Proto-futuristic F1 Series

[Dutton]

Why doesn't the FIA get a series set up that operates according to its current dreams for F1?

Then we can watch how their theory pans out in reality.

I suppose I should add a sentence explicitly confirming that I mean a separate series to what we currently take to be F1.

[FPV GTHO]

I think there'd be trouble finding enough people interested in competing, that otherwise wouldnt want to be in F1 normally.

[Dutton]

Well make it mandatory that a team must compete for x-years in this series before they can become a "proper F1" team.

[Teretonga]

Why doesnt the FIA trial it's vision for F1 in Second Life. Then it would know if it was worth pursuing it or not....

[jab]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Why doesn't the FIA get a series set up that operates according to its current dreams for F1?

So basically an eco-friendly version of GP2?

[kartracer41]

This would be a good idea IMO. I would think it would be a worthy investment for the FIA to contract some teams to build some prototype cars and try a few things.

[pitviper]

They could actually use them in "demonstration runs" on GP weekends... the fans i'm sure would love it...

pit

[Dutton]

Why demonstration runs? If the theory goes that it would be a functioning series, then run it as a support race.

The series could basically be an experimentation tank for the FIA and TWG. Provide an outlet for the "radical" ideas: something interesting might come out of it, which can then be applied to the "proper F1" series.

[chillibowl]

do you see it as a spec series (every one running the same prototype) or one where the constructors are allowed to mix and match between proposed and future concepts in an attempt to find the best mix of new and old concepts?

both have their merits for sure, although the spec prototype might be cheaper to run.

[courageous]

good idea - invite tenders to supply cars/engines with 3 simple rules:

1. cost limit
2. something eco (Diesel, Hybrid, Regenerative braking, BioFuel, Clockwork...)
3. performance will be equalised (not sucsess ballast, more like the FIA GT3 idea)

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

do you see it as a spec series (every one running the same prototype) or one where the constructors are allowed to mix and match between proposed and future concepts in an attempt to find the best mix of new and old concepts?

both have their merits for sure, although the spec prototype might be cheaper to run.

I was figuring allow both. Why not? It seems the significant FIA-F1 powers-that-be are interested in customer cars for F1, so I would figure they would allow both in such a proposal as this.

The regulatory framework would be drafted up by the FIA and TWG. Have it so that the TWG could get as close to equal voice on the matter to the FIA as possible. Ultimately, though, the FIA would have to hold the final call.

Generally speaking, though, I was figuring the teams and the FIA would both have plenty of ideas for what should happen in the future. I didn't have any particular regulatory framework in mind. What do you think the proposal would produce? It is a blend of fantasy and reality, in the end, as, in some ways, most things are.

There is no reason for this series to adhere to the same strict track-paddock-etc-package-thingy as what we currently recognise as F1. I wish for this series to run at venues by the merits of the track, rather than anything else (of course, reasonable safety measures should be in place). The current F1 medical set-up is quite impressive. Whilst some venues may not be able to house all the medical expectations of contemporary F1, that kind of structure to it should be applied (the same extent is not going to be possible at various venues I would imagine).

[Oldtony]

Please think about this more fellas.
FIA are introducing new specs for F1 to
a: Make the series more relevant to the technical future of the automobile.
b: Cut costs and make R&D expenditure more cost effective for manufacturers.
c: Hopefully improve the race spectacle.

All, I would suggest, great aims. The general outline of the future specs for F1 were issued in the discussion paper by FIA in Dec 2006. with the major features being energy recovery, standardised or limmited aero, fuel efficient engines, improved suspension management and other road relevant technology.
The best way to get this formula out of the laboratory and on to the track would be to introduce it in the way that changes in formula were introduce in the past. That is a series of races in the year leading up to the change under the new regulations. Instead of calling it F2 as was the case then, call it Formula Future or Formula Green or something.
These races should definitely NOT be for spec or single manufacurer cars. The whole idea is that it would be a technical development series. We have enough homologation specials running round trying to develop a new bunch of ego driven charachters as drivers in AIGP, GP2 etc.
Could it be the folmula for the Manufacturers Championship in it's initial year?
If it was run as a seperate series, on tracks not used in that year by F1, it would give the opportunity to develop and test the new, and important concepts, that would then become F1 in the following year without interfearing with the WDC.
In terms of cost remember there will be very little development and testing going on for F1 in that year because of redundancy.
There are plenty of circuits around the world that have the required facilities and would jump at the chance of hosting an event.

