When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've watched for about 20 years and have always wondered to myself what would happen if they just do away with all the rules for 2-3 years and see what happens.
2000hp, awd, active suspension, bottom fan inducing massive suction to the track, etc, etc..., bring it I say.
We went from Horse and Buggy to going to the Moon on this planet, in a span of 60 some odd years, that is a testament to Engineering and Technology. F1 claims to be at the top of both, but all we see are more and more restrictive rules and lap times are basically unchanged from year to year, a big fail imo.
If it costs too much, who cares, don't compete...
It is too fast, be brave or go home to the Driver who whines...
It is too unsafe, well... are you brave enough or what?If not, sit back down young man.
Sorry for the long rant!
It's the same with Top Fuel in my mind. The organizers need to build 1 mile tracks now, and bolt dually slicks to the back and see what happen??? Slipping a clutch almost the whole length of the track to avoid wheel spin only means one thing, add more tire!
Stifling rules suck to engineering creativity and innovation concepts. Modern society has become too brainwashed to accept what "they" say the rules are, but forget to ask, "who are they?". They are just a couple of ol guys sitting in a room calling the shots, boring...
I've watched for about 20 years and have always wondered to myself what would happen if they just do away with all the rules for 2-3 years and see what happens.
If they did away with all the rules, the very first car on the track would be undrivable by a human because no human could withstand the cornering force, not to mention the acceleration and braking forces. This could easily be done using old tech from decades ago. GTP cars from 25 years ago were already making as much as 10,000lbs of downforce, and sucker cars are even older than that. The only limitation would be tire technology, but it would not take long for companies to make tires that would stand up to the forces.
So in short, you've gotta have serious limits on the cars. I think F1 is worried that the WEC show is stealing their thunder, and they think it's because the LMP1 factory team cars are so fast. But I disagree. F1 is having trouble because their cars are too limited on drivetrain specs and therefore they are all quite similar. F1 should have instituted their fuel flow and usage limits and then let the teams figure out how to best adapt to that - then we might see the diversity of power units that we see in WEC (V8 n/a gas, V4 turbo gas, V6 diesel turbo!). A real key is that they need to allow more testing and stop limiting development of the power units. Teams can't catch up, and so it's been a given that Merc is going to win almost everything for two years. That's incredibly boring!
They should reintroduce tunnels and get rid of flat bottoms and open up diffuser design. Then they could limit wings to be smaller and single- or double-element only. This would make the cars less pitch sensitive and possibly lose less downforce when closely following another car. They could limit total downforce by regulating tunnel cross section and total floor area. This would be the key to making sure F1 remains faster than LMP1, but it doesn't need to be much faster.
I agree that they should re-introduce active suspensions. There is no reason to falsely limit the cars to archaic passive designs, which only create the need for expensive work-arounds. And active suspension makes a lot more sense on a car with significant downforce. This is one area where racing could really drive production car technology (because we should have been going active a long time ago, too!). Similarly, they would continue to use hybrid technology, but would be able to develop it much more effectively. In these areas, they could make a legitimate case that their racing is making street cars safer and more efficient.
If they did away with all the rules, the very first car on the track would be undrivable by a human because no human could withstand the cornering force, not to mention the acceleration and braking forces. This could easily be done using old tech from decades ago. GTP cars from 25 years ago were already making as much as 10,000lbs of downforce, and sucker cars are even older than that. The only limitation would be tire technology, but it would not take long for companies to make tires that would stand up to the forces.
So in short, you've gotta have serious limits on the cars. I think F1 is worried that the WEC show is stealing their thunder, and they think it's because the LMP1 factory team cars are so fast. But I disagree. F1 is having trouble because their cars are too limited on drivetrain specs and therefore they are all quite similar. F1 should have instituted their fuel flow and usage limits and then let the teams figure out how to best adapt to that - then we might see the diversity of power units that we see in WEC (V8 n/a gas, V4 turbo gas, V6 diesel turbo!). A real key is that they need to allow more testing and stop limiting development of the power units. Teams can't catch up, and so it's been a given that Merc is going to win almost everything for two years. That's incredibly boring!
