1.9m maximum width
flat rear end in addition to flat, stepped undertray (so simple, sooo
effective), as effective as the step and the flat undertray itself when
introduced, if not more so...
no unsprung downforce
one FIA regulation fuel tank, all the safety bananas, plus a regulated
rate of flow out

No refuelling in the race.

Two pre-declared tyre compounds only for the weekend.

An FIA seal across the engine/tub for the weekend, eliminating the
possibility of qualifying cars. Either 1) Unlimited lap qualifying
within a 40 minute session, no refuelling during the qualifying either;
2) 10 lap qualifying races on Friday and Saturday with grids by lots
Friday, reversed Saturday.

Job done.

Overtaking/tension sorted (huge tow), huge scope for design innovation
with major equivalency issues sorted, the current well-funded state of
the sport accounting for a lot of the minor equivalency issues. Speed
should be good. Plank depth/width available as a tremendous future
speed regulator.

Lots more Turn 8s and hilly tracks.


If the manufacturers do their stuff, tell them to take a running jump.
No one will want their series if F1 is truly innovative again, and
their corporate philosophys will be profoundly exposed.


I'm probably being very thick.

Prefect_Being wrote:
10cm wider, that's effectively lowering the centre of gravity. Better
mechanical cornering characteristics. Like it.

I guess you're talking about the diffuser? I'm not sure about this.
The diffuser works really efficiently because it's not a very draggy
method of generating downforce, and the diffuser tunnels effectively
try to bring the accelerated undercar airflow back to freestream
velocities, which means that cars can follow and not wash out.
Restricting the diffuser reduces undercar aero, but also has an adverse
effect on cars following each other through corners.

I don't think there is any at the moment, is there? Brakes have had
closed 'ducts' that are there simply for aero effect, but it's not
really effective in comparison with the rear wing. Suspension arms are
streamlined but aren't allowed to generate downforce.

Regulated fuel flow, I proposed that in another post a while ago.
Would completely open up the engine regs to all kinds of solutions, V8,
V10, V12, and also makes engine builders look for fuel efficiency (max
bhp from set flow), the principles of which convert really well to road
cars.

Nah, low fuel qualifying and refuelling would allow teams to decide on
safe or extreme strategies to make the most of their quali position.
Just like the good ol' 2002 days...

I guess you mean across the teams per supplier, like instead of
Michelin providing a prime and option for McLaren, a prime and option
for Renault (which may or may not be the same compounds/constructions
for either team - ie there might be four different tyre compounds
there), each team has to choose from only two possibilities for all.

I'd rather have low fuel quali with quali setup, like 2002, and a
warmup on Sunday morning.

Take out the refuelling part and it sounds great.

That has bad news written all over it. Even if that were workable, how
would it fit into your fuel regs? What happens if a car is wrecked in
the Saturday 'race'? How confusing would it be for fans?

Not sure you can change that overnight...

Ferrari are using a new spring system in the race later today.

A duck inside each tyre aiding the suspension.

Germans are now calling the four sprung duck technique ;-)

Nick wrote:
Efficiency is precisely the problem. Downforce is not a problem if it
generates a lot of drag. Think about it, at 200mph you have 4 times the
drag and downforce you had coming out of the previous turn at say,
100mph. The biggest factor with downforce is car speed - a ten-piece
Monaco wing at 60mph will give you about 2.5 g, which if the cf on the
tyre is 1.4 odd, means you a generating about 500kg of downforce. At
the parabolica they'll easily beat 3g at 110mph with hardly any wing at
all. With a tow to get you a wheel alongside overtaking is no longer
completely impossible. Just very difficult, which is very different,
and what you would want. The car is a complete aero-system, and a flat
rear end is nice absolute way of making the system much more
inefficient. Just like the flat undertray stops 8g cornering without
having to prescribe anything. The bottom and the back are where the
real aero numbers are. A flat back is a brick wall to the cars
performance. It's also a nice place to slap a sponsors logo without
having to legislate for bigger bodywork just to get sponsor stuff in.
That is another affront.

I got the idea from Keith Duckworth and some Honda engineer who
suggested the same back in the '60s. It's a pearler. It is a highly
efficient rule.

