Launch season is one of the most exciting times of the year for any Formula 1 fan and certainly the most anticipated parts of the off-season.
But this year more than most, the spectacle of seeing the brand new cars for the 2024 season has been blunted by an overabundance of bare carbon on display.Of the six liveries revealed so far, five feature heavy use of bare carbon in their design, with only one team, RB, appearing to have a significant amount of coverage on their car for the upcoming season.
Mercedes will unveil their W15 on Thursday, but after the team switched from traditional silver in 2022 back to all-black last season, it’s to be expected that the team will do the same in 2024. That means at over half the grid will be running with minimal paint on their cars this season.
The main reason for this is to save weight. Even with the minimum weight limit as currently high as it has ever been, teams are looking at ways to save every gram possible. That means going without as much paint as the team – and the sponsors – find acceptable.
But the response from fans has been mixed, to say the least. Some do not seem to mind more exposed carbon on the grid, but others feel that team’s distinctive visual identities are being lost with all the paint being stripped away.
Some have even questioned whether the FIA should step in to enforce teams to paint their cars in full, either by writing a regulation that forces them to or provide an extra specified amount to the weight limit to avoid any disadvantage for having cars fully covered.
But is that right? Should F1 teams be made to paint their entire cars, even if they would prefer to run in bare carbon?
For
Formula 1 car liveries are more than just elaborate advertising for the team’s sponsors. They are about so much more.
Not only do they provide a convenient means of telling cars and teams apart, but a well-designed livery can become truly iconic. Are younger fans going to have their imaginations captured by these current slate of carbon black designs?
As much as it should not be the case, aesthetics do matter in sport. In order to avoid another year of such similar, dark designs, the FIA should step in to prevent teams sacrificing their looks to save mere grams of weight.
Against
In a sport where so much of what the teams can and cannot do is already heavily restricted as it is, the idea that the governing body is brought in to regulate this should make any fan scoff.
Formula 1 has a minimum weight limit. It does not specify how teams should reach the almost 800kg point that they need to make in order to be legal – only that they must do. If running almost bare allows them to find run heavier parts elsewhere with the car, so be it.
This is the pinnacle of motorsport, after all. There should be no compromises in the pursuit of performance and certainly not when it comes to how the cars look. Even if most of the grid is in dark mode.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
I say
It’s easy to sympathise with fans who feel pretty disappointed with the livery designs that have been on offer so far this launch season. F1 liveries in general have been pretty uninspiring in recent years, and now some fans might struggle to tell cars apart at first glance due to how black so many of them are – especially at the many night races this season.
Should Formula 1 or the FIA try and enforce some new kind of regulation in order to bring some colour unashamedly back onto cars in the future? No. There are plenty of other areas where the rules makers in Formula 1 should be focused on instead.
By far the most preferable option would be for the sport to find a way to reduce the minimum weight limit and move more towards the lighter, more nimble cars of old. That way, teams would be less concerned about stripping their cars of paint in order to save weight. Thankfully, there are talks about trying to do just that for the next major rules changes in 2026. Until then, we might just have to put up with a bit more black on the grid.
You say
Does the sport need to do something to bring more colour back to the cars on the grid? Should the FIA step in and enforce a rule? Have your say in this weekend’s poll.
Should the FIA enforce a rule requiring teams to paint the majority of their cars?
- No opinion (1%)
- Strongly disagree (37%)
- Slightly disagree (8%)
- Neither agree nor disagree (4%)
- Slightly agree (16%)
- Strongly agree (34%)
Total Voters: 190
Loading ...A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Debates and polls
- Which F1 team has the best livery in 2024?
- Will Lewis Hamilton win a world championship for Ferrari?
- Will Leclerc’s dream of winning the world championship at Ferrari ever come true?
- Which of the 24 tracks would you keep on the F1 calendar?
- Will you watch all 30 races in Formula 1’s longest-ever season?
Coventry Climax
11th February 2024, 8:53
Yet another stupid rule? What a bluddy no-sense. Befitting modern F1 though.
BasCB (@bascb)
11th February 2024, 9:44
Yeah, a strong disagree from me too. It would be a bit like the ridiculous one stopping drivers to change helmets. Another knee-jerk reaction to some media acting as if it is the end of the world when it really is a whole lot of nothing just to get clicks talking about it!
Even if the cars are rather bare now, we still see huge differences in what teams do with the styling of the livery.
An Sionnach
11th February 2024, 12:00
Completely agree. I don’t advocate no rules racing, but the regulations are a straightjacket and need to be opened up.
Markp
11th February 2024, 16:28
Before sponsorship started to trickle onto cars in the late 60’s grids were not colourful. Cars were in national racing colours. If applied today we’d have 2 Italian based teams in red, loads of british teams in dark green.
anon
11th February 2024, 21:45
Coventry Climax, and yet there is also the hypocritical aspect that much of the insistence that the rules be changed to have the cars paint seems to be driven by overreacting reactionary fans that are the same ones who then complain about the sport being over regulated.
