Drivers reveal how they would change and improve Formula 1

[Manoah2u]

You really dont understand engineering do you.

The engines are on the absolute limit all the time, its just that we understand exactly where the limit is now so dont cross it. Even if each driver were allowed a new non-fuel limited engine every session they still wouldnt break down in the race anymore because we can push them to the limit without going over it.

Also you dont seem to understand competition either. Nobody ever wins anything by retiring on lap 7. So no team is ever going to run a car that breaks down all the time unless they are completely incompetent... which they aren't.

And again, how do fragile cars beaking down half way through a race make for exciting close racing?

I'll leave it at that, trying to explain engineering to children on the internet is a bit of a non-starter.

I do believe that if they got a fresh PU for every weekend they would push them much harder and there would be more mechanical failures. The rules that cause one failure to cascade into problems throughout the season causes them to run much more conservatively than they would otherwise.

You can believe what you like, I'll stick to what I know from actual experience working on these things.

sure buddy, you must be the only person in internet history to have done more than change a spark plug on an engine.

[nokivasara]

They could allow for the use of the DRS for the whole lap. This could be quite interesting and bring back driver skill to the table.
No one likes the thing as it's used today but getting rid of it would probably bring back the trulli train.

[alexx_88]

If you make a Formula that attracts casual fans you'll get the purists disheartened. Casual fans want unpredictability, hence one of the reasons why football is one of the most popular sports on the planet. Reversed grids, success penalties, less scope for development, basically GP2 with more power and with F1 drivers behind the wheel.

I cringe when I read people asking for more downforce and faster cars. Implement those and all you get is a long line of cars following each other at slightly higher speeds.

[efuloni]

Can we go full silly in here?

Since the new ownership is american, I would dream of something like a draft for drivers. The drivers contracts would be signed with the F1 per si (like with liberty), not with the teams. And the teams would choose theirs drivers every year. At leats one of the drivers should be chosen in this system, like a Draft.

I know this is an impossible dream, but, think of the possibilities:
- every driver with enough points would be allowed to be chosen, no matter if has never been in f1 or has been and is out by now.
- the drivers would change teams and partners almost every year. How cool would be see Vettel in a Force India, for instance?

[henry]

Can we go full silly in here?

Since the new ownership is american, I would dream of something like a draft for drivers. The drivers contracts would be signed with the F1 per si (like with liberty), not with the teams. And the teams would choose theirs drivers every year. At leats one of the drivers should be chosen in this system, like a Draft.

I know this is an impossible dream, but, think of the possibilities:
- every driver with enough points would be allowed to be chosen, no matter if has never been in f1 or has been and is out by now.
- the drivers would change teams and partners almost every year. How cool would be see Vettel in a Force India, for instance?

Better still. 22 races and 22 cars the drivers can change car every race. Would yield a much more representative determination of WDC and WCC.

[Andres125sx]

I cant remember the last time I read so much pointless waffle

+1

[Andres125sx]

making engines more reliable inherently results in engines not being pushed to their possible limits.

Sorry but that´s nosense.
What is the limit? On a unreliable engine the limit is the point before breaking apart, on a reliable engine the limit is... the point before breaking apart

Every engine, reliable or unreliable, is pushed to the limits. The only factor wich will change the probability of a blow out is the misjudgement of the engineers if they think the limit is further than it really is, and that can happen both with a reliable and unreliable engine/PU


Anycase I partly agree with you at the respect that PUs wich must last 4-5 races are less prone to break apart, because if they do, they probably will do it on its 4th-5th race, while PUs wich must last 1 race have that chance of a fail on every race

if we'd use current electrics on 2004 engines, they'd be absolute monsters that will shake the living daylights out of the turbo monsters of the 80s.

again, technical castration.

Far from an expert here, but I´d say the hybrid part mission never was to improve perfomance, but efficiency. 2004 cars with this hybrid part would be slower, more efficient on fuel usage but slower.

[Andres125sx]

Anycase I find it amazing the lack of imagination of the interviewed drivers, the thread looked promising until reading the actual interview


1- Remove wings
2- Tires must last the whole race (to get rid of debris/marbles wich transform 8m wide track to 2m really usable ones)
3- Fan cars (so they´re less prone to disruption on dirty air)
4- Equal price money for every team (or at least based exclusively on past WCC)


Done!

[Manoah2u]

making engines more reliable inherently results in engines not being pushed to their possible limits.

Sorry but that´s nosense.

Anycase I partly agree with you at the respect that PUs wich must last 4-5 races are less prone to break apart, because if they do, they probably will do it on its 4th-5th race, while PUs wich must last 1 race have that chance of a fail on every race

It's nonsense but you agree?

It's not nonsense, the engine usage limit has the manufacturers pushed to make them more reliable. therefore, they have to sacrifice some performance orientation. In an extreme example, remember those good old 'qualifying' engines from the late 80's slash early 90's? they would only last 1 qualifying session, and would fail/blow/whatever if they had to do a race or practice session additionally. The same build of engine 'tuned down' was used for the races so it would manage to do a full race.
Result; at the benefit for reliability, you lose possible performance.
Even simpler put, more extreme : If the same homologised engine today needs to do 3 or 4 races, and then they 'suddenly' must do 30 or 40 races, then you inherently lose a [significant] amount of performance to favor reliability.

So instead of voting down because you don't grasp the concept, just think about it for more than a second.

As the truth is, because the rules have made it so these engines can only do a couple of races - to create a 'greener' image - something must be compromised.

IF they had not 'enlarged' the forced lifespan of these engines, we would see even more powerful PU's now.
Hence, the engines or let's say performance is castrated to favor reliability thanks to artificial measures ( use limit ).

As for the hybrid part, no, that never was the mission - to improve performance. And no, not for efficiency either.
It's done for the automobile industry, to create a greener image for sports cars to lessen the dull image of hybrids, which were and still are the future untill full electric / hydrogen takes over, but we're decades away atleast.

2004 cars would be slower? really?!!!! Dude are you serious?

Even if it's not the mighty M12 engine of ye, putting out about 1400 BHP,
The BMW 3.0 V10 P83 engine developed a massive 940 hp at 19,000 rpm.
Non-turbocharged, non-hybrid.
Imagine adding current hybrid electric systems to those V10 monsters.

Yes, current V6 Turbo engines are nearly double as efficient, but that's thanks to A) running partially electric ( worth about 160 BHP iirc, perhaps even more ) and B) because we're 12 years further in time and that's the restriction imposed.

I for one would be very curious to find out how a V10 hybrid would sound like.

Still, the BMW M12 engine was a turbo charged 4-cylinder engine, so there's room everywhere for fun.

Engines today are not spectacular. They are intelligent, supremely technologically advanced, and amazeballs for tech geeks, but they lack spectacle like the 'dinosaurs' of age.

F1 will never step away from hybrid and return solely to combustion power, and i understand that direction and am not even against it. I just dont see why they have to artifically force so much 'castration'. There's Formula E for the tree huggers.
There are many other GP classes where efficiency can be more of a game.

F1 used to be about 'pushing over the edge', not 'dont you dare even think about ingenuity because of the carbon impact that makes and the extra money it will cost'.

I dont have a problem with coke bottle displacement v6 engines paired to a electrical unit. I do have a problem with the castration imposed alongside it in the form of too severe fuel flow limits and engine use limits. 125 kgs would have been impressive enough. 100 like now is just c*ckblocking and 105 next year with the added weight and aero changes is just sad.

[Manoah2u]

and really 'voting down because 'obviously more than yourself' ?

are you in the position to judge my knowledge and experience with engines? no you don't, you have no clue.

[Andres125sx]

making engines more reliable inherently results in engines not being pushed to their possible limits.

Sorry but that´s nosense.

Anycase I partly agree with you at the respect that PUs wich must last 4-5 races are less prone to break apart, because if they do, they probably will do it on its 4th-5th race, while PUs wich must last 1 race have that chance of a fail on every race

It's nonsense but you agree?

If you read what you quoted yourself, you should understand it. What is nosense is saying a F1 engine is not pushed to the limits because of reliability. A PU with poor reliability means the limits is lower than expected, not that they don´t push it to the limit.

And agree with the part I said I agree

It's not nonsense, the engine usage limit has the manufacturers pushed to make them more reliable. therefore, they have to sacrifice some performance orientation. In an extreme example, remember those good old 'qualifying' engines from the late 80's slash early 90's? they would only last 1 qualifying session, and would fail/blow/whatever if they had to do a race or practice session additionally. The same build of engine 'tuned down' was used for the races so it would manage to do a full race.
Result; at the benefit for reliability, you lose possible performance.

Obviously, but you must be thinking FIA didn´t consider that before and that reduction is perfomance has been a surprise to them

You´ve find the reason they decided 1.6 turbo engines even when 3 decades ago a smaller engine (1.5) produced the highest power any F1 has ever produced.

It´s not like you try to put it saying reliability is harming perfomance, but the other way around, they knew for reliability perfomance must be lower, so they decided to go for a bigger displacement engine to compensate

So instead of voting down because you don't grasp the concept, just think about it for more than a second.

