Front wings

[F3L]

Sorry but having looked at the new Ferrari I see little chance of the grid ever getting through the first corner of any race without their wings coming a cropper....looks like an own goal to me at this stage.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I don't see what all this big fuss is about tbh. I don't see why a few inches is going to make that much of a difference in the first corner etc.

Selby

[FPV GTHO]

The wings are no wider than the cars, so whilst the chances of knocking the wings will undoubtedly be higher than before, when they do hit now they would've probably been knocking wheels before.

[F.O.F.]

Well yeah,it's gonna be a little easier to knock the front wing off and we might have a little coming together at turn 1 in Melbourne.But after that if a driver was to keep doing it or couldn't get used to it,well,he'd have to be a bit thick wouldn't he? Like,LMP's have full width front bodywork and they usually manage just fine

[Glen]

Quite a few people dislike the front wings and maintain that they will be knocked off.

Quite a few people think the new rules are a missed opportunity to go back to a wider car.

Anybody subscribe to both the above views?

Spot the contradiction.

[Knowlesy]

I don't see how wanting a wider wheelbase impacts on maintaining a sensible front wing width?

That said, I don't think it will be too bad. The drivers will adapt to this new wider front wing. Maybe it will be a bit stronger as well?

[Adam43]

If you consider the area where there is now wing compared with before. How many times did a driver put another car in that area without contact? Not that many times, I'd guess.

If the wing was wider than the wheelbase I'd see this as a problem, but it isn't.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I don't see how wanting a wider wheelbase impacts on maintaining a sensible front wing width?

Only in so much as a narrow car fits in a smaller space!

What is the benefit of having a wider car? None.

[Knowlesy]

OK then.

[Adam43]

I'm not one of those people who think either, but I don't see the contridiction either

[Glen]

Ah well. Just a bit of fun - as I see it these are opposites. A wider car won't squeeze into a small space, and neither will a wide wing.

[gttouring]

i thought EGADS what a wing!
the wing is more fragile than the wheel ideally so a bit of wheel bumping wont lead to shards of tire puncturing shrapnel and under steering inflicted wingless cars...

[strider]

Nick Heidfeld has predicted problems and I think he's right.

The whole thing was put in perspective for me the other night by the simple comment that the rear wing is 3 feet 6 inches wide and the front wing is 6 feet wide. Sorry for using old-fashioned measurements.

The drivers can't see the front wing, but they can see the front tyres. That's the width they will have to allow for, whereas in the past they've known that the front wing is narrower than the tyres. So they will have to adapt.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by strider

Nick Heidfeld has predicted problems and I think he's right.

The whole thing was put in perspective for me the other night by the simple comment that the rear wing is 3 feet 6 inches wide and the front wing is 6 feet wide. Sorry for using old-fashioned measurements.

The drivers can't see the front wing, but they can see the front tyres. That's the width they will have to allow for, whereas in the past they've known that the front wing is narrower than the tyres. So they will have to adapt.

I can relate to that..

[Teretonga]

Wait until there is an incident at Melbourne or Sepang...
Five or six cars lost or delayed at turn one including a Ferrari or two....

The solution is ridiculous and arises from the imposition of some mixed objectives given to the working group. I would not be surprised to see a revision come before the end of the season....

[tristancliffe]

Originally Posted by Glen

Only in so much as a narrow car fits in a smaller space!

What is the benefit of having a wider car? None.

Quite a massive amount actually - not least the reduction in load transfer which means, essentially, the ratio of pure mechanical to aero generated grip goes slightly towards pure mechanical. And that is usually pretty good for racing.

Plus they look better - have a look at pre-93 F1 cars. The '91 Jordan is a good case.

I'd trade good looking cars that can race for ugly cars that can race any day of the week

[strider]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

I'd trade good looking cars that can race for ugly cars that can race any day of the week

So would I, but I don't see how a car with a greatly narrower rear wing and a greatly wider front wing is going to look good. We will get used to them in time, but they will never look good.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

Quite a massive amount actually - not least the reduction in load transfer which means, essentially, the ratio of pure mechanical to aero generated grip goes slightly towards pure mechanical. And that is usually pretty good for racing.

Plus they look better - have a look at pre-93 F1 cars. The '91 Jordan is a good case.

I'd trade good looking cars that can race for ugly cars that can race any day of the week

Firstly, F1 cars are not struggling to find grip - mechanical or aero. New ways are being found all the time to reduce corner speeds and alter the balance between mechanical and aero.

Secondly, I do know what old F1 cars look like. But I watch F1 races as races, not as static images. If regulations can improve racing I'm all for them - aesthetics come second.

Thirdly, if racing is a priority over looks then slim cars are good because they can overtake each other more easily.

[ChrisPage]

I think this will quickly prove not to be an issue. It's the same with any change - the first race you may get incidents but the drivers will quickly adapt and learn where the new limits are. If not they hardly deserve to be in F1!

[Chaynes321]

imo i think the cars from 2007 were the most good looking cars, i really like the narrow profile and all the detailed curves

[Marbot]

This may be stating the obvious,but it's going to take longer to change a front wing/nose cone in 2009.

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44924

[tristancliffe]

They have plenty of grip, but the ratio is too much in favour of aero. That's why a following car can't get close. A wider track (as in the distance between wheels, not the surface they drive on!) will make the ratio slightly more favourable, which should help the racing. The width of the cars with regards room to overtake isn't an issue in the slightest, except perhaps at Monaco.

A wider track with the existing front wing would look okay. The rear wing would still look silly (sillier?), but I reckon the overall look would improve. And I base that on some photoshops someone did on another forum.

Nose cone changes shouldn't be increased. Look at how many plugs it takes to connect a steering wheel - none; it's all part of the release mechanism. A version of that on the nose cone and it'll take 0.00 seconds longer to change a nose cone. Of course, a hydraulic one will be slightly different, but there are still panel mounted quick release couplings for hydraulics that would cope with the environment available.

[Teretonga]

Pick up a picture of a 97 Ferrari, Williams or McLaren (the last season with slicks and wide track) photoshop or draw a 2009 front and rear wing onto it.

It doesn't look silly although the narrow wing looks out of proportion (as do the 2009 front wings on a 2009 car).

The 2009 rear wing is a silly issue even now. The wing is narrower to reduce the amount od available downforce, but higher to separate it from interference with wash to the car behind.
Surely a wider less efficient wing, still mounted higher, common to all so a 'standard' piece would have provided a more balanced look. Then the front wing would not have had to carry as much down force, and be narrower.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Surely a wider less efficient wing, still mounted higher, common to all so a 'standard' piece would have provided a more balanced look. Then the front wing would not have had to carry as much down force, and be narrower.

It's patently obvious that the OWG didn't spend hours in a wind tunnel trying to make the cars look better.They realised at an early stage that it wasn't downforce that was the problem,it was what was happening to that air when it left the back of the car.So the solution was to try and make the rear wing interfere with the front wing of the following car as little as possible.Reducing downforce didn't work.Putting the air where you wanted it to go did.So the narrow rear wing inflicts most of its damage on the central (FIA standard) part of the following cars front wing,leaving the outer ends of that (wider) wing to do their job i.e. glue the car to the tarmac.

[Teretonga]

Or the wash effect isn't as strong out wide so standardise the central part of the front wing and widen it with the outer limits doing the work and stuff what it looks like.

This still ignores the effect of the diffuser air but they didn't want to do away with that because they still wanted as much downforce as possible... and I continue to maintain that the commitment to that philosophy is part of the problem....