planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:31 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6731
Location: Nebraska, USA
I haven't seen this article posted elsewhere, so I will put Johansson's ideas forward.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/stefan-johanssons-f1-revolution-part-3-proposed-solutions-667034/


I think that Stefan has some very valid ideas here... in particular about testing, and even about raising the horsepower limits and how that might affect the racing. A lot of what he is saying has been discussed at length here in the PF1 forum, but it seems that Johannsson has really put a lot of thought into this and has expanded on what many of us have been suggesting.

samples:
ENGINE POWER: Increase engine power to around 1200-1300hp. This, like the drag reductions, will increase top speed, make the braking distance much longer, and thus allow more opportunities to overtake. It will also increase the speed difference between mid-corner minimum speed versus top speed on the straights. And overall laptimes will drop significantly with an extra 300hp.

POWER UNITS: Allow manufacturers to develop whatever type of engine they wish within predetermined criteria taking into account energy consumption, fuel consumption and all other factors necessary for a high level of energy efficiency and power output. If they want to continue down the path of these super complicated "power units" let them do so, but also allow for more innovative thinking.

Take a read and lets share our thoughts.

:nod:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32835
That's just about a complete overhaul of everything and we all know it's not going to happen.

For me you take on board everything he wants to change or you change nothing otherwise it's just a case of people picking out the bits that they like.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6731
Location: Nebraska, USA
Oh, I agree, Poker... Most, if not all, of it is not going to happen. After reading it though, I was half thinking Johannsson for FIA President!

However, that said, I do think that some of his ideas merit serious consideration, and one has to give him credit for really giving it some thought. To me, it is the most complete article addressing the sport that I have yet seen.
:)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1672
LIMITING DOWNFORCE
This wouldn't work because the forces pushing down on the car are not just aerodynamic.
If the car hits a kerb and the strain gauge exceeds the limit, are they going to have a steward's enquiry on each one?

My solution would be to have flat bottomed cars.

FRONT WING
A spec wing would work, but so would a size limited, choose your own single aerofoil front and rear wing.

TYRES
Agreed - change them for more mechanical grip.

TYRE MANUFACTURERS
No to more of them. To get better racing, it's better to have one supplier. If one tyre is significantly worse, it makes a bunch of teams uncompetitive - which doesn't make the racing better.

TESTING
Yes - without testing, they probably have to invest more on simulators. It's better to have testing, but it should be limited in some way. Maybe extra sessions before a race could be used, to provide more entertainment for spectators?

ENGINE POWER
Yes - more is better - up to a point.

POWER UNITS
No - an open choice of power units will not help the racing. There has to be some way to provide a good RACE engine, keep costs down, provide some means of making a difference, but not too big a difference, where it is greater than the difference a driver makes. Normally aspirated engines tend to be self-limiting because you can only get a certain amount of air into them (+/- a little), with a few dimensions specified. They can make good race engines and be cost effective. Fuel consumption tends to be self-regulating because of the fuel weight penalty without fuel stops.

DRIVER AIDS
Yes - do away with them as much as possible.

COST CAP/BUDGETS
No to caps. Write the rules right and there will be a very poor return on spending a lot of money chasing more performance.

MONOCOQUE/CRASH STRUCTURE
I'd prefer that they still had the freedom to make their own, but an FIA supplied base could establish the flat bottomed car and reduce costs.

SIMULATORS
I think rather than outlaw them, making them impractical is a better solution. No data transmission to or from the car to the team other than the driver's/engineer's voices.

PITSTOPS
I don't want pit stops regulated to have more of an influence on who wins. I want the driver to have more influence. Tyre pit stops are OK but should not be specified. If you think you can do the whole race on 1 set of tyres or 2 or 3 - fine. The team can choose their tyres in advance.

ARTIFICIAL PASSING
No. No DRS, no push-to-pass. No artificial aids.

WEIGHT LIMIT
Agreed - bigger drivers should be able to compete on skill. Total car weight with driver, still gives an advantage to the smaller driver in that the ballast can be positioned to give a slight advantage.

