[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[chillibowl]

sorry i should have asked, do you still see the front wing as an area where innovation is still possible or is it just an area of refinement?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i love the passion with which you write with but in all honesty i think my problem here is , and just speaking for myself, is that after a hundred plus years (200 even?) i find it hard to get excited about the different varieties of the internal combustion engine.

That's an example I have to use, because that's what they did before the rules got over-restrictive. They didn't have regenerative braking (which I'm a big fan of, but I don't want to see teams forced into specific versions of it), they did have four wheel drive, which could be done very nicely with hybrids, but now you can't do it. The Red Bull X2010 was a fun fantasy exercise, but it reflects some things that would really exist currently in F1 if allowed. There would also be all sorts of ideas that would blow our mind now.

That's what I find so frustrating. The cars could be full of things that make you go "What were they smoking when they came up with that?" These would be things everybody would enjoy, because they would be so cool. The reason you don't find the technical side of the sport interesting now, is because the technical side of the sport is NOT interesting now.

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The Red Bull X2010

You sir are just plain wrong. I knew this fantasy car would come up as one of your examples eventually.

If F1 was like this, it would be an extremely fast and dangerous procession and amazingly quick cars, with no ovetaking because they would all be so perfect. It would result in crazy cornering speeds, breaking, and ultimately, driver deaths when things go wrong.

While it is kind of an interesting conversation point, this is 100% the wrong direction for F1 to go on.

Shhh.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

sorry i should have asked, do you still see the front wing as an area where innovation is still possible or is it just an area of refinement?

I think given the current rule sets it is mostly refinement but open for the next innovation (never say never). I think the most recent innovations (can't remember if this is allowed today or not) was the passive DRS that I think Mercedes (?) implemented a few years ago (may still use for all I know). I do agree that the wings are overly complex in relation to the rest of the car at time, but I think that is a result of the box being so tight as to where you can play, so they play heavily in this area. If there was to be a reboot in which more open rules existed then it would be an area for innovation because the sky would be the limit!

Regarding innovation, I suspect that much of the innovation in F1 is likely hidden away as a way to keep the other teams from figuring things out. There is likely a number of small details that if each of us was to understand we might find interesting. Maybe this really is ongoing refinement via many small (and hidden) innovations.

To another point above, I suspect opinions as to how to "fix F1" are based upon what each of us find interesting about F1. Both the technology and the racing are equally important to me while others just like the racing. That is why I am personally generally against "spec" components. I find the engineering part fascinating. But I also don't view the world as being so black and white, so I think there can be a happy medium somewhere.

I have to say this thread has been an enjoyable experience today. No shouting and gnashing of teeth.

Richard

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think given the current rule sets it is mostly refinement but open for the next innovation (never say never). I think the most recent innovations (can't remember if this is allowed today or not) was the passive DRS that I think Mercedes (?) implemented a few years ago (may still use for all I know).

I think this was referred to as the "F Duct", at least by the British media.

It was outlawed and in the rules it sights no allowance for aerodynamic alteration by the driver by way of hand movement, or something similar. I actually wonder if the changes of the rules over the years has actually resulted in FRIC now becoming outside of the rules, when it was perhaps perfectly legal when it was introduced. In other words, areas of the rule book that have been clarified for other reasons now means FRIC has become illegal. It is certainly a blury area.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by mikuni

You sir are just plain wrong. I knew this fantasy car would come up as one of your examples eventually.

If F1 was like this, it would be an extremely fast and dangerous procession and amazingly quick cars, with no ovetaking because they would all be so perfect. It would result in crazy cornering speeds, breaking, and ultimately, driver deaths when things go wrong.

While it is kind of an interesting conversation point, this is 100% the wrong direction for F1 to go on.

Shhh.

Which is why you would have a fuel limit, to control the speeds, as per my sig.

Which means, at some point, well out in the future, through the efforts of all those clever engineers, they would complete an F1 race, at current racing speeds and distance, using a single gallon of gasoline.

But really the Red Bull X2010 is quite pedestrian relative to what we would have right now, if the rule book were as short as it was in the early 1970's.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I had suggested that one way of doing this in a cost controlled way was to create a spec ECU for active suspension, but it would have a limited number of inputs as well as a fixed level of compute power. Most everything else would be free. The point being that it could only be as complex as the ECU could support. Not sure if it would work, but I thought it was a great idea!

