Hypothetical question - consequences of no regulations?

[Porrima]

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten F1 lore,
I thought about F1 and the many regulations which ban every innovation made each season for the next, make engines smaller, cars slower (though they still get faster) and wings more ugly. Now, I, rationally, absolutely understand why there is a need for regulations, but if you have time, it would interest me a lot to hear the speculations of you, infinitely more knowledgeable than me in how F1 actually works, (I just watch races) what might happen if there were almost no regulations made to the cars at all?

Specifically, what would happen in a) a few years b) in a decade or so? How would the cars be? How would racing be?

Obviously, this wouldn't work in real life, so let us assume, that regardless of what the designers could do, there would always be money available to everyone, no group would ban racing for any reason, and spectators would always be interested, regardless of what the races would be like.

I said "almost" no regulations - I believe there has to be SOME ground rules set up first, or this will be a too absurd and open-ended question to ponder about - thusly, I set up these rules that must be followed:
1.) The car has to have a combustion engine that is at least somewhat similar to a "car engine". IE you can't place a jet engine, bussard ramjet, or warp drive into your car.
2.) I realize this is hopelessly unclear as a rule, but no matter how the car changes, it has be recognizable to a casual fan (who watches races but nothing more, say) as a "formula one car" that they will identify as such. So no dragster car lookalikes, flying saucers or hypercubes.
3.) The car still has to be driven by a living person. No robotic cars, AIs, autopilots or intelligent bacteria drivers.
4.) While safety and security is not an issue as such, you cannot make any modifications that obviously are dangerous to the racers.
IE you can't, for example, insert a system that will, upon entering the final straight, lock steering wheels and gas pedal and eject the driver to stratosphere to save weight and thus increase speed.


With thanks, I would like to hear your ideas on the matter.

[Klon]

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten F1 lore

Poe would turn in his grave for that one.
But on the topic itself: the problem is, these rules are way to bendable (especially in terms of secruity) and we couldn't count the F1 related deaths anymore, because where begins "obviously" dangerous. Are these strange side mirrors from 98 obviously dangerous? The principle is nice, F1 should have way more technical freedom (kept under control with a strictly controled 50 Million dollar budget cap (if Ferrari doesn't like it because their coffee team already costs about 40, they could go to F1 hell for all I care)) but the secruity of drivers must be made sure of at virtually any cost that doesn't impend the sport itself.

[Captain Hammer]

If there are no regulations, all you're going to do is trigger another manufacturer arms race as they pour more and more money into developing the cars because they know they can spend ten million dollars and find a tenth of a second. If that is a justifable expense to one team, then all teams will be forced to do it simply to stay competitive. Costs will increase exponentially, the smaller teams will wither and die as they cannot keep up, and in the end the sport will become bloated and unrecogniseable before collapsing in on itself.

[Porrima]

Cap: Well, that indeed wouldn't work in real life. This is why I set up the fantasy prerequisite that money isn't an object in there. Assume aliens bring gold to everyone each sunday morning after services.
Also, what I meant with my security example was merely that you could take "gloves off" from the design standpoint, without having to think whether adding these kind of wings make it more unsafe, but that you couldn't do anything so absurd as a device that was guaranteed to kill your drivers or something. This is of course because this is a hypothetical question and has no relevance to what I feel should or should not be done for driver safety in real life.

The point of the question was to hear your opinions into what sort of directions you would think designers would bring their cars if almost everything was allowed and there was money to do it.

If you feel this question is too stupid to discuss about, I apologize and withdraw to my shame.

[CarlosFerreira]

I suppose we'd have cars capable of 500mph and 7 or 8 g in some 10 years time, if fuels and tyres weren't tightly regulated and providing there was enough competition. Material sciences-wise, we'd probably have the return of beryllium and other rare metals quick enough, and one of these days someone would come up with a ceramic-plastic-scrap paper composite that weighed close to nothing and was stronger than a mother in law.

Less seriously - and because I am into the whole cyberpunk genre - how about neural connections between the car and the driver? Hot wire the drivers to the controls. Imagine the sort of hacking.

