planetf1.com

With regard to the tyres, I think the simplest solution is this.

1 tyre that is soft and does not last particularly long but offers very superior grip in the short term.

1 tyre that is hard, that can _potentially_ do a race distance if nursed, but with a delta more often than not this wont be the case.

And thats it, outside of wets. If your car is kind on tyres you have some room to play with, if not, you better be damn quick on the softer tyre.

Let's just hope that with so many different ideas on the table they don't get distracted by the teams and end up doing nothing. They really need to set there priorities and make some steps in the right direction. Seems like the priority should be the aero shift to ground effects so hopefully they can find away to do that which still keeps enough flexibility to make aero a differentiator and keeps the teams happy. If the effects of following another car are reduced as much as suggested then they could just look at minor improvements to the tyres and it may not even matter if they keep the the same. Refuelling might help things a little more but think the focus should be in the other areas as refuelling could be a fairly costly change for the teams.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/f1-bosses ... -for-2021/

All for this, but it will NEVER EVER happen. Look what happened last time they restricted radio...

.

As the physical run into and out of the pits is usually around 20 seconds, and the actual tyre change about 2 to 3 seconds what will the new regs "set" the time for the refuelling at ?

When they stopped refuelling last time there was talk (whether justified or not) about too much fuelling rate being dangerous. As they can't put a reasonable amount of fuel in in 3 seconds the rate of fuelling will set the overall time lost on track - so what refuelling time should the FIA aim for ?

( When they last had refuelling tyre changing was in the 4 - 5 seconds range [ IIRC ] and refeulling wasn't much more. )

.

Greenman wrote:.

As the physical run into and out of the pits is usually around 20 seconds, and the actual tyre change about 2 to 3 seconds what will the new regs "set" the time for the refuelling at ?

When they stopped refuelling last time there was talk (whether justified or not) about too much fuelling rate being dangerous. As they can't put a reasonable amount of fuel in in 3 seconds the rate of fuelling will set the overall time lost on track - so what refuelling time should the FIA aim for ?

( When they last had refuelling tyre changing was in the 4 - 5 seconds range [ IIRC ] and refeulling wasn't much more. )

.

I do not think we ever had a refuelling time set. Normally this is how they'd judge their strategies, seeing how long was the other car stationary and calculate how much fuel they got in, hence how far they could go into the race. But a time set by the regs? Not that I can think of.

Discussions about the fuelling rate being dangerous is something that I also do not remember if I'm honest. Can you share some info?

.

The time will be (and was) "set" by the size of the fuel tanks and the allowable rate of fuel flow.

Obviously (as was the case last time) teams can send cars out with small fuel loads for a faster start to the race and suffer a longer refuelling time.

All these variations played into (pseudo) excitement, but also dissatisfaction amongst fans as races were won, or lost, "in the pits".

That is why the FIA's ideas on fuel tank size and refuelling rate are so important.

.

Greenman wrote:.

The time will be (and was) "set" by the size of the fuel tanks and the allowable rate of fuel flow.

Obviously (as was the case last time) teams can send cars out with small fuel loads for a faster start to the race and suffer a longer refuelling time.

All these variations played into (pseudo) excitement, but also dissatisfaction amongst fans as races were won, or lost, "in the pits".

That is why the FIA's ideas on fuel tank size and refuelling rate are so important.

.

I see. Today's regs are for 105kg of fuel max and 100kg/hour flowrate (from memory). What I am not sure is the actual size of the tank, I do not think they have stipulated a size for it in the past.

Are you proposing that they should have a minimum/maximum fuel capacity tanks regs?

If it was up to me I'd let them size it as they wish, if they want a smaller tank with a more compact design for the car, then fine. As long as they do not use more than 105 (or x) kg of fuel and the flowrate. The tanks themselves could be what they wish for.

I definitely agree about the pseudo excitement and it definitely made it more difficult to understand how fast were the drivers compared to each other. I found the fuel corrected times always to be a bit confusing.

.

Yes, they had tanks too small to go the full distance, but VERY fast refuelling rates.

Look at the figures you quoted - it would take just over an hour to refuel the car (!) This was their way of controlling any tean ""getarounds".

The FIA by setting "large" or "small" tanks in the cars can affect the tactical options, and the refuelling rate is even more important - that is why I am asking.

.

Greenman wrote:.

