Disgrace - New Chicane for Barcelona

[DNQ]

http://www.etracks.freeserve.co.uk/News/news_id098.html

Why oh WHY are they doing this...it's already tough enough to pass on that track as it is...why ruin what's alreay there with this mockery...

[ASCII Man]

Oh my god...

[Red]

Originally posted by DNQ
Why oh WHY are they doing this...it's already tough enough to pass on that track as it is...why ruin what's alreay there with this mockery...

I believe that the article already answers your question. Anyway, how many passes have you seen lately in that last turn? Surely it can't get any worse, right?

[perminder]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[f1manoz]

Maybe, just maybe they could be correct in that it could help slipstreaming.

But seeing is believing.

[Sodemo]

Again I'll bring up the old argument, its not the tracks that need changing - its the cars...

[perminder]

Originally posted by The Monster
Again I'll bring up the old argument, its not the tracks that need changing - its the cars...

i think the drivers should change .............

first on the list would be Nick Heidfield .... as for Ralf, he should be given more time preferably to the end of the season.

[DNQ]

Originally posted by perminder
i think the drivers should change .............

first on the list would be Nick Heidfield ....

Did you even watch the 2001 Season? If so, did you happen to notice that Mr Heidfeld outqualified, and out scored, more often than not, a certain Mr Raikkonen...

[Glen]

I can't understand why a modification designed to increase overtaking would be regarded a disgrace. Huh? The purpose is perfectly clear - to buch cars closer together before the long straight, thereby offering the opportunity to pass. What's wrong with that? The circuit has several other high speed corners, but very few slow ones - I think it is likely to improve the course.

[Don K]

Originally posted by perminder
i think the drivers should change .............

first on the list would be Nick Heidfield .... as for Ralf, he should be given more time preferably to the end of the season.

I agree.

If we have them replaced by slow drivers, the chance that the other drivers can overtake the rookies will be definately greater than the chance that anyone can overtake the Germans.

------

But do you really prefer a series with a lot of overtaking over a series with a lot of top drivers?

[Red]

Don, you really wanna hear the answer to your question?

[Adam43]

There was a similar discussion here: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=36569

[Damon]

It looks good to me. The trouble at the moment is that modern cars can't sit right under the rear wing of the car in front through medium/fast corners. By slowing up the last corner trailing cars will be able to get closer on the way out of the corner making turn 1 an easier overtaking point.

[Schummy]

I feel they are not going in the right direction. Cars are difficult to overtake: fix that (way less aero and more mechanical grip, as many drivers say), but please don't change tracks solely to fit these F1 cars.

We are losing great corners (last corner in Montmelo is exciting), and we are breaking circuits for the others categories (although that particular chicane maybe could be shortcutted for non F1 races).

[Lee Janotta]

If we went to more mechanical grip and less aero, though, we'd need to back the power levels down to about 600hp.

I honestly think we're at a point where the progression of technology and the conditions under which good racing happens are just drawing farther and farther apart. There are going to have to be some very artificial and deliberate steps taken to make for more overtaking.

What about ground effects or bias-ply tires? Wacky ideas, I know, but think, they might actually help.

[Sodemo]

They should just do what I suggested years ago, make the rear wing one single piece of bodywork of a pre-determined surface area - this way the purists are happy as teams still have "creativity" to produce superiour parts, and the fans of "racing" will be happy as the less areo would result in more overtaking, simple.

[Red]

Why don't you just try to be realistic? They just can't change the cars AND survive the process AND provide closer racing!!! It is easy. Adding a chicane is one time expense, and will be good for next years too. And cheap also. Changing the cars, the way you suggest (such as cut the aerodynamic grip etc) means 10 teams have to spend MORE for development, for the entire year, developing in other directions that they did not previously explored.

Want close racing? You mean the performances gap between teams to be reduced? Keep the regulation stable for several years, or if you REALLY need to change things make the transition gradually.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Red
Want close racing? You mean the performances gap between teams to be reduced? Keep the regulation stable for several years, or if you REALLY need to change things make the transition gradually.

Spot on. Exactly. I just can't believe how many people think that changing aero regs will miraculously make cars able to lap at the same speed as faster cars! Overtaking will only happen much more when the performance gap is smaller - it makes no difference whatsoever if aero is tweaked to allow driving in closer formation if the slow car can't get on the same lap as the faster car! Alonso (for example) couldn't catch Schumacher up. Simple. That's why he didn't overtake him! OK, so if he had caught him he would have found if tricky to follow close enough through the fast corners, but that is totally academic since his car wasn't quick enough to get on terms. Changing regs drastically is the last thing we need - objective number one should be to help the cars be similar in performance.

[Lee Janotta]

I was wondering when you two would show up to try and convince us that everything is just peachy.

I can't imagine any of us have any illusions that we can get as many passes for the lead in F1 as you'd get in the IRL. Nor would any of us want that! It's pointless and contrived.

What I was frustrated about was how easy it was for Ralf to hold up _much_ faster cars, indeed while he was turning the slowest laps of all cars on the track!

The medium-speed corners at Catalunya serve to emphasize the problems these cars have in following each other. Front downforce is at such a premium that even following in the slightest wake of the car in front will produce understeer, forcing drivers to back off the throttle.

Just look, for once, at some races from the '70s, or even the '80s. Cars were able to follow _much_ more closely.

You can't pass a guy when you can't even get up behind him.

But the power levels might be too high to cut the downforce. So what about ground effects? They're not so suspectible to disturbed airflow, and they'd leave lots of room for designers to innovate.

