Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ruslan

The Impact of the 2017 Rule Changes

Recommended Posts

OK, so wide tires are back for 2017. Their effect is more downforce. The estimates provided by Green (Force India) are:

1. “An increase of 20 to 25 per cent at the start of the season. That will be even more by the the end of 2017. I estimate it 30 to 35 per cent. It is the biggest step I have ever witnessed.”

2. “Drag will increase as well, but it it mainly thanks to the wider tyres. I guess the drag will increase by 5 to 10 per cent,” Green estimates the drop by 20 kph on long straights.

3. In corners which already allow full-throttle, the speed will further increase and there will be turns which could be taken at full-throttle as of next season.

4. “Eau Rouge is already flat. Due to the higher drag we will arrive there slower and go through flat of course. However, it will be a bit slower because Eau Rouge is already a straight today. There is for example turn 3 in Barcelona. That is nearly flat. That will be easily flat next year. Sequences of corners like sector 2 in Hungary will also be considerably faster. As will be pretty tight corners because wider tyres and wider traces will provide more mechanical grip and reduce weight transfer. I guess lap times will be reduced by 3 to 4 seconds at the Hungaroring,” 

This is all drawn from the article on the front page. I am not convinced this is a good thing.

1. More corners will be flat-out.

2. Will this mean that running in a car's slipstream will be even more of a problem? It does not appear that this change will help this. Are we doomed forever to push-to-pass for good racing?

3. Does more downforce require more driver skill or less? We are already seeing a flood of kids in F1.

4. Does higher speed in corners translate to higher risk for the drivers. I think so. What is the impact of F1 if a driver death comes about due to these higher speeds?

5. Do the big budget teams gain an advantage from the rule changes? (I suspect so).

 

I have been of the opinion for a long time that what F1 needs is less downforce, not more. I have even discussed in the past banning wings. I am not sure the current regulation changes are doing much to solve any of F1's real problems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High downforce combined with zero strategy sounds pretty bad to me.

I know I talk about NASCAR all the time here, but NASCAR radically reduced downforce this year, and the racing has been a lot better than in past years.  NASCAR still has its issues, mind you, but the actual on-track product is lightyears better than it had been for years and years.  And they're doing another major reduction of downforce for 2017.  It's really nice to see a major series doing this.  At one oval track, they were doing 212 mph at the end of the straights, but only averaging ~185.  They used to average 202 on that track.  So, you can see where the racing's better...no more flat-out, no lifting snorefests.  It makes the drivers work, which is fun to watch even if they are all on their own, and it creates more overtakes when the cars are close, as the more work the driver has to do, the more variety there will be in how the driver does it, and therefore, the more differences that allow cars to be faster or slower than others at different parts and sets up passing.

F1 doesn't seem to be getting that.

The other thing, of course, is strategy.  Strategy makes racing better because (1) it's something interesting to follow and (2) it puts slower cars ahead of faster cars, which leads to excitement (either of someone pushing hard to get the gap to within the pit stop delta, or someone on fresher tires carving back up through the field).  We used to have a lot of tire strategy, but Silverstone 2013 showed that wasn't too sustainable with all the safety problems (also, fans bitched that it was a "lottery").  Now, the tires really don't wear the way they used to, not that they're really strong tires, but in 2012–13, you would see Force India do one stop, someone else do two, someone else do three, I think Alonso even won on a four-stopper once.  The races were unpredictable, there were cool stories, there were tons of overtakes (and not just DRS stuff).

So, tire strategy helps, but it's also dangerous to have tires as extreme as the ones we had then.  Which is why I advocate for refueling, which really doesn't have to be that dangerous (institute a minimum pit stop time if it's really a concern.  IndyCar, for example, doesn't have a lot of fires.  Of course, they switched from methanol a decade ago, and that helped reduce flammability).

