516 replies to this topic

[ensign14]

Using nothing but my copious and comprehensive genius, which, to be fair, is like bringing an Exocet to a fistfight, I have solved Formula 1's problems.

 

Ban front wings.

 

What's more, they could do it tomorrow in the name of safety.  Because front wings are unsafe.

 

1. They can cut tyres.  And look what happened yesterday.  Flailing debris could have had someone's eye out. 

 

2. Drivers cannot see their front wings.  Ant Davidson made the point yesterday defending Rosberg from a charge of wilfully, rather than negligently, cutting Hamilton's tyre.  How can front wings be safe if they're the first part of the car to hit something - and the driver cannot see them? 

 

3. If a front wingset gets displaced by e.g. nerfing someone up the jaxie, the assembly can get dislodged under the car, thus launching the car into the wild blue yonder - and of course there's no longer any downforce on the front nose area.

 

But there are other advantages as well.

 

4. One of the complaints about overtaking is that so much downforce is generated from the front of the car.  Following someone else means that you lose that, as there's less air flowing over.  Hence increasing the size of the wings to make that easier.  Well, if the front downforce is taken off the car, there's no difference whether you're running on your own or behind one.  Plus all the cars will go more slowly into corners, there will be more braking space for someone to concoct an overtake.

 

5. They're a waste of money.  Teams spend millions in the windtunnel and making ever-more-complex wingshapes.  Yet we've seen cars barely slowed by losing large elements of wing.  In one or two instances, they seem to go faster.  They don't provide bang for buck.

 

6. One argument in favour of wings in the past was they allowed more sponsor space.  These days it's impossible to see a sponsor name on the wing.  Too complex in shape.  So that advantage now becomes a disadvantage - the non-earning wing makes the sport less attractive.

 

7. One justification of F1 to the green lobby is that benefits transfer down to the road car.  Road cars do not have front wings. 

 

To sum up, front wings may look sculptured, but as far as motor racing goes, they're unsafe, pointless and a hindrance.

 

Boo ya.

[Risil]

Or Indycar-style rear wheel guards. Or failing that, rounded edges only on the endplates.

[MikeV1987]

not sure if this thread is serious tbh lol  

Edited by MikeV1987, 25 August 2014 - 13:39.

[Fulcrum]

Formula E style front wings solve this problem:

[jmoboy1]

I'm no technical expert, but surely banning front wings would create more accidents? Front wings aid downforce, which helps safe cornering and keeps the car pointing in a straight line. Tyres can also fly off cars in accidents - ban them as well?

[Skroob]

Put a splitter and fenders on them.....oh wait

[muramasa]

well I cannot see the bumpers of my car from drivers seat as well. It requires some getting used to to be able to get the feeling right. Same for racing cars and racing drivers, so I think that's weak as argument.

 

But I sort of agree with narrowing front wings down, at least to ~08 level, purely from aero point of view. I mean, use more downforce from ground effect, less from wings or over-the-body aero. Front wing has significant role in guiding air to upper diffuser for more under-the-body downforce, but I  dont consider that as ground effect.

Adopt more ground effect. GP2 used to have, Super Formula had one, now still has sealed diffuser with stepped bottom and simpler overall aero, those US series have/had, and none of these series encountered safety issues or suffered boring races due to being unable to battle coz of aero characteristics. If anything, racing is generally better and closer to "genuine" with ground effect.

[jimjimjeroo]

Just ban tyres!!!

[Ali_G]

not sure if this thread is serious tbh lol  

 

Early 80's a lot of cars ran without front wings due to the downforce being generated by the venturis. 

 

 

 

Banning the wings would be very interesting in ways.  The front of the cars would be radically redesigned.  Most likely wider noses and designers would try to bring the CoF of the floor forwards to compensate.

Edited by Ali_G, 25 August 2014 - 13:55.

[uffen]

I recall that some time ago front wing edges were rounded to prevent tire damage. Has this changed, or is it another failed FIA initiative?

[GoldenColt]

 

Boo ya.

 

The funny moment when you realize you've finished off this comment by saying "Boo ya" and a user called "Ali_G" liked it.

[NoSanityClause]

Just replace them with chicken wings.

 

Mmmmh...chicken wings....

[PayasYouRace]

Well they're kinda essential for aero balance.

 

I don't think we'd want to cut downforce that much. There's already enough complaints about the cars being too slow. We'd have to re-introduce ground effect-chassis to make up for it. The FE endplate "wedges" above would seem a more sensible solution.

[Ali_G]

Well they're kinda essential for aero balance.

 

 

With current car designs yes.  Ban front wings and designers will just have to move the centre of aero forward for the rest of the car.  Cars would look different IMO.  Much longer side  pods for one. 

 

A move like this would greatly aid overtaking IMO.

[PayasYouRace]

With current car designs yes.  Ban front wings and designers will just have to move the centre of aero forward for the rest of the car.  Cars would look different IMO.  Much longer side  pods for one. 

 

A move like this would greatly aid overtaking IMO.

