I’d specify a minimum full-engine cut on
upchanges of, say, 0.1sec, rather than the
mild torque reduction we currently have.
Constant Velocity Transmissions are
outlawed but what we have now, with
positive torque upchanges, is so close to a
CVT system it’s not funny.
● Abolish the DRS wing. It’s artificial
and its e;ects can be replicated by
careful tuning of the current aero regs.
● Increase the power of KERS from
6.7sec of 60KW per lap to 20sec of 100KW.
I would also add that, from when the
driver initiates the pit limiter on entry,
until he switches it o; at pit-out, the car
can only be powered by this no-fossil-fuel
energy system. In other words, pit lane
usage would be totally green.
● Increase rear wheel width from 340mm
( 13.4in.) to 430mm ( 16.9in.) to give an
increase in rear mechanical grip. Tire
grip is una;ected by turbulence, so there
would be no penalty in tra;c. Also, the
With the right regs, overtaking would be feasible without the artificiality of DRS. In Anderson’s perfect world, intricate front wings would be banned (BELOW LEFT).
“If you control the
amount of front
downforce, the rear
will follow…. A driver
needs a balanced car”
wider rear tire will increase overall drag
to keep top speeds similar to current.
The aero tweaks I’d suggest would be
between the rear wheel centerline and a point 330mm (13in.)
forward of it. I would have it extending from a point 1000mm
( 39.4in.) forward of the rear wheel centerline to a point
250mm ( 9.8in.) behind it. Then I would double the allowed
height from the current 125mm ( 4.9in.).
I would place a limitation on the width
of bodywork ahead of the front wheels
to around 1250mm (49in.). This would
mean the front wing wouldn’t be
worked so hard, making it less sensitive
to loss of performance in the turbulence
of the car ahead. To allow for the
wider rear tire, reduce the maximum
width of the di;user behind the rear
wheel centerline from the current
1000mm ( 39.4in.) to 900mm ( 35.4in.).
Drastically extend the length of
bodywork that has to comply with the
rule about being within 300mm ( 11.8in.)
of the car’s centerline. Worded correctly,
this would eliminate at a stroke all the
various growths around the sidepod area.
Leave the central FIA section as is, but
outside of this – in the area that defines
the actual downforce-producing front
wing – there should be no more than two
closed sections allowed, thereby getting
rid of those multi-planed and intricate
wings we currently see. And only the
rear of these sections would have
an adjustable angle.
I’d reduce required front wing height
from the current 75mm (2.9in.) minimum
and 275mm ( 10.8in.) maximum to 50mm
(1.97in.) minimum, and 225mm ( 8.9in.)
maximum. This would increase the
ground e;ect of the wing and reduce the
overall wing section – which would again
make it less sensitive to turbulence.
BRAKE DUCTS/SUSPENSION MEMBERS
These would have no other purpose than cooling the
brakes and providing suspension links. With careful wording
of the dimensions, you could eliminate the aerodynamic
e;ect of these components, not only creating a cleaner
wake, but also getting rid of a major area of expense on
supercomputers and wind tunnels.
I would increase the power of
the di;user by increasing its
length, which is currently