Global Fan Survey 2017

Discussion in 'Formula One Discussion' started by marksawatsky, Mar 26, 2017.

  1. marksawatsky

    marksawatsky Points Scorer Contributor has put out a survey for Formula 1 fans-here it is: Global Fan Survey 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to remove all adverts.
  3. marksawatsky

    marksawatsky Points Scorer Contributor

    There is a section for comments and suggestions and here is what I wrote:
    To promote innovation and differences between teams, I would like to see the rules package reduced. I support minimum weight and maximum fuel capacity rules but think the teams should be allowed to run any engine they please, like the World Endurance Championship. Fuel economy will still be important but teams should have more control over how they save that fuel. I also think that there should be a Factory and Satellite team system like MotoGP has, with Satellite teams being allowed more engines per season and more fuel capacity. Teams should be allowed to have active suspensions (road relevant) and ground effects but the front and rear wing sizes should be limited and be single plane only. This will permit cars to follow each other really closely and make passes. Refuelling should be permitted again but fuel flow should be by gravity feed, hand held tanks only (like NASCAR) and a maximum number of 6 mechanics allowed to work on the car at one time. I don't like how pitstops are done so fast that I can't see what happened.
  4. Andyoak

    Andyoak Race Winner

    Except refuelling...
    gethinceri likes this.
  5. Greenlantern101

    Greenlantern101 Super Hero And All Round Good Guy Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    I wonder if anybody will pay attention to this one. Maybe someone should forward this to Ross Brawn.

    My suggestion
    1. 5 litre V8's normally aspirated.
    2. Single element wings
    3. No restrictions on the under floor, loose the plank and flat floor.
    4. Active suspension to avoid porpoising.
    5. Fair money distribution. No bonuses.
    6. No DRS
  6. Andyoak

    Andyoak Race Winner

    Safe to say nobody will pay attention :D

    Drop the 5 litre V8 and Damon Hill will feel like shouting for Doc Brown!

    I still stand by unrestricted DRS; unrestricted engine type (straight 4, V6, V7, V10... Whatever works); restricted fuel allowance (ever decreasing); smaller, simpler wings. Anything else goes...

    More testing through the year at set times but only allow 'new parts' at the race following testing... E.g. you want to change the bargeboards, gotta wait until the race after the next test. I reckon six test weekends per season should be ok.
  7. Andyoak

    Andyoak Race Winner

    The aero problem isn't a problem if we allow driver controlled aero: Then you can accurately call them pilots (I hate that term).

    The problem with aero is it is too restricted.

    The dirty air is good if you want to win but leads to crap racing.

    All of the design is maximising the effect if you're in front but there's no opening to have aero that gets over dirty air when you need it when behind. You'll never get rid of aero so free it up with driver control.
  8. RasputinLives

    RasputinLives I was never cool at school. Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    Personally I've always favoured the old WSR 3.5 system of giving each driver 60 seconds of DRS per race to use whenever they like. Means it can be used to overtake, defend, catch up etc and adds and extra tactical element of when to use it and finding yourself in a situation where you have none left.
  9. Andyoak

    Andyoak Race Winner

    Mmmm... I liked the old driver controlled turbo boost; push it but knowing it might blow the engine if used to much. Too much DRS and you fall off the track.
  10. Andyoak

    Andyoak Race Winner

    Thing is giving the driver the freedom to **** it up.
    I miss wondering if the car and driver will make it to the end of the race.
    cider_and_toast likes this.
  11. marksawatsky

    marksawatsky Points Scorer Contributor

    I dunno, there was that big survey a while back and in that one I suggested they allow teams to choose their own compounds for each race, and that's what happened the following year-you're welcome ;)
    gethinceri likes this.
  12. cider_and_toast

    cider_and_toast Everything in moderation Staff Member Premium Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    F1 just needs to get over its obsession with Aero. Its ironic that major manufacturers scream for more road relevance in the sport and promptly blow the majority of their budgets in the wind tunnel.

    Unless I've missed the Renault Twingo that comes with a multi plane front wing as standard?
    teabagyokel and marksawatsky like this.
  13. TR

    TR Rookie

    Hear, hear.

    I think there is something to be said for putting a limit of the maximum downforce that can be generated by an F1 car during any point of a race. This should be technically possible by including mandated pressure sensors in an appropriate location in the suspension. This won't prevent teams from spending half their budget on aerodynamics, but at least the focus should move to generating the maximum allowed downforce with minimal drag. (and hopefully a cleaner wake).
  14. The Pits

    The Pits Harumph. Again. Valued Member

    Featured Threads:
    If you want to limit aero, provide standard front and rear wings, and floor. allow as much development elsewhere (engine, suspension sensors and control systems) and even aero around the car, but front, back, and bottom are fixed. I think it was Gary Anderson who proposed something similar a while ago.

    Don't limit how much the teams can do, just where they can do it.
  15. Greenlantern101

    Greenlantern101 Super Hero And All Round Good Guy Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    It's amazing how us minions can have so many good workable ideas yet the rule makers are clueless. I really hope Ross Brawn went 'oh shit' when he saw the overtaking stats.
  16. Incubus

    Incubus Champion Elect

    Featured Threads:
    When I started following F1 the average wheekbase on cars was about 2,700 mm. It is now something a;ong the lines of 3.700 mm.

    Wouldn't retrning to shorter wheelbases reduce the amount of dirty air, reduce the depency on front-wings, make cars more lively on the rear (thus pussing a bit more emphasis on mechanical rear grip traction) and quite simply significantly reduce cars' total lenghts and thus increasing the chances of overtaking at circuits reputed for being impossible to overtake on?
    Greenlantern101 likes this.
  17. Greenlantern101

    Greenlantern101 Super Hero And All Round Good Guy Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    Ah but inappropriate ridiculously over sized cars are road relevant.

    Mercedes GLC
    Lexus GX
    Audi Q7
  18. Bill Boddy

    Bill Boddy Professional layabout Premium Contributor

    Or the Porsche Cayenne, voted the "Most Pointless Car Of The Year" when it came out.
    Greenlantern101 likes this.
  19. Greenlantern101

    Greenlantern101 Super Hero And All Round Good Guy Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    Filled it in. Feels good to have a rant every now and then.
  20. RasputinLives

    RasputinLives I was never cool at school. Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    Greenlantern101 every now and then?!?! LOL
  21. marksawatsky

    marksawatsky Points Scorer Contributor

    This big meeting over the future engines is interesting. I hope it results in manufacturers being allowed to get creative with engine designs.

Share This

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use it, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice