[Rules] Todt: "new tracks must create passing"

[Morris Dancer]

Originally Posted by Purist

We've all seen winged formula cars overtake, so that statement is patently untrue.

Anyway, there are perceptions in place as far as what is considered "modern" and/or "up-to-date" that effectively make F1 cars WITH wings a requirement. Also, at the speeds of current formula cars (F1 or other categories), having substantial downforce for the car's inherent stability is considered a necessity.

Besides, with current side impact and rollover protection requirements, you can't make a new F1 car without wings that will actually look right. The days of the Maserati 250F or the wingless Lotus 49 are long gone.

Anyway, as long as you have relatively basic wings, compared to what we have presently, the interference to overtaking is pretty minimal; it would certainly have far less impact than does all the blocking that goes on in the races anymore. You could make all the changes in the world to reduce the aero, but you won't notice a damn bit of difference in the races until you crack down heavily on drivers "driving a wide car". It's just that simple.

OK then ...

Racing car - wings = easier to overtake than racing car + wings!
QED.

Removing wings would simply force designers to use spoilers for high-speed stability, with the added benefit that the higher drag would reduce cars' top speeds.

Who are you to arbitrate that a racing car with side impact and rollover protection - essentially a Formula Ford with wider tyres - looks "right" or "modern"?

You don't have to be Einstein to predict the result of a poll that asked fans whether they'd prefer wingless cars that could be overtaken more easily than today's ground-bound aircraft.

The "wide car" phenomenon has largely disappeared as a result of anti-weaving rules.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Purist

We've all seen winged formula cars overtake, so that statement is patently untrue.

Overtaking may indeed be possible with winged formula cars. However, the question that needs to be answered is whether overtaking is mostly possible because of despite of the wings.

Anyway, there are perceptions in place as far as what is considered "modern" and/or "up-to-date" that effectively make F1 cars WITH wings a requirement.

This raises a number of questions.
1) Do wings indeed make the car look modern?
2) If so, do fans really demand modern looking car?
3) If again so, is it vital to meet the fans' demands regarding aesthetics?

Ad 1. I doubt it. Modern Formula Fords don't have wings but none would describe these cars as retro.

Ad 2. Again, I doubt it. Fans are more looking for cars that look fast but not necessarily modern. It worth mentioning that until the early 2000s Marlboro used the 1982 front wingless McLaren in their logo. Since the introduction of the mandatory flat bottoms in 1983 that car should be qualified as obsolete. Another thing is that throughout the Western world there's a tendency towards nostalgia.

Ad 3. Clearly not. The post-2008 are far from aesthetic, but the fans seem to have accepted it.

Also, at the speeds of current formula cars (F1 or other categories), having substantial downforce for the car's inherent stability is considered a necessity.

To keep the current cornering speeds downforce is absolutely necessary. But does Formula 1 really need to keep the current cornering speeds?
For the straight line speeds its not required to have a reasonable amount of downforce. Neither from a technical nor safety point of view.

Besides, with current side impact and rollover protection requirements, you can't make a new F1 car without wings that will actually look right. The days of the Maserati 250F or the wingless Lotus 49 are long gone.

A ban on wings and diffuser won't imply the removal of side pids or nose cones. The cars could certainly look 'right', whatever that may be.

[Bonanza]

[QUOTE=Pingguest;2796137]

Ad 3. Clearly not. The post-2008 are far from aesthetic, but the fans seem to have accepted it.

[QUOTE]

To a certain extent, you may be right but thats not totally the case.

Despite the funny wings I quite like the new F1 cars because of their clean looks, and I think many fans have embraced that idea. For that reason I dont think F1 cars of today are ugly

Many people are not enticed by IndyCar, yet may be fans of NASCAR and other motorsports. Why? well a major player in that would be the cars-horrid looking machines.

I think If F1 were to (god forbid) have F1 cars that were as ugly, I think we'd see a decline in popularity.

[Teretonga]

[QUOTE=Bonanza;2796185][QUOTE=Pingguest;2796137]

Ad 3. Clearly not. The post-2008 are far from aesthetic, but the fans seem to have accepted it.

To a certain extent, you may be right but thats not totally the case.

Despite the funny wings I quite like the new F1 cars because of their clean looks, and I think many fans have embraced that idea. For that reason I dont think F1 cars of today are ugly
I do think they are ugly and much prefer the cars of the late 80's and early 90's (85-94)

Many people are not enticed by IndyCar, yet may be fans of NASCAR and other motorsports. Why? well a major player in that would be the cars-horrid looking machines.
I don't find the Dallaras that ugly. I think F1 cars 2004-2009 were much uglier... The clean up with all the bits was an improvement but I have never like 'high raised nose' cars. Just a preference.

I think If F1 were to (god forbid) have F1 cars that were as ugly, I think we'd see a decline in popularity.

Some truth in that. As F1 cars have become more and more ugly I have lost interest proportionately....

[Purist]

Remember guys, F1 is billed in its advertising/promotion as being the most technologically advanced/up-to-date racing series in the world. The cars have to look "modern" and "up-to-date" in order to match that, until the PR people can be convinced to change their line, if such a thing is even possible.

I can't honestly agree that the 2009-2010 F1 cars look any "cleaner" than those of 2008 or earlier. Also, I'd say we've heard a lot more complaints on here about the looks of the cars since they went to the monster front wing with the puny rear wing.

I've looked at Formula Fords; they just don't do it for me. They don't look fast, just puny, with too much extra "baggage" hanging out. They also look like they're missing their wings. As for the "retro" comment, the closest GP car I can think of to them right now is probably the 1938-39 Auto Union Type D. Also, if your hypotheses were true, FFs would be far more popular among motorsports fans than they are, would they not?

I said in an earlier post that I don't care for the raised nose formula cars, and the best looking F1 cars with them, for me, were cars such as the Arrows A 21 and McLaren MP4/15 (both from year 2000).

Here are a few wingless F1 cars that get me going, and are the sort of look that really turn me on to the F1 cars themselves.
1966 Ferrari 312 F1:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/2...-312-F1_1.html
1967 Lotus 49:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/8...sworth_19.html
1957 Maserati 250F (factory lightweight):
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/3...tweight_2.html
1956 Lancia-Ferrari D50:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/1...cia-D50_3.html

The Maserati 250F Streamliner and Mercedes-Benz W196 Streamliner are more Le Mans racer than F1 car, so I didn't include them.

Basically, once you get to that wedge profile nose on a formula car, like on a Lotus 72 as an early example, it just needs to have wings to look "right". I even prefer the 1982 F1 cars when they have their nose wings fitted.

Back to the present, I would call this year's Sauber ugly. I'd also use that term for the Ferrari and Renault, though they aren't quite as bad. The Red Bull livery helps the look of that car a lot. The Mercedes and Williams, without shark fins fitted, are the most aesthetically pleasing of the 2010 crop. I think on the current cars, having a wider nose helps, because it makes the front wing supports look shorter, making the front of the car look lower to the ground, and giving the car a wider stance.

As for my "wide car" comment, it was about blocking, not the actual width of the cars. And we will not have as good a racing as we think we should until blocking it dealt with harshly.

BTW, a bit of a note on aero, in that tunnels continued in F1 at least through 1986, though side skirts were banned after 1982. You can see the venturi tunnel exits sticking out the backs of a number of the cars when seen in profile for cars from 1983-86 at least.

I might add that on the current cars, I don't know that there's enough bodywork surface at the rear to mount an effective spoiler as such, at least for what I'm envisioning. Also, a rear spoiler adds drag, but won't save you from having a nose that produces lift, like the Ford GT40 or Porsche 917.

[Purist]

Back to the race circuits, homogeneity in the tracks breeds hom0ogeneity in the designs of the cars. If there was a real mix of tracks, designers would be forced to have their cars be more specialized, based on what their people are best at, and which engine they have.