Yes, they had tanks too small to go the full distance, but VERY fast refuelling rates.

Look at the figures you quoted - it would take just over an hour to refuel the car (!) This was their way of controlling any tean ""getarounds".

The FIA by setting "large" or "small" tanks in the cars can affect the tactical options, and the refuelling rate is even more important - that is why I am asking.

.

Hmm, I think you are confusing something, the 100kg/hour is not the refuelling rate.

On the plus side, at least I can understand what you mean!

Greenman wrote:.

Yes, they had tanks too small to go the full distance, but VERY fast refuelling rates.

Look at the figures you quoted - it would take just over an hour to refuel the car (!) This was their way of controlling any tean ""getarounds".

The FIA by setting "large" or "small" tanks in the cars can affect the tactical options, and the refuelling rate is even more important - that is why I am asking.

.

The FIA have this habit putting in place a rule, like re-fuelling, in an attempt to add another strategic component to the sport, then immediately set about nullifying the potential effectiveness of that rule by regulating the be-jesus out of it so the permitted variables are so limited that most teams pretty much settle on near identical strategies in the end anyway.

They've done the same with tyres too.

If they're going to bring back re-fuelling then let each team work out how to best deal with it by leaving things like tank sizes & race starting fuel loads etc up to the individual teams.

The future of F1? Sorted!

I think the main issue is having tires that dictate everything pace-wise. The determining factor for pit strategy is tires. I'd actually prefer to have it be fuel. With DRS, the idea that drivers wouldn't attack on track if you brought back refueling is just not true when you think about it. I think that if you had robust tires that allowed drivers to attack relentlessly plus DRS then you could bring back refueling and you would have very exciting flat-out racing where drivers pit for fuel primarily and not tires. You could then have smaller, lighter cars (also good for racing) and with the implementation of the new aero concept, you might ahve a significant improvement to the overall show.

The one thing that must be done is that they must remove any connection between qualifying tires and race tires. Right now, the midfield teams that break into Q3 are punished at most races by having to start on worn tires and run a less than optimal strategy.

They seem to have difficulty figuring out what tyres they need.
https://www.planetf1.com/news/high-deg- ... -for-2021/

They need a hard tyre that can be raced hard all race. Everyone starts on the hard tyre.

They need a medium tyre that can be raced hard and make up the time lost in the longest pit stop total time of the year. That sorts the one stop strategy.

They need a fast tyre that can only last about 1/4 of the race distance, but can be raced hard - if they can make one like that. It may be that the fast compound layer would wear out - giving a performance falling off a cliff result instead of the tyre blowing. That would be the qualifying tyre and the tyre used if a strategy opportunity opened up near the end of the race.

They do need to change Circuit layouts to provide overtaking opportunities or the tyre strategies cannot work. Enforcing rules against shoving cars off the track would help in that regard.

First look at new aero in action

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... TBxtS.html

Mayhem wrote:First look at new aero in action

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... TBxtS.html

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I really like it

The arm behind the car looks interesting too, like they might be actively test the wake turbulence effects. Maybe this could even lead to some sort of regulated limit?

wolfticket wrote:

Mayhem wrote:First look at new aero in action

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... TBxtS.html

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I really like it

The arm behind the car looks interesting too, like they might be actively test the wake turbulence effects. Maybe this could even lead to some sort of regulated limit?

I was wondering about that.

Loving the front wing & side pods. Rear wing looks odd for a F1 car but if it helps reduce the disturbed air behind the car then fair enough.

I agree wolfticket. It's a lovely looking car. It still very much looks like and F1 car imo, rather than suddenly looking like an Indy Car or FE, but is much cleaner than current F1 cars which look (and sound) a mess.

Asphalt_World wrote:I agree wolfticket. It's a lovely looking car. It still very much looks like and F1 car imo, rather than suddenly looking like an Indy Car or FE, but is much cleaner than current F1 cars which look (and sound) a mess.

Looks good to me too. Make the front wing no wider than the inside of the front wheels and it would look even better. But what are those funny little 'mudguards' over the front wheels? Brake cooling ducts? It looks narrower than the current cars. Is it?

Instead of trying to find loopholes themselves the FIA should let the team designers do it. Then again they might deliberately keep quiet in the hope of spotting one the others havent!

Here's one in Ferrari colours.

My guess regarding the wings over the wheels is that they may stabilise the air coming off the tyres to aid airflow off the back of the car. We all know these new design ideas are about creating less disturbed air off the back of the car.

