Jump to content


Photo

Slowing F1 cars by reducing downforce.


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#1 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,508 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 26 January 2012 - 16:40

Why can't the rule-makers think simply. If the FIA introduced a rule saying that the driver's heels should be at the same level as the lowest point of his backside and that top of his knees should be no more than, say, 400mm above his heels, this would have a dramatic effect on the underfloor aerodynamics - Arguments against please.

Advertisement

#2 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,767 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 January 2012 - 03:49

I like that idea. Nice and simple.

I always thought that instead of control tyres and other control items of that nature that should have just gone for control wings.
Just hand them out ten minutes before first practice, here is your front and rear wing and don't forget your undertray.

My other idea was to make leaf springs compulsory... for everything. (suspension, valves, throttle, etc.) Not for any particular reason, mainly just to annoy them.




#3 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 January 2012 - 04:08

Flat undertray from front to rear - oh yeah they have that now but obviously my idea of where the front starts and the rear ends is completely different from theirs.

Add to this at the rear end of the flat tray, a 90 degree flat plate say 800mm wide x 400mm high right where the following cars nose will be to bring slipstreaming back, not to silly Hanford levels but bring it back.

Single element front wings and twin element rear wings, none of the current fluff.

We could be here all day but the bottom line is they could if they wanted to - they obviously don't want to.



#4 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,508 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 27 January 2012 - 07:43

Flat undertray from front to rear - oh yeah they have that now but obviously my idea of where the front starts and the rear ends is completely different from theirs.


Nominally - They actually have a piece of flat board beneath very curved bit of aerodynamics and the drivers feet up around chest level.

#5 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,443 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 27 January 2012 - 08:42

Flat undertray from front to rear - oh yeah they have that now but obviously my idea of where the front starts and the rear ends is completely different from theirs.


They don't. It's a stepped floor between both axles. Even just for aesthetic purposes the entire nose section should reach to the floor and have no splitter.

#6 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 January 2012 - 09:28

Reducing downforce by at least 50 percent is the only way F1 will be able to ensure a future past 2014.
nough said

#7 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,243 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 27 January 2012 - 12:14

Just adopt about 1980 F5000 F1 wings and bodywork styles. And a free normally aspirated engine with a 10000rpm limit. And 2 engines and transaxles for the season. That will slow them down and encourage the minnows. But the same teams will win but not by so much.

#8 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 January 2012 - 12:28

Just adopt about 1980 F5000 F1 wings and bodywork styles. And a free normally aspirated engine with a 10000rpm limit. And 2 engines and transaxles for the season. That will slow them down and encourage the minnows. But the same teams will win but not by so much.


So who would be interested in such an outdated formula from history?

#9 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 27 January 2012 - 13:56

So who would be interested in such an outdated formula from history?


petrol heads..

A 5L? going for 10 000rpm would be able to crank out similar figues they run today.

Easily?

#10 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 27 January 2012 - 18:27

Why can't the rule-makers think simply. If the FIA introduced a rule saying that the driver's heels should be at the same level as the lowest point of his backside and that top of his knees should be no more than, say, 400mm above his heels, this would have a dramatic effect on the underfloor aerodynamics - Arguments against please.


The question is not why this should not be done, but why it should be done. What is the purpose? Any reasoning whatsoever behind the proposal?

If I wanted to watch boring racing with dead slow cars I would be watching electric car racing instead!

#11 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 7,069 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 January 2012 - 19:54

petrol heads..

A 5L? going for 10 000rpm would be able to crank out similar figues they run today.

Easily?


Now that you put it like that....

#12 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 27 January 2012 - 21:18

The question is not why this should not be done, but why it should be done. What is the purpose? Any reasoning whatsoever behind the proposal?

If I wanted to watch boring racing with dead slow cars I would be watching electric car racing instead!


If they dropped the weight to 500kg instead of their 640kg now. they would be pretty frisky still. The only reason they run 640kg is due to KERS because it would not be competitive with out such a heavy weight.