BLOCKING
Agreed

TRACK DESIGN
Yes, there should be a significant punishment for going off the track. They also need tracks where you can overtake. They need to stop allowing drivers to force another driver off the track - even if they are in the same team.

RULES STABILITY
If they get the rules right, the show should be good and they should only need tweaking at times to improve the show.

GOVERNANCE
Agree. The FIA should control the rules and their enforcement. They should write the rules to be as clear as practical and should retain authority of being the final arbiter on interpretation of the rules. I agree with having the same enforcers at every Grand Prix instead of changing stewards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 3479
Location: Belgium
Well I like most of his proposals even though I must admit I don't understand much of the technical side like the downforce and such.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2189
Location: Far side of Koozebane
In regards to DRS , can someone please explain to me what constitutes artificial passing? It always gets me when someone says it's artificial but I cannot recall an explanation on why it is seen as artificial.

Is the use of a turbo boost button when overtaking artificial ? What about having to wait until someone pits to pass them because the aero rules stop you from getting close enough to pass? Is that artificial ?

I have no issue with DRS. I do have an issue with the way it is used. I believe it should be allowed to be used, at the drivers discretion, as an attacking or defensive tool, a designated number times per race.

DRS was not the issue. Aerodynamics was the issue and DRS was the solution. As James May has said, "Its an ingenious solution to a problem that should not have existed in the 1st place".

Now that I have that off my chest, other comments on Johanssons ideas:

* Not keen on his ideas about FIA supplied parts. Getting an inch too close to a spec series for me.

* Cost cap - How will it be policed? Is cost the real issue or is it the unfair distribution of prize money?

* Don't want to be a Luddite here but I think the drivers do have too much assistance these days. All for reduction of drivers aids.

* Stick with 1 tyre manufacturer. A tyre war usually ends up with 1 manufacturer dominating.

* All for open PU regulations. As long as a supplier can meet a certain basic criteria, then welcome aboard.

* Don't like his pit stop idea. It may work but I don't think it's a big ticket item.

* 100% back his views on track design, driver promotion, simulators, blocking and race stewards.

* Rules stability. This is a tough one. F1 has always been seen as being at the top of the motor racing technology tree. Unfortunately this comes at the cost of a high financial commitment to maintain that position through regulation changes. How does F1 keep costs down but still maintain it's technological relevance? Anyway as I have said, is the cost of the sport the real financial issue or is it prize money distribution?

* Governance. This to me is the root cause of F1's problems. As I have said in another thread, the inmates are running the asylum.
The sport needs a person / group to take the reins and say "This is the way it is, these are the rules. If you don't like them, and this includes you Ferrari, then thank you for your efforts and don't let the door hit you in the ar$e on the way out". The sport needs to be bigger than the participants and at the moment it is not. If we get a person/group who has the sports well being as it's priority and not self interest, then hopefully things like prize money distribution etc should start to be sorted.
I cannot think of another sport where the participants have such a large say in the running of that sport.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Japan- 19) - 135 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 351 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4825
What is different about the current blocking rules and what he proposes in the article? What am I missing?

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:01 pm 
I very largely agree with you (and, by implication, with Stefan) but I must confess to taking issue with you on this point.

babararacucudada wrote:
LIMITING DOWNFORCE
This wouldn't work because the forces pushing down on the car are not just aerodynamic.
If the car hits a kerb and the strain gauge exceeds the limit, are they going to have a steward's enquiry on each one?


Limiting downforce is a most important aspect to deal with so I think we should not be put off by a reasonable point such as you make without trying harder to work through it. I'm confident that where additional force is detected by the sensors by events such as you cite -- hitting kerbs -- then the telemetry should be quite easily capable of "understanding" why such a "spike" occurred. Better still, in my opinion, would be for downforce exceeding the mandated amount to be only measured in slightly longer chunks of time, say, three seconds. The point being that if a team has set up its car to exceed the mandated amount of downforce, what race control wants to know is whether it's busting the rules for more than just a fleeting moment. "Spikes" don't really matter and if you think about it, "apparent excess downforce" moments are not going to help the car lap faster.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
The approach to engine costs is the thing baffling me most at the moment. Because of the cost to teams the engines are restricted to X units a year...? But the teams pay a flat rate for an engine supply, it's the engine manufacturer who theoretically benefits (though as Johansson states it's questionable whether there really is a saving). Anyone who thinks the teams pay less for their engines thanks to these rules is surely being a tad optimistic.

