10 grand? Seriously???!!!

[Bagwan]

"Big wide slicks , and enough power to break them loose ."
Can't remember who said that , but wouldn't a little more mechanical grip solve the issue , to some degree ?

TC feels like cheating to me , and thus , too drastic a response .

[Whyzars]

"Big wide slicks , and enough power to break them loose ."
Can't remember who said that , but wouldn't a little more mechanical grip solve the issue , to some degree ?

TC feels like cheating to me , and thus , too drastic a response .

I've not heard the quote before but imagine it is from the long past when we had big wide slicks and cigarette billboards for rear wings.

The last time I was this upset with F1 was when they bought in grooved tyres. I had to endure that horror for 10 years or so.


When you watch the 2014 cars in a train through slow corners, the point and squirt characteristic is quite noticeable. I agree that TC is a driver aid but F1 may need to do something predictable and quick.

They probably should've gone the "regulated" TC route rather than DRS but thats history now. TC would be something that the teams may be able to implement fairly quickly and maybe provide a means to get a scream going in the straights.

[Bagwan]

Take away the wings as well , as they are largely irrelevant to road cars .
They can still keep the end plate billboards , as they offer little downforce .

Wider slicks , and less wing .

Make no limit on fuel , but have a different trophy for those who save most , so they can still use the silly fuel meter graphics and sensors .

Then , restrict the turbo , and you'll have both more traction from the tire , and a little less power , so they might be tempted to up the revs to the limit to get it back , given the tires could use it up .

[Doc Austin]

I like the new cars, but the regulations are so ridiculously complicated that I have given up trying to understand them.

[steveaki13]

I agree. I think its the constant tweaking of rules and fiddling of penalties and regs, that make a lot of people just tired and fed up of F1.

I am sure 20 years ago it was far more simple to follow.

[TheFamousEccles]

I don't think you understand the article.

Enigmatic... Please illuminate us all, Oh Oracle?

[philipbain]

Having read this thread I don't really understand most of the arguments being made except one, that people seem disappointed that a large % of the fuel burnt by an F1 engine is now no longer lost down the exhaust pipe! In order to make such an ungodly racket the old engines were going into very high rpms where efficiency was lost and lots of noise was produced, so much so that at close quarters in a confined space it was necessary to wear ear defenders to drown out the noise... Now it seems that ear defenders are not necessary, you can actually hear yourself think and the noise the engines make is different with lots more going on other than energy being wasted and converted into a noise so loud that you need to take measures to protect yourself from it! I have to say that it appears i'm in the minority currently in that I like the sound of the new cars, you can hear much more going on, you can hear the turbo whine, you can actually hear the tyres working too when the drivers are pushing them to the limits of adhesion. Also I cannot figure out the logic in thinking that traction control would improve the situation, surely if the cars are more torquey and the fuel supply is limited this encourages the teams and drivers to upshift early in the more efficient lower rev band to prevent wheelspin and save fuel, I don't think TC would help as they would still do this and it would do nothing but diminish the skill required to extract the maximum performance from the car whilst making the cars sound worse with the mis-firing sound you gets from the cylinders cutting in and out.

The fact of the matter is that the original proposal for the revolution in F1's rule book was only semi-implemented, if it had been fully implemented it would have seen the cars freed up for more design freedom, particularly in respect to utilising the underfloor for aerodynamic effect. This wasn't implemented due to the F1 teams being callow when it comes to anything that might differ from the approach to aerodynamics that has essentially been in place in F1 since 1983 when the flat bottom rules were introduced. Had the rule changes been fully implemented there would be a greater onus on efficiency as there would be an even smaller fuel ration (probably a 50% cut on V8 levels) as the cars would be massively more aero-efficient. Its a fact that because of the framing of the rules over the years the current crop of F1 cars have a much lower level of aero efficiency than that which is possible, ie. they could make the same amount of downforce for a much lower level of drag if the rules allowed them to. Also creating more downforce from the underfloor would make the cars less sensitive to running in turbulent air and improve the racing as wings lose much more than the underfloor does in such a situation. This would probably eliminate the need for DRS as well as the wings would be much smaller (wings create a massive amount of drag as well as downforce and with a much tighter fuel limit the cars would need to reduce drag) and woiuld have a much smaller influence on the overall performance of the car, indeed, it has even been suggested that wings would be used more as an aid to balancing the car than overall downforce creation as it was in the early 80s.

