[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[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. Faster is not always more exciting. Seeing cars on the edge is more exciting, rather than seeing them on rails. 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

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

My argument is that the cost and effort that goes into aero development of such aero development would be better spent and more relevant to automotive engineering, both in the end result and the training of people, if it was focused more on engineering skills than wind tunnel exploitation.

You won't stop dominant periods outright, but mechanical engineering solutions are easier to assimilate than aerodynamic underbody advantage

I don't think this is true. The vast majority of road cars do not use hydraulic suspension unlike previous generation Grand Prix cars, manufacturers who championed it like Citroen and Austin have abandoned it. There is only McLaren but even they substitute rudimentary steel suspension in base model McLarens.

Meanwhile every road car is styled to reduce aerodynamic drag, especially those like the Tatra T87 and in the modern day Hyundai Ioniq 6 and Mercedes EQS.

The FIA removed hydraulic suspension elements or front-rear interconnects and so on expressly because it was hard for them to determine the function and to police the legality of it.

Meanwhile aerodynamic surfaces are simple,it's just your pressure distribution and flow field (sharp edges shed vortices, it's all very simple). Easy. Change the shape a little bit and your pressure distribution changes a little bit. Too easy.

[V8 Fireworks]

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.

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?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

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.




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?

Good for you that you care, but do you really think F1 is should only be a battle between designers? Of course it plays a part, but the fact is fans and the media care more about the drivers championship and always have.

And does it really matter that Indycar hasn’t got the technical innovation of F1? The fact is it has close competitive racing suggests not. And that’s what matters. Of course I do miss the days they had different chassis, but that’s a different story

Fact is we don’t need cars with loads of downforce or super fast lap times. MotoGP, at least before they added in winglets, always had a better spectacle despite having neither.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Good for you that you care, but do you really think F1 is should only be a battle between designers? Of course it plays a part, but the fact is fans and the media care more about the drivers championship and always have.

Exactly. It's the drivers that the fans primarily want to watch, whether that's at the track or on TV.

I remember the very first F1 race I went to. The GKN-Daily Express Silver Jubilee International Trophy Race, in 1973. I knew who the drivers were and for which team they drove for. I knew who had designed the cars but what I wanted to see was those drivers race.