Jump to content


Photo

What should be done about the current regulations?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

Poll: What should be done about the current regulations? (74 member(s) have cast votes)

More action needed?

  1. Yes (61 votes [82.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 82.43%

  2. No (7 votes [9.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.46%

  3. Unsure (6 votes [8.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.11%

If "Yes", what should be done?

  1. OWG sent back to the drawing board - a clean sheet (18 votes [24.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.32%

  2. Evolution of current regulations - there's no point in jumping from solution to solution (42 votes [56.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.76%

  3. Give it a year or two and if it doesn't improve, then take action (14 votes [18.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.92%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:28

Domenicali: New rules haven't worked
Theissen: Politely slamming 2009 regulations

The big-wigs have spoken. Williams have also been vocal. So, what should we make of it? And more importantly what should be done about it?

Personally, I want the OWG to go back to the drawing board. Not only are the 2009 regulations a failure (i.e. they haven't improved the over-taking/wake problem) but they have created cars so ugly even a blind mother would throw them in a ditch. I don't know if it should be a clean sheet or evolution however - I haven't got the data in front of me.




Advertisement

#2 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:33

but they have created cars so ugly even a blind mother would throw them in a ditch.


I don't think that should be a consideration though. They need to do something but I'd rather watch good racing in ugly cars than no racing in nice looking ones.


#3 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:36

I don't think that should be a consideration though. They need to do something but I'd rather watch good racing in ugly cars than no racing in nice looking ones.


What I was implying is that it is a very unelegant solution. Compare a 2009 F1 car with a 2009 Formula Nippon car which was designed with the same intent (more overtaking):

Posted Image

A very efficient solution and looks good at the same time. Whilst some may see it as trivial, I feel the aesthetics of a racing car is fairly important. Or maybe that's just me.


#4 zoombie

zoombie
  • Member

  • 432 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:38

A very efficient solution and looks good at the same time. Whilst some may see it as trivial, I feel the aesthetics of a racing car is fairly important. Or maybe that's just me.


They are too fast for me to notice :D

Edited by zoombie, 11 August 2009 - 01:38.


#5 Madera

Madera
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:40

These Guys didn't have a problem overtaking.

Posted Image

Edited by Madera, 11 August 2009 - 01:41.


#6 Yellowmc

Yellowmc
  • Member

  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:45

:drunk:

Start with a rectangle box, stick 4 wheels and a motor on it. There you go, an F1 car is born.


#7 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:45

What I was implying is that it is a very unelegant solution. Compare a 2009 F1 car with a 2009 Formula Nippon car which was designed with the same intent (more overtaking):

A very efficient solution and looks good at the same time. Whilst some may see it as trivial, I feel the aesthetics of a racing car is fairly important. Or maybe that's just me.


Given the choice and all performances being equal I'd obviously prefer the cars to look good. What I meant to say is to say is that if they find something that would bring racing back to F1 I'll be happy enough to accept ugly cars.

A few years ago Mosley came up with the idea of introducing a new type of rear wing that was split in two and had a gap in the middle. If I'm not mistaking the TWG had ran preliminary tests with computer simulation and supposedly it was reducing air disturbance behind a car which would allow another car to drive closer without losing too much downforce. I wonder what happened with that, why was it dropped at the time and why wasn't it discussed again with the new 2009 regulations.

#8 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:49

Given the choice and all performances being equal I'd obviously prefer the cars to look good. What I meant to say is to say is that if they find something that would bring racing back to F1 I'll be happy enough to accept ugly cars.

A few years ago Mosley came up with the idea of introducing a new type of rear wing that was split in two and had a gap in the middle. If I'm not mistaking the TWG had ran preliminary tests with computer simulation and supposedly it was reducing air disturbance behind a car which would allow another car to drive closer without losing too much downforce. I wonder what happened with that, why was it dropped at the time and why wasn't it discussed again with the new 2009 regulations.


The CDG wing. More tests were done on it and it was found that the rear wheels really interfered with the rear wing(s) and ultimately a failed concept.