And finally, I really dont understand why a street race like Singapore would complain about a lack of noise, surely when your running in a urban setting not everyone in the area will want to be inflicted with a massive amount of noise, indeed, in the past noise levels have been a barrier for street races and the fact that they ran turbo engines in Champ Car in the past (and indeed since 2012 in Indycar) has opened up such championshipa to running more street races as people not involved with the races were much less likely to complain about noise levels.

The only constant in change and F1's new regs have been a step in the right direction, encouraging the development of high performance hybrid drive train technology which should trickle down to the products driven on the road by you and I meaning we can all drive further on less fuel and limit the environmental impact of motoring whilst reducing the rate of depletion of a finite source of energy. Thats right, this is about a much bigger picture, in this context moaning about a reduced level of noise is pretty pathetic!

[Whyzars]

snip...

The only constant in change and F1's new regs have been a step in the right direction, encouraging the development of high performance hybrid drive train technology which should trickle down to the products driven on the road by you and I meaning we can all drive further on less fuel and limit the environmental impact of motoring whilst reducing the rate of depletion of a finite source of energy. Thats right, this is about a much bigger picture, in this context moaning about a reduced level of noise is pretty pathetic!

Pathetic, really?

I well remember the heated discussions around ground effects in the early 80's. In fact I think Alan Jones left the sport for a year or two because of his concerns for safety with the direction that F1 was going at the time. There are always arguments. Some based on logic, some based on strategy. Whereas in the past changes seemed to be about competition and safety now they seem to be about ecology which seems strange.


If F1 takes an audience or financial hit will the venture down the V6 turbo, high ER hybrid path be considered a success? Will Petronas for example still be a sponsor if F1 reduces their fuel use even further?

If F1 was serious about energy conservation then wouldn't CVT have been standard 10 years ago?

Does CVT remaining a banned technology tell us anything about F1?

Wouldn't developing high stress CVT systems do more for the environment via their use in haulage than developing new batteries for a Prius?

F1 can call itself whatever it likes but if it is dependent on fans and sponsors then things like sound are an important part of the overall package. Grab a bag of popcorn, I think the sound issue has a long way to run and I expect that sponsor dollars will win - and CVT will remain banned because it sounds like crap.

[philipbain]

I well remember the heated discussions around ground effects in the early 80's. In fact I think Alan Jones left the sport for a year or two because of his concerns for safety with the direction that F1 was going at the time.

I concede that there were safety issues regarding ground effect in the early 80s, that was entirely down to the way the rules were framed and what the FIA allowed the teams to get away with, such as sliding skirts and adjustable ride heights, there are plenty of examples of modern racing cars which use a profiled underfloor without any major safety concerns.

CVTs don't conserve energy, they merely optimise the drive of the engine to deliver maximum power all the time, this isnt efficient, infact it can be argued that its massively inefficient to run an engine at maximum power on a constant basis! CVTs are very suitable for engines which only make good power in a very narrow power band, hence why they are deployed in snowmobiles with 2 stroke engines which have a tiny power band. Although one reason that CVTs were banned in F1 was to prevent a technological arms race based around transmissions, it could be argued that another reason why CVTs were banned and remain banned is road-car relevance, very few road cars have CVTs which is mainly down to issues of fuel efficiency and the fact that normal 4 stroke engines have good drivability and are merely unsuited to a CVT. Throw in the fact that people don't like driving a car where the engine note is constantly flat with little variation and you have a few good reasons why they have yet to catch on and hence are irrelevant in a consumer context.

[AndyL]

CVTs don't conserve energy, they merely optimise the drive of the engine to deliver maximum power all the time, this isnt efficient, infact it can be argued that its massively inefficient to run an engine at maximum power on a constant basis! CVTs are very suitable for engines which only make good power in a very narrow power band, hence why they are deployed in snowmobiles with 2 stroke engines which have a tiny power band. Although one reason that CVTs were banned in F1 was to prevent a technological arms race based around transmissions, it could be argued that another reason why CVTs were banned and remain banned is road-car relevance, very few road cars have CVTs which is mainly down to issues of fuel efficiency and the fact that normal 4 stroke engines have good drivability and are merely unsuited to a CVT. Throw in the fact that people don't like driving a car where the engine note is constantly flat with little variation and you have a few good reasons why they have yet to catch on and hence are irrelevant in a consumer context.

All good points but it prompted me to imagine for a moment the sound and smell of a 2-stroke Formula 1