Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic
I'm not sure I agree that these concepts are useless in an open formula. We already have regulations which were designed to get rid of dildo noses, stepped noses, and ugly wing attachments. Even for 2018, the wider cars, wider tyres are to try and give a more aggressive look to the vehicles, after we went through a phase of stupid toy looking cars. We already use regulations to try and define a certain aesthetic to the cars, it's just a bit harder to achieve in an open regulation series.
A vehicle will never ever come out looking like an artists impression (the spec IndyCar does not look identical to the original concept), but you can influence them with regulations. Some will argue that that's a bad thing and we shouldn't do that, but it's been happening for decades now anyway.
People already complain that the cars are too similar because the boxes they have to build the cars in are too defined. Well engineers can't unlearn things, so you can't get rid of those boxes. All I'm suggesting here is move the boxes about to a more visually pleasing position (which is what they did for 2018 - it just can go further). That's no different to what we have now, just the parameters moved.
Of course this topic is originally about head protection, which IS a spec part, so can be made to look good. But F1 isn't interested in bringing in a design consultant or even an engineering team to find a good solution - it's interested in being different so it doesn't have to copy anyone else. It's about making a certain solution work, rather than finding the best solution. Basic engineering processes wouldn't allow you to throw away concepts after 2 minutes of field testing, which is what they have done.
|
Those are all good points and I don't particularly disagree with any of it. The thread through your post is that F1 is not an open spec. And that is true. But it likes to pretend it is. It usually doesn't explicitly say "do X", but instead, it tends to say "don't do Y". The tweaks to the regulations tend to try to stamp out "ugly" (such as your examples), but it's always hard to regulate in "beauty" unless you have full control. If a canopy solution was defined as a spec solution, then it could be designed with aesthetics in mind as well as safety. Without full control it's hard to erase the potential for unintended consequences (such as the nose you mention and this years "T wing" that rides behind the shark fin, and you could even include the shark fin itself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hondafan37
Perhaps the concept presented by Renault in Shanghai, the RS 2027 Vision, can give us a better idea of the F1 of the future.
|
To be honest, that is even more fanciful if you look at the illustration. And because it comes from Renault (a current participant in the sport), I give it no extra consideration than anything anyone could create as a visual concept.
However, if you ignore the visual and read the text (using the first article as my source) and focus on
ideas and not visual concepts (which illustrate solutions without defining the problem), then I can consider what is being said (because it is Renault and they have influence). Ideas such as...
* Closed cockpit for safety reasons
* All wheel drive
* Dynamic aero
* Telemetry that is accessible to fans
* Active suspension
Richard