[Rules] Zak Brown and Changes to F1

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Can the mods transfer this discussion to Historic Racing where it obviously belongs?

Nobody's forcing you to read this very current F1-relevant thread.

[Adam43]

It was just a funny aside from OldTony.

[coppice]

DFVs were cheap , compared to current F1 power , but not quite as cheap as we might think. Typically , in 1970 , I've read a DFV cost £7500 -peanuts in 2020 - but inflation adjusted it equates to £120k

[Peter Mallett]

But significantly less than a PU.

[midgetman]

£120k? Peanuts in 2020 too. About the same price as the team transporter for a top level club racing team.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Peter Mallett]

Indeed. And we know what they have done to club racing.

But I think the point is well made that to have a realistic budget, the componentry needs to be more reasonably priced. In turn this would mean technology would be reduced.

[P38 in workshop]

As entertaining as it is to be reminded of the 70's kit car era,you simply can't do it now.The cost of tooling up for a monocoque that will pass the FIA structural tests is too great.You might perhaps advocate a central FIA sourced monocoque and allow a small groups of practical men in a shed to build up on it.It could be fun to participate in that sort of thing or it could degenerate into a sort of Scrapheap Challenge.
One thing that isn't being discussed i this thread is the probability that the number of people working in F1 is likely to be reduced by either of the two solutions that seem most likely.Remaining with the status quo makes it quite likely that some teams might disappear at the end of the current Concorde agreement.Implementing a harsh budget cap means that the bigger teams will be obliged to shrink to come within the limit.We also have the utterances from Ross Brawn about the way the hospitality units have become a bit overblown and any cutback there will leave a number of catering and transport people looking for jobs.Combine this with the challenges the world economy will have to face quite soon and it becomes very hard to see how the business won't be shrinking,even if it can continue at all.


Without wishing to appear too pessimistic,I don't doubt that the cleverest engineers remaining will develop extremely good cars within the constraints imposed.The drivers able to find a seat will exploit all the performance the cars have and the racing is likely to be of a high standard.The big challenge is for the FIA and Liberty to find a combination of factors that minimises the drop in numbers in the factories and on the grid.

[chillibowl]

it is fairly common for teams in major sporting leagues to spend at least 100mil a year just on payroll alone and i would say that this level of spend is what a global audience expects to see from top level team sports.

there is a reason that local sports with much smaller (and granted more reasonable) budgets are just local sports right?

[coppice]

Well , this lifelong motorsport addict was never very concerned about the sport having a global audience in the first place . Fact is , outside F1's Western European heartland , with the honourable exceptions of South America , Japan and Australia , nobody else is very interested.

Sure , we might have Grands Prix in silly places like Azerbaijan and Bahrain , but that's just nationalistic willy waving , to impress the neighbours. Just count the spectators at Baku last time - it won't take you long.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by coppice

Well , this lifelong motorsport addict was never very concerned about the sport having a global audience in the first place . Fact is , outside F1's Western European heartland , with the honourable exceptions of South America , Japan and Australia , nobody else is very interested.

Sure , we might have Grands Prix in silly places like Azerbaijan and Bahrain , but that's just nationalistic willy waving , to impress the neighbours. Just count the spectators at Baku last time - it won't take you long.

Yes, F1 under BE did become an acceptance on the world stage gig for countries/regimes (call it what you will) to put themselves on the global calendar alongside UK, Italy, USA, Australia, etc,etc, etc.

BE's model would have run out by now even if he were still running it, the number of countries that can spend unlimited amounts of public money, unaccountably are not there any longer.

FOM and the teams need to learn to cut there cloth accordingly or fail. Some of this will be done for them by manufacturer's deaprting just as they did after the (relatively mild by comparison) 2008 banking crisis, but now FOm doesn't even have the luxury of any paperwork they may have signed to wave at them as the agreements all come to an end at the end of 2020.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know of an online repository of older F1 technical and sporting regulations?

Richard

The FIA's historic database might help. Until 1982, the Year Book of Automobile Sport included Formula One's technical regulations.
https://historicdb.fia.com/regulatio...iod-appendix-j

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

The need to take the rules back to 1974.

That would be the worst idea possible. You do recall how open the 1974 rules were right?

With 1974 rules and 2020 technology, the cars would be stupendously fast:

• 1.5L forced induction provision with unlimited boost -- yes please!
• FAN cars allowed !!!!!
• unlimited ground effects -- yes please!
• active suspension allowed! scrummy!
• traction control allowed
• twin-chassis allowed (e.g., Lotus 88)
• CVT allowed as per Williams FW15C prototype -- no more inefficient gear changes

It seems, Armco, like you've completely forgotten all the developments that were allowed under those rules, came along later, and were subsequently banned.

Originally Posted by coppice

DFVs were cheap , compared to current F1 power , but not quite as cheap as we might think. Typically , in 1970 , I've read a DFV cost £7500 -peanuts in 2020 - but inflation adjusted it equates to £120k

But they were made obsolete by teams using the 1.5L forced induction provision, which Armco Bender did not say they would delete from the rules.

So I doubt anyone will choose a 3.0L naturally aspirated engine, when they can build under the same rules & 2020 technology, a 1.5L forced induction engine with unlmited boost level and unlimited fuel flow. Cramming 4-5 bar into a 1.5L just has the potential for so much more power than a 3.0L running at about 1 bar (atmospheric pressure).

[LW97]

One thing we sadly will not see again are fuel stops.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That would be the worst idea possible. You do recall how open the 1974 rules were right?

With 1974 rules and 2020 technology, the cars would be stupendously fast:

• 1.5L forced induction provision with unlimited boost -- yes please!
• FAN cars allowed !!!!!
• unlimited ground effects -- yes please!
• active suspension allowed! scrummy!
• traction control allowed
• twin-chassis allowed (e.g., Lotus 88)
• CVT allowed as per Williams FW15C prototype -- no more inefficient gear changes .

They didn't have any of the above in 1974.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They didn't have any of the above in 1974.

People mistakenly relate rules from a period of time with cars from that era. If the 1974 rules didn't exclude those ideas, then if you used them today, teams would absolutely exploit them to the maximum. Cars were the best they could make "then", not the best the rules allowed.

How much power could they extract from unlimited turbo cars? 1500 hp, 2000 hp? Was their limits on engine usage? Qualifying engines? Engines that last one race? Active suspension, traction control, driver aids like never imagined, the list goes on. Would we use safety standards from that era? Could independent teams afford to design all of that?

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

People mistakenly relate rules from a period of time with cars from that era. If the 1974 rules didn't exclude those ideas, then if you used them today, teams would absolutely exploit them to the maximum. Cars were the best they could make "then", not the best the rules allowed.

How much power could they extract from unlimited turbo cars? 1500 hp, 2000 hp? Was their limits on engine usage? Qualifying engines? Engines that last one race? Active suspension, traction control, driver aids like never imagined, the list goes on. Would we use safety standards from that era? Could independent teams afford to design all of that?

Richard

The rules in F1 have never been static, they have always been adapted, in order to accommodate the changes in design and technology, as well as addressing safety issues. Therefore 1974 rules would not be relevant to today

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They didn't have any of the above in 1974.

Because they hadn't been invented yet, but they were all permitted under the rules and the proposal was to use 1974 rules.

One can't use 1974 rules, and then expect engineers to unlearn everything that has been learned between 1974 and the present day -- indeed the developments between 1974 and 1984 alone like reliable(ish) turbo engines, radial tyres (which spelled the end of F1 cars four-wheel-drifting through bends, as radials operate best at smaller slip angles than cross-ply tyres) and carbon monocoques would already see cars lapping much faster.

[coppice]

Originally Posted by LW97

One thing we sadly will not see again are fuel stops.

You are being ironic , right ? Pit stops, for any reason , ruin the flow of a race . Races are won and lost on pitstop algorithms alone , and stops result in the damp squib of car A taking the lead from Car B while B is parked ..



Tyre stops are absurd - F 1 wangs on about sustainability and yet demands tyres that wear out in 15 minutes , and are then thrown away . Fuel stops ? The only time they are remotely interesting is when something goes wrong.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by coppice

You are being ironic , right ? Pit stops, for any reason , ruin the flow of a race . Races are won and lost on pitstop algorithms alone , and stops result in the damp squib of car A taking the lead from Car B while B is parked ..



Tyre stops are absurd - F 1 wangs on about sustainability and yet demands tyres that wear out in 15 minutes , and are then thrown away . Fuel stops ? The only time they are remotely interesting is when something goes wrong.

Exactly. I would like to see them do away with the two compound per race rule and let them decide what compound they want to run. It's annoying in any series, save endurance races when you see a good battle and then remember that they have to make a pitstop which ruins the enjoyment of it. More enjoyable if you have the uncertainty of whether they need to pit or not

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Because they hadn't been invented yet, but they were all permitted under the rules and the proposal was to use 1974 rules.

One can't use 1974 rules, and then expect engineers to unlearn everything that has been learned between 1974 and the present day -- indeed the developments between 1974 and 1984 alone like reliable(ish) turbo engines, radial tyres (which spelled the end of F1 cars four-wheel-drifting through bends, as radials operate best at smaller slip angles than cross-ply tyres) and carbon monocoques would already see cars lapping much faster.

Some had been invented. Turbo charging was around in 1974. The Chaparral 2j had used fans and skirts. True you can't expect engineers to unlearn everything but that's why there's a rule book, in order to specify what can and cannot be used.

[coppice]

Exactly - this riff about not being able to unlearn stuff is as old as it is daft . You don't unlearn stuff - as you say , and I said earlier, all you need is a well drafted rule book. Which could mandate crossplies , but outlaw turbos and effectively do the same for damned pitstops - which , more than anything else , ruin racing , especially if you are there yourself . Pitting and strategy , tyre changes and the rest are great in sports cars and GT racing , but should have no place in single seater circuit racing - Indy's Indy so I will leave that as an exception!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by coppice

Which could mandate crossplies

I am curious, what do you think that would result in? Would we have spec tires or multiple suppliers?

Richard

[Adam43]

It's probably the thought that cars slide more on crossplys. Possibly true, but the introduction in F1 did also come at the time of downforce increases.

[Peter Mallett]

IIRC it was 1979 when radials were first used. Always found it strange, since I'd been running radials since the early 70s on my road cars.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

IIRC it was 1979 when radials were first used. Always found it strange, since I'd been running radials since the early 70s on my road cars.

I believe it was 1977.