2021 Regulations Released

https://www.formula1.com/content/dam...tina/image.jpg

The new 2021 regulation introduces changes in three major areas of the sport:-

1. Financial Regulation -
Cost cap at $175 Million max per team. Thursday free practise has been scrapped. The race weekend is now Friday to Sunday. After the car has been scrutinized of Friday i think, it cannot be changed. A component with a different design cannot be placed on the car after.

2. Aerodynamic -
Simplified Aero features of the car. Barge boards are gone and there are limited areas for the teams to fettle with the wind flow characteristics of the car. Wind tunnel time has been drastically reduced with encouragement for teams to use CFD for simulations. The car would be 25kg heavier with bigger tyres as a consequence. A lot of the chassis parts are standardized, such as tyre rims, front wing, rear wing and floor of the car. Though there would be some areas where teams can individualized the look and feel of the car but limited to not introducing drag, such as the nose cone etc. Apart from that, all cars would look largely the same structurally.
From 2021, the legality of a car shall be determined using a baseline CFD model to highlight conformance or non-conformance of a car.

3.Powertrain
The current Hybrid engine would continue to be used. But some parts would be standardized; Gearbox, Brakes, disc material and suspensions. Engine is expected to be heavier as some of its parts are to be simplified. There was no mention of changes to the current fuel consumption levels. But there was talk about looking in the future to reducing the carbon footprint of the F1 car. No mention was made as to how they plan to do this or a clear roadmap for attaining a particular target in the future. So the environment was thrown around during the presentation for soundbite value rather than a real commitment to reducing impact to the environment.


I shall look at the rules in detail and write a more thorough explanation of it. My first impression, l think the relevance of F1 to the automobile industry appears to be slightly diluted by the standardization of many components of the F1 car. The scope for new ingenuity seem to be frozen out. Mainly because the technology battle between teams has been largely neutralized under the cost constraints and introduction of many standardized parts to the car.

That said, this car promisess to allow much closer racing. On paper, it appears to level the playing field somewhat, giving privateer teams a shot at winning championship titles. But that remains to be seen. Teams with better resources would still find a away to keep ahead of the pack with clever use of their resources. They would have better operational efficiency and more sofisticated practises. Even so, there is a good chance that experienced privateer teams like Mclaren or Williams may find a way to the very front of the grid.

This new era is now more about the quality of drivers that each team possesses. The drivers and engine makes the main difference to the performance of the team relative to their rivals. The cars would aerodynamically be more or less similar to each other we are led to believe.

The other thing l noticed about the release, was that the teams were not present in a show of support for the new regulation. When asked about whether the teams have signed up for this regulation, the answer given was vague and suggested that, acceptance of the new regulation by the teams is forthcoming and may not neccessarily be there. There was an air of cautious expectation amonst the media, we shall find out the real situation in due course l think.

The first thing two things they have to do is get rig on mandatory stop and forced use of multiple compounds. The ebb and flow of the race changes to a more natural way, and give the best opportunity for weaker cars to go for more aggressive tactics, which the better/best cars are more vulnerable to, but without compromising the merit/authenticity of the result.

I'll tell you something else, the "budget restraints: are also a load of BS. It wont affect the big team that already spend over it, as they've already spent their money on their cars, and there's only incremental gain to now get. It'll save them money while they'll still be the front runners and there won't be wild fluctuations in form.

The "salary cap" would still mean most of the team have to more than what they already do, and that money is hard to gain.

If they were serious about a "salary cap", they have to have completely new regs, and set the cap at something like $30mil, which is attainable for a lot of teams when the prospect is of racing in F1.

With the team budget caps and lots of spec parts, it seems like the rules will force more money to be sent into engine development by the engine manufacturers, and then the factory and works teams will prevail over customer teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

With the team budget caps and lots of spec parts, it seems like the rules will force more money to be sent into engine development by the engine manufacturers, and then the factory and works teams will prevail over customer teams.

---

But the Engine manufacturer teams must give the same engine they use to their customer team. Technically, there should be no difference in performance there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

But the Engine manufacturer teams must give the same engine they use to their customer team.

---

They do?

I think they are moving in the right direction if we want closer racing on track. Though the current cars are better than some years in this respect, it's obvious that the aero wake is still disrupting a following car quite a lot, and a car has to be significantly quicker to make a pass on track in many cases.