I still think a great rule would be this: 100 kg of fuel maximum per race.  No cap on fuel flow rate, refueling allowed in races, and you must do Q3 on your starting race fuel load.  You can run all 100 kg at once.  You can keep your car light, and lose time pitting for fuel.  You can do whatever you want with it, and you can push as hard as you want to at some point (no maximum fuel flow rate) if that helps you and you're willing to slow it down later (perhaps you risk a safety car...e.g., you need a safety car to make it on fuel—they do this all the time in IndyCar, where safety cars are common on ovals/tight street circuits, where they'll not pit, knowing they are four laps short, but if a caution comes out with five to go, they'll win).  This keeps F1's desire to be conservation-minded, and manufacturers' desire to have efficient F1 engines, but does so in a way that doesn't make the sport a parade.

If you had that, the car specs wouldn't be as determinative to the way the race unfolds.  Though it'd obviously be better to have good specs, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much thinking was actually done about harmonizing car development with limits of exiting racing tracks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Massa said:

I still think a great rule would be this: 100 kg of fuel maximum per race.  No cap on fuel flow rate....

I have not been following NASCAR at all lately (not much of a fan to start with), but yes, I think less downforce is the way.  Fan of multiple tire strategies (including multiple tire companies) and fuel strategies. I do think F1 needs to make the pit stops safer by restricting the number of people in the pits to around 6 or so.

I think the reason that they put in the fuel flow rate restrictions is that if they did not, then the last third of the race would consist of most cars on an energy saving runs and there would be no racing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sakae said:

I wonder how much thinking was actually done about harmonizing car development with limits of exiting racing tracks. 

Just remove the run offs and have it like the old days, actually getting punished for mistakes. This will also give the effect of a twitching car and look that looks "more on the limit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is that the cars will have more downforce next year  and will be even easier to drive.

I would like the cars to be more lively, and see the drivers getting less grip and having problems to handle them.

That's the only to see the talents, otherwise, we will watch cars taking corners on rails, with no drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the flip side, if there easier or less restrictive to drive,, you will see cars on the ragged edge as there driving flat out. The reason there on rails today is because they hardly push them and can drive them on a perfect line. Like when I was karting, if you could hook your kart up at a circuit, you could push the crap out of it, looking to run that extra bit wide here and there. I beleive if the cars are faster, easier and more fun to drive, we will see cars on the limit twitching through the high speed corners once again as the only way to gain time is to be on the limit not more conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, william said:

My problem is that the cars will have more downforce next year  and will be even easier to drive.

I would like the cars to be more lively, and see the drivers getting less grip and having problems to handle them.

That's the only to see the talents, otherwise, we will watch cars taking corners on rails, with no drama.

 

Yea, I think things worked better back in the days when only the tires were skinny.

 

_68201927_165690968.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 1997 was the best year in terms of how the cars and regulations worked with the drivers. Since the shakeup in 1998, they have struggled to regain any authenticity IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2017 PRE-SEASON TESTING SCHEDULE
February 27-March 2
March 7-10

Only 8 days of testing just before the season, and too late for the teams to launch countermeasures; this all after such massive change of rules? Again.......? 

 

 

Some people will never learn. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of the new regulations, I don't look forward to more downforce together with bigger tyres, IMHO they had to severely reduce downforce in order to allow the car behind to come closer to the car in front without having to suffer a decline in performance due to reduced downforce.

I can live with bigger tyres, but only on the basis of much lower downforce, wider tyres are safer when you hafve limited grip, why bother with big tyres with plenty of grip?

I would also try to impose a ban on drivers' aides and on the DRS (which would become redundant once you allow closer racing by limiting downforce).

I know that we can't dumb down F1 and so we can't go back to steel brakes, but I would introduce brakes from a single supplier for all teams, and no chance of fiddling with brake pads and air ducts, the drivers would have to live with what they have, all this to allow slightly longer braking zones and thus more overtaking opportunities

I would allocate to each driver a set amount of tyres' sets per each race, say 2 sets of supersofts, 2 sets of softs and 4 sets of medium compound tyres, and then let them do what they want, if they can get to the end of the race with the set of tyres that they used to start the race good for them.