[Dutton]

You essentially cover my position, Oldtony.

The thing about different tracks, though: I do not think ALL tracks should be different. There would be some I would have as a "must" for the Proto-Futuristic Serires:

Provisional Incomplete Calendar

Interlagos
Turkey
Bathurst
Indianapolis Motor Speedway (Oval track)
Monza
Silverstone
Mosport
Mont-Tremblant
Elkhart Lake/Watkins Glen (rotational)
Spa
Le Mans
Suzuka

Alphabetical Order

Bathurst
Elkhart Lake/Watkins Glen (rotational)
Indianapolis Motor Speedway (Oval track)
Interlagos
Mont-Tremblant
Mosport
Le Mans
Monza
Silverstone
Spa
Suzuka
Turkey

Ultimately, any track at which F1 also competes this series should be present as a support series. With that in mind, I would rearrange the calendar according to F1's calendar (obviously only as far as is legally attainable).

As for the non-F1 tracks: there would be absolutely no track alterations on account of the Proto-futuristic Series (unless backed by at least 80% of drivers). If the PFS powers-that-be were to consider a place to be too dangerous, or what have you, then the constitutionally bound action should be to leave the venue (it would be against the constitution to slaughter the venue in the interests of one branch of motorsport).

If this means a gradual drift to nothing but F1 tracks, then so be it.

[Dutton]

Macau

Putting it one side of Suzuka would figure.

Provisional Incomplete Calendar

Interlagos
Turkey
Bathurst
Indianapolis Motor Speedway (oval track run reversed)
Monza
Silverstone
Mosport
Mont-Tremblant
Elkhart Lake/Watkins Glen (rotational)
Spa
Le Mans
Macau
Suzuka

These venues are a must, but the order is totally open for debate.

This is just what currently comes to mind as a nice order. Actual reality constraining things have been ignored (save for a general consideration for weather/seasons).

In this vein, one thing I have often liked to think of would be a draw pre-season for whether each track is run the normal way around or the reverse.

[Dutton]

Monaco! That simply MUST be in the calendar. Current F1 tracks will be in bold text only.

Provisional Incomplete Calendar (the non-negotiable rounds [dates changeable])

Interlagos
Turkey
Bathurst
Indianapolis Motor Speedway (oval track run reversed)
Monza
Silverstone
Monaco*
Mont-Tremblant
Mosport
Elkhart Lake/Watkins Glen (rotational)
Spa
Le Mans
Macau
Suzuka

*Under the PFS, we would revert to the 1993 F1 Proper configuration (would be a bold venue were it to run on the same weekend as the F1 Proper event, but let the PFS run to the 1993 F1 Proper configuration.

[Oldtony]

Great scedule sugestions.
Personaly if it was for only one or 2 years I would prefer it kept away from F1 dates. Certainly not scheduled as a support. It deserves, and would support a stand alone meeting.
Thus as Monaco is really not viable except as a support I would can it.
I would imagine the GPDA would have a heart attack over Macau, but it would be a great venue. Can imagine a few tremors over Bathurst as well, but I can remember open wheel racing there and it would have to be the most amazing circuit you could imagine short of the old Spa or the Nordschlief.
If it is too hard Adelaide would be a good sub.
You could sub Imola for Monza and Fuji for Suzuka to get more circuit funding for the series.
Interesting sugestion about running some circuits in reverse, particularly Indy as that is the way the bikes will run. Some cicuits though just do not suit a change of direction.
OK Max and Bernie, get going and get it organised for 2009 and 2010.

[Dutton]

Well, ideally, I was planning on it being more than one or two years...if it were that short, then I think that presses upon us the necessity of "support" status more than before.

One must remember the additional exposure available at an F1 Proper weekend is significant. I simply think having some rounds linked in directly with F1 Proper weekends in essential for basic survival. Whilst it may "deserve" stand-alone status, I do not think it would be able to justify it in popularity terms (at least not initially). I think running it as a support to F1 Proper at a few rounds would help this: plus, of course, it would enable some reasonable comparisons between F1 Proper and FPS. At the non-F1 weekends, well, I would say it would have to be twinned with some other significant event. On this account, I guess the North American rounds would need to be linked in with CC/IRL/ALMS/Rolex/NASCAR.

