Eddie Irvine seems to think so:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/8460480.stm

@ 00:53 "The problem with F1 is, they keep changing things to try and make it better when there was really nothing wrong in the first place."

Is it desirable, or even possible to go back to the way things were?

No, it isn't possible.

You can't unlearn aerodynamics, so all cars will be heavily aero-influenced. Even if you somehow banned all windtunnel and CFD work.
You can't unlearn engine technology
The cars are reliable not through luck or because of 'easy' regulations, but because people are more able to make things reliable, so we won't easily return to the unreliability of the 70s and 80s that made the results less predictable.
Drivers are fitter, more dedicated (generally) and make less mistakes.

To make the cars harder to drive they should ban power steering, paddle and sequential gearchanges, and mandate a foot operated clutch.
The cars should have a much higher power : grip ratio than they do now, ideally in a much peakier fashion - but not quite as stupidly peaky as the F1 Turbos.
We have to embrace aero and make it work, not just reject it. More ground effect and less reliance on wings would be a start.

But none of these will happen. Don't want too much power as it's dangerous. Don't want too little grip as it's the pinnacle of motorsport. Don't want less technology as it's again the pinnacle. Don't want ground effect as there is a slim chance it had something to do with Senna's crash.

Until the do-gooders that want to make everything safe feck off, we'll be stuck with F1 as we know it. Add some risk, add some challenge, and I'm sure F1 would become a whole lot better. Those of a nervous disposition shouldn't watch it though.

Quote from tristancliffe :

No, it isn't possible.

You can't unlearn aerodynamics, so all cars will be heavily aero-influenced. Even if you somehow banned all windtunnel and CFD work.
You can't unlearn engine technology
The cars are reliable not through luck or because of 'easy' regulations, but because people are more able to make things reliable, so we won't easily return to the unreliability of the 70s and 80s that made the results less predictable.
Drivers are fitter, more dedicated (generally) and make less mistakes.

Yep, makes sense.

Quote from tristancliffe :

To make the cars harder to drive they should ban power steering, paddle and sequential gearchanges, and mandate a foot operated clutch.
The cars should have a much higher power : grip ratio than they do now, ideally in a much peakier fashion - but not quite as stupidly peaky as the F1 Turbos.
We have to embrace aero and make it work, not just reject it. More ground effect and less reliance on wings would be a start.

OK. All good back to basics ('btb' from now on 'cos I'm lazy) stuff which is easily enforceable, although ground effect can fail in such a spectacular fashion (you mention Senna's crash below) that maybe we could live without that?

Quote from tristancliffe :

But none of these will happen. Don't want too much power as it's dangerous. Don't want too little grip as it's the pinnacle of motorsport. Don't want less technology as it's again the pinnacle. Don't want ground effect as there is a slim chance it had something to do with Senna's crash.

So, they want to be innovative but totally safe at the same time - tricky. Oh, and presumably they'd like to keep the designers/manufacturers interested in the sport too - understandable.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Until the do-gooders that want to make everything safe feck off, we'll be stuck with F1 as we know it. Add some risk, add some challenge, and I'm sure F1 would become a whole lot better. Those of a nervous disposition shouldn't watch it though.

You've been out drinking with Stirling Moss, haven't you?


So, taking into account all of the above points, why can't they go btb at least in principle?

Here's my suggested formula that I'll be emailing to Bernie as soon as we're done here:

1. Any engine you like made by anyone you like but limited in bhp. Don't know how much yet; haven't decided. (Pfff, details - I'm an ideas man! ).

2. OK, we'll need overall width, height and leingth restrictions, but that's it.

3. Tyres - OK this one's difficult. Used to be more than one manufaturer, didn't there? Well let's stick to one manufacurer for the time being with say 3 compounds, but let the teams use which ones they want when they want.

4. Aerodynamics - do what you like as long as it all fits within the overall dimensions (erm, with the possible exception of ground effect 'cos I am a bit squeamish).

