Merged: 2008 rules

Manual shifters = Good idea.
Great post Dennis...

Slick tyres, One tire manufacturer only, No traction control.. = No problem with that.

And like someone said ...keep the carbon brakes.

 

This is indeed an exciting looking document. F1 racing could be absolutely brilliant if these rules are implemented. The single tyre manufacturer and manual gear shifting appeal particularly. As does the lack of reliance on aero. There is no mention of banning refuelling which I would have liked to see.

However, as bitter experience should have taught us, this is simply the FIA trying to kick the teams into action and force them to negotiate. There is no way that these rules will actually be implemented.

I think the FIA should concentrate more on keeping the privateers interested than the manufacturers as the manufacturers will never stay in a series long-term. I found this section quite interesting:

 

The sequential gear boxes on racing motorcycles are now upshifted shifted at full throttle sans clutch.
A sensor on the shift lever cuts the ignition or fuel injection at a certain point, for a pre determined time. With no load on the gear box, it snicks instantly into the next gear.

It is possible to skip gears on the downshift by holding the clutch in (down) and tapping the shift lever several times.

 

I see it more as an omnibus proposal, the FIA is suggesting 50 rules knowing that 10 of them will get shot down, but still getting the other 40 in. The teams will have to pick and choose their battles.

As for the Concorde Agreement, that is really a sepearte entity-- an agreement for splitting the broadcast money F1 generates. As of now there is still a rift btw F1 and the breakaway series, and while this proposal doesn't speicifally do anything to fix that, I think it still may help. I think this new F1 should be appealing to the teams, vs the rules for the breakaway sereis, which have yet to even be discussed.

Bernie will still have to cough up the money to make the other teams happy and put F1 back together again, and I don't think he has a choice, right now he is just playing chicken with them so he can get the best deal possible.

 

It seems to me that these rules look very much like the FIA trying to run the SCCA Spec Racer series. Frankly that holds little appeal to me. The rules are too restrictive and into the minutia of current technology. It seems that if one were to want to remain on the cutting edge of technology and remain relevant to automotive manufacturers, that you could limit some things (basic size, width etc.) but specifically open up the powerplant design parameters to encourage new technologies, (hybrid development, diesel, turbine, hydrogen power) or transmission design (direct electric, regenerative braking, CVT etc.). At that point you have created a high performance testing forum for alternative technologies to the piston driven internal combustion engine, a highly developed, but old technology.

As it is today and will be under these rules, F1 cars will have less technical ingenuity than today's passenger cars which now have traction control, ABS, four wheel steering and the ability to accelerate or decelerate any one of the four wheels to acheive stability.

Ultimately, F1 should be a blend of high technology and tremendous driving skill. Without both you have a rather lackluster "race/entertainment"event.

 

This is exactly what F1 should be - great post.

 

Wow. Does this mean my old manually linked 5-speed 348 will have a more "F1 inspired" gearbox than a 430?? I smell a market resurgence !

Does Ferrari rename the F1 option to be something like "Electronically Assisted Gear Control Unit" while simultaneously branding the stick cars as "F1"? Seems like the $10,000+ option for an F1 tranny would suddenly have less market appeal.

 

I am amazed at people who think F1 should be all about the technology and everything else be damned.

It is entirely within the engineers capabilities to remove the driver from the car completely and have the car turn faster and more consistent lap times without a driver. Program in a racing line based on GPS, program in the complete track layout, have the computer monitor all aspects of the car as it is on track and have the computer direct the car on the best racing line at the absolute limit of adhesion all the time. No need for a driver.

This is the direction F1 has been going. This is the ultimate of a "technology" focused series. The cars would be very fast, turn crazy lap times, there would be no passing except in the pits and very few teams would be competitive.

Personally... I want a drivers world championship where the cars have massive power and are very hard to drive. Driver skill is the key to a good game.


Terry

 

No, it's called Champ Car.

Except for the spec chassis and engine.

 

Well said.

 

Here's a link to the new 2008 rules.
http://www.formula1.com/news/3272.html

Down force reduced by 90%, so cars can get close enough to pass, that will be nice.

I'm not sure about some of the others, no traction control, manual clutch, manual gear shifting.....now street car will be out-teching F1

Here's the tire rule.
http://www.formula1.com/news/3274.html

 

Ha!

CART lives!

It'll never fly.

 

Awesome, lets make the drivers drive the car. I'd like to see this done by a rule that states the throttle butterflies have to be mechanically moved by the drivers throttle pedal. This would reduce hp and drivability enormously and put the skill back in the drivers right foot.

Again this is supposed to be a drivers championship ... but this is not such a big deal as most race transmissions happily change manually without the use of the clutch ... even Australian V8 Supercars.

Awesome. One of the silliest things ever to make it's way to a road car ... absolutely no requirement other than to make idiots be able to change gear. I prefer to have to upskill myself, not bask in this self defeating modern attitude that wants everything to be fool prove so we can lazily stuff around and not achieve anything. And many wonder where the current generation of teenages get their attitude from ... well you imagine being born into an environment where you don't have to do or achieve anything, cause some machine or computer simply does it better ... How defeating and unmotivational for these poor people .

As (I think) Horsefly stated somewhere on this site ... leave the computers at work and let us continue to develop as capable people.

Have for ages regarding safety, emissions, etc. Totally different design requirements that separated in the 50's.

Pete

 

It says they need to use an FIA supplied ECU to control the engine, I would read that as "you can't add another ECU to the throttle to try and sneak traction control back in"

So I think you'll get your wish.

