/f1/ - Formula One

>end prescriptive regulations, fia should not be designing the cars

>actually enforce bans on driver aids (including autorevmatching transmissions)

>end drs, kers, and the whole hybrid mess as it is a second engine and therefore illegal

>return to 2 meters width

>remove car height, nose height, minimum airbox size and similar regulations

>deregulate tires with multiple suppliers

>3.5 liter naturally aspirated engines of any configuration or 1.5 liter turbo engine of any configuration with 2 bar boost limit

>no minimum weight (naturally aspirated cars will be able to compete this way as they are naturally lighter than forced induction)

>return to 2 day 12 lap qualifying session (will make qualifying more strategic and create a natural shakeup in the order)

>spare cars allowed

>refuelling allowed but not mandated

>parc ferme has to go

>penalties for engine changes and all abolished (the fact is that teams wont up engines every 2 qualifying laps because they have to be able to economically rebuild them, Yamaha used to have a very aggressive valvetrain that would grenade. They quickly observed that even the most well funded teams like Ferrari didn't design engines to fail like that because to keep rebuilding engines quickly enough and well enough was damn near impossible)

You seem to get it.

Oh, bring back brands hatch, old Silverstone, Monza with the faster lesmos, no chicanes, and the oval, Paul ricard, Watkins glen, long beach, the second straightaway at interlagos, old Fuji speedway with the enormous suicidal banked corner, get rid of the sand bowls (Malaysia counts too), jerez (without the squared off corners), pre-senna an hero imola, Adelaide, old kyalami (just demolish the slums nearby, for our lord and savior Jody), Mexico pre tilke, zandvoort, Argentina with the huge ring layout, and many more

•all WAG pit crews

•grid lolis

•jean todt polonium enema

>grid decided by who gets the most tweets on their #hashtag

>winner is who uses the least fuel in the race

>George Lucas to do all podium interviews

>Crofty as chief steward

>mufflers

>2015 spec Honda power unit for all teams

>Williams to do all pitstops for all teams

>drivers have to keep the same hairstyle all year

>>31714

I'd actually allow second engines. I don't think people would run them anyways because it's a bunch of extra things that can go wrong but if a clever team finds a way to use it, then they can go ahead and do it.

As for qualifying, I'd say 90 minutes on a single day is enough.

For the race length, the best format would be 100 minutes and see who gets in the most laps.

One last thing. Privateers. F1 should have at least some customer cars allowed. Anyone who's on the Platinum list can compete twice per year. If they finish both races on points, they get a free super license. Use them to fill out grids on large circuits and whenever there isn't enough proper teams to fill out the smaller circuits.

>>31715

Now, if you are going to bring back oldskool tracks you will need to allow SOME driver aids because at the end of the day, you don't want to cause unnecessary crashes that kill people and then get it all banned once again.

if we are serious, the problems lie with governance and economics producing an unhealthy, withering sport.

the technical regs can be unshittified in any number of ways.

>>31972

It tries to be many contradictory things at the same time. The main reason it's still going is by vast momentum from a better era.

>>31783

>For the race length, the best format would be 100 minutes and see who gets in the most laps.

I'll have to disagree with you there. We want more competitive racing, not less. We want the leader to be constantly attacked by the racers behind him.

>>32102

>We want more competitive racing, not less.

The only way that's happening without gimmicks if there's enough money going in to multiple teams and technical/testing freedom to do really clever shit. First ain't happening without bringing back Tobacco money, second can't happen when teams constantly lawyer away any advantage other teams have via lobbying for more bannings.

Either way, the idea behind a time limit compared to a lap limit is to get more variable race lengths in terms of distance traveled. This in turn would add yet another layer of strategy for clever teams to exploit.

>>31714

>(including autorevmatching transmissions)

They don't have any rev matching. They just put the next gear in at the same time, then pull the first one out before the torsion becomes too great to damage the transmission

>>32609

They do rev match, but it is more like what is done for a sequential shift box (declutch, rev, shift) versus double clutching or other methods that apply to other transmissions.

You can hear it on the onboards. The engines would lunch themselves as well as the transmissions if they didn't rev match.

>>32692

>it is more like what is done for a sequential shift box (declutch, rev, shift)

Nope.

>>32702

this only applies to upshifts. with upshifting you can have simultaneous engagement without major shift shock as the engine can operate in both gears with its current rate of revolution (especially when ratios are widely spaced) being acceptable with either gear ratio.

Even so, the current systems do have ecu control of clutch slip and throttle modulation involved in order to control the torque spike.

With downshifts the same mechanism is used but there is either clutch slip AND/OR throttle modulation required. If the torque spike would break traction on upshift, it will shred the gearbox (dog, bullet, or any method of engagement) and damage the engine on downshifts.

http://www.f1network.net/main/s491/st128891.htm

http://www.f1network.net/main/s491/st129248.htm

On downshifts in a seamless shift gearbox, the throttle modulation is primarily applied during the phase in which both gears (the higher and immediately lower ratio) are meshed.

Since cost seems to be a big sticking point for the teams:

I would relax engine development rules as it was always going to be expensive with new technologies but the FIA seems to have been surprised by that. [Certainly inspires confidence that that these nitwits run the sport].

Opening it up would allow more manufacturers to come up with serviceable engines that a struggling team could use and eventually move on to better ones or work with them to make it better. The current Honda horror show and tight restrictions, for sure put other manufacturers off.

Bring back the Bridgestone-esqe tyres. I don't know who though that more pitstops would be a good idea but that person needs to be shot. 2010 was not a bad season at all. The drivers should be punishing the tyres, not caring for it the whole distance. It would also save money on shipping the boat loads of tyers they currently need too.