For at least a couple decades too much influence on the WDC and constructors championships have been made by the cars. Not to say that the best drivers aren't obvious, as they usually are. But I think we all know that if the drivers and cars were shuffled that we have very capable drivers in cars that have no chance of winning, and would be lucky to ever make a podium finish. With the rules changes intending to shift more to drivers skill, we might see a shuffling of the standings that most of us don't suspect.

For the sake of close racing, I hope the new regs are a move in the right direction. I'd love to see races where any one of 4-5 teams is fighting for a win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I think they are moving in the right direction if we want closer racing on track. Though the current cars are better than some years in this respect, it's obvious that the aero wake is still disrupting a following car quite a lot, and a car has to be significantly quicker to make a pass on track in many cases.

For at least a couple decades too much influence on the WDC and constructors championships have been made by the cars. Not to say that the best drivers aren't obvious, as they usually are. But I think we all know that if the drivers and cars were shuffled that we have very capable drivers in cars that have no chance of winning, and would be lucky to ever make a podium finish. With the rules changes intending to shift more to drivers skill, we might see a shuffling of the standings that most of us don't suspect.

For the sake of close racing, I hope the new regs are a move in the right direction. I'd love to see races where any one of 4-5 teams is fighting for a win.

---

If the new regulations deliver on its promise, the racing is not going to be much different than the F2 racing. It is still going to be down to team efficiency at race weekends, quality of driver and engine power. The best drivers are still going to top the points table and the best teams are going to top the constructors table because they would have the best drivers in their car, have a more efficient operation and have as good an engine as the best on the grid.

The new regulation would be worth all the fuss if the constitution of the sharp end changes regularly from race to race. This would mean that one team do not run away with the championship as we are used to. I think this is a tall ask. Hence, l would not be surprised if the status quo do not change much from what we have now. The first season of the new regulations must deliver without the usual excuses that we have come to hear from the F1 promoters in recent years.

What do you think? Has the 2021 F1 regulation defined a new fomula or is it a true evolution of F1?

I am still struggling with the absence of the engineering competition between the constructors. That absence makes me wonder if the 2021 regulation is true to F1's heritage. It seems the promoters have become a virtual F1 team responsible for designing the car and the teams are suppose to build a car of that design strictly and race it against other similarly built cars. In fairness, l think we have a new fomula in reality. They have called it F1, maybe it should have been called GP1.

One very interesting aspect of the new regulation is the introduction of opensource to facilitate free technology sharing amongst the teams. The concept allows any team to innovatively develop a new component or part for their car but can share the basic design of the component with the rest of the grid. Allowing other teams to develop and improve on the design and share it with everyone else as well.

Clearly this takes a leaf from the open source software paradym that has benefited us all with operating systems like Linux etc. The implementation of opensource in the regulation is not voluntary but mandatory. Which forces innovation to be shared. Unfortunately this may inhibit innovation as few teams would be inclined to give away their competitive advantage invented at their own cost and using their own resources. And not being able to use that innovation to gain significant competitve advantage and the rewards that comes with finishing ahead of the competition from their ingenuity.

Where there are no or little inherent performance enhancement involved, l can see this area being lively with ideas, concepts and standardization of components in the future. Or at least the introduction of standards for various common components or parts evolving organically from sharing and mutual cooperation amongst the teams.

But, in reality of the competitive jungle of racing where every tiny bit here and there on the car translates to competitive advantage, there is a strong culture of selfishness that drives success in the sport which might take some time to give way for this opensource concept to evolve.

In this selfish competitve culture it is unclear if a voluntary opensource scheme would be more effective than forced sharing as imposed by the regulation. This is the main assult on the technology competition between the constructors that has made F1 unique among all other racing formula. And my main reason for having the opinion that the new regulation introduces a new formula which essentially replaces F1 as we know it.

One could argue that F1 has died a sudden death and a lookalike has been slipped in its place to foster continuity. Another perspective would be to say that the technology competition aspect of f1 has brought about spells of one team dominating for a period of time. Thus, we end up with a two tier grid of sharp end and midfield teams. You could also argue that it is the root cause driving up spending in F1. But is that really the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

What do you think? Has the 2021 F1 regulation defined a new fomula or is it a true evolution of F1?

