F1 2021 Rules - More Information Released

[NewOne0]

The only thing I hope to see is that more than 3 teams fight for the championship with like only one driver each. Cut away the financial advantage of rich teams like Mercedes and Ferrari, so the field gets closer together.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

It was banned because the downforce created was getting to much for what the cars could handle, and it was also getting too dangerous because of the porpoising and if a car lost one of the skirts.

This is my concern, if it was deemed too dangerous back then, what prevents the same issues from happening again? Also it will be curious to see if we actually get to a point where cars become too fast to drive after the downforce increase from the floor. Corners like Copse in Silverstone are already full speed and I guess at some point there will be a limit, if not from equipment then just due to human physique.

 

[Tero Dahlberg]

...very good news for fans hoping for closer competition on track, something that has fallen away significantly since the aerodynamic changes introduced for the 2017 season.

There was plenty of overtaking prior to 2017 for several years! Oh no, I was thinking of every other racing series. My bad!

 

[Nick Hill]

I dunno, I've been reading up about 2021 and I'm still processing. Overall, I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about the future of motorsport (or, at least, motorsport as we have known it) in general. A big part of me thinks the realistic goal for F1 is survival. Return to glory seems to be a major stretch at this point in time.

I watch every F1 race, I watch every IndyCar race, and I'm also rewatching the replay of the '07 F1 season.

F1 is pretty stale. The cars are way, way too big and just not as visually exciting as they used to be. The racing itself is pretty awful, if I'm honest. A big part of it I think is cost cutting - which I think is probably a necessary evil in today's climate (see my earlier comment about survival), but I think the net effect is that the machinery is just not being pushed to the extremes like they used to. This means a well funded, well run team like Mercedes is not only quick, but can realistically achieve 100% reliability. I think the cars are also way, way too easy to drive.

As far as IndyCar goes, the action is incredible and, at least on the surface, easily on par with the kind of topsy turvy on track action you see in a race from a great F1 season (such as 2007). Perhaps even better in some regards because you don't even have the "rolling chicane" entries in IndyCar like you do during what's considered a highly competitive F1 season. The field is very tight from beginning to end and you're never quite sure what you'll see right up until the closing phases of the race (on ovals, which is obviously a different ballgame, it's often coming down to the final couple laps). But it's definitely not the same as a good F1 season, because it's spec and you can't but help feeling it's all contrived. It's still a lot of fun to watch and I'll be attending Laguna Seca in person this year, so I'm not "hating"...just being honest and saying it's missing some of the magic.

F1 is fighting a losing battle - people are losing interest in cars in general car and companies are all about EVs (and Formula E has that covered). If I were F1, I would be severely tempted to become the NASCAR of the open wheel world - drop the pretense of of being the pinnacle of automotive engineering (which F1 already is not, because of EVs) and just play up the visceral experience. Tightly spec'd, unhinged little cars with screaming V8s (or V10s, my personal favorite) carving up the track wheel to wheel.

 

[Nick Gregory]

This is my concern, if it was deemed too dangerous back then, what prevents the same issues from happening again? Also it will be curious to see if we actually get to a point where cars become too fast to drive after the downforce increase from the floor. Corners like Copse in Silverstone are already full speed and I guess at some point there will be a limit, if not from equipment then just due to human physique.

What these proposed regs are going to do is make the downforce less reliant on wings and make most of it from the underbody. It's how it's done in Indycar, and they seem to be getting on just fine with that.

 

[Ben Lee]

"A reduction of car-to-pit telemetry is also being investigated" <--this doesn't sound like much, but it would be a BIG one, a game changer.

I wonder what "driver aids" they're talking about though. Maybe something with power management / braking recuperation?

It has to be things like the “start maps” and numerous “throttle maps”. To me it’s obvious most teams have developed some kind of launch control and traction control via the back door. When was the last time you saw a car light up it’s rear tyres with plumes of blue tyre smoke at a race start? Probably over 20 years ago? Go back to some 1990s race starts and there you will see drivers doing proper starts, with real wheel spin.

 

[Flip-Flop Driver]

What these proposed regs are going to do is make the downforce less reliant on wings and make most of it from the underbody. It's how it's done in Indycar, and they seem to be getting on just fine with that.

Isn't Indycar floor flat all the way to the diffuser like current F1 (which has a smaller diffuser)?
These drawings have the wing profile underbody without the skirt sealing from the 1970s.
The current F1 wings seal the floor. But these seem to lose the current vortices.

 

[Leonardo Chaves]

This is my concern, if it was deemed too dangerous back then, what prevents the same issues from happening again? Also it will be curious to see if we actually get to a point where cars become too fast to drive after the downforce increase from the floor. Corners like Copse in Silverstone are already full speed and I guess at some point there will be a limit, if not from equipment then just due to human physique.

I'm sure we will be getting a non skirted, with min height, planked step planes version... rather than the full unrestricted ground effect.

Isn't Indycar floor flat all the way to the diffuser like current F1 (which has a smaller diffuser)?

No, Indycar has ground effect with no skirts and a difference in min height between the centerline of the car and the sidepod area(what F1 calls main plane and step plane).
This effectively stops teams sealing the tunnels by running the car low to the point of scraping the floor.

 

[Deleted member 379375]

It was banned because the downforce created was getting to much for what the cars could handle, and it was also getting too dangerous because of the porpoising and if a car lost one of the skirts.

Senna's death was the biggest influence, loss of downforce due to low tyre pressure leading to loss of ride height from following the safety car.

 

[Deleted member 379375]

This is my concern, if it was deemed too dangerous back then, what prevents the same issues from happening again? Also it will be curious to see if we actually get to a point where cars become too fast to drive after the downforce increase from the floor. Corners like Copse in Silverstone are already full speed and I guess at some point there will be a limit, if not from equipment then just due to human physique.

They may well increase the under car downforce by a sensible amount and then reduce front wings to compensate so overall laptimes are not hugely affected. Thining the plank rather than removing it.

 

[UMC 22]

That's what we want. If you get a Charles Leclerc or a Max Verstappen in a midfield team, it can make a difference. It won't matter at the moment.

It’s been proposed that that drivers’ salaries and the salaries of a small number of key team personnel wouldn’t be included in the cost control.

For me, these two things simply don't mix. If "key personnel", especially drivers, are not included in the cost controls then the rich teams are still going to win. You could force all teams to use spec cars if you wanted to, but if you put Hamilton in one and Grosjean in another, chances are very high that Hamilton will win. Given the obscene and unattainable wages demanded by the top drivers compared to the midfield and back of the grid, teams like Merc and Ferrari will still be the only ones fighting at the front because only they can afford the best drivers.

 

[LagunaSeca]

• The removal of some driver aids on the cars is being evaluated ahead of October

I think current F1 does not have TC nor ABS. Drivers also need to take care of tons of configurations. What kind of aids can be removed on the top of what we have right now? Maybe two brake pedals so the drivers can adjust the brake bias turn-by-turn?

 

[wombat999]

Quite a lot of the proposed changes make sense, aerodynamics need further restrictions however.
Watching Silverstone I couldn't get over the ridiculous amount of 'Aero' appendages seemingly tacked on all over the 'cars' in ridiculous places. Just go to a mandated smaller size double plane front and rear wing, no 'extras' and no exceptions. Ground effects are a maybe yes, maybe no IMHO, the so called 'flat bottom' cars that replaced ground effect cars in the early 1980s were never a good move, as the flat bottom area only covered front to rear wheel centres, leading to all manner of rubbish diffusers and fugly high noses. CART demonstrated a simple method of cutting wake interference during the 1990s, literally using a 'plank' to blank off the ground effect wake turbulence across the end of the tunnels and allowing following cars to get up close and personal. It worked. Without getting into the comms too far I'd simply say no coaching, no driver to crew 'He pushed me off' garbage, just safety messages and 'pit now', no more and no less.
Cost caps will never work, it never worked decades ago when I started in FF1600 and it just is impossible to enforce. My own (controversial) view on manufacturer participation is this: contemporary operations such as Renault, Mercedes, Honda and Ferrari should simply be engine supply, prices need to be capped (hard to do) and perhaps only five teams per supplier to avoid dominance, if by some chance Ford, Audi and Toyota 'hypothetically' stepped in the five team suggestion could come down to four, ideally if we had seven manufacturers involved that could become three cars each for a twenty one car grid. And no re-branding either.
Never happen but one can only hope.

 

[Leonardo Chaves]

I'm surprised there isn't any cover/cleaner on the rear wheels, sounds like something that would be good for the car following to me.

 

[Richard Wilks]

Senna's death was the biggest influence, loss of downforce due to low tyre pressure leading to loss of ride height from following the safety car.

Not wanting to derail this thread, but Senna's car didn't have tunnels underneath, so one could argue that flat bottoms are actually more dangerous than tunnels.

But i also don't believe any loss of downforce caused Senna's death, for me the steering broke, plain and simple.

 

[Filip Carlén]

It was banned because the downforce created was getting to much for what the cars could handle, and it was also getting too dangerous because of the porpoising and if a car lost one of the skirts.

Sorry for the poor wording from my side, I can see why that was easily misinterpreted

Yes, when it was banned it was sensible. But I think it has stayed banned for pity reasons, they could have re-allowed it way earlier than 2021 by restricting the downforce generated by the top of the car. 2007 should have been the "warning shot", insanely complicated cars instead of allowing ground effect and restricting wing complexity (just look at the McLaren MP4-22). But Bernie said no in the 80s and no means no when Bernie says it.

 

[Ben O'Bro]

Not super related.
Still F1 though.

I happened to see this video yesterday, and was most impressed at the ball size needed to drive such power under such conditions.

Not saying today's or tomorrow's F1 are easy to drive. Easier i imagine.
I would be curious to see today's driver on an old machine like that, how they would perform

 

[Richard Wilks]

It wasn't Bernie who said no. It was the FISA and the constructors who said no. Bernie just caved in to that so he could get the show again on the road. All the non turbo runners in 1982 were against the ban, which was a political motivated move. The drivers didnt like the cars because they were physically hard to drive, due to the non existant suspension travel at speed.

The FISA/FIA has a history or banning things outright either by political reasons of the moment, or knee jerk reactions, and they seem incredibly stubborn to just go back to something they banned.

I do agree that the 2009 regulations were a massive wasted oportunity, then because of their stubborness they went in the completely opposite direction of what they should have done.

I also believe that we will not see any serious clamp down on aero development anytime soon, because F1 teams these days have a lot of people working and a lot of money invested in aero, too much vested interest of too many parties on that to make it useless overnight. Mclaren is even building a new wind tunnel...

 

[E304LIFE]

If it is a change that increases competition, and level parity, then I'm all for it. I'm actually surprised they are going this route. What's the worse that could happen? Make F1 more enjoyable again? Making the driver a more determining factor will be positive imo.

 

[Nick Gregory]

Senna's death was the biggest influence, loss of downforce due to low tyre pressure leading to loss of ride height from following the safety car.

Ground effect as it was in the 70's and 80's was banned about a decade before Senna's death, so he has nothing to do with it.