2010 Formula 1 Season Build-Up

[pimento]

I'd definately like to see refuelling back, I liked that part of the strategising a lot.

[TheScrutineer]

Except "unintended consequences", teams/drivers will then start moving the aero device to disrupt flow over following cars to break tow or destroy downforce in braking zone. As much as I loved Deathrace 2000 - and even OK with the remake - I don't want to see that on my race tracks
hem decide what they want to run and for how long and how many changes.

I think this is a good idea. Now with eco-driving in the forefront of the automotive industry why waste energy with drag down the straights and have dirty air causing overtaking problems? The system should be non-adjustable by the driver and simply electronically/hydraulically linked to the steering system and brakes of the car. The more angle of attack on the steering wheel, the great wing angle and the same for the brakes.

With this system drivers would not be able to adjust the wing level in the braking zones. Braking efficiency would be reduced in the braking zones because of the car in fronts high wing angle thus dirty air, but I am sure that the drivers are more than capable of adjusting to this without danger. And if not, then there could be and introduced cap on the max wing level reached when on the brakes.

[Matra et Alpine]

and the "unintended consequence" of that will be the "dab" on the brakes mid corner to dusrupt airflow to the car behind and also the inevitable failure leading to extreme accidents.
Also, having VARIABLE grip that is not directly under control of the driver makes for a nightmare car to drive. SO you come to a corner and this time brake a little harder, this means downforce is higher than it was last time which then means turn-in will be different - in a farily unexpected way as rear and front downforce vary at differing rates.
Throttling mid corner adjusting the GRIP ? No thanks

[TheScrutineer]

and the "unintended consequence" of that will be the "dab" on the brakes mid corner to dusrupt airflow to the car behind and also the inevitable failure leading to extreme accidents.
Also, having VARIABLE grip that is not directly under control of the driver makes for a nightmare car to drive. SO you come to a corner and this time brake a little harder, this means downforce is higher than it was last time which then means turn-in will be different - in a farily unexpected way as rear and front downforce vary at differing rates.
Throttling mid corner adjusting the GRIP ? No thanks

But if you ‘dab’ the brakes mid corner to disrupt air flow the only result will be you getting piled into from behind or you being overtaken, not desirable for the driver. And if there were some sort of crazy tactics based on the adjustable wing angles, then these should be heavily punished or even further the wing adjustment momentarily stopped during corner sections of the track. Or..even more science fiction have the driver choose what wing angles he wants for each corner before the race and pre-program these into the car.

As for ‘variable grip’, yes the grip would change when more steering lock is added. But as speed decreases, so does downforce and therefore grip. Also the front and rear wing are adjusting relative to eachother so the balance of the car would not change. After a lap or two you would be confident what grip you would be getting from which corner and it would become second nature.

Obviously with this system the lap times would be a hell of a lot faster. Here come more advantages- reduce the downforce levels and power so the cars match this years lap times. Less downforce = more overtaking. Maybe introduce smaller engines with KERS- reflecting the direction road technology is going.

[Matra et Alpine]

But if you ‘dab’ the brakes mid corner to disrupt air flow the only result will be you getting piled into from behind or you being overtaken

Watch Ayrton Senna when being harried from behind by a faster car
Yep, "unintended consequences" .... SOME drivers will do that to win

, not desirable for the driver. And if there were some sort of crazy tactics based on the adjustable wing angles, then these should be heavily punished or even further the wing adjustment momentarily stopped during corner sections of the track.

How would you prove it was intentional ?
We can't even agree about "weaving" anymore !

Or..even more science fiction have the driver choose what wing angles he wants for each corner before the race and pre-program these into the car.

Silliest suggestion I think so far. Be as well just giving them a scalextric car

As for ‘variable grip’, yes the grip would change when more steering lock is added. But as speed decreases, so does downforce and therefore grip. Also the front and rear wing are adjusting relative to each other so the balance of the car would not change.

Whilst in THEORY I could find areas of agreement.
IN FACT, the variables in the real world are already stretching the drivers ability and this introduces a LARGE one.
Your confidence in managing airflow is nice, but unrealistic.
The point I was introducing was the CHANGE in grip varying by another major factor and in the real world this WILL be non-linear, bordering on chaotic, especially in cornering, the change of attack of any surface alters it's aero effect.

After a lap or two you would be confident what grip you would be getting from which corner and it would become second nature.

ROFL. I've driving tens of thousands of laps and at no time would I ever say my confidence on grip allowed it EVER to become second nature. There's a reason a driver climbs out of a race/rally/hillclimb car mentally exhausted

Obviously with this system the lap times would be a hell of a lot faster. Here come more advantages- reduce the downforce levels and power so the cars match this years lap times. Less downforce = more overtaking. Maybe introduce smaller engines with KERS- reflecting the direction road technology is going.

Flaw .. if speeds are higher then the speed differential to overtake on the few areas possible on a modern track increase exponentially.
Flaw .. reduce downforce and power then speed away from the tighter corners is lowered. Speed on straight higher then just means less places on track ot overtake. Less grip IN a corner means you can't overtake very easily. "unintended consequences". The plus in one area or situation can have many more negatives in others.
Lets not forget the biggest one. Come up with a rule that limits speed or grip and the designers will spend MORE time to find ways around them.

Sorry I'm not giving us many "positive" things to think on, mainly because I've not changed my mind on it. Hopefully the critical-thinking inputs I'm giving will get yours and others to maybe find some.

Mine is simple, give MORE flexibility back to the designers to innovate withing a larger scope. By narrowing it with regs and ideas it just makes the cars MORE equal in performance and thus hard to overtake.

[henk4]

Mine is simple, give MORE flexibility back to the designers to innovate withing a larger scope. By narrowing it with regs and ideas it just makes the cars MORE equal in performance and thus hard to overtake.

That's the Catch 22 in F1. Every measure/new reg is intended to reduce costs. Give the designers more leeway and up go the costs again. I am not saying that I am against that, because the direction F1 is heading now is for a glorified Formula Ford event, using Cosworth engines....

[RacingManiac]

We'll just end up with double tyre changes, more pit stops.
"Unintended consequences" - they "look after" the current ones so they can eke out and plan pit strategy. "Softer" standard tyre and they'll all migrate to a new strategy they all follow - be that USE IT or SAVE IT.
Using it will likely lead to a mini-sprint race at the end, negating 90 minutes of racing. SO may down sides on new strategies I think.
I've never been a fan of the FORCED tyre usage regs.
Give the teams a number of tyres, a range of compounds and then let them decide what they want to run and for how long and how many changes.

I view it differently. You don't have to mandate pitstop, just make the only compound available being super soft and have at that. The problem right now currently, is that they are mandated at least 2 sets of tire for a race and both offer good durability. With the heavy fuel they all opt to protect the tire in the beginning and not use up the tire and just when the fuel goes light, you switch to your next set and since it has to last the race, you conserve more. The simulation tells them, that even if you push on first or 2nd set, whatever advantage you make up you lose in the extra pitstop, because the gaps in the car performance now is close, which means that you can drive 9/10th pace and get the mileage out of it, you are not lose as much time as an extra pit stop would. Give them soft tire, knowingly that a) it will not last a whole race anyway, and b) the long run pace drop-off is severe enough that even if you eeks it out, the time loss of running at 9/10th and at end of life is much worse than someone driving at 10/10. You force them to all speed up and that in itself is what a 90min race suppose to be, and when you are on the limit, you are more prone to error and tend to lead to passing.

Fundamental issue right now for me, is that they should not be racing like endurance race in a race thats only 300km long.

[henk4]

Have there been any figures published about the amounts of fuel left in the tanks after the three races so far? Has mileage been a problem for (some) teams?

[RacingManiac]

Not sure, though to be clear my point on mileage is the mileage of tire life.

[henk4]

Not sure, though to be clear my point on mileage is the mileage of tire life.

What I am trying to point at is whether the fuel mileage so far has played any role in the conservative driving observed toward the end of the races....what the tires do is for all to see, what the fuel does only for those with the laptops.

[TheScrutineer]

‘Brake testing’ in modern F1 is strictly forbidden and I can’t see anyone braking mid corner and getting away with it. Yes, you can brake heavily and slow yourself mid corner but this is safe, defensive driving.

Whilst in THEORY I could find areas of agreement.
IN FACT, the variables in the real world are already stretching the drivers ability and this introduces a LARGE one.
Your confidence in managing airflow is nice, but unrealistic.
The point I was introducing was the CHANGE in grip varying by another major factor and in the real world this WILL be non-linear, bordering on chaotic, especially in cornering, the change of attack of any surface alters it's aero effect. .

Don’t we already have moveable aero devices on road cars? In fact we already have moveable aero devices on F1 cars, albeit front wing winglets.