I´m afraid it´s you who don´t grasp the concept, so not a surprise that you don´t accept the downvote

IF they had not 'enlarged' the forced lifespan of these engines, we would see even more powerful PU's now.
Hence, the engines or let's say performance is castrated to favor reliability thanks to artificial measures ( use limit ).

And this is the proof, you think if they would have allowed 1 PU per GP they would be more powerful. Sorry but that´s a mistake. In that case the PU would be smaller, period. FIA has never pretended 1500bhp PU, they always targeted close to 1000bhp PU, that can be achieved with 1.6 displacement engines wich must last 4-5 GPs or with 1.0-1.2 displacement engines wich can be replaced at every GP. This is the concept you don´t grasp

2004 cars would be slower? really?!!!! Dude are you serious?

Even if it's not the mighty M12 engine of ye, putting out about 1400 BHP,
The BMW 3.0 V10 P83 engine developed a massive 940 hp at 19,000 rpm.
Non-turbocharged, non-hybrid.
Imagine adding current hybrid electric systems to those V10 monsters.

I can imagine a lot of things, even a magic hybrid part wich add 160bhp with no weight penalty, but I´m afraid that´s far from real, the hybrid part has a serious weigh penalty wich may probably ruin the benefit of some more power for some percentage of the lap, as the weight penalty apply constantly (accelerating, braking and cornering) while the power benefit is only applied when accelerating, and only some percentage of the lap, so you get a constant drawback for an intermitent/sporadic benefit.

[Andres125sx]

and really 'voting down because 'obviously more than yourself' ?

are you in the position to judge my knowledge and experience with engines? no you don't, you have no clue.

Yes I am, as I´m reading your posts

[Manoah2u]

wow, you're really full of it.

[Manoah2u]

And this is the proof, you think if they would have allowed 1 PU per GP they would be more powerful. Sorry but that´s a mistake.

in what world are you living? obviously with the same investments possible, the engines would have been more powerful as they can wear the very same engine down a whole lot more untill it cracks. are you really that thick?

In that case the PU would be smaller, period.

FIA has never pretended 1500bhp PU, they always targeted close to 1000bhp PU, that can be achieved with 1.6 displacement engines wich must last 4-5 GPs or with 1.0-1.2 displacement engines wich can be replaced at every GP. This is the concept you don´t grasp

you're not the one that is able to grasp it.
The discussion is about how FIA is castrating F1 and what to do to improve it.
I dont give a flying funk about what FIA pretends to target.

You fail to understand too that with 1.0 or 1.2 L displacement engines you're also performance-restricted if they're mandated to do 5 races instead of 1. Whether it's a 1.0 L, a 1.5 L, a 3.0 L, whether it's a 4-cyl, a V6, a V8 or V10/V12,
if you tighten the rope of engine usage, and tighten the rope of fuel usage, you hamper and castrate possible output.

Technological advancement and engineering has resulted in current 1.6L V6 engines running on a fuel of 100KGS,
when the older 3.0 L V10 engines N/A took about 180KGS of fuel.
Are they more reliable? Yes, but not because of the fuel usage. They are because the old V10's were allowed to do
much more mileage on a single engine. Are they more economic? Basically yes, but one still forgets that the current
hybrid powertrains HELP the engines. In other words, if a classic 3.0 L V10 had an output of 1000 HP, and used let's
say 200 KGS of fuel, than every HP costs 5 KG of fuel. so let's say the electric part runs 150 HP.
That equals 30 K's of fuel less needed.
That means they now 'only' need 170 KG of fuel.
Is F1 more economic now?
Basically no. Because the same engine still uses the same amount of fuel, they just compensated the loss of power with
an electric auxilarry. When they managed to make that very same engine displacement [3.0 V10 N/A] run on 150 KG of fuel paired to that electric system, and STILL produce the same 1000HP figure THEN yes, it is more economic. NOT if it turns out that they now produce 850 HP instead of the 1000 HP and compensate that through mandated aerodynamic changes to keep the laptimes similar.

but back to the point this topic is about ; how to improve f1.

i'll repeat what i stand by; the castration of f1 through artificial means.
want more economic cars? sure.
want more reliable cars? sure.

but don't exeggerate it.

Had we had a fuel limit of 110k's we would not have seen cars 'lift and coasting' and 'remember fuel' through radio calls 'fuel is critical' and saw drivers release their pedal. We would have seen more spectacular racing. Whats spectacular of seeing a driver being passed because he has a fuel handicap?
Same with the tire BS.

capiche?

[Andres125sx]

wow, you're really full of it.

Then please enlighten me, what is your engineering experience?