And i am still not convinced KERS actually gives you gains. Red bull did not run full size KERS last year. And look who dominated. But perhaps a better indicator about KERS actuall effectiveness would be to look at caterham and marussia. as one will still not run KERS while the other will.

It might not be a good indicator as one team is supposedly up and storming while the other one is a struggling one. But if Marussia does well.. and caterham does not...

Could someone help me with some vectoring math?
(3s-5)*(8,s-2)=0

#13 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,907 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 27 January 2012 - 22:19

So who would be interested in such an outdated formula from history?

I can't imagine? It would be like running a series for front engined cars with pushrod engines, live rear axles, carbs, and so on. No -one would be interested, they would be too busy following NASCAR.

#14 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,508 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 27 January 2012 - 23:06

The question is not why this should not be done, but why it should be done. What is the purpose? Any reasoning whatsoever behind the proposal?

If I wanted to watch boring racing with dead slow cars I would be watching electric car racing instead!


You must be a Scalextric fan. Cars with less downforce slide more and are therefore more interesting to watch, speed is relative - I doubt any spectator can "see" the difference between 130mph & 150mph in a corner, but if the car is visibly sliding the impresion of speed will be far higher.

#15 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,243 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 January 2012 - 00:31

So who would be interested in such an outdated formula from history?

Current cars are so bloody boring and UGLY. The late 70s early 80s cars could be more exciting and were more about DRIVERS and less about boffins. The drivers had to drive and throw the cars around, smoothly, a simple rear wing and front wings will let the cars move around but not be dangerous. Who cares if they go 10% slower if they move around, you can pass with a big go under brakes. They will have braking distances.
Plus ban all the electronics, a manual gearchange, no traction control and all the other drivers aids, no telemetry. [Though a proper on board data logger]
As I said initially the same names will still be at the front but not by as far. And probably the thinking mature drivers will come to the fore. Mark, Jensen, Fernando and probably even Schumi. Though the others would be still around.

#16 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 720 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 January 2012 - 00:55

Current cars are so bloody boring and UGLY. The late 70s early 80s cars could be more exciting and were more about DRIVERS and less about boffins. The drivers had to drive and throw the cars around, smoothly, a simple rear wing and front wings will let the cars move around but not be dangerous. Who cares if they go 10% slower if they move around, you can pass with a big go under brakes. They will have braking distances.
Plus ban all the electronics, a manual gearchange, no traction control and all the other drivers aids, no telemetry. [Though a proper on board data logger]
As I said initially the same names will still be at the front but not by as far. And probably the thinking mature drivers will come to the fore. Mark, Jensen, Fernando and probably even Schumi. Though the others would be still around.


You do realise you're talking about subjective things. F1 in the past was an entirely different sport... And I entirely disagree with the looks. I actually like the current look... and so do some others.

As for more objective things, I don't think the F1 cars of today are in any way easier to drive; even during the TC era. Everything happens much faster, and they are far more physical... Go watch another formula if you want cars sometimes skidding around.

Its now entirely a team sport, and thats an element I enjoy.

Also, did you guys not watch the 2011 season or something...? There was so much overtaking... almost too much. You could argue that some of it was fake but, during the turbo era there was overboosting to overtake anyway...





#17 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,443 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:09

Also, did you guys not watch the 2011 season or something...? There was so much overtaking... almost too much. You could argue that some of it was fake but, during the turbo era there was overboosting to overtake anyway...


Do you come from the David Coulthard school of logic ?

The defending driver could also use their boost button to defend. DRS is bullshit.

Edited by Ali_G, 28 January 2012 - 01:10.


#18 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 January 2012 - 07:28

Current cars are so bloody boring and UGLY. The late 70s early 80s cars could be more exciting and were more about DRIVERS and less about boffins. The drivers had to drive and throw the cars around, smoothly, a simple rear wing and front wings will let the cars move around but not be dangerous.


