Why not just get rid of all rules?

JohnnyFiama · 27 Jul 2005, 09:55 (Ref:1364480)

It might sound like a wacky idea but why not get rid of all rules? OK, so you’d need a few, I’d suggest:

1. Ban all electronic gizmos, traction control, gearboxes etc.
2. Ban all “exotic” materials. e.g. a list of anything that is either too expensive or harmful to health / environment.
3. Provide a standard tyre that must last the whole race.
4. A set of safety rules, head protection, crash tests etc (no different to today).

That’s it. After that the teams are on their own to do anything they want. The rest of the rules would govern themselves, if you had a car with huge downforce it would get blown away on the straights, if you had a car with huge power it would use more fuel (so weigh more) and destroy it’s tyres. Imagine a grid where there were 10 different ideas on the best type of engines (6 litre, 1.5 litre, V8, V10, V12, turbos) and the cars actually looked different from one another.

Probably never work but hey……

Kicking-back · 27 Jul 2005, 10:02 (Ref:1364484)

You'd end up with huge spreads of laptime, and probably only about 4 cars on the grid.

JohnnyFiama · 27 Jul 2005, 11:08 (Ref:1364550)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

You'd end up with huge spreads of laptime, and probably only about 4 cars on the grid.

Why? Put in some mechanism to control costs and why would it cost any more than now? You could still have customer engines.

Dan Rear · 27 Jul 2005, 12:27 (Ref:1364626)

Sounds great to me, like CanAm in its heyday. Oh, hang on though, there wouldn't be nay need for Lawyers or Regulators, we wouldn't want that would we....

Marbot · 27 Jul 2005, 19:30 (Ref:1364959)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

You'd end up with huge spreads of laptime, and probably only about 4 cars on the grid.

Just like Indy then.

Dutton · 27 Jul 2005, 21:00 (Ref:1365045)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyFiama

Why? Put in some mechanism to control costs and why would it cost any more than now? You could still have customer engines.

And the gradual increase of regulation begins.

Stevespurr · 27 Jul 2005, 21:59 (Ref:1365082)

Why not just leave the safety rules in and let them build a race car with no restrictions other than engine size.

Dutton · 27 Jul 2005, 22:06 (Ref:1365089)

Well, just don't expect overtaking!

thejester · 27 Jul 2005, 22:15 (Ref:1365094)

Could some of you who are dismissing the suggestion explain your reasons?

No overtaking, small grids, high costs - not disputing these might happen but could you explain why?

Because I think it's a shame we can't have radical innovation anymore, and a grid full of cars that look much the same. Once upon a time you had rear-engined and front engined cars...

**dtype38** · 27 Jul 2005, 22:25 (Ref:1365099)

IMHO its a great idea which will fall flat on its face at the first race. You see, someone will have invented a car much better than anything else on the grid. At that point it becomes irrelevant how much skill the other drivers have, because if they aren't in that car they can't win. Then everyone will complain that it's supposed to be a sport, but the playing field isn't level and its only a competition between constructors to see who has the best car. A hue and cry will go up for anything that gives one team an unfair advantage to be banned.... and lo and behold, you get a grid of nearly identical cars. Anyone fault the logic?

The Lounge King · 27 Jul 2005, 22:34 (Ref:1365104)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtype38

IMHO its a great idea which will fall flat on its face at the first race. You see, someone will have invented a car much better than anything else on the grid. At that point it becomes irrelevant how much skill the other drivers have, because if they aren't in that car they can't win. Then everyone will complain that it's supposed to be a sport, but the playing field isn't level and its only a competition between constructors to see who has the best car. A hue and cry will go up for anything that gives one team an unfair advantage to be banned.... and lo and behold, you get a grid of nearly identical cars. Anyone fault the logic?

Spot on, that is how we got here.

Still, does anyone know why the regs specify the number of cylinders?

Marbot · 28 Jul 2005, 00:51 (Ref:1365173)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtype38

IMHO its a great idea which will fall flat on its face at the first race. You see, someone will have invented a car much better than anything else on the grid. At that point it becomes irrelevant how much skill the other drivers have, because if they aren't in that car they can't win. Then everyone will complain that it's supposed to be a sport, but the playing field isn't level and its only a competition between constructors to see who has the best car. A hue and cry will go up for anything that gives one team an unfair advantage to be banned.... and lo and behold, you get a grid of nearly identical cars. Anyone fault the logic?

92,Williams,Mansell,Piquet.No one else stood a chance.

DKGandBH · 28 Jul 2005, 01:06 (Ref:1365179)

Also,

Is the configuration of those cylinders is mandated or can we have flat 12's W 12's etc...