My concern is the use of spec parts in areas that do involve both creativity and also can drive performance. For example the idea of a spec front wing just drives me crazy.

Richard

So spec ECU and spec suspension good, but spec wing bad?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

So spec ECU and spec suspension good, but spec wing bad?

Never said spec suspension. Just that if they plan to put in place a cost controlled active suspension, that instead of spec suspension parts, have a spec ECU that has limited/capped compute and input/output capability. Teams would be free to do whatever they wanted within those constraints. I think that in general the magic in an active suspension system will be the software which would also be free as long as it fits within the capabilities of the spec ECU.

I expect what we will actually see will be both a spec ECU plus a number of homologated components (sensors and actuators) that will be required. That would be much more restrictive than what I am proposing. I will be shocked if they allow a totally free active suspension.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by mikuni

I think this was referred to as the "F Duct", at least by the British media.

It was outlawed and in the rules it sights no allowance for aerodynamic alteration by the driver by way of hand movement, or something similar. I actually wonder if the changes of the rules over the years has actually resulted in FRIC now becoming outside of the rules, when it was perhaps perfectly legal when it was introduced. In other words, areas of the rule book that have been clarified for other reasons now means FRIC has become illegal. It is certainly a blury area.

I think what I am referring to is maybe called passive double DRS. The initial concept was the F duct that was driver operated. I think the newer version is either totally passive (ie stalls wings to reduce drag on straights, but doesn't on curves) and/or triggers off the regular DRS rear wing flap. This utilizes small air channels in the wings (imagine how many must exist in those multi-element front wings). It was just to point out the hidden and complex features of the wings.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Never said spec suspension. Just that if they plan to put in place a cost controlled active suspension, that instead of spec suspension parts, have a spec ECU that has limited/capped compute and input/output capability. Teams would be free to do whatever they wanted within those constraints. I think that in general the magic in an active suspension system will be the software which would also be free as long as it fits within the capabilities of the spec ECU.

I expect what we will actually see will be both a spec ECU plus a number of homologated components (sensors and actuators) that will be required. That would be much more restrictive than what I am proposing. I will be shocked if they allow a totally free active suspension.

Richard

The McLaren ECU is a spec part already.

How does that differ from this is a single element wing of given chord profile and plan form, install it how you want?

Just outlaw any wing in front of the front axle line should work even better!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

The McLaren ECU is a spec part already.

I am assuming that if they do active suspension that the current McLaren ECU may not have the capacity to also handle the active suspension, but maybe it does. I don’t know how much extra capacity that ECU has. So I was assuming there would need to be an extra ECU just for active suspension.

Originally Posted by wnut

How does that differ from this is a single element wing of given chord profile and plan form, install it how you want?

I think there is a huge difference as to designer input and ability to be creative in those two scenarios. In my scenario the designers are free as to do quite a bit. Solutions could be quite radical. While using a spec wing component likely will focus purely on integration with the chassis and other aero elements. Most wing solutions in your example would likely be relatively the same across all of the teams.

Originally Posted by wnut

Just outlaw any wing in front of the front axle line should work even better!

I struggle with concept of more aero restrictions. Part of me would love to see a series that was not quite so dependent upon advanced aero. Who wouldn’t want to see something like a modern interpretation of a mid 60’s Eagle or BRM pounding around by top drivers. But in my opinion it wouldn’t be F1. I don’t think F1 should have large swaths of "exclusion" at its core.

Richard

[wolfhound]

I have always believed a budget cap is the way to go but it does not look like it will happen.

On the subject of restricting aero development I have a number of suggestions that hopefully should result in cost saving.

Restrict wings to set number of chord profiles.

All wing elements must retain the same profile across their entire width when viewed from the side.

Wing end plates should be flat and in a vertical position with no holes in them.

[ciscotex]

Dang, I haven't been following this thread for a while, but posted something on the FRIC thread [posts 94 to 99?, sorry, didn't want to cross post and don't know how to link to a particular post] that might be relevant. Seems miatanut, Richard, and I are thinking along similar lines. I believe that some sort of cost cap with real teeth, like permanent expulsion, is an absolute necessity. It can be set at near current levels of the mid pack teams, higher, or lower depending upon the amount of prestige desired, pandering to the enshrined teams, etc. but let's make engineering creativity in a resource limited universe the distinguishing characteristic, rather than handing the trophy to the idiot willing to spend the most. This is certainly more real world relevant than anything F1 does today, and great training for engineers in any field.

