I know that most people believe that F1 needs to make some changes to up the excitement in the racing (and the actual racing itself), as atm, there's very little passing or battling in the races themselves.

Now, i've noticed that all the action seems to take place in the qualifying sessions, and then the races themselves end up stales. So, I was thinking, why not remove qualifying, and have the racers carry over their places from the last grand prix?

I'm a pretty big newb on the racing scene, so i'm sure there's some big problem that I don't see with doing this, but it just dawned on me while I was watching the Canadian Grand Prix Qualifying sessions, that THAT's where all the overtaking, the battling, the struggles for placement, all happens. In the qualifying sessions, not the races themselves.

It was the same at Monaco, lots of fights for pole position and struggles to stay afloat in qualifying, and then the race itself ended up being just a stale attempt to retain placement.

did you watch a different grand prix from me today? amazing race, filled with plenty of overtaking, accidents, collisions. One of the most action packed races ive ever seen, much moreso than qualy.

most races arent like that though, and i do agree that most are stale. However, places carried over is a pretty dim idea, if you were on pole by default, chances are you would run away with it every race, thus making you on pole for the next race. The format isnt the problem currently, its the cars.

Quote from DeKo :

The format isnt the problem currently, its the cars.

No, the problem are the monkeys at FIA headquarters.

Quote from DeKo :

did you watch a different grand prix from me today? amazing race, filled with plenty of overtaking, accidents, collisions. One of the most action packed races ive ever seen, much moreso than qualy.

most races arent like that though, and i do agree that most are stale. However, places carried over is a pretty dim idea, if you were on pole by default, chances are you would run away with it every race, thus making you on pole for the next race. The format isnt the problem currently, its the cars.

Haven't watched the Canadian GP yet

And I do see your point, I hadn't realized that. I thought about it a bit more and yeah, what'd become of the racers who ended up eliminated at the beginning of the season? They'd never be given another chance at competition.

I like Briatore's idea. Races won in qualifying, but don't remove quali, just reverse the grid in a second race.

Quote from deggis :

No, the problem are the monkeys at FIA headquarters.

Oh?

Quote from sinkoman :

Haven't watched the Canadian GP yet

And I do see your point, I hadn't realized that. I thought about it a bit more and yeah, what'd become of the racers who ended up eliminated at the beginning of the season? They'd never be given another chance at competition.

I like Briatore's idea. Races won in qualifying, but don't remove quali, just reverse the grid in a second race.

Ah sorry, hope i didnt spoil it for you in any way. Just be prepared for an amazing grand prix.

Yeah briatore's idea is pretty decent, but it feels a little bit backwards for the pinnacle of motorsport. it completely removes the endurance aspect of a GP and would remove stuff like pitstops. Just now it also wouldnt work, due to the lack of overtaking (apart from today). if you finish 1st the first race, you would have very little chance of getting into the points in the 2nd. It works well in GP2, but not in F1.

Quote from DeKo :

The format isnt the problem currently, its the cars.

Of course it is.

If F1 were to re introduce ground effect and stop the wing and fin orgy that is currently going on it would allow better drafting and the cars would look a hell of a lot better.

Production based engines would make it more sensible in costs and would add a fag paper more relevance to road car technologies. Alsom

I'd love to see

• Engines : WRC spec (2000 cm3, turbo, 4 cylinder) production based engines with the air restrictor and anti lag systems removed, ~500hp.
  
• Customer cars and teams limit : Limit to 25 teams. If needed, have heat races on the Saturday (Quali format I)
  
• Gearboxes : 6 speed sequential gearboxes, still operated by paddles.
  
• Aerodynamics : Ground effect. No aerodynamic appendages inside the wheelbase on the bodywork of the car. Spec wings produced by the FIA in 3 kinds (Monaco, moderate, Monza) that would produce some downforce but would be mainly for show (like the BTC Touring wings were - but of course these cars would have ground effects)
  
• Tyres : Wide slick tyres
  
• Weekend format : Friday will be devoted to open track testing (min. 5 hours) and some support events. 2 hours of free practice on Saturday followed by one of the two quali formats
  
• Quali format 1 (Heats) : All the drivers will be split in two one of two semi finals which will take place on the saturday by a lottery (a driver takes a red or a blue ball out of a bag, rather simple). Starting grid will be decided by current WDC positions with the top 12 (24 drivers for the GP) reversed. Heats would be 12 minutes long flag to flag, the clock would stop when the safety car is out or waved yellows are displayed (the clock would continue to run for held yellows). Bringing out the SC would also add 30 seconds to the clock. Top 12 go through to the main race, winner of heat 1 on pole, winner of heat 2 second, 3rd place for 2nd in heat 1 yada yada yada.
  
