[Tech Issue] The lack of proper aerodynamic changes/F-Duct [HUGE MERGE]

[Fox89]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

But if the natural progression is more and more aero, who wants that?

I don't think curbing aero to improve the racing is regressive. After all, technology has advanced a long long way since the 80s but the speeds of the cars remain similar, solely because measures keep being taken to stop them becoming too dangerous. 'Natural progression' does not just mean making cars faster I reckon.

I do think curbing it for the sake of 'road car relevance' is a stupid idea. When did Formula One become a prototype racing series for road car technologies? I understand that compromises need to be found to keep the sponsors happy and fun the series, but that's not really the point of F1 is it?

I wonder if Dr, Baretsky will be criticising NASCAR at any point because "we don't drive on ovals in Germany, so how is it relevant?"

Racing is not, as far as I'm aware, just R&D or marketing for the road car industry. Touring Cars aside.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

But if the natural progression is more and more aero, who wants that?

I didn't say natural progression I said moving forward there is a world of difference. I have posted several times in this thread practical suggestions for improving things without going back to aerodynamic concepts from decades ago.

I am suggesting moving forward whilst steering things in the right direction rather than turning the clock back.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Gilles Villeneuve's take-off was of extraordinary proportions. The energy was so high, that Villeneuve's helmet flew off.

So was Mark Webber's crash; the last time I saw a crash like that was Dario Franchiti's crash and that was due to wheels interlocking, just goes to show how car design improved, especially the concept of a safety cell. Villeneuve's Ferrari didn't have a safety cell and the chassis was made from honeycombed aluminium, not carbonfibre.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So was Mark Webber's crash; the last time I saw a crash like that was Dario Franchiti's crash and that was due to wheels interlocking, just goes to show how car design improved, especially the concept of a safety cell. Villeneuve's Ferrari didn't have a safety cell and the chassis was made from honeycombed aluminium, not carbonfibre.

Villeneuve's accident wasn't fatal because of the lack of any safety cell. From the first moment his car went up in the air, the forces broke his neck. Villeneuve's neck injuries were as you'd normally expect by someone being judicially hanged. This proves that tight regulations are necessary from a safety point of view. This adds another issue: will the re-introduced ground effect underbodies be standardized?

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

So the typical road car will never have wings, what's that got to do with this debate. We have series for racing cars based on road cars and F1 isn't one of them. From the way this thread is going F1 has to become Formula Ford and now it is suggested the cars should be like road cars - I'd rather F1 should keep it's own unique character whilst moving forward, what is being suggested seems to me to be regressive.

I agree Formula 1 should keep cars that can be described as 'unique'. But the question that needs answering is, what should be considered as unique? Before 2009 Formula 1 was the only (top) racing series to have outlawed slick tyres. Before 2008 Formula 1 was the only open-wheel series not to have banned traction control. Before 2003 Formula 1 was the only series in which the entire car could be changed between qualifying and race. All of that has gone already.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Villeneuve's accident wasn't fatal because of the lack of any safety cell. From the first moment his car went up in the air, the forces broke his neck. Villeneuve's neck injuries were as you'd normally expect by someone being judicially hanged. This proves that tight regulations are necessary from a safety point of view. This adds another issue: will the re-introduced ground effect underbodies be standardized?

How do you know that? I've read and heard differing accounts; either he broke his neck when his helmet came off as the car nosedived into the ground, or he broke his neck when he was catapulted into the catch fencing.

Either way if that accident had happened now like Webber's, with all the modern safety features, I reckon he would have survived.

[Wims]

Either way, he would probably have survived with the HANS device. Its hard to die in modern motorsports nowadays, because of innovations that came as a result of people like GV dying

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Villeneuve's accident wasn't fatal because of the lack of any safety cell. From the first moment his car went up in the air, the forces broke his neck. Villeneuve's neck injuries were as you'd normally expect by someone being judicially hanged. This proves that tight regulations are necessary from a safety point of view. This adds another issue: will the re-introduced ground effect underbodies be standardized?

Well, you say that, but one of the jobs of the safety cell is to direct the forces of a crash around the driver. Then you have HANS as well.


Plus, helmets are so much lighter now as well.