Fat Tires?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The DeltaWing was a very good peek at what would happen. Many hated the looks of it. The Chaparrals were ugly too, but it was fun to see if they would work. When the DW came out, many thought the ultimate solution would be a conventional, rectangular car, not a triangular car. Could be. The way the rules are now, we don't get to find out.

would you consider the DW or even the split wing concept as innovation or just the next logical step in pursuing aero efficiency?

to me it looks like an arrow and it doesnt get more basic then that in terms of efficient aerodynamic shapes...but then again i dont understand enough of the science here to know if it was a leap in understanding or not.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

There's a reason why war increases advancement. It's because there are no rules, and what people think about it doesn't matter as long as it works better than the rest.

if your goal is to make a better tank then war is great but if you are trying to build a better race car then war is bad.

case and point the outbreak of WW2 and the negative impact it had on the rate of technological development of race cars.

i am of course taking your analogy too literally but i dont want to see one team obliterate their rivals. i want both teams to provide me with a competitive battle that endures for years and decades and that requires rules and coordination.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if your goal is to make a better tank then war is great but if you are trying to build a better race car then war is bad.

case and point the outbreak of WW2 and the negative impact it had on the rate of technological development of race cars.

i am of course taking your analogy too literally but i dont want to see one team obliterate their rivals. i want both teams to provide me with a competitive battle that endures for years and decades and that requires rules and coordination.

There were developments after WW2 that had their roots in aircraft design during WW2. An example would have been spaceframe constuction of chassis. This method of race car construction did not become popular until the 1950's. There were a number of race engineers that had aircraft experience including Mike & Frank Costin at de Havilland. Len Terry and Colin Chapman were both in the RAF.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

would you consider the DW or even the split wing concept as innovation or just the next logical step in pursuing aero efficiency?

to me it looks like an arrow and it doesnt get more basic then that in terms of efficient aerodynamic shapes...but then again i dont understand enough of the science here to know if it was a leap in understanding or not.

There was a lot of debate about whether that car was innovative or not. I would say the venom it drew was its own proof that it was innovative, because it's innovative ideas that turn people's worlds upside down that draw venom. But, even taking the position that it was not innovative, it was a great example of the kind of thinking racing would have if the rules weren't so restrictive. Going the same speed for about 60%, or less, of the fuel consumption of the other cars it was racing with shows what we have been missing out on.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if your goal is to make a better tank then war is great but if you are trying to build a better race car then war is bad.

case and point the outbreak of WW2 and the negative impact it had on the rate of technological development of race cars.

i am of course taking your analogy too literally but i dont want to see one team obliterate their rivals. i want both teams to provide me with a competitive battle that endures for years and decades and that requires rules and coordination.

As you noted, you were taking it too literally, but he was building on my point that often the biggest innovations come out of the military, where they don't give a rip what it looks like, just how well it works. Racing should be the same.

The system we have now enshrines the wealthiest teams. How is that better than a system where some little team with a great designer can mop the floor with everybody else for a year or two until somebody else comes up with another great idea and then it's their turn to mop the floor with everyone else? That's what we had in F1 in the '60's and '70's and it was fabulous!

Although as some have pointed out (with detailed statistics to back it up), even in the '60's & '70's there wasn't a team that completely dominated for any significant length of time. Part of that was reliability. Yes, reliability is a lot better now, but a lot of the reliability we've seen the last couple decades would go out the window if everybody was really pushing the edge. It would mean bringing ideas that weren't completely developed to the grid because, if it holds up, it will give a great advantage, and waiting until it's fully developed may be waiting too long.

[GORDON STREETER]

At the height of the Suez fuel crisis several firms were started that were originally just trying to get more MPG out of road cars, however when making the engines more efficient they found that they improved overall performance that up to then was a specialist subject, so by accident the performance industry was born !

[Dutton]

I'd sooner see them have pants brakes. Reliable, of course, but ****.

As much as I do find the braking performance they currently have absolutely amazing, and from this point of view would be sad to see it change, I think it might be beneficial to the race for them to lose the ability to make relativity perceptible to the naked eye.

Mind you, one would have to tie in a reduction in mechnical grip I guess. Still, nothing to stop compound alterations to achieve this whilst at the same time increasing the footprint.