For the Aero rules, there is never going to be a perfect solution for this so I would go back to the double decker diffusers to make the cars fast and then tweak the rules from there.

>>33163

pitstops are good for the show. but there are other ways of getting them in there than ruining the tires, like just mandate three or whatever

>teams all wait to do them in case SC

>last few laps pit bedlam

>>33182

If they really need to mandate then 2 stops should suffice. going on a S-H-S would be fine. Anything more is just interference.

You're falling into the same trap again.

The cart cannot be put before the horse; which is to say that you cannot put "the show" before the sport. That is how we get gimmicks that complicated the ruleset without any improvement in racing (narrow wings, drs, kers, mandated pitstops, regulated tires and so on).

In its pure form, Formula 1 is legitimate sport that is compelling and entertaining to watch, much in the way that bullfighting or a gladiator fight might be.

But much of what makes it exciting is its dynamism: Johnny Herbert 1 stopping the race (to claim lotus' best result that season) at Donington park in 1993 when even Prost stopped 7 times in the wet dry race. 1989 Portugal when Stefan Johansson put the backmarking onyx car on the podium by driving non stop (you could see the cords coming through the tires) when everyone else stopped at least once.

There have been many complaints about how every team chooses the same strategy on this board. The more regulations are passed the more conformity you will see in everything (especially strategy). If there is a single tire supplier and there are different compounds one compound will be better on a given day than another (and even pirelli in their stupidity know which one this is ahead of time). There may be the tiniest bit of shake up if you see a change in conditions (recall this past year when damaged cars that would have to be retired were sent out on dry tires in order to see if those would work for the other car), but news spreads fast and the faster teams will make the same choice.

You need different cars that are fast in different ways with different tires and parts made by different companies to see both a cost reduction and good racing.

Hypothesize that you have 25 identical cars in a race and identically skilled drivers that have gone through the same training and have the same driving tendencies. Your racing will be dull.

There will be some passing, drivers will make mistakes and bad judgements, but it will be poor and formulaic racing.

This is why you see series like indycar and formula E add push to pass and fanboost and DRS and KERS. Because they threw out the baby with the bathwater and are now trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

You may even get more passing, but it will be crap racing. Skill will take a back seat to randomization, and, eventually, strategies will become more and more identical as these restrictive rules allow only one way to play.

>>33163

>2010 was not a bad season at all.

and yet, the ruleset didnt change much at all following 2010 but it still became formulaic, stale and shitty.

It's been said before that all these FIA reworks of the rules create a tossup until teams figure out the rules and it becomes formulaic again.

>>33287

So, what about customer cars and part-time entries on that concept? The way budgets get bloated via constant development and having to drag the car all over the glove is killing the midfield/backmarkers slowly but surely.

>>33287

>and yet, the ruleset didnt change much at all following 2010 but it still became formulaic, stale and shitty.

That was mostly created by Pirelli I believe, and it is also the reason why the current cars have become so aero sensitive.

The Bridgestones allowed the cars to have more peak downforce so they could follow without the difficulties they are having today.

If you try to achieve peak downforce with these tyres, your gonna suffer with disastrous wear rate.

>>33349

>is also the reason why the current cars have become so aero sensitive.

aero sensitivity has been an issue since the early mosley era.

If multiple manufacturers could make tires they way they wanted to, they would design them such that they could get the most pace out of them for a given life span.

Some would have a a huge ability to push, but wouldnt last long, some would not actually be so great at single lap pace but be durable, some would be really great at some temperatures but not others.

that choice and dynamism would eliminate any concern over more or less aero sensitivity in tires.

More importantly, by dramatically reducing mechanical grip (because of narrow tires, narrow cars, and no tire war) they have made cars get a relatively higher amount of grip from aero versus mechanical grip.

This is a much larger reason that overtaking is difficult, and that following in a drivers wake is an issue.

It is likely that with a free tire market, manufacturers would adopt the bridgestone tire characteristics *anyway* without any legislated motivation to do so.

>>33347

constant development doesn't bloat costs anymore than limited development does. A free formula based around displacement would have many different varying engines at different price points and would eliminate the largest generator of parts cost in an f1 car.

customer cars should be legal, but a customer car is designed for teams that are too cheap to make their own chassis, thus customer cars are doomed to the midfield (which is not a bad thing in and of itself).

Customer cars allow more teams to compete cheaply.

Part time entries are a bernie issue. I think that they would make it neat and produce more dynamism and allow lower cost entries to explore full-time commitment, but it will inevitably make the sport look silly when operations run by a man and his dog show up.

This can really go either way. It is less important in the run of things than free development and a displacement based formula.

In fact, the limited number of engine upgrades and increased costs in aero (because it is one of the few things you can spend money to upgrade in season, thus more spent on diminishing returns) increases costs even more as you cannot test upgrades and upgrades themselves are expensive.

The risk taken on any given upgrade is greater, so the research and development needed to deploy an upgrade is vastly greater.

>>33405

The man and his dog type teams won't be coming because of the sheer difficulty of getting a super-license.

IMO, full-time professional entries should be required to make their own cars while the rest can do customer cars. It would also allow people who aren't groomed to be F1 stars from the second trimester to have a crack at it.

>>33405

It is very true that the reduction of mechanical grip has been a step in the very wrong direction and the current fad of wanting quick fading tyers is also wrong.

>Some would have a a huge ability to push, …

That was one of the better characteristics of the Bridgesontes which was seen as a negative. Those tyers were almost bulletproof apart form that one freaky race in Canada, and the only reason they needed to change tyers because it was stipulated in the rules. The soft tyre obviously would probably not last the whole race at some tracks but even that was a very robust tyre.