• Quali format 2 (RBAR inspired) : This format could work for the current grid size. The format would be two ten minute sessions similar to the first 2 3rds of the current format, except only 8 drivers would go through. Each driver would be paired off against another driver (fastest against 8th etc). 1 attempt and 5 minutes to make it in. The fastest of each pair goes through. After those 5 minutes, the 4 would then go head to head etc. At the end a pole position 1 lap shootout (both on track at the same time but with a reasonable distance) would take place between the top two guys
  
• Race format : rather similar deal to my heats, except GPs would be 305km (260 for Monaco) long or 1 hour 10 minutes under the rules in the heats except while SCs would stop the clock, waved yellows wouldn't. Whichever is longer.
  

Boring engines
Boring teams (non-manufacturers)
Boring gearboxes (H-shift would be best)
No spec wings please. Keep downforce - no 'for show' wings
Good tyres - slicks look nicer. Widen the track again, as pre-'98(?)
No silly heats - just give them half an hour and two sets of qually tyres. Low fuel only please, so it's meaningful.
2hr races please - none of this gradually moving to 1hr30m races. Also, minimum of 50 laps.

Duke Toaster - you need another sport - F1 is not for you.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Duke Toaster - you need another sport - F1 is not for you.

To be fair to him, he does seem to know quite alot about the sport.

I could also be talking BS here

Quote from tristancliffe :

Boring teams (non-manufacturers)

Actually, there was something I forgot to mention - makes can use the same engine and last year's chassis for any marque under that parent company.

Quote :

Boring gearboxes (H-shift would be best)

H shift gearboxes are not even used by basic S/S cars like Formula Renaults. More and more road cars will have sequentials.

Quote :

No spec wings please. Keep downforce - no 'for show' wings

I said the cars would have ground effect but the wings would be changed to generate less downforce than they currently do. The cornering speeds might be sailing close to the wind with ground effect, the current generation of wings hinder overtaking badly.

Quote :

Good tyres - slicks look nicer. Widen the track again, as pre-'98(?)

Wider track might not be needed with the ground effect and slicks ...

Quote :

No silly heats - just give them half an hour and two sets of qually tyres. Low fuel only please, so it's meaningful.

That means 10 minutes of an empty track, 10 minutes of watching Minardis and other slowpokes and 10 minutes of watching leaders. Well it bloody beats twenty minutes of each!

Quote :

2hr races please - none of this gradually moving to 1hr30m races. Also, minimum of 50 laps.

No race is shorter than 50 laps IIRC. F1 races have always been fixed to 200 miles or so (currently 305 kilometres). The 90 minute race is fine, and most races are actually shorter than that Tristan. Most are in the 1hr 15 (Monza) to 1 hr 30 region.

Quote from duke_toaster :

H shift gearboxes are not even used by basic S/S cars like Formula Renaults. More and more road cars will have sequentials.

I don't care what type of shift Granny Smith has in her Civic, but I do want a gear shift that requires skill and generates mistakes in motorsport. Sequential and Semi-Auto don't.

Quote from duke_toaster :

I said the cars would have ground effect but the wings would be changed to generate less downforce than they currently do. The cornering speeds might be sailing close to the wind with ground effect, the current generation of wings hinder overtaking badly.

Reduce wing effectivness by regulation, but no spec wings, and no total reliance on ground effect (imo).

Quote from duke_toaster :

Wider track might not be needed with the ground effect and slicks ...

But they'd look so much nicer

Quote from duke_toaster :

That means 10 minutes of an empty track, 10 minutes of watching Minardis and other slowpokes and 10 minutes of watching leaders. Well it bloody beats twenty minutes of each!

20 minutes of each on slow tyres or lots of fuel. And on TV you only see one of them anyway (usually on ITV the ones on their in laps).

Quote from duke_toaster :

No race is shorter than 50 laps IIRC. F1 races have always been fixed to 200 miles or so (currently 305 kilometres). The 90 minute race is fine, and most races are actually shorter than that Tristan. Most are in the 1hr 10 to 1 hr 30 region.

Spa is less (44 iirc). F1 races have been limited to 200 miles, but mostly are about 170 miles now. Hence, bump up race length to 2 hours (which might be 300 miles). And ban refuelling, as it's boring and encourages people to pass in the pitstops. Low fuel qually, high fuel starts, no fuel at stops = everyone has to pass on the track. Even with current cars I bet you'd instantly see more overtaking if you banned refuelling.

The problem with F1 is the emphasis on grip at the moment. Now while this allows the cars to go faster, to get close to a car is almost impossible due to the 'dirty air' created from the car in front. Hence as soon as you get close to a car in front it is almost impossible to follow closely for a lap or two as there is little or no front end grip.