I still stand by my ‘sci-fi’ idea about setting aero angles for each corners before the race, and I think that this would add a good tactical element to the race and not wiping out wing angles in car-setup.

As for driving becoming ‘second nature’, maybe I could re-phrase this as ‘instinctive’. In that, the drivers would adapt to this with no problem at all. If you limit the maximum wing angle, then mid corner you would be getting the same grip levels as you have today. I can only imagine a less responsive ‘turn in’ as the wing level increases during steering input and not before.

As for the ‘Flaws’ – well firstly my point was to reduce max downforce and engine power in order to make the cars reach the same lap times as this year. As for the second flaw it is an unfortunate FACT that reducing downforce means less dirty air and more overtaking. You can not deny this. I say unfortunate because downforce is what makes F1 the pinnacle of motorsport and so should still play an important role. Also, lower engine power means closer racing though the only reason I suggested cutting power with smaller engines was to bring the laptimes down to this year and reflect the direction road cars are moving in (aero efficient cars with small eco engines).

On a separate note, yes Henk, Virgin in fact have not got a big enough fuel tank to finish the race! They have to rely on an engine map which massively cuts power to save fuel at the end of the race.

[henk4]

I was aware of the Virgin fuel tank size, but I thought it was an academic problem for them so far, as they always drop out well before the finish even gets remotely in sight..

[RacingManiac]

They did finish the last race...albeit 3 laps down, which is shorter distance in itself...

[Matra et Alpine]

"scrutineer", I think we come at the points from different sides.

Your "safe driving" woudl as pointed out be used to screw up aero -- unintended consequence.

I agree with you on theory.
But aero on road cars at road car speeds are nothing comparable to any single seater, never mind the pinnacle of F1.
"instinctive" has nothing to do with it. Fast track racers are able to each lap hit the SAME spot, bang on, for braking, turn in , acceleration and then make minor tweaks to all the variables eeking out better lap times whilst avoidign being hit and trying to overtake.
It's a skill and one that is worked VERY hard.
Thus, teams talk on radios on the straights. Not because radiowaves dont' go round corners, but the driver is too focussed on the task at hand everywhere else and a radio message will distubr concentration. Having more variables not under their direct control will make for a mch harder task and one that's not really about "driving" per se.

To come back to the computerised aero then I still stand by the first response -- we dont' want scalextric race cars. AND there is NO technology that is accurate enough and capable of takign all the inputs to make sure it adjusts things at the right time. So current tech will go back to what we have had where adjustment is set up in advance for a corner/braking zone eg brake balance. THEN all ideas of the aero mods assiting are gone as the car is not optimal for quite a time then.
Reducing downforce doesn't MEAN less dirty air
The design of the downforce components determines how dirty the air is/could be. So we'd still need regs to ensure the designers didnt' design "dirty". With movable devices that would be a near impossible task and one VERY expensive to test.
Interesting view that "downforce" is where the pinnnacle of F1 is. Guess that woudl be the view in recent decades. BUT, it WAS always about the pinnacle in all areas. Sadly the reduction in all the other areas is what is making the one NOT selected by regs - eg aero. Even there we haven't had that for a few seasons. Thus why I'd prefer to see more flexibility in all areas and not this obsession modern regs have on aero ... only because they've NEUTERED all the others.

You've not lived till you hear a Ferrari Flat-12, a Matra V12, DFV, Renault Turbo, BMW Turbo and many other favourites. Valid comment given on the cost reduction and again we ended up with an "unintended consequence" of the way they tried to reduce costs of boring formula-ford with more power cars. Hard to cap $$$, but some clever ideas exist in other sports. eg. You can spend as much as you like but at the end of the seasons ANYONE can buy the car for a fixed price. Or maybe mid season ? (only joking ) . So a STRONG incentive to stay within recommended expenditure guidelines.
( again there are loopholes some will take advantage of, BUT those things made racing better in the past. The Matra V12 woudl not have existed if not shared with Le Mans team )

rm, i wasn't suggesting mandated pit stops. Teams go back to having the flexibility to come up with the best strategy for their chassis/engine/driver. Of course again, this only works as long as all the cars dont' end up basically the same chassis/engine as F1 regs have effectively made it

[RacingManiac]

I think if anything we are seeing even with the tight regs, cars are different from one another, as witness the the pace disparity every season. And as long as the cars are not actually the same, different design solution will be found and cars will drive differently.