Sodemo, I think your flat-out run from the original post isn't quite as long as you're thinking, but still probably wouldn't be accepted even though it might be just within the FIA rules. Before 2007, the run from La Source to Les Combes at Spa was 2030m. With the changes for 2007, it's more like ~2100m now, or maybe a bit more.

It's not just about long straights though, with regards to the failings of newer tracks. A high-speed, slipstreaming circuit needs a large percentage of the lap to be straights, and long straights at that. Monza is ~72% long straights, that is, that much of the lap is composed of four particular "straights" that are each at least 1km in length. Without the Mistral chicane, Paul Ricard is nearly 60% made up by just two flat-out runs (flat-out for F1 anyway). The front straight is over 800m, and the flat-out run around the back side of the course is almost 2.6km.

A high-speed circuit, which I separate from a slipstreaming circuit, usually has some very long straights, but also has a high percentage of fast corners. Silverstone (before the 1990s) and the Osterreichring were tracks in this category, along with old Kyalami, Dijon-Prenois, Brands Hatch, and old Zandvoort. Many of the fast corners on these circuits didn't just have one line, and if you could get a better exit out of the turn, you had a decent shot at the guy in front, even without a really strong slipstream to help you down the next "straight".

High-speed corners coupled with long straights is probably the ultimate compromise in setup. As long as you have enough of the lap as straights, you have to run low downforce, which makes those turns very tricky. This made three spots in particular at old hockenheim very interesting. The corner leading into the Stadium Section was fast, but with low downforce, it was edgy to negotiate, and it was a very good overtaking spot. Turn 1 itself was also fairly quick, and an overtaking point in its own right. In addition though, if you couldn't keep it together well enough out of Turn 1, the guy behind you could have one hell of a run on you going down the straight to the Jim Clark chicane.

Having some relatively heavy braking zones on a low downforce circuit helps overtaking too, but the corners for which you're braking need not be "slow", just slow enough that you have to dissipate significant energy. The lower downforce makes the braking zones longer, and so helps make outbraking more possible.

Finally, Teretonga, I must disagree with your point of new tracks being designed with specific overtaking points. There are, in fact, circuits where F1 cars can race quite readily, which would certainly seem to indicate the Tilke either isn't so good at designing overtaking points, or that overtaking zones simply cannot reliably be "designed".

[jab]

I think the only way you're genuinely going to solve the problem would be to standardise sections of the aero - standard wings and a standard rear end - and tightly control the rest of the car - not quite single chassis but limited in such a way that the designers can't exploit it too much. That would limit the dirty air enough. To make up for this, F1 needs to shift the emphasis away from aero and back to what it was always meant to be on in the first place - engines

The problem at the moment is the engines are equalised and rev-limited. Tows don't work as well any more because the engines hit 18,000 rpm and you can't slipstream past, even on long straights - Abu Dhabi has some of the longest straights on the calendar it was impossible to pass. And there are limits on how many engines you can use during a season and all that nonsense - that's causing issues as well

What they ought to do is free up the engine rules to a certain extent - problem is that would be expensive and the manufacturers wouldn't like it, so I think the only way of doing it would be to have highly tuned road car engines (at roughly the same size as what they're proposing for 2013 - somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5L as that's what the manufacturers want), stick a turbo on them and then let them develop them

There's no way you're ever going to solve the dirty air problem with the aerodynamicists from the teams deciding on the aero rules, nor will it be solved if you keep banning things every year instead of tackling it all head on. And even then, it's only one part of a problem that has many factors - the circuits, brakes, gearboxes, tyres, overall levels of grip, the mentality of the drivers and teams, pressure from the fans and the media, the format (i.e. parc ferme)...there's so much that's to blame

[Morris Dancer]

Originally Posted by Purist

Remember guys, F1 is billed in its advertising/promotion as being the most technologically advanced/up-to-date racing series in the world. The cars have to look "modern" and "up-to-date" in order to match that, until the PR people can be convinced to change their line, if such a thing is even possible.