Finally I would change the rules on park ferme because IMHO they are stupid and become very dangerous when it rains as they can't change their settings and end up racing with cars that are very low to the ground and so prone to aquaplaning

In essence I fear the new rules will be a step backwards, especially considering that regulatory changes always play in the hands of the big boys and don't allow the smaller teams to catch up, but I presume that now it's time for Honda to reap the dividends of their investments and the new rules are an excellent way of implemening this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am advocating ceasing Parc Ferme statute for years. Reasons for getting rid of it outweigh its benefits IMHO from better racing point of view.

Driver's aids - to remove those in full scope (denotes essential assistance from a pit-wall) is not going to happen, unless PU technology goes back to normally aspirated engines, thus returning to a simpler life, and that, we know, is not in the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a chance, largely because I don't envy rulemakers.

First, you have a lot of competing interests—the power units illustrate that well, with manufacturers and drivers being on different sides over the switch to six cylinders.

Second, you have a very tough balance for the fans.  Fans did not respond well to eras with little overtaking.  But when overtaking was increased by the Pirelli tires of 2012 and early 2013, fans were not impressed.  The trouble is that what "wows" F1 fans is complex, and often, hard to achieve.  They want to be in awe of the cars (and the drivers who master them) and feel like the racing is pure, yet they still want to see the cars overtake, different drivers/teams win races in a season, a degree of strategy (but not to a point taking drivers out of it), and a close championship fight (particularly between drivers on different teams).  And a lot of fans, we must admit, really just want to see their favorite team or driver win, too (they may not be the ones who take time to post on an F1 forum, but they're out there, for sure, and probably the majority).

These are not variables that go together well.  And it's never been fun to choose which you sacrifice to advance another, because fans tend to focus on what was lost, not what was gained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Massa said:

I'll give it a chance, largely because I don't envy rulemakers.

First, you have a lot of competing interests—the power units illustrate that well, with manufacturers and drivers being on different sides over the switch to six cylinders.

Second, you have a very tough balance for the fans.  Fans did not respond well to eras with little overtaking.  But when overtaking was increased by the Pirelli tires of 2012 and early 2013, fans were not impressed.  The trouble is that what "wows" F1 fans is complex, and often, hard to achieve.  They want to be in awe of the cars (and the drivers who master them) and feel like the racing is pure, yet they still want to see the cars overtake, different drivers/teams win races in a season, a degree of strategy (but not to a point taking drivers out of it), and a close championship fight (particularly between drivers on different teams).  And a lot of fans, we must admit, really just want to see their favorite team or driver win, too (they may not be the ones who take time to post on an F1 forum, but they're out there, for sure, and probably the majority).

These are not variables that go together well.  And it's never been fun to choose which you sacrifice to advance another, because fans tend to focus on what was lost, not what was gained.

(Bolded) Precisely a reason why many lead changes, such as we see in NASCAR, is doomed to fail here, methinks. Before advent of the internet and many TV lenses, we used to sit around the track, watched in anticipation for emerging cars on the horizon, bit nails, and waited, with patience and in suspense - did he, or didn't he (overtake)? If we had one overtake, it was great. Two - unbelievable, but definitely not cheapish 30 of those. Tickets were affordable, we came in on Friday evening, and it was an EVENT for us. Since then too many things happened, and the easiness how to get the info, race end predictability, bloated media language, and other stuff has driven a lot of that suspense away. Too much of good stuff? 