I am still struggling with the absence of the engineering competition between the constructors. That absence makes me wonder if the 2021 regulation is true to F1's heritage. It seems the promoters have become a virtual F1 team responsible for designing the car and the teams are suppose to build a car of that design strictly and race it against other similarly built cars. In fairness, l think we have a new fomula in reality. They have called it F1, maybe it should have been called GP1.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

One very interesting aspect of the new regulation is the introduction of opensource to facilitate free technology sharing amongst the teams. The concept allows any team to innovatively develop a new component or part for their car but can share the basic design of the component with the rest of the grid. Allowing other teams to develop and improve on the design and share it with everyone else as well.

Clearly this takes a leaf from the open source software paradym that has benefited us all with operating systems like Linux etc. The implementation of opensource in the regulation is not voluntary but mandatory. Which forces innovation to be shared. Unfortunately this may inhibit innovation as few teams would be inclined to give away their competitive advantage invented at their own cost and using their own resources. And not being able to use that innovation to gain significant competitve advantage and the rewards that comes with finishing ahead of the competition from their ingenuity.

Where there are no or little inherent performance enhancement involved, l can see this area being lively with ideas, concepts and standardization of components in the future. Or at least the introduction of standards for various common components or parts evolving organically from sharing and mutual cooperation amongst the teams.

But, in reality of the competitive jungle of racing where every tiny bit here and there on the car translates to competitive advantage, there is a strong culture of selfishness that drives success in the sport which might take some time to give way for this opensource concept to evolve.

In this selfish competitve culture it is unclear if a voluntary opensource scheme would be more effective than forced sharing as imposed by the regulation. This is the main assult on the technology competition between the constructors that has made F1 unique among all other racing formula. And my main reason for having the opinion that the new regulation introduces a new formula which essentially replaces F1 as we know it.

One could argue that F1 has died a sudden death and a lookalike has been slipped in its place to foster continuity. Another perspective would be to say that the technology competition aspect of f1 has brought about spells of one team dominating for a period of time. Thus, we end up with a two tier grid of sharp end and midfield teams. You could also argue that it is the root cause driving up spending in F1. But is that really the case?

---

I've quoted both since they both apply.

But in the development aspect, F1 has been limited for many years. They make the rules that define the current "formula" and the teams slowly bend, break, exploit, or simply improve upon them so much that the cars become too fast, too dangerous, too unpredictable, and vastly too expensive for any new teams to have a chance unless they have huge backing. So then the "formula" rule set is further restricted, redefined, altered, or in some cases just flat out banned. I think if no restrictions were ever made, we would have top drivers who were nothing but absolute beasts of athletes, with the cream of the crop being people who could withstand G forces that would make most pass out. We currently have 300 MPH street legal cars. Could you imagine where F1 would be with antilock brakes, active aerodynamics, no longevity restrictions, etc? And they would be so fast that a lot of drivers would be dead.... all the safety tech couldn't keep up with the risks.

So in that sense, the true evolution of F1 has for decades been one of ever changing restrictions. Both in car design and rules of the racing on track. And that is probably a good thing, unless we wanted to watch remote filmed death matches with no on site spectators, and drivers that were risking real harm to life in every race.

But viewed in another light, these restrictions kept making it harder and harder for the engineers to claw back speed and lap times, and they keep doing it. The adversity of the changes over the years kept everyone working harder and made them dump more money into the sport. Though the new 2021 regs have some major changes, they will still work just as hard to find advantages. And as you have stated, inevitably some teams will rise to the top. But I suspect (and hope!) that it might not be only the teams we think will rise. Given restrictions in major components, will we find that a mid level team has had the best tacticians all along, but we simply never noticed since the fight wasn't for a podium? Will we see that a lower tier team will suddenly rise up near the front, and the only thing that kept them back was budget with the current rule book?

And I'm hoping that we see these long runs of team dominance that have existed for decades now. They made for great history, and lofted drivers to records that will probably never be matched if thenew formula works as planned. But I think we have reached a point of the cars have had too much influence of the WDC for a good 40 years or so, and a trend of it being difficult to overcome a solid advantage once a team has it.


I really don't want to know who can win a race in a dominant car. I want to know who has the skill set to keep winning races even when there are 10 cars on track capable of winning that race on that day. And I want to know that the drivers who are the best had a good chance at a seat because the teams don't need family money and huge sponsors to be able to build a car to put them in. I want a drivers championship to be decides more by drivers, and not by the hundreds of engineers squeezing out another couple hundredths of a second per lap.


I just hope it all works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I've quoted both since they both apply.

But in the development aspect, F1 has been limited for many years. They make the rules that define the current "formula" and the teams slowly bend, break, exploit, or simply improve upon them so much that the cars become too fast, too dangerous, too unpredictable, and vastly too expensive for any new teams to have a chance unless they have huge backing. So then the "formula" rule set is further restricted, redefined, altered, or in some cases just flat out banned. I think if no restrictions were ever made, we would have top drivers who were nothing but absolute beasts of athletes, with the cream of the crop being people who could withstand G forces that would make most pass out. We currently have 300 MPH street legal cars. Could you imagine where F1 would be with antilock brakes, active aerodynamics, no longevity restrictions, etc? And they would be so fast that a lot of drivers would be dead.... all the safety tech couldn't keep up with the risks.

So in that sense, the true evolution of F1 has for decades been one of ever changing restrictions. Both in car design and rules of the racing on track. And that is probably a good thing, unless we wanted to watch remote filmed death matches with no on site spectators, and drivers that were risking real harm to life in every race.

But viewed in another light, these restrictions kept making it harder and harder for the engineers to claw back speed and lap times, and they keep doing it. The adversity of the changes over the years kept everyone working harder and made them dump more money into the sport. Though the new 2021 regs have some major changes, they will still work just as hard to find advantages. And as you have stated, inevitably some teams will rise to the top. But I suspect (and hope!) that it might not be only the teams we think will rise. Given restrictions in major components, will we find that a mid level team has had the best tacticians all along, but we simply never noticed since the fight wasn't for a podium? Will we see that a lower tier team will suddenly rise up near the front, and the only thing that kept them back was budget with the current rule book?

And I'm hoping that we see these long runs of team dominance that have existed for decades now. They made for great history, and lofted drivers to records that will probably never be matched if thenew formula works as planned. But I think we have reached a point of the cars have had too much influence of the WDC for a good 40 years or so, and a trend of it being difficult to overcome a solid advantage once a team has it.


I really don't want to know who can win a race in a dominant car. I want to know who has the skill set to keep winning races even when there are 10 cars on track capable of winning that race on that day. And I want to know that the drivers who are the best had a good chance at a seat because the teams don't need family money and huge sponsors to be able to build a car to put them in. I want a drivers championship to be decides more by drivers, and not by the hundreds of engineers squeezing out another couple hundredths of a second per lap.


I just hope it all works.

---

Don't get me wrong, l totally agree with your view about a level playing field. F1 is not a level playing field for two reasons; there is a constructors championship and a driver championship. The constructors championship drives the technological innovative competition between the teams and winning it translates to a very generous financial reward. The driver's championship provides the entertainment that generates the funds that keeps the formula going year on year. Both competition is won by the very best. The technology competition produces very wide gaps between the teams.

The 2021 regulations is focused on the entertainment aspect of F1. While it seeks to effect parity of machinery between all the drivers, it does so at the expense of the innovation competition between the constructors. This is why l say the 2021 regulations is a new formula. It certainly is not F1. That does not means to say it cannot produce better level of entertainment. As a matter of fact, it may well produce better level of competition l seriously hope so.

But we have to be retards to not recognize that there has been a major paradymical shift introduced by the 2021 regulations. The truth of the matter is that the main benefit of F1 to the automotive industry is the technological innovative cooking pot driven by the constructors competition. Out of it comes many otherwise ingenius innovations brought about by the necessity of finding an edge to beat the technology of the competition. This powerhouse of innovation is being put to pasture for the sake of entertainment as this necessity is now completely removed or greatly minimized.

It would be entertaining, but it is not F1 as we have historically known it.

There is an argument for the formula to evolve with the time. This regulation is not an evolution either, but a new formula based on the entertainment aspect of F1. My view is that they could not find a solution so they cracked it in halves and took the the entertainment half.

A major shift? Certainly. More entertainment? I hope so, even though I've watched F1 when it was boring as crap.

And I agree that the innovations F1 has brought to the regular street car world have been vast. Seamless shifting even on economy cars these days. Turbos galore. There are already turbos being driven my electricity now available for street cars, as well as the harvesting.

But I just see it more as a shift in certain areas, and those areas will benefit from increased innovation. Let's face it, even the super and ultra cars won't ever be using F1 aero on the street, most won't use full carbon brakes, they will all carry more fuel than needed, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I've strongly objected to rules changes in the past as well, thinking it would just make for slower cars. But in the end, the engineers have almost always clawed that speed back through the focus that has been allowed. I expect the new formula to do the same, and hope we will be setting track records again by 2023-2024.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

But I just see it more as a shift in certain areas, and those areas will benefit from increased innovation. Let's face it, even the super and ultra cars won't ever be using F1 aero on the street, most won't use full carbon brakes, they will all carry more fuel than needed, etc, etc.

