Quote:
Originally Posted by S griffin
Who cares about how good the aero is? As Gilles Villeneuve once said, people don’t come to F1 to see the best aerodynamicists.
|
I care and yes they do. F1 is
precisely a contest of the Dernies and Neweys, no? [And the Duckworths and Cowells too, of course.] That's the point.
A lovely discussion of the Red Bull RB20:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zl-epBrHY
You don't get a discussion of the Indycar or an interview with it's smug designer after the race ["it's an extreme evolution of the RB18" - Newey], because guess what, it's exactly the same... It lacks the intrigue, no?
No "Inspector Seb" or "Inspector Lewis" or $50,000 fines for Verstappen being sent to investigate Newey's hunch about a flexible Mercedes trailing edge rear wing in Indycar... They just race the same cars at the same tracks over and over again, you could watch the race from 5 years ago instead of this year's race and not realise.
You are entitled to your calls for less downforce of course. The 2009 rules with a very shallow diffuser and very narrow rear wing did set out to achieve that, but obviously they had loopholes and then blown diffusers given the goal of the team is to build the fastest car possible. Exhaust blown diffuser
engine mapping -- how's that for mechanical engineering!
The 2014 cars
were then the realisation of the 2009 rules without loopholes but IMO those cars seemed slow and ponderous with their lack of downforce.
2014 cars were FAR from producing the better racing as claimed lower downforce would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S griffin
And too much aero as we know kills close racing. So what if cars are slowed down a bit? It’s still faster than other series. Let’s have more challenge to the drivers
|
To the contrary to your claim,the drivers found those slower 2014 cars less stimulating and less challenging. How is lower cornering G meant to be less challenging, rather than easier?