[Rules] Aero: overtaking, laptimes and aero freedom

[Casper]

No I don't think so Richard. We are just uneducated rabble who free potshots from the sidelines but he is a person who knows exactly what is going on so why would he his fellow engineers make changes they can't possibly implement at the target date. Ask an engineer to design a mousetrap and it would cost thousands. I don't know why that is but having been around a few in the racing game they are all the same in my experience.

[old man]

Committees , horse, camel come to mind, dictatorship gets faster results ������

Apropos nothing at all really, did anyone else notice at the Autosport show the length of the current F1 cars when compared to Keke Rosberg's Williams from the turbo era?

The Ferrari in particular looked very long, did anyone take pics of both cars?

[Casper]

Would the extra length of today's cars have anything to do with crash test requirements?

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Casper

Would the extra length of today's cars have anything to do with crash test requirements?

Partly that, partly that the driver's feet have to be behind the front axle:

Originally Posted by F1 Tech Regs 2016

13.4 Position of the driver’s feet :
13.4.1 The survival cell must extend from behind the fuel tank in a forward direction to a point at least 300mm in front of the driver's feet, with his feet resting on the pedals and the pedals in the inoperative position.
13.4.2 When he is seated normally, the soles of the driver's feet, resting on the pedals in the inoperative position, must not be situated forward of the front wheel centre line.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It would be just as logical to say the same about then fans? We are even less qualified, but apparently we know it all.

Richard

i thinks there is a important question in there somewhere. what happens if we asked a qualified person?

from the point of view of an auto manufacturer, what are the technologies coming out of F1 that are both important for and relevant to road car development?

rather if we asked a road car engineer which technologies their company should be pursuing how would they rank their list?

just a few and in no particular order as i dont know how they would rank:

Internal combustion engines
hybrid systems
aero configuration
computer modeling
live telemetry and data acquisition
safety

while i personally feel that these technology paths taken to their ultimate end are actually not particularly good for racing, they are arguably very important for road car development. as such, is it then possible to say that these car companies are spending their money exactly where they need to be spending their money/where they are supposed to be spending their money?

given that no one is really certain which form of propulsion the market place will choose, i can understand the manu's reluctance to spend large amounts on engines...but regardless of what engine will be the engine of the future, all road cars still benefit from gains in aero knowledge, CFD, live telemetry etc.

costs in these areas will be recouped (at this point thats a guarantee) so it makes sense that they make up so much of the F1 budget no?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

Ask an engineer to design a mousetrap and it would cost thousands.

Its all just personal opinion here, but I can't help to be irritated by what you are saying. We tend to just pretend that racing is only about drivers in race cars and that somehow those race cars (particularly the good ones) just appeared as if they were manna from heaven without being touched by us unworthy humans. Call them by whatever name you (or they) choose... Designers, Aerodynamicist, Engineers, etc. It's quite a wide brush to paint all of these creative people in the same negative way. I know you are talking about "race car engineers", but there is no reason that industry is different than any other. While I know some who operate as you say, most look for the simple and elegant solutions. And the world is full of those examples. Including some (most?) race cars. Lastly... these horrible "Engineers" are generally doing what someone else has told them to do. Sorry for the soap box.

Originally Posted by old man

Committees , horse, camel come to mind, dictatorship gets faster results

Yes. THAT is the problem. I can only imagine how things run in the strategy group meetings. Probably about as efficiently as trying to get people on this forum to agree on anything.

Richard

[old man]

The democratic principle of the strategy group is laudable but in the context of the FIA and F1 would seem to be flawed as any decisions may be thrown out by others, not least the Ferrari veto.

An interesting piece by D Renken on Autosport shows how the income to the Fiat Chrysler group that comes from FOM is very important to them.

The SG is there to suggest rules for a sporting series to follow, the power of Ferrari in particular to influence those rules for purely business/financial reasons is wrong and the FIA needs to change the overall situation, if that leads to Ferrari pulling out, well so be it. I agree that F1 needs Ferrari but not to the exclusion of sporting chance for all teams.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by old man

The democratic principle of the strategy group is laudable but in the context of the FIA and F1 would seem to be flawed as any decisions may be thrown out by others, not least the Ferrari veto.

An interesting piece by D Renken on Autosport shows how the income to the Fiat Chrysler group that comes from FOM is very important to them.

The SG is there to suggest rules for a sporting series to follow, the power of Ferrari in particular to influence those rules for purely business/financial reasons is wrong and the FIA needs to change the overall situation, if that leads to Ferrari pulling out, well so be it. I agree that F1 needs Ferrari but not to the exclusion of sporting chance for all teams.

