Grand Prix Rejects

The key issue of course as we all know, is aerodynamics and whilst the FIA did well after 2008 clearing up the cars, and to some extent now with the banning of wheel covers, with the DDD gone in 2011 and hopefully some more reduction in downforce - narrower front wing maybe?

The tyre situation is utterly diabolical though. Whilst I'd rather see at least two tyre manufacturers in the sport, I don't mind a control tyre but for god sake give the drivers some choice! Let them choose what they want to run and when in the race.

Variability is the key. With enough variables the racing will soon pick up.

As a side note, theres an interesting article in this week's Autosport. The Full Throttle column hits the nail on the head, that the ban on refuelling has simply highlighted what already existed before. None of the new rules have made F1 worse, they've just exposed it's shortcomings in hideous clarity.

I think the problem is that the rules are forcing the situation. The thing has to lead to more overtaking by not forcing top teams to lose some ground to lesser teams. That's just not effective. Certainly the rules have to be applied to the extent of the grid.

AndreaModa wrote:narrower front wing maybe?

Wings are a pain - if you order them to be narrower, you reducing drag too - so they can just run them at a sharper angle to compensate. What''s needed is something to enforce dirty air tolerance, so not just mandating size, but a degree of complexity, too. - banning underside strakes and wings-on-wings would be a start.

Oh, and wider tyres, wider tyres, and wider tyres.

The tyres could also be made a bit wider.

Jordan192 wrote:Oh, and wider tyres, wider tyres, and wider tyres.

The tyres could also be made a bit wider.

I don't understand. Is is tyres with a greater width that you are wanting?

dr-baker wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:...re-introducing KERS (and making it real advantageous to run it, by increasing the power boost or the time of usage),...

Simple answer: Let the teams extract as much potential as possible from the KERS with no limits. Then, OK it'll be an arms race, but it may well increase unreliability WHICH IS WHAT THIS SPORT NEEDS.

I agree. I actually thought KERS was a great idea, that wasn't taken as far as it should have gone.

Wizzie wrote:

McDuck wrote:Here's a crazy thought! Why not let the teams decide their own tire strategy!?

If Sauber and Lotus want to run one set of ultra hard tires and make zero pit stops, then let them.

If Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, and Mercedes want to run eight sets of super duper soft tires and make seven pit stops, then let them.

This legislating a desired outcome via more draconian rules needs to stop. Let the market decide what's best. The racing will be better for it.

I remember suggesting a similar idea on the forum a few months ago but the problem is that I doubt Bridgestone would agree with it on the basis that they'll be forced to make tyres that may or may not be needed and Formula 1 tyres are pretty expensive.

We need several compounds of tyres instead of only 2 and no minimum number of pitstops. As Wizzie and MdDuck have already mentioned, if a team feels there is an advantage to be had by doing the entire race on 1 set of stupidly-hard tyres, let them. Conversely, if another team feels there is an advantage in running 6 short stints on near-old-qualifying-compound tyres, let them do it.
A tyre war between 2 or more tyre manufacturers might help, but then again it might not. A tyre war would invariably cause a decrease in lap times, which would make the FIA screw around with the regulations again.
A narrower front wing would have the opposite effect, by making it harder for a car for follow another. It's the larger surface area (and the wing profile and the flow and the interaction between the various wing surfaces and a few other things, but let's not complicate matters) of the wing that allows for a smaller reduction in front downforce when a car follows another.

Jordan192 wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:narrower front wing maybe?

Wings are a pain - if you order them to be narrower, you reducing drag too - so they can just run them at a sharper angle to compensate. What''s needed is something to enforce dirty air tolerance, so not just mandating size, but a degree of complexity, too. - banning underside strakes and wings-on-wings would be a start.

Oh, and wider tyres, wider tyres, and wider tyres.

The tyres could also be made a bit wider.

Why? What is the point? It would cause an increase in grip, therefore making the cars faster in corners, so overtaking would be even harder.
If you mean an increase in tyre width along with an increase in the overall width of the cars, that wouldn't work either, because the bigger size of the cars would make it worse for overtaking, as they would take up more space in a physically restricted space, ie, the width of the track.
Banning multiple wing surfaces is contrary to the concept of cutting-edge technology of Formula 1 and would be ridiculous. There are plenty of ways of getting around it, as well.

Scotto wrote:I'm new to the forum so someone might have already brought this up, but I think Brabham had a solution for creating down force without the creating dirty air for the following car.

Do you mean the Brabham Bt46B with the fan?

Re: KERS

The problems were that it was very expensive (only Ferrari and McLaren ran it by the end), unreliable (Ferrari couldn't get it to work half the time) and they were the team that expended the most energy trying to get it to work) and was mainly used in a defensive capacity to block overtaking (ie- Raikkonen's KERS denying Fisichella and Force India a race win at Spa)

Whichever angle you look at changing it, there's always some major drawback.