Lee Nicolle,

While F1 racing during the late 70's/early 80's was a bit more exciting than F1 in 2011, it was definitely not safer or less about boffins. Do you not recall the Lotus 79 and it's first use of ground effects. Or the McLaren MP4 and it's pioneering composite tub?

As for safety, crashes in current F1 cars that the drivers routinely walk away from would have been fatal 30 years ago.


#19 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 January 2012 - 08:17

Lee Nicolle,

While F1 racing during the late 70's/early 80's was a bit more exciting than F1 in 2011, it was definitely not safer or less about boffins. Do you not recall the Lotus 79 and it's first use of ground effects. Or the McLaren MP4 and it's pioneering composite tub?

As for safety, crashes in current F1 cars that the drivers routinely walk away from would have been fatal 30 years ago.


Some say thet current F1 is so safe there is no need for a driver.
Very pointed issue that one but safety has certainly dumbed F1 down.
It needs two things.
Better visual stimulous for the spectator (TV takes president so noise is not an issue).
It needs to be seen being part of and to be using the latest vehicle technology.

To achieve this there needs to be at least a 50 percent reduction in downforce because it is the high downforce that masks the spectacle and the other tech.

Advertisement

#20 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 28 January 2012 - 08:32




Just adopt about 1980 F5000 F1 wings and bodywork styles. And a free normally aspirated engine with a 10000rpm limit. And 2 engines and transaxles for the season. That will slow them down and encourage the minnows. But the same teams will win but not by so much.


I have often suggested 4.0 litre engines using a set bore/stroke ratio, 10,000rpm limited with 5 speed gearboxes - lets encourage wide powerbands and visual driving skills.



If I wanted to watch boring racing with dead slow cars I would be watching electric car racing instead!


You will not notice 2 or 3 seconds of lap time gone.


You do realise you're talking about subjective things. F1 in the past was an entirely different sport... And I entirely disagree with the looks. I actually like the current look... and so do some others...Go watch another formula if you want cars sometimes skidding around.


So your opinion is ok but we're not entitled to ours? Judging by the "Great F1 photos" thread in Racing Comments forum, apparently not a lot agree with your "looks" sentiments....

GP cars from 1901 through to today "skid around", it is a more visual appreciation of the driver's skill and the car's handling that I seek - maybe you would appreciate Slot Car Racing inline with current F1 handing.


Also, did you guys not watch the 2011 season or something...? There was so much overtaking...


Some of us grew up through eras where a pass was considerably more deserved than 'DRS instigated' ones in 2011 were - no disrespect meant to the drivers, they are merely using the tools they have.


#21 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 691 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 28 January 2012 - 10:32

I dont remember there being as much passing in the 80`s as there is now... certainly a lot more mechanical failures but passing at the front was still pretty rare... Reducing downforce to me seems as artificial as Kers or DRS.... we got what we wanted in 2012 didnt we? Lots of passing... These cars still move around a lot, you dont see it on TV.

The other part of this argument, why would anyone think a top line driver will be easy to pass?

#22 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 28 January 2012 - 11:10

The laptimes today could be done with less downforce.

you need to remove weight and add rubber.

Down to 500ish kg should be doable while maintaining the power figure. turbo motor.. max 7 gears.

KERS is about 40-30kg?

thats down to 600kg today.

drop the minimum engine weight allowed down 10kg.

590kg.

shorten the wheelbase from 3000mm (btw thats longer than a frickin superbird...)

to i dunno ...2500mm? that should save some material.

say 10kg

580kg.

Increased focus on weight rather than aero should drop the weight some more.

say to 570.

due to the increased efficiency of a turbo engine you could save some weight on the coolers too.

Could probably ditch some more somewhere but i think its safe to say 550-570kg is easily doable.

how much laptime does weight add anyway?

a good benefit of having lower weight is that the car does loose speed faster due to aero drag. thats handy in accidents.

Edited by MatsNorway, 28 January 2012 - 11:32.


#23 GeoffR

GeoffR
  • Member

  • 504 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 28 January 2012 - 11:10

.. we got what we wanted in 2012 didnt we?