DKGandBH

thejester · 28 Jul 2005, 01:24 (Ref:1365182)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtype38

IMHO its a great idea which will fall flat on its face at the first race. You see, someone will have invented a car much better than anything else on the grid. At that point it becomes irrelevant how much skill the other drivers have, because if they aren't in that car they can't win. Then everyone will complain that it's supposed to be a sport, but the playing field isn't level and its only a competition between constructors to see who has the best car. A hue and cry will go up for anything that gives one team an unfair advantage to be banned.... and lo and behold, you get a grid of nearly identical cars. Anyone fault the logic?

Good point. But wasn't that the case with the recent ferraris? Frankly I think F1 is and nearly always has been a competition between constructors to see who has the best car. However with such restrictive rules these days it's almost a case of 'who can build the best version of the car'.

Marbot · 28 Jul 2005, 13:24 (Ref:1365581)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKGandBH

Also,

Is the configuration of those cylinders is mandated or can we have flat 12's W 12's etc...

DKGandBH

This year you must have a V10 that can have any V angle.Next year you can have a V8 that must have a 90 degree V angle,or a restricted V10 with any V angle.There are no exceptions.

Snrub · 28 Jul 2005, 16:23 (Ref:1365726)

Why? Because it would get out of control. There's zero reason why they couldn't have 5000hp engines, etc. There's also a limit where things remain safe. I think the cars would exceed what humans are capable of somewhat safely controlling.

bathurst77 · 29 Jul 2005, 00:40 (Ref:1366225)

I think its agreat idea.
Simple guidelines. maximum/minimum car size.
must be "wheeldriven" (ie the engine must turn wheels to provide propulsion.. not "jet"thingy)
saftey regs include crash.rollover.fire etc protection.
no electronic drive controls (traction, electronic gearbox, etc)
u want 4 wd and 4wsteer? ok
u want 6 wheels? OK
u want ground effects? OK

maybe ban mid race refueling so there is some idea of power vs fuel economy.
Formula 1 should be "The ultimate" so why not just make therules, build the fastest "Car" you can.

**dtype38** · 29 Jul 2005, 10:17 (Ref:1366450)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejester

Good point. But wasn't that the case with the recent ferraris? Frankly I think F1 is and nearly always has been a competition between constructors to see who has the best car. However with such restrictive rules these days it's almost a case of 'who can build the best version of the car'.

Very true, but I don't think anyone knew how Ferrari were making their version of "the car" so much quicker than everyone else's. If they did then they probably would have banned it. Since they couldn't they changed the sporting regs to one-shot qualifying to "shake up the grid" (ie try and knock Ferrare off their perch that way instead).

bathurst77... just one point about banning electronic controls and the like. Murray Walker, when asked about electronic driver aids, said "They may not be desirable, but if we got rid of them we'd be in the situation that an average family saloon would be more sophisticated than an F1 car. I don't think that can be allowed to happen." Personally I tend to agree. I think the challenge should be to make a race track where such aids would be more of a hinderance than a help

BootsOntheSide · 29 Jul 2005, 10:39 (Ref:1366467)

Just to spin that logic around, surely a Formula 1 car should be harder to drive than a family road car?

**dtype38** · 29 Jul 2005, 10:54 (Ref:1366477)

Fair point, but so is an industrial earth mover!

ss_collins · 29 Jul 2005, 12:58 (Ref:1366555)

Formula Student

ttc · 30 Jul 2005, 07:03 (Ref:1367060)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Just to spin that logic around, surely a Formula 1 car should be harder to drive than a family road car?

It is, but WHY must it be harder to DRIVE?

Is FIFA approved football (the ball) more difficult to kick than any other football?

Or WBA approved basketball more difficult to get into the basket than any other basketball?

Or golf clubs used in PGA tours more difficult to play with than those used by amateur golfers?

But of course, most people do not drive their cars to the limit or take corners at 200kph. Neither do they have to endure G forces when taking corners or when braking.

Dutton · 30 Jul 2005, 07:15 (Ref:1367066)

Well, you know, by that logic it would be fine to watch them all racing 1 litre production Metros or something.

I am all for them having to drive cars that are far harder than the norm. That is the point of being the elite to my mind. However, cars that are designed without any design restrictions would be rather hard to drive on the limit IMHO (I getting a vibe that seemed to be suggesting it would somehow make it easy..... I seriously doubt that).

ascarmarshal · 30 Jul 2005, 08:22 (Ref:1367094)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

92,Williams,Mansell,Piquet.No one else stood a chance.

I think you will find in 92 Williams had Mansell and Patrese as their drivers. Piquet drove for Williams in 86 and 87

Dutton · 30 Jul 2005, 08:32 (Ref:1367102)

I contemplated addressing that earlier but didn't bother, for assumed it was a slip of the mind rather than anything else.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Rules for IPS	macdaddy	IRL Indycar Series	3	15 Feb 2005 22:46
CBS rules all	Omega99	ChampCar World Series	23	17 May 2003 21:57
02 rules	Es Nes	Sportscar & GT Racing	1	10 Jan 2002 10:08
New F1 Rules	Ralf's Girl	Formula One	6	19 Oct 2000 00:26