|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
29 Feb 2024, 16:26 (Ref:4198921) | #4276 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
The cars are the issue, not the circuits. People often bang on about how the current width of the cars is a penalising factor in the overtaking debate, however the cars now are the same width (or a touch narrower I think) as the cars were during the 80s and they had no problem with passing.
|
||
|
29 Feb 2024, 20:38 (Ref:4198971) | #4277 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
29 Feb 2024, 23:00 (Ref:4198989) | #4278 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
Quote:
Don't forget that at least 70-80kg of the weight increase since 2005 is more severe crash testing and safety stuff (halo alone is 20kg), so that weight is non-negotiable and applies to both F2 and F1, hence F2 cars weighing in at 750kg now. LMP1 cars became tiny -- the maximum width was reduced from 2.0m to 1.8m and that Toyota is only 4.6m long, compared to 5.5m for a F1 Grand Prix car and about 5.2m for a F2 car. [Yet the Toyota LMP1 weighs 1040kg -- far more than any F1 car despite being smaller!] By all means the FIA could mandate LMP1 dimensions (so about the size of the RB1) if the teams and the FIA considered this to be desirable. Personally I think the narrow track F1 cars looked dumb and the wider cars, at least 2.0m wide, looked better: 2.15m track 2.00m track 1.80m track That maximum width rule was death by a thousand cuts. I'm kind of surprised so many people were against the return to 2.0m track width and reinstatement of the rear tyres to their proper size in 2017. [Albeit the fronts are comically wide due to the way they were never reduced in width since 1992 but then were scaled equally with the rear tyres in 2017.] Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 29 Feb 2024 at 23:14. |
||
|
29 Feb 2024, 23:19 (Ref:4198992) | #4279 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
Narrow F1 cars looked dumb?
Yes they did' Mid 70's F1 cars looked great! McLaren M23, Ferrari 312, Tyrrell 006. Weights' Formula Atlantic car 480kg. 1966 F1 weight 500kg 1 litre F3? Lotus 41, Brabham BT 21? 400kg! |
|
|
1 Mar 2024, 08:31 (Ref:4199025) | #4280 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
I never liked the look of the narrow track 1998 reg cars. With wet tyres on they looked marginally better but not much.
|
||
|
1 Mar 2024, 09:28 (Ref:4199033) | #4281 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,330
|
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
7 Mar 2024, 15:25 (Ref:4200369) | #4282 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/an...blem/10584169/
Article about the cars in 2024 having a "dirty air" problem. I know I am perhaps oversimplifying the issue, but if they shrank the size of the front (and rear) wing by half, then lowered the front wing more towards the ground, I really think that would improve the ability for cars to be able to follow each other. |
||
|
8 Mar 2024, 08:13 (Ref:4200445) | #4283 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
Quote:
Newey wanted FW14B style front wings with the little fins running inside the front wheels, but most categories including Indycar and F2 now use the wide front wings as they obviously significantly reduce drag from the front tyres. The big rear wing's counter rotating vortex pair is an important part of lifting the wake of the car over and above the following car, so the dirty air goes over the following car instead of at it. Obviously Formula Ford-style cars with no aerofoils or downforce at all would have no difficulty with dirty air, and indeed a beneficial draft instead. But is there an appetite to reduce cornering from 5G to only 1.5-2G? That will make the cars at least 25-30 seconds per lap slower. |
||
|
8 Mar 2024, 10:26 (Ref:4200460) | #4284 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
Quote:
Also that front wing should be scraping along the tarmac, ive no idea why they mandated to position them so high (well actually I do, its to provide airflow to the floor, but it seems like they have prioritised overall downforce generation over the ability for a car to be able to follow, because if the front wing was lower, ok it may give less airflow to the floor, but the wing would be in cleaner air. |
|||
|
8 Mar 2024, 10:55 (Ref:4200463) | #4285 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,872
|
Quote:
Meanwhile the drivers are complaining again about the damaging effect of cars bottoming. Simple solution: get rid of the skid blocks in the plank and enforce the plank wear rule. The teams would have to run a higher ride height and the drivers would have to keep off the kerbs. |
|||
__________________
The older I get, the faster I was. |
8 Mar 2024, 16:29 (Ref:4200504) | #4286 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Having said that, all teams but Red Bull are simply too close together - the cars have converged yet again. If two cars have almost identical speeds and characteristics, there will be no overtaking. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
8 Mar 2024, 21:30 (Ref:4200544) | #4287 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Quote:
Now the "characteristics" part might have some validity. But what I think you saying (?) is that if cars had different pros/cons of that some cars might be able to pass in some situations (such as circuit or type of corner preference)? For example one car might be optimized for top speed and another for cornering. I think the flaw in this thinking is that ALL cars will need some type of specific "flaw" that can be exploited by a car that doesn't have that same flaw? But what happens when all cars start to approach some type of hypothetical performance limit? That modeling and design shows that all teams see the same characteristics results in the fastest car? Lets say that the most perfect lap time (given weight, power, traction) might be a 1:30. A decade ago (with less knowledge) cars might be running something like a 1:50 and those running that average lap time might have various things they get right and some things they get wrong on the lap (hence the slower lap time). Now, lets say cars are running a 1:35 on average. So the variability of performance between the entire field will be much lower. That results in much closer performance parity and also... harder to make a pass unless someone makes a mistake. And along with improved performance also can mean improved drivability, so while mistakes happen, they are less of an issue. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |