|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
16 Apr 2024, 09:56 (Ref:4205123) | #4326 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,165
|
Lets face it, the FIA dont have a great track record for introducing positive technical changes.
1998 - Narrow cars and grooved tyres. 1999 - Decided the grooved tyres were such a good idea they introduced another groove in the front tyre just for giggles. 2004 - Decided that the front wing should be raised further up from the ground. 2005 - Decided that the front wing should be raised even further up from the ground. You see, unless there has been a change of good race car dynamics thinking, these tech changes listed above are so unfathomable to think that actually they are actually an act of sabotage. |
||
|
16 Apr 2024, 10:15 (Ref:4205125) | #4327 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,379
|
Quote:
Grooved tyres were ok in 98, but they made it worse in 99. Really they should have gone back to slicks then. And they should have got rid of body aero like winglets and barge boards a lot sooner |
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
16 Apr 2024, 11:59 (Ref:4205139) | #4328 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,165
|
I guess my point (or maybe a question) is, what is the thinking here, who is making these decisions and what is the logic behind them? I can appreciate that there are likely vested interests, political and commercial forces at play too which cloud the decision making.
|
||
|
16 Apr 2024, 14:11 (Ref:4205152) | #4329 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,379
|
Well it seems they have at least learned some lessons from the past, but not enough of them. Still too many rules that shouldn’t be there, which I won’t go into detail about
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
17 Apr 2024, 05:50 (Ref:4205200) | #4330 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,351
|
Quote:
So grooved tyres, restrictions on width, less effective aero, are all with the purpose of slowing the cars down. The present regulations are so contrived I am of the opinion that they are not good, and have given one team a distinct advantage. There were reasons for this, but it hasn't created a greater spectacle. Many of the historical changes in formula regulation have been driven by either safety or speed reduction. |
||
|
17 Apr 2024, 06:54 (Ref:4205211) | #4331 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 809
|
Its hard to argue against safety improvements.It isn't hard to argue that many of the changes from the Balestre era onwards have been to make it appear that the racing is closer and interesting.DRS is a prime example and my personal bugbear is the compulsory tyre stops.I would much rather they simply allocated each car a pile of tyres for the weekend and let the teams find out how to make the best use of them.Whether it be mixing sets,with hard on one side of the car on some circuits or risking an entire race on one compound versus three stops on a soft compound.Adding another three teams would be enough to give the existing investors a dose of the vapours,even if they were still solvent,but it might improve the spectacle.
|
|
|
17 Apr 2024, 09:11 (Ref:4205225) | #4332 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,682
|
Quote:
Having said that I do agree with the points you made. |
|||
|
17 Apr 2024, 22:06 (Ref:4205278) | #4333 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,847
|
More details about the 2026 active aero solution and the future of DRS...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...lans/10599603/ Short version * An unidentified team said they think a rear wing only solution was viable. Reports of simulations showing undriveable cars was them validating a rear only solution was unrealistic. * There will be two mode... Normal and low drag * DRS will go away as structured now. There will be zones that allow low drag to be used, but it's not used to help overtake. So it sounds like anyone can use low drag in the appropriate zone. * With the removal of DRS as a passing aid what replaces it? A push to pass system!!! Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
Yesterday, 10:10 (Ref:4205306) | #4334 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,938
|
Quote:
The world's most advanced racing cars, and they are completely flat underneath (1983-1994) or completely flat with a step (1995-2021). Completely undoing the advances in Venturi ground effects of the late 1970's. Within the legality areas prescribed in the 2022 rules, there is quite a lot of flexibility actually. Infamously, cockpit position relative to the axles is quite free. Tunnel height is relative free, centre of pressure is absolutely free, tunnel geometry is relative free, the exact orientation and geometry of the up to four strakes is relatively free et cetera. |
||
|
Yesterday, 10:56 (Ref:4205308) | #4335 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,165
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
Yesterday, 11:18 (Ref:4205310) | #4336 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,083
|
All this aero nonsense just demonstrates (again) that neither the teams, the FIA, F1 themselves and all the other involved parties know what F1 is any more.
2026 is, or rather was, a golden opportunity for something really radical to happen. It looks like they're just fiddling. Give them a reducing cost cap, minimal restrictions on design, and a maximum of 50% of the energy input across a meeting that they have now. That'll force some really radical solutions out of the designers and engineers and give us something genuinely new to watch. Cheques payable to Greem, c/o my wife, thanks. |
|
|
Yesterday, 14:31 (Ref:4205329) | #4337 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,847
|
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
Yesterday, 22:34 (Ref:4205381) | #4338 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,847
|
Good video that provides more details about 2026 technical specifications.
https://youtu.be/v4rneWBey9M?si=lsRRA0Xaf1qJFEMw Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
Yesterday, 23:14 (Ref:4205387) | #4339 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,351
|
Quote:
The technical regulations governing power trains that lead to Mercedes domination was simply one organisation perfecting the powerplant. The comment regarding contrived regulations at present was because the present regulations were introduced to end the Mercedes domination but did so by allowing a freedom in aerodynamics and that would automatically put one specific team at an advantage. That has been the case and it shouldn't have surprised anyone. If we wanted a real change there would be an abandoning of underbody aero and a focus on mechanical rather than aero induced grip. Slower lap times and slower cornering speeds initially but probably more interesting racing and technical development. |
|
|
Today, 01:25 (Ref:4205389) | #4340 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,847
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I am curious as to why you think it will produce interesting racing? If it produces new technical developments, would fans even see or know of these things? To my point earlier about Red Bull Racing having worked wonders on tire degradation. Do we as fans have any clue how they did this? Can periods of team dominance be stopped or prevented? I am far from an expert on Indycar, but they have a spec chassis and significant controls on engine (I think). If you look at the past decade, it has been two teams who have won the championship. If you go all the way back to 2003, it is three teams with the third being a small handful of Andretti championships. Now they don't have budget caps, so it seems to come down to how well your team is financed/run, but my point is it's probably hard (maybe impossible) to create technical regulations that will guarantee performance parity between teams. With the idea that performance parity results in large variability in who wins (or low predictability as to who will win) Richard Last edited by Richard C; Today at 01:34. |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
|
|
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 |