No doubt this whole notion will **** off at least a bunch of people. Possibly lots. I dunno. There is no way of which I am that anything like everyone would ever be satisfied with anything. Interests and priorities are just too divergent when dealing with so many people.

Think, though, the energy harvesting mechanisms would just have to become more efficient.

I say all this assuming there is a general consensus that aero df requires mashing significantly more. It just occurred to me I had not said that.

I change how I feel on all this stuff through the weeks and months and years, though. It seems to ebb and flow. There is every chance I will think I am being a total numbnuts here a bit down the line.

[Sodemo]

Nah, you don't want to mess about in that way with the mechanical grip. Getting rid of the aero is the way to make braking distances longer, it would also allow cars to follow closer, so you nail two birds with one stone.

[GingerPixel]

F1 is f**ked. Its like a confusing mix of nostalgia and resentment.

People remember it being cool in the 70s when tires were fatter, so they ask for fat tires.

People like it when the cars go sparky sparky, so brief discussion of fake sparks happened.

It seems that the powers that be know what needs to happen to make racing more exciting/appealing/whatever, but instead of just doing it the simple way they feel the need to fake it with some convoluted idea.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

F1 is f**ked. Its like a confusing mix of nostalgia and resentment.

People remember it being cool in the 70s when tires were fatter, so they ask for fat tires.

People like it when the cars go sparky sparky, so brief discussion of fake sparks happened.

It seems that the powers that be know what needs to happen to make racing more exciting/appealing/whatever, but instead of just doing it the simple way they feel the need to fake it with some convoluted idea.

Welcome to Tenths.
The problem is in some ways that they trying to fix something that is currently not broken. In terms of racing last year was very good even with Mercedes dominating. At least they allowed their drivers to race each other unlike another team did about 10 years ago when they dominated.

The problem to my mind is at the door of FOM who not only do nothing to promote F1 but actually put it down. Witness the noise debate of last year or the finance problems of the smaller teams.

To my mind if Bernie/CVC gave all the teams a more even proportion of their money and introduced some form of cost cap even if it was set at 200million to start and gradually reduced.
The other part of the problem is the lack of proper promotion of F1 again this lies at the door of Bernie/CVC. If a little of the money they suck out of the sport promoting it was put into marketing it should reap a significant return.
If you have access to Autosport premium the following is worth a read.
http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...358.1403130801

[Sodemo]

The thing is, there is some logic behind wanting wider tyres, its not purely asthetic (although I do personally think they look awesome). Wider tyres would/should/can allow for more mechanical grip. They could also allow for a much wider slip angle for the rear of the car. Also, with more power there is the argument that the rear tyres would need to be wider in order to cope, though of course they could just go for much harder compounds, but then you lose mechanical grip that way. If you had a wider rear tyre you could maybe keep the compound softer which would yield more grip.

There is a myriad of possible changes that F1 could make in order to improve the racing, sadly no one seems to have the impetus to actually carry it through. They make occasional noises about improving things for 5 minutes, then its forgotten about and the teams go back to their pursuit of harnessing infinite amounts of aero which will almost always be to the detriment of the racing.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The thing is, there is some logic behind wanting wider tyres, its not purely asthetic (although I do personally think they look awesome). Wider tyres would/should/can allow for more mechanical grip. They could also allow for a much wider slip angle for the rear of the car. Also, with more power there is the argument that the rear tyres would need to be wider in order to cope, though of course they could just go for much harder compounds, but then you lose mechanical grip that way. If you had a wider rear tyre you could maybe keep the compound softer which would yield more grip.

There is a myriad of possible changes that F1 could make in order to improve the racing, sadly no one seems to have the impetus to actually carry it through. They make occasional noises about improving things for 5 minutes, then its forgotten about and the teams go back to their pursuit of harnessing infinite amounts of aero which will almost always be to the detriment of the racing.

But I hardly ever hear from the wider tires fans "smaller wings". If you completely removed the wings from the current cars (in addition to requiring the teams to substantially redesign the cars to make them work properly again), they would be viscous, oversteering beasts. They would put on a fabulous show! I would say that then putting wider tires on the back would just de-fang them.