Solution, limit the amount of wings that they put on the car, the current F1 car looks awful compared to the earlier models ( by that I mean 1994 to 1998ish, thats when I started to follow F1) and put them back on slicks. Also revert back to the standard 12 lap, 1 hour qualifying, sure it was dull for the first 20 mins but it was always good in the last 10/15 mins. And for the love of all that is holly, keep the Belgium and Canadian race's included for the next 15/20 years

Quote from tristancliffe :

Reduce wing effectivness by regulation, but no spec wings, and no total reliance on ground effect (imo).

OK then, just have heavily restricted wings.

Quote :

20 minutes of each on slow tyres or lots of fuel. And on TV you only see one of them anyway (usually on ITV the ones on their in laps).

Nah, for ages FOM have done the world feed and TV graphics and yada. Not ITV. No broadcasters take their own cameras, they don't need to. All the broadcasters bring is the pre and post race stuff and the commentators. I'd like the FOM feed to start a little bit before the race. Instead of the grid coming on as a list, maybe a computer graphics fly through would be a good idea (ITV do their own computer graphics thing). Maybe the FIA should do some of the pre show blabber features such as the highlights of quali and free practice.

Quote :

Spa is less (44 iirc). F1 races have been limited to 200 miles, but mostly are about 170 miles now.

F1 races are ALL 305 km with the exception of Monaco which is 260 km for obvious reasons.

Quote from tristancliffe :

No silly heats - just give them half an hour and two sets of qually tyres. Low fuel only please, so it's meaningful.

yes yes YES ... or even better just use the old quali system which was much more interesting on rainy days

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

The problem with F1 is the emphasis on grip at the moment. Now while this allows the cars to go faster, to get close to a car is almost impossible due to the 'dirty air' created from the car in front. Hence as soon as you get close to a car in front it is almost impossible to follow closely for a lap or two as there is little or no front end grip.

Solution, limit the amount of wings that they put on the car, the current F1 car looks awful compared to the earlier models ( by that I mean 1994 to 1998ish, thats when I started to follow F1) and put them back on slicks. Also revert back to the standard 12 lap, 1 hour qualifying, sure it was dull for the first 20 mins but it was always good in the last 10/15 mins. And for the love of all that is holly, keep the Belgium and Canadian race's included for the next 15/20 years

I agree.

Now days the qualifying isn't any more exciting, you still have to wait for the final session, and the final 5 minutes before it really means anything. Also, at the end of it all, you pretty much know who's on what strategy.In the past when qualifying was low fuel, you would often get a few suprises as people move up the field because they would try different strategies, without sacrificing their qualifying position.

Also the engine penalty rule annoys me. Remeber back at Spa when both BAR drivers, Villenueve and Zonta tried to take Eau Rouge flat during qualifying, and both ended up crashing in a pretty similar way. Now days you dont get anything like that. For one, the cars have too much grip, and its probably flat now anyway (maybe less of a challenge). Two, there's no point taking a risk like that, if you total the car and have an engine swap you'll be at the back of the grid because of the penalty. Which means it's better to "play it safe", causing less action.

I mean, look at this racing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAmbIdwcmSo . You can see how much less grip they have compared to modern day F1, and how cautious they are getting back on the gas without TC getting in the way.

Quote from VALE 46 :

I mean, look at this racing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAmbIdwcmSo . You can see how much less grip they have compared to modern day F1, and how cautious they are getting back on the gas without TC getting in the way.

That was a great move but I seem to remember that the track was still slightly damp, so that might explain why it looks like they've got less grip than today.

I partially agree with Tristan, but I want to see F1 pushing the boundaries of technology, so I don't want a return to H-shifters. I want to see the engine development ban lifted and the removal of the ridiculous two race engine rule. I'd also like FIA-mandated ECUs so they could ban traction control and force linear throttle maps, etc...
A return to control slicks (no 'tyre war' please, it's irritating) and a ban on refuelling would be good.

Actually, refuelling is a funny thing...it was re-introduced in 1994 to spice up the racing action, now I've seen a lot of people call for it to be banned to spice up the racing...wierd

As much as I absolutely adore single seaters, the plain truth is that modern technology has made them so aerodynamically dependent that we cannot go back, whatever we do now in the single seater forumula, the technology and wind tunnels of F1 will continue to make the cars reliant on aerodynamics. The flood gates are open. There are only a few ways to solve this:

If we remove winglets and vanes from the cars, the F1 teams will find ways to recreate the same effect using the natural body shape of the cars.

The simple problem is that we understand more about aerodynamics than we did a few years ago. Well we dont, but F1 teams do.

This is a problem because cars loose their aerodynamic downforce when in the slipstream of another car. We cannot limit the total downforce without installing a wind tunnel at every track.

So we are stuck with a race format that no longer works properly.

A short term remedy can be made by increasing mechanical grip, however this will reduce braking requirements which also brings about problems in overtaking. We could remedy some of that by getting rid of sequential shifters to increase the chance of driver error - although I personally like sequential shifters and dont want to see them go .