I can't honestly agree that the 2009-2010 F1 cars look any "cleaner" than those of 2008 or earlier. Also, I'd say we've heard a lot more complaints on here about the looks of the cars since they went to the monster front wing with the puny rear wing.

I've looked at Formula Fords; they just don't do it for me. They don't look fast, just puny, with too much extra "baggage" hanging out. They also look like they're missing their wings. As for the "retro" comment, the closest GP car I can think of to them right now is probably the 1938-39 Auto Union Type D. Also, if your hypotheses were true, FFs would be far more popular among motorsports fans than they are, would they not?

I said in an earlier post that I don't care for the raised nose formula cars, and the best looking F1 cars with them, for me, were cars such as the Arrows A 21 and McLaren MP4/15 (both from year 2000).

Here are a few wingless F1 cars that get me going, and are the sort of look that really turn me on to the F1 cars themselves.
1966 Ferrari 312 F1:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/2...-312-F1_1.html
1967 Lotus 49:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/8...sworth_19.html
1957 Maserati 250F (factory lightweight):
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/3...tweight_2.html
1956 Lancia-Ferrari D50:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/1...cia-D50_3.html

The Maserati 250F Streamliner and Mercedes-Benz W196 Streamliner are more Le Mans racer than F1 car, so I didn't include them.

Basically, once you get to that wedge profile nose on a formula car, like on a Lotus 72 as an early example, it just needs to have wings to look "right". I even prefer the 1982 F1 cars when they have their nose wings fitted.

Back to the present, I would call this year's Sauber ugly. I'd also use that term for the Ferrari and Renault, though they aren't quite as bad. The Red Bull livery helps the look of that car a lot. The Mercedes and Williams, without shark fins fitted, are the most aesthetically pleasing of the 2010 crop. I think on the current cars, having a wider nose helps, because it makes the front wing supports look shorter, making the front of the car look lower to the ground, and giving the car a wider stance.

As for my "wide car" comment, it was about blocking, not the actual width of the cars. And we will not have as good a racing as we think we should until blocking it dealt with harshly.

BTW, a bit of a note on aero, in that tunnels continued in F1 at least through 1986, though side skirts were banned after 1982. You can see the venturi tunnel exits sticking out the backs of a number of the cars when seen in profile for cars from 1983-86 at least.

I might add that on the current cars, I don't know that there's enough bodywork surface at the rear to mount an effective spoiler as such, at least for what I'm envisioning. Also, a rear spoiler adds drag, but won't save you from having a nose that produces lift, like the Ford GT40 or Porsche 917.

At the end of the day, aesthetics are irrelevant because they have no bearing on performance. The fastest (reliable and competently driven) car will win, no matter how beautiful or ugly it looks.

This issue concerns whether circuits should be modified to suit the cars, or vice versa.

It's preposterous for the FIA to insist that the already financially strapped circuit owners spend huge sums of money modifying their infrastructures to make them 'safe' (Monaco excepted, for obviously political reasons).

The job should be left to the car designers/engineers, who spend their team's development budgets regardless.

A spoiler can be perfectly effective in generating downforce if it's big or steep enough. Sports cars that lift off the ground, with or without wings, have been designed with inadequate downforce at the front.

Who said anything about banning front spoilers? The wide-wedge-nosed openwheelers of the early 1970s generated plenty of downforce, but obviously were discarded because they created more drag than wings. The same type of front aero treatment could be used today (although wind tunnel testing might produce a different look), with a flat underside of course.

My comment about 'wide cars' was also about blocking, which is supposedly outlawed - or at least severely restricted - now by anti-weaving rules. If it still occurs then that's the fault of the sport's officials for not policing the rules.

Anyway, enough armchair theorising. The FIA should commission areo genius Adrian Newey to design a wingless F1 car, get Red Bull to build two of them, take them to a racetrack, and see how easily Mark Webber and Sebastien Vettel can overtake (without crashing into each other!).

