K.E.Rs / Boast Will Not Work ?

thegoth

Just want to throw my opinion on the proposed KERS return in order to aid overtaking.

I like the idea of KERS but its not the answer to aid overtaking and can actually have the opposite effect. How many time last year did we see a KERS hold up a faster car for an entire because it had KERS ? Remember the KERS Ferrari holding up the faster none KERS Force India at Spa ?

I say

1) Lets have KERS but not pretend it will greatly help overtaking
2) Reduce Downforce
3) Increase Braking Zones
4) Bigger Stickier tyres
5) Have 2 Mandatory pitstops
6) More engine power
7) Manual Gears
8) Adjustable Rear Wing

Discuss please

se conman

What about one standard fixed wider rear wing designed to give a set amount of down force but more importantly designed to lift the dirty air over a following car.This would improve towing which leads to passing.
Just a thought.

RayM

1. Ban the use of wind-tunnels.
2. Reduce aerodynamic efficiency.
3. Big sticky tyres.
4. Maintain refuelling ban, and don't introduce mandatory pitstops.
5. Fully manual gears, including clutch.
6. Permit the use of 1.5 turbo engines, allowing unlimited research and development.
7. Heavier, sturdier cars (thus enabling wheel-banging without risk of suspension damage).
8. Bring back Raikkonen.
9. Shoot Hermann Tilke (failing that, just sack him and ditch Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Valencia and Shanghai).

Frank Bullitt

Why dont they just look back to see what year had the most overtaking in it and go back to those regulations?

lord lucan

Gintonious wrote: »

Why dont they just look back to see what year had the most overtaking in it and go back to those regulations?

And bring back the old banking at Monza!!:D

RayM

LIGHTNING wrote:

1. Wind-tunnels are vital, just look at what happens when a car only using CFD

They're only vital if everyone else is using them (as Virgin are belatedly discovering). They're a huge expense and contribute to the cars being too aerodynamically efficient.

LIGHTNING wrote:

6. Unlimited research mean big budgets, something that they are trying to avoid.

That's true, but at least some of the cost could be offset by banning the use of precious metals in their construction (thus making them closer to road car engines and therefore more relevant to the manufacturers). It just seems really silly, banning engine development in a sport that revolves around power.

LIGHTNING wrote:

7. Its a non-contact sport so heavier cars arent needed.

There's always the risk of making contact during an overtaking manoeuvre. If the suspension arms (in particular) were stronger, drivers would be less risk-averse. I'd hate to see F1 becoming like touring cars, but there's nothing more tedious than watching someone limp out of a race, having merely tapped another car.

LIGHTNING wrote:

8. I dont see what Raikkonen has to do with overtaking. We dont need him back.

He's a great overtaker. Prematurely losing drivers like Raikkonen (and Montoya) is disastrous for the sport.

Iron Hide

RayM wrote: »

They're only vital if everyone else is using them (as Virgin are belatedly discovering). They're a huge expense and contribute to the cars being too aerodynamically efficient.



That's true, but at least some of the cost could be offset by banning the use of precious metals in their construction (thus making them closer to road car engines and therefore more relevant to the manufacturers). It just seems really silly, banning engine development in a sport that revolves around power.



There's always the risk of making contact during an overtaking manoeuvre. If the suspension arms (in particular) were stronger, drivers would be less risk-averse. I'd hate to see F1 becoming like touring cars, but there's nothing more tedious than watching someone limp out of a race, having merely tapped another car.



He's a great overtaker. Prematurely losing drivers like Raikkonen (and Montoya) is disastrous for the sport.

I'm pretty sure most if not all the drivers on the grid are great overtakers, its the cars that are the problem.

I'm in agreement on points 1 and 2, though please lets not go back to the 70's and the truck-sized tyres.

Manual boxes will never happen again.
Looks like we'll probably be relying on weather for each race not to be a one-stop procession, so return to refuelling!

Yes shoot Hermann Tilke several times, and belt Ecclestone with a steel pipe every time he suggests yet ANOTHER street circuit or middle east/asian race..

EvilMonkey

thegoth wrote: »

I say

1) Lets have KERS but not pretend it will greatly help overtaking

Ok but not a standard one and unlimited power generation(new/small teams wont be able to afford it)

2) Reduce Downforce

Tried that it took 1 season for downforce levels to be smiler to what they were, granted they didn't follow through and ban double diffs.

3) Increase Braking Zones

How, Steel break disks will never be reintroduced.

4) Bigger Stickier tyres

The tyres have enough grip bigger tyres i'm not sure how about less griper tyres at least ones that don't last as long as the current ones?

5) Have 2 Mandatory pitstops

Absolutely not, there is enough artificial measures in F1 to "improve the show" F1 is a sport not a show, make it competitive and people will be interested.

6) More engine power

Yes please, scrap engine standardisation/8 engine rule, goes against the cut costs budget F1 model there currently pushing.

7) Manual Gears

Again it wont happen, especially when the gearbox has to last multiple races

8) Adjustable Rear Wing

Maybe but the driver shouldn't do it front and rear wing adjustable on the fly from pit wall let the driver concentrate on overtaking.

Discuss please

How about scraping the parc ferme rules? If you qualify in mid field set the car up to better cope with driving in traffic with more front wing and better cooling.

Oh yeah stop chopping and changing the rules every year or the teams will never get to grips with them. A 5 - 10 year plan is needed with small changes each year to get there, there is no quick fix to get more overtaking.

vectra

thegoth wrote: »

Just want to throw my opinion on the proposed KERS return in order to aid overtaking.

I like the idea of KERS but its not the answer to aid overtaking and can actually have the opposite effect. How many time last year did we see a KERS hold up a faster car for an entire because it had KERS ? Remember the KERS Ferrari holding up the faster none KERS Force India at Spa ?

I say

1) Lets have KERS but not pretend it will greatly help overtaking
e

Kers just wont work
If every car on the grid had it then who would benefit.?
The car trying to overtake or the Car defending.

cadaliac

Kers - it just won't work. As said already, if everyone had it, it would be deemed as useless, although it would vary slightly on the power of each car, per se.
Making the cars heavier will be a disaster also. Rest assured that as soon as a driver feels that the car will take a "hit" in a corner and come out alright, he will go for the gap and slap the car if needs be. I would.
As for the engine ban, I agree with the number of engines used per season but I have to disagree with a technology development ban on engines.
Someone mentioned that this is a sport and not a show, but I have to disagree albeit slightly.
It is the pinnacle of motor sport and while technology and driver skill should be top of the list, the fact that it is F1 and that there is so much hype surrounding F1 - just makes it a bit of a show, and I like that.
I like the hype, gossip and useless wayward opinions and predictions of the presenters.
However, I feel strongly about the technology ban on engines.
This is F1 after all. If you can make a car go faster.......make it go faster! If you can develop an extra 20bhp from the engine.....develop it. Why are we waiting for other sports to develop the engine technology? I understand the financial end of it and I can see why the ban is there but I don't agree with it. I think it should be a sport where every option is explored to make the cars faster. Only the latest technology and very best drivers that money can buy are available. Yes , only the best. In all departments.
That would make it a show that everyone would want to watch.

Oblomov

Allow freedom of engine design, multi cylinder, multi valve and cams.... adjustable inlet manifolds... ( variable length)

Allow freedom of chassis and suspension design, within a length and width restriction

Keep semi auto boxes.. it saves engines.

Fat tyres, and greatly reduce aerodynamic benefits...

Get some high speed corners, and rationalise the number of races and length of seasons, more races, longer season....

bring back the innovative and the freedom of thought with racing cars.

F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of race car engineering, development in design and materials used.

Allow a prepared and balanced fuel superficially for F1, possible toluene and the massive BHP figures from engines....'grenade' engines for practice.....

Lets 'Race' again