The major problem there is that Ferrari have a legally binding contract with FOM that lasts until at least 2020. The FIA cannot interfere with that arrangement because they have no legal standing over FOM because they had to split the two to pacify the EU. I suppose that the FIA could always lodge a formal complaint with Brussels, but somehow don't believe that they will.

However, one has to take into consideration that although Ferrari have held the power of veto for possibly 20 or more years, they have only used it just once. And from reading various bits and pieces, it would seem that the scope for using the veto have been reduced over the years.

It would be interesting if Ferrari did leave if only because the resulting legal manoeuvring could be quite entertaining. FOM might sue because Ferrari hadn't complied with the terms of their contract, whilst Ferrari might well cross sue for the loss of the income stream that they would lose due to change in rules that were possibly forced through without going through the agreed procedures, somewhat like a constructive dismissal.

[Taxi645]

So with cars two to three seconds faster this year already and assuming another half a second for next year under unchanged rules, why on earth are we focusing on another 5s improvement for the 2017 rules instead tackling the cars inability to follow each other through corners? People can't attack in corners or risk ruining their stint and possibly their race. That is what needs to be urgently adressed.

I fear Melbourne will be the last warning they will get before making a deciscion on 2017 rules. I hope they realize their making a big mistake with the current proposal that focusses on laptimes rather than battle ready aero.

I repeat postpone the changes to 2018. By then the cars will be 3-4s faster already compared to 2015 and give your aero departments some time to really tackle the dirty air issue and get rid of DRS.

Last chance people.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

So with cars two to three seconds faster this year already and assuming another half a second for next year under unchanged rules, why on earth are we focusing on another 5s improvement for the 2017 rules instead tackling the cars inability to follow each other through corners? People can't attack in corners or risk ruining their stint and possibly their race. That is what needs to be urgently adressed.

I fear Melbourne will be the last warning they will get before making a deciscion on 2017 rules. I hope they realize their making a big mistake with the current proposal that focusses on laptimes rather than battle ready aero.

I repeat postpone the changes to 2018. By then the cars will be 3-4s faster already compared to 2015 and give your aero departments some time to really tackle the dirty air issue and get rid of DRS.

Last chance people.

Welcome to the don't go faster club, going faster is a dead end and will lead to follow the leader races but very few people get it. Every man and his dog wants the cars to go faster but I don't get it and what it will achieve.

[Taxi645]

One has to wonder when it is so abundantly clear and awknowlegded by so many unbiased independent experts both inside the paddock and out, that the focus on laptimes over the ability to follow each other is wrong and the opposite of what is needed, what force and agenda is behind the current proposal?

Apart from perhaps a few misguided individuals than really believe that another 5s faster is good for the sport and types like Newey who perhaps like a new aero challenge and don't want their aero freedom limited even more, I excpect it is an effort by Horner and BE to give Red Bull a bit of leverage with their aero expertise to offset the PSU disadvantage RB currently has. (BE wants to give them something to keep them happy and onboard).

Red Bull are the ones calling the hardest for the 5s laptime option (it's mainly their proposal).

I think they are making a big mistake. They are trying to fix one problem (engine inequility) by creating an even bigger problem, namely making cars which are currently already very limited in their battling possibilities, even less capable in doing so.

At a certain point we are not talking about motorracing anymore, but about Formula student on steroids. A lot of fun for the engineers, but not so much for motorsport fans and certainly not the pinnacle of motorsport.


People should think really hard if that is benificiary to the sport as a whole.

[Casper]

You only have to look at a few online sites to see that the fans have been sucked into believing that faster lap times are going to lead to better and more exciting racing. It seems to be a generally held view by many commentators and those who contribute to fora such as this.

[S griffin]

For me let's have less aero bits and bigger tyres, then we might see more battles instead of follow my leader or DRS breeze passes.

And who cares about Aero innovation, there ain't much scope for it like in the old days.

[Ospi]

The new "formula thunder" series being birthed out of aus will be interesting to keep an eye on. Swift formula Nippon chassis but with reduced aero, much larger rear rear tyres and a good old fashioned ford 5L v8.

[stripedcat]

The cars look a bit closer together this year - at least in race pace. It does look like the age old problem of putting more downforce back into cars, has taken effect - and at least from the opening race - it does seem a lot more difficult for the cars to overtake one another.