[Wims]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

A massive long straight really makes engineers and drivers think twice about having a ton of aero on the car.

Part of the problem in F1 generally is that there are so many tracks with lots of corners. If the F1 calendar consisted of Monza and Spa and that was it, the aero development wouldn't be as critical as those tracks have massive straights where aero isn't needed. Take Indy, that track had a massive straight and it really made engineers compromise setup by using less aero to attain higher top speeds.

If the overall track theme went more towards tracks with long straightaways, the designers would be forced to look at efficiency rather than overall downforce.

Can you remember a Monza race where there was actual overtakings? I cant. Fullspeed straights type circuits does not generate overtakings at all. It does generate death and destruction tho

[bella]

Originally Posted by Wims

Can you remember a Monza race where there was actual overtakings? I cant. Fullspeed straights type circuits does not generate overtakings at all. It does generate death and destruction tho

might have already been said but the f3 races there are always excellent. same goes for pretty much every other single seater series that races there apart from f1.

[Wims]

[QUOTE=Teretonga;2796205][QUOTE=Bonanza;2796185]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Ad 3. Clearly not. The post-2008 are far from aesthetic, but the fans seem to have accepted it.
....

I think the post 2008 cars looks better than the old ones now. The old low, wide rear wing cars looks kinda ridiculous, like somebody has messed with the scale tool in 3dstudio. Its all in the eye of the beholder. But seriously, I dont think most people care about how the cars looks, I think the by far most important thing for them is that the cars should always be the quickest cars around a grand prix circuit

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

To a certain extent, you may be right but thats not totally the case.

Despite the funny wings I quite like the new F1 cars because of their clean looks, and I think many fans have embraced that idea. For that reason I dont think F1 cars of today are ugly

Many people are not enticed by IndyCar, yet may be fans of NASCAR and other motorsports. Why? well a major player in that would be the cars-horrid looking machines.

I think If F1 were to (god forbid) have F1 cars that were as ugly, I think we'd see a decline in popularity.

If the current Indycar is ugly, then what about the current breed of Formula 1-cars? Yes, the bodywork has become a lot cleaner, but so is the bodywork of the current Indycar.

Originally Posted by Purist

Remember guys, F1 is billed in its advertising/promotion as being the most technologically advanced/up-to-date racing series in the world. The cars have to look "modern" and "up-to-date" in order to match that, until the PR people can be convinced to change their line, if such a thing is even possible.

Why can't race cars without wings look modern?
Until 2009 modern Formula 1 cars didn't have slick tyres, although those kind of tyres were used previously. Did the pre-2009 cars look far from modern?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by jab

I think the only way you're genuinely going to solve the problem would be to standardise sections of the aero - standard wings and a standard rear end - and tightly control the rest of the car - not quite single chassis but limited in such a way that the designers can't exploit it too much. That would limit the dirty air enough. To make up for this, F1 needs to shift the emphasis away from aero and back to what it was always meant to be on in the first place - engines

The problem at the moment is the engines are equalised and rev-limited. Tows don't work as well any more because the engines hit 18,000 rpm and you can't slipstream past, even on long straights - Abu Dhabi has some of the longest straights on the calendar it was impossible to pass. And there are limits on how many engines you can use during a season and all that nonsense - that's causing issues as well

I agree that the equalisation is a big problem. In fact, I do believe its the main cause for the lack of close racing and overtaking. If two drivers have more or less the same pace, how are they going to pass each other? That's why I disagree with your proposal to standardize the aerodynamics. In fact, to a certain extent the bodywork regulations should become liberal. As long as the bodywork doesn't cover the wheels, is immovable, meets the maximum dimensions regarding width and height and doesn't generate lift, all should be allowed.

What they ought to do is free up the engine rules to a certain extent - problem is that would be expensive and the manufacturers wouldn't like it, so I think the only way of doing it would be to have highly tuned road car engines (at roughly the same size as what they're proposing for 2013 - somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5L as that's what the manufacturers want), stick a turbo on them and then let them develop them

I can't see how Ferrari is going to meet those regulations. Of course, they could use FIAT-production blocks, but will they accept that? And what if Ferrari gets sold to a group of private investors?