[Cynon]

Less seriously - and because I am into the whole cyberpunk genre - how about neural connections between the car and the driver? Hot wire the drivers to the controls. Imagine the sort of hacking.

Am I the only one that started humming the themesong from Deus Ex? Because that's exactly what I'm thinking...

"...AND JC DENTON ENTERS THE PITLANE IN THE APOSTLECORP CAR AS WALTON SIMONS TAKES THE LEAD!" [/MurrayWalker]

[tkcom]

Upon reading this thread, Cyber Formula suddenly came to mind. The booster on those cars made KERS look like seat warmer.

[DemocalypseNow]

That.

[mario]

The problem is, if you did have a series where the rules were completely stripped away, you would soon end up in a situation where the cars would be virtually, if not totally, undriveable by any human being - the cornering forces would probably cause you to black out (as happened towards the end of the Ground Effect era, and there were cases of drivers suffering from "G-lock", or blacking out after exposure to repeated high G-forces in the CART series when they went to oval tracks), and the cars would probably be blisteringly fast.

After all, what people seem to forget is that there is someone inside of that cockpit who is still entirely mortal, and has their limits. Part of the reason that the cars were being slowed down after 2004 was down to the fact that the drivers were seriously worried, and were complaining to the FIA (via the Grand Prix Drivers Association) that the cars were becoming too difficult to drive - with Schumacher leading the charge to slow the cars down, as the 2004 Ferrari was getting to the point where he was beginning to become the limiting factor, because he couldn't always keep up with the car (i.e. he simply couldn't react, or even think fast enough, to always keep up with the car - and he wasn't the only one).

So, on that side, what would probably happen is the drivers would effectively become the limiting factors, because we would reach the point where the driver would be unable to corner faster, otherwise they'd black out, or would be unable to correct the car quickly enough should he make even the smallest of errors. You'd also find that the risk factor would become so high that the series would probably be banned fairly shortly afterwards - at the very least, you'd find that the number of tracks where you could race safely would be vanishingly small (after all, you've only considered the driver, but what about the marshalls and spectators? Take this crash at the Seat Eurocup Brands Hatch round http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKtUoxx7 ... r_embedded as a very graphic illustration of the sorts of risks that they have to take).

As for the technical direction the teams would go in, they'd almost certainly go for Ground Effect cars, because you'd have a far superior drag/downforce ratio, the wheels would end up being covered to reduce drag (open wheel cars may be nimble, but those open wheels generate a huge amount of drag), you'd end up with turbo engines (because the power to weight ratio of a turbo engine is higher compared to a normally aspirated engine) - basically, take a 1982 Ground Effect F1 car with covered wheels, the power levels of the 1985/86 seasons, and imagine what would happen if you gave it to a group of material scientists who had every ultra exotic material at their disposal, and that is probably what you'd end up with.

[Cynon]

The problem is, if you did have a series where the rules were completely stripped away, you would soon end up in a situation where the cars would be virtually, if not totally, undriveable by any human being - the cornering forces would probably cause you to black out (as happened towards the end of the Ground Effect era, and there were cases of drivers suffering from "G-lock", or blacking out after exposure to repeated high G-forces in the CART series when they went to oval tracks), and the cars would probably be blisteringly fast.

I should add that the reason the Indy Racing League did not go to Darlington, regarded as the ultimate driver's oval/Spa-if-it-was-an-oval-track in NASCAR circles (ha ha ha, funny...) because the cars would pull almost 6 or 7 Gs in turn three...

As for the technical direction the teams would go in, they'd almost certainly go for Ground Effect cars, because you'd have a far superior drag/downforce ratio, the wheels would end up being covered to reduce drag (open wheel cars may be nimble, but those open wheels generate a huge amount of drag), you'd end up with turbo engines (because the power to weight ratio of a turbo engine is higher compared to a normally aspirated engine) - basically, take a 1982 Ground Effect F1 car with covered wheels, the power levels of the 1985/86 seasons, and imagine what would happen if you gave it to a group of material scientists who had every ultra exotic material at their disposal, and that is probably what you'd end up with.