5. 'Fly by wire', power assisted visors and other airy-fairy stuff - nah, it's time to sort the men from the boys.

Overall it's about doing the best you can with the available horsepower leaving plenty of room for technical innovation, racing savvy and driver skill. Power restriction should keep them closer together while free reign over car design will give the better designers the edge they deserve.

So, unless anyone has any other comments, I'll bang this off to Bernie a.s.a.p.

What I would do if I could (not that I could, and not that many would like it)

A fuel restriction in terms of energy per race (i.e. a certain maximum amount of Joules in the tank at the start of the race) would limit power and allow freedom of powerplants and fuel choices.

Wider tyres within a maximum vehicle width to limit aero performance

Allow ground effect - this is less influenced by following other others, although it does require the driver to 'trust' the car rather than 'feel' the grip as on a purely wings/diffuser car. Mandated skid blocks could be used to ensure that ride height never equals zero, so bottoming out doesn't suddenly reduce the downforce (which is what is suggested as a possible cause in Senna's accident).

H-shift gearboxes mandatory. We can do flappy paddle. It's not that exciting anymore from a technical stand point, so lets get some mistakes back in to gearchanging.

Steel brakes - more inertia and more weight will increase braking distances, allowing more chances for passing.

And probably a lot more. Not sure where I stand on Energy Recovery Systems - perhaps if it wasn't a gimmick, and everyone had to have it, then maybe it would work. But if it was used as in 2009 then I don't see the attraction. I also don't like the idea of artificial push-to-pass systems (or, in the case of Spa, push-to-avoid-being overtaken by a quicker Force India) when surely people want to see the drivers doing the overtaking, not because of more power or stopping in the pits?

Circuit design needs to change. Tilke has proven that nine times out of ten his circuits are worse for overtaking and spectacle than 'classic' circuits. This needs to be understood. Sure, the tracks should be challenging for the drivers - A Tilke strong point - but not so challenging that cars can't get side by side more. The slow corner - long straight - slow corner approach isn't the way forwards in my opinion. You want the preceeding corner to not be difficult, so that even with a mistake (or a passing attempt) into it the following driver can still be close. With the really slow corners the concertina effect means that 200m on to the straight the leading car has several car lengths advantage. A medium speed corner (fast enough for the concertina effect to be small, but slow enough so that the following-aero problems are not huge) that does not punish going off line (perhaps variable camber - more to the outside) would allow the following car to stay close to the leading car. There are many ways to skin a cat, but Tilke choose the wrong methods in my opinion.

Tristan, there's a comment from the SCCA that matches your idea

Their vision of F1

Mileage target
Safety criteria
Bhp limit

Free reign on everything else

dungbeetle, saying you don't want Ground Effect for safety reasons is like saying ban wings because they might brake off... Ground effect has been used 15 years prior to Senna's death and sadly was made the scapegoat for the accident... Don't get me wrong, when Ground Effect goes wrong you're almost certainly looking at a big crash, but - if I'm not mistaken - it is still used on both Daytona and Le Mans Prototypes (which is in part why the Mercs flipped spectacularly 11 years ago), and I don't hear them dying all the time...

Ground effect is a bit less stable than downforce provided by wings, it can be easily upset by bumps and kerbs etc.

Then again perhaps circuit and car safety has improved enough to the point where having an increased reliance on ground effect is perhaps not so risky.

A combination of active suspension and proper ground effect would be interesting to see.

@ bbman

Point taken.

Quote from 5haz :

A combination of active suspension and proper ground effect would be interesting to see.

Ooh, dunno about that.

Would your 'active suspension' involve some kind of electronical wizardry by any chance?

Kinda going for the 'unplugged' approach here, if you know what I mean.

Although I suppose if you dressed it up as a safety feature we might be able to sneak it in.

Yeah I see what you mean, but I like technology.