It also has to be said that the comment put forward in the article that “It’s also notable how this seems to be just a problem Formula 1 is dealing with. IndyCar, NASCAR, World Endurance Championship, WRC – no other major motorsport series seems to feature cars that are so naked as they are in Formula 1.” suggests that the author didn’t really think about the reasons why that might be the case.
In the case of IndyCar, the teams have a car that is a standard specification with a high minimum weight specified by the governing body – indeed, it’s been something of a point of contention in IndyCar that, due to the need for progressive strengthening and redesigns of the DW12 chassis over the years, the minimum weight of the cars has been steadily rising over the years (for example, the cars are now 45kg heavier in their road course configuration compared to when they were first introduced).
In the case of NASCAR, although not quite as heavily standardised as IndyCar, once again, there is still heavy standardisation of components (such as the standardised chassis that teams must use) that is part of an intentional decision to discourage teams from resorting to significant weight saving measures by eliminating the possibility of lightweighting parts below a certain set minimum mass.
If you look at both the World Endurance Championship and World Rally Championship, the governing bodies deliberately set the minimum weight of those cars at a mass that was explicitly designed to be easy for manufacturers to hit with limited effort to save weight. In the WEC, the Hypercar regulations set a minimum weight for the cars of 1030kg – an increase of around 160kg compared to the LMP1-H regulations – before you even start adding additional ballast for Balance of Performance reasons.
Furthermore, the existence of the Balance of Performance system in the World Endurance Championship renders the idea of trying to save weight by removing paint an entirely worthless exercise.
By it’s very nature, the Balance of Performance regulations is supposed to even out any performance gains that you might achieve by those measures by the placement of additional ballast or a reduction in power output (or both) – which means there is no incentive to do so, particularly when most teams in the WEC are having to ballast their cars to a level significantly above the minimum weight limit because of the BoP system. If you’re Toyota, why bother trying to save a small amount of weight in paint when you’re adding 50kg of ballast to the car?
Tristan (@skipgamer)
11th February 2024, 23:12
I’d counter that by saying the thrust of the article didn’t require going into detail about the reasons and those reasons are indeed summarised through their conclusion in their say (that weight is the issue). I don’t think the addition of those 5 paragraphs really add much to the argument. Although your comment here is good perhaps for people who might not have been aware.
Coventry Climax
12th February 2024, 9:44
and yet? Is that an attempt to put me together with the hypocrites? Thank you very much.
If you’d read my replies over the years you’d know better. Don’t resort to Trump-methods please, to get voters. Normally, here, instead of ‘to get voters’, you’d say ‘to make your point’, but Trump never ever seems to make any point at all as it’s never about the contents. He just needs to degrade others to feel better.
I deem you better than that, please stay like that.
That’s because F1 is, or better, used to be, quite unique. The examples you come up with are all spec series these days, including WEC.
They simply do not -and should not- compare in any way to F1.
Maybe WRC is excluded; I know nothing about it. But as it’s yet another FiA series, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s regulated to death as well these days.
The way things are developing and the way those in favor here apparently want things to go, is F1 becoming a shallow spec series as well. Sure, paint won’t be a problem for F1 anymore then. But I doubt the netflix generation have any idea about what’s thrown away in the process though.
S
12th February 2024, 10:22
Wouldn’t take much effort to get a bit of experience of the series before using it to make a point, would it?
You clearly do have internet access….
You know F1 has always been an FIA series, right? Even when you (presumably) liked it…
What’s changed most is the commercial rights holder and the teams themselves (including their relationships to each other) – and beyond them, outside of F1, wider society in general. Basically, everyone has changed…
Of course WRC is highly regulated. All ‘sports’ are – that’s what makes them ‘sports’ and not just random, pointless activities.
I’m pretty sure I already know the answer – but do you think you are such a protectionist of F1’s long-past temporary state/s entirely for your own benefit, or for the benefit of future generations you so often imply (and outright assert) are inferior to your own?
anon
12th February 2024, 17:19
Coventry Climax, I accept that the phrasing in the post could be misread as lumping you in that category, but feel that your response has taken something of an overly personal tone in return.
I do think that you are taking some of your comments to somewhat overly extreme positions though, in as much as complaining that the WEC is “a spec series” or that everything is “regulated to death” comes across as excessive hyperbole.
Paul (@frankjaeger)
11th February 2024, 9:04
I’ve said F1 needs a separate paint weight allocation that they can use if necessary for a few seasons now. Why not?
S
11th February 2024, 9:46
Yep. 2kg compulsory allocation for livery isn’t unreasonable. Actually, it’s quite generous for a racing car.
And there’s plenty teams can do to meet that requirement without raising the minimum weight in the technical regs.
They could try making their cars shorter, for instance….
barryged (@barryged)
11th February 2024, 11:34
+1
If the only colour on a F1 car is sponsor logos…..who really cares about that in the real F1 fanbase ??
notagrumpyfan
11th February 2024, 15:39
Sarcasm I hope.
