With all the talk on rules

[Ziggy]

A hot topic on forums right now seem to be fuel regulations as it pertains to the racing on the track. With a new season upon us (well, right around the corner anyway) What do you think should be done to make the Formula One series more entertaining?

IMO, the cars are nothing short of drag racers now. I have lost interest over the past few years. Im not knocking Ferrari, they have done their homework, hired the right key personal, and in short moved the bar so far up the scale that even crack raceteams such as Williams and McLaren are left in the dust weekend and weekout.

There new qualifying procedures are not only a deviation of what was traditionally an important segment of an F1 weekend. I see no gain from a spectators standpoint of one single flying lap. I have also heard mention of some sort of ballast penalty in regard to Championship positioning. Neither of these do much for my enthusiasm towards the racing.

Any ideas?

Ziggy

[mnkywrch]

They need to "de-tech" the cars somehow.

Drop the two-way communications, figure out a way to use a "standard" ECU that won't have all the high-tech stuff...

Drop the pit stops.

Ban in-season testing save for some open tests. In return, open up Friday for 4 to 6 hours of practice.

[Ziggy]

I would love to see pit stops banned as well. When I first started watching and following this sport, pit stops were a sure sign of defeat. That being said, I don't think it is possible from a safety aspect to go an entire race distance on one load of fuel.

I agree about the "de-tune" aspects. However, it is a manufacturers series and they are in it to develop all the bells and whistles to keep ahead of "Brand X." While Ferrari does not sell many street cars (well they do, but not in the same vein as say Toyota) it goes without question that the two symbolize technology.

A slower car would be the way to go for sure. It would be very difficult to wipe the slate clean and go back to a smaller Formula, like the 1.5 litre era.

Im afraid something drastic is in order. I cant think of one Team that would be receptive to these lines of thinking.

Electronics would be a great place to start. Dumping the clutchless shift would be another. Traction control, launch control and standard ECU's (although with such a varied group of engines, this would be very hard) If this were to come to fruition, then an ironclad policy of following the rules would have to be laid down. I remember the fiasco from Benetton with the launch control and the time it took the tech committee to get there hands on the electronics.

Its a rats nest, and the sport suffers from it IMO

Ziggy

[JoeBob]

I think that all you really need to do is remove the requirement that each team build its own chassis. At the top of the grid, I think you'll still see the Ferarris of the world build their own, but it would do a lot to help the back of the grid.

A company like Lola could do a lot if they had funding from 2-3 teams to design/build a car. It would also give those teams a car that had a lot more resources than they did. The downside of that co-operative development is that other teams will have "your car."

It would also open up a market for a team like Ferarri to make their year-old cars available.

[RichK]

I think a spec tire would go a long way. And make sure that the spec tire isn't developed for Ferrari behind the scenes.

And for my own visual taste: bring back the wide-track F1 cars! Wider is better!

[pchall]

Originally posted by Ziggy


Its a rats nest, and the sport suffers from it IMO

Ziggy

In an era of the 90 minute, 300 km GP multiple fueling stops are ludicrous.

Set the minimum fuel load at the start to an amount that will allow a car to complete the race distance. Meanwhile, the Italian pitstops with unlimited guys over the wall have to go. Five people over the wall for a tire change is certainly enough -- make getting new rubber take about 15 seconds plus pit in and pit out.

Another place to look at seriously is the aero package. The current cars with splitters, diffusers, and barge boards and a bazillion winglets need to go. Tame the whole package with a flat bottom for the chassis spine from the first bulkhead to the engine, no diffusers or bargeboards, and no winglets between the wheel centers.

[GrandView]

Originally posted by mnkywrch
They need to "de-tech" the cars somehow.

Drop the two-way communications, figure out a way to use a "standard" ECU that won't have all the high-tech stuff...

Drop the pit stops.

Ban in-season testing save for some open tests. In return, open up Friday for 4 to 6 hours of practice.