---

I don't have any great ideas on the subject other than doing something to increase the slipstream effect, and having circuits on the calendar which are condusive to overtaking (Interlagos, Montreal, Silverstone, Suzuka, Spa, Nurburgring) and fewer circuits that don't (Imola, Budapest, Sakhir, Yas Marina, Valencia). Also increasing the run-off areas if possible.

Anything which incentivises teams and drivers to overtake which doesn't cost too much and isn't counter-intuitive....anyone?

jackanderton wrote:Re: KERS

The problems were that it was very expensive (only Ferrari and McLaren ran it by the end), unreliable (Ferrari couldn't get it to work half the time) and they were the team that expended the most energy trying to get it to work) and was mainly used in a defensive capacity to block overtaking (ie- Raikkonen's KERS denying Fisichella and Force India a race win at Spa)

Whichever angle you look at changing it, there's always some major drawback.

It was mainly used in a defensive capacity to block overtaking because the energy that could be regenerated was too low. The 50-60 horsepower was enough for a small-ish boost in speed, but if it was 2 or even 3 times more powerful, it would easily allow more overtaking. The KERS systems that were developed and raced could all handle more energy, but the FIA decided to cap it in energy and duration of usage.

Regarding the tracks, as we all know, this is nothing new. The increase of popularity of Formula 1 is inextricably linked to television and smaller tracks allower for more sponsor exposure, both on the cars and the track-side advertising. Some older faster tracks, especially the longer tracks, that also tended to be faster, like the old Hockenheim were more complicated to convey properly on television, because of the number of cameras and operators required, the positioning of the cameras, etc. These days with the advances in camera technology and wireless relay of data streams to a central television monitoring office, it is far easier to monitor a race on a longer track and easier for the director to present the events of the race to the spectator. Maybe a return to the longer, faster, tracks could be possible, allied to the significant improvements in active and passive track safety. Maybe we could finally get rid of some of the annoying chicanes and slow corners that destroyed the great tracks of the past.

jackanderton wrote:I don't have any great ideas on the subject other than doing something to increase the slipstream effect, and having circuits on the calendar which are condusive to overtaking (Interlagos, Montreal, Silverstone, Suzuka, Spa, Nurburgring) and fewer circuits that don't (Imola, Budapest, Sakhir, Yas Marina, Valencia). Also increasing the run-off areas if possible.

Anything which incentivises teams and drivers to overtake which doesn't cost too much and isn't counter-intuitive....anyone?

By the way I have no idea how you would do this.

How about opening up the regs a bit in some areas but being very strict on the amount of "dirty air" coming off the back of the cars. Something akin to the crash tests where you have to meet a certain standard but how you do it is up to you. This will provide us with a more varied field in terms of car design and hopefully allow cars to follow each other through corners better.

jackanderton wrote:I don't have any great ideas on the subject other than doing something to increase the slipstream effect, and having circuits on the calendar which are condusive to overtaking (Interlagos, Montreal, Silverstone, Suzuka, Spa, Nurburgring) and fewer circuits that don't (Imola, Budapest, Sakhir, Yas Marina, Valencia). Also increasing the run-off areas if possible.

Remember that even Suzuka, fantastic track as it is, didn't have such a successful race in 2009; where the qualifying had been full of excitement (and danger), the race wasn't exactly up there in the excitement stakes. I mean, I'd like to see the back of Valencia and Yas Marina just as much as many Formula One fans, but don't forget that even great circuits can be held back by the regulations.

As for Silverstone, I haven't really seen anything that makes it all too conducive to overtaking; it's a great driver's circuit, but there aren't really all that many overtaking spots on the 2009 layout at least.

Faustus wrote:Why? What is the point? It would cause an increase in grip, therefore making the cars faster in corners, so overtaking would be even harder....If you mean an increase in tyre width along with an increase in the overall width of the cars, that wouldn't work either, because the bigger size of the cars would make it worse for overtaking, as they would take up more space in a physically restricted space, ie, the width of the track.

Larger tyres (and wider cars, which i wasn't suggesting but would also like to see) mean more mechanical grip, which isn't sensitive to the dirty air coming off the car in front.

Overtaking's perfectly possible if you can get within 0.5s of the guy in front, even with today's cars. What's difficult is bridging the zone from 1.5-0.5 seconds - where the turbulence takes the aero grip away. A greater balance towards mechanical grip reduces that effect, making it easier to get into striking range.

Interesting article on-topic, by James Allen:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/g ... rargument/

I didn't like him as a commentator, but he knows his stuff.

