribution. It's clearly not a linear distribution in that there is a clear bonus for 1st. It's still not linear after that (2nd, 3rd, and 4th seem to get a bump compared to 5th and back. As more points in total will be distributed per race (101 for current and 109 for future) you can say it devalues all of the points somewhat (1st garners 24.8% of points currently per race in the future would only garner 22.9%) but the delta is minor. I overall have no issue with this change and think it might be positive.

If you want to be cynical and want to punish someone like Max (or even Red Bull Racing), then remove such a bonus for 1st and make the distribution much more linear or even all the way back to 20th with a very flat slope! Imagine 1st getting 20 points, 2nd getting 19 points, 3rd 18 points, etc.

Richard

[Greem]

I've long pondered whether turning the system upside down would work, where the points tally is in terms of finishing positions.

The driver & team with the smallest score at the end of the season is declared champion. In the event of a tie, the number of first place positions, second place positions and so on are taken into account (as they are now).

Penalty points could be applied to the overall score rather than having insane grid penalties like we've had in the past. Too many specific components in the season? That adds onto your position tally. Races would start in qualifying order.

It would simplify things greatly, I think.

And that is why it will never happen!

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Well exactly, which is why (in my opinion) it needs to be hugely simplified and shrunk in size.

Can't see that happening anytime soon

[NaBUru38]

I support expanding the points scale to the top 12, as long as the top drivers score 25-18-15

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Greem

I've long pondered whether turning the system upside down would work, where the points tally is in terms of finishing positions.

The driver & team with the smallest score at the end of the season is declared champion. In the event of a tie, the number of first place positions, second place positions and so on are taken into account (as they are now).

Penalty points could be applied to the overall score rather than having insane grid penalties like we've had in the past. Too many specific components in the season? That adds onto your position tally. Races would start in qualifying order.

It would simplify things greatly, I think.

And that is why it will never happen!

This system was used in the 1930s European Championship but it is way too rewarding of consistency, punishing retirements incredibly harshly and barely rewarding race wins at all. In 2024, Sergio Perez would be leading the championship right now, and would continue to do so if he finished second to Verstappen for the next eight consecutive races, or second to Sainz for the next 17.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

In 2024, Sergio Perez would be leading the championship right now, and would continue to do so if he finished second to Verstappen for the next eight consecutive races, or second to Sainz for the next 17.

Sounds like just what we need!

Richard

[Greem]

Maybe if a DNF had a measurable impact on the points tally for the season drivers would be slightly more circumspect before going for ludicrous *you move or we crash* passes.

Ah, I forgot. Each race is a festival by itself! So looking at the Big Picture isn't allowed. I'll have to remember that and watch the WEC races for season long intrigue instead

[Skam85]

Points down to 12 is very much "participation award" territory.

Top 10 is fine as is.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Greem

I've long pondered whether turning the system upside down would work, where the points tally is in terms of finishing positions.

The driver & team with the smallest score at the end of the season is declared champion. In the event of a tie, the number of first place positions, second place positions and so on are taken into account (as they are now).

Penalty points could be applied to the overall score rather than having insane grid penalties like we've had in the past. Too many specific components in the season? That adds onto your position tally. Races would start in qualifying order.

It would simplify things greatly, I think.

And that is why it will never happen!

Jacques Villeneuve's 1999 season would have been an all time great one!

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Can't see that happening anytime soon

Thats ok, ill just continue to point my finger and shout at clouds (eventually they will listen)

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Points down to 12 is very much "participation award" territory.

Top 10 is fine as is.

I agree. Increasing it to top 10 was justified due to increased reliability. Don't feel the need to stretch it further

[Taxi645]

FOM: Perhaps reconsidering the whole hybrid idea, when sustainable fuel make the argument of hybrid moot?:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...oise/10611063/

Road car customers not digging the whole over the top hybrid concept?:
https://www-auto--motor--und--sport-...x_tr_hist=true


https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/w...chassis-rules/




So the 2026 engine regulations adds another 34kg on top of the already heavy current hybrids.

[Sodemo]

What’s the reason for the engine weight increases?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

FOM: Perhaps reconsidering the whole hybrid idea, when sustainable fuel make the argument of hybrid moot?:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...oise/10611063/

I can't remember what thread it was in, but we were discussing this general topic of 2026 power unit direction and the post here was speculating that there was some waffling by FIA/FOM on the direction. I think I made the point that the article in that post was not about them considering changing the 2026 direction, but they are considering something much simpler for the next power unit specification. I think this is more of the same. It think its a good idea.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Road car customers not digging the whole over the top hybrid concept?:
https://www-auto--motor--und--sport-...x_tr_hist=true

To be fair, I think "road car customers" is a bit broad. The article calls out AMG (performance cars) realizing that the performance segment still like their V8 engines. The rest of the driving public generally don't care one way or another. Whatever is under the hood is a black box to them.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

So the 2026 engine regulations adds another 34kg on top of the already heavy current hybrids.

Not really unexpected.

So I called out earlier that I think overall weight reduction is going to be a token amount. So this chart says power units grow by 34kg and chassis weight reduction is 40-50kg with total reduction in the 6-16kg range. That's pretty minimal!

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What’s the reason for the engine weight increases?

More power via the "K" side, so larger (heavier) component. Same with the battery, so larger (heavier).

Richard C