Asphalt_World wrote:
My guess regarding the wings over the wheels is that they may stabilise the air coming off the tyres to aid airflow off the back of the car. We all know these new design ideas are about creating less disturbed air off the back of the car.

I thought one idea of the rule changes was to get rid of all the fiddly little aero-aids..

tim3003 wrote:I thought one idea of the rule changes was to get rid of all the fiddly little aero-aids..

As I understand it, the primary goal is to make it easier to follow a car. A simpler front wing is a means to an end in this regard which just happens to have an aesthetic side effect some people are keen on.

tim3003 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:
My guess regarding the wings over the wheels is that they may stabilise the air coming off the tyres to aid airflow off the back of the car. We all know these new design ideas are about creating less disturbed air off the back of the car.

I thought one idea of the rule changes was to get rid of all the fiddly little aero-aids..

That's true to an extent, but if a little aero piece is standardised and actually helps clean the airflow off the rear of the car, then it's a good thing. It's when designers have room to produce their own when problems start appearing.

I don't think a budget cap will ever work. How can it? Who will govern the spending? Teams can easily find ways to hide spending. Also what are teams supposed to do if they hit the cap? Stop developing the car? So someone may have an underachieving car all season because a team has hit the cap? That would be exciting.
Simplify the cars! Crazy high tech hybrid systems and aero dependent cars drive costs way up.

Vettel Fan wrote:I don't think a budget cap will ever work. How can it? Who will govern the spending? Teams can easily find ways to hide spending. Also what are teams supposed to do if they hit the cap? Stop developing the car? So someone may have an underachieving car all season because a team has hit the cap? That would be exciting.
Simplify the cars! Crazy high tech hybrid systems and aero dependent cars drive costs way up.

I think they are hoping that the budget cap will be self policing between the teams; Do you really want to be the team to be found to be cheating the new spending cap rules? There would be blue murder, and if anyone was hiding a ton of expense and suddenly started running away with every race, you imagine the other teams would be all over it. Im sure the FIA can afford a forensic accountant or 2 as well, to make thoroughly sure that no one is cooking the books.

Flash2k11 wrote:I think they are hoping that the budget cap will be self policing between the teams; Do you really want to be the team to be found to be cheating the new spending cap rules? There would be blue murder, and if anyone was hiding a ton of expense and suddenly started running away with every race, you imagine the other teams would be all over it. Im sure the FIA can afford a forensic accountant or 2 as well, to make thoroughly sure that no one is cooking the books.

Sadly I'm not convinced a budget cap can be policed. How can the FIA check everything a team like Mercedes are up to behind the scenes? I expect they can hide some of their design and R&D costs behind non-F1 activities, or sub-contractors, secret off-shore companies or any number of impenetrable schemes their accountants can dream up.

I think expecting them to play fair is unrealistic. Teams have always taken any opportunity they can find to circumvent the rules.

Only reliable approach is to focus on standardizing non-critical components I think, and let the teams focus on the areas where they can find performance.

tim3003 wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:I think they are hoping that the budget cap will be self policing between the teams; Do you really want to be the team to be found to be cheating the new spending cap rules? There would be blue murder, and if anyone was hiding a ton of expense and suddenly started running away with every race, you imagine the other teams would be all over it. Im sure the FIA can afford a forensic accountant or 2 as well, to make thoroughly sure that no one is cooking the books.

Sadly I'm not convinced a budget cap can be policed. How can the FIA check everything a team like Mercedes are up to behind the scenes? I expect they can hide some of their design and R&D costs behind non-F1 activities, or sub-contractors, secret off-shore companies or any number of impenetrable schemes their accountants can dream up.

I think expecting them to play fair is unrealistic. Teams have always taken any opportunity they can find to circumvent the rules.

Yeah I have a few issues with this budget cap too.

1) Limit. Caps set too high. $175m is already in excess of what most of the non manufacturer teams spend so it'll be of no help to them.

2) Policing. I'm having difficulty envisioning how it's going to be governed. Will the FIA be proactively auditing the teams books or will they only audit if someone blows a whistle? It's going to be infinitely easier for the manufacturer teams to filter expenses off to various areas than it'll be for the non factory teams. Also whats to stop Merc, Ferrari or Renault allocating additional funds to, lets say their sports car R&D dept, to do 80% of the R&D for a F1 component then hand over the rest of the R&D to the F1 side of the business? To me there's too many gaps in the system the manufacturer teams can exploit.

