How the teams propose to cut speeds

Marbot · 30 Jul 2006, 17:05 (Ref:1668008)

6-5 in favour of tyres rather than an engine freeze.And just to let you know where they stand on the overtaking issue,7-4 in favour of no aero restrictions.http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=28848

chillibowl · 31 Jul 2006, 15:16 (Ref:1669005)

concerning this whole overtaking issue - i have always wondered why anyone would design (or would want to design) a racing car that makes it easier for another car to overtake you. its almost counter-intuitive. if anything dont you want as much dirty air and turbulance in your wake just to hinder the guy behind you?

regardeless of the restrictions or specs they introduce - wont making it more difficult for the guy the behind always be a priority?

i hope im not hijacking this thread with my question - but i was just thinking that concerns like this will always make unanimity immpossible becasue the temas in front will always think different to the teams in the back.

zac510 · 31 Jul 2006, 15:45 (Ref:1669032)

Any description of these proposed rules are always too vague for us to make an accurate judgement. Only the TWG have access to the full text that justifies their decision.

Matt · 1 Aug 2006, 00:51 (Ref:1669519)

I propose Zero aero add ons, no wings, nothing.

Marbot · 1 Aug 2006, 01:30 (Ref:1669533)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattA1

I propose Zero aero add ons, no wings, nothing.

That makes it 7-5 then.

gfm · 1 Aug 2006, 06:15 (Ref:1669611)

I don't think I go along with this at all.
Why do we want to cut speeds?
Why go green, or at least, if we go green, lets go super powerful, less aeros, reasonable grip?
At this rate, the US champ cars or GP2 will provide better entertainment.
Mosely trying to find a role for himself/his organisation.
An entertainment doesn't need to be green. (Sorry wrong thread).

Chatters · 1 Aug 2006, 07:21 (Ref:1669630)

What happened to the CDG Wing? Isn't that supposed to make overtaking easier, and be implented for 2007 or 2008?

zac510 · 1 Aug 2006, 09:45 (Ref:1669734)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattA1

I propose Zero aero add ons, no wings, nothing.

Care to put that regulation in words for us?

Matt · 1 Aug 2006, 15:33 (Ref:1670035)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zac510

Care to put that regulation in words for us?

Thats what I would want it to look like, well, thats the 'Ferrari,' and that Giant gray deal is the Exhaust pipe.

5 Min drawing in paint.

Greenback · 1 Aug 2006, 16:16 (Ref:1670076)

Personally I dont there is a need to make the F1 cars any slower, instead we should try to ensure that all fast and modern F1 tracks has enough run off area.

Erki · 1 Aug 2006, 16:20 (Ref:1670079)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenback

Personally I dont there is a need to make the F1 cars any slower, instead we should try to ensure that all fast and modern F1 tracks has enough run off area.

Isn't there enough yet?

**Adam43** · 1 Aug 2006, 17:02 (Ref:1670117)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chatters

What happened to the CDG Wing? Isn't that supposed to make overtaking easier, and be implented for 2007 or 2008?

That question was asked in this thread a couple of weeks ago: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...light=CDG+Wing

CombeMarshal · 1 Aug 2006, 17:05 (Ref:1670120)

Get rid of the Pits stops, thats the real problem, to many drivers don't even bother trying to over take, they just wait till the pits.

Sodemo · 1 Aug 2006, 17:43 (Ref:1670154)

Wonderful, more great news for F1.

Logic fails once more.

zac510 · 1 Aug 2006, 17:49 (Ref:1670161)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattA1

Thats what I would want it to look like, well, thats the 'Ferrari,' and that Giant gray deal is the Exhaust pipe.

5 Min drawing in paint.

That exhaust pipe on that angle could produce downforce. Anyway I think you missed the point of my question because you didn't put the regulation into words.

Your picture is quite funny tho

Marbot · 1 Aug 2006, 20:21 (Ref:1670312)

Another link.http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns17238.html

Matt · 1 Aug 2006, 20:59 (Ref:1670362)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zac510

That exhaust pipe on that angle could produce downforce. Anyway I think you missed the point of my question because you didn't put the regulation into words.

Your picture is quite funny tho

I don't really know how to explain something in words, but I can do alot better job with pictures. The exhaust is supposed to be a straight shot back, like the old AAR F1 cars, I couldn't get it to look right on that quick drawing. Like this.

http://www.atspeedimages.com/2005_wi...03_f1_rear.jpg
(Linked for huge image.)

Cheers,
Matt.

zac510 · 1 Aug 2006, 22:36 (Ref:1670445)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattA1

I don't really know how to explain something in words

That is my point. With a subject matter like this, putting a restriction as you propose needs to be so strictly worded that it would leave little or no room for change.

Matt · 2 Aug 2006, 00:13 (Ref:1670487)

Let's try.

ABSOLUTELY NO AERODYNAMIC WINGS
Which may include:
Front and rear wings.
Sidepod winglets.
Upper nose 'wings.'
Diffusers.
Barge Boards.
Anything that uses air to force the car down onto the track, creating more grip.

zac510 · 2 Aug 2006, 08:56 (Ref:1670707)

A diffuser isn't a wing.

The underbody 'uses air to force the car down onto the track, creating more grip'. But it is certainly not a wing. Would you like to ban flat bottom cars too?

Armco Bender · 2 Aug 2006, 08:59 (Ref:1670710)

Hire JV,that would slow your car down.

Runs.......very far,and jumps down very deep hole

Pingguest · 2 Aug 2006, 16:52 (Ref:1671160)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattA1

I propose Zero aero add ons, no wings, nothing.

Downforce is needed, from a safety point of view. Without downforce the car could go up into the air, if it drivers over a bump.

What we need is ground effects, a modest rear wing and a ban on the front wing.

Pingguest · 2 Aug 2006, 16:55 (Ref:1671167)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

6-5 in favour of tyres rather than an engine freeze.And just to let you know where they stand on the overtaking issue,7-4 in favour of no aero restrictions.http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=28848

I'm not surprised by this. The teams, but especialy Max Mosley, have always been keen on reducing mechanical grip. I really believe that the (possibility of= reducing mechanical grip was the main factor for introducing the control tyre.

chillibowl · 2 Aug 2006, 17:17 (Ref:1671198)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattA1

Anything that uses air to force the car down onto the track, creating more grip.

agreed lets ban forward driving

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I'm not surprised by this. The teams, but especialy Max Mosley, have always been keen on reducing mechanical grip. I really believe that the (possibility of= reducing mechanical grip was the main factor for introducing the control tyre.

while the control tire will reduce cornering speed, the reduction of mech. grip in relation to aero grip was something i though Max was against. ie more of an emphasis on mech. grip will give us more overtaking and less spending on aero bits.

im so confused

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Teams propose new regs	Marbot	Formula One	3	13 May 2006 09:15
What regulations do you propose?	Gilsen	Formula One	22	21 Feb 2005 17:31
I propose a new rule......	RaceFreak	Formula One	12	22 Jul 2002 22:55
What do you propose then??	Gt_R	Formula One	15	27 Sep 2001 08:26
How many teams and what teamsCART Teams at 2001 INDY 500	mayhemotorsports	IRL Indycar Series	9	8 Jun 2000 13:08