BenB
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 12:53 PM |
|
|
New F1 rules
What does anyone think?
Personally I think the adjustable wing is a bit of a stupid idea. I know the car in front has the advantage by virtue of driving through clear air but
surely then the important thing is to be in front 
I think giving the person behind an artificial advantage is just going to make for a very boring season......
Why don't they just go the whole hog and give any driver out in front by more than 20s an automatic drive through penalty? It would also make
races closer but it would have nothing to do with the core elements of F1 IMHO.
Personally I'd like F1 to be a race. I quite like the double diffusers, f-ducts etc etc. However the idea that a "rear wing adjust
switch" gets turned on after two laps and then you can activate it at certain bits of a track? Seems a bit forced.....
Personally I'd also get rid of blue flags..... Why should cars being lapped have to move over? Still track position they're giving up.....
|
|
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 01:01 PM |
|
|
The modern 'travelling circus' F1 is rubbish.
Remedy is simple.
Get rid of aerodynamic aids.
The public are not bothered whether the cars go around a corner at 70 instead of 110mph!
They want to see racing!!
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by designer
The public are not bothered whether the cars go around a corner at 70 instead of 110mph!
then why don't they just go and watch minis racing instead?
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
The answer is to allow aerodymaic aids that dont distupt airflow as badly.
(ground effects, the famous brabham fan from the 70s, etc etc) Im sure the hot shot designers could come up with a million and one new ideas to create
downforce that didnt disrupt airflow as they do now.
|
|
|
bartonp
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 01:46 PM |
|
|
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bartonp
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
It is tempting isn't it
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 02:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
quote:
Originally posted by bartonp
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
It is tempting isn't it
We'd have to have some rule where they're not allowed to strip it down between races, so the car that does the last race is effectively
the car that starts the first race. That'll enhance reliability
|
|
|
bartonp
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 02:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
quote:
Originally posted by bartonp
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
It is tempting isn't it
We'd have to have some rule where they're not allowed to strip it down between races, so the car that does the last race is effectively
the car that starts the first race. That'll enhance reliability
Why? Car should only have to last one race. Cut it too fine & it won't finish at all....
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 02:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
The answer is to allow aerodymaic aids that dont distupt airflow as badly.
(ground effects, the famous brabham fan from the 70s, etc etc) Im sure the hot shot designers could come up with a million and one new ideas to create
downforce that didnt disrupt airflow as they do now.
+1
Underbody tunnels but a minimum ground clearance and no skirts, plus single-element wings at the front & back for balance, aesthetics & to
increase drag so they don't go "too fast" on the straights (a concern of the FIA in case they arrive at a corner too fast but get
brake failure!).
|
|
|
will121
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 02:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bartonp
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
Couldn’t agree more, I went to the Lotus festival at Snetterton last week where they had 40 years of Lotus F1 cars and you look at some of the things
Colin Chapman tried in F1 from 4 wheel drive, 4 peddles unique twin chassis and more, I think it would be amazing what a F1 car would be like if the
rules enabled way out ideas
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 03:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bartonp
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
My 35ft wide car is going to walk it if I get on pole 
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
plantman
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 03:56 PM |
|
|
minimum 6 pit stops per race
no rear wing
skinny back tyres
big front wing
fat front tyres
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 04:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by plantman
minimum 6 pit stops per race
no rear wing
skinny back tyres
big front wing
fat front tyres
Bet we'd see the first FWD F1 car with those rules.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
plantman
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 04:17 PM |
|
|
oooh noo fwd drive f1 car the world would end
but i thought it would be all on the braking into corners but if you braked too late you would have no traction out of the corners
i like the idea of several pit stops ther usually a disaster or two when they do a round of pit stops
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 04:24 PM |
|
|
The problem with pit stops is success becomes reliant on the strategy guy, the mechanics and a bit of luck. I'd rather have the driver or, if
not him/her, the car.
Would be interesting to mix things up by having them race with another (suitable high speed) class.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Fatgadget
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 04:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by bartonp
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
My 35ft wide car is going to walk it if I get on pole
Ah! But your 35ft wide car would never get pole!..Imagine hustling it round Mirabou ? Or going flat at Eau Rouge 
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 04:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fatgadget
quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by bartonp
Remove all rules except car min weight and engine size. Let the quickest (reliable) car over the distance win!
My 35ft wide car is going to walk it if I get on pole
Ah! But your 35ft wide car would never get pole!..Imagine hustling it round Mirabou ? Or going flat at Eau Rouge
It would if the side pods extended thunderbirds stylee after qualifying 
My point is really that if you have too few rules the teams will still come up with clever ways to win that have little to do with racing ability.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
plantman
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 05:48 PM |
|
|
i agree you don't want some bright spark guy in the pits deciding the race but if you have enough pit stops it should screw him up
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 08:41 PM |
|
|
We should start a series in the style of the old touring cars rule, and just have a length and width limit. Anything goes as long as it's road
legal.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 25/6/10 at 09:09 PM |
|
|
Give the cars really poo brakes.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 26/6/10 at 06:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
Give the cars really poo brakes.
Lol Flintstones brakes!
|
|
|