This is the problem with F1, there isn't a proper balance between technology and driving skill.

Quote from tristancliffe :

A fuel restriction in terms of energy per race (i.e. a certain maximum amount of Joules in the tank at the start of the race) would limit power and allow freedom of powerplants and fuel choices.

Great idea - I can see it now: "Formula 1, Powered by Cow-Fartz"

Quote from tristancliffe :

Allow ground effect - this is less influenced by following other others, although it does require the driver to 'trust' the car rather than 'feel' the grip as on a purely wings/diffuser car. Mandated skid blocks could be used to ensure that ride height never equals zero, so bottoming out doesn't suddenly reduce the downforce (which is what is suggested as a possible cause in Senna's accident).

... thus helping with overtaking. Nice.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Not sure where I stand on Energy Recovery Systems - perhaps if it wasn't a gimmick, and everyone had to have it, then maybe it would work. But if it was used as in 2009 then I don't see the attraction. I also don't like the idea of artificial push-to-pass systems (or, in the case of Spa, push-to-avoid-being overtaken by a quicker Force India) when surely people want to see the drivers doing the overtaking, not because of more power or stopping in the pits?

Good examples of 'contrivances' that tried to make the racing more interesting and failed miserably. Scrap 'em?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Circuit design needs to change. Tilke has proven that nine times out of ten his circuits are worse for overtaking and spectacle than 'classic' circuits. This needs to be understood. Sure, the tracks should be challenging for the drivers - A Tilke strong point - but not so challenging that cars can't get side by side more. The slow corner - long straight - slow corner approach isn't the way forwards in my opinion. You want the preceeding corner to not be difficult, so that even with a mistake (or a passing attempt) into it the following driver can still be close. With the really slow corners the concertina effect means that 200m on to the straight the leading car has several car lengths advantage. A medium speed corner (fast enough for the concertina effect to be small, but slow enough so that the following-aero problems are not huge) that does not punish going off line (perhaps variable camber - more to the outside) would allow the following car to stay close to the leading car. There are many ways to skin a cat, but Tilke choose the wrong methods in my opinion.

Wot, no shortcuts? (j/k)

We need to see designers going about trying to achieve the same goal through different paths, rather than simply copying and interpreting the latest developments off other teams because the cars are so similar anyway.

Thats what makes it interesting, when you have powerful badly handing cars and slightly underpowered better handling cars as an example, it mixes things up a bit more and results in greater speed differences between different cars at different parts of a track. Combine that with a greater reliance on mechanical grip and less sensitivity to aerodynamic turbulence and you'll have lots of overtaking.

Its needs to become harder to be fast in F1, for both drivers and designers, they need to be challenged more.

Back to basics is the exact opposite of what should happen IMO, I think things should get more complicated.

Quote from 5haz :

We need to see designers going about trying to achieve the same goal through different paths, rather than simply copying and interpreting the latest developments off other teams because the cars are so similar anyway.

Agreed. The current 'formula' seems to restrict innovation way too much in an attempt to supposedly keep things even and make the racing closer. But this just makes it boring because it's artificial. The rear diffuser last season was a good example.

Why not just leave teams to their own devices and see who comes up with the best solution? Isn't that part of the sport? If someone makes a breakthrough, it won't be too long before the other teams catch on or come up with a solution of their own to match it.

For example, nature has come up with two very different solutions to the problem of achieving greater speed. The cheetah uses its flexible spine, while the gazelle runs up on it's toes. Both provide a greater turn of speed. The cheetah can achieve a slightly higher top speed, but only in short bursts, while the gazelle can run at its top speed for longer. Sometimes the cheetah gets a meal and sometimes the gazelle gets away, but it's always pretty damn close.

The problem though has always been, how far do you let design evolution and innovation go? How much do you allow the technology to assist the driver before people start saying "Well, he's not driving the car, the technology is."?