Did I miss something? Is 2012 over already?  ;)
The things that look absolutely stupid on current F1 cars are the oversized front wing and undersized rear wing. Despite what else the FIA may do to 'even up' the racing let's at least see a more balanced look with the wings (please). Oh, and while we're at it, a wider track would add to the visual look of the cars as well.

#24 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 691 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 28 January 2012 - 12:04

Did I miss something? Is 2012 over already?  ;)
The things that look absolutely stupid on current F1 cars are the oversized front wing and undersized rear wing. Despite what else the FIA may do to 'even up' the racing let's at least see a more balanced look with the wings (please). Oh, and while we're at it, a wider track would add to the visual look of the cars as well.


Oops, I meant 2011 but I`m guessing there will be plenty of passing in 2012 again.. we`re a long way from 2001-2004..... and yep, the cars do look hideous. Certainly as bad as some of the really bad ones from the 70`s, difference being nowadays we have a whole grid full of them.

#25 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 28 January 2012 - 12:22

I dont remember there being as much passing in the 80`s as there is now...


...obviously including the potential arising from the DRS and cars specifically designed to aid passing such as specific wing design, size and placement - do you remember an FIA "Overtaking Working Group" being required or even mentioned in the 80's?

You guys are amazing, one year of falsified, mechanically controlled aided passing along with car design rule changes to aid passing and suddenly you forget all the years prior to it that everyone was screaming about "no on track passing" and only "passing in the pits".

You guys may see the icing only but I still smell the dog turd underneath.


Next...

I saw a Pirelli press release http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/97169
"Pirelli promises more exciting races in 2012 Formula 1 season"

WTF has it got to do with the tyre company? Eff off - put rock hard compounds on them, mind your own business and let the cars, drivers and teams sort it out on track.


#26 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 28 January 2012 - 12:25

I know one should talk only of what he knows first hand, not hearsay.


Are you trying to destroy the Internet?


#27 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 691 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 28 January 2012 - 12:38

You got my point well Cheapy.

On TNF, as you know, they are complaining about the "rant on" thread. They should take a look at some of the threads here...


Um, I think you misunderwstood me there Ragazzoni...

I was there in the 80`s, I never said anything was better or worse... just that there wasnt much passing in the 80`s at the front either.. its been like that for a long time in Formula One, why would anyone think these guys would, or should, be easy to pass without engineering help....??

#28 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,508 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 28 January 2012 - 15:14

Tazio Nuvolari was very much in favour of...... Get back to the point chaps! The FIA wail and gnash their teeth about slowing the cars, that they are too way too fast; they then come up with enormously complicated ways of, supposedly, slowing them down - New engines, turbos, trick tyres etc; given that all teams build new chassis every year, then a chassis based change would seem the simplest and least expensive route. The revised spec would severely reduce aerodynamic options, therefore reducing the cost involved in creating aero kits - The same drivers will still win, the same teams will still win, but the development gap should be smaller.

#29 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 January 2012 - 18:27

Tazio Nuvolari was very much in favour of...... Get back to the point chaps! The FIA wail and gnash their teeth about slowing the cars, that they are too way too fast; they then come up with enormously complicated ways of, supposedly, slowing them down - New engines, turbos, trick tyres etc; given that all teams build new chassis every year, then a chassis based change would seem the simplest and least expensive route. The revised spec would severely reduce aerodynamic options, therefore reducing the cost involved in creating aero kits - The same drivers will still win, the same teams will still win, but the development gap should be smaller.


The answer has been there ever since it was concluded by a working group set up by Max.
Reduce downforce by 50 percent.
It was the teams who would not accept it.
To much money invested in windtunnels and highly paid aero experts.
They were also terrified of changing the status quo and having to learn about mechanical grip design and finding good enough staff to do the job.
It has been decades since that base of engineering excelence has existed.
Why change a good earner that keeps the top less than six teams within tight lap times of each other.
They are missing the main point, F1 will not survive if changes are not made.
2014 will be make or break.
Already it is changed from inline four cylinders to V6 for the sake of Ferrari.
KERS is now just a package item with nothing in the regs to allow any real ideas to be developed, technology is all but stagnant now.
It was supposed to develop the new revolution in technology, it is now just a marketing exercise for drinks companies and ancient supercars.

#30 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,243 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 January 2012 - 23:21

Modern F1 where you have to have flappy wings and 10 lap tyres so you have any passing! I am never going to buy Pirellis as I want tyres that give reasonable mileage!!
And as Geoff said they look like crap. Including on the track where they are oh so fast, for about 3 laps until the tyres go off.And I concur with his comments.
Yes F1 has never had much passing at the front, an unfortunate effect of professional motorsport but going back to a car that looked clean and uncluttered as a 1980 car with comparitivly inneficient aero will slow them down
Oh and F1s are supposed to be the ultimate power so 4 cyl turbos and V6s are not. That is apeing modern family hacks. Ferraris should have 12s and the rest of the mortals 8s!! And we have been the turbo route and that was fairly average too.

#31 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 691 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 28 January 2012 - 23:27

Modern F1 where you have to have flappy wings and 10 lap tyres so you have any passing! I am never going to buy Pirellis as I want tyres that give reasonable mileage!!
And as Geoff said they look like crap. Including on the track where they are oh so fast, for about 3 laps until the tyres go off.And I concur with his comments.
Yes F1 has never had much passing at the front, an unfortunate effect of professional motorsport but going back to a car that looked clean and uncluttered as a 1980 car with comparitivly inneficient aero will slow them down
Oh and F1s are supposed to be the ultimate power so 4 cyl turbos and V6s are not. That is apeing modern family hacks. Ferraris should have 12s and the rest of the mortals 8s!! And we have been the turbo route and that was fairly average too.


Pirelli built the tyre that they were asked to build. Their road tyres have nothing in common with their F1 rubber at all.

#32 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,243 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 January 2012 - 23:31

Pirelli built the tyre that they were asked to build. Their road tyres have nothing in common with their F1 rubber at all.

I realise that but does the normal person on the street?

#33 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,767 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:51

I realise that but does the normal person on the street?

I was saying the same thing when it was Bridgestone tyres. "They can't be much good if they only last 15 laps" :drunk:

What about the environmental issues with using multiple sets of tyres per race? Some green people talk about the waste of fuel in F1, if they realized the waste in tyres...

#34 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:37

Oh and F1s are supposed to be the ultimate power so 4 cyl turbos and V6s are not. That is apeing modern family hacks. Ferraris should have 12s and the rest of the mortals 8s!! And we have been the turbo route and that was fairly average too.


Ultimate power is irelevent, many other ic engines make far more power and always have.
Ultimate technology is what it should be and you cannot have that with regulations and mind sets that have held it back for decades.
All it is now is a old boys benefit for makers of model aeroplanes.

#35 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 691 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 29 January 2012 - 11:47

Ultimate power is irelevent, many other ic engines make far more power and always have.
Ultimate technology is what it should be and you cannot have that with regulations and mind sets that have held it back for decades.
All it is now is a old boys benefit for makers of model aeroplanes.


But Gerrard, you clearly must realise we dont have a circuit in existance that could cope with such ultimate speed.... Frank Williams made a valid point many years ago about the difference in air space that jets need to fight compared to piston engined fighters...

And do we really want to watch this kind of thing as a spectacle?



As a serious question, what would be the Formula you would settle on, for a 2012 era Formaula One, that could race properly on todays 9 in some cases extremely bland ) circuits, provide engineers the freedom they crave, and satisify the many decades later post war intollerance for fatalities in motor sport?

To be fair, as a boy in the late 70`s I had kind of hoped that by 2012 we`d have done away with wheels and tyres altogther....