The bottom line is that F1 is a sport of aerodynamics. Next year with the twin-wing hopefully things will be better. Will it be enough? I doubt it personally. I think F1 engineers know how much performance is to be had from aerodynamics and that they'll continue to push design to the limit of the rules in order to find every microsecond they can.

Currently body regulations for F1 allow the designer various spatial 'boxes' within which they can make a car, this needs to change. Not just the design of the rear wing. We either need a homologated exterior or less flexibility in the design of the bodywork.

Reduce aerodynamics, increase mechanical grip, reduce braking efficiency = more overtaking.

Quote from Becky Rose :

The bottom line is that F1 is a sport of aerodynamics. Next year with the twin-wing hopefully things will be better. Will it be enough? I doubt it personally. I think F1 engineers know how much performance is to be had from aerodynamics and that they'll continue to push design to the limit of the rules in order to find every microsecond they can.

I've just checked up on a FUGLY twin rear wing F-1 concept CFD study and the basic for results were as follows:

Conventional wing: Around 53% loss in downforce in front and around 27% rear.

FUGLY twin wings: About 24% front downforce loss and about 27% rear downforce loss.

Note these are studies based on straight line drafting scenarios. Things are a bit more complicated in steady cornering and transient situations. Also of important note was that due to the presence of FOUR instead of just the usual 2 vortices from leading edges of wings, the FUGLY wings generate much more complex airflow patterns that could possibly cause unforeseen problems. The FUGLY wings do reduce understeer and overall downforce loss but as the numbers clearly show it's still more than enough to discourage drafting and overtaking. The final conclusion was that this FUGLINESS would have done absolutely NOTHING significant to improve overtaking whilst severely compromising the aesthetics.

And yes, what do you pay aerodynamicists and F-1 engineers for? Sit around and languish in the mediocrity and laziness that has become the dominant lifestyle of choice in the western world? If you had an F-1 team and paid lots of $$$ for it wouldn't you want to get what you paid for? I remember a female aero engineer was fired after only months in work because of the shark nose front end which she insisted on compromised front suspension geometry to such a horrible extent (gains POSITIVE camber under compression) that the cars just couldn't perform as the understeer was absolutely crippling. No mystery why the drivers complained so much, eh?

F-1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport so it's a matter of perform or die. This includes all members of each team, from drivers to every engineer, mechanic, technician and manager. No exceptions.

Quote from Jamexing :

I remember a female aero engineer was fired after only months in work because of the shark nose front end which she insisted on compromised front suspension geometry to such a horrible extent (gains POSITIVE camber under compression) that the cars just couldn't perform as the understeer was absolutely crippling. No mystery why the drivers complained so much, eh?

When was this and with which team? Do you have any links? This sounds very interesting.

Quote from sam1600 :

When was this and with which team? Do you have any links? This sounds very interesting.

It was the Williams BMW team, when Montoya and R.Schumacher were drivers there if I remember correctly. Remember the shark nosed cars with twin tusks as front wing supports and strange front suspension with upper arms longer than the lower arms? That's it.

If they want overtaking in F1 it's simple. Outlaw downforce and give them big fat slicks instead.

Quote from Gentlefoot :

If they want overtaking in F1 it's simple. Outlaw downforce and give them big fat slicks instead.

Simply unworkable. It's not downforce that's the problem, it's the wings and winglets that these cars are spawning that cause aerodynamic turbulence that cause drafting problems. Ground effect wouldn't have that much of an issue.

Mechanical grip cannot be a substitute for aero grip.

Quote from Jamexing :

It was the Williams BMW team, when Montoya and R.Schumacher were drivers there if I remember correctly. Remember the shark nosed cars with twin tusks as front wing supports and strange front suspension with upper arms longer than the lower arms? That's it.

Yes, I'd always thought of that car as more a walrus than a shark.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Simply unworkable. It's not downforce that's the problem, it's the wings and winglets that these cars are spawning that cause aerodynamic turbulence that cause drafting problems. Ground effect wouldn't have that much of an issue.

Mechanical grip cannot be a substitute for aero grip.

Ofcourse it's workable. It's just the FIA choose to allow downforce. There is no practical reason why it shouldn't be outlawed.

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. so i think there should be NO rules on what the car looks like or anything. we'd get loads of overtaking then! bring back the Fan cars like the brabham and the ground effect like the williams!

Quote from BenjiMC :

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. so i think there should be NO rules on what the car looks like or anything. we'd get loads of overtaking then! bring back the Fan cars like the brabham and the ground effect like the williams!

Sorry Benji- they basically tried that with CanAm. While it lead to remarkable technical inovation, the racing was lackluster as one manufacture would dominate, then drop out, in cycle till the series crashed.