The Dolphins
11th February 2024, 16:09
I can’t wait to see engineers utilize that paint weight rule to put 50 layers on the nosecone to aid the balance of the car and a clear coat on the rest of the carbon fiber
AlanD
11th February 2024, 16:17
Paul, I think if you say that an F1 car must carry, say, 20kg of paint, they’ll use it to paint the floor of the car to lower the centre of gravity. I think you’d need a rule saying something like all exterior surfaces of the car must have a 1mm thickness of paint, and then you’ll get someone disqualified because they had a patch on the nose which was only 0.9mm thick, and that’s not good for F1 either. I think this is a case of where you need to appeal to teams to go back to using complete paint jobs without the need for regulations, on the basis that painted cars look better, and that’s good for fans and TV audiences, and if they all go for carbon black, no-one will gain anything anyway.
BasCB (@bascb)
12th February 2024, 8:19
Nice sumup of what this would look like in F1 reality AlanD!
sam
11th February 2024, 17:55
That’s just another rule.
Osnola
11th February 2024, 9:20
More rules, that solves every problem /s
Asd
11th February 2024, 10:59
It solves this one problem. And it does it in a super easy, simple manner and yields fantastic, beneficial results.
What’s your problem with that?
Coventry Climax
11th February 2024, 15:32
Speaking before my turn, but my problem with it, is that it is a reaction to, or a solution for, if you like, to the FiA’s rules about hybrid and weight.
These current cars are downright obese, despite the FiA’s rule straightjacket, and teams try to find the room to at least have a way of distributing some of the weight the way they want; that’s what’s going on.
The degree of simplicity on whether to implement a rule or not, is completely irrelevant. There’s loads of rules you can think of that are easy – and dead wrong.
Fantastic, beneficial results? For whom?
You want coloured cars again? Change -or scrap- some of the existing rules instead of coming up with new ones.
What’s next, the FiA determinig what color each team should run? And then next, which sponsor is allowed to go to what team?
It’s bull. Brown instead of red.
DavidS (@davids)
12th February 2024, 0:19
What does the Formula in “Formula 1” mean?
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
11th February 2024, 9:23
Yes. Absolutely. For the reasons you have stated above. But the weight of the cars does need to be reduced and not just tinkered with.
David BR (@david-br)
11th February 2024, 20:26
@phil-f1-21 I agree. Visually differentiating the cars is essential to the spectator side of the sport. The paint weight shouldn’t be the issue; it’s the overall weight (and size) of the cars that’s the real problem. You can enforce cars to be painted/coloured differentiated while also pushing for the weight and size reductions.
Craig
11th February 2024, 9:27
I disagree, much as it is a bit frustrating to tell one darkly coloured car from another. I suspect it’ll be resolved when the cars are made smaller again as it’ll be less of an issue.
S
11th February 2024, 9:42
I find it hard to take seriously arguments that more rules = bad – some rules are simply beneficial to everyone involved, even if there are too many already.
In the relatively recent past, F1 has increased wing endplate sizes and added sharkfins for the same reasons as requiring them all to paint the cars properly – for easier identification and commercial benefit. They’ve also stripped teams of the opportunities to install winglets and vanes everywhere because of the visual mess they create in addition to their aerodynamic effects.
Like it or not, F1 relies on its visual appeal as much as any other factor. This is a marketing business… F1 cars should be easily identifiable by appearance as a priority – by rule if not by choice.
Compare the look of the Indycar grid to F1, for example. F1 simply looks dark, dull and depressing in comparison – and even without comparison. Indycar teams want people to look at their cars, and such, make them as visually striking as possible – however, F1 teams largely seem content making enough money without even having sponsor logos dirtying up their matt black cars. Another negative side effect of the Concorde Agreement.
Besides – the bare carbon trend is well and truly over. It’s not a good look anymore.
PacificPR (@streydt)
11th February 2024, 9:42
This problem will solve itself – at some point sponsors won’t put up with it anymore and the teams will have to decide what is more important – a marginal gain in lap-times (will it actually be enough to gain any points or even championship positions and income) or hard-cash from a sponsor.
charliex (@photogcw)
11th February 2024, 15:10
This is the answer. Sponsors are pouring millions into branding on the car. Why do it when it looks like 9 other cars on the grid?
MichaelN
11th February 2024, 15:55
Ah, I missed this earlier when noting the same. Agreed!
There’s a great bit in the Flavio Briatore interview with the F1 Beyond the Grid podcast where he describes how the people at the factory came to him to complain about the weight of all the paint and stickers on the colourful Benetton car. He said, paraphrasing; okay, take them off, but then we don’t race, so your choice.
MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
11th February 2024, 9:53
Yes, I think that’s the way it will most likely pan out.
This trend will continue until the sponsor money dries up.
Don’t think any “rules” are needed, there are more than enough of those already.
Billy (@roobyroo)
11th February 2024, 10:03
It’s a bit of a nonsense really. You’ll still be able to tell the teams apart even with a reduced livery.
In pre-halo days I remember drivers complaining that the halo would prevent fans seeing the drivers’ helmet designs and yet we can still identify the drivers with the halo.