I am not sure that it is customer's (fans') duty to discover what was gained today in comparison to "then". We take internet for granted, and so are many other things, but at the same time if commercial rights holder wants to sell his product, then he could do a better job doing that. Setting aside "news" that Hamilton has two dogs, Hamilton has a new girlfriend, Hamilton f**k beautifully, Hamilton this, Hamilton that, there is other stuff we want to know, but unfortunately people who are holding broadcast rights provide certain services only for islanders, and globally most of us fans are cut off. (i.e. Post-race dynamic analytical work overlying cars for comparisons of driving techniques, incidents analyses that go beyond headlines, etc.). I am sure if FOM actually tries, he would discover what market wants. Our interest and attention depends on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think there trying to be to "smart" about it with the technology driving the car more so than ever. Just simplify electronics and go back to a more psyical style race car if you know what I mean? Wider chassis and tyres is a good start as its "natural" grip holding the cars down, not computers. That will fix majority of the issues, the next is the rediculous fuel flow limit and number of engines used. How can you get flat out racing when engines have to be "nursed" and fuel cut before the engine reaches its full potential? That's all the issue is in a nutshell IMO. Then you would have drivers much closer and able to overtake naturally as the extra time would be made from actually driving faster, not pushing the engine that bit more, you see what Iam trying to say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some estimates placing next year cars to be much faster on twisty roads, but slower on straights. Interesting articles are appearing about Vettel and his quest to learn as much as possible about next year tires. Sounds like he is marked as the only one on the grid who is paying more than just token attention.

More in here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 1:14 PM, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

I am not a fan of the new regulations, I don't look forward to more downforce together with bigger tyres, IMHO they had to severely reduce downforce in order to allow the car behind to come closer to the car in front without having to suffer a decline in performance due to reduced downforce.

I can live with bigger tyres, but only on the basis of much lower downforce, wider tyres are safer when you hafve limited grip, why bother with big tyres with plenty of grip?

I would also try to impose a ban on drivers' aides and on the DRS (which would become redundant once you allow closer racing by limiting downforce).

I know that we can't dumb down F1 and so we can't go back to steel brakes, but I would introduce brakes from a single supplier for all teams, and no chance of fiddling with brake pads and air ducts, the drivers would have to live with what they have, all this to allow slightly longer braking zones and thus more overtaking opportunities

I would allocate to each driver a set amount of tyres' sets per each race, say 2 sets of supersofts, 2 sets of softs and 4 sets of medium compound tyres, and then let them do what they want, if they can get to the end of the race with the set of tyres that they used to start the race good for them.

Finally I would change the rules on park ferme because IMHO they are stupid and become very dangerous when it rains as they can't change their settings and end up racing with cars that are very low to the ground and so prone to aquaplaning

In essence I fear the new rules will be a step backwards, especially considering that regulatory changes always play in the hands of the big boys and don't allow the smaller teams to catch up, but I presume that now it's time for Honda to reap the dividends of their investments and the new rules are an excellent way of implemening this

Missed this post for some reason. Addressing each point by paragraph number:

1. Agree completely.

2. Agree.

3. Agree completely.

4. I think I have been the one to suggest going to back to steel brakes, but Scipio's answer is probably better.

5. Sounds good. I do not like the mandatory tire change rules. If you can make it to the end on one set....be my guest.

6. No opinion, but suspect Scipio is correct.

7. Agree.

 

My one controversial idea is to ban wings. Spoilers are fine, but anything narrow that allows the air to flow both under and over it should be removed from the car.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do people think they will get go getting the required heat into the larger tyres? Especially with prolonged safety car periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Emmcee said:

How do people think they will get go getting the required heat into the larger tyres? Especially with prolonged safety car periods.

Very carefully, otherwise we will have some cars retiring prematurely. Would be interesting to hear Vettel's feedback to SF during team's debriefing after running new Pirelli prototypes. Some are suggesting he is building special knowledge during his testing involvement which others are missing, whereas Pirelli insist secrecy about compounds and construction leaves him guessing, and nothing more. I would be surprised if several questions regarding tire warming cycle wasn't on their checklist. Surely FiA would be briefed on essentials, and its up to race control to correctly react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf are these guys doing? Didn't they literally boast how they got 3000km of testing done in 3 days? Now there unsure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the cars look like they're still going to sound terrible. At least the order will no doubt get shaken up, as we've had 3 years of the same thing every race.

Webric you mentioned 1997 however surely that's what we're going back to (ie fat slicks and wider cars) so that's a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...