F1 Bloopers and Head-scratchers: Rules Edition

[Facts Only]

2016 Qualifying Changes.

A bad idea, executed badly. It made F1 look stupid and achieved nothing but embarrassment. The biggest blooper about the whole thing was that qualifying was one of the few bits of the rules that actually didn't need any changes!

[bhall II]

Change scares people.

But why did the fans not like the engines? They actually do like the engines, and the tech that accompanies them, just that they are not loud enough.

I don't see it...


Autosport via Racer


GPDA & Motorsport.com

As limited as it may be, the data doesn't paint a picture of a fan base that's especially interested in a heavily restricted formula driven by efficiency...like the current one.

EDIT: Does anyone know if the full results of the GPDA survey were released? All I can find is the executive summary.

[wesley123]

Arguably the rules are a bit more open than they were pre-V6. Engine manufacturers can now upgrade their engines according to a token system, whereas with the V8s, manufacturers could do little to none.

[bhall II]

Agreed.

That said, I personally think comparing the merits of the V8 formula to those of the power unit formula is a bit like saying, "I used to have syphilis; now I have gonorrhea."

[ME4ME]

The next generation C63, M3, MC12, 488, 911 will have a hybrid engine with a MGU-etc.

What do you base that assumption on? I very much doubt it. There might be some supercars getting an MGU-H, but the majority.. probably not.

F1 is forced to use MGU-H by regulation. They can make it work since the engine is putting out in the range of 700+bhp. Self sustained electrical energy is what, 80-90 kW from the MGU-H? I highly doubt it will be worth it for the cars you mention, given the additional weight, complexity, unreliability and significant economical cost it brings.

Because it's the next big step in performance and efficiency. The current super cars are beaten off the line by an electric luxury saloon car.
Plus the exotic super cars (P1, LaFerrari and the 918) are already flirting with this kind of tech.

It's a big step in technology. But it isn't yet applicable to sports cars, for all the reasons I just argued and you ignored. Foxhounds 1 example of 1 prototype car isn't going to change that. It will take years and multiple car generations for any such technology to make it to premium cars.

[Jolle]

What do you base that assumption on? I very much doubt it. There might be some supercars getting an MGU-H, but the majority.. probably not.

F1 is forced to use MGU-H by regulation. They can make it work since the engine is putting out in the range of 700+bhp. Self sustained electrical energy is what, 80-90 kW from the MGU-H? I highly doubt it will be worth it for the cars you mention, given the additional weight, complexity, unreliability and significant economical cost it brings.

Because it's the next big step in performance and efficiency. The current super cars are beaten off the line by an electric luxury saloon car.
Plus the exotic super cars (P1, LaFerrari and the 918) are already flirting with this kind of tech.

It's a big step in technology. But it isn't yet applicable to sports cars, for all the reasons I just argued and you ignored. Foxhounds 1 example of 1 prototype car isn't going to change that. It will take years and multiple car generations for any such technology to make it to premium cars.

These rules and goals are set by the FIA together with the engine manufactures, including the MGU-H. A sportscar with an MGU-K is already on the road, the BMW i8. The HGU-H tech is already in use by Cat on some big diggers.

This kind of tech is very useful on road sports cars. A very efficient small petrol engine, with e power to blast of the line like a Tesla. I truly believe that the next generation of 911/SLS/488/ect will have a 2.0 v6T as maximum, but still produce around 500hp/700hp peak. 0-100km/h in 2.0 seconds, electric assisted torque steer, re-gen on the front and rear axle and the fuel consumption on a regular drive in the same range as a small city car.

this will the next evolution of the F1 PU, re-gen on the front axle, with prob double or triple the energy storage and deployment and a drastic cut on the fuel flow. The ultimate goal, for F1 and road cars is to waist no more kinetic (braking) energy and be as efficient as possible.

[FoxHound]

Agreed.

That said, I personally think comparing the merits of the V8 formula to those of the power unit formula is a bit like saying, "I used to have syphilis; now I have gonorrhea."

Too far.

For one, syphilis and gonorrhea both develop. None of which can be said of the frozen engine formula.

I had a wart frozen once, it came back.
I will deplore another "equalised" "frozen" formula as much as I did the wart.

[flmkane]

The ban on testing is stupid.

[zac510]

On the complaint of F1 fuel saving, I don't watch (on TV) but I do read race reports from Indycar and NASCAR. Here are two series with refuelling, long races (up to 4 hours), many laps of racing and short pit lanes, many yellow/cautions (ie chances to make cheap pit stop), all factors I would have thought contrive to minimise the effect of carrying too much fuel and yet the teams in these series still regularly find ways to run out of fuel on the last lap.

That the fastest way to get to the end of a race is with less than the fuel you theoretically need, seems to me to be an effect of physics and dealing with other cars around your car (during the race) rather than the rules of the series.

[bhall II]

That the fastest way to get to the end of a race is with less than the fuel you theoretically need, seems to me to be an effect of physics and dealing with other cars around your car (during the race) rather than the rules of the series.

In NASCAR, it's about track position, because the time needed to complete a pit stop is usually longer than the time needed to complete a lap. That means there's virtually no way to stop under a green flag without losing multiple positions, which in turn means it's advantageous to stay out for as long as possible, especially late in the race,. Sometimes it works; other times it doesn't.


2016 Food City 500 at Bristol via racing-reference.info

EDIT: corrected link

[zac510]

Nice data, thanks!

[zac510]

The ban on testing is stupid.

My personal opinion only, but the testing ban delays the teams perfecting their understanding of the tyres (ie reverse-engineering them) and gaining an advantage by that.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't see it...

90% say it's important for F1 to be cutting edge. These engines are cutting edge. If they were louder no one would be moaning about the engines.

It's quite amazing that they can make so much power from a small engine and then vent it through an open pipe and it's so quiet. Turbo cars can be noisy as we have seen in the past. Efficient turbo cars much less so.

As with all of these surveys the results are fairly meaningless. In effect it says "we want what we want and we want it now" "yes, but what do you want?" "we want what we want". There is never any meaningful data in the noise. See the bits where they complain that F1 is boring but don't want to slow it down if it makes for better racing.

[ChrisDanger]

There is never any meaningful data in the noise. See the bits where they complain that F1 is boring but don't want to slow it down if it makes for better racing.

Well if I had my way F1 would be insanely fast, especially while cornering or changing direction (requiring mega-downforce) but also have close racing (which downforce hinders, IMO). Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world, no matter how much I wish we did. But I would hardly call that noise.

[graham.reeds]

I think the main issue is they don't learn from their mistakes and they make them with little or no consultation.

The rules governing the stepped noses were released and Scarbs did a pretty good overview of what we're were going to see and pretty much nailed it.

They then decided to lower the height if the noses and again we got the anteater designs which was predicted.

Then they messed with qualifying, which apparently was derided by the teams but they went ahead anyway.

They have very little long term view. Things that should be decided years in advance are enacted in weeks. Just recently teams were saying the FIA haven't finalised the canopy decision. Only with a new broom will the sport get out of the mire they are in.