"Tim (Fractal Footwork)" (fractalfootwork)
12/04/2013 at 12:30 • Filed to: Formula 1, Adrian Newey, OppositeLock
2
12|
"Tim (Fractal Footwork)" (fractalfootwork)
12/04/2013 at 12:30 • Filed to: Formula 1, Adrian Newey, OppositeLock | 2
| 12 |
With the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! set to 'bore', and the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , now would be the best time for a revolution. Listed below is a proposal amendment to the current Formula 1 Rulebook that would not only make things more interesting with an engineering perspective, but also make technical sponsorship more lucrative.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
These rules are designed to increase technical freedom of the designers, and may not necessarily increase competitiveness among drivers and teams within the first few years. Instead, these rules set out to create a live event that perplexes sight and melts ears. Yes, there will be holes in this scheme, but they do provide a good baseline for what Formula 1 should be.
1. Power Systems
1.1 Combustion Engines
1.1.1 Each team is allowed 1 normally aspirated combustion engine per chassis.
1.1.2 No cylinder or pattern (v, flat, inline, etc) limit.
1.1.3 Maximum revs must be within 16,000 and 25,000 rpm.
1.1.4 Maximum power output per combustion engine (both horsepower and torque) must not exceed 1,000.
1.1.5 All fuel per race distance must be held onboard with no refueling.
By setting the engine rules in this manner, teams will have to initially sacrifice maximum power for reliability and efficiency.
1.2 Electrical Engines
1.2.1 Each team is allotted 2 electrical engines for tire rotation.
1.2.2 Output must be less, for each engine, than 50 horsepower.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
1.3 Battery
1.3.1 The batteries have no limits on size, capacity, or charging method.
Formula 1's goal is to amass viewers for sponsors, and sponsorship will only come if those corporations have something to prove (buy my brand because it's proven to be the best). By setting non standardized electrical engines and battery packs, sponsors, (in this case, firms like Tesla, Nissan, Toyota, etc) will be able to promote their electric and hybrid vehicles though engineering instead of just slapping a sticker on and shelling out some cash.
2 Exhaust
2.1
2.1.1 Position restriction is lifted.
2.1.2 The exhaust must only have one outlet.
2.1.3 The exhaust outlet must have not bodywork above within a 15 centimeter radius.
Because there is only one exhaust outlet, blowing the diffuser will bring more of a challenge to the aerodynamicists (they're probably not going to blow one side of the diffuser to seal it off from tire squirt and not the other), and some teams may even opt out of attempting.
3 Crash Structure
3.1
3.1.1 Revert the nose rules back to the 2013 system, but the maximum height will form an angled plane from the maximum height of the bulkhead to the maximum height of the nose tip in the 2014 rules.
For good looks...
4 Aerodynamics
4.1 Front Wing
4.1.1 The full width of the front wing will be opened back up to the designers.
4.1.2 In addition to the already established actuator on the rear wing, and additional 2 will be allotted for the front wing.
Active aerodynamics are becoming a bigger part of production supercars, plus moving parts on a race car look cool.
4.2 Rear Wing
4.2.1 The rear wing height will be lowered by 25 centimeters.
5 Weight
5.1
5.1.1 Minimum weight will be increased by 100 kilograms.
This number is not set. The goal of increasing the minimum weight was to make it easier for heavier drivers, like Nico Hulkenburg, to get a seat where they deserve.
For Sweden
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/04/2013 at 12:34 |
|
Holy increased cost Batman!
Forgetful
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/04/2013 at 12:37 |
|
That kind of car diversity is probably going to just drive large gaps between the have and have-not teams. The more you open the rules the more likely you end up with one team out engineering everyone else on their way to dominating a championship far worse than we see today.
Teams would spend millions on R&D only to end up stuck on obsolete technology as a dominant tech emerges and go bust up and down the grid.
OtherBarry
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/04/2013 at 12:40 |
|
Should change electrial engines (to motors first of all) to secondary power system so we can open the flywheel concept back into the mix. Far superior I think, but would really be lacking in regards to intergrated KERS/traction control system that RB was reported to have.
CAFIFTY
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/04/2013 at 12:52 |
|
I just want some real racing. Not this save your tires keep a 2 second gap and hope for the tire lotto to pick you bullshit. I tried of seeing Vettel win pole, pull out a 3 second gap by the time DRS is enabled, and then lead every fucking lap. And let me be clear Red Bull and Vettel deserve what they accomplished, i am just bored with it! I hope these rule changes mix things up. Yeah I am pissed that Lotus had to hire Crashdonado because of cost but the series needs a refresh and this will cause that. WAIT. OR...I think if F1 went away from these shit ass tires it might be more exciting? Drivers would be able to drive again. There would be more real overtaking. OMG WHY HAS NO ONE THOUGHT OF THIS. TIRES THAT AREN'T SHITTY!
BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/04/2013 at 13:11 |
|
The trouble is balancing the speed that the cars can acheive and the safety. It's all very well having cars that go as fast as physically possible, but that limit is easily about what a person can cope with. Even if the driver's physically capable of reacting fast enough to control the car and sturdy enough to cope with the g-forces for hours, the crash speeds will be much higher. Potentially higher than the current static safety precautions can cope with.
I'd love to see a truly unfettered F1, but I think it would go the way of Group B. A brief burst of utter gloriousness, followed by a couple of high-profile deaths, followed by cancellation.
Personally, I think Eddie Jordan struck gold during the BBC coverage of the last GP this year. He was asked what he would do to make F1 more interesting, and he said 'reduce the differences in payout for each position in the constructor's championship'.
At the moment, first place nets an enormous reward, and that reduces significantly with each step you go down. By reducing the payout for first, and increasing the payments for each place, you level the field a little more. It'd be harder for the top teams to completely outclass the lower teams, and easier for the lower teams to get up to speed.
Either that or make the driver choice a roulette. Each season, the drivers pull a team out of a hat. That's their team for the season. People would stop bitching about Vettel winning all the time at least.
Chairman Kaga
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/04/2013 at 13:13 |
|
I'm modifying my Musical Chairs suggestion made in the Oppo discussion last week. While it was popular with the commentariat, I think I have an even better idea.
The season will be broken into quarters of five races. This of course means we'll need one additional race... more on that in a moment.
At the start of the first race of each quarter, all of the cars will be placed on the grid according to the previous finish. The drivers will be corralled 100 meters away. With the drop of a green flag, they will run, trip, bite claw, punch and kancho their way to the cars. Once seated, that's the car they will drive for the next five races. So like a LeMans start, but way more intense, and with more severe results.
This is my favorite bit. The 20th and final race of the season will be a round robin Bonus Round. Drivers must complete 5 laps in one car from each team, with the fastest lap being recorded. Points will be awarded based on a cumulative average of all hot laps, with money being awarded to the constructors on a graduated scale. That way we could determine if a team actually has a better developed car than their results indicate. However, instead of the fastest team winning the most funding, it's actually the slowest that wins the lion's share. Sort of like the NFL draft. In a way. Not really I guess, but you get the idea.
The races would be wild. A true celebration of racing. It would be fun and ridiculous and come on Bernie, you out there? This shit is genius!
highmodulus
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/04/2013 at 13:43 |
|
Tires have been the biggest issue- after the mid-season switch several cars really suffered. That was the real issue. They should allow more tire testing, but require the results be shared with everyone.
If you loosen the rules too much, speeds will jump and drivers will die. Or we will be back to the bad old no passing parade days- no thanks.
302? I think yes
> For Sweden
12/04/2013 at 16:02 |
|
It's F1... it's not like they don't spend millions and millions on engineering already...
dataPOG
> CAFIFTY
12/06/2013 at 22:10 |
|
Pirelli made the tires they were told to make. It isn't Pirelli's fault, they did what they were directed to do by Bernie.
I propose they either go one compound or let the teams decide which compound they want to run however they want to run (no rule regulating having to run the option or prime tire, if you want to run the softer tire all race then so be it). Brings more strategy, go prime and aim for less time at pit road speed, or go option, pit road speed penalty be dammed.
|
dataPOG
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/06/2013 at 22:15 |
|
Some aero proposals, DRS enabled from lights out all over the track.
KERS increased to unlimited time per lap, but restricted to 50-75% of an expected stint. It then "recharges" when it enters the box and "stops".
Can't really call 2 second pitstops stops any more, hell, the California Roll takes more time at a stop sign then F1 pitstops.
6shelBfan6
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/06/2013 at 22:38 |
|
If I were making the F1 rule book, I would lay out a simple formula, min. weight, size and the like with a yearly spending cap that allows an even playing field. No banning of new technology, just let the engineers run free. Think of all the amazing contraptions and exciting racing that could come from that!
|
thegrover
> Tim (Fractal Footwork)
12/07/2013 at 00:25 |
|
Love the proposed engine rules.