Of all the groups who sink money into F1 (the teams, the promoters, the fans, the engine suppliers etc.) the engine suppliers are surely the ones we should worry about the least. They're the most transient, have the most resources and the most to gain. And their departure, frankly, wouldn't matter much. Firstly I don't believe that any manufacturers involvement in F1 is financially dependent on revenue from customer teams. If it is, and a means of limiting what they can charge to, say, $5m drives them out... so what? Instead of the cutting edge units from Merc we'd have we'd have the likes of Cosworth once again supplying less sophisticated power at a fraction of the cost. What harm could that do to the racing or the sport? There's nothing stopping regs demanding eco-engines. It's the absurd complexity that costs, a green philosophy can be achieved much more cheaply. And saving a team with a $60m budget up to $20-$25m a year on engine costs would attract competitors to replace the Honda and Renault works teams, assuming they're withdrawn rather than sold.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1672
quere wrote:
I very largely agree with you (and, by implication, with Stefan) but I must confess to taking issue with you on this point.

babararacucudada wrote:
LIMITING DOWNFORCE
This wouldn't work because the forces pushing down on the car are not just aerodynamic.
If the car hits a kerb and the strain gauge exceeds the limit, are they going to have a steward's enquiry on each one?


Limiting downforce is a most important aspect to deal with so I think we should not be put off by a reasonable point such as you make without trying harder to work through it. I'm confident that where additional force is detected by the sensors by events such as you cite -- hitting kerbs -- then the telemetry should be quite easily capable of "understanding" why such a "spike" occurred. Better still, in my opinion, would be for downforce exceeding the mandated amount to be only measured in slightly longer chunks of time, say, three seconds. The point being that if a team has set up its car to exceed the mandated amount of downforce, what race control wants to know is whether it's busting the rules for more than just a fleeting moment. "Spikes" don't really matter and if you think about it, "apparent excess downforce" moments are not going to help the car lap faster.


They have either managed to get the fuel flow system working, or else agreed not to make a fuss if it isn't working, so I guess they could do a downforce limit system. They also have to stop aero systems mounted directly on the wheels. There might also be loopholes whereby they could create more downforce and bypass the measuring system.

I'd prefer flat bottomed cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9832
F1's popularity is its doom, thanks to the big audiences it's a very good marketing platform and hence the big manufacturers with their big budgets which means an open development race which is the essence of the sport would kill any smaller teams and ultimately the sport. Free development war is both the saviour and the killer.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 1252
Covalent wrote:
F1's popularity is its doom, thanks to the big audiences it's a very good marketing platform and hence the big manufacturers with their big budgets which means an open development race which is the essence of the sport would kill any smaller teams and ultimately the sport. Free development war is both the saviour and the killer.


Agreed. On a slight side note, I love your sig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9832
Sevenfest wrote:
Covalent wrote:
F1's popularity is its doom, thanks to the big audiences it's a very good marketing platform and hence the big manufacturers with their big budgets which means an open development race which is the essence of the sport would kill any smaller teams and ultimately the sport. Free development war is both the saviour and the killer.


Agreed. On a slight side note, I love your sig

Thanks :D

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1395
More power's not really a problem with the existing engines if the will is there. Relax the fuel flow rates and the total limit at bit and it happens naturally.

They maybe be complicated, expensive and relatively quiet (ymmv), but they're still basically monsters leashed by artificial (albeit largely necessary imo) rather than technical restrictions. This is the norm in F1's history, but it's probably to an even greater than usual extent at the moment.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
I dont think that increasing engine power up to 1200-1300 hp the overtaking chances will be increased...

Judging from what happened in the past, the more power and the more speed, the more difficult is to overtake.

With so much power teams will surely find a way to increase the downforce aswell.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Banana Man, Bing [Bot], mikeyg123, pokerman and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group