A different way of writing regulations

[f1316]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I've had this thought bouncing around my brain for a while and just wanted to express it:

The main problem for me in Formula 1 (and I'm not someone constantly bemoaning the sport, I still greatly enjoy it and look forward to each race) is that there is one, very prescribed approach to most problems - i.e. what the FIA want teams to be doing.

Case in point - engines. FIA, in collaboration with some engine manufacturers perhaps (but certainly not Bernie), wanted more fuel economic engines in order to be more relevant. Great, I agree with that. But their solution was to say: you have to develop a V6 turbo that harvests energy in this way etc.

Why not simply say: you can only use this much fuel - how you do that is your business. Obviously that is an approach more akin to WEC but why isn't it also better for formula 1? Renault probably would love to find a way to do something relevant for their style of cars - maybe the 4 cylinder, as originally proposed - but Ferrari might try something with a lot more; it's doubtful they could do anything with a V12 with limited fuel, but who knows? Pose the engineering question and see what they come up with.

Noses are another point: you want low noses so you say "it has to fit in this box and have these exclusion zones and have a single cross section..." which ultimately leads to some, but not much, variation. But what the FIA really wants is cars that don't fly over the top of each other when they t-bone. So why not just design a test where you simulate this kind of incident? Again, how you pass the test is your business.

I certainly don't have all the answers - or even really know what I'm talking about - but I think the entire thing would be a lot more interesting if challenges were posed rather than prescriptive regs. I'm sure the objection to doing something like this is cost but, ya know, the pinnacle of motorsport is going to cost a shedload - the sooner we just accept that, the better.

[Just_a_fan]

The rules are written to try to stop designers being clever - that's why they are so convoluted. The problem is that someone will always come up with a clever interpretation; look at Force India's new nose, for example.

If you want to ensure designers do it a certain way, you need to just say this is the item you can use i.e. you do a drawing of the item and the car must include exactly that item. The problem, for some, is that it is then becoming a "spec series".

However, as for fuel use you could just say "the car must start with 100 litres of fuel and must finish with 1 litre (for testing), over to you chaps to design from there.". That would work. For any physical part e.g. a wing or nose etc. you would need to define it on a drawing to ensure only that solution was presented on the car.

[langwadt]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I've had this thought bouncing around my brain for a while and just wanted to express it:

The main problem for me in Formula 1 (and I'm not someone constantly bemoaning the sport, I still greatly enjoy it and look forward to each race) is that there is one, very prescribed approach to most problems - i.e. what the FIA want teams to be doing.

Case in point - engines. FIA, in collaboration with some engine manufacturers perhaps (but certainly not Bernie), wanted more fuel economic engines in order to be more relevant. Great, I agree with that. But their solution was to say: you have to develop a V6 turbo that harvests energy in this way etc.

Why not simply say: you can only use this much fuel - how you do that is your business. Obviously that is an approach more akin to WEC but why isn't it also better for formula 1? Renault probably would love to find a way to do something relevant for their style of cars - maybe the 4 cylinder, as originally proposed - but Ferrari might try something with a lot more; it's doubtful they could do anything with a V12 with limited fuel, but who knows? Pose the engineering question and see what they come up with.

Noses are another point: you want low noses so you say "it has to fit in this box and have these exclusion zones and have a single cross section..." which ultimately leads to some, but not much, variation. But what the FIA really wants is cars that don't fly over the top of each other when they t-bone. So why not just design a test where you simulate this kind of incident? Again, how you pass the test is your business.

I certainly don't have all the answers - or even really know what I'm talking about - but I think the entire thing would be a lot more interesting if challenges were posed rather than prescriptive regs. I'm sure the objection to doing something like this is cost but, ya know, the pinnacle of motorsport is going to cost a shedload - the sooner we just accept that, the better.

if the engine configuration was free you risk that someone pick the wrong configuration and has to scrap it and start over at immense cost, I doubt many manufacturers are willing to risk that

and what if the optimum configuration turned out to be a 3 cylinder doing <5krpm? people are already rioting about V6s doing 10krpm being to quiet

[flynfrog]

if the engine configuration was free you risk that someone pick the wrong configuration and has to scrap it and start over at immense cost, I doubt many manufacturers are willing to risk that

and what if the optimum configuration turned out to be a 3 cylinder doing <5krpm? people are already rioting about V6s doing 10krpm being to quiet

Works ok for Lemans

[Moose]

The issue is non-trivial. There's an "obvious" solution, which is to write the rules to say exactly what you mean. If you mean "the cars should be efficient", then write "the cars should be efficient". You can probably expand on that in a technical way - "a car must complete the race with at most 4.44GJ of energy (in any and all forms) on board at the start, and with no additional energy added by the pit crew at any point".

However, you also need to write the rules for a different goal - to be enforceable. Trying to write "you may not spend more than $100m a year" in an enforceable way has proven to be completely impossible, and I don't think anyone on this forum (or anywhere) has a reasonable solution to writing that rule.

The result has been that the rules have been written in such a way that you *can* spend $300m if you want, but that last $200m is going to gain you as little as possible. I don't think I have a better "solution" to the problem than the current stop gap, and I don't think anyone here does either.

I'd be really interested to hear it if you genuinely do though.

[langwadt]

if the engine configuration was free you risk that someone pick the wrong configuration and has to scrap it and start over at immense cost, I doubt many manufacturers are willing to risk that

and what if the optimum configuration turned out to be a 3 cylinder doing <5krpm? people are already rioting about V6s doing 10krpm being to quiet

Works ok for Lemans

well, does it really? Audi and Porsche are matched because they run with different fuels and get equalized, Toyota can't keep up, is that because Toyota have bad engineers or because their choice of engine configuration cannot keep up when the equalization for the Porsches are aplied to them?