Freeing-up the engine regulations to the very maximum is the right answer. Without driver aids, pit stops and excessive amounts of downforce the engine manufactures have a clear incentive not to focus (solely) on engine power. A better environment to make manufactures stop spending billions on getting an extra bhp out of a mandated engine configuration isn't thinkable. Instead of keeping a geometric framework, Formula 1 should embrace a (hybrid) parametric framework.

[dyewat808]

Well I've read your 'F1 manifesto' jab and I agree with it completely. I have always maintained that making cars deliberately tricky to drive, as well as the circuits, will always improve overtaking.

I know some have said if you create such a circuit, you can't have overtaking, because the driver concentrates on driving the circuit. Well, if we had a slightly bonkers circuit like Langua Seca with its wacky corkscrew (a place where you would think overtaking would certainly be difficult) on the F1 calendar, we might have some of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBthx...eature=related

If we had cars that were far more edgy and far more difficult to drive, we'd have more mistakes and more overtaking. Think about it this way, you see far fewer mistakes these days from the drivers that impact their race heavily and that's arguably because the cars are easier to drive. This is not an "artificial" way of increasing overtaking either as this was how many overtakes were made in the past. I fail to see how increasing the difficulty of the cars to drive is a bad thing. It might mean more crashes, but when a driver misses their braking point today, they just drive straight on the circuit rather than crash into a fence. Another thing is that decreasing the aero means you automatically open up more corners where overtaking is possible.

Again, look at the extremes. In the bad ole days, when cars had practically no aero, it was a challenge steering the car through a high speed corner - the driver had to keep correcting, meaning theoretically you could overtake on a high speed corner. These days, cars are so phenomenally stable through such corners that overtaking is only possible through slip-streaming. So it follows that by decreasing aero dramatically, you end up with more corners with overtaking possibilities, removing the need for new circuits or dramatic redesigns of circuits. You can see this argument in its physical form on race-tracks today. The corners that are designed to encourage overtaking are usually slow ones where aero doesn't work as effectively....

Another thing is that designers should focus on creating more than one way of overtaking. You don't just overtake in a braking zone, you can overtake in an acceleration zone too. Look at Spa, and that fantastic move in 2000: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1WuW...eature=related

This essentially came from getting a slightly better exit speed - this ties in with car design - you should be able to overtake by following another car into a corner where speed is reduced, ending with the following car going faster because of slip-streaming. Ok admittedly the actual overtake was done under braking, but the important part of slip-streaming came from the acceleration out of a corner.

Anyway, the focus should be now put on challenging the driver, through challenging tracks and challenging cars. jab's idea of focusing on engine development rather than aero development would easily lead to this.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Purist

Back to the race circuits, homogeneity in the tracks breeds hom0ogeneity in the designs of the cars. If there was a real mix of tracks, designers would be forced to have their cars be more specialized, based on what their people are best at, and which engine they have.

Finally, Teretonga, I must disagree with your point of new tracks being designed with specific overtaking points. There are, in fact, circuits where F1 cars can race quite readily, which would certainly seem to indicate the Tilke either isn't so good at designing overtaking points, or that overtaking zones simply cannot reliably be "designed".

I haven't said this in this thread and in fact if I said it in another thread, it was a referenceto some one elses quote.
I would agree with you when you say
There are, in fact, circuits where F1 cars can race quite readily, which would certainly seem to indicate the Tilke either isn't so good at designing overtaking points, or that overtaking zones simply cannot reliably be "designed"

However the general trend, and frequently heard complaint, is possibly because of Mr Tilkes tendency to try to create 'designed' overtaking zones.

Most of the circuits where I would consider overtaking possible are circuits of a more 'traditional' nature that follow natural topography without the addition od artifical zones. In spite of that I still believe revisions to car designand specification is the way to provide more 'interesting and entertaining racing than focussing on the creation of 'designed' overtaking zones.