I'm not saying those are bad approaches, wrench. However, none of them is key to Ferrari's domination. Nor are they the reason Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams are currently superior to the rest of the field.

Formula One is cyclical. It always has been. Every now and then a constructor finds an edge, and coupled with a great driver, they dominate.

Had Senna lived the Williams era of 1994, 95, 96, and 97 would likely rival (if not exceed) the hysteria produced by Ferrari/Schumacher. Senna was certainly capable of producing the statistics that Schumacher has, and he certainly elicited disdain and revulsion in certain circles.

I'm convinced Ferrari's tangible edge is the Bridgestone development relationship that produced their rear suspension. The intangible is the entire focus of Schumacher and Ferrari on continuing to refine the car. They are relentless in that aspect, and they've gained at least a half year advantage on everyone in the development cycle.

Although I'm not sure just what he's referencing, Frank Williams has said the rules don't currently allow the radical design changes it would take to instantly catch up with Ferrari.

If Formula One is to remain a championship where building a unique car is important (and I hope it does remain that way), and it is deemed necessary to remove the advantage that Ferrari currently has, all new specs will have to be defined so everyone is back to square one. If that happens, regardless of what "cost controls" are instituted, some combination of constructor and driver will again develop an advantage. It may or may not be Ferrari, but it will be a constructor with that mindset (and resources) who has a driver with Schumacher's dedication and skills.

GV

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by GrandView
I'm not saying those are bad approaches, wrench. However, none of them is key to Ferrari's domination. Nor are they the reason Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams are currently superior to the rest of the field.

I'm not worried about "hindering" Ferrari, and I agree with most of what you're saying.

Ferrari has the best of everything right now, and they're on the top of their game, just like Williams was in 1996 and 1997, or McLaren in the late 80's.

I'm just suggesting things that might improve "the show" while still, I think, staying true to what Formula 1 is.

I'm sure some would disagree.

I like the idea of allowing teams to buy chassis; though I'm sure Peter Sauber wouldn't be able to afford the entire car - I'm sure the engine is enough!

[Ziggy]

I would not be opposed to some teams running another's car. Anything would be better than what they have rolled out onto the track in some instances....

We live in the Electronic age. I fear that without some jurisprudence on the part of the F1 regulations, that this problem of technology will forever ruin the sport.

Pchall's ideas sound about right, with regard to the aeropackage. Make the basic chassis do the work. No one should have an exclusive tire development deal. This has been the weight that has tipped the scales for quite sometime.

Its a trick bag, that's for sure.

Ziggy

[Peter Venkman]

I was going to add to this thread, but by the time I got to the end, almost everything that I could add was there.

I like the flat bottom car. Front axle to rear axle. No more than 10 cm of chord (ogive deviation) on the rear diffuser.

I don't like a mandated 10-cylinder formula. After all, it's F1, and that should allow it wiggle room in engine configuration.

Wider car, for sure, and back to slicks.

I would think that much of Ferrari's strength lies in its wind-tunnel program, along with the almost exclusive tire technology deal.
Something needs to be done that makes daily trips to the tunnel not cost effective. Vestigial wings for aero-trim, minimum height and width.
No surfaces (barge boards) outside of the plan form of the car.

One way to possibly "police" the software is to have every team present the algorithm and its maximum performance envelope before the event, and have 22 beautiful, young, short-skirted girls, real-time monitor, from telemetry, each cars performance envelope.
Hmm, by the time I got to the end of that idea, it begins to sound goofy.

Automatic clutches, OK, but the driver has to select the shift point, both up and down.

Something probably needs to be done with the engine situation.
I understand that the blocks are paperweights after 200 miles, and I would have to guess that a loaded engine (parts and labor, including engineering and testing) must be above $360,000 each. Ouch!

I also like having different car (chassis) constructors, although it would be a precarious business plan. Never win a race and you're out of business quickly. It seems to me to be a hard business to sell.