#36 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 January 2012 - 13:17

As a serious question, what would be the Formula you would settle on, for a 2012 era Formaula One, that could race properly on todays 9 in some cases extremely bland ) circuits, provide engineers the freedom they crave,


More cubes for more torque to make the exits of the now common tight and slow stuff more exciting - obviously more torque than traction but less hp, easy to do if they wanted to. Actually the coming 1.6 Turbo's will have more torque than the current 2.4's but not the throttle finesse.


To be fair, as a boy in the late 70`s I had kind of hoped that by 2012 we`d have done away with wheels and tyres altogther....


I had those "The Year 2000" books in school too :lol:


#37 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 29 January 2012 - 14:25

As a serious question, what would be the Formula you would settle on, for a 2012 era Formaula One, that could race properly on todays 9 in some cases extremely bland ) circuits, provide engineers the freedom they crave, and satisify the many decades later post war intollerance for fatalities in motor sport?


Simple, an energy over distance formula using any technology with downforce measured and reduced by 50 percent of the current figure.

It would of course be electric.

#38 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 January 2012 - 15:03

Maybe just stop this charade of bizarre rules and turn F1 to a control single spec series?

Reducing downforce, slowing down the cars, banning innovation (and other cool stuff), tightening the the rules to the degree of specifying almost every inch of the car plus artificial gizmos like DRS - It's clearly heading this way anyway.

They are reducing downforce all the time and it did nothing good for the sport imho.
Reducing it by 50%? It would be fun to have F1 cars slower than the GP2 ones :p

I wish that they just returned to proper ground effects (reducing the wings at the same time) and more powerful engines.


Rant over.

Edited by DrProzac, 29 January 2012 - 15:03.


#39 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 January 2012 - 17:24

It would be fun to have F1 cars slower than the GP2 ones :p


F1 has not always been the fastest race series out there nor does it need to be.

Of course logically you would expect F1 to be faster than F2, F2 to be faster than F3 etc ..


Advertisement

#40 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 29 January 2012 - 20:33

Maybe just stop this charade of bizarre rules and turn F1 to a control single spec series?

Reducing downforce, slowing down the cars, banning innovation (and other cool stuff), tightening the the rules to the degree of specifying almost every inch of the car plus artificial gizmos like DRS - It's clearly heading this way anyway.

They are reducing downforce all the time and it did nothing good for the sport imho.
Reducing it by 50%? It would be fun to have F1 cars slower than the GP2 ones :p

I wish that they just returned to proper ground effects (reducing the wings at the same time) and more powerful engines.


Rant over.


Innovations and cool stuff?
Peeerlease.
You dont mean re-applying things from half a century ago when the rules change to allow it do you. :rotfl:

#41 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,508 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 29 January 2012 - 23:13

I reckon my idea would go a fair way towards reducing downforce by 50%. Watching speed is not thrilling, watching racing is thrilling, watching drivers having trouble keeping control of their cars is thrilling, it is the corners which excite, not the strights - If sheer speed was thrilling F1 would take place in straight lines at Bonneville.

#42 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 30 January 2012 - 00:32

.......Watching speed is not thrilling, watching racing is thrilling, watching drivers having trouble keeping control of their cars is thrilling, it is the corners which excite, not the strights .....


Bloggsworth,

While I think I understand what you meant to say, I would have phrased it differently. "Watching drivers having trouble keeping control of their cars" is not thrilling, since that would likely imply lots of crashes. However, watching a driver maintain control of their car when it is pushed beyond the limits of traction is very impressive.

Downforce in current F1 cars is not the boogeyman most make it out to be. F1 cars had far less downforce in 1988, and that year one chassis design won 15 of 16 races.

Personally, I'd like to see unlimited KERS and unlimited aero.

slider

#43 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,741 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:32

Why can't the rule-makers think simply. If the FIA introduced a rule saying that the driver's heels should be at the same level as the lowest point of his backside and that top of his knees should be no more than, say, 400mm above his heels, this would have a dramatic effect on the underfloor aerodynamics - Arguments against please.



