|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
15 Apr 2020, 20:20 (Ref:3971029) | #3826 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Quote:
I think it was remembered because it was quite a strange race in a good way, capped by an unexpected first time winner. And of course it rained too |
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
4 May 2020, 16:21 (Ref:3974448) | #3827 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Continued progress on adjusting the cost caps downward.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...o-being-agreed May the 4th be with you. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
4 May 2020, 16:41 (Ref:3974454) | #3828 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,951
|
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
4 May 2020, 17:25 (Ref:3974465) | #3829 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,746
|
Quote:
Now there's an idea, AT-AT racing. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
4 May 2020, 17:29 (Ref:3974467) | #3830 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Of course we all remember the stormtrooper Red Bull pitcrew at Monaco. Bit risky, knowing their accuracy pitstops could have a complete mess!
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
9 May 2020, 09:46 (Ref:3975201) | #3831 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Looking at the regulations a manufacturer supplying power units to 3 teams at around $40 million dollars for PU's necessary for 2 cars, is getting close to covering the costs of its own entry. Nicely worked system for them! |
||
|
9 May 2020, 10:13 (Ref:3975207) | #3832 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,021
|
That depends what it costs to develop and manufacture the engines.
Although if there is a good profit in there then that is good news as it means it will be viable to get other engine manufacturers interested. Last edited by Adam43; 9 May 2020 at 10:20. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
12 May 2020, 01:32 (Ref:3975621) | #3833 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,021
|
Safety changes being considered. More tethering and rain lights that indicate yellow flags and slowing.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...w-safety-steps |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
22 May 2020, 21:04 (Ref:3977799) | #3834 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
There are to be changes to the rules in relation to the cost.
For 2021 it is $145million, 2022 $140million and 2023 $135million. Changes have also been agreed for the aero rules by allowing the poorer performing teams more wind tunnel and CFD time. There is also going to be rules allowing open source parts. These changes are to be ratified by the WMSC shortly. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...ndicap-changes |
|
|
27 May 2020, 22:39 (Ref:3978803) | #3835 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,931
|
|||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
27 May 2020, 22:51 (Ref:3978805) | #3836 | |
Rookie
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 13
|
I actually like the new Aero Rules - it doesn't promote coming in last if you're in the lower 5 teams.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...bNRbdYx8a.html |
|
|
27 May 2020, 22:59 (Ref:3978807) | #3837 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Obviously a cost cap of some sort is probably needed at this time for F1 to be sustainable. That said I think the new aero rule is a load of old pony and won’t make a difference
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
27 May 2020, 23:03 (Ref:3978808) | #3838 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,931
|
Quote:
I'm hopeful but skeptical. |
|||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
28 May 2020, 10:09 (Ref:3978881) | #3839 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Yeah, it would have been better to reduce downforce. At least that would have made a difference
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
28 May 2020, 11:32 (Ref:3978901) | #3840 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,485
|
Quote:
Do you also mean a reduced complexity at the same time? Why do you think reduced downforce will make a difference? From my perspective, I think it is the complexity rather than quantity that needs to be removed. |
|||
|
28 May 2020, 12:43 (Ref:3978915) | #3841 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Why do I think reduced downforce will make a difference? Perhaps because it’s been proven too much downforce is bad for racing
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
28 May 2020, 13:21 (Ref:3978921) | #3842 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,485
|
Personally, I think it is simplicity rather than amount of downforce that matters.
I'd be interested to see where reduced downforce has been proven to give better racing (in F1). From f1technical.net: Peter Wright [..] made plot of downforce levels from 1965 to 2000 : 1968: 1000lbs@150mph - high wings 1976: 800lbs@150mph 1978: 2000lbs@150mph 1980: 3000lbs@150mph 1981: 2300lbs@150mph - skirts banned 1982: 2500lbs@150mph 1983: 2000lbs@150mph - flat bottom 1986: 2500lbs@150mph 1992: 3500lbs@150mph - peak downforce 1995: 1800lbs@150mph - stepped floor, smaller wings 2000: 2600lbs@150mph For Tyrrell F1 cars (SAE paper from Ben Agathangelou and Mike Gascoyne) : 1989: 2200lbs@150mph 1990: 2300lbs@150mph 1991: 2450lbs@150mph 1992: 2750lbs@150mph 1993: 2450lbs@150mph 1994: 2350lbs@150mph 1995: 2050lbs@150mph 1996: 2350lbs@150mph 1997: 2500lbs@150mph I'm wondering if there is a correlation between the peaks in '80 and '92 with a reduction in the quality of racing. |
||
|
28 May 2020, 13:33 (Ref:3978922) | #3843 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 3
|
I also rely on the Ferrari team.
