Doomtrooper said:
My understanding was F1 did not ban completley turbo chargers, but lower the engine displacement to a max of 1.5 liters. I may be out of touch on that one
Right-o.
The overpressurized engines were always 1.5 litres, hence the turbo engines were aswell. It was left as a holdover from the original F1 formula from 1948(4.5 litres, 1.5 litres supercharged) when they went to the new engine spec. in 1966(3.0 litres).
There was a 1.5 mechanically supercharged F1 car in 1953 already! A 1500cc V16!
Tire wear is a easy one, compounds can be easily changed for soft or harder ..I personally race Solo 1 racing and some Formula 1000 cars and it happens all the time in all forms of racing. So you may have excellent grip for say 20 laps but the curve will drop quickly and force more driver input, and more pit stops which puts more pressure on the team to perform. This one is very easy to implement.
Sure, all racecars use all kinds of rubber compounds depending on circumstances. But you see, anybody can make tyres for F1:s, and the teams and the drivers choose which suits them, the track, the weather and the car to go the fastest they possibly could(averaged over the race distance). In fact most of the time they use the softest rubber they can get away with already. It was right on the edge last weekend with both the Michelins and the Bridgestones, go any softer and you have to tippy-toe around the track to keep them from blistering and ultimately falling completely apart.
What you're really saying in that case, is that you would force one-make tyres and force a single tyre compound for all cars. I wouldn't call that easy.
Fuel Cell capacity is a way to tighten up the grid, the more power you make the more fuel you burn so cars that dominate on large courses that have big power will need to pit more.
Well most other F1 critics call for less pitstops, not more. Besides, the fuel consumption isn't that all that varied between the cars to make that much of a difference. All engine manufacturers focuses on fuel consumption already, with the fact that every five kilos of fuel equals between one or two of thenths in laptime.
The power delta isn't all that great either to begin with. Last year the spread was something like a bit over 800bhp for the weakest(Renault!) to about around 900bhp for Ferrari and BMW. (all rumours/estimates)
The wider wheelbase is also easy to implement, F1 already knows what each engine on every team has for power.
No they don't. The engine manufacturers have no obligation to reveal the power output.
Teams with lower power would get X amount of cm's allowed to the chasis. This would allow lower powered cards to drive the car deeper into the corners, and help make up the power deficenies. (this one would have to be tested extensivley to be fair)
The thing is, it's never going to be fair. And if extensive (unbiased)testing is necessary I certainly wouldn't call it easy. Bloody hard more likely.
What's fair in my book, is that all manufacturers have the same opportunity to build an engine just as strong as the competitors. It's the same rule for all: 3 litres, 10 cylinders.
Aero adjustments are a little harder to implement, each chasis would have to be put in a wind tunnel, compare and adjust accodingly.
The bottom line is, racing is about the racing team and the car, so to make racing more balanced they need to introduce some of these types of fixes to make the race worth watching. You don't want to eliminate engineering improvements and take away some of the mechanical genious , nor penalize a drivers skill , the idea would be to see races won on strategy and overall team skill (like IROC).F1 is responsible for the state of racing overall yet they have done little to balance the field. I don't follow F1 much anymore as Ferrari is lapping the field on most occasions <yawn>.
But takes away engineering skill is what IROC(and NASCAR) does by definition(come on, pushrods in the 21st century?)! One-make series is the exact opposite from what F1 is about, and I consider NASCAR one-make, or as close you can get without actually calling it that.
The whole point of Grand Prix racing from the beginning was to promote the CARS and especially their engines. In the pre-war Grand Prix racing it was the cars that were the stars, there were famous drivers, but they were just employed paid pilots to get the CAR over the finish line first.
Today, it seems from all the (mostly F1)detractors, it seems that the DRIVER is the star and the car is just a means to get the DRIVER over the finish line first. Having a better car is seen as "unfair". I say to them that they have missed the entire point of racing in the first place.
My view of racing is:
1) You build(or buy) a car
2) You drive it, or, if you're shit, you get another one to drive it for you
3) You try to get it over the finish line first