3) Infrastructure. As far as I know the cap will include plant infrastructure. I think even now the big teams are investing 10's of millions of dollars upgrading their infrastructure in preparation for the introduction of the cap. Those that can't afford to upgrade will be left behind with no opportunity to catch up.

4) It's integration with other areas of the regs. With the introduction of a budget cap, proposed increase on the use of standardized components & what looks like are going to be very tight aero regs, I wonder what scope will there be for teams to catch up if 1 team gets the jump on everyone at the start of 2021? I can very much see the stagnation in the performance hierarchy continuing into the new era as there'll be no scope or opportunity for teams to catch up. They'll either be restricted from developing concepts by the budget cap or other areas of the regs.

5) Teams like RB & Ferrari, who have sister teams, theoretically can work in tandem at developing components which effectively doubles their cap or halves their development costs. Common supply chains between teams could increase under the cap.

In summary I think the budget cap will only be of benefit to those those who sit at the top now. I see as not an attempt to assist in equalizing the teams but simply to allow the lower tier teams to afford to remain in the sport as lower tier teams without the opportunity of working their way to the top.

So now that I've had a whinge about the cap, time to put forward the solutions of an uneducated armchair critic.

1) Drop the cap by about $50 - $75m. I think the FIA are looking at doing this on a gradual scale but by the time that happens the damage would've been done.

2) Outlaw teams from investing in & using their own infrastructure such as wind tunnels & full chassis dyno's etc. Instead have 2 or 3 FIA approved testing centres, with no link to the sport, where teams can book time to test designs.

3) Open up the regs to allow teams to invest in concepts to avoid performance stagnation & increase the chances for the lower tier teams to work their way to the top.

4) Strictly govern the sharing of data, designs etc between sister teams. Penalties should be harsh, maybe DQ from constructor championship, to deter this from occurring.

As for how the FIA is going to govern expenditure under the cap, i've honestly no idea how they're going to do it.

So tyre blankets stay for 2021.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14652 ... n-reversed

This brave new world of F1 2021 is looking more & more like business as usual with every passing day.

2weeks until the 20021 regs will be ratified. Zac Brown said in Bathurst yesterday that it's all pretty much sorted & just needs signing off.

Well they have finally landed -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JddVHu ... OXFEzK%3A6

Anyone brighter than me have any critical analysis?

I love the look, but then I liked the look of the proposed new front wing some years ago, supposedly a much simpler design. As soon as teams got to work on the new front wing regs, they were still somehow able to continue with the silly little aero bits that make them look such a mess.

I will hold my breath until the first new car gets launched.

From my perspective...

Ground effects = good

Fatter cars = bad

Same horrendously complex engines = bad

Well the top three teams are opposed to the new rules, so they are clearly going in the right direction.

I don't like this idea of trying to contrive a certain aesthetic to the cars though, this is how we ended up with stepped nosecones in 2012. You can be sure that once the engineers get hold of these regs and delve into them in their minutest detail, the resulting cars will bear little resemblance to what was intended.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it all works out, but the concept certainly gets a thumbs up from me on looks!


Source: Autosport

3 seconds or more a lap slower.

Clarky wrote:3 seconds or more a lap slower.

Which is no issue whatsoever for me.

Limit on car upgrades over a race weekend and season to make it hard for one team to out develop the rest over a season would surely mean if one team out develops the rest at the start of the season then then they will be even hard to catch? Or are the regulations meant to make all the cars close at the beginning of the season. I quite like seeing teams bringing upgrades and seeing what Ferrari have done after the summer break.

So this is the proposal that has to be approved by the teams but only Ferrari have a veto but they only have 5 days to use it.. It is seen as a starting point for negotiations.

Capped at $175 million.
PU to remain the same
Tyres to be less heat sensitive
Grip is currently 55% at one car length new rules will up this to 86%

Expect multiple amendments to come!

Cars look freaking quality.

Only approx 3.5 secs slower (but with more durable tyres so probably actually about the same race pace) with good racing, we should applaud Ross brawn for doing a great job

Asphalt_World wrote:

Clarky wrote:3 seconds or more a lap slower.

Which is no issue whatsoever for me.

People wont notice it if the racing to mega.