They should reintroduce tunnels and get rid of flat bottoms and open up diffuser design. Then they could limit wings to be smaller and single- or double-element only. This would make the cars less pitch sensitive and possibly lose less downforce when closely following another car. They could limit total downforce by regulating tunnel cross section and total floor area. This would be the key to making sure F1 remains faster than LMP1, but it doesn't need to be much faster.
I agree that they should re-introduce active suspensions. There is no reason to falsely limit the cars to archaic passive designs, which only create the need for expensive work-arounds. And active suspension makes a lot more sense on a car with significant downforce. This is one area where racing could really drive production car technology (because we should have been going active a long time ago, too!). Similarly, they would continue to use hybrid technology, but would be able to develop it much more effectively. In these areas, they could make a legitimate case that their racing is making street cars safer and more efficient.
a CART race in Texas got canceled when the drivers where blacking out
If they did away with all the rules, the very first car on the track would be undrivable by a human because no human could withstand the cornering force, not to mention the acceleration and braking forces.
And then there's the fact that no one would ever build such a thing that would be a fully functional racing car. The cost would be prohibitive/astronomical and the only point of the exercise would be to fulfill unrealistic, adolescent male fantasies.
So in short, you've gotta have serious limits on the cars.
Killjoy.
I think F1 is worried that the WEC show is stealing their thunder, and they think it's because the LMP1 factory team cars are so fast.
Substitute "Bernie" for "F1" and for sure. The routine of using his power to screw with other series that hinted at being a threat to F1 is legendary. See how they (Bernie and Mosley) tried to dick with CART back in the day by telling race track owners around the world that if they ran a CART race hey would never run an F1 race. Then the EU got involved and shut that crap off.
But I disagree. F1 is having trouble because their cars are too limited on drivetrain specs and therefore they are all quite similar. F1 should have instituted their fuel flow and usage limits and then let the teams figure out how to best adapt to that - then we might see the diversity of power units that we see in WEC (V8 n/a gas, V4 turbo gas, V6 diesel turbo!).
Maybe. But "the teams" in this case actually means "the engine manufacturers" and all the teams that rely on being customers of same have no control over what shows up on their store's shelves. We F1 fans have to get over this nostalgia for the old days when so much of a given team's fate was actually in their own hands. Remember when F1 was such that the teams scrounged for engine sources and found the Coventry Climax motors powering fork lifts and fire engine water pumps?
A real key is that they need to allow more testing and stop limiting development of the power units. Teams can't catch up, and so it's been a given that Merc is going to win almost everything for two years. That's incredibly boring!
And when the cost of those power units doubles or triples from what it already is, just who will be left to provide background color and noise (?) for the only two remaining players?
I agree that they should re-introduce active suspensions. There is no reason to falsely limit the cars to archaic passive designs, which only create the need for expensive work-arounds.
The functional, driving myth about F1 is that it's a driver's championship. While a subset of fans roots for specific teams (Ferrari, in particular) most cheer for a specific human. The more clearly you alter the driver/technology balance towards tech and away from human skill, the less interest the public will have and the less money Bernie/CVC will take in.
And active suspension makes a lot more sense on a car with significant downforce.
Agreed. But then we're moving away from driver skill towards techie toys. Once the driver no longer has to deal with bumps in the (already "billiard table smooth") race tracks, the next addition could be a GPS-driven system that makes sure the (alleged) driver doesn't ever brake too late. This could be justified by both safety and cost reasons - nobody ever crashes any more! Problem solved!
This is one area where racing could really drive production car technology (because we should have been going active a long time ago, too!). Similarly, they would continue to use hybrid technology, but would be able to develop it much more effectively. In these areas, they could make a legitimate case that their racing is making street cars safer and more efficient.
And here is where my own #1 disagreement with the last ten years of "F1 think" comes in. I 100% disagree with all this "road car relevance" BS. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS IDEA TO EXIST EXCEPT AS A SOP TO THE BIG MANUFACTURERS' BOARDS OF DIRECTORS TO JUSTIFY THE SPENDING OF THESE VAST SUMS OF MONEY. It's auto racing. It's not a corporate marketing exercise! With sports car racing you can at least TRY to make the old "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" maxim work. But not with F1 (or any open-wheel, single-seater series for that matter.) The point is the racing and driver competition. F1 has been seriously perverted by this idea that it has much to offer next year's Merc 600 series road car. Sheesh.