The teams say it is impossible to come up with enforceable budget caps, but there are plenty of accountants and ex IRS auditors who I bet could easily prove them wrong. I really think no one has given 1% of the time, money, and resources to coming up with a workable cap system that Mercedes has spent on FRIC this year alone. And that is now a total write off.

How long is Ferrari going to be willing to trundle around in 6th place while spending, what, $300,000,000 a year? That's liable to even get the Fiat board's attention. Cut it back to $100 M and it could probably get funded out of petty cash. And trundling around in 6th won't be nearly as embarrassing if your only spending 1/3 the money. And so as not to discriminate, the same could be said of their best buds McLaren.

Paul

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

How long is Ferrari going to be willing to trundle around in 6th place while spending, what, $300,000,000 a year? That's liable to even get the Fiat board's attention. Cut it back to $100 M and it could probably get funded out of petty cash. And trundling around in 6th won't be nearly as embarrassing if your only spending 1/3 the money. And so as not to discriminate, the same could be said of their best buds McLaren.

Paul

If there was a 100million cost cap Ferrari could do F1 for nothing as that's about the amount of money they get from Bernie.
I firmly believe a cost cap is the way to go and open up the rule book to allow more innovation.

[321Go]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I firmly believe a cost cap is the way to go and open up the rule book to allow more innovation.

Innovation comes from R&D.
R&D costs money.
Lots of money.

You can't eat your cake and have it too!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Innovation comes from R&D.
R&D costs money.
Lots of money.

You can't eat your cake and have it too!

But you can. Innovation is more about new ideas more than R&D, been there and done that in another form of motor sport. That is what Newey was alluding to, he was not allowed to develop ideas which he wanted to implement. Development yes, research not so much as he had arrived at where he wanted to develop those ideas. Research implies that new ideas are being sought as there are no answers at present and research is needed.

[Sodemo]

If you want to limit downforce, then simply just setting a fixed wing surface area would work as well as any other solution.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Which is why you would have a fuel limit, to control the speeds, as per my sig.

Which means, at some point, well out in the future, through the efforts of all those clever engineers, they would complete an F1 race, at current racing speeds and distance, using a single gallon of gasoline.

What about the fuel itself then? Would you allow teams to use rocket-fuel, as some teams did in the eighties? Limiting the amount of fuel in terms of liters is not the same as limiting the energy drivers are allowed to consume.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

What about the fuel itself then? Would you allow teams to use rocket-fuel, as some teams did in the eighties? Limiting the amount of fuel in terms of liters is not the same as limiting the energy drivers are allowed to consume.

Fuel rules would be whatever they are now. Or, single source the fuel to be the standard pump gas Shell or whoever sells across the EU.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Fuel rules would be whatever they are now. Or, single source the fuel to be the standard pump gas Shell or whoever sells across the EU.

Limiting the teams to a single source could be problematic. The sponsorship from a few of the oil companies ExxonMobil, Total, PDVSA, Petronas, Shell etc isn't purely commercial. Some of them actually make the fuel each car uses.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Articus

Limiting the teams to a single source could be problematic. The sponsorship from a few of the oil companies ExxonMobil, Total, PDVSA, Petronas, Shell etc isn't purely commercial. Some of them actually make the fuel each car uses.

The problem with single source, is it prevents teams from choosing a cheaper supplier.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Articus

Limiting the teams to a single source could be problematic. The sponsorship from a few of the oil companies ExxonMobil, Total, PDVSA, Petronas, Shell etc isn't purely commercial. Some of them actually make the fuel each car uses.

That used to be true of tires too, but now it's not.

Still, I think the current fuel rules seem to be working just fine.

[Articus]

.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Fuel rules would be whatever they are now. Or, single source the fuel to be the standard pump gas Shell or whoever sells across the EU.

In principle I fail to see why teams should not be allowed to use other fuels than gasoline.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In principle I fail to see why teams should not be allowed to use other fuels than gasoline.

Nitro-methane, toluene, and all sorts of other substances enable huge power gains and can be very dangerous to handle.

Not what formula status quo is looking for either.