Mike Amos
|
So, what's next with KERS ditched?What do folk think?
Fuel limits? With the end of refueling from next year, this might be a realistic method of reducing the environmental impact.
Alternative fuels? Another potential kick start for the alternative fuel brigade, might also reduce carbon footprint.
Slot racers? An off the wall method of putting fel in the car, not realistic imho as shunts would be sure to produce more than just sparks.
Any ideas?
|
Humphrey The Pug
|
I'm just hoping for a period of stabilisation, a couple of years of no changes.
The constant changes are what costs the money and also confuses people, here's hoping anyway.
Why was re-fuelling banned anyway? There you go banning re-fuelling everyone has to do a major re-design of the car costing a bloody fortune, rather than just implementing updates of the previous years car.
|
Mike Amos
|
They cannot possibly call themselves a governing body and NOT force rule changes every so often. It's one of the ways they interfere with, sorry, improve the formula, hence qualifying the huge pay they get for basically nothing usefull.
It would be interesting to see if they can get an agreement for reducing carbon impact of motor sport generally, I cannot see a downside actually.
|
DaveGibson
|
Like any quango (I know they are not actually a quango), the FIA's prime objective is to justify their continued existence.
|
Nice Guy Eddie
|
I would expect that cars will become hybrid in some format and that fuel tank sizes will be limited as they are in Moto Gp to try and achieve a certain gas mileage.
|
Big TC
|
I think the teams should be given a certain amount of fuel for the race, but make the engine regs absolutely free. The most efficient engine with the best combination of mpg/power will win... And every car should then at least sound different.
|
DaveGibson
|
They ran F1 to a fuel limit in the eighties. Teams started cooling the fuel before filling the tanks to maximise the calorific value so they introduced a rule that the fuel must be at ambient temperature. They were running under these rules when Mansell beat Piquet at Silverstone in 1987 even though his fuel readout was negative for about the last two laps.
|
TimR
|
I think some of the non-refuelling races in the past were pretty good and didn't the teams often do the whole race on 1 set of tyres too.
It certainly added an extra element to the racing - not just who was fastest flat out but who could conserve fuel/tyres best as well.
It seems laughable to me that KERS has been given the boot at the same time as the FIA are trying to force the teams to reduce costs.
If something so fundamental happened in Government there'd be cries of U-turn from the opposition and demands for an election (which we're getting from the FIA anyway but for a different reason).
|
DaveGibson
|
The Mansell/Piquet race at Silverstone was so exciting because Mansell punctured and was some 30 seconds behind Piquet. Despite both driving Williams' cars and coping with the fuel limit, Mansell still managed to win.
The KERS turnaround is less a 'government' U-turn because it's FOTA who have said they are not using it, not an FIA proposal.
|
Sav
|
KERS's introduction was finalised for Formula One in 2006 by Max. I think KERS should stay, and stay optional. I like the variation in acceleration and speeds between the cars - especially at the start.
|
DaveGibson
|
| Sav wrote: | | .......... I like it when Hamilton / McLaren pass everyone - especially at the start. |
Fixed your post. 
|
Sav
|
Well you know, there is that too. To be fair though, the Mercedes-Benz system is pretty darn good. The most effective in delivering the boost and it has a 100 % GP reliablity record.
|
canadian bacon
|
trouble with KERS, is that its effectively a two tier system, with certain cars running it and others not (because its optional), of course the teams would never go for it, they want a level playing field, oh hang on, doesn't this sound familiar??
I think refuelling being junked is a good thing, as this will force some thinking into the strategy of the drivers, yes, you can thrash it off the line and disappear into the distance, but it may come back and bite you, no more 'splash and dash' sprints.
Tyre wear will also play a bigger part, as the cars will be a lot heavier at the start, so won't be nearly as quick.
|
Big Blue
|
The rules set by the FiA are supposed to move with technology of the day, otherwise we'd be seeing cars so fast and so sticky that the tarmac contractors would be relaying the road after each session. They've forgotten this an seem to think their role is to make "the spectacle" better, which is why in an era when economy and fuel saving was required they introduced refuelling instead of making the cars show how economic they can be.
losing refuelling next year is also partly fuelled (no pun intended) by the single tyre supplier, who now isn't bothered if he proves his tyres are better than GoodYear or Pirelli or Michelin so they had to introduce a compulsory pit stop to make sure we don't see a repeat of the Leyton House effort at the '88 French GP where Ivan Capelli nearly won just by not stopping for tyres (someone correct my facts there - just from memory).
To my mind, for what it's worth, losing the refuelling is great; having a single tyre company is a bar to progress because competition is the best way to improve a product. I wouldn't fancy riding my Fireblade round a roundabout or driving across France in my 200+PS Sharan on 1970s cross plies with (seemingly) 20% Bakerlite in the rubber!
|
Boxer6
|
| Big Blue wrote: | The rules set by the FiA are supposed to move with technology of the day, otherwise we'd be seeing cars so fast and so sticky that the tarmac contractors would be relaying the road after each session. They've forgotten this an seem to think their role is to make "the spectacle" better, which is why in an era when economy and fuel saving was required they introduced refuelling instead of making the cars show how economic they can be.
losing refuelling next year is also partly fuelled (no pun intended) by the single tyre supplier, who now isn't bothered if he proves his tyres are better than GoodYear or Pirelli or Michelin so they had to introduce a compulsory pit stop to make sure we don't see a repeat of the Leyton House effort at the '88 French GP where Ivan Capelli nearly won just by not stopping for tyres (someone correct my facts there - just from memory).
To my mind, for what it's worth, losing the refuelling is great; having a single tyre company is a bar to progress because competition is the best way to improve a product. I wouldn't fancy riding my Fireblade round a roundabout or driving across France in my 200+PS Sharan on 1970s cross plies with (seemingly) 20% Bakerlite in the rubber! |
You know, Michelin were still making 50% Bakelite tyres up until quite recently.... A/M59's anyone?!?!
Re the OP - I've not really kept up with F1 for a good while (other than through the Forumistas here!) but I reckon something along the lines of Moto GP rules may be in order; i.e., no stops for anything, unless it's to change tyres if a wet race is declared. So, no fuel, tyres, messing about with wings - simply a proper (2-hours, like it used to be!!) Grand Prix, where the team with the best combination of driver and car on the day will win.
Oh yes - a way of enticing Pirelli, Goodyear et al back to the sport would be a huge bon to, IMHO.
|
Eff One
|
To quote Mark Hughes (I think), F1 needs a tyre war like it needs a hole in the head. It would be a similar problem to KERS, with a two-tier field, and once again we'd have spiralling speeds and the FIA forcing through drastic changes to cut them.
I am, overall, in favour of the refuelling ban although it has added spice on occasion. I would be against a fuel limit because it reduces the creative options of the designers.
|
Rodge
|
Let the teams design cars that can actually further technology.
Stipulate the size of the car, that it has to be open wheeled and has to weigh a certain amount.
Give them a fixed amount of fuel for the race weekend, either petrol or diesel.
Give each team $20million and let them design what they like, but it has to last them for the season and the drivers will cost extra.
They can have 4 litre V12 petrol-turbo-diesel-supercharged-hybrids with go faster stripes if they want.
They could even have two classes, for petrol and diesel, a bit like when there were n/a and turbo charged cars in the 80's. If every team is using the same budget, the classes will be closer.
There are too many regulations in F1 and the teams need to be given a bit of leeway.
Of course, none of that will happen.
|