[chillibowl]

but how much of the lack of overtaking is a perception issue?

with some cars having a straight line advantage (less aero) and others having better cornering ability (more aero) yet all on their own are lapping at similar times (in the mid field anyways), how much overtaking can one expect?

driver error (diminishing as the challenge of driving is diminishing and a very talented grid) and reliability issues (also decreasing) were the reasons for much of the overtaking in the past.

so, if they took car designs from 30-40 years ago and built them today with todays engineering know how and materials, would there be the same amount of overtaking as we saw 30-40 years ago?

[Sodemo]

When they announced the 2009 aero regulations with all its restrictions, I thought to myself, "ok, so they have restricted all these areas, but surely they will just pile all the winglets onto the front wing to compensate"... Which is exactly what has happened.

I can't believe the rulemakers are that shortsighted that they didn't see that coming?

I think if they severely restricted the front wing size / winglets, made the tyres wider and the cars wider, the racing would likely get better.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

The cars look a bit closer together this year - at least in race pace. It does look like the age old problem of putting more downforce back into cars, has taken effect - and at least from the opening race - it does seem a lot more difficult for the cars to overtake one another.

I could see no difference to any point over the last 20 years of racing at Melbourne.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I could see no difference to any point over the last 20 years of racing at Melbourne.

The one thing the organisers, engineers, rule makers, drivers, teams, designers and assorted hangers-on have no control over is the attention span of the watching viewer.

There's so much competing for that nowadays that 10 laps with no overtaking is just sooooooooo boring, even though it's been that way forever. Well, not forever, but you get the idea.

Once various distractions like Twitter get added in, it's easy to both draw people's attention away yet simultaneously castigate them in public for taking their eye off the race. Throw in "this race is crap, nobody had overtaken in the last 17 seconds" and a bazillion people will baa in agreement.

It's a tricky one to solve, and no mistake...

[sizzle]

Give them back steel brakes and manual gearboxs so they stop slower and maybe make the odd mistake and missed gear change.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Greem

The one thing the organisers, engineers, rule makers, drivers, teams, designers and assorted hangers-on have no control over is the attention span of the watching viewer.

There's so much competing for that nowadays that 10 laps with no overtaking is just sooooooooo boring, even though it's been that way forever. Well, not forever, but you get the idea.

Once various distractions like Twitter get added in, it's easy to both draw people's attention away yet simultaneously castigate them in public for taking their eye off the race. Throw in "this race is crap, nobody had overtaken in the last 17 seconds" and a bazillion people will baa in agreement.

It's a tricky one to solve, and no mistake...

But guys it's not the number of overtakes which is important. It shouldn't be too easy to overtake. The problem is that the current aerodynamics (actually it has been that way for quite some time) and the tyre degradation mostly don't allow to battle for position in the corners. You can try, but two or more tries on a competitors with comparable pace will likely ruin your tyres and likely your race. Sure DRS helps to get your passed on most tracks, but that's not what I call motorracing, it's called the wrong medication for the wrong diagnose.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

You only have to look at a few online sites to see that the fans have been sucked into believing that faster lap times are going to lead to better and more exciting racing. It seems to be a generally held view by many commentators and those who contribute to fora such as this.

Lap time seems to be the only USP (unique selling point) that the half wits in charge of F1 can think to bring to the table.
That reduced lap time will make the problems worse just does not seem to get through!

The F1 establishment just wants to ensure that those who spend the most money are the ones that benefit, their worst nightmare would be likes of Haas arriving with a good car and "Jackie Stewart", and beating the pants off them. Now that would be a disaster.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Ospi

The new "formula thunder" series being birthed out of aus will be interesting to keep an eye on. Swift formula Nippon chassis but with reduced aero, much larger rear rear tyres and a good old fashioned ford 5L v8.

Link??

[Ospi]

Originally Posted by Casper

Link??

Yet to be publicly revealed, should be testing by the last quarter of this year. Project is progressing well at this stage.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

But guys it's not the number of overtakes which is important. It shouldn't be too easy to overtake. The problem is that the current aerodynamics (actually it has been that way for quite some time) and the tyre degradation mostly don't allow to battle for position in the corners. You can try, but two or more tries on a competitors with comparable pace will likely ruin your tyres and likely your race. Sure DRS helps to get your passed on most tracks, but that's not what I call motorracing, it's called the wrong medication for the wrong diagnose.

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek - I for one love races where two (or more) drivers are tooth and claw for a position, aiming for the perfect lap time after time because a mistake will drop them down the order.