What would you do?

[Shant F]

A topic I've wanted to throw open for a while now.

Most of you will know my attitude to the current technical regulations, and my vehement opposition to them. I'll recap them in my post, but my question is - if you were at the helm of F1, what would you change in the regulations to make the racing better?

Please can we not have "Ban Michael"/"Force someone to employ JV" and so on...sensible suggestions appreciated.

Anyway, my thoughts:

1) Ban carbon brakes and pads, replace with steel rotors. Simple reason for this. Bear in mind that the longest braking distance in F1 these days, from max speed to tight corner, is around 90 metres - many distances are a lot less than this. Bear in mind also that an F1 car is roughly 3 metres long. So if a driver wants to overtake another competitor under brakes, he needs to make up at least six metres - the three metres to pull alongside, and another three metres to pull clear in front. So a driver needs to have an advantage of at least 7% on skill. Given that we speak of (nominally at least) the 20 best drivers in the world, it is apparent that, at least under a straightforward task such as braking for a corner, such a difference does not exist.

Compare and contrast with steel brakes. With an equivalent set (same size), it is estimated that braking distances blow out to around 300 metres. Not hard to see how much more of an opportunity 6/300 represents than 6/90. There is also the possibility for driver error - it is much easier to damage a set of steel rotors than carbon ones. It's all about putting it in the hands of the drivers.

No doubt there will be some who argue that F1 is 'the pinnacle of technology' etc etc and that 'dumbing it down' in this way is contrary to the principle of F1. Two reasons why this argument doesn't wash with me - firstly, F1 has got too fat and complacent with this attitude for its own good, and secondly, when was the last time you saw a road car with carbon brakes? Never, because they don't exist. Carbon brakes, incidentally, should not be confused with carbon ceramic brakes, like those fitted to the Ferrari Enzo and Porsche Carrera GT. These are much better than ordinary cast iron rotors, but nowhere near as good as carbon ones. The reason why they're not used on road cars is simple - they work by diffusing energy as heat and dust, and so they wear down pretty quickly, so they're hopelessly impractical on road cars.

A nice additional benefit is that steel brakes are much less expensive and would therefore also help cut costs.

2) Cut back on aero. The current ratio of aero to mechanical grip is roughly 70:30. Clearly this is a problem because it makes it far harder for the cars to run close together in corners and therefore line up overtaking moves. The solution therefore is to legislate the amount of downforce provided by the rear wing, because the front wing produces far more downforce (partly due to size, partly due to the fact it gets undisturbed air) and is used as a trimming device for the rear. This also explains why the rule change to raise the height of the front wing in 2001 didn't have any effect at all - because the front wings can produce more downforce than can ever be used.

The recent move to cut the number of rear wing elements to only two is a big step in the right direction, but why not just one? Wouldn't hurt to make the wing itself a smaller size either. Because of the reduction in rear downforce, the front suffers a reduction of the same amount (and it would be considerable, probably over 50%), which automatically puts the balance back in favour of mechanical grip.

3) Ban rear diffusers. In the days of ground effect these were used to accelerate airflow underneath the car and therefore increase downforce. But since ground effect was banned, what most people don't realise that these don't actually have any effect on grip, because since the introduction of the plank, the 'stepped' floor and minimum ride height there is virtually no downforce generated underneath the car anymore. Replacing it with an extended section of flat floor wouldn't reduce grip, but would dispense with the 'vacuum' area behind the car which the diffuser is placed there specifically to create. By having a vacuum, it means that there is less air density pushing down on the front wing of the car immediately following and therefore, less downforce. This problem is, of course, magnified as the cars travel faster.

Bear in mind also that if the cars weren't so dependent on aero grip, the diffuser would be less effective as a sabotage device.

4) Bring back slicks. If everything else was kept the same and grooved tyres were replaced by slicks, the aero-mechanical grip balance would shift to around 60:40. Clearly this is beneficial in terms of achieving more overtaking.

But there's another problem with grooved tyres too. Whilst the compounds themselves allow for tremendous grip, grooved tyres, unlike slicks, have a characteristic which means that once they start to let go, they let go very suddenly, because in really simplified terms, grooved tyres have a series of patches with 'hard' edges, while slicks have a constant patch, which makes it more predictable and easier to slide (and recover). Therefore, drivers are more inclined to push harder on slicks than grooves, and therefore it's more likely that the viewing itself will be more exciting.

5) Dispense with traction control. I'm indifferent to semi-automatic gearboxes, but traction control should be banned and if I had my way someone would be able to police it. Apart from the 'haves and have-nots' thing (some systems are a lot more sophisticated than others) it's just another case of putting more control in the hands of the driver.

I've almost certainly forgotten something, probably many things, and I want to hear your thoughts, but if I could see all of that happen (dream on), I'd be one very happy bunny.

[Bilal]

erm....thats a looong post....
_________________
Jacques Attack!

[Silverchamp]

I agree completely except on the point about the tyres. In principle it is a good idea, but in the current climate of looking after the "have nots," I feel that such a radical overhaul of the tyre regulations might force up the costs as Michelin/Bridgestone would have to rethink their philosophy and moulds.
A new form of tyre might also lead to more accidents with more delaminations and punctures as the manufacturers get to grips with new regulations, and as Hakkinen demonstrated in Hockenheim 99, a delamination may have a spectacular, but a potentially dangerous outcome.
I'm all for banning traction control. Michael made so many more mistakes without it...

[tiggers]

Ban Michael/force JV out of retirement - just kidding

Agree with you entirely on points 2 to 5, but I don't think changing the brakes will make that much difference. Sure it will increase braking distance, but it'll be the same for all cars/drivers and as you say we are talking about nominally the top 19 in the world (and DC ) so they will still probably all get it right to within 2 - 3 % every time - not enough to make passing any easier IMHO.

Simply sorting the diffusers, slicks and aero grip would have a huge benefit on this anyway.

There is one massive thing you have forgotten though and that is the circuits themselves. What is the point of circuits where passing is difficult - motor racing is supposed to involve overtaking regardless of what Bernie/Max say.

The sanitised excuses for circuits that make up much of the GP calendar need to be restored to their former glory or removed from the calendar altogether and rplaced with some proper circuits. No I don't want to see them made dangerous, but surely in this day and age it is possible to have a challaneging circuit that allows lots of passing opportunities which is also reasonably safe.

Still that would involve someone with a genuine interst in racing (note the word racing) running the show wouldn't it?

[Slightly Decent]

If you look at the race today, there wasn't much overtaking. There was JPM who pushed button onto the gress. there was JPM again who eventually passed trulli. There was Fisi behind Heidfeld and then not a lot else.

Making it easier to overtake would probably make it less interesting, at least when JPM was behind Trulli the battle went on for a while and JPM eventually got past. Sane with Fisi and NH.

The problem is Schumi goes out and is uncatchable. RB can't get MS, but is still ahead of Alonso. Alonso is out in the wilderness. The cars usually get spread out over the race that they're not near each other to overpass in the first place.

Maybe get rid of the blue flag rule so Schumi would have had to carve through the traffic upon lapping them?

[Bilal]

and maybe some of the back-markers would do us a favour and give schumi a slight "nudge"......
_________________
Jacques Attack!

[HoosierDaddy]

[texanF1]

I would add to that list of raising the ride height of the cars no semi-automatic transmissions, teams using regular 87 octane unleaded fuel,
and forcing the tire manufacturers to use much harder compounds.. As for the rest of the list, all are fine ideas.
_________________
Racing is life, everything in between is just waiting.

[Shant F]

Thanks for all of your replies.

The unfortunate fact is that aero and lots of overtaking are mutually incompatible concepts. Reliance on aero grip is a fact of life in current F1, but it also explains why it's boring. It's true that cars will shake themselves out, but isn't that the point of a race, the fastest cars win? I thought it a bit of an anomaly this weekend that the runners were spaced out so far, I hope it isn't an indication of the season. But with these new rules, that wouldn't (hopefully) be a problem. And if anyone doubts that overtaking is all but impossible, watch Canada 2003 again. Remember that this is a track on which there are at least two big stops where it should be more than possible to overtake a slower car. Michael struggled with tyres all race and still wound up heading a four-car train over the line, and two of the drivers were Montoya and Alonso, who haven't shown a noticeable tendency to avoid getting in the thick of it. You tell me where the problem lies.

Good idea for policing the traction control HD, but would it actually work? I'm not much of a boffin when it comes to these things, I have a reasonable grasp of how they work but none at all of the technical stuff which makes it work. If that makes sense.

Interesting idea about the tracks, but while I think most of the tracks these days are poor and sterile (and should be replaced for that reason) the racing itself isn't one of them. If you implemented all of the rule changes in my first post, it wouldn't matter what track you put them on, there would be overtaking at all of them, even Monaco. It's always been hard to overtake at Monaco but before aero became the critical component, it was a damn sight easier.

You're right Tiggers that doing most of the above (excluding brakes) will sort most of it, but like I said before, it is easy for a driver to inflict damage on a set of steel brakes - he can glaze them, warp them, or simply wear them out. Last time I can remember a carbon rotor letting go was Frentzen's Williams at the 1997 Australian GP, and that was because of the increased loads because of the newly-commenced tyre war. So if there's more potential for damage, drivers have to be a bit more careful about what they do to them - it also means drivers with talent stand out.

And I completely agree on cutting testing. Knew I'd forgotten something. Give each team a set number of test days - say 20 days over a year. Then tell them that they can run 1 car per day, at one track. They can run two or three cars in one day - in fact, as many as they want - but if they do that, it uses more of their 'bank' of test days. So if they ran three drivers on a test day, that would be the equivalent of three test days. The point of this is not necessarily to cut costs, because if Ferrari has (say) 300 million to spend on its F1 programme over a season, take it as read that Ferrari will find a way in which to spend 300 million. This isn't unique to F1, it happens in all top-line motorsport. Rather, the point is to minimise the gap between the factory teams (and I include Williams and McLaren in that) and the privateers. In theory, with the law of diminishing returns, even though the top teams will spend more time (and money) in the wind tunnel and on engine development, the gap from this will be less than the gap which currently exists due to testing. And by restricting testing, it gives the top teams less opportunity to try out new developments.

Of course you can imagine the probability of this actually happening, but I can always dream. If we're lucky, what it might also do is get minds in some of the wealthier boardrooms thinking, exactly why do we need to give Ferrari or whoever 100 million for 18 races and 20 days of testing? Wouldn't 75 million suffice? And so on. A telling comment I heard this weekend from Sir Jackie Stewart was to the effect that F1 drives the sponsors - in other words, sponsors want to be involved because of the glamour and prestige and so on. And of course that's true. But what F1 needs to work on now is to ensure that they can bring the money involved back down to manageable levels in soft steps, rather than a great big thud. And it will, if they won't. Being the height of technological development is all very well, but at some point there has to be a line drawn and someone needs to say this is getting ridiculous. And F1 passed that line a fair while ago.

[themark]

Many good suggestions so far in this thread. I hope someone who can make these kinds of changes is listening. My 2-bits in this conversation follows along the lines of track design as well. The circuits are so designed now (even Sepang) that the risks inherent in attempting passing are just too high. It's not about car-width (which is narrower than before), it's about gravel traps. Nothing I loathe more on modern F1 tracks than gravel. The penalty for making a daring stab at a corner is "getting beached". Since when was this condusive to passing? The merits of said trap are still debatable when it comes to safety. I find that gravel tends more to "unsettle" a spinning car, rather than slow it down. Last year there were a couple of instances (help me here) where a car went wide into a paved area, and was able to re-join the fight. IMHO this made making an attempt at a pass a little more acceptable in terms of risk. The cars and tracks are so incredibly safe now, do we really need this unneccessary extra hazard? It's not golf?
_________________
Look into my eye...

[apex]

Everyones suggestions are music to my ears. Will Bernie and Max finally see the light? For me, revisions that would have a positive effect on racing conditions are:

1/ reinstatement of slicks (larger wheels on the rear if possible)

2/ Removal of the "Great Equalizer" traction control. (This one change will do more to restoring pure driver ability to the fore in F1 than anything else)

3/ elimate paddle shifters and replace with sequential stick shift. This change would get alot of opposition from drivers but not true racers. It's simply harder to drive a car with a stick shift than a paddle shifter. More mistakes will occur especially as drivers fatigue or experience pressure.

4/ Track revisions- removal of many chicanes that are designed to slow cars down that effectively mitigates the more talented and brave racers.

5/ Brakes- I'm still thinking about the carbon brakes issue - i think i'm leaning to keeping them as long as traction control is eradicated. Even though cars will still be able to go deep into the corners, driver ability will determine who comes out of the corner with more pace without traction control.

6/ One standard tyre by one manufacturer. Tyre wars cost money and require thousands of miles in testing to keep up with the competition. level the tyre playing fields for all teams. Ban intermediate tyres. Allow only slicks and wets.

[nojvnof1]

BRING BACK SLICKS!!!! plus cut aero, take of TC and bring back the old style gear shifters, that 'll really sort out the men from the sissies.

shaun
_________________
Gilles and Jacques - The Villeneuve Dynasty
"Humanity makes itself unnecessarily complicated simply by not telling it like it is" - Jacques Villeneuve

[BMG_Cya]

[Slightly Decent]

Giving more room for overtaking still isn't going to bring the cars closer together. a few laps after the start the cars are spread out and very few cars are going to catch up to any of the others, unless a fast car qualifies poorly.

the performance between teams varies to the extent that the cars are spread out nicely for most of the race. So many cars were left out in the wilderness last year. I can remember several races where Mark Webber just drove around with no one to pressure and no one to pressure him. Same thing happened with Alonso.

More cars would mean more overtaking. Allowing teams to sell old chassis would make F1 more affordable and attractive to privateers, or for something like Renaults plan for a B team.

[Silverchamp]

I'm all for the improving/changing circuits that suit better racing and overtaking, but I'm a bit concerned at the apparent lack of imagination that Herman Tilke has put into the new tracks.
It seems that all you have to do to get overtaking is to have a two mile long straight with a hairpin at the end (Nurburgring, Sepang, Hockenheim, Bahrain, China). It can't be fun to drive that sort of thing again and again and I imagine it might become a bit tedious to watch.

I agree that we need new tracks - but ones with a bit of a challenge - eau rouge style. Surely, as others have said, in this day and age, we can have some imaginative tracks that are as great to watch as they are to drive with overtaking.
Having said that though, Formula One would never be the same if Monaco was axed to make way for a track with better overtaking.

And that's another thing. Why get rid of Austria? That was a great track with plenty of passing spots. Bring it back and axe Imola instead. Keep Magny Cours (great races there) and get rid of Hungary if you have to get rid of any.
I'd be interested yo hear anyone elses comments on Herman Tilke's efforts.
_________________
To finish first, first you must be Finnish