---

Most of the innovation trickle down to the affordable cars with time but are immediately available in premium cars; supercars and high priced luxury cars etc. Carbon brakes are now options on high end cars of most brands. Carbon brake was an option for my Merc but too expensive for my pocket. Some day it would be available as standard for most cars on the road in the future as the economy of scale finally kicks in. The list of things that has trickled down to road cars is extensive, many are life saving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Don't get me wrong, I've strongly objected to rules changes in the past as well, thinking it would just make for slower cars. But in the end, the engineers have almost always clawed that speed back through the focus that has been allowed. I expect the new formula to do the same, and hope we will be setting track records again by 2023-2024.

---

I doubt it would be the same sort of step forward as we are used to seeing in the past. All areas that are performance enhancing are very tightly regulated in the 2021 regulations. I expect the engineers to find something, but l expect it would not be significantly a major differentiator like Brawn found in 2009. The F1 cars would be very much like the F2 cars where correct setup and good driver performances would be paramount.

Also based on the Brawn interviews, the new formula would not be static from a regulation perspective. The promoters want to be able to change the regulation within an ongoing season if they see the need to do so. The old idea of having an unchanging regulation for a full season, with any changes to regulation to be carried out in the following season is out.

The whole thing is fluid and changing as it goes. It would confuse us the fans but would certainly generate alot of controversy and lots to talk about. It would be frustrating for teams that can find an edge based on current regulations only to find their adge has been nullified by subsequent changes to the regulation.

The more l look at the new regulations the more tyranical in seems to me. I doubt it would be a great experience for the teams. But l really hope that l am wrong.

Remember, no team has subscribed for this new regulation yet. Hence, the chances are that there are more drama to come.

I think they probably have to leave things more fluid in hopes of finding the right areas to restrict vs continue to develop. Like anything else in F1, someone will find a loophole to exploit that all the regs didn't cover.

As for the innovation side, sure things will become more available in passenger cars. But would you rather pay for full carbon brakes (that would easily be grossly limited by any street tires) on your car, or would you prefer the option of a road and styling friendly aero package to give you more downforce in wet weather?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I think they probably have to leave things more fluid in hopes of finding the right areas to restrict vs continue to develop. Like anything else in F1, someone will find a loophole to exploit that all the regs didn't cover.

As for the innovation side, sure things will become more available in passenger cars. But would you rather pay for full carbon brakes (that would easily be grossly limited by any street tires) on your car, or would you prefer the option of a road and styling friendly aero package to give you more downforce in wet weather?

---

A moving regulation would most certainly create uncertainty, controversies that would otherwise be avoidable and an atmosphere of discontent. The racing operations body and the rulling body would eventually be seen to be dogmatic and overbearing. A fact of life is that uncertainty breeds discontent. The first season of the new regulations is going to be interesting. That would be the first season that Liberty, go it on their own and leave behind the Ecclestone formula. There would be lots to talk about from the get go.

My feeling is that the DNA of F1 was not preserved. Lets face facts, we have something else. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. As it may turn out to be more entertaining than ever. If it doesn't, then Liberty would be heavily criticised.

We wait to see what the grid of this formular would look like. If the number of teams increases from 20 cars on the grid to 26 or 30, then we are in for a new level of entertainment. If a majority of the manufacturing teams withdraw from the formula, then the stature of the formula would most likely diminish as a result but would still be an entertaining racing formula. Even in this scenario, fan influx may well increase if the grid population is increased as well; 30 cars etc.

The promoters have taken a clear gamble on the influx of a new generation of fans, younger and gaming Millennians would be larger than the outflux of older generation of current F1 fans. It would seem the intellectual fanbase that would be interested in the technology and fettling of the car aerodynamics are less relevant in the new scheme of things, as they fail to fill the stands currently. Would these console bound generation of fans be seperated from their beloved console to go see a race on a regular basis. This is where the bottomline is for the new regulation.

It is not enough to freeze out ballooning costs, tickets must be made to be affordable. Race venues must be able to make a good profit. The show must be more engaging and value for money, in the absence of big names on the grid; should that happen.