I just think there must be a better way to at least achieve the very, very modest improvement that 2009 aero has brought us.

#9 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 11 August 2009 - 02:02

I'm really not knowledgeable when it comes to aero but something just doesn't make sense to me. For years now the drivers have been saying that they can't get closer to the car ahead because they lose the downforce but then 2009 regulations make the front wing much larger.

Wouldn't it make sense to make the front wings smaller instead and "force" the teams to design cars that don't depend so much on aerodynamic ?



#10 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 11 August 2009 - 02:19

Domenicali: New rules haven't worked
Theissen: Politely slamming 2009 regulations

The big-wigs have spoken. Williams have also been vocal. So, what should we make of it? And more importantly what should be done about it?

Personally, I want the OWG to go back to the drawing board. Not only are the 2009 regulations a failure (i.e. they haven't improved the over-taking/wake problem) but they have created cars so ugly even a blind mother would throw them in a ditch. I don't know if it should be a clean sheet or evolution however - I haven't got the data in front of me.

Next to Max there is somebody else who should leave. F1 is simply getting too americanised, and it's not working (copying IRL). Scrap all, and start with a clean sheet, new people, and new ideas. If required, you can always bent over, pull something old out of the trash bin, and re-write it, if convenient.



#11 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:18

F1 is all about status so I think the look of the cars is important. Funny how you get used to things though, those low rear wings from past years look a bit wierd now :lol: .

There's a huge difference between the ugly BMW and the good-looking Mac, also I quite like the look of the high duck-bill RBR. So I don't think there's much wrong with the current regs on aesthetics, I think it's down to the teams. If you mould your FWEP's round an old shoebox then that's what you get, whatever the regs.

On overtaking I think it would have been OK as things are if the DDD had been avoided, that has kept aero too big a part of the grip. Big fail for all involved IMO. Losing kers will help even things up next year. For me the ideal formula woud be something like if a car's 0.3s faster then the probablility of pulling off an overtake is about 10% per lap. 15% perhaps.

#12 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,416 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 11 August 2009 - 08:31

These Guys didn't have a problem overtaking.

Posted Image


And such a car was state of the art at the time, in many ways more complex and intricate than the modern F1 car.

However it would lapped by IRL car, surely racing at an equivalent pace to get lapped by Danica Patrick would be an embarrassment for 'the pinnacle of motorsports'.


The big redesign seems one solution.... However on occasion even slip-streaming Formula Ford races can be drawn-out processions, so expecting passes for the lead every 2 corners in F1 is a bit excessive!

#13 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:02

F1 is all about status so I think the look of the cars is important. Funny how you get used to things though, those low rear wings from past years look a bit wierd now :lol: .

There's a huge difference between the ugly BMW and the good-looking Mac, also I quite like the look of the high duck-bill RBR. So I don't think there's much wrong with the current regs on aesthetics, I think it's down to the teams. If you mould your FWEP's round an old shoebox then that's what you get, whatever the regs.

On overtaking I think it would have been OK as things are if the DDD had been avoided, that has kept aero too big a part of the grip. Big fail for all involved IMO. Losing kers will help even things up next year. For me the ideal formula woud be something like if a car's 0.3s faster then the probablility of pulling off an overtake is about 10% per lap. 15% perhaps.

I agree with most of that. Has the effect of the slot diffusers been proven to have been counter-productive for overtaking? Although I have heard it said, I'm not sure if it has been more than supposition and I am still not clear if they will be allowed next year too. Losing KERS might even things up a bit, but wouldn't making KERS more effective help overtaking, allowing the tactical battles we were promised during the off-season?

#14 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,484 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:08

Since when has overtaking been a paramount in F1?

#15 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:17

I agree with most of that. Has the effect of the slot diffusers been proven to have been counter-productive for overtaking? Although I have heard it said, I'm not sure if it has been more than supposition and I am still not clear if they will be allowed next year too. Losing KERS might even things up a bit, but wouldn't making KERS more effective help overtaking, allowing the tactical battles we were promised during the off-season?


I think the DDD has made overtaking more difficult just by raising cornering speed, that naturally increases the wake there, and also increases the gap in distance for any given gap in time, and it's the distance that has to be made up in the following straight.

Kers is too much like push-to-pass for me, and with only 3 cars having it (OK 3 + Badoer :p ) then it's unequal either one way or the other. I'll prefer it next year when a pass means something about design/driver/setup skill.

#16 bigginge

bigginge
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:52

And such a car was state of the art at the time, in many ways more complex and intricate than the modern F1 car.


As much as I love the old cigar tubes, I can't think of a single way they were more complex and intricate than a modern F1 car, perhaps you can point some out to me? Of course, I suspect the engineers that built the things were definitely more complex and intricate than most 'modern' engineers!

#17 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:50

Since when has overtaking been a paramount in F1?


There's a difference between there not being too much due to equal drivers and them not being able to get within a second of each other due to horrid wake structures.



#18 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,014 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:53

First, they should be published on the FIA site (2010 rules, that is).

#19 fanboy

fanboy
  • Member

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:58

I dont think anything CAN be done. As long as you have wings, the cars wont be able to overtake. I dont think its a massive problem. Its been like that since about 1996 and the sports been fine. The overtaking problems are just a natural consequence of the progession of the sport. Like the industrial revolution and pollution.

Advertisement

#20 Alonzo

Alonzo
  • Member

  • 658 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 13:07

ban the multi-level diffuser, the first 2 races(3rd was wet), where only 3 teams had the DDD, had overtakings and the changes seems to have made a good effect.

The ddd deflects the airflow upwards taking away huge part of the fluid that pressures the low front wing of a following car. It will never be a MotoGP, but F1 can be(and was) better.

#21 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 11 August 2009 - 13:07

They've improved the show, cars are following each other much more closely. I'd like to see more work done on the adjustable front wing, people are still complaining about understeer, and maybe there should be no restriction on the number of times it is adjusted.

#22 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,170 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 11 August 2009 - 13:12

Lets go back to the 1997 regs. Before they started breaking things with each change.

Edited by Rob, 11 August 2009 - 13:12.


#23 DEVO

DEVO
  • Member

  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 11 August 2009 - 13:25

Why not remove wings altogether?

#24 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 13:35

Lets go back to the 1997 regs. Before they started breaking things with each change.


This. :up:

#25 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 837 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 13:40

I think for next year the DDD should be banned, thus reducing not only the overall downforce with the associated cuts in frontal downforce to maintain balance, but also giving less disruption for the following front wing.

In the future i think they need to work at getting less grip/more power and torque. Compared to the last V10 cars of 2004 and 2005, the current mob probably drive like a slingshot.

#26 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 11 August 2009 - 13:54

Since when has overtaking been a paramount in F1?

:up:
All that babbling about the lack of overtaking; a result of the millisecond attention span of the Playstation generation.



If you look for entertainment in F1, go back and analyse the recent seasons. The exciting races were the wet ones.
Why? Because ontrack wetness is minimizing the grip.
The easiest way to minimize the grip on a dry track is to increase the ground clearance. Voilà.

#27 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,842 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 11 August 2009 - 14:43

Even smaller and less efficient wings, bigger tyres; free day for pratice and testing on the thursday before selected GPs.

:)

#28 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 14:47

:up:
All that babbling about the lack of overtaking; a result of the millisecond attention span of the Playstation generation.



If you look for entertainment in F1, go back and analyse the recent seasons. The exciting races were the wet ones.
Why? Because ontrack wetness is minimizing the grip.
The easiest way to minimize the grip on a dry track is to increase the ground clearance. Voilà.


Just because there's never been that much doesn't mean we should side with nostalgia. We have a tangible problem and it should be fixed.