Flat undertray from front to rear - oh yeah they have that now but obviously my idea of where the front starts and the rear ends is completely different from theirs.

Add to this at the rear end of the flat tray, a 90 degree flat plate say 800mm wide x 400mm high right where the following cars nose will be to bring slipstreaming back, not to silly Hanford levels but bring it back.

Single element front wings and twin element rear wings, none of the current fluff.

We could be here all day but the bottom line is they could if they wanted to - they obviously don't want to.

Flat undertrays, aboslutelly no bodywork facing the floor board - everything but wings and suspesion arms must never face the ground. Just like the sweet McLaren MP4/2 I have just seen in a McLaren dealer in Newport Beach half an hour ago.

#44 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:53

...and unlimited aero.

slider

Surely, 'unlimited' aero means fan cars. Or do you mean 'restricted' unlimited aero?

#45 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:10

F1 cars had far less downforce in 1988, and that year one chassis design won 15 of 16 races.


And cars behind raced for podiums and places and teams were free to catch up which they did eventually and went past.

History is full of ground breaking cars that require other teams to play catch up, that in itself has been one of the excitements of F1 but now they just hobble the lot by chipping away at stupid rules rather than changing those stupid rules.

Since we all know that strakes in the diffuser cause vortices and we know the vortices are a major cause of downforce disturbance to the following cars, tell me why the FIA simply hasn't banned strakes? So easy to do without major car redesign or major loss of downforce - are they that stupid?

1980's ground effect cars didn't disturb the following cars (other than normal drag factors) because they didn't have strakes/vortices.


#46 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:42

Unlimited aero?
When will the point be reached then when aero becomes so great that the racing line becomes irelevent?
Then you might just as well have no drivers and just run big slot racing cars.

Its all been done to death anyway.
If you want to play with aero, go and build model aeroplanes, there is more scope in that.

If F1 it is the obsession with aero that has forced the regulations so that now practicaly all the other engineering paths for development are masked by aero and effectively stagnated within tight boxes of regulation.
KERS is a glaring example, pretty soon there will be one standard KERS everyone uses and no development whatsoever.

Edited by 24gerrard, 30 January 2012 - 09:43.


#47 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:27

If you want to play with aero, go and build model aeroplanes, there is more scope in that.


Agreed 100%

KERS is a glaring example, pretty soon there will be one standard KERS everyone uses and no development whatsoever.


If that happens, it's time for FIA to double KERS power/energy and reduce fuel limit by 30% or more.

#48 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 30 January 2012 - 13:29

Agreed 100%



If that happens, it's time for FIA to double KERS power/energy and reduce fuel limit by 30% or more.

Which ever way you look at it F1 will end up all electric. :up: :up: :up:

#49 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,508 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 30 January 2012 - 21:42

Bloggsworth,

While I think I understand what you meant to say, I would have phrased it differently. "Watching drivers having trouble keeping control of their cars" is not thrilling, since that would likely imply lots of crashes. However, watching a driver maintain control of their car when it is pushed beyond the limits of traction is very impressive.


I said exactly what I meant - I said keeping control, not losing control.



#50 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 31 January 2012 - 01:09

I don't agree with posters who claim that restriction means less innovation, &c. First, I'd get rid of arcane rules that were made as knee-jerk reactions in days long gone (like that wings must be attached to sprung mass of the car), some that make no sense (no movable aerodynamic devices), &c... And then I think limiting downforce could be interesting to see- say 500kg cars with 1000kg downforce (or whatever the amount). If they want movable wings mounted to uprights, fan cars (as long as they to not throw stones at drivers behind) or ground effects, or whatever is up to designers- as long as they stay within prescribed downforce limit.

As for engines, I'm still undecided- I'm in favour of either capping the power output and leaving everything else open (and that would mean everything incl. Wankels and opposed piston two-strokes to turbodiesels) or capping the fuel/energy consumption and leaving everything else open (fuel limit may have failed in '80-ies- but maybe cleverer phrasing of the rules could prevent the same happening again).