|
||
|
28 May 2020, 13:49 (Ref:3978932) | #3844 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,746
|
Quote:
In 1981 teams circumvented the ban on skirts and used fixed skirts along with hydraulic suspension, which lowered the car once it had left the pits and was out on the track, so the skirts could make contact with the track surface, therefore producing the ground effect. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
28 May 2020, 14:06 (Ref:3978933) | #3845 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,485
|
Quote:
Does it demonstrate that the link between down force levels and quality of racing exists? I'm not sure. We've seen very high levels of down force in the past, but did they really give worse racing? If the answer is yes, then it would suggest that there is a link. However, if the quality of racing was relatively consistent from '79-'81 and '90-'94, then it is more complex than simply reducing down force. There would need to be a simplification of aero, rather than a reduction. Is that possible? Maybe. Would the sport then lose it's appeal to some? Possibly. I wonder if a conclusion might be reached if we polled fans for when the quality of racing was at its best in F1, then compared those results with the level of down force in those years? |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
28 May 2020, 14:37 (Ref:3978941) | #3846 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,746
|
Quote:
I think IndyCar is a good indicator of lower downforce equals better racing. Back in 2015 Chevy and Honda were allowed to produce their own aero-kits. The result was increased downforce, with racing becoming more processional as overtaking became that much harder. Both fans and drivers complained and the powers that be at IndyCar listened. The current Universal Aero Kit was conceived and adopted. Overall in its first season it was a success, producing closer and more exciting racing, except for the 500. The powers that be listened again and last season produced one of the best 500s. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
28 May 2020, 16:14 (Ref:3978952) | #3847 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,257
|
Quote:
On second thoughts don't, because that opens the door to yet another agonising hair-splitting argument I'll just leave Formula Ford in everyone's mind. In the simplest form - treaded tyres, no downforce at all, more or less equal grunt - but *fantastic* racing. Changes of positions, slipstreaming, dive-bombing, teaming up, six wide through some corners, slides, oversteer, understeer. Desperately inefficient and nowhere near the mechanical and aerodynamic perfect balance that F1 is, but bloody good to watch. If I want to watch breathtakingly close, exciting, makes-the-hairs-on-your-arms-stand-up racing then I'll carry on attending the Walter Hayes Trophy meeting at Silverstone every November. If I want to watch technological perfection with some of the best drivers in the world driving some of the finest pieces of automotive technology at their limit, I'll watch F1 and the WEC. It is possible to admire and/or like them all for what they are, and not wish them to be something else! |
||
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
28 May 2020, 16:23 (Ref:3978953) | #3848 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,014
|
Quote:
The FIA have done the best job they can on the 2022 regulations, to not lose too much laptime (about 4-5 seconds per lap slower under 2022 regulations) YET drastically reduce the impact of the wake on the following car. It's not as simple as "less downforce" but rather the complete package of the measures to both clean-up the wake (such as the wheel covers to reduce dirty air from the wheels) and lift the wake high up and over the following car. Let's trust the FIA's IMO excellent progress on the 2021 regulations!!! 2022 regulation simulation showing the uplift in wake by (1) having a tall but narrow diffuser, (2) not having rear wing endplates and hence produces a very strong counter-rotating vortex pair that pulls air upwards and above the following car... 2022 car: https://www.f1technical.net/features/22288 Quote:
They are reducing downforce... The 2022 cars will be slower and have less downforce. The current philosophy of having a flat floor placed at an angle of attack to the airflow (by raking the whole car, as the rules allow) is surprisingly powerful at generating underbody downforce (but of course very sensitive to turbulence). The 2022 ground effect tunnels will actually be less powerful but less sensitive. Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 28 May 2020 at 16:45. |
|||
|
28 May 2020, 16:51 (Ref:3978959) | #3849 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,746
|
I know IndyCars are slower at COTA but I don't know if they are slower on other road courses. There isn't anyway of knowing because F2 doesn't race at Road America or Portland, for example.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
28 May 2020, 16:57 (Ref:3978961) | #3850 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,014
|
Quote:
For example, the wide front wing -- it is also used in Indycar and F2 and is 'necessary' to make sure air goes OVER the front tyres, rather than straight into them. This reduces the mess of turbulent air created by the front tyres which will otherwise impact the following car. Similarly, the front wheel covers. They are ugly and cover up the otherwise attractive 18 inch wheels, which is unfortunate, but likewise they will drastically reduce the turbulent air that comes out from the front brakes. F2 car with wide front wing and as-yet uncovered 18" wheels: F2 car has a much bigger diffuser than an F1 car, yet it still has much less downforce and is 8-12 seconds per lap slower... Same goes for F1 2022 rules -- despite appearances the "ground effect" 2022 cars will be less effective and will actually reduce downforce and cause a 4-5 second slower laptime compared to the current raked flat floor cars. F2 car diffuser: So it's not as simple as saying "drastically reduce" the aero of the F1 car, so that there is only a modest front and rear wing and just 200-300kg of downforce, akin to a touring car -- doing that will lengthen F1 laptimes by 20 seconds per lap or more! Sure thing. The point is if you take almost all the aero away apart from a moderate size front and rear wing as some propose (so going from 2000+kg downforce @ 250 kph to 300kg downforce @ 250 kph), then F1 will be quite a bit slower than both Indycar and F2... We are talking laptimes 20+ seconds per lap slower! Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 28 May 2020 at 17:14. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |