Unregulated Formula 1 designs by F1 teams

[gold333]

Here's an idea I thought of:

What if every year, each team was asked (forced) to present a design of what an unregulated F1 car would look like according to their designer/team. Like the Red Bull X1 prototype Newey did for GT5.

A few sketches and half an A4 of explanatory text. From every head designer.

Perhaps a deadline of just before the last GP.

These designs would be put up for a public vote. The design the public likes best would be considered the winner.

Maybe prize money, or 3 million $ goes to the charity of choice or even championship points, whatever.

As long as the prize would warrant a serious effort on the part of the teams. Maybe even championship points


Think about it, every year the world of F1 would gain such a new, wider dimension, even if only from a technical interest, progression standpoint, let alone all other benefits.


And year on year the ultimate "what if" question, would be answered, AND kept up to date with advancements in technology as years go by.

[Cuky]

It is not a good idea to award such a big prize over a subjective vote. For example: smaller teams could argue that they didn't get the votes because they don't have such a fanbase like Ferrari or McLaren

[wesley123]

Agreed. The best design wouldn't win, the coolest looking would.

[Lycoming]

You realize that it wouldn't be an engineering contest right? With no independent means of validating performance, you just hire an artist or designer to sketch something that looks cool as balls. That's a hell of a thing to put 3 million on the line for.

[timbo]

Agreed. The best design wouldn't win, the coolest looking would.

Yep.

[Shrieker]

https://twitter.com/Lotus_F1Team/status ... to/1/large

I think number 9 should be made real, and no I'm not joking. That should solve the problem with stupid looking cars.

[gold333]

What if the vote was between all the F1 technical directors, engineers?

Obviously they would not be able to vote for their own entry.

Come on it's easy to say no or have a why mindset as opposed to why not.

I think it would be an extremely interesting yearly competition.

[Shrieker]

Quite honestly, that makes a bit more sense.

[Lycoming]

Come on it's easy to say no or have a why mindset as opposed to why not.

Not if championship points or millions of dollars of cash are at stake.

What if the vote was between all the F1 technical directors, engineers?

That doesn't change anything, they still have no way of validating performance. It's still just a popularity or art contest. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's a silly thing to stake points or large cash prizes on.

[Bazza]

The big problem here is what people are willing to accept as 'potential routes for F1 to go down', or at least, 'acknowledge as superior'.

The Red Bull X1, for instance. Looks fantastic, some great ideas there, but there will be lunatics who get their panties in a bunch because it doesn't have 'open wheels'.

What happens when you have the general public, or even casual racing fans, who think that open-wheel design is optimum or preferred in any way, suddenly realize that all the teams want closed wheels because they're better at everything?
Do they then think less of F1? Will they show more interest in Prototype racing?

I'm just using open/closed wheels as an example, but it could be applied to anything and everything. F1, let's be honest, is pretty far up it's on backside in terms of regulations - nothing comes close to it either technically, mechanically, or in any regulatory sense. It's so far removed from anything...reasonable (I can't think of a better word, maybe realistic? relevant?) that when you put a bunch of idealized, clean-sheet concepts next to it there's going to be a bit of a shock.

And then what - do you act on it, and fundamentally re-write F1 in the biggest regulation change in motor racing? It's a massive can of worms, but potentially very, very good for the sport. Or do you deny it, the whole thing being a massive tease, potentially bringing the sport into disrepute, and keeping F1 evolution firmly on it's railroad.


tl;dr, what happens when the public sees that what all F1 teams want to build looks nothing like a current F1 car?

[humble sabot]

https://twitter.com/Lotus_F1Team/status ... to/1/large

I think number 9 should be made real, and no I'm not joking. That should solve the problem with stupid looking cars.

This was the best F1 related thing i have ever seen! retweeting now.

[Slife]

The thing is though it is called Formula 1 for a reason, namely the cars are built to a specifiction/formula. But even if we try to objectively measure them somehow, I suspect if this contest was run long enough the designs would gravitate to be similar.

[f1316]

I'd love to see it but only as a curiosity, not with anything riding on it.

Maybe F1 as a whole should do an official link up with the Gran Turismo franchise, give the teams some of the money and ask them to design a crazy X1-type prototype for the game - obviously a cool looking one that the game engine thinks is fast would have good PR implications.

[j2004p]

I'd love to see it but only as a curiosity, not with anything riding on it.

Maybe F1 as a whole should do an official link up with the Gran Turismo franchise, give the teams some of the money and ask them to design a crazy X1-type prototype for the game - obviously a cool looking one that the game engine thinks is fast would have good PR implications.

Problem with that is that the game engine simply determines how the (in game (note real life)) physics are applied to a set of performance parameters (power, grip, drag etc) set against each car in the game.

Essentially the game does not dynamically work out how quick the car should go based on the physical model or motorsport teams would have a very inexpensive method of testing their cars . The performance parameters are simply a set of variables to determine how the car behaves within the game i.e. a car which looks like a brick could be the quickest in GT6 if the performance parameters were set to allow it to be so.

[Bazza]

I'd love to see it but only as a curiosity, not with anything riding on it.

Maybe F1 as a whole should do an official link up with the Gran Turismo franchise, give the teams some of the money and ask them to design a crazy X1-type prototype for the game - obviously a cool looking one that the game engine thinks is fast would have good PR implications.

Problem with that is that the game engine simply determines how the (in game (note real life)) physics are applied to a set of performance parameters (power, grip, drag etc) set against each car in the game.

Essentially the game does not dynamically work out how quick the car should go based on the physical model or motorsport teams would have a very inexpensive method of testing their cars . The performance parameters are simply a set of variables to determine how the car behaves within the game i.e. a car which looks like a brick could be the quickest in GT6 if the performance parameters were set to allow it to be so.

In principle, it's the same thing with the F1 simulators - you have to feed it information. It wouldn't simulate each droplet of fuel going through the engine, obviously, but on the flipside nowadays you can get more complex equations in there, going beyond a simple dyno graph for engine power, to something that incorporates turbocharger boost, throttle response, etc.

Same thing with aerodynamics - you could feed it an aeromap for car pitch/yaw/downforce/drag, that would be precalculated (either in cfd, WT or track testing, take your pick). Don't think that everything is calculated dynamically, it's almost always a product of precalculated information and real-time influences.

Obviously you could have a car that looks like a truck-sized brick, but tell the physics engine that it has a surface area of 1mm and a cd of 0.01, but that defeats the purpose, and is generally a result of some tool getting control of the physics data input. At some level there's gotta be competency, which I think you forgot about?