Add to that that the teams change liveries within the season and drivers are changing helmet design nearly every race, that we’re still able to recognise the teams and drivers renders talk of such rules moot.
SteveR (@stever)
11th February 2024, 16:35
How about simply requiring numbers that can read at speed and drivers’ names on the halo for in car shots?
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
11th February 2024, 10:21
They could make giant brackets and letters out of foam or something, and put them around the cars to help identify them – like the onboard shots on telly.
Sounds like it’s time we had the next car launch, or news leak by Liberty.
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
11th February 2024, 10:30
I’m 90% certain this has been answered before but my memory isn’t what it was …
Can’t the Carbon Fibre be dyed different colours or does that also add weight?
S
11th February 2024, 11:31
Carbon fibres can be tinted, as can the resins used to bond them – although reducing the purity of that chemistry does come with material performance trade-offs. And no matter where the colour pigments are, they still add weight.
But let’s be sensible here for a moment – it’s not much weight whether they tint materials or put an additional coating over the top. An entire car with a full coating of paint on it will still only weight less than 2kg more than a bare carbon one.
I challenge anyone and everyone to find a noticeable performance difference during a race based solely on that weight…
Matt (@hollidog)
12th February 2024, 10:20
Using the oft-quoted metric of 10kg = 3 tenths, 2kg = 6 hundredths, or appx 4 seconds over a race distance. Certainly not insignificant.
S
12th February 2024, 10:34
But that ‘quote’ is entirely relative to a very, very particular set of conditions. It’s not universal, by any stretch of the imagination. (Which circuit, weather conditions, tyre choices/pit strategy, SC interventions, aerodynamic losses from other cars….)
And even on that hypothetical perfect day – would you honestly notice a race that is 4 seconds shorter or longer after 90+ minutes…? Honestly?
Would that change your perception of F1?
hunocsi (@hunocsi)
11th February 2024, 13:30
Hypetex is the brand that produces colored carbon fibre, but I suspect it adds extra cost that the teams don’t want to deal with. (Plus I don’t know if the material has the same properties/strength/etc that regular carbon fibre has, but that might be another compromise)
Imre (@f1mre)
11th February 2024, 14:45
That also adds weight.
Mr A
11th February 2024, 10:43
Just ban bare carbon. If they want to go black, they must paint it black. I know it’s another rule but surely it’s an easy one?? No bare carbon??
Asd
11th February 2024, 10:57
AGREED. Simple as that. “No bare carbon” and the rule is done. I don’t know why some commenters see a problem in imposing such a simple and super productive regulation.
Peter707
11th February 2024, 11:17
I don’t think it would make significant difference. There were many seasons with the paint schemes being too similar to each other. Black+something is the trend nowadays. In the 2000s decade, white was the trend, barely any black cars back then, and in some seasons even Ferrari had copious amount of white on their car (to the point it almost looked like Toyota).
Mr A
11th February 2024, 12:22
Yes but black is the trend BECAUSE bare carbon is black.
Peter707
11th February 2024, 15:43
The field became increasingly black from about 2010 onwards, way before this bare carbon mania.
Imre (@f1mre)
11th February 2024, 14:46
So paint the diffuser, suspension, floor, brake ducts?
Sam
11th February 2024, 18:20
Yep, it is a really simple rule to write and enforce. You want a black car then paint it black.
Asd
11th February 2024, 11:14
The whole “Against” part in the article is some absurd drivel. The author, Will Wood, should be ashamed of coming up with that nonsense.
“There should be no compromises in the pursuit of performance and certainly not when it comes to how the cars look”.
WHAT?!? Why would your even write such a silly statement??
The “2023 FORMULA 1 TECHNICAL REGULATIONS” document is 183 pages long consisting of hundreds of regulations defining an F1 car:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2023_formula_1_technical_regulations_-_issue_4_-_2022-12-07.pdf
Let me quote just 1 random bit:
“3.6.1 Nose
Bodywork declared as “Nose” must:
[…]
iii. have no radius of curvature smaller than 45mm at XA=0 which may reduce to a
minimum radius of curvature of 20mm forward of XA=0”
Every element of and F1 car is defined to a millimeter. And each one of HUNDREDS of those definitions are a “compromise to the pursuit of performance”. But when we talk about sth as simple as putting some paint on the cars to make them look sensible, the authour pretends that it would be the 1st and only ever regulation that determines the look of the cars. He is manufacturing controversy where there is none.
Just paint those cars.
SjaakFoo (@sjaakfoo)
11th February 2024, 11:39
Maybe next time you can argue your point without all the ad hominem nonsense around it. Might make it worthwhile reading.
Asd
11th February 2024, 12:35
There was hardly anything ad hominem in my comment. I didn’t attack the character of the author, I didn’t call him any names or anything like that. I criticized the article, I said what I think he did and what I think he should do. So please read my comment without this emotional bias.
David BR (@david-br)
12th February 2024, 1:13
If you’re saying someone should be ashamed for what they wrote, then obviously it’s personal and ad hominem.
I agree with @sjaakfoo, the point is fine but all the invective is just there because you can get away with it on the internet. Would you speak to someone like that face-to-face over such a trivial issue and not expect to cause serious offence?
Yellow Baron
11th February 2024, 11:51
“But that may be just a reflection of how competitive it is on the cutting edge of development”
Also laughable they tried to make an argument that there’s some type of competition going on, when in reality F1 is mostly an exhibition.
Mr A
11th February 2024, 12:25
Eyeroll
Brell-9W
11th February 2024, 14:39
Excellent point. There are so many restrictive rules already what is the harm of a bit of paint?
senproman
11th February 2024, 19:10
and overreaction of the day goes to…
Tristan (@skipgamer)
11th February 2024, 11:15
I go for the slightly disagree, mainly because I think the premise is a bit silly and it’s not as if the cars are all black, I think they’ll be plenty distinguishable on the track with the colour they have but I guess we’ll wait and see.
Ultimately I agree with Will’s say. If they reduce the weight of the cars and teams’ still can’t figure out how to get a paint job in there under weight budget then it should be considered really.
By the way, has it even been confirmed that the weight of the paint is the issue, rather than the cost savings due to budget cap? You’d think it’d have to be cheaper to stick some vinyl or a decal on a part as well as lighter.
chimaera2003 (@chimaera2003)
11th February 2024, 11:35
To be honest, this won’t be a problem for TV viewers given the advance of AI. We probably not far away from AI being able to paint liveries on the cars in real time so the TV viewer wouldn’t know what the car actually looks like.
Next step then is to customise the livery to the viewer! Dystopian I know but we aren’t far away from this if the TV networks want to do it.
As others have said, this may naturally resolve once sponsors demand their logos more aligned with their colour scheme rather than have a bare carbon background.
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
11th February 2024, 11:57
Both fascinating and terrifying —- + 1
Crawliin-from-the-wreckage (@davedai)
11th February 2024, 12:22
@chimera2003 good news and bad news .
Good FIA called and want to hire you for your innovative mindset.
Bad F1 also called vowing never to admit people with vision to enter their competition
Coventry Climax
11th February 2024, 15:46
Just give the viewer an app to determine in which color and livery each car should be shown on screen.
Given the ‘for’ people here, there must be a huge market for such an app.
Available at only 50 pound a second, I’m sure F1 hails you with open arms, because that’s the exact type of vision they all and exclusively seem to go for.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
11th February 2024, 12:32
Can it add some extra cars so Max doesn’t win every time?
chimaera2003 (@chimaera2003)
11th February 2024, 12:39
@bullfrog Let the market decide!!!
Zann (@zann)
11th February 2024, 14:02
I was thinking this same thing! AI rulez :) Pink Ferrari, black Red Bull, red and white McLaren
chimaera2003 (@chimaera2003)
12th February 2024, 12:40
@zann I am not endorsing the use of AI to artificially paint the cars. I can just see it inevitably happening and happening quicker than we think it will.
I’m sure someone would commercialise it so people can customise the colours of their cars though.
Zann (@zann)
12th February 2024, 13:14
it’d be, guess what, a subscription! But quite a fun idea
notagrumpyfan
11th February 2024, 12:00
As launch season is now merely about the graphics of the car, I couldn’t care less about launch season.
I don’t even open the first pictures posts on this site as it is merely a graphic design discussion rather than what the technical novelties of the car are.
In the past we had Scarbs and another contributor writing interesting articles about the cars themselves. Now it becomes more an aesthetics (or even worse gossip) discussion site.
Alex
11th February 2024, 12:07
100% yes. Mandate a minimum level that cars must be painted – would be an easy policy to implement and police!
The current liveries look comparatively garbage with so much bare carbon – in my opinion at least!
Imre (@f1mre)
11th February 2024, 14:47
How would that be easy to police?
Sam
11th February 2024, 18:22
Get someone from the FIA to touch each car that has a black surface and see if it feels like paint or carbon. This would take maybe one person five minutes to do all twenty cars once per weekend. You literally could do it on the grid.
Tristan (@skipgamer)
11th February 2024, 21:37
What a great use of time and resources when the FIA can’t even check the regulations that already exist!
DavidS (@davids)
12th February 2024, 0:54
Actually really simple.
The rule would require all relevant surfaces to have a coating of a particular thickness. There are paint gauges that are readily available commercially that can measure this, even on carbon fibre.
Have an exception for underbody parts and other parts that aren’t visible. Provide some tolerance (e.g. only 90% of the visible surfaces need to follow this rule, which allows for bare carbon to be used as an accent colour, or for those fiddly bits.
If someone rocks up with a mostly carbon coloured car, the scrutineers are going to give it special attention. They would still need to have a clear coat on that carbon to meet the regulations, so there won’t be a weight saving.
Coventry Climax
11th February 2024, 15:50
The FiA won’t even automate post race scrutiny, so I can see them working with tape measures already, determining the percentage of color.
GrandPrix results expected by the end of the season.
Wonderful idea. Shall we solve some other issues first, though?