It appears they will run a spec gear box too, but you're probably right about it up shifting without a clutch.

 

I hope it does go through, i doubt they'll ever reduce downforce by 90% though.unless they wanna ban wings. The manual gearbox idea i like and had been hoping they went that route a long time ago, the rest might be too much but we shall see, said the blind man to the deaf dog.........

 

They will probably still have wings, but the point will be to reduce drag, not add much down force. The diffusers under the car will probably be gone. I heard all the little winglets are on the block because they make the cars ugly and are prone to breaking off.

Of course if the down force goes away, so does a lot of drag....they will need to reduce hp again.....I'd look for a rev limiter to be built in to the new spec ECUs.

 

The thing I personally and in my passionate way do not like about the throttle being controlled via a computer is that it massively smooths out the torque curve. This ofcourse is one of the reason why we have 3 litre engines producing enormous hp.

If this was not allowed the engineers would have to worry about drivability again and I bet we would drop 200 hp atleast.

I thus do not like the fact that throttle control is not the art it used to be and yes the drivers still have to control throttle per tyre grip, etc. ... but in the old days they also had to balance throttle movement with the engines torque characteristics and that on top is much harder.

Pete

 

I see your point and you're probably right, keeping the computers out is probably better. I've been stunned just how hard my car is to auto-x with the extra power I gave it, I can't imagine how hard it would be to drive an F1 without the computer helping.

I still think the number 1 most important thing I see on the list is the down force.....if the down force goes, the cars can get close, and they will probably want to draft just like every other kind of racing.

It should come down to:
No down force= WAY MORE PASSING

That will be a big improvement IMO

 

The thing is that F1 is not just like every other kind of racing!

F1 does not go around in an oval.
F1 does not need to be a series in which crashing cars into walls is the prime entertainment.
F1 does not need to be like every other racing series.

F1 needs to have the best technology available.
F1 needs to be safe for racers, fans and the officials on the track.
But most of all...
F1 needs to be different from other motorsport.

 

I have been happily ignoring you but just have to say this comment is plain wrong.

F1 is supposed to be the peak of the sport called MOTORSPORT, thus it should not be completely different at all (and it is NOT), it just needs to be the top dog that all aspiring racing drivers want to compete in.

What is the point of all the training in other classes if you get to F1 and find that you should have been practicing say tennis (massively exaggerating your difference point) ... EDIT: thus it should be the same just better and faster!

Pete

 

You said it!

 

Agree totally Mike ... as long as we also get rid of the disturbence for the following car issue. I guess removing down force does that.

Before wings cars used to be designed for low drag and thus very aerodynamic with small frontal areas and thus I think did not get upset when following other cars ... but ofcourse there is still buffetting to worry about. And I hope we do not see designers making cars purposely to make it hard to follow.

Brundle made a good point during the last GP about returning downforce to under the car (ie. bringing back the concept of the term "ground effects") as he thought that might not be as affected by the car in front. His point was that we are concentrating (due to the current rules) on getting downforce from the top of the car and thus this is affected by the car infront. Interesting ...

Pete

 

Even the modern "Flat bottom" F1 car is still a ground effect vehicle where the diffuser create 60% of the total down force. Ground effect tunnels are not a solve all as when a tunnel car gets sideways and the air gets under the car it tends to lift higher than an flat bottom car.

Just look at the current IRL cars they get sideways or run over an object and the car just flips over. seeing some of the blow overs that we have had in the past couple of years at Indy is plain and simple scary and the IRL has yet to find a true fix on the issue.

 

Rob,

Please lets not have this debate again. The current F1 cars are NOT true "ground effects" cars. Yes they generate ground effects and down force BUT not like the term "ground effects" cars do.

"Ground effects" as we discussed in another thread is a term, concept name if you like for tunnels in the side pods and skirts that run against the ground to maximise the effect. It does not just mean using the underside of the car any old way to cause downforce ... it is specific and a 70's term that was specifically banned in the 80's or 90's from F1. Hence the flat bottomed cars we have nowadays that use defusers at the rear to try and get the same effect.

The term "Ground effects" is miss-used constantly on this site to refer to down force or any form of suction from under the car. The term is as specific as McDonalds stores are different to Burger King ... both sell hamburgers but only one is a McDonalds.

For anybody who does not believe me go to www.formula1.com and search the technical area, OR to this thread where I quote that site: http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=135002788&postcount=53

Thus Brundle was suggesting that allowing these fancy bottomed cars, instead of the current flat bottomed ones might improve the situation.
Pete
ps: Reading my post again I can see I am being pedantic ... but you cannot have a "ground effects" car as per the invention of the term with the current flat bottomed rule.

I'll shut up now

 

Ground effects were banned with good reason, they won't be back.

Ground effect are a set of conditions that are possible only very near the ground. If the car, for any reason changes it's proximity to the ground, the down force is lost almost completely and almost instantly. With the down force gone, the drive finds he is going way too fast and is completely out of control. Hit the curb or too fast over a dip in the track, crash the car. I just don't see it coming back.

The cars will want to focus on reducing drag to improve acceleration. To reduce drag they need to slice through the air and cause as little disturbance as possible. And just like the birds flying, bicycles, and yes stock cars, the closer the cars follow each other, the faster they will go. The car behind is driving whatever vacuum the car in front causes, that lets them accelerate pass and take the line to the corner, and that is good racing.

The down side or the cars running much closer together is it will mean more contact...not good for open wheel cars, but I think the drivers will be able to deal with it just like they do in all the other forms of open wheel race cars.