Technical regulations

[Lennat]

As said in the sporting regulations thread, it is indeed to late to change the technical regulations for next year. But, what would you realisticly like to see for coming seasons?

I would personally love to see some more powerfull engines combined with a bit less grip and perhaps even less effective brakes which would make it a bit easier to overtake, or?

Regarding the engines i would prefer a return to 3 litre ones, preferably with a free choice between 8, 10 or 12 cylinders, any more than that would be overkill anyway. Not that I belive this will actually happen as a switch to smaller turbos would be more in line with what the car manufacturers are doing in the real world, but please give us some more power at least. :p

[Mark]

Of course now the breakaway series is no more, this thread can be what you would like F1 regs to be.

[V12]

Maximum engine capacity specified (not bothered if its 2.4, 3.0, or whatever), but allow any number of cylinders you want. Also lift the stupid engine freeze.

Aerodynamic regs as they are, maybe closing up the odd loophole here and there.

Allow more tyre manufacturers in, if they want to play.

[K-Pu]

Real KERS, make it free.

Unlimited power, and if you want to do it à la brütal, unlimited power and time.
Now KERS would be more interesting...

[V12]

Real KERS, make it free.

Unlimited power, and if you want to do it à la brütal, unlimited power and time.
Now KERS would be more interesting...

Good call - I forgot to put that in there!

[ioan]

Set a limit on fuel for the race and let them use KERS to compliment the combustion engine.

Other than that no limitation on engine.

[Bagwan]

According to BBC sport :
"As part of the agreement, existing teams must help new outfits with their engines and chassis."

Where will Cosworth fit in , or will they at all ?

[ioan]

Cosworth are going to sell engines to some of the new teams, they already have an agreement (or contract) with USF1.

[Bagwan]

Cosworth are going to sell engines to some of the new teams, they already have an agreement (or contract) with USF1.

They have a contract , but is it for unlimitted engines ?

[Lennat]

It only seems fair to not rev limit the Cosworths, as they from what I understand will be 2006 spec. And don't forget that they would still have to last 3 races as all the other engines, so they would hardly be running them constantly at 20 000 revs anyway.

[call_me_andrew]

I think the direction to go is to dumb down some of the technology. Drop the 7-speed gearbox for a 6-speed. Eliminate the driver controlled differential. Establish minimum weights for the moving parts of the powertrain. Downsize the engine to a 1.4 liter 4-cylinder (any configuration) with a turbo (limited to 1 bar). Enforce a narrower bore size to lower revs rather than electronics. Make the rear wing flat, the front wing narrow, and the undertray curved.

[CNR]

drop the no fuel stop
stick with 8 engines but allow engine rebuilds after a race

[wmcot]

As said in the sporting regulations thread, it is indeed to late to change the technical regulations for next year. But, what would you realisticly like to see for coming seasons?

I would personally love to see some more powerfull engines combined with a bit less grip and perhaps even less effective brakes which would make it a bit easier to overtake, or?

Regarding the engines i would prefer a return to 3 litre ones, preferably with a free choice between 8, 10 or 12 cylinders, any more than that would be overkill anyway. Not that I belive this will actually happen as a switch to smaller turbos would be more in line with what the car manufacturers are doing in the real world, but please give us some more power at least. :p

I doubt the teams would go for less grip and weaker brakes on safety grounds.

[wmcot]

How about a built-in starter? How about hydraulic jacks like ALMS and IRL?

[ShiftingGears]

Remove the rev limit, drop the engine freeze. That would be an ideal start.

[N. Jones]

How about if they look at the overtaking in GP2 and copy those aero regs?

[christophulus]

Set a limit on fuel for the race and let them use KERS to compliment the combustion engine.

Other than that no limitation on engine.

You've sold me on this one. Plus remove any aerodynamic loopholes (double diffusers and whatever) and let's get some overtaking going!

And I suppose the refuelling ban is out for next year then? I'd like that back in for 2011 if that's the case, along with the proposed ban on tyre warmers.

[ClarkFan]

Set a limit on fuel for the race and let them use KERS to compliment the combustion engine.

Other than that no limitation on engine.

I would also advocate some sort of engine formula that encourages efficiency, maybe a BTU-driven formula that would also allow diesels and other forms of ignition.

A fuel driven formula could also avoid creating millions of dollars worth of paper weights when the FIA needs to change the formula to keep speeds manageable. Could the V-10s have successfully competed with the current V-8s in an efficiency-based formula? Under the present rules, we will never know and all those very expensive V-10s became useless overnight.

I believe that the FIA also needs to take the bull (Red or otherwise) by the horns and develop a new philosophy for aerodynamic regulation, to be implemented in a few years (2012?) to give teams development time. Mosley actually hinted at this, but then proposed ideas so loony that they discredited the underlying proposal (split rear wings).

The current rules really go back to the banning of skirted ground effects cars in 1983, with tinkering since to adapt to the attempts by teams to work around the rules to generate more downforce. The cars have long featured diffusers and over the 25+ years have evolved large, complex, multi-element front and rear wings, and cutout underbody structures aimed at diverting airflow from going under the car. This reactive rule-making and the teams' responses to it led to the dilemna of cars that generate disturbed wakes but also rely heavily on front-of-the-bodywork structures to generate grip. The narrow front tracks and grooved tires imposed in 1998 just made this issue more acute.

It really seems to me that it is time to break out to a new aerodynamic paradigm. Leave the requirement of a flat central underbottom, but extend it form the centerline of the front wheels all the way back with no airflow-diverting cutouts above the flat section. This section may also need to be wider than under current rules. All ground effects underbody profiles would be limited to the sidepods, on either side of the flat section, and must terminate in front of the rear wheels. Front and rear wings are limited to single elements, with restrictions on size, end plate size, and location. No spoilers, winglets or other aerodynamic bric-a-brac allowed. Wider front and rear tracks allowed, with more freedom to fit larger tires.

My goal would be an aerodynamic profile a little like a Lotus 78 (not the 79). But of course with modern development the cars would bear little resemblance to the 78 (a shame, really :( ) and probably generate much more downforce. What the changes should yield is cars that can follow each other more closely, perhaps even with the trailing car benefiting from slipstreaming (see Monza 1971). That should lead to more ability pass and maybe even back-and-forth position changing.

At least, that is what I would like to see the FIA try...

ClarkFan

[V12]

Remove the rev limit, drop the engine freeze. That would be an ideal start.

Hear hear. Who knows, we might get the odd retirement or two again! :beer:

[ioan]

Remove the rev limit, drop the engine freeze. That would be an ideal start.

And who will pay for the engine development?

[ShiftingGears]

And who will pay for the engine development?

Sponsors. If the teams have money, they'll spend it.