So you're basically saying that if F1 teams would have their choice, they would all be driving demonized P1 cars?

[mario]

They probably would not be far off a LMP1 car in that respect - however, what they might end up closer to would be the end of series Can-Am cars, where a number of the later cars were essentially Lola F5000 cars with modified bodywork to cover the wheels.

[Row Man Gross-Gene]

Apologies to Porrima, if this is considered a threadjack, but if the result of no regulation would be the eventual collapse of F1, then let's limit the question a bit.

If you could could eliminate just one rule or regulation in F1, what would it be? Why? What would the effect be in your opinion?

Or conversely, what one regulation would you add? etc.

[McDuck]

I'm all for it. The free market (aka the teams, drivers, sponsors, track owners and spectators) would determine what limits (if any) would be appropriate for the series.

Lets get the ball rolling on this ASAP.

[coops]

The now sadly defunct F1 News did an article about just such a question in the mid nineties. Some techno boffins came up with a design that had 6 wheels and was capable of 300 mph. That was the top speed they thought they could make it go and still have the driver survive the majority of accidents. The only downside was that all the tracks in the world would have to be redesigned to double the run-off area distances which would make the spectators even further away than they are now. You also couldnt have a Monaco GP.

[IdeFan]

Don't forget super advanced Traction Control, CVT Gearboxes, Antilock Brakes, Active Suspension, and Stability Control to make these ground effect turbo monsters controllable.

Basically take the gizmos from the 93 Williams and drop it in an 82 ground effect turbo and add at least 20 years development time!

[Enforcer]

I'd think you'd reach the point where either:

1) Even with electronic gismos, the drivers wouldn't be able to react fast enough to drive the car to its limits without crashing a lot.

2) They'd be pulling so much G that an average driver's neck would last about 4 seasons before they had to retire... and permanently wear a neckbrace.

[eagleash]

Add in all wheel drive, (4 or 6), auto trans, G-suits for the drivers a-la fighter pilots.

One interesting point which unless I've misssed something, hasn't been mentioned. What is likely to be the optimum engine size? Increased capacity is not necessarily the answer & after a while engine dimension (as against capacity) must come into it & some "natural" restriction on the amount of fuel which can be carried.

[TomWazzleshaw]

One interesting point which unless I've misssed something, hasn't been mentioned. What is likely to be the optimum engine size? Increased capacity is not necessarily the answer & after a while engine dimension (as against capacity) must come into it & some "natural" restriction on the amount of fuel which can be carried.

I'ld say it'll probably settle in either a 3.5l naturally aspirated V10 or a much smaller capacity turbocharged V8... then again take what I just said with a grain of salt because I don't really know all that much

[RejectSteve]

One interesting point which unless I've misssed something, hasn't been mentioned. What is likely to be the optimum engine size? Increased capacity is not necessarily the answer & after a while engine dimension (as against capacity) must come into it & some "natural" restriction on the amount of fuel which can be carried.

A big, bulky engine not only would have to refuel more often or carry a heavier fuel load but even in qualifying the massive weight at the back would make it a demon to drive as well. Just ask Bertrand Gachot and Carlo Chiti about it. Presumably you could add more weight to the front of the car by various means but if you have too much weight up front, it will be sluggish to steer but without the snap oversteer.

I think what it could do is give us what the British Saloon Car Championship of the 60's and 70's had, a David vs. Goliath battle between large capacity engines running a higher weight against cars which are enormously underpowered but maximising their weight. More likely, I think we'd see the petrol engines meeting somewhere in the 3- to 4-liter range, maximising power and a reasonably light weight. However, with Porrima's first regulation requiring a "car engine," I think Diesel would be the way to go - just look at the torque advantage in LMP1 - but again, that's an increased weight over a standard petrol engine so maybe a manufacturer would go down the big turbo/small capacity route to reduce the weight and we'd get 1.5 liter engines.

(I wrote this when Wizzie posted his, but I can't be bothered to integrate what he said about 3.5l V10's.