As with any major shaking up, it's uncertain how it will be received by either the teams or the fans really. Until things actually happen, all we can do is speculate. But I think if they want to maintain a strong audience then the rules changes will have to be more inline with clarifications and minor details that keep another double decker diffuser situation from happening.

As for the tracks, I won't be surprised if the audiences start declining quicker. Even with all the "side show" entertainment, it seems a lot of the younger generation just don't want to spend as much time at outdoor events. But we already see tracks where attendance is low, and the revenues from TV and streaming viewing are overcoming those shortages.

As for the DNA aspect... as I've said before IMHO it's been changing ever since the teams started really innovating. Going back to ground effect cars is a good thing really, but this time everyone is going to have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As with any major shaking up, it's uncertain how it will be received by either the teams or the fans really. Until things actually happen, all we can do is speculate. But I think if they want to maintain a strong audience then the rules changes will have to be more inline with clarifications and minor details that keep another double decker diffuser situation from happening.

As for the tracks, I won't be surprised if the audiences start declining quicker. Even with all the "side show" entertainment, it seems a lot of the younger generation just don't want to spend as much time at outdoor events. But we already see tracks where attendance is low, and the revenues from TV and streaming viewing are overcoming those shortages.

As for the DNA aspect... as I've said before IMHO it's been changing ever since the teams started really innovating. Going back to ground effect cars is a good thing really, but this time everyone is going to have it.

---

I can't argue with most of what you say really. But l have a feeling that Brawn was not talking about clarifications and minor details. That is how it works currently, hence would be no change otherwise. I suspect he was talking about substantive alteration of the regulations where they deem it necessary.

On the DNA front, competitive innovation is in the heart of the F1 DNA.

I have always wondered how the 2021 cars would attain the same level of downforce as the current cars with its smaller rear wings. Autosport has a youtube piece that explain the ground effect reintroduced into the 2021 cars. Ground effect was banned in the 80s after damage to the venturi skirts resulted in collapsse of the ground effect,. thus resulting in cars flying of the track into the barriers with sometimes injurious consequences.

The new car has been designed with structural vanes that channel air under the car. Inspecting the new car prototypes, one could see they are well incorporated into the architecture of the chassis. Certainly better than the skirts bolted onto the side of the cars in the past.

Ground effect is a welcomed addition to the regulation as it helps to clean up the air exiting the back of the car and allow closer racing. So there are good stuff in the new regulations. I certainly like the look of the car. I think the car may play into the hands of the younger generation drivers. Leclerc and Verstapen especially may find they can thrive better in the new era.

2021 regulations delayed until 2022

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

I have always wondered how the 2021 cars would attain the same level of downforce as the current cars with its smaller rear wings. Autosport has a youtube piece that explain the ground effect reintroduced into the 2021 cars. Ground effect was banned in the 80s after damage to the venturi skirts resulted in collapsse of the ground effect,. thus resulting in cars flying of the track into the barriers with sometimes injurious consequences.

The new car has been designed with structural vanes that channel air under the car. Inspecting the new car prototypes, one could see they are well incorporated into the architecture of the chassis. Certainly better than the skirts bolted onto the side of the cars in the past.

Ground effect is a welcomed addition to the regulation as it helps to clean up the air exiting the back of the car and allow closer racing. So there are good stuff in the new regulations. I certainly like the look of the car. I think the car may play into the hands of the younger generation drivers. Leclerc and Verstapen especially may find they can thrive better in the new era.

---

The big thing that the new regs will help with is following and attacking. The wake behind the current winged cars is just a massive plume of dirty air. The ground effect cars will cut this down quite a bit, and allow the faster cars to attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

The big thing that the new regs will help with is following and attacking. The wake behind the current winged cars is just a massive plume of dirty air. The ground effect cars will cut this down quite a bit, and allow the faster cars to attack.

---

Yeah , it's a huge irony that they all have complained for years about the nasty wake , yet some in the team are trying their hardest to create as nasty a wake as possible , in order to thwart the others , who are doing the same .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

The big thing that the new regs will help with is following and attacking. The wake behind the current winged cars is just a massive plume of dirty air. The ground effect cars will cut this down quite a bit, and allow the faster cars to attack.

---

True, and ground effect is the biggest part of that strategy. However, there are a lot of unknowns surrounding it. It is the sort of innovation that requires lots of wind tunnel time. Ironically, the new regulation restricts wind tunnel use drastically. Hence the first season of the new regulation may turn out to be very interesting as teams may spend most of the early part of the season with challenges of corrollating their CFD design with the real experience of the car. It could be a roll of the dice start to the 2022 season with unlikely teams leading the way.

The new regs could certainly shake things up, as all the teams will be finding the balance and handling characteristics from essentially scratch again. I suspect the cooling issues will also be all over the place, since the airflow over the top of the cars won't have nearly as many aero devices playing with things.

As it stands though, I'm wondering if we will see any championship this year to figure out who got it right. Hopefully there will be enough races to call it a championship, but if it's on the lower end we might not see who really had the most rounded cars.

I think 2022 is a great opportunity for Honda to take a championship with Redbull and Verstapenn. Their engine do not have heating challenges that for instance; Mercedes currently have. It should also be on par with the Mercedes engine as well by 2022, l think.

Since it now appears that there's going to be an extended break before the first race (with no additional testing?), is anyone else thinking that the cars that we see at the first race may bear only a passing resemblance (internally/mechanically, anyway) to the cars that showed up for pre-season testing?

I haven't seen much written about this, but are ALL of the F1 teams (in addition to Ferrari and Alpha Tauri) on mandated lockdown, or are most of them still able to whittle away at new ideas and concepts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Since it now appears that there's going to be an extended break before the first race (with no additional testing?), is anyone else thinking that the cars that we see at the first race may bear only a passing resemblance (internally/mechanically, anyway) to the cars that showed up for pre-season testing?

I haven't seen much written about this, but are ALL of the F1 teams (in addition to Ferrari and Alpha Tauri) on mandated lockdown, or are most of them still able to whittle away at new ideas and concepts?

---

I am sure they have not stopped thinking about how to improve the car. Each team would have a long list of things that concerned them but were unable to address during testing. Even with the lockdown, they would be tweeking the designs virtually. I fully expect the cars that turn up to the first race of this season if it happens , to be significantly different from what turned up at Melborne.

You must remember that Mercedes finished testing with some worries on the engine front. And Ferrari had an issue coming into testing, they couldn't have resolved completely during the testing window. So yes, tinkering is ongoing, even with the pandemic and factory shutdown.

It is more important for them to do so, because this is the car that they would be racing in the 2021 season. Besides, every other team would be working on their version of the DAS system for their car as well. Or at least trying to understand it.

Since the FIA has given Ferrari the all clear for their engine, l am sure Mercedes, Honda and= Renault would be looking closely on how to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

2021 regulations delayed until 2022

---

Lets hope the new regulations can help the sport survive the COVID-19 pandemic.

I watched an interview of Vettel and a group of school kids. It was fascinating as the kids asked very intelligent questions. But more importantly, Vettel was as transparent and insightful with his answers as l have yet to see of anybody on the F1 paddock.

One of the questions that caught my attention was about renewable fuels and Vettel's thoughts of whether F1 was doing enough to respond to climate change. In true German fashion, the four-time world champion answered no. He went on to say F1 was hypocritical with its use of fossil fuels for racing when promising a cleaner climate change sensitive racing.

There is a Nasa study that suggests that the earth's temperature has risen by 1.1 degrees Celsius since 1980. This suggests that this rise may increase further with time. This is expected to cause sea-level rise which may reshape the landmasses of the world we know. The study was very clear about the need to reduce the use of hydrocarbon fuels for transportation as a potential remedy.

Interestingly, F1M CEO Domencalli was very quick to get in front of the cameras to address the points raised by these kids and Vettels response in particular. He spoke of education programmes for kids and the work being done to develop a sustainable fuel that is not based on fossil fuel. The important thing to note here is that he was not talking about renewable fuels or electric powertrains. But a hydrocarbon which is manufactured in the lab to produce a higher efficiency and power output than its fossil fuel equivalent.

I stopped for a moment to think about his response and wondered if he really understood the points raise by Vettel. A manufactured hydrocarbon is still most likely to produce the CO2 that is causing the climate change. So it would seem F1 do not understand the issue here and as such are very slow on the uptake of where the sport is in conflict with the environmental issues related to racing with hydrocarbon fuels in this time where all the data is now beginning to suggest that global warming is real.

On thing that Vettel has raised, is the fact that F1 need to understand its environmental responsibilities and develop a principled commitment to addressing them. I have to commend Vettel for speaking up for the environment and calling out F1's social responsibility to environmental challenges facing our planet.