Jin
11th February 2024, 12:19
The only stupid thing would be making another stupid rules to get around already stupid regulations
S
11th February 2024, 12:25
I’m not too sure about this logic…
Rule of thumb: The lighter the car is, the more weight (and therefore weight reduction) matters.
Naturally, the smaller the car is, the lighter it will be – but that doesn’t change the fact that teams would still want to save weight everywhere they can.
Anyway, F1 can reduce the minimum weight right now without making any other changes. It is a minimum and no competitor needs to reach it…
It’s only as high as it is in order to maintain some semblance of watchable on-track ‘competition’ – and it comes at the expense of the off-track engineering ‘competition.’
Tristan (@skipgamer)
11th February 2024, 23:15
Yeah I agree with that, it’s unsure whether lighter cars would “solve” the issue, if it’s hard to hit that weight, but I think it’s safe to say the cars should be lighter before any additional weight specifically for the purpose of liveries is mandated.
S
12th February 2024, 1:02
Not sure I agree with that.
They are two independent issues – one is performance related, and the other is a PR/commercial issue. Both can be ‘fixed’ at the same time given that the weight cost of a full coating is tiny in comparison to the car itself.
I think many/most viewers want to see F1 cars be the lightest and most nimble they can be on principle – but I don’t believe that anyone will truly notice the performance difference between a car that weight 600kg vs one that weighs in at 602kg. Likely not even with a stopwatch, given the number of other variables involved. And it makes even less of a difference at 800kg…
Put any two cars on track together – the aero turbulence and pressure variation one produces will negatively effect the other far more than that 2kg static mass ever can.
DavidDesu
11th February 2024, 12:38
Honestly, yes.
BBC has a page just showing all the cars revealed so far and there’s so much black or blue, and if Mercedes is still black, Red Bull is still a dark purple… yeah it’s not going to be so easy to discern a lot of the cars from one another. Sure Stake will stick out a mile and Ferrari too but it’s just not very interesting to look at. If weight is such an issue just make a rule that 80% of the car must be painted and then let livery designers give us cool designs to look at and crucially, to allow us to see at a glance who’s who on track.
Neil (@neilosjames)
11th February 2024, 12:40
Difficult, because I don’t necessarily want more rules, but I do like being able to identify cars from as far away as possible, from pretty much any angle. Even from a hazy little glimpse of them at the far end of a straight. (though obviously, that wouldn’t be possible for some cars even with a full paint scheme).
I went for slightly agree. There’s a rule for everything else, so it’s not like adding a couple of lines to the regulations would be any great negative.
SteveR (@stever)
11th February 2024, 16:39
The yellow flash on the Red Bull nose is great for identifying the car from a distance; other teams ought to think about this.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
11th February 2024, 13:13
I prefer unpainted aluminum, but unpainted carbon works too.
NinjaBadger (@ninjabadger)
11th February 2024, 13:36
I feel this is a self-governing thing.
If I can’t make out the brand or sponsors the team is meant to be representating, that’s their problem.
Besides if this is about teams standing out, does a rule like this automatically fix the issue?
How many grey/black cars did we have on the grid in 2014-5. And that wasn’t because of lack of paint.
Sham (@sham)
11th February 2024, 14:18
First, launch season used to be an exciting time of the year. Now, you don’t see the actual launch spec of the car and most of the physical presentations are just models with all the important aero stuff missing of obfuscated. Literally nothing more than a livery launch.
Secondly, the rule book is about 150% too thick as it is.
lynn-m
11th February 2024, 14:23
Strongly Disagree.
The show that used to be a sport is over-regulated enough as it is.
S
12th February 2024, 1:07
If they removed 90% of the current rules, but introduced a mandate that all cars must be completely painted, would that be OK?
Surely the primary problem isn’t the number of rules, but what each one is there for…?
A good rule is a good rule, regardless of how many there are. Same goes for a bad one.
Brell-9W
11th February 2024, 14:45
You know I’m against silly rules and over regulation. Tomorrow I’d scrap half the rules, BUT I think this is a very simple rule.
I think rules should be simple and effective, especially if they serve a purpose. Let’s see some spectacular liveries!
Imre (@f1mre)
11th February 2024, 14:49
How is it simple? Would you mandate to paint the bottom parts of the car? What constitutes as bottom? How about the diffuser or the brake ducts?
MichaelN
11th February 2024, 14:58
It’s easy enough to write a rule that covers the outside bodywork as commonly understood, and mandate no bare carbon. How to word that is sure to be obvious to the writers of the rules; it’s hardly a big time investment.
But is it desirable? Not really. This problem will solve itself in due time. Now that the novelty is already over, it’s no longer ‘cool’. And no big time sponsor is going to pay top dollar to have their monochromatic sticker pasted unto a bare carbon car and get zero recognition and attention out of it.
The realistic only way to do that is to shorten the cars. The huge increase in weight is a direct consequence of the increase in length, the hybrid power unit, and the therefore required safety enhancements. The latter two are non-negotiable for F1 at the moment.
The weight of EVs is a huge problem, and there is a good reason to pivot F1 to focusing on technology to reduce weight – but realistically speaking F1 has always been doing that, so there’s not much weight to be saved in materials. Unless some hitherto unknown genius comes up with a better alternative to carbon fiber.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
11th February 2024, 15:01
weigh the cars without the body work, put a minimum on the body work, problem solved. And ban the word ban.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
11th February 2024, 15:03
to include completely painted body work all around.
Coventry Climax
11th February 2024, 15:53
If I owned a team and the rule of ‘no unpainted carbon’ came into existence, I’d spray my cars completely black.
José Lopes da Silva
11th February 2024, 16:25
In the Fifties there was a ‘rule’ regarding the colours of the teams.
70 years later, we have people being against such thing and claiming that it would be “befitting modern F1”.
As Milan Kundera said, “everything will be forgotten and nothing will be redressed”.
Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
11th February 2024, 16:58
Not sure on this one. The bare carbon is getting a bit boring even though it can look cool. Seems contrived to have a dedicated rule about it but it is getting very bland. Surely the weight of paint is practically negligible akin to the driver having a bowel movement before the race. Shame there can’t just be a common sensibility agreement on this one rather than a contrived rule.
Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
11th February 2024, 17:07
6kg a fully painted car apparently. Wasn’t expecting that.
Gerrit
11th February 2024, 18:51
i litre of paint covers 8 square metres. Weighs 1 kg wet. With a solid content of around 50% the actual weight of the dried paint is less than 500 grams after the solvents have evaporated.
Bearing in mind the carbon is coated (painted) with a clear coating, the actual weigh savings is the difference between the driver taking a dump before the race or holding on to after the race.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
11th February 2024, 17:14
Not even Kimi could take a 6kg dump before a race.
Jere (@jerejj)
11th February 2024, 17:36
I strongly disagree essentially because freedom of choice is important.
F1 already has more than enough rules, so introducing more for the sake of introducing would be pointless & limit flexibility.
sam
11th February 2024, 17:57
Making fun of them for having no style is probably the best course of action.
Mark Tucker
11th February 2024, 18:25
Maybe we need a rule about there being no more rules? Honestly, carbon fibre looks sexy, whats the issue?
Picasso 1.9D FTW (@picasso-19d-ftw)
11th February 2024, 18:34
Sure, lock six lawyers in a room for a month to figure out a rule dictating a certain weight of paint on the outer surface of the care. I imagine that the logical conclusion would be a two-cubic-inch torpedo lead paint rivetted to the the floor by the cockpit for weight distribution purposes, helping to distinguish the cars if you can spot the more aerodynamically advantageous shape fitted to the Newey machine.
praxis (@praxis)
11th February 2024, 19:27
Strongly disagree. F1 is way to restrictive already.
Fred Fedurch
11th February 2024, 19:35
Hypocrites. If all the football teams decided that they were going to go with white uniforms in hot weather and black uniforms in hot weather for thermal reasons with only coloured strips on the sleeves/shorts to identify teams you’d be storming the league offices with pitchforks and torches.
Fred Fedurch
11th February 2024, 20:45
*Black in cold weather
José Lopes da Silva
12th February 2024, 8:31
I’m afraid they’re not hypocrites, they’re British Brexiteers
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
11th February 2024, 20:18
Paint is not friendly to the environment so should not be a requirement. The only requirement should be the car’s number be displayed in X number of places at Y size in a contrasting color to the body work.
S
12th February 2024, 1:24
Carbon fibre is not friendly to the environment either, nor is the process used to make it into a useful product. Much worse than the steel and aluminium it replaced – especially as it can’t be easily or economically recycled and degrades substantially during such processing.
Come to think about it, what part of F1 is actually friendly to the environment…?
David BR (@david-br)
12th February 2024, 11:59
Sebastian’s bee hives?
Eh… OK, I may be running out of other examples…
Coventry Climax
12th February 2024, 16:57
Wrong.
You accused me of not using the internet connection ‘I apparently have’, for looking into WRC, to legitimise me saying I know nothing about it. Logic of the century.
You however, are not using the internet connection you appaerntly also have, to look up something as well. The difference is, despite you not knowing anything about it, you say something quite decisive about the matter.
Put this into your search engine and you’ll have pages of hits: “recycling carbon fibre”.
There was even a racing team that started using recycled carbon fibre, don’t remember which one or which series. I’m sure someone else here remembers.
I’ll be back to ignoring you now, until the next blatant lie.
S
12th February 2024, 23:54
Did I not say that carbon fibre can be recycled – just not efficiently or cost-effectively? Did I also not say that it degrades in the process?
I’m pretty sure I did, because both statements are true – and yes, I do know a bit about it. If I didn’t know, I wouldn’t have said anything.
Many things are now being made using recycled carbon fibre content, in part just to find ways to utilise this now-abundant leftover material – however, none of them have the same mechanical properties or performance as if they were made using virgin product.
grat
11th February 2024, 23:41
This is a self correcting problem. When the sponsors realize that no one can tell one car from another, let alone tell which white logo on a black carbon fibre chassis is theirs, they’ll demand more visibility.