#29 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 16:35

Let's go back to the 2008 rules. Those flicks really looked funny, and the racing was come to think of it, allright even back then. Remember Räikkönen vs. Hamilton at Spa, or the race at Interlagos? Those were wet races (in part), and the 2009 dry races haven't been entertaining, so let's go back to the bridge-wings, the barge boards, and everything :clap:

#30 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 837 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 16:43

Seriously alot of people ignore that last year you needed to be 2s faster on average to be close enough to overtake, and the OWG aimed to cut that to 1s. I think they achieved that goal, but now everybody is alot closer so it looks like all of a sudden a car like the Brawn or Red Bull cant overtake a Renault or a BMW and people think that must mean failure.

#31 Matt Somers

Matt Somers
  • Member

  • 550 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 11 August 2009 - 16:52

Something else to consider is that with the whole fuel load on board next season it will no longer be such a tactical battle that can be won in the pits. Tyre wear is going to be imperative to a good car. Good overtaking doesn't only come from the cars/drivers but is also dictated by the circuits they drive on. You have to also think about the talent that now drives in F1 anc consider that in the past would the field be full with such talent? I don't believe just altering the aero on F1 cars will be the be all and end all of overtaking issues in F1. Besides i think 09 has shown us some great over taking moves that has been missing in previous years.

#32 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 11 August 2009 - 17:05

Just because there's never been that much doesn't mean we should side with nostalgia. We have a tangible problem and it should be fixed.

What problem do you mean? The fugly cars?

#33 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 11 August 2009 - 17:10

Something else to consider is that with the whole fuel load on board next season it will no longer be such a tactical battle that can be won in the pits. Tyre wear is going to be imperative to a good car. Good overtaking doesn't only come from the cars/drivers but is also dictated by the circuits they drive on. You have to also think about the talent that now drives in F1 anc consider that in the past would the field be full with such talent? I don't believe just altering the aero on F1 cars will be the be all and end all of overtaking issues in F1. Besides i think 09 has shown us some great over taking moves that has been missing in previous years.

Full fuel tanks next year will set an end to ultra light Renaults etc in the front rows. The fast cars will be at the sharp end of the grid, and no sandtable exercise pitstopping to shake up the situation.
Consequence: A drop of overtaking moves.


Bad news for the Playstation generation.


#34 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 17:10

What problem do you mean? The fugly cars?


The ability to get up to about 1 second behind the car in front and then get stuck. It may be claimed that now a car only has to be 1 second faster than the one in front to pass (which I do not agree with after seeing the last few races), the main problem is that the entire field is covered by 1 second, just about. So it's nigh-on impossible.


Edited by Scotracer, 11 August 2009 - 17:13.


#35 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,412 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 11 August 2009 - 17:17

Well they could have kept the double diffuser illegal for a start . . . and that's a very easy first remedy for next year.

Edited by Ricardo F1, 11 August 2009 - 17:17.


#36 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 11 August 2009 - 17:20

The ability to get up to about 1 second behind the car in front and then get stuck.

It's the task of the charging drivers to find a way around the guys ahead of them; and if they can't find that way, they don't deserve to gain position at all.


Btw I cannot imagine a set of rules that handicaps leading cars while simultaneously favouring charging cars.


#37 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 17:55

It's the task of the charging drivers to find a way around the guys ahead of them; and if they can't find that way, they don't deserve to gain position at all.


Btw I cannot imagine a set of rules that handicaps leading cars while simultaneously favouring charging cars.


Okay so you are asking for a driver to take a car that is all-but equal and make it lap over 1 second faster than the guy in front of them? Even when they are all top-line drivers? That is asking too much.

F1 is the only motorsport in existence where the regulations actually stop close racing. You cannot say you enjoy watching a train of cars all about 1-2 seconds apart driving around until the pitstops. And it's just going to get worse next year.

#38 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 11 August 2009 - 18:15

Okay so you are asking for a driver to take a car that is all-but equal and make it lap over 1 second faster than the guy in front of them? Even when they are all top-line drivers? That is asking too much.

I asked for nothing. I know that overtaking is not the paramount of Formula One, and I am able to admire great defending just as well.

It was you who wanted the rules changed because you don't like the show.

#39 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 11 August 2009 - 18:28

Lets go back to the 1997 regs. Before they started breaking things with each change.

:up:
Or at least
- give some freedom in engine development
- restrict power by means of air restrictor or max fuel consumption but leave the possibility to have some spare revs when needed
- dump park ferme and allow more significant setup changes between qualification and race
- dump the two compounds tire rules, let everyone compete on tires that suit him best
- no refueling

Current cars in fact are able to follow each other much closer and for longer. With limited number of engines per season all other restrictions are unnecessary. Teams will self-restrict themselves but there will be a strategic element to use some more revs at times when attacking*defending or even sacrifice an engine's life for a particular goal.
Set up limitations prevent teams from seeking best speed on Saturday and best race pace on Sunday.
Without refueling pit stop strategies will no longer be applicable or much less efficient. If they want a higher finish place they'll have to push on the track and fight each other instead of waiting the one ahead to make a stop.


Advertisement

#40 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 18:42

I asked for nothing. I know that overtaking is not the paramount of Formula One, and I am able to admire great defending just as well.

It was you who wanted the rules changed because you don't like the show.


No, I don't like the regulations because I'm an engineer and a crappy solution to an engineering problem should be fixed. It's fixable...so fix it!



#41 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 11 August 2009 - 18:52

Has the effect of the slot diffusers been proven to have been counter-productive for overtaking?


No, they have not. One of the 'diffusers teams' actually provided some evidence of the opposite.

Something else to consider is that with the whole fuel load on board next season it will no longer be such a tactical battle that can be won in the pits. Tyre wear is going to be imperative to a good car. Good overtaking doesn't only come from the cars/drivers but is also dictated by the circuits they drive on. You have to also think about the talent that now drives in F1 anc consider that in the past would the field be full with such talent? I don't believe just altering the aero on F1 cars will be the be all and end all of overtaking issues in F1. Besides i think 09 has shown us some great over taking moves that has been missing in previous years.


It's a refueling ban, so the cars will still pit for new tires and tire wear is probably going to be an issue given the extra weight of the fuel. Since this also means that the fastest car will start first on sunday, not the lightest car, it will likely reduce overtaking, at least early in the race as a fast car is less likely to get stuck behind a slower car.

The circuits will affect overtaking oppertunities yes, for a F1 car to be able to overtake they need space and low speed turns where they are less affected by a loss of aerodynamic downforce.

Apart from KERS the cars are today also a bit too similar, not surprising given the tight technical regulations and the equalising on the engine side. If we had bigger differences in car speed during a lap and a race this would make overtaking easier. All the cars have about the same weaknesses and strengths so it's hard for a driver to take advantage of his cars strengths. I watched the Le Mans Legends race earlier this year and there were many lead changes between a Ferrari and a Jaguar. On the straights the Jaguar could outrun the Ferrari but during braking and in the turns the Ferrari was faster so in overall they performed very similar lap times. But given the differences in speed at different parts of the track it was not too difficult to overtake.

#42 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 11 August 2009 - 19:25

No, I don't like the regulations because I'm an engineer and a crappy solution to an engineering problem should be fixed. It's fixable...so fix it!

And what is your solution? Formula Nippon design, as said above? Or the 1997 rules? Or a combination of both?

#43 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 August 2009 - 20:05

And what is your solution? Formula Nippon design, as said above? Or the 1997 rules? Or a combination of both?


I am not proposing a solution to the problem...I am asking that the OWG go back and try again.

#44 bigginge

bigginge
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 August 2009 - 09:22

No, I don't like the regulations because I'm an engineer and a crappy solution to an engineering problem should be fixed. It's fixable...so fix it!


:up: ditto

#45 Ramses1348

Ramses1348
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 12 August 2009 - 09:43

It's a refueling ban [...] . Since this also means that the fastest car will start first on sunday, not the lightest car, it will likely reduce overtaking, at least early in the race as a fast car is less likely to get stuck behind a slower car.


This is just completely false! With low fuel Q3 you will have a grid that is LESS representative of the race pace of the first stint than what you get with the current qualify with race fuel Q3. There are much more chance next year that the good "qualifiers" (ie car efficient on low fuel) will differ much more from the good "racers" (ie car efficient with a lot of fuel)... The whole "qualify with race fuel" thing was just an heresy from an overtaking perpective (and not only)

#46 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 August 2009 - 14:34

No, they have not. One of the 'diffusers teams' actually provided some evidence of the opposite.


If you check back to early on in the season when it all kicked off about the DDD. Brawn were saying that it is more efficient down force (which is what i assume you are referring to) due to the fact that it allows some air under the car which therefore has far less distance to travel than if it went over the car. So while it increased down force it also helped to reduce drag compared to the same amount of down force if it was generated purely by none DDD parts.
However they did not state that it reduces the over all drag/air disturbance of the car.
In fact it increases the total air disturbance/ increases the effective distance it effects cars behind.
The reason for that is simple we are not talking about moving some of the down force from the wings to the DDD (which would reduce air disturbance behind the car) that is still kept the same, however they added extra down force from the DDD which no matter how much more efficient it is still adds to the over all amount of disturbed air behind the car.

However if one of the other teams said it was beneficial i missed that article

#47 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 August 2009 - 14:51

This is just completely false! With low fuel Q3 you will have a grid that is LESS representative of the race pace of the first stint than what you get with the current qualify with race fuel Q3. There are much more chance next year that the good "qualifiers" (ie car efficient on low fuel) will differ much more from the good "racers" (ie car efficient with a lot of fuel)... The whole "qualify with race fuel" thing was just an heresy from an overtaking perpective (and not only)

The thing to remember is just because a car is great when it only has qualification fuel loads in does not mean it will be as good when it is fully fulled, but neither does it mean it will be worse.
IF they go back to low fuel for Q3 atleast we should see the fastest Q laps in the closing stages of qualification.
But untill we see the first race under the new rules all we can really say is as always the saturday qually will only set out the start grid nothing more nothing less.
I have no doubts we will once again see cars at the front running away and cars at the back coming through.
Atleast this year we have not had Q sessions with 2 or 3 cars seconds ahead of everyone else.
Like or loath this years Q system it has ensured close qualification sessions with any of the big teams liabel to end up out at the end of Q1.
And i for one enjoyed seeing almost all the drivers really having to push just to make it to Q2 rather than coming out for just 3 laps then going back into the pits to wait for the next session.

#48 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Member

  • 4,347 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 14 August 2009 - 15:06

If you check back to early on in the season when it all kicked off about the DDD. Brawn were saying that it is more efficient down force (which is what i assume you are referring to) due to the fact that it allows some air under the car which therefore has far less distance to travel than if it went over the car. So while it increased down force it also helped to reduce drag compared to the same amount of down force if it was generated purely by none DDD parts.
However they did not state that it reduces the over all drag/air disturbance of the car.
In fact it increases the total air disturbance/ increases the effective distance it effects cars behind.
The reason for that is simple we are not talking about moving some of the down force from the wings to the DDD (which would reduce air disturbance behind the car) that is still kept the same, however they added extra down force from the DDD which no matter how much more efficient it is still adds to the over all amount of disturbed air behind the car.

However if one of the other teams said it was beneficial i missed that article


If there has been an article claiming that the DDD was beneficial then I too have missed it, so I am assuming that 'J.Edlund' is referring to the judgement of the I.C.A. over the Stewards' decision to allow the DDD to race. Link
The relevant parts are paragraphs 34, 37, 41, 42.

I don't think it's enough to be confident of the DDD effect either way. The non-DDD teams don't appear to have supplied any decent evidence to the court to support their claim that the DDD makes overtaking harder, but the rest of their case appears to have been made so badly that it may be that they didn't bother to present their evidence very well.

#49 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 14 August 2009 - 21:19

I am not proposing a solution to the problem...I am asking that the OWG go back and try again.

That's not much, coming from an engineer who strongly claimed to know that the 'problem' is a fixable one.



#50 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 14 August 2009 - 21:21

That's not much, coming from an engineer who strongly claimed to know that the 'problem' is a fixable one.


All problems are fixable ;)