Carrera51

I'd like to see a mix of engines, like in the 80s. You had V6 Turbos, I-4 Turbos, N/A V-12s. I've only read about F1 in the 80s, but the people I know who watched it back then said that was the golden age of the sport.

M758

back in the 80's BMW was rumored to make 1200 bhp from 1.5L and 4 cylinder turbos. Apparently the dyno did not go any higher.

P.Po

One thing that people like to see during F1 races is passing. Ya, passing is few and far between these days (need to get rid of spain and monaco). The problem with downforce, in a general statement, is that when you come close to another car, the turbulent air from the car in front removes some downforce and thus slows you down.

Many people believe that to make F1 exciting you need a wide spec tire, and very little downforce. Then the ones who can manage thier tires and still drive fast will win. You could also tuck behind another car and drive large/long sweepers with almost the same speed as compared to when you are alone.

I just believe that no matter what rule changes you make, the top teams will always be the top teams. Do you guys remember when Mclaren/Hondas walked all over everybody?? Or when the Renault's couldn't be touched?? Eventually another team will dominate regardless of rule changes... one day it could even be Minardi!!! Too many of these changes are being intorduced because teams and fans whine that nobody else can win a race. I understand the cost cutting measures but suck it up and beat them fairly or go home....

ymmv,
Patrick

Geo

Carrying a full load of fuel was never a serious danger in the era of modern fuel cells. There have been worse fires in the pits with refueling than there had been on the track from crashes in the years leading up to refueling. I even remember the Lotus of Johnnie Dumphries (I think) that disintegrated and he was strapped to his seat and attached to the intact fuel cell laying on the track. God that is one of the most horrible things I've ever seen in my 35+ years of following motorsports.

Anyway, carrying a full fuel load is no more a safety issue than what they carry now.

wombat7

I never thought about getting rid of refueling as an option, but now that it has been brought up, it makes a lot of sense. So you can't run a full race on a full load of fuel, shorten the race a little bit so that you can, but you have to use some strategy. I think this would definately make the sport a lot better to watch.

Dale Gribble

i don't see why they havn't put a limit on the amount that teams can spend.
give them say, an 80 million dollar max budget that they can throw at their teams. That way, it'll bring things more into line.

Noel

I like the idea of more passing also. So the question is "Do you guys think the aerodynamic changes will accomplish this?"

mitch236

The problem is that the teams will find a creative way around the money issue. For instance, buying a part from a vendor for say $100 that cost the vendor $100,000 in R&D to produce. (BTW, the vendor gets his sticker on the car)

Dale Gribble

^that's fine because minardi can do the same thing. Also, there's only X amount of space on a car, and you dont want to crowed the car with deals you made for parts because you'd **** off you title sponsor then.

in any event i'm sure that the FIA honocho's can hire a team of experts to work out the complicated legalise of a budget cap.

Geo

That's communism, pure and simple!

OK, so it's socialism, but I love that Slim Picken's line, from "Dr. Strangelove" if I'm not mistaken.

Getting serious, that would NEVER work.

Geo

Right now I'm not sure Bernie and Max can find their butts with both hands w/o a bunch of help.

F1 keeps gettting more weird every day I'm afraid. There was a time when Bernie really improved the sport. Now I think he and Max are just doing everything they can to screw it up. I wish Max had stayed resigned.

smokey

They should mandate a maximum downforce value at, say, 150 mph, to be measured in a standard wind tunnel, and set at a low level. This would bring back passing while still allowing design creativity.

P.Po

Smokey,

I think that is a good idea, and an interesting one. In CART they used to mandate the rear wing design somewhat for some oval tracks. Called the Hanford device, it was simply a vertical barge at the back of the wing. With low downforce on the rear, you can't crank downforce up front, thus less overall downforce...

The main problem with an F1 car trying to pass is the turblent air and low pressure air, messes up the ability for the front wing to create downforce. This was the main reason as to a rule change two years ago (I think) of raising the front wing height a few inches. It was hopefully going to allow the cars to run closer together. But the big problem was that the manufactures make the cars so darn efficient any change in turbulence or air pressue slows the cars down.

Obviously the manufactures want to solve this problem. So, now Sauber has in its use this year of a rolling road wind tunnel that will allow two 50% scale models to run front to back. Apparently this is the way other teams want to go as well. It makes sense and hopefully the teams can make a car with downforce not as twitchy when attempting to pass.....

I strongly believe that increasing mechnical grip (tires) and decreasing downforce would give us better racing. But is that what we want?? Seriously? I love to see what teams can build every year and enjoy seeing the different design approaches nearly close to 1/100th of a second similarity. Facinating to me...

-Patrick

chris walrod

Ahhh, the Handford device.. I was one of the fortunate ones who worked closely with Mark handford, as well as wind tunnel testing that thing. One thing it did do was generate passing, like 30 times a lap It also overheated and melted (literally) the drivers shoes. Thats another story

Seems that downforce reduction is always at the top of most top-level racing series agenda in slowing down cars. It is tough to do where there is more than one chassis manufacturer. Tough job since most aero staff always seem to interpret the 'new' aero rules a little differently, or should I say, creatively.
BUT, with extensive and exhaustive off-season tunnel testing that all F-1 teams partake, they all seem to start the season with the same L/D as they ended up with the previous season. Seems hardly worth the rule change to me.

I like the notion of no refueling, ala 20 or so years ago. Let 'em have as many tires as desired, but no fuel stops. This will force tire management, which Senna was king at, among just about everything else Plus it will enable the crew to wear shorts

I HATE the fact that F-1 cars have traction control, and worse that its so tough to police.

Keys to promote passing? Lengthen the braking zones. Invert the grid (yeah, that'l happen). Freeze (like CART these days) aero development after the first race. Just some thoughts.

I laugh every time I hear cost reduction and F-1 in the same sentence. FIA should police the teams catering and the two-story hospitality suites. It appears there is competition in who has the baddest-*** hospitality.

The two-race engine rule, I dont feel, will save much cost. Its not the rod bearings and valve springs that cost, its the development, dyno time and changing the engines V-angle .2345 degrees every year. Now teams will have to spend, probably, even more money to develop engine for power AND longevity. Toyota F-1 states they will start this year with the same HP as what they ended up with last year. So what has the FIA accomplished?

This is a GREAT thread, keep it going

wombat7

Maybe we should forward this thread to the big shots at the FIA... lol we know what we want to see of teh series, maybe they should listen to us...

I still can't make myself to believe that traction control is hard to police. It shouldn't be that hard... I dunno maybe there is something that I don't know, which is probable, but i just don't see how it is hard to police.