Well, regards the tracks, the GPDA would not have a say in the matter (that is for F1 Proper related stuff, not PFS. As previously outlined, if the drivers were wanting to start mincing tracks to bits, well, then, the series would just not run there. Such destruction of tracks would be unacceptable. If there was a way to accomodate changes whilst leaving the original layout untouched, well, okay, that can be worked. This whole area is very sensitive, though. I think most drivers would prefer to run on the tracks and take their chances, which is fine by the PFS as I envisage it.

Sub Imola for Monza? I do not even have Imola on the calendar. There is no way I am subbing Suzuka for Fuji. Suzuka is on the calendar (old 130R, and all the rest).

[gregc]

Just came to this thread, and it's an interesting idea. My only comment right now is that I'd personally ditch Silverstone - Donington or (preferably!) Brands Hatch for me. Other than that - I'd love to see a series like this

[Oldtony]

Dutton I am assuming that this would be an introductory formula for the new regs coming into F1. actually if it ran for two years, in the second year it would be F1 which would probably be the poor cousin, particularly if the future series became the ManChamp series. The existing cars would rapidly become "yesterdays" series.
For the good of both series it would be preferable to keep them apart, and on seperate weekends, to allow personel to be involved in both.
Certainly in the first year support races would be required, but in most countries it would probably be best to use a strong local formula. CCWS, NASCAR or ALMS in North america, V8SC in Australia, DTM in Germany, GT in Japan etc.
Of course the egos in some of those series would mean having to soft sell the "support" status.
Agree with you entirely about the possible threat to circuits of the "upgrade" process that seems to arive with F1. Must be resisted.

[Dutton]

I am proposing that the PFS would be an arena for F1 to check stuff that simply has no likelihood of being accepted in F1 at the present time, but is in the longterm game plan of the FIA/TWG. Additionally, things that F1 could reasonably accept given adequate evidence: such things as the "split-wing" proposal come to mind. I am not meaning to run for one or two years: I meaning a long term thing. The framework of what operates in the PFS would change according to the altering status of what F1 Proper (F1P) is doing.

Stuff that might work, but might not: from minor details to big changes. Just a general test bed for all sorts of stuff.

I should also add that teams in it need not be junior teams of current F1 teams. Such teams would be welcome, and, I think, ultimately positive: but this would not be imposed, nor act as pre-condition for the series.

I quite agree it should be twinned with locally popular events (in mainland Europe this will often mean F1). I think my calander reflects this: hence why the NAm events would intend to be CC/IRL/ALMS/NASCAR etc linked. I still think being a support race with some of the key European F1P events would be essential.

This ManChamp concept I have not asked for clarification on previously, but I will now. I am still not quite sure what you are on about with this. I am resistent to anything that links either F1P championship to any such things of the PFS.

[Oldtony]

Sorry Dutton, my terminology is a bit ambiguous. By ManChamp I was really refering to the Constructors Championship. Personally I think that is a much more important champoinship than the Drivers Championship although I conceed that in this "Celebrity" obsessed age that is not a popular view.
My concept is that F1 can not go on being the ultimate form of Motorsport if it becomes a technical dead end, which is the case right now. FIA realise that and have brought down a range of suggestions for the future of F1. ie: Energy efficient engines, regenerated braking energy, waste energy recovery, improved suspension control, moving from downforce dominated aero to drag reduction, more efficient transmissions etc. The current FIA plan envisages that these concepts become Formula 1 staging in during 2010,2011 and 2012.
Rather than this gradual approach I am suggesting that the 2012 rules are adopted as the rules for Formula Future from 2009 so that the developmental work being carried out for the new formula would have a competitive test arena. This would allow the manufacturers (constructors) to get on with the development, sort out the most effective concepts and have real race ready teams and equipment by the time the new F1 applies. It has the advantage that what you call "proper F1" could continue for the drivers championship for a couple of years without being affected by the development of a range of concepts which initialy may lead to significant variation in performance between manufacturers.
Probably 2 years would be about the limit for parallel competitions as the main technical development thrust would be on the Future Formula, and the current F1 cars would rapidly become technically irrelevant. Formula Future then becomes F1 and the two championships are reunited.

[Dutton]

You have described basically what is in my head. Roughly 5 years ahead would be the framework for the overall direction: but specifics could have a much shorter cycle (it would depend). I think, though, the PFS would need some form of WDC. The WCC is indeed not given enough coverage/significance in comparison to the WDC regards F1P: I still think both are required, though. Team-orders, and what not, would be entirely allowed and utterly acceptable, normal behaviour in the PFS (as it should be in F1P, but supposedly isn't).

Of course there comes a transition point when PFS ends will be adopted by F1P. I don't see why this should mark the end of either (or unification). The PFS would also be continually changing, and F1P would never simply adopt everything the PFS does. There would be something of a two-way relationship: F1P adopts individual items (or group of items) from the PFS, then the PFS would alters where it is heading. It could all be co-ordinated pretty well so as to minimise cross-over problems and such.

Once established, presuming it to be functional, then I see no reason that it should have a short lifespan. The function it provides will exist so long as F1/time does.

I think what must be remembered is that I am not envisaging a controlling mechanism that prevents things from being done. New experimental ideas would be nabled to be introduced without difficulty if desired by the ruling powers. The teams just have to get on with it. They will be kept uptodate, they will be consulted, but they will just have to deal with it. The whole point of the FPS would be to have an overall "theme" for, say, 5 years, but allow for as much technical freedom as possible within that (plus there would be all sorts of different shorter term stuff that would be played with).

I think we are essentially on the same page, Oldtony, but with a bit of adifferent angle, but I can't shake the feeling that we are not quite getting each other fully yet.

[Dutton]

I've pondered the order a bit more, and have come up with this (various reasons for the various moves). I will doubtless fiddle more in time.

Provisional Incomplete Calander (revised)

Interlagos
Bathurst
Turkey
Monza
Indianapolis Motor Speedway (oval track: possibly opposite direction)
Silverstone
Le Mans
Monaco*
Mt. Tremblant
Mosport
Elkhart Lake/Watkins Glen (rotational)Mont-Tremblant
Spa
Macau
Suzuka

*PFS would revert to the 1993 F1P configuration ideally (pre-1997 at least), but would ultimately settle for whatever the contemporary F1P layout is.

Bold venues mean this event would be shared with F1P.

**********

Here is the previous incarnation:

PREVIOUS Provisional Incomplete Calendar

Interlagos
Turkey
Bathurst
Indianapolis Motor Speedway (oval track run reversed)
Monza
Silverstone
Monaco*
Mont-Tremblant
Mosport
Elkhart Lake/Watkins Glen (rotational)
Spa
Le Mans
Macau
Suzuka

[Oldtony]

I see what you are getting at. While I have been thinking of the Future series as a bridging method, you forsee it as an ongoing technical development series. Great concept. We seem to have countless series devoted to developing new drivers, but the requirement for a series for technical development seems to have either been ignored, or be only considered in endurance sportscars. Quite frankly F1 itself has become a battle of little aero gimmicks with virtually no other tech development taking place. They even have an engine freeze!!!!!!
On the basis of an ongoing technical development series FIA would have to set the development parrameters; ie 200km race, y litres of x fuel, a tyres b kilos weight set wings or downforce devices or whatever. Then the constructors would be free to do whatever achieved the best result. After say 3 years it would be pretty obvious what did achieve the best results, they could be adopted for F1 and a new set of parrameters set for Future formula.
Is that (approximately) how you see it?
I still think the constructors championship should be for the technical formula, and the drivers championship be reserved for F1.
Now how do we keep this quiet while we beat Bernie to securing the World wide TV rights?

[Dutton]

Yes, you have caught the distinction between our two takes. I foresee it, as you phrase it, as an "ongoing technical development" series rather than a one-off "bridging" system.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

On the basis of an ongoing technical development series FIA would have to set the development parrameters; ie 200km race, y litres of x fuel, a tyres b kilos weight set wings or downforce devices. Then the constructors would be free to do whatever achieved the best result. After say 3 years it would be pretty obvious what did achieve the best results, that could be adopted for F1 and a new set of parrameters set for Future formula.

Is that (approximately) how you see it?

That is idea. There would be as much freedom as possible within given parameters. HOWEVER, some aspects may have a more specified route (remember the point is the development in the direction F1P would be looking at). The balance between the two approaches (giving a performance limit, but totally free route; more specifically laying out the means, but having no performance limit) would take some working out, but would be self-regulating to a point.

I still think both championships would need to be present in PFS, but the WDC should be very secondary in the FPS. I just think there needs to be a driver incentive (make drivers want to drive in it): the simplest, (probably) most effective way to achieve that is via a WDC.

It would all be about the WCC, though, yes. This is the point of the series.