Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 30 Nov 2015, 17:45 (Ref:3594516)   #1
Taxi645
Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Netherlands
Posts: 434
Taxi645 has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Aero: overtaking, laptimes and aero freedom

We have seen the latest 2017 technical regulations proposal trickle through.

To my disappointment it seems that laptimes and aero engineering freedom are being given prevalence over cars being able to follow each other therefore making proper racing almost impossible. I read Adrian Newey say that he doesn't like "GP1". I say screw that. The first and foremost priority should be cars being able to follow one another. All the rest is by the grace of this condition being met.

If they can come up with a set of regulation that allows cars to follow each other they can have all the aero engineering freedom and laptimes they want, but that condition must first be met. Not the other way around. Now they've completely rewriten the rules, reduced laptimes, maintained lot's of aero freedom and complexity, but oh yeah we forgot about overtaking, whoops. And let's not forgot that a lot of aero freedom and aero complexity leaves the door open to a lot of potential cost spiralling.

I hope they come to their senses, postpone the aero, chassis and PSU changes to 2018 and first come up with something that doesn't reduce racing to DRS-ing your way past people. Complete boredom that is.
Taxi645 is offline  
Quote
Old 30 Nov 2015, 18:19 (Ref:3594524)   #2
Sodemo
Veteran
 
Sodemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
United Kingdom
Solihull, West Mids, UK
Posts: 10,135
Sodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
I have every confidence in the FIA's ability to rubber-stamp a set of regulations that will massively drive up costs and provide further ineffective racing.
Sodemo is online now  
Quote
Old 30 Nov 2015, 21:35 (Ref:3594567)   #3
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,177
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 03:07 (Ref:3594626)   #4
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,387
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.
You are dead right that the racing should be paramount and the aero and anything else purely secondary.

I like this idea, although I would like to see fixed single element wings, even better, no wings and free undertray.
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 03:08 (Ref:3594627)   #5
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,387
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo View Post
I have every confidence in the FIA's ability to rubber-stamp a set of regulations that will massively drive up costs and provide further ineffective racing.
Plus 1 here!
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 03:33 (Ref:3594630)   #6
JeremySmith
Veteran
 
JeremySmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
United Kingdom
Austin Texas
Posts: 11,402
JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!JeremySmith is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.
Your post gets my vote ... Get rid of those ridiculous front wings and DRS ..
JeremySmith is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 16:28 (Ref:3594805)   #7
S griffin
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,369
S griffin is going for a new lap record!S griffin is going for a new lap record!S griffin is going for a new lap record!S griffin is going for a new lap record!S griffin is going for a new lap record!S griffin is going for a new lap record!
For me let's go back to bigger tyres. Let's also get rid of those winglets and have front and rear wings only and not wider wings either. Let's also go back to manual gearboxes to increase the mistake factor. Then we hopefully won't need DRS ever again
S griffin is online now  
__________________
He who dares wins!
He who hesitates is lost!
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 20:36 (Ref:3594857)   #8
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,177
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
You are dead right that the racing should be paramount and the aero and anything else purely secondary.

I like this idea, although I would like to see fixed single element wings, even better, no wings and free undertray.
When downforce is considered a necessity, ground effects might provide a solution. However, a 'free' undertray is undesirable. Such an undertray would exist of sliding skirts, which are inherently unsafe. And even without sliding skirts, ground effects do have their drawbacks. A ground effect undertray is very prone to ride height changes and thereby requires a rocked-hard suspension setting. With a return of ground effects, one could also expect the calendar to only have entirely flat tracks. What a shame that would be!

This raises the question why Formula One should have high downforce levels. The whole idea of cars cornering faster every year is simply unsustainable. It also forces the legislator to outlaw freedom and hence creativity and intelligence in other, probably more relevant area's. Instead of teams spending an awful lot, almost an infinite amount of resources on aerodynamics, I would rather see them spend that money on the chassis, suspension, drive-trains and even electronics.
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 20:54 (Ref:3594862)   #9
Sodemo
Veteran
 
Sodemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
United Kingdom
Solihull, West Mids, UK
Posts: 10,135
Sodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Make the tyres wider, the chassis wider. The cars will be much faster in the slower and medium corners (the safer corners), the aero can take car of itself in the high speed stuff.

One thing I notice when I look at races from 20-30 years ago is how much faster the cars look in slower corners. The opposite is true of high speed corners. Less aero and more mechanical grip would make the cars more spectacular through the slower stuff, which I think would be enough. The cars are already fast enough in the fast stuff.
Sodemo is online now  
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 21:04 (Ref:3594867)   #10
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,177
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo View Post
Make the tyres wider, the chassis wider. The cars will be much faster in the slower and medium corners (the safer corners), the aero can take car of itself in the high speed stuff.

One thing I notice when I look at races from 20-30 years ago is how much faster the cars look in slower corners. The opposite is true of high speed corners. Less aero and more mechanical grip would make the cars more spectacular through the slower stuff, which I think would be enough. The cars are already fast enough in the fast stuff.
I fail to see the need for more mechanical grip, even in exchange for a massive reduction of downforce. The pace of Formula One is a part of its attraction and entertainment, but it is very relative. In fact, harder and smaller tires could actually allow for better racing. Harder and smaller tires will cause braking distances to be increased and slip angles to be greater.
Pingguest is offline  
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari
Quote
Old 1 Dec 2015, 22:08 (Ref:3594878)   #11
Sodemo
Veteran
 
Sodemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
United Kingdom
Solihull, West Mids, UK
Posts: 10,135
Sodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSodemo should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
I fail to see the need for more mechanical grip, even in exchange for a massive reduction of downforce. The pace of Formula One is a part of its attraction and entertainment, but it is very relative. In fact, harder and smaller tires could actually allow for better racing. Harder and smaller tires will cause braking distances to be increased and slip angles to be greater.
Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.
Sodemo is online now  
Quote
Old 2 Dec 2015, 04:02 (Ref:3594900)   #12
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,359
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo View Post
Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.
I think the first question that should be asked is this..

Is F1 primarily about the fastest car or the fastest driver?

After they work that out the regulations, aero etc will be obvious because they can't have both. If it is the fastest driver get rid of all the aero and let the cars move, four wheel drift etc the way they did pre Chapman. If it is the fastest car stack the aero on and let's see who wins. For me it is the fastest driver, let's see who the biggest testicles in a car with marginal grip on the very fastest high speed circuits. Opposite lock for long periods at high speed on long bends is definitely character building.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Dec 2015, 08:05 (Ref:3594924)   #13
wolfhound
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Ireland
Posts: 3,303
wolfhound should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridwolfhound should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I think the first question that should be asked is this..

Is F1 primarily about the fastest car or the fastest driver?

After they work that out the regulations, aero etc will be obvious because they can't have both. If it is the fastest driver get rid of all the aero and let the cars move, four wheel drift etc the way they did pre Chapman. If it is the fastest car stack the aero on and let's see who wins. For me it is the fastest driver, let's see who the biggest testicles in a car with marginal grip on the very fastest high speed circuits. Opposite lock for long periods at high speed on long bends is definitely character building.
In reality it is a mixture of both. The problem is to get the balance right between car technology and driver ability.
wolfhound is online now  
Quote
Old 2 Dec 2015, 08:16 (Ref:3594926)   #14
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,359
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
While it is seen that way I think it will continue on the path of mediocrity, for me at least. Faster lap times reduces overtaking opportunities, people forget that little problem.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Dec 2015, 20:50 (Ref:3595067)   #15
Taxi645
Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Netherlands
Posts: 434
Taxi645 has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Getting rid of downforce is not realistic. How ever enjoyable I would personally find it. If you take away downforce from F1 you also have to slow down all other single seater classes. It's not gonna happen.


It is also not necessary. GP2 cars prove you can combine downforce with cars being able to follow each other. What you need is downforce that is less fragile and thus less dependent on vortices originating from the front wing, which get disturbed from driving in the turbulent air behind other cars.


Problem is it's a whole lot of fun for the aero departments to spend countless hours and euro's in windtunnels and running CFD simulations to get all these vortices to do their magic with hundreds of front wing variants to get the airflow perfect for every track.


To me that is the technological side of F1 overruling what it should obviously be most important; the actual racing. The enjoyment of millions of fans is more important than the enjoyment of a few hundred engineers.




If I would be cynical I would even say that at the start of the year the focus in regards to the 2017 rule changes was on the cars being able to follow each other. Talk was about GP2 like undersides, where the downforce generated from the underside of the cars was much less fragile as it's much less dependent on vortices generated from the front wing. Then the F1 aero community woke up realizing than such much less complex and fragile aerodynamics would take much of the fun out for them and would could even cost a lot of them their jobs. Then all of a sudden overtaking was off the agenda and somebody came up with the idea that the cars had to be 5-6s faster. Lot's of downforce, lot's for the aero departments to do and to hell with the racing and the fans.


Well that would just be the cynical interpretation of an ignorant outsider, I hope it's not the case.
Taxi645 is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aero package old man Racing Technology 1 23 Apr 2011 10:06
New Renault aero? Mopar Formula One 3 22 Feb 2006 18:09
Cars New Aero Looks darcym Formula One 30 5 Dec 2004 13:53
Aero result. V8 Fan Australasian Touring Cars. 38 4 Feb 2003 22:00


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.