If you wrote the regulations…
3rd December 2010, 1:48 at 1:48 am #128605
So I’ve been reading a few complaints in the past couple of seasons that the regulations are taking out some of the attractiveness of such a ‘fast and dangerous’ sport. For example the future change in engine regs, the adjustable rear wings, banning of f-ducts and DD. So in a real simpleton way, which would be your ideal regulations if you were the rule setters? Here’s mine…
1. Big engines. Ok might be a bit more expensive and less green but everyone loves the really noisy, whining engines of the V10 era. Have them knocking out 1000hp, but to keep Greenpeace happy have a fuel feed limit, to help increase fuel efficiency technology.
2. Innovations like the F-Duct should stay! It promotes innovative inventions and add an extra dimension to the sport.
3. Keep a ban on refuelling, I think it has worked to give some good racing.
4. Get tyres that fall off quickly to promote pit stops and fast stints that could promote overtaking.
There’s loads more, have your say!3rd December 2010, 10:02 at 10:02 am #155272
I’d allow drivers to do whatever they want to celebrate a Grand Prix win… like MotoGP (Lorenzo’s flag thing, Rossi’s usual celebrations…).
That kind of thing, makes the sport a whole lot more interesting… I bet we all smiled when Button had to run through Monaco’s main straight to the podium because he mistakenly parked his car in the pit lane.
Then, the technical side, of course, let the teams develop the engines again. V10 for everyone, and massive poweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer!3rd December 2010, 10:46 at 10:46 am #155273
1. Open up the engine limitations. V6s, V8s, V10s, V12s etc with carefully calculated fuel limitations that makes each engine competitive but still varied enough to have different strengths and weaknesses
2. Big fat soft sticky rear tyres
3. Less circuit regulations so we can go back to proper race tracks
So much more but I cant be bothered with a big long post right now :P3rd December 2010, 11:03 at 11:03 am #155274
We Want TurbosMember
I think the name says it all, reintroducing the Turbo not only would it make the cars faster, thanks to the wonders of modern turbos they would be more fuel efficient than the V8’s they’re running now. Other than that I would also like another old idea – ground effects – to be allowed. As for circuit regulations, nobody wants to see a return to the pre-94 safety record but surely theres a better solution than 3 acres of tarmac between track and wall, if a car goes off there should be a price to pay.3rd December 2010, 12:23 at 12:23 pm #155275
Implement new engine regulations, that specifies the use of 1.6 l turbocharged engine. This would make the sport more attractive to road car manufacturers. I would also restrict the aero a lot more, but make the mechanical much more free. This would make for closer competition, and reward those who come up with new inventions.3rd December 2010, 13:00 at 1:00 pm #155276
I’m going to limit myself to five changes, since there are so many I could list. Here we go:
1. Friday testing
From 8am until 5pm on a Friday (or an equivalent period for races with unusual start times) the track is open for testing. Teams may run up to three cars and four drivers. Engines and gearboxes used in Friday testing do not count towards allocations for the season.
2. Tyre suppliers
Multiple tyre suppliers are permitted to participate in Formula One, with the proviso that no single tyre manufacturer can supply more than three teams. This rule is conditional on finding sufficient tyre manufacturers willing to participate in F1.
KERS is permitted but not mandatory. There are no restrictions on when and how KERS is deployed, nor how much energy can be recovered. This should allow for some innovative solutions, such as an “always-on” KERS that provides a boost throughout the lap. Furthermore KERS could also be used to replace engine power rather than supplement it, allowing teams to run richer settings or lighter cars. The aim, anyway, would be to create different solutions among different teams, increasing competition.
A shift in focus to under-body downforce and ground effects. Innovative diffuser designs, for instance, are permitted, but winglets and associated nonsense on the bodywork are prohibited. This should reduce the aerodynamic wake of the cars and allow them to follow one another more closely.
5. Engines and refuelling
The teams are given a fixed amount of fuel for each race. Any engine technology is permitted, with the restriction that no more than the assigned level of fuel can be used during the race. This will promote engine-efficiency and allow greater variety amongst the cars. Further to this, refuelling is permitted but not mandatory. Whether or not teams decide to refuel will depend on their own engine/fuel requirements; this will again increase variation between the teams.
Thoughts?3rd December 2010, 14:02 at 2:02 pm #155277
I’d make the grid a popularity contest – everyone around the world has to SMS in who they want to be on pole
:P3rd December 2010, 15:11 at 3:11 pm #155278
We Want TurbosMember
@ Red Andy you have similar views to me, only whilst in theory allowing 3 cars + extra engines for practice sounds brilliant, wouldn’t they increase costs? Although this could probably be offset reducing cargo costs by not travelling to countries in silly orders (Singapore, Korea, Brazil then Abu Dhabi, Really??)
However full day testing I do like, as this decreases the chances of an engine failure in practice ruining a full weekend, although maybe with a lap limit to stop the big spenders have too big of an advantage.
As for KERS I feel this could lead F1 into a new beginning, dare I say Electric F1 cars in the distant future… Anyway other than that the only point i would disagree with is 5.
I am a strong believer in banning refuelling surely the penalty of carrying more fuel at the start of the race is suffice to start an efficiency war when the engine freeze ends??3rd December 2010, 17:11 at 5:11 pm #155279
Andy I agree with nearly all your points! I want you for president now :P The only thing I wouldn’t really want is a tyre war again. I thought the tyre war was fascinating but I’d like the focus to be on car design and not just a tyre development race and the main thing for me really is that a big team in theory could be the focus for the tyre manufacturer (Ferrari had Brdigestone for example) which wouldn’t really be fair.3rd December 2010, 17:22 at 5:22 pm #155280
To appease Greenpeace, I would point out to them that man made global warming is a fraud – the evidence is obvious to anyone who can read a leaked few emails from a “research” unit that were posted on the internet.
And if they believe that it’s real because an “independent” British inquiry headed by a man whose day job is being the head of a “Carbon Capture” business “cleared” the scientists of fraud, they obviously have less brain cells than teeth.3rd December 2010, 19:36 at 7:36 pm #155281
RobR, this isn’t the place for a heated (pun) debate on global warming but I wouldn’t believe everything you read on the right wing blogosphere. Do you have access to an academic library? I can direct you to some proper scientific review articles that make the case for human-caused climate change far better than I (as a biologist) or any blogger, journalist or politician could.
Steph, my tyre rules attempt to avoid the consequences of the Michelin-Bridgestone tyre war by opening the competition up to multiple tyre manufacturers (at least four). Even if every tyre maker had one team that they favoured, that would still mean four teams at the top. In any case, the teams all test together nowadays (with limited mileage) so any tyre testing would be easier to split between more teams.3rd December 2010, 20:33 at 8:33 pm #155282
I have many questions of my own in response to yours, however in my experience people who still believe in global warming despite ClimateGate aren’t very good at answering questions, they are only good at throwing out the word “right wing” a few times per sentence as though this is Monopoly and it’s a get out of jail free card (actually, comparing “political discourse” in the BBC/EU’s Britain isn’t fair on Monopoly – by comparison it makes a game of Monopoly look intellectually stimulating, so nevermind…)
So we’ll just have one question for now, like a “starter for ten” I suppose, if you can’t even answer this simple one, then no bonus questions:
Why isn’t this the place for a debate on global warming? If F1 is to be a centre of “green” technology, why shouldn’t we talk about the climate? After all, we talk about many other things that one could say are only “tangential” to F1.. Could it be because certain people are afraid of frank debate?
Also if you want to give me some links to “real science” articles, then go ahead. Do they have one yet that explains why the ice age ended without cavemen inventing SUVs?3rd December 2010, 21:29 at 9:29 pm #155283
Well Rob, for a start I don’t “believe” in global warming. Belief tends to imply blind faith, i.e. acceptance without evidence. The evidence I’ve seen leads me to conclude that global warming is happening and much of it is caused by humans. So I would say I “accept” global warming, but I’d certainly be inclined to alter my views if there was evidence for an alternative conclusion.
Anyway, to answer your question, this is an F1 forum. I’m afraid we might alienate and bore some of our other members if we were to have a full-fledged discussion on climate change! But, pending the approval (or at least non-intervention) of the mods I’d be happy to discuss the subject with you, though I should point out that I’m not a specialist in climate science.
As for scientific papers, try this one: Rosenzweig et al. (2006). “Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change.” Nature 453:353-U20.
Do they have one yet that explains why the ice age ended without cavemen inventing SUVs?
Not a scientific paper, but perhaps this page will help.4th December 2010, 2:00 at 2:00 am #155284
…We might well bore people with a thread about “which was Nick Heidfeld’s best drive” but it wouldn’t get deleted, would it? So why should a climate change debate in a topic about regulations, at a time when F1 is “going green” be considered “unsuitable”?
If you just stuck to the “science” without peppering your posts with rubbish about why we can’t have a discussion in the first place, in an obvious faux appeal to “politeness” to attempt to censor debate, I might be more inclined to listen to you.
(although I agree it’s quite possible a mod will intervene, like I said it’s the BBC’s Britain, then again I’ve seen some fairly chilly discussions on the comments section of articles on F1F that weren’t moderated, so… who knows? I don’t know what Keith or any of his mods really think about this.)
Also, nothing I saw on that page you linked to explains how it used to be so hot that Henry VIII was able to have vineyards in places like Sunderland, but he wasn’t swimming around in water up to his chest, surrounded by floating polar bear corpses.4th December 2010, 2:16 at 2:16 am #155285
Another thing – you never actually specified what was wrong with my original post. You just said “don’t believe everything you read on right wing websites”.
If you could be specific, like I have been from the start, that would be a lot more convincing than just snorting and saying “gosh, you’re so gullible”.
Since you didn’t specify anything I can only speculate on what you were suggesting
For instance… if the man who chaired the British inquiry doesn’t in fact head a “Carbon Capture” business that stands to gain greatly from the climate hysteria and would obviously fail miserably if the climate change boom collapsed, why hasn’t he sued all the “liars” on the internet who said that he does, for libel? The only answer is that they would get laughed out of court.
The climate “scientists” at the CRU in East Anglia admitted themselves more or less straight away that the hacked emails posted on the web were in fact genuine, from their own servers. Presumably because even they could see it would have been totally pointless and risible to say that someone had “made up” ten years worth of emails.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.