FIA Proposals

What’s your take on this? If you ask me, it just proves Ford is going to stay absolutely dominant.

http://www.destinacijaf1.com/news.ph..._from=&ucat=2&

Nonsense.

If you ask me, making these races actually exciting would require a few key changes:

1. Bring back slick tires—grooved tires just don't offer the same grip as a full slick profile.

2. Increase the track width to 2.0 meters (up from 1.80m)—it would significantly improve stability, especially through the corners.

3. Permit active suspension—another way to boost stability and overall grip.

4. Limit aerodynamics by standardizing certain components—the smaller teams simply can't compete with the massive wind tunnel budgets of the giants.

5. Stick with 3.0-liter engines, whether it's a V8 or a V10.

6. Eliminate mid-race refueling—currently, races are won by whoever masters pit strategy and fuel loads rather than the best driver on the track. Let's stick to tire changes only.

Look, Peter Myers29, I’m right there with you. This whole thing is a joke. The top teams just keep getting stronger while the backmarkers fall even further behind. It looks like Formula 1 is circling the drain...

I don't know about you all, but there's something strangely appealing about the idea of stripping two cylinders out of an engine and just letting the tires take over for 218 miles 🙂
. Honestly, though? Next year is going to be a total disaster... we're looking at massive 🙂

Honestly, this is just nonsense. More restrictions for the sake of it. At this rate, we'll be watching Formula 1 racing with 1.0-liter engines and a top speed of 62 miles/h on solid oak wheels.... 🙄

ivansa said:What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I think this just goes to show that Ford is going to be absolutely dominant.

http://www.destinacijaf1.com/news.ph..._from=&ucat=2&

I think you might be mistaking this post for an advertisement.🙂

Peter Myers29
We really need to phase out mid-race refueling. Honestly, it feels like the wins are being handed to whoever nails their pit strategy or manages their fuel loads better, rather than the driver who actually puts on the best show on the track. If we just limited stops to tire changes, the focus would shift back to pure driving talent where it belongs.

That has to be one of the biggest loads of nonsense I've ever heard...
Are you really suggesting that the winners are just the ones who play the tactical game better, even if they aren't actually the fastest drivers on the track?
The winners are simply the ones driving the best right now. It's that straightforward.
It’s a different story if you're suggesting that the ones who prioritize better aren't necessarily the ones taking home the wins.

Neither Kimmy nor Alonso were actually faster or better than the Ford on that track. To be honest... nobody really outpaced them all season long. At the end of the day, the wins go to whoever can simply drive better on the circuit.

I could have just said: What do you guys think?
www.f1-live.com/....
But you all seem to enjoy translating and figuring it out yourselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we're the first ones to drop this text in English. Hey, a little free promo never hurt anyone.

Peter Myers29 said:Nonsense!

If you ask me, here is how we make racing actually exciting again:

1. Bring back slicks. Grooved tires just don't have the grip of a full slick profile.

2. Bump the track width up to 2.0m (from the current 1.80m). It would give the cars way more stability, especially through the corners.

3. Allow active suspension. That would also boost stability and improve how the cars stick to the track.

4. Limit the aero. Standardizing certain parts would help out the smaller teams that can't afford endless wind tunnel testing.

5. Stick with 3.0L engines (either V8 or V10).

6. Ban mid-race refueling. Right now, races are won by whoever has the best pit strategy and fuel management, not necessarily the best driver on the track. Just allow tire changes.

Everything there makes sense except for the refueling part. All those upgrades would stabilize the car, but then filling it to the brim with fuel would cancel all that out. You'd end up right back where you started with zero extra stability and no better handling. Besides, where's the logic in thinking a fuel tank could handle an entire race? They'd need to be pulling a tanker trailer behind them if they wanted to go the whole distance without stopping.

James Roberts87 said:Besides, where did you get the idea that a single tank could actually last an entire race? You'd basically need to tow a massive fuel tanker behind the car just to finish without a pit stop.

Maybe he’d be more inclined to shorten the race to just 20 laps then?
😁

James Roberts87 said:Everything works until you top off the fuel. All those adjustments would stabilize the car, but filling it back up to the brim would undo all that progress. You’d be right back where you started regarding stability, with no real improvement in handling or control. Besides, where did the idea come from that a single tank could last an entire race? Unless they plan on towing a tanker behind them, they aren't going full distance without pit stops.

FYI, cars used to handle full races quite easily because the fuel tanks were much larger. Modern cars carry about 120 liters. Plus, depending on strategy, they rarely fill to capacity. Since consumption sits around 60 liters per 62 miles, theoretically, a car could cover two-thirds of the race on one load. If I recall correctly, regulations cap the maximum tank volume at 200 liters, though most teams run smaller. Right before mandatory pit stop rules were introduced, the limit was 300 liters. We also ran 3.6-liter engines back then. While I suspect today's 3.0-liter engines have matched or even surpassed them in performance, I don't see the issue here. The cars might be slightly heavier, but certainly not so heavy that they'd crawl around the track as some seem to fear. After all, isn't the goal to reduce speed and increase safety?

