Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
To be honest - I don't know what they mean in terms of racing. That's why I'm interested if there is a correlation between reduced down force and better racing?
Does it demonstrate that the link between down force levels and quality of racing exists? I'm not sure.
We've seen very high levels of down force in the past, but did they really give worse racing? If the answer is yes, then it would suggest that there is a link.
However, if the quality of racing was relatively consistent from '79-'81 and '90-'94, then it is more complex than simply reducing down force. There would need to be a simplification of aero, rather than a reduction. Is that possible? Maybe. Would the sport then lose it's appeal to some? Possibly.
I wonder if a conclusion might be reached if we polled fans for when the quality of racing was at its best in F1, then compared those results with the level of down force in those years?
|
Polling fans would be one way but that would mean fans having to trawl through the archives and watch whole races, from seasons gone by. That's very time consuming, even with the lockdown in place.
I think IndyCar is a good indicator of lower downforce equals better racing. Back in 2015 Chevy and Honda were allowed to produce their own aero-kits. The result was increased downforce, with racing becoming more processional as overtaking became that much harder. Both fans and drivers complained and the powers that be at IndyCar listened. The current Universal Aero Kit was conceived and adopted. Overall in its first season it was a success, producing closer and more exciting racing, except for the 500. The powers that be listened again and last season produced one of the best 500s.