S
12th February 2024, 1:25
Sponsors aren’t the teams’ main form of income anymore…
Matthijs (@matthijs)
12th February 2024, 7:38
Remember the years around 2000 and all the colours of the rainbow on the grid?
Red: Ferrari
Orange: Arrows
Yellow: Jordan
Green: Jaguar
Light blue: Benetton
Dark blue: Prost
AlanD
12th February 2024, 15:38
Purple: Bernie’s face when the teams asked for more money
Olivier
12th February 2024, 8:10
Mercedes has an historic reason for using bare carbon. Their cars used to be silver because they scraped off the paint from their car, exposing the bare aluminium.
As to the other cars, it is up to their sponsors, isn’t it?
Having said all this, it baffles me that the fastest car on the grid is fully painted?!
S
12th February 2024, 8:37
Mercedes scraping off their paint 90 years ago and exposing the aluminium skin underneath (or so the story goes) is a pretty tentative link to them running unpainted carbon fibre today.
Which says a great deal about just how much time and performance there is in not painting cars, doesn’t it…
Most teams are happy enough with the money they get from F1 to not even bother prioritising their sponsors anymore.
David BR (@david-br)
12th February 2024, 12:06
The Alpine ‘BWT’ logo makes it look like one of those plastic cars found inside chocolate eggs where the kid has to assemble the parts and put the stickers on themselves. Only their aim was a bit off (still eating the chocolate I guess).
It doesn’t real shout out ‘quality.’
Carl Parker (@mysticarl)
12th February 2024, 12:13
On this occasion I think a rule is sensible. State that X% of the car must be painted – the paint over that X% must be even in weight, and exclude under surfaces and within X mm of an exhaust. I’m sure it’d end up being more complex than that but it shouldn’t be rocket science to come up with a well worded rule.
Ultimately every team does it so there’s no advantage, they just look worse. There is a visual aspect of the sport and my personal opinion is that they should ensure the cars look distinctive and removal of paint to save weight shouldn’t be a performance avenue that should be allowed.
Saying there’s already too many rules is a pretty silly argument IMO. It’s a complex sport and this doesn’t really add complexity, it just ensures all teams produce (subjectively) a visually appealing car.
AlanD
12th February 2024, 15:39
Purple: Bernie’s face when the teams asked for more money
AlanD
12th February 2024, 15:42
If it isn’t the case already, maybe paint jobs should be excluded from the budget cap, so there is no financial benefit in running bare carbon.
iFuel
12th February 2024, 16:17
Once and advancement is made, there’s no turning back. No matter how much the FIA changes/tweaks the minimum weight rule, paint will always be added weight with no performance benefit. F1 is a sport but it’s also a spectacle. Adding visual flair helps the sport as a whole, but you cant expect one team to paint their cars when others aren’t doing.
So as unfortunate as it is, I believe a rule with a list of parts that should be panted could be introduced.
Historic cars wouldn’t be as nearly as iconic if not for their liveries.
AlanD
13th February 2024, 13:08
iFuel:
That’s not really true. It wasn’t so long ago we had those cars with hideous shark fin tails, but they were quietly got rid of. Ferrari, many years ago, nade a weight saving by building power train parts from expensive alloys, but they were outlawed by the rule that teams must not use exotic materials. Same with fuel. Teams used to have custom fuels designed for them, but nowadays they are required to use a commercially available fuel mixture. These were all ways to make a car faster, but if everyone did it there was no advantage to anyone, so they did turn back.
S
13th February 2024, 14:15
That’s not the case – they are only required to use a fuel that resembles a commercial type of fuel in certain key aspects.
It is still formulated specifically for F1 and tailored to each team/engine manufacturer’s requirements by each fuel supplier (there is still some degree of technical competition here).
Renee (@renee)
12th February 2024, 18:43
I voted “Slightly agree” because I hate that most all cars will look the same on tv screen. Especially when all bunched up and camera zoomed out.
“Slightly” because F1 is too over-regulated as it is and additional regulations for paintwork seems stupid and too difficult to understandably regulate.
But what changed the whole picture for me, was when I understood we don’t need overly detailed or difficult rules about what parts or how need to be painted. All that would be needed is a simple stipulation that says no visible bare carbon surfaces allowed on external bodywork of the car. That excludes all suspension and wheel components.
Easy. Done. And no more monotone grids. If a team wants a black car of carbon. Wrap it.
AlanD
13th February 2024, 13:03
Renee, “no visible bare carbon apart from….” sounds like a pretty simple rule which doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room. I’d also hope that the teams and marshals could be sensible about it. e.g. if someone wrecks a car and has to have a new wing flown out, I’d hope they’d turn a lind eye to it still having bare carbon for that one race.
Drvoo (@drvoo)
13th February 2024, 16:58
I’d like to see the country color idea returned in a small way, perhaps the nose of the car should have its country color on it, with the flat upper panel being that color from the axle plane to the nose tip. Sponsor logos could be on top of it, but the nose area would be primarily that designated color. The rest of the car would be free, adorned as the teams desire.