[ensign14]

Easy way to encourage overtaking.

Scrap qualifying and line 'em up in reverse championship order.

How long do you think it would take the engineering boffins to work out ways in which overtaking is possible if Ferrari and McLaren spend half-a-season stuck behind an HRT?

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If the current Indycar is ugly, then what about the current breed of Formula 1-cars? Yes, the bodywork has become a lot cleaner, but so is the bodywork of the current Indycar.

This is obviously a disagreement on taste, however i agree that the Indy Cars have nice, clean sidepods;

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/P...Xxjew3C3tl.jpg

What I loath is that blasted engine cover-to me its hideously designed. I know the F1 f-duct fins are bad but that is just as bad and it makes the whole car look wrong. If they had done the 'roll hoop' thingy (not sure of the techincal name to be honest) like the old indy cars and the champ cars, I think the car would look alot better.

[Quintin03]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

This is obviously a disagreement on taste, however i agree that the Indy Cars have nice, clean sidepods;

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/P...Xxjew3C3tl.jpg

What I loath is that blasted engine cover-to me its hideously designed. I know the F1 f-duct fins are bad but that is just as bad and it makes the whole car look wrong. If they had done the 'roll hoop' thingy (not sure of the techincal name to be honest) like the old indy cars and the champ cars, I think the car would look alot better.

Roll hoop=>no NA engine. The regulations require engines to be NA therefore the enginecover. 2012 regulations will return turbocharged engines.

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by Quintin03

Roll hoop=>no NA engine. The regulations require engines to be NA therefore the enginecover. 2012 regulations will return turbocharged engines.

This is fair play though they shouldn't have NA engines in the first place

Luckily we see the return of turbos to IndyCar in 2012, I'll defintly be watching that, and together with the roll hoop we will get to pretty much what Indy Cars should be in my eyes. as Helio castroneves said;

'turbos are back baby'

[alc]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Easy way to encourage overtaking.

Scrap qualifying and line 'em up in reverse championship order.

How long do you think it would take the engineering boffins to work out ways in which overtaking is possible if Ferrari and McLaren spend half-a-season stuck behind an HRT?

Many a true word is said in jest.

It would be a shame if this excellent proposal got lost because it was posted in a thread about circuit design.

[Sodemo]

I guess car design and track design go hand in hand so moving on to some of that I think is ok. Going back to the wings / no wings argument, I think cars can look good without wings, but wings are part of the "modern image" of motorsport, they also provide massive revenue for the teams via sponsor space, so for those two reasons, I wouldn't get rid of them all together, however I do think something needs to be done with regard to front and rear wings.

Here is a pic of a 2010 Renault World Series car, which I think looks gorgeous, far nicer than the F1 cars of today.


Quite why F1 can't move towards something like this I do not know. The cars are wider, cleaner and look a lot better.

[Pingguest]

That Formula Renault looks very much like a pre-2009 Formula 1-car and that concept didn't provide that good racing.

[bella]

it produces pretty epic racing in the fr3.5 racing compared to a lot of the races on the same circuits in other single seaters. i would say 75% of the races in 2010 were good.

what really seems to work is the low downforce races on saturdays. i think that's an idea that gp2 needs to look at in detail, though just reducing downforce wouldn't work for f1 because they'd find a way of clawing it back pretty quickly...

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bella

it produces pretty epic racing in the fr3.5 racing compared to a lot of the races on the same circuits in other single seaters. i would say 75% of the races in 2010 were good.

what really seems to work is the low downforce races on saturdays. i think that's an idea that gp2 needs to look at in detail, though just reducing downforce wouldn't work for f1 because they'd find a way of clawing it back pretty quickly...

That goes back to the rules again.....
There are ways. Nothing is impossible.

[bella]

you do have to protect jobs though, and to impose such a strict set of regulations on f1 would be the equivalent of making a very very significant percentage of the workforce unemployed.