[Sodemo]

Im sorry I totally disagree.
If the FIA wasn't so stupid as to reduce mechanical grip and increase reliance on aero grip in 1998, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It was the FIA's fault when they introduced the ridiculous tech rules for 1998.
If they had reduced the areo then, - 6 years later ie now, we may have had a level playing field.

Don't forget, the less reliant the cars are on areo in the first place the closer the pack will be, as Ferrari have brilliant front / rear wings giving them amazing levels of downforce, take this away and your left with the grip from the tyres which is the same for everyone.

So I totally disagree with that sentiment that removing the areo isn't the answer, it IS the answer.
It would allow cars to follow through high speed corners, and would reduce the performance gap as the "top teams" would loose their aero advantage, and be left with mechanical tyre grip - which everyone has.

[Jay]

That might not be as bad as it looks at first......

Those last two highspeed corners spread the field out, as you cannot go through there too close to the guy infront. Thus, when the cars come onto the track they are fairly strung out. A slow speed chicane might help bunch up the cars before they get onto the front straight and head for a passing spot!

[Red]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
I was wondering when you two would show up to try and convince us that everything is just peachy.

I don't think that any of us did try to convince you that everything is just peachy. (not a chance anyway, right? ) My point was that what you do suggest is ludicrous, no need to actually debate whether is feasible or not, is just waste of time. Look, want a la IRL passing? The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is to simply make extensive use of you remote control device and tune on different TV channel.

And why do you refuse to accept a common sense thing, even my 4 years old niece is able to get it. YOU JUST CAN'T FORCE MINARDI TO DEVELOP A GROUND EFFECT OR ANY OTHER WINGLESS CAR Actually they do have enough trouble building a car that they do have an idea how to build. I mean, you CAN force them, but to expect them to actually build it is stupid. Sorry.

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
You can't pass a guy when you can't even get up behind him.

You do have some point here, trouble is that, as previously said, Ferrari was faster than Renault, so the problems that Alonso encountered while trying to closely follow Schumacher must be somewhere else.

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by Red
I don't think that any of us did try to convince you that everything is just peachy. (not a chance anyway, right? ) My point was that what you do suggest is ludicrous, no need to actually debate whether is feasible or not, is just waste of time. Look, want a la IRL passing? The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is to simply make extensive use of you remote control device and tune on different TV channel.

And why do you refuse to accept a common sense thing, even my 4 years old niece is able to get it. YOU JUST CAN'T FORCE MINARDI TO DEVELOP A GROUND EFFECT OR ANY OTHER WINGLESS CAR Actually they do have enough trouble building a car that they do have an idea how to build. I mean, you CAN force them, but to expect them to actually build it is stupid. Sorry.

You do have some point here, trouble is that, as previously said, Ferrari was faster than Renault, so the problems that Alonso encountered while trying to closely follow Schumacher must be somewhere else.

Red, it wouldn't hurt you to listen to someone besides your niece for once. I was speaking about the battles Ralf had with everyone else on the track, specifically when daMatta keep falling back through the faster corners because his car would understeer in the FW25's wake!

Minardi will be dead in another season or two no matter what the rules are! Cripes, you don't even _like_ Minardi!

If they can't afford to build the car, Renault sell them last year's! They'll be a hell of a lot closer on pace as well!

Should the rules _never_ be changed just to keep Minardi on the grid? Hell, they did away with the 107% rule. What's next, a chassis and aero freeze for three seasons like they have in Champcars? I doubt you'd like that!

Also, a ground effects car need not be wingless. Typically front wings were only removed for very fast circuits. Brabham, I believe, was the only team who ran the majority of the schedule without the front wing. More realistically, ground effects would bring the noses back down to the pavement, and front wings would be limited to single elements.

Obviously Alonso wasn't going to catch Schumi. Then again, if Ralf hadn't held them both up for laps, things might have been different.


Monster-
My line of thinking is that downforce was reduced several times in the '90s, and it did little to improve the racing. Indeed, Jean Alesi felt that the dramatic reduction in 1996 made overtaking much more difficult.

The level of downforce is not such a problem, but rather the vulnerability of the current cars to disturbed airflow, as well as overall aerodynamic efficiency.

And if you remove a lot of downforce, you're going to slow the cars down, and drivers will be braking for corners they've been taking flat out for years. If you take away downforce and change nothing else, you're not going to be able to take Eau Rouge flat, for one thing.

[Sodemo]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta

Monster-
My line of thinking is that downforce was reduced several times in the '90s, and it did little to improve the racing. Indeed, Jean Alesi felt that the dramatic reduction in 1996 made overtaking much more difficult.
If you take away downforce and change nothing else, you're not going to be able to take Eau Rouge flat, for one thing.

Sorry to nitpik, but it was 1995 when they lowered the wings following Sennas death.

I think Jean and the boys found it harder to overtake possibly because the entire nature of F1 changed in 1994 and into 1995. The races became a series of sprints, dictated by fuel stops rather than race craft. It was also the start of the FIA's attack on the circuits, castrating many of the better corners, and slashing straights.

And lastly, I don't think I want Eau Rouge to be taken flat, it should be just almost flat, and taken flat for the brave boys.

[Lee Janotta]

'95 and '96, actually, but yeah, you're right on that. The point about Jean Alesi's complaints about the lack of downforce still hold true, though.

'95 was the lower rear wing, '96 was to reduce the size of winglets.

Getting rid of refueling could certainly improve things once again, but that's a whole other rant.

I suppose backing down the overall downforce somewhat wouldn't hurt, if it's done in conjunction with other, positive changes.

I'd want slicks back, for one thing, and wider cars, for more mechanical grip... And to give the more exuberant drivers an edge.