It's relatively easy to keep most other sports pure. Football, golf, tennis etc. Yes, there may be occasional advances or changes in ball, club and racket design, but these advances tend to be relatively small and, perhaps more importantly, are available to everyone. It's not so easy to keep F1 'pure' in that respect.

Scrap all the current rules bar some safety related, then make the maximum dimensions of the car half the length and 3/4 of the width. That'd be interesting!

Won't that just be karting?

I think the teams would struggle to make a car safe to slam into a wall at high speed if it were any smaller.

I think the main problem with overtaking is the fact(im pretty sure all teams do this) is the teams try to make the cars as turbulent as possible so they are more protected from overtakes.

now that they know how badly it effects cars the teams will pretty much design there cars in a way to make sure it is, no matter how badly they say they want more overtaking, in a sence its an advantage and why not take it.

Eh? Turbulent air causes drag. Designing cars to produce maximum turbulence won't protect them from being overtaken. If anything, it will make them more vulnerable to overtakes, especially on long straights.

Did you notice that the Brawn car was the least affected by following another car than any other (although that could be down to Jenson, as Ruben's wasn't much of an overtaker)? The Force India was also very good. Whereas Ferrari's have been very poor at following other cars for a few years.

I know very little about aerodynamics, but I put that down to the fact that Brawn/Force India relied more on mechanical grip than aero grip unlike Ferrari. Correct me if I am wrong though, I am interesting to know.

I am also of the opinion that F1 should be simpler (or more complicated, depends how you look at it.) Have the rule of no pit stops so the cars have to look after their tyres and carry all the fuel they need. Limit some parts of the designs, off the top of my head I am thinking wheel/tyre size, general dimensions of the car etc. Leaving lots upto the teams, like engine size upto the teams, so do they go for a larger engine and carry the extra fuel or smaller and carry less fuel? While some teams would get a head the others would find their own solutions, it would leave more room for initiative and some 'different' designs of car.

Perhaps their aerodynamics are less sensetive to disturbances in the air flow?

Well, the difference between aero and mechanical grip is blurred - all grip is, ultimately, mechanical supplemented by aero. I think it's more likely that the Brawn and Force India cars spent time modelling the wings/bodywork is yaw conditions and with steering applied, as well as using initial flow that wasn't perfectly laminar. The Ferrari was probably more optimised for laminar flow...

No matter how many people say F1 is boring, I can't agree when there is stuff like this going on.

for starters lets go back to what giles villenueve suggested to make it a drivers formula but with modern provisions

1 unlimited engines, but nowadays add in a max fuel quota to limit the power that way (but ensure there is at least as much power as today), if you can build a more efficient engine you get the benefit rather than currently where either you're pegged back or the less powerfull engine is allowed ot be developed, then make it so every engine maunfacturer has to be prepared to supply every team with the same engine for a fixed limited price. they probably won't have to but it will deter use of unobtanium (BTW nice use of the phrase in avatar mr cameron), engine ecu's to have no driver controlled maps, cars to be run on rolling road after race to ensure power curve is the same in each gear to rpevent traction control by another means. no refueling so if you can make the power on less fuel you benefit from reduced weight.

2 limited tyre size, no more than 15 inches at the rear, this along with 1 should ensure that throttle control is at a premium. 1 stock tyre compound (excluding wets / inters ) for whole year ok so it would be too hard at some circuits and too soft at others but guess what? it's tough learn to drive around problems like they used to, anyone remember hunt in 77 gambling and almost succeeding by doing a race on qualifiers and coping with the overheated tyres later on. if you cant work out how to look after tyres or work with tyres that don't grip then you're not the best in the world. 4 sets of tyres allowed for a race.

3 rear downforce to be reduced to 1976 levels. so thats simple single plane wings and a flat bottom from where it currently starts to the furtherst rear point so no diffusers, plank to be doubled in height to limit low running. front wings to be as wide as today but to be mounted higher so as to take them out of ground effect, once again a 76 average height would be a good place to start. the bottom of the body work at the point where front wings are mounted is to be lowest part of car (excluding the plank) if any part of the body work is higher than it then that becomes the lowest point reference for anything further to the rear, this eliminates the current high noses and once again simplifies underbody aero.