Peter Myers29 said:FYI, back in the day, cars could handle an entire race without breaking a sweat because they had much larger fuel tanks. Today’s cars run on about 120 liters. Plus, depending on the strategy, they don't usually fill them to the brim. Since consumption sits around 60 liters per 62 miles, a car could theoretically go two-thirds of the way through a race. If I recall correctly, regulations cap the maximum tank size at 200 liters, though every team runs smaller than that. Right before mandatory pit stops were introduced, the limit was actually 300 liters. We also used to run 3.6-liter engines before those tank restrictions hit. Even though I think today's 3.0-liter engines have caught up—if not surpassed them in performance—I don't see the issue. The cars might be slightly heavier, but certainly not so heavy that they'd crawl around the track like some people claim... Besides, isn't the whole point to slow things down and boost safety?

The issue wouldn't just be speed; you'd lose stability in high-speed corners. You'd have to slow down because a car that heavy just can't stay stable through those turns. Those 300L tanks would be massive. On top of that, tire manufacturers would have to change their specs, which would just slow Formula 1 down again.
We're all here fighting to keep Formula 1 from slowing down while Mosley keeps pushing his silly ideas. Safety in Formula 1 is already dialed in to the max; I don't see any reason why we need to lose pace.

James Roberts87 said:The issue isn't just about lap times; it's about stability through high-speed corners. If the cars were that heavy, they'd lose grip and drivers would be forced to slow down. We're talking massive fuel loads—roughly 300L. Plus, tire manufacturers would have to redesign everything, which inevitably leads back to slower speeds in Formula 1.
My stance is simple: we shouldn't be slowing down Formula 1 just because Mosley keeps pushing these questionable ideas. Safety standards in Formula 1 are already dialed in; I don't see any legitimate reason to throttle the pace.

I’m with you there. We shouldn't be slowing things down. Formula 1 exists to shatter records, not to let some bureaucrat dictate how fast these drivers should go...

One thing to consider... there was a time when tires were wider—especially the rears—and the compound was harder, so they lasted much longer.

Raymond Carter2 said:I could have just posted this instead: "What do you guys think about this?"
www.f1-live.com/....
And then you all could just translate it yourselves and figure out what it means.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we were the first ones to get this news out in American English. Besides, a little bit of exposure never hurts anyone.

Just kidding...
Phew...

Robin Fisher53 said:I totally blew it...
Ugh...

Alright 👍

Peter Myers29 said:Nonsense!

If you ask me, if we actually want to make racing exciting again, here is what needs to happen:

1. Bring back slick tires—those grooved tires just don't offer the same grip as a true slick profile.

2. Widen the track width to about 78 inches (it’s currently around 70)—it would give the cars much better stability, especially when they are hitting those high-speed corners.

3. Allow active suspension—again, it’s all about increasing stability and helping the drivers hold the line.

4. Dial back the aerodynamics by standardizing certain components—smaller teams simply don't have the massive budgets required for endless wind tunnel testing.

5. Stick with the 3.0-liter engine displacement (whether it's a V8 or a V10).

6. Get rid of mid-race refueling (because nowadays, winners are often decided by pit strategy and fuel management rather than who is actually the best driver on the track)—just leave tire changes on the table.

What you're suggesting would likely have two main consequences:
1. It would drive up costs so drastically for the following season that teams like Minardi or Jordan would be forced out of the sport immediately.
2. Slick tires, wider tracks, and active suspension (which, by the way, only two or three teams even have developed or tucked away in a vault—specifically Ford, who pioneered it, Ferrari, and probably McLaren) would just increase cornering speeds, which doesn't actually solve our underlying problem.

Besides, whether they are refueling or just changing tires, the end result feels pretty much the same...

mistybear87 said:1. It would hike up next season's costs so much that teams like Haas or Sauber would be out of the race immediately.

I'm not so sure about that...

mistybear87 said:1. It would hike up next season's costs so much that teams like Minardi and Jordan would be out of the race immediately.
.

That's a huge loss.👋 👋

James Roberts87 said:What a massive waste👋 👋

Exactly. I'm always rooting for the underdogs to grab as many points as possible.

mistybear87 said:1. It would hike up next season's costs so much that teams like Minardi or Jordan would be out of the race immediately.

How exactly would that drive costs up? Standardizing certain car components should actually lower them, given that most of the money is bled dry by R&D and constant testing (like wind tunnel work).

What really sends costs through the roof are these arbitrary rule changes—increasing engine displacement one year, shrinking it the next, or suddenly cutting two cylinders. Change a single engine characteristic and you’re forced to redesign the entire unit from scratch. It isn't as simple as just sawing off two cylinders and calling it a day...

Freak said:Everything looks fine until you start refueling. All those adjustments would stabilize the car, but then you fill the tank back up and wipe out all that progress. You'd be right back where you started with zero stability—the car wouldn't grip any better or be easier to handle. Besides, where'd you get the idea that a single tank could actually last an entire race? They'd basically need to tow a tanker behind them if they wanted to go the distance without stopping.

Thanks for that absolutely brilliant insight. Real game-changer here.

You can tell just from this post that we're dealing with a lifelong F1 fanatic.