Changing the tyres would provide all the interest. The car would be
different all the way, which is the important thing.

It would get rid of the qualifying tyre. I was meaning the suggestions
here to be pretty much the the entire rule-book. What would be possible
with just these set of rules and would it be a problem etc...

The FIA was worried about rich teams building qualifying cars. That's
the main reason for the current parc fermé nonsense, lack of warm-up
etc. It would keep the major costs in check. Whether you would do it
over one or two weekends or more would be worked out over time of
course, but the general principle is here.

It would mean drivers would have to balance extra practice with heavy
fuel, and the quick laps would come towards the end of the session but
also towards the end of a drivers own fuel, which would be the same
thing for some drivers but not for others. Drivers who chose just a
4-lap load and one stint would be asking a lot of themselves. They
would still be alowed to change tyres. The main thing is it stops the
FIA telling them when they can go, which is shite, particularly when
the weather changes.

Other thing - no safety car after 2 laps (using it rather than stopping
the race has stopped the insane 6-at-a-time and if it goes wrong the
mess will get me back on the grid routine. If the race is red flaggged
before 3/4 distance, start 'em from the pitlane at the time intervals
from the previous lap but one's chart, rounded up to say 0.5 second, or
whatever safety would require. I don't mind big gaps if they are
treated like gold dust as it is down to the driver/car on that day. The
safety car is an affront.

Prefect_Being wrote:
You've got to watch that if you want to keep racing at the older
tracks. At some point a wide car can basically sit in the middle of the
braking zones and not let anyone pass.
Still, more width is generally a good thing otherwise.

Higher ground clearance would work similarly, without so
dramatically cutting downforce. Real cars run at least 100mm, there's no
great reason to run less on an F1 car if you leave the downforce on.
Great huge skid blocks would add drag too, most likely.

Give them back active suspension while you're at it, so they can
handle the varying "weight" without needing to use super-stiff suspension.

Already true.

I'd rather they gave them a fixed weight of fuel for the race, 80kg
or so of standard petrol as now (assuming large efficiency improvement),
with allowances for same energy content if someone wants to run a
honking great bio-fueled turbo-diesel for fun.
Add in the proposed fixed weight of batteries and charging brakes
too, the engine manufacturers should love developing that stuff.

The engine regs definately went the wrong way with near-spec V8's.

Definately. Refueling is dangerous, doesn't help the race, isn't
fair when the rigs fail, and prevents drivers trying to pass on track.

Get rid of refueling and you don't much have to worry about tire
changes either, they'll almost certainly just use the one set, and it's
up to the team to change if the see the need.

<shrug>

With fixed weight fuel you'd have to run a fixed number of laps
with average time taken (as engines would otherwise be built to provide
huge power for the single lap). Lap numbers should be about 8% of the
race (4-6), and fuel allowed would be the proportion of race distance.

Either that, or simply let them all run as many laps as they
please, but using up race fuel as they go. I'm not sure that'd work though.

Sort of. You need variable front wings too, most likely computer
controlled for perfect balance, so as you follow a car you can still
turn in to the corners.
That should return F1 to a dragging contest, with the winner being
the guy who can get to the front and put in a series of great corners to
break up the queue behind him.

Limiting fuel and battery weight would work much better, and could
be done mid-season for fuel if deemed nessisary for safety (you could
even allow much less at dangerous tracks like Monaco).

Downforce and drag suddenly reduce your endurance as quick as they
boost your peak lap times. Without movable main wings and bodywork
they'll not be able to push greatly varied speeds throughout the race.

Europe's dead for racetracks, too many people and preserves to
build runoffs and let the motors scream; or perhaps someone will let a
scenic mountain pass be turned into a great track again one day.

Man, the Osterrichring was pretty, truely.

If the regs get it right, all the manufacturers /will/ want to be
there. I think they'd all be happy to spend a fortune making hybrid,
fuel-efficient, powerful, well-handling cars, with every gadget that's
found on high-performance road cars.

It's got to be better than spending millions of dollars tweaking
the attidude on the edge of the mid-pod winglet.

<shrug> Aren't we all?

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.