[DRU842]

I have been stating for sometime that the rules in F1 are too prescriptive and I'm happy to agree with the direction of this discussion. I was also heartened to see this area being discussed on Sky's F1 program this week.
There should be a 'box' for the cars to fit through, a way for engine / power output equivalency, some 'crash test' oversight and let's go racing. Different solutions, will suit different circuits, allow chassis & power units to be sold & traded.
It's not always the big spenders who come out on top and this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor-sport, so quit with the unenforceable restrictions and heading down the one size fits all path & allow some creativity.

[Just_a_fan]

To help with costs - because it really is an issue - the rules should also allow teams to buy bits in from other teams. Sure, we could end up with a grid which is made up of 3 or 4 main teams and 3 or 4 "B teams" (basically Ferrari, Mercedes etc. running cars no.3 and 4 under another name) but we'd still have a worthwhile grid. This might also allow talented drivers to get in to a team rather than half the grid being stuffed with lower-talent pay drivers.

The reality is that, no matter how clever they are, Manor Marussia are never going to challenge the order if they have to design and build everything from scratch. It's too expensive. Even if they came up with some clever idea which gave them a sizeable advantage, like McLaren with the F-duct, the big teams will be able to out-spend them and overtake them both in development and on track.

Of course, you could make a rule that says "you're not allowed to copy someone's innovative idea during the season". That way a team, like Manor, that found 2s/lap by some clever means gets to keep that for the rest of the season. Currently, the teams converge on a common set of parts - look at the front wings and you'll see most are getting very close to Mercedes' wing without actually copying it verbatim

[f1316]

I have no problem with complete customer cars - for me, one company simply buying a fully formed car in order to run it is part of the sport's history (one only has to watch Rush to see an example), part of its dna and hence completely normal to go down that route. As mentioned, it could also help with costs, allowing less prescriptive solutions (and if a smaller team has not had to bother developing their chassis, who is to say it won't free then up them to develop something for it that is innovative without being super expensive?)

Similarly, and this probably stretches most people's ideas of what should be allowed, I think engines and tyres should be entirely open; that is to say, if the teams are told the only engine restriction is it has to use 100kg of fuel for a weekend, they should be able to go and find any engine that fits the criteria. If Porsche's lmp1 'power unit' does,Sauber should be able to say 'sell us one' and fit it to the car (should they so wish - in reality that particular example would not work). Porsche shouldn't need to 'enter f1' for this to happen.

Likewise, tyres have to be a certain size, but if mclaren want to go and get some from Goodyear, go for it. There would be no problem with having to guarantee of a certain amount of stops (I.e. Hard tyres) if we had refuelling, but even without the variation would add intrigue.

[wesley123]

if the engine configuration was free you risk that someone pick the wrong configuration and has to scrap it and start over at immense cost, I doubt many manufacturers are willing to risk that

and what if the optimum configuration turned out to be a 3 cylinder doing <5krpm? people are already rioting about V6s doing 10krpm being to quiet

Works ok for Lemans

well, does it really? Audi and Porsche are matched because they run with different fuels and get equalized, Toyota can't keep up, is that because Toyota have bad engineers or because their choice of engine configuration cannot keep up when the equalization for the Porsches are aplied to them?

It's because Toyota's budget is lower than that of Audi and Porsche.

[Just_a_fan]

Similarly, and this probably stretches most people's ideas of what should be allowed, I think engines and tyres should be entirely open; that is to say, if the teams are told the only engine restriction is it has to use 100kg of fuel for a weekend, they should be able to go and find any engine that fits the criteria. If Porsche's lmp1 'power unit' does,Sauber should be able to say 'sell us one' and fit it to the car (should they so wish - in reality that particular example would not work). Porsche shouldn't need to 'enter f1' for this to happen.

I like this; F1 cars are, almost by definition, prototype vehicles. This would allow them to showcase different solutions to a given problem - how to cover 305km in the shortest time possible with 100kg of fuel. I get the feeling, however, that the big teams probably wouldn't like this idea having just invested shed loads of money on their new engines.

Likewise, tyres have to be a certain size, but if mclaren want to go and get some from Goodyear, go for it. There would be no problem with having to guarantee of a certain amount of stops (I.e. Hard tyres) if we had refuelling, but even without the variation would add intrigue.

I can see this being an interesting variation but I doubt a tyre manufacturer would be prepared to risk the exposure (of being a "bad" tyre) and cost of possibly only supplying one team. I guess the answer could be to set a tyre size that is common to other formulae e.g. LMP1. Or even, shockingly, allow the teams to pick their own wheel/tyre size provided it is no more than certain width.

[noname]

if the engine configuration was free you risk that someone pick the wrong configuration and has to scrap it and start over at immense cost, I doubt many manufacturers are willing to risk that

There is very easy solution to this problem - pick the right configuration.

And if you are too scared to take the risk stay away from this sport, as it's not for you.

[langwadt]

It's because Toyota's budget is lower than that of Audi and Porsche.

but if Porsche wasn't there Toyota would be equalized to keep up with Audi

[mertol]

How is that working for wec? Still only a few manufacturers and still dominated by one team.

[ChrisF1]

How is that working for wec? Still only a few manufacturers and still dominated by one team.

Audi have dominated overall, but they've been run very close on pace by Peugeot, Toyota and now Porsche. The only difference was that Audi's years of experience are key in that they can rebuild the wrecks more efficiently than the other teams have, and they build almost bulletproof cars.

WEC works.