And then there's the fact that no one would ever build such a thing that would be a fully functional racing car. The cost would be prohibitive/astronomical and the only point of the exercise would be to fulfill unrealistic, adolescent male fantasies.
Taking this mental exercise to an extreme, it would actually be incredibly cheap to make a car that would black out a human driver. As noted, the technology is not new at all. What's expensive is building a car within a set of restrictive rules that is actually faster than every other driver's car.
Substitute "Bernie" for "F1" and for sure.
Bernie has his ways, no doubt. But the rules for car design and a lot of other stuff generally seem to come from the FOTA and FIA. I believe this includes the ridiculous four-engine rule and the ban on power unit development.
And when the cost of those power units doubles or triples from what it already is, just who will be left to provide background color and noise (?) for the only two remaining players?
It wouldn't increase much, if any. They are already spending hundreds of millions on these power units, and part of the reason is that they are locked into the design for the most part, and can only use four engines. I wouldn't advocate a return to the days of three engines per event with special qualifying engines. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow one engine per race weekend, and to allow changes to be made through the season. As it is now, Merc hit the ground in the lead (largely by giving up on 2013 early in the season) and no other engine program has been able to catch up, mainly because the rules restrict them. If this continues, there won't be any other engine suppliers, and/or there will be one good engine and other options that are guaranteed losers and then teams who can't get the good engine will quit. The sport is in crisis and already almost RBR because of this.
Agreed. But then we're moving away from driver skill towards techie toys. Once the driver no longer has to deal with bumps in the (already "billiard table smooth") race tracks, the next addition could be a GPS-driven system that makes sure the (alleged) driver doesn't ever brake too late. This could be justified by both safety and cost reasons - nobody ever crashes any more! Problem solved!
Active suspension is not the same as driver aids like ABS or braking-point calculations. I remain opposed to anything like that, and I like that F1 banned all that stuff. I would venture that active suspensions (again, this is 30-year-old technology) is cheaper than the convoluted suspensions they run now. I bet they spend more trying to get the awful passive suspensions to work (remember the J-damper and the linked front/rear suspensions, among many others?) than on a proper active suspension. Besides, have you noticed how gross the control arm layout is on the front of these things lately (really high LCAs because of high noses, and the kinematics must be awful)?
And here is where my own #1 disagreement with the last ten years of "F1 think" comes in. I 100% disagree with all this "road car relevance" BS. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS IDEA TO EXIST EXCEPT AS A SOP TO THE BIG MANUFACTURERS' BOARDS OF DIRECTORS TO JUSTIFY THE SPENDING OF THESE VAST SUMS OF MONEY. It's auto racing. It's not a corporate marketing exercise!
It's all a marketing exercise! Without that sponsorship, there will be no F1. It's completely possible for F1 to continue to push vehicle technology in a couple production-worthy ways while getting back to good competition and cars that are interesting. Again, LMP1 is proving conclusively that this is possible.
If they did away with all the rules, the very first car on the track would be undrivable by a human because no human could withstand the cornering force, not to mention the acceleration and braking forces. This could easily be done using old tech from decades ago. GTP cars from 25 years ago were already making as much as 10,000lbs of downforce, and sucker cars are even older than that. The only limitation would be tire technology, but it would not take long for companies to make tires that would stand up to the forces.
So in short, you've gotta have serious limits on the cars. I think F1 is worried that the WEC show is stealing their thunder, and they think it's because the LMP1 factory team cars are so fast. But I disagree. F1 is having trouble because their cars are too limited on drivetrain specs and therefore they are all quite similar. F1 should have instituted their fuel flow and usage limits and then let the teams figure out how to best adapt to that - then we might see the diversity of power units that we see in WEC (V8 n/a gas, V4 turbo gas, V6 diesel turbo!). A real key is that they need to allow more testing and stop limiting development of the power units. Teams can't catch up, and so it's been a given that Merc is going to win almost everything for two years. That's incredibly boring!
They should reintroduce tunnels and get rid of flat bottoms and open up diffuser design. Then they could limit wings to be smaller and single- or double-element only. This would make the cars less pitch sensitive and possibly lose less downforce when closely following another car. They could limit total downforce by regulating tunnel cross section and total floor area. This would be the key to making sure F1 remains faster than LMP1, but it doesn't need to be much faster.
I agree that they should re-introduce active suspensions. There is no reason to falsely limit the cars to archaic passive designs, which only create the need for expensive work-arounds. And active suspension makes a lot more sense on a car with significant downforce. This is one area where racing could really drive production car technology (because we should have been going active a long time ago, too!). Similarly, they would continue to use hybrid technology, but would be able to develop it much more effectively. In these areas, they could make a legitimate case that their racing is making street cars safer and more efficient.
Not sure I agree with all your points.
You say, if all rules are out then the cars are undriveable. This doesn't make any sense, to finish the race, drive the car, simple. If the driver can't hang, then he fails. Not sure what to tell you, either the driver can handle it or he/she can't. Do fighter jet pilots use this excuse???
Let's do a quick reality check, where do you think the rules will be for 50 years in F1? If you say, close to the same what we have today, I and millions of other fans will say Yawn... How about 100 years into the future? Human limits aren't changing to change from today, are they? Either F1 will adapt or fail. Changing element placement 10mm this way and that from year to year is just goofy and embarrassing to anyone paying attention to the rule changes.
Do you remember when F1 had grooved tires? What an embarrassing joke if you think about it. Just how is grooved tires explained to a 5 year old while trying to say F1 is at the top? Car safety? Sure, wrap that driver up in a quick inflating bubble suit upon impact. Just kidding!
Make the rules and concept simple, the Team gets 100L or whatever amount to complete the race, good luck..., whoever finishes first wins. Turbos, superchargers, hybrid, diesel, turbine, all electric, who cares. Do we care if the Team next door invents a Magnetic/Gravitational tech to make the vehicle weigh less? I wouldn't mind in the least. Would it be unfair to the other Teams, No. Figure the tech out or fail... Engineers should be allowed to innovate and create, drivers harness that.
What about the small teams??? Well, I think each Nation should step up and enter, why not? Football/Soccer is Nation oriented, it could work for F1.
Basically what we have now, is the rule makers are not racers, and that should not be the way it is. I feel, if you want a governing body, elect them from past racers and engineers with valid experience, then kick everyone else in the rear as they exit the room, money grubbers and bankers not excluded.
Bernie has turned F1 into just another way to extract millions from each venue. If the venue like Austin goes bust, F1 and Bernie could care less, for them its the same excuse, the Stock Holders appetite must be satisfied blah blah blah. News flash, not everything is about money, yeah I said it...
Now they are at the point that they just line up a country no one on earth has ever heard of, like Abwhateversjan and plop the same old track design down to get some more millions. Half the tracks should be scrapped and should take note of the Green Hell and Spa's elevation changes and layouts. COTA? Not a total Fail but not all the landscape could deliver either, drive 30 minutes West out past Wimberly and find some true Texas Hill Country that deserves a real challenging layout to race.
Sorry for the rant. I'm just a person who hates excuses. It seems most politicians and governing bodies have done their best to condition everyone to accept their ideas and only theirs as best, and squeeze the excitement and common sense out of real progress. Again, were do you think F1 or all Motorsport will be in 100 years from now?
You say, if all rules are out then the cars are undriveable. This doesn't make any sense, to finish the race, drive the car, simple. If the driver can't hang, then he fails. Not sure what to tell you, either the driver can handle it or he/she can't. Do fighter jet pilots use this excuse???
Fighter planes are severely limited in their maneuverability by their pilots' capacities to withstand forces. An unmanned fighter could be vastly better performing in terms of accelerations in all three axes. The only thing that keeps humans in the seats right now is the fact that with modern weapons systems, maneuvering is not the top priority.
G-suits can only protect a person from forces occurring in one direction, that being upward acceleration. They don't help with downward acceleration, lateral acceleration in either direction, or longitudinal acceleration in either direction. That makes their job very easy, and that's lucky because planes don't generate high lateral or longitudinal forces. And the refrain from generating high downward vertical forces because of the pilots' safety (they usually aren't even built to withstand as much negative G as positive because of that).
If you want F1 to become a contest of which humans can withstand the most braking and lateral acceleration forces for how long, by all means knock yourself out (literally!). That's got nothing to do with driving skill or high tech, though.
Besides, nobody disputes that cars can be made to go faster than F1 cars currently do, even without killing their drivers. But that doesn't make for good racing, either. Everyone keeps clamoring for more passing, closer racing, etc. So F1 keeps trying to make that happen. A no-limits rule set will mean no passing, and huge discrepancies in performance (even worse than the current debacle of Merc's dominance, which is reinforced by the dumb bans on power plant development).
Let's do a quick reality check, where do you think the rules will be for 50 years in F1?
There's no way to tell. But if you think that current rules and designs are just a matter of a few changes of "10mm this way and that" from 10 years ago, that's just not correct at all. 2015 F1 cars were the most powerful in 30 years, for example. Do you realize this is only the second time in F1 history when we've talked about the cars having 4-digit horsepower numbers?
Here's what I do know for sure: Cars as we know them today won't exist 50-100 years from now. Petroleum won't be a major energy source for them, either. We can like that or not, but it won't change that fact. If F1 does not keep working to make itself relevant to changing energy and climate contexts, it won't exist 50 years from now. In fact, they've done a lot in that direction recently - turning equal lap times on half the fuel than they did just a few years ago. And they are making plans to go 5-6 seconds/lap faster on the same fuel allotment as 2015 starting in 2017.
Do you remember when F1 had grooved tires? What an embarrassing joke if you think about it.
Yes, that was dumb. As was ABS. But they got rid of those things.
Make the rules and concept simple, the Team gets 100L or whatever amount to complete the race, good luck..., whoever finishes first wins.
Oh, well if you introduce that rule then we are a lot closer to agreeing then I thought. I suggested that myself a couple posts back. But that's a huge limitation, and many people it's boring to enforce efficiency in an F1 race. I don't agree.
They'd need a few more rules, like cars have to be driven by the tires (no jets or propellers, etc), and they must remain open-wheel cars. I'd still limit floor area and tunnel section sizes and a few things, to keep mechanical grip relevant and retain the ability of cars to race close to each other. Otherwise, you'd have a boring procession. But I'm with you on less micromanagement of car design and technology, and opening up possibilities for other ways to skin the cat.
What about the small teams??? Well, I think each Nation should step up and enter, why not? Football/Soccer is Nation oriented, it could work for F1.
That's been tried. A1GP was exactly that concept. It failed immediately. Countries have no compelling interest in racing cars.
Basically what we have now, is the rule makers are not racers, and that should not be the way it is. I feel, if you want a governing body, elect them from past racers and engineers with valid experience, then kick everyone else in the rear as they exit the room, money grubbers and bankers not excluded.
Bernie has turned F1 into just another way to extract millions from each venue.
This is a key misunderstanding about F1: Bernie doesn't make the rules! The rules are agreed upon by the FIA and the actual teams (FOTA). The rules are the way they are right now because the actual people involved in the racing made them that way. Before any rules are changed, the teams have to agree to it. That's actually part of what's crippling the series right now: the teams who are on top generally don't want to change things to allow other teams to compete. That's also why Merc, Ferrari, and Honda (really McLaren) refused to sell RBR their engines for 2016.
12-23-2015, 09:43 PM
a CART race in Texas got canceled when the drivers where blacking out
Half the tracks should be scrapped and should take note of the Green Hell and Spa's elevation changes and layouts. COTA? Not a total Fail but not all the landscape could deliver either, drive 30 minutes West out past Wimberly and find some true Texas Hill Country that deserves a real challenging layout to race.
The tech has only been out since the 60's if I'm not mistaken.