[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That depends on what the intended use of the airplane is.
I don't see the analogy. An airplane designed to carry people over a long distance and is built to one set of parameters.

If a car can be designed, built and sold for less than £8k in the UK - then why don't we laugh every other heavier, more expensive car out of the door? Because F1 is not about building the lightest car to move people around in - it is about creating a formula within which competitors race.

There are many things about F1 that could be done to make cheaper, lighter cars to race in. Why don't they just use F4 regulations?

For the obvious reason that they don't fulfil the basic requirement of being the fastest racing cars on the planet.

Current F1 cars are ~110kg heavier than they need be to fulfil the requirement of being the premier racing class, but because the manufacturers like greenwashing and F1 let's teenagers in fan survey's and the marketing department at Pirelli determine the proper wheel size, we are now stuck with what we have. Maybe they don't want light F1 cars any more. Because then the transition to battery powered electric cars would be such big disappointment. We'll see in 2026, where the weight will be going. I hope for sensible wheels sizes and sub 700kg, we'll see.

From the outset, it seems like the case to go back to smaller wheels and tyres is based on a dislike for the 18" wheels, and has no real benefits to F1.

Yes, I dislike the 18'' wheels and I've explained across 5 pages exactly why I don't like them. You accuse me of disliking them from the onset, while at the same time don't engage in the arguments I brought forward on your request. Arguments that are bloody obvious to me and anyone who expects a minimal amount of technical merit from designs chosen for a class that is called the pinnacle of motorsport.

Perhaps F1 should abandon this class completely, slap "F1, the pinnacle of motorsport" on the windscreen at truckracing and be done. You know, they are low downforce (good), high drag (good), quite a handful to drive (excellent), huge wheels and tyres (looks so good).

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

That's true if the investor is expecting a commercial return from a company selling aircraft to other companies who in turn plan to use them in a competitive market.

None of those factors is true of F1. The commercial return F1 teams get depends in large part on the appeal of the cars to fans with a wide range of preferences, from the highly technical (you) to the purely aesthetic (me). It's never been purely about building a car with bleeding edge technology.

I'm not as far on the technical side as you think. I was in favour or restricting the aerodynamic freedom and complexity in order to improve the racing. But in this case the balance of form, function, cost and excitement has shifted way to far into the looks department. Drivers have have been sharing their frustration with cars getting heavier for years. This is just another mayor shift in the wrong direction and these wheels are just not fit for purpose in my view.

To further expand, the 30.5kg change from the two wheel spec changes between 2016 and 2022 along with the change in diameter means in accelerations terms, they've added ~66kg equivalent of none rotating mass to the car.

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Personally as well anything that makes the cars harder to drive is good. Driver can't see the apex? Great! I also agree with the observation above that if a WEC or IMSA prototype driver can manage in the dark, in the rain, for three hours at a time, on four hours sleep, in a car not set up for them, with a greasy windshield and while constantly lapping slower cars, then it's not obvious to me why we should give an F1 driver seeing over the big front tyre even the slightest consideration.

Let's just agree to disagree on that.

https://www.racefans.net/2022/02/14/...nd-up-14-02-5/

This is a quote from Norris:
“For certain tracks, it might be extremely different like Singapore or Monaco. One of my friends who’s in F2 said that they have to put cones on top of the barriers in places because the barriers were lower than the new tyres that we have, and that they can’t actually see where the barrier is, because the car looks higher than the barriers. We’ll have to get used to the size of it, the front wing and how big that is and so on.”

So they are putting cones on top of barriers because the wheels obscure the view to the barriers they need to navigate. Again this is without the 5-7cm wake deflectors that F2 cars are not running.

To further illustrate. A driver sits about 1.7m from the wake deflector. That means a 5-7cm height of the wake deflector will obscure an addition 50-70cm height at a barrier 17m away. Compared to 2021 wheels it's even 100 to 120cm. I know you guys think it's all fine when the wheels block your view on what you are supposed to navigate. To me it's utter nonsense.

I think the chances that we are back to smaller diameter tires by 2026, are above 70%.