Jordan192 wrote:

Faustus wrote:Why? What is the point? It would cause an increase in grip, therefore making the cars faster in corners, so overtaking would be even harder....If you mean an increase in tyre width along with an increase in the overall width of the cars, that wouldn't work either, because the bigger size of the cars would make it worse for overtaking, as they would take up more space in a physically restricted space, ie, the width of the track.

Larger tyres (and wider cars, which i wasn't suggesting but would also like to see) mean more mechanical grip, which isn't sensitive to the dirty air coming off the car in front.

Overtaking's perfectly possible if you can get within 0.5s of the guy in front, even with today's cars. What's difficult is bridging the zone from 1.5-0.5 seconds - where the turbulence takes the aero grip away. A greater balance towards mechanical grip reduces that effect, making it easier to get into striking range.

If you mean changing the balance from aerodynamic grip to more mechanical grip, then yes, I agree with you that it might work. The kind-of-drastic-but-not-quite changes to the technical regulations that the FIA implemented for the start of the 2009 season plainly didn't work. The expected reduction in aerodynamic grip was compensated by simply devoting more resources, human and technical, so the cars now generate about 97% of the downforce that they generated at the end of 2008 (this is from my old friend who is a CFD engineer with Red Bull, by the way).

Faustus wrote:

Jordan192 wrote:

Faustus wrote:Why? What is the point? It would cause an increase in grip, therefore making the cars faster in corners, so overtaking would be even harder....If you mean an increase in tyre width along with an increase in the overall width of the cars, that wouldn't work either, because the bigger size of the cars would make it worse for overtaking, as they would take up more space in a physically restricted space, ie, the width of the track.

Larger tyres (and wider cars, which i wasn't suggesting but would also like to see) mean more mechanical grip, which isn't sensitive to the dirty air coming off the car in front.

Overtaking's perfectly possible if you can get within 0.5s of the guy in front, even with today's cars. What's difficult is bridging the zone from 1.5-0.5 seconds - where the turbulence takes the aero grip away. A greater balance towards mechanical grip reduces that effect, making it easier to get into striking range.

If you mean changing the balance from aerodynamic grip to more mechanical grip, then yes, I agree with you that it might work. The kind-of-drastic-but-not-quite changes to the technical regulations that the FIA implemented for the start of the 2009 season plainly didn't work. The expected reduction in aerodynamic grip was compensated by simply devoting more resources, human and technical, so the cars now generate about 97% of the downforce that they generated at the end of 2008 (this is from my old friend who is a CFD engineer with Red Bull, by the way).

I thought that some of the teams had already surpassed the 2008 levels of downforce - at the very least, if they haven't done so already, at the current pace of developments they will have passed the 2008 cars well before the season has finished.
The problem is this - we can't just rush in and try one quick fix, because that could cause as many problems as it solves - or may even exacerbate things. Generating more mechanical grip is a double edged sword - pushing the balance towards mechanical grip might make it easier to follow a car more closely. However, as has been pointed out, if the mechanical grip increases, it is probable that the braking distances will decrease (since the driver could carry more speed through the corners) which would make it easier to defend. And bear in mind that the FIA wants to keep cornering speeds down, otherwise the run off areas have to become much larger - which the track owners don't want to do (or, in some cases, can't do).
Others have talked about modifying the aerodynamics of the car - some suggest that the cars should use ground effects. It is true that this would potentially allow cars to follow more closely, since the underbody is not as adversely affected (although the OWG found that the underbody did suffer from a loss in downforce too, due to the turbulent airflow stalling as it passed under the car). On the other hand, given how lethally unpredictable ground effects were - and how unpopular they became as a result - that would probably require active suspension (so the ride height remained fairly constant), which would potentiallycause a whole new arms race (and would be pretty expensive for the new teams).
Besides, we don't want anything too crude - the Handford device in Indy cars, for example (which was essentially a massive inverted Gurney flap) did make it a lot easier for cars to follow, since the slip steam was huge. However, it worked too well - overtaking became relatively easy, to the point where it actually became banal.

I would add my voice to those advocating a little patience, however. It is, after all, the first race under these new regulations, and Bahrein has always been a relatively dull race. Moreover, the new infield section was a poor addition - because it was relatively slow and tight, it didn't offer any new overtaking locations. Wait until we are a few more races into the season, and we have had a little more time to mull over the results - and then perhaps, once we have judged the symptoms of the patient, we can proscribe a more sensible remedy.

Australia will be the acid test, a completely different circuit to Bahrain.

I have a few insane ideas.

- Mandate all cars use the wings on this car.
- Mandate Single Lap Qualifying and none of this Q1, Q2, Q3 crap.
- Mandate Manual Gearboxes
- Mandate weaker brakes (A1GP?), thus increasing braking distances and the likelihood of passing.
- KERS for everyone, but giving each driver 1 second of KERS for every second they are behind the race leader. KERS gives four times the power output it did before. The potential for the leader to get held up by slow cars increases...
- Allow teams to run whatever tire strategy they like.
- TIRE. WAR.
- Tires reduced in width.
- Increase the weight minimum to make the cars heavier and more prone to sliding around a bit. However, at Monaco, the weight minimum decreases.

Cynon wrote:I have a few insane ideas.

- Mandate Single Lap Qualifying and none of this Q1, Q2, Q3 crap.

Its insane because they tried it. It came, it sucked, it didn't last.

I think another idea that may help would be to recover the discard worst results system used until 1991. That way, drivers would be forced to get higher places as to not lose points, and this would hopefully increase spectacle.

RejectSteve wrote:

Cynon wrote:I have a few insane ideas.

- Mandate Single Lap Qualifying and none of this Q1, Q2, Q3 crap.

Its insane because they tried it. It came, it sucked, it didn't last.

I take it it's just me and Cynan who liked single lap qualifying then? Sure the qualifying itself was a little dull but it made race day so much more exciting. Personally I would have a hybrid of it and the current system.

Q1 and Q2: Each driver gets a 3 lap limit (1 out, 1 in and a flying lap). Otherwise no changes to the current system.
Q3: Each driver gets 1 lap each on a clear circuit (1 car out at a time) to go for pole position. The order of their runs is determined by Q2 time.

Tealy wrote:

RejectSteve wrote:

Cynon wrote:I have a few insane ideas.

- Mandate Single Lap Qualifying and none of this Q1, Q2, Q3 crap.

Its insane because they tried it. It came, it sucked, it didn't last.

I take it it's just me and Cynan who liked single lap qualifying then? Sure the qualifying itself was a little dull but it made race day so much more exciting. Personally I would have a hybrid of it and the current system.

Q1 and Q2: Each driver gets a 3 lap limit (1 out, 1 in and a flying lap). Otherwise no changes to the current system.
Q3: Each driver gets 1 lap each on a clear circuit (1 car out at a time) to go for pole position. The order of their runs is determined by Q2 time.

I liked single-lap qualifying. You got to see a lap from each car, it was fair, and it led to better racing. What's not to like?

I liked single lap qualifying too, for all the reasons mentioned above.
It was probably the only one of Mosley's reforms I agreed with. Too bad it didn't last.

Pedestrian wrote:I liked single lap qualifying too, for all the reasons mentioned above.
It was probably the only one of Mosley's reforms I agreed with. Too bad it didn't last.

It was too prone to randomness. With single lap, every mistake you made counted.

Every car malfunction, every slipup, every tire problem, they all affected your qually.

Personally I say return the goddamn low fuel 60 minute 12-laps per driver qually!

DonTirri wrote:

Pedestrian wrote:I liked single lap qualifying too, for all the reasons mentioned above.
It was probably the only one of Mosley's reforms I agreed with. Too bad it didn't last.

It was too prone to randomness. With single lap, every mistake you made counted.

Every car malfunction, every slipup, every tire problem, they all affected your qually.

By that logic, one whole race is too prone to randomness, let's just calculate the world champion by average finish and not by actual performances when it matters and let's set qualifying by practice speeds!

The whole point of single lap qualifying is to show who can put on an unrehearsed flying lap with the fewest errors. Pressure's on! If you or your team can't take it, then tough, start further down the grid, I just hate this hokey "give the teams many chances at a flying lap" crap. If you or the car makes a mistake in qualifying, you are not punished for it with the Q1, Q2, and Q3 system, because you know you'll have another chance. What do mistakes promote? Overtaking. What does overtaking equate to? Better racing.

I'd like to see the two systems combined, to be honest. Q1 & 2 run to the current system, then a single lap Q3, with the top 10 from Q2 going in reverse order.

DonTirri wrote:

Pedestrian wrote:I liked single lap qualifying too, for all the reasons mentioned above.
It was probably the only one of Mosley's reforms I agreed with. Too bad it didn't last.

It was too prone to randomness. With single lap, every mistake you made counted.

Every car malfunction, every slipup, every tire problem, they all affected your qually.

Personally I say return the goddamn low fuel 60 minute 12-laps per driver qually!

At least everyone was responsible for his own mistakes. The main complaint against free for all qualyfying, and the reason why the FIa experimented with one lap qualy is that drivers often felt that their quick laps were impeded by other competitors and that they could not allways have a clear track to drive at full speed.
Remember, as soon as free for all qualyfying came back, the scandals came back too: Monaco 2006, Monza 2006, etc...