4 manual H shift transmissions and clutch, i can cope with it so the best drivers in the world should be able to, no antistall clutch as it won;t be needed with the following point

all engines must be able at the end of the race, whilst at working temperature, to be started by an onboard starter motor, they used to be required to have one but it was dropped sometime after 77 as teams were fitting such small batteries and engines were so temperamental they didn't work but with today's engine management this won't be a problem, if it is then rethink your engine.

engine driven alternators to be banned, all electrical power from batteries (or other electrical storage techniques) which cannot be changed durring a race but it's up to you if you wish to have big enough batteries for a race or recharge these from an energy recovery system and if you wish to use the electrical energy to provide extra power you can (and no limit on how much or how long) but just make sure there's enough left to start that engine at the end, cars minimum weight to be measured without batteries / kers fitted to encourage development of lighter solutions. all storage systems to pass an extensive impact / fire / short test to prevent giant "bomb" capactitors being used and once again encourage safe solutions for road use . you can charge durring a pit stop so we may see the development of quick recharging electrical systems for road use.

mirrors / mountings to be a spec design, make them a senible size so they at least let you see the rear tyres and the mounts will make sure they're mounted in the traditional position not on disguised turning vanes.

apart from the front and rear wings, body work to form a smooth surface with no protrussions larger than the camera pods i.e no winglets, vanes, barge boards etc it there is any doubt about a part it must be agreed to by every other team. no part of brake cooling assemblies etc allowed to the outside of the wheel's spokes so no spinners etc, wheels to have be increased from 13" to 18" diameter, lets get the suspension doing the work rather that using tall tyre walls as suspension, also it is stupid to have wheels smaller than just about new car available today. wheels to have to allow a certain amount of light to pass through the area between the rim and the hub flange, this will mean spectators can see the brakes glow and prevent complicated areo fins as spokes.

brake materials etc to be as current regs, tyre size/ aero grip will limit how braking anyway.

suspension to be to current regulations with track width/ wheel base / car length / width going back to 1976 dimensions, this was when the maximum limits were first imposed and set by the simple expedient of taking the largest cars in each area as the maximum.

fuel type to be free with the provision that it must be provided by a commercial motor fuel supplier and be available at 20% of that companies forecourt pumps. sample fuel to be compared to fuel obtained from a random forecourt belonging to that company. if the fuel's legality is in doubt then it fails, no appeal.

hopefully we'd end up with a series where the driver matters and technology didn't take the skill out of driving but at the same time encourage the development of engine efficiency and better fuels / energy storage and inovative designers.

Good post. I think some of the '76 and '77 references could be tweaked - I think the cars were nicer when they were a bit more oversquare (wheelbase:track ratio) in the 80s, but in principle I think I agree with most of your points.

However, F1 needs to remain the pinnacle not only in terms of power:weight, but also in technology. Yet the technology needs to be in places where it doesn't detract from the racing or the skill involved in driving (e.g. paddleshifts - bad for motorsport).

I suggest having the wings flipped up - it would limit the speed (if you exceed the limit, you will fly), and it going behind another car will increase your grip.

I'm joking, ofc

Quote from Ivo Georgiev :

I suggest having the wings flipped up - it would limit the speed (if you exceed the limit, you will fly), and it going behind another car will increase your grip.

I'm joking, ofc

funny you should say that, there was a row a few seasons ago in GP2 (or whatever it was called then) at monza when one team decided that they could still comply with the regs on the number of rear wing elements fitted but by fitting the main element upside down they could reduce downforce and drag and still have a controllable car. as far as i can remember the scruteneers passed it but i think it was protested after the race, just not sure of the outcome.