[Enforcer]

I reckon turbocharged rotary engines would become popular (MazdaSpeed would make a killing), since they have an astronomical power to weight/size ratio. Although they do use an astronomical amount of petrol.

No regs means you could just run the engine to death every weekend and replace it.

[eagleash]

It was my instinctive thought that 3.5 litre up to possibly 5 litre might be optimum size. Then I thought "Veyron" 8 litre W16, bit on the bulky side but it does nip along fairly smartly.

@Enforcer rotary; yes good, bit less thirsty recently but still a problem.

[Enforcer]

@Enforcer rotary; yes good, bit less thirsty recently but still a problem.

Well, I reckon the FIA has them banned from WRC, F1, and top level Sportscar racing for a reason.

[eagleash]

@Enforcer rotary; yes good, bit less thirsty recently but still a problem.

Well, I reckon the FIA has them banned from WRC, F1, and top level Sportscar racing for a reason.

Indeed!

[RejectSteve]

@Enforcer rotary; yes good, bit less thirsty recently but still a problem.

They also need far more cooling than a piston engine so the size of your sidepods would create an exorbitant amount of drag.

[DonTirri]

As for the technical direction the teams would go in, they'd almost certainly go for Ground Effect cars, because you'd have a far superior drag/downforce ratio, the wheels would end up being covered to reduce drag (open wheel cars may be nimble, but those open wheels generate a huge amount of drag), you'd end up with turbo engines (because the power to weight ratio of a turbo engine is higher compared to a normally aspirated engine) - basically, take a 1982 Ground Effect F1 car with covered wheels, the power levels of the 1985/86 seasons, and imagine what would happen if you gave it to a group of material scientists who had every ultra exotic material at their disposal, and that is probably what you'd end up with.

So you'd basically get a Group C car tuned for Sprint races instead of endurance?

[dr-baker]

The now sadly defunct F1 News did an article about just such a question in the mid nineties. Some techno boffins came up with a design that had 6 wheels and was capable of 300 mph. That was the top speed they thought they could make it go and still have the driver survive the majority of accidents. The only downside was that all the tracks in the world would have to be redesigned to double the run-off area distances which would make the spectators even further away than they are now. You also couldnt have a Monaco GP.

I seem to remember this also appearing in F1 Racing/F1 Magazine between September 2003 & June 2004 (I remember it was while I was living in France...) and Williams were the ones given free rein. And it looked rather similar to cars from the '70s and '80s - ground effects, turbos, 2 front wheels, 4 rear wheels, 1 steering wheel, etc...

[CarlosFerreira]

As for the technical direction the teams would go in, they'd almost certainly go for Ground Effect cars, because you'd have a far superior drag/downforce ratio, the wheels would end up being covered to reduce drag (open wheel cars may be nimble, but those open wheels generate a huge amount of drag), you'd end up with turbo engines (because the power to weight ratio of a turbo engine is higher compared to a normally aspirated engine) - basically, take a 1982 Ground Effect F1 car with covered wheels, the power levels of the 1985/86 seasons, and imagine what would happen if you gave it to a group of material scientists who had every ultra exotic material at their disposal, and that is probably what you'd end up with.

So you'd basically get a Group C car tuned for Sprint races instead of endurance?

With laser cannons.

[Frentzen127]

And heat-seeking missiles and epic crashes.

[CarlosFerreira]

Put it this way: drivers would be wearing g-suits in 5 years' time.

[coops]

With laser cannons.

Too heavy.

[CarlosFerreira]

With laser cannons.

Too heavy.

All right... fancy and light laser cannons, then.

[RFT]

A good benchmark for the "lets go totally nuts on aero" thought experiment is to look at the early 90s - IMSA GTP and last throes of the World Sportscar championship:
the (not very successful due to woeful reliability) allard J2X is possibly the most extreme:
http://www.dieselstation.com/forums/lof ... 16683.html

Those cars were making much more downforce than their contemporary F1 cars - though were slower over a lapdue to higher weight and harder tyres.