 

Ban front wings and unless you totally rework the front bodywork regulations you'd not get anywhere. It would be much more than a simple ban on front wings.

 

This thread is just an overreaction to yesterday's events. It wasn't even the wing, but the endplate, that caused the problem.

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'd be fascinated to come up with a truly modern GE car that wouldn't require a front wing. It might even look amazing. But it would require a massive overhaul in the regulations. They're not open enough at the moment that simply banning front wings would force the teams into alternatives.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 25 August 2014 - 14:06.

[jmoboy1]

With current car designs yes.  Ban front wings and designers will just have to move the centre of aero forward for the rest of the car.  Cars would look different IMO.  Much longer side  pods for one. 

 

A move like this would greatly aid overtaking IMO.

Cars in the early 80's were UGLY - like painted cardboard boxes with wheels. If banning front wings would mean that we'd have to go back to that, then NO THANKS!

[HoldenRT]

I am so sick of seeing topics on here that overreact after their favourite driver has some bad luck.  If Alonso gets a harsh penalty.. "change the rule" (memories of Valencia a few years ago), or if someone has bad luck with SC, or a pitstop penalty or post race penalty or whatever else.  But if it happens to another driver, it goes unnoticed and no one cares.  Lewis has bad luck from having his tyre cut from front wing.  Let's ban front wings.  Next race, Alonso has broken suspension from turn 1 contact.  Let's remove suspension.

 

Ban the drivers from being able to fight each other?  Ban penalties?

 

Maybe this OP is intended as humour or parody or sarcasm.  It's pretty funny if it's true. 

 

But that general trend over the years becomes annoying.  Where things are only important when it happens to a popular driver.  It's like fans of the popular drivers live in their own self involved selfish little universe where everything should revolve around that driver.

[Ali_G]

Ban front wings and unless you totally rework the front bodywork regulations you'd not get anywhere. It would be much more than a simple ban on front wings.

 

This thread is just an overreaction to yesterday's events. It wasn't even the wing, but the endplate, that caused the problem.

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'd be fascinated to come up with a truly modern GE car that wouldn't require a front wing. It might even look amazing. But it would require a massive overhaul in the regulations. They're not open enough at the moment that simply banning front wings would force the teams into alternatives.

 

IIRC, sidepods are permitted to go as far as the front axle.  That in itself would bring the CoF forward considerably.  Banning front wings would prob come with some sort of reintroduction of ground effect.  2 limited sized venturis would be nice.

[Ali_G]

Cars in the early 80's were UGLY - like painted cardboard boxes with wheels. If banning front wings would mean that we'd have to go back to that, then NO THANKS!

 

Nonsense.  Do you think the Lotus 79 is ugly ?

 

[PayasYouRace]

IIRC, sidepods are permitted to go as far as the front axle.  That in itself would bring the CoF forward considerably.  Banning front wings would prob come with some sort of reintroduction of ground effect.  2 limited sized venturis would be nice.

 

They'd have to allow non-flat floors again. Bringing a flat-bottomed sidepod forward doesn't really change much apart from making the car more sensitive in pitch.

[Longtimefan]

Just what F1 needs, another knee jerk reaction..

[Ross Stonefeld]

Front wings aid downforce, which helps safe cornering...

 

I'm not sure crashing at a higher speed is safer?

[Fonzey]

I recall that some time ago front wing edges were rounded to prevent tire damage. Has this changed, or is it another failed FIA initiative?

 

They've got a radius rule and a 5mm(?) thickness rule.

 

Problem is, you can weaken the side wall of a quickly rotating tyre under load with a tennis ball - I don't think altering wing shape will completely rule out punctures, but protecting the wheels might.

[ensign14]

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'd be fascinated to come up with a truly modern GE car that wouldn't require a front wing. It might even look amazing. But it would require a massive overhaul in the regulations. They're not open enough at the moment that simply banning front wings would force the teams into alternatives.

 

They have a technical working group that's meant to take these sorts of things into account, but the TWG's past record suggests their solution would be to make cars out of xenon or force them to have 6.5 wheels.

 

For info, the thought I had was not something I had yesterday, but something I've been pondering for a while.  Yesterday - and remember there were two tyre-cutting incidents - was a useful pretext.

[Brazzers]

Just give them crosshairs with lasers attached, and rocket launchers inside the side pods.

[pingu666]

They've got a radius rule and a 5mm(?) thickness rule.

 

Problem is, you can weaken the side wall of a quickly rotating tyre under load with a tennis ball - I don't think altering wing shape will completely rule out punctures, but protecting the wheels might.

 

im not sure they are cutting the sidewall, another posibility is to cut the vavle stem, that was normaly happened in nascar.

 

but a simplification of front wing endplates i wouldnt mind, its crazy how complex they are

[Jon83]

Just ban the lot

[Ali_G]

They'd have to allow non-flat floors again. Bringing a flat-bottomed sidepod forward doesn't really change much apart from making the car more sensitive in pitch.

 

Depending on where you'd place the splitter it would bring the CoF forward even with a stepped bottom.  Obviously, this would reduce rear downforce and force cars to run more rear wing.

[Ali_G]

.

but a simplification of front wing endplates i wouldnt mind, its crazy how complex they are

 

For such little gain too.  Look how fast Rosberg was yesterday even with all the damage to his endplate.

[DaddyCool]

There was a topic or two on narrowing a front wing before, and those were not made as a knee-jerk reaction to a driver's misfortune.

 

I still stand by my opinion that we should go back to pre-2009 wings, as they have clearly failed their intended purpose (easier overtaking). There were / are too many incidents like what happened tomorrow because of these stupid wings.

 

So in summary they look like ****, ruin racing, and do not help overtaking. Why do we still have these once again?

[Atreiu]

The 80s cars without front wings were beautiful. But the entire cars which much more simply and proportional, IMO.

 

Can anyone please do a photoshop to give us an idea of how current cars would work? I have no attachment whatsoever to these contemporary labyrinthic wings.

[Clatter]

I'm no technical expert, but surely banning front wings would create more accidents? Front wings aid downforce, which helps safe cornering and keeps the car pointing in a straight line. Tyres can also fly off cars in accidents - ban them as well?

The wings are there to enable the cars to take corners quicker. Take them away and they will be slower and any crashes would happen at a lower speed which would in fact be safer.

[KirilVarbanov]

Is that thread really tongue-in-cheek? Driving RWD 750HP Formula 1 car without front downforce would be a big joke. Front wings are fine. Drivers control the car. 

[pup]

Ban front wings and unless you totally rework the front bodywork regulations you'd not get anywhere. It would be much more than a simple ban on front wings.

 

This thread is just an overreaction to yesterday's events. It wasn't even the wing, but the endplate, that caused the problem.

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'd be fascinated to come up with a truly modern GE car that wouldn't require a front wing. It might even look amazing. But it would require a massive overhaul in the regulations. They're not open enough at the moment that simply banning front wings would force the teams into alternatives.

 

The cars would look like the old Pininfarina Sigma Concept, and they would be beautiful.  Not only that, but switching to a single center-mounted wing would alleviate almost all of the overtaking problems currently caused by cars losing df when traveling in another car's wake.  And the wing would provide more rollover protection.  And the cars would be more aerodynamically efficient.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc. 

 

Edited by pup, 25 August 2014 - 14:46.

[RealRacing]

Hmm could be. Just making them narrower would already improve the hipersensitivity to close racing these days.

[Ali_G]

Is that thread really tongue-in-cheek? Driving RWD 750HP Formula 1 car without front downforce would be a big joke. Front wings are fine. Drivers control the car. 

 

Driving an F1 car without wings would really test the drivers.  Much better spectacle IMO.  More power and less grip is what is needed.

[drag]

I want to see smaller and narrower front and rear wing

[PayasYouRace]

The cars would look like the old Pininfarina Sigma Concept, and they would be beautiful.  Not only that, but switching to a single center-mounted wing would alleviate almost all of the overtaking problems currently caused by cars losing df when traveling in another car's wake.  And the wing would provide more rollover protection.  And the cars would be more aerodynamically efficient.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc. 

 

 

 

No. Just no. They would look much more like the old champcars in super-speedway configuration. God that thing is ugly.

 

The nature of the downforce loss due to following another car is due to turbulence. Having the wing in the centre wouldn't alleviate the problem (though your balance might not be affected as much).

 

It would be silly to require the wing to be heavy and strong enough to provide roll over protection.

 

 

Depending on where you'd place the splitter it would bring the CoF forward even with a stepped bottom.  Obviously, this would reduce rear downforce and force cars to run more rear wing.

 

It would require a somewhat forward splitter design.

 

Remember that we'd be talking about replicating the current balance-providing downforce of the front wing with an underbody effect. If you wanted to run more rear wing you'd have to have an underbody effect that is even greater than the current front wings.

 

A front wingless car would probably force the cars to run less rear wing.

[aguri]

This is a surprisingly good idea from a safety point of view and I think it could really improve F1. However you would have to reintroduce Ground Effects at the same time, as well as freeing up engine regs and what-not, in order to maintain current levels of performance. 

Sad to see so many dismissing this idea out of hand. It is arguably a more justifiable change than grooved tyres, the plank, drs, artificial nose size regs etc.

[muramasa]

lol what's that BrawnGP car

[Ross Stonefeld]

Make them like the Indycar short-oval package from years ago. A big rear wing to control the power, but a laughable front wing.

 

[scheivlak]

Nonsense.  Do you think the Lotus 79 is ugly ?

 

 

Do my eyes deceive me? I see quite some front wing there.

 

(I like their simplicity BTW)

Edited by scheivlak, 25 August 2014 - 14:57.

[Fastcake]

For such little gain too.  Look how fast Rosberg was yesterday even with all the damage to his endplate.

 

There's even been one or two reports that front wing damage has actually improved performance.

[PayasYouRace]

 

4. One of the complaints about overtaking is that so much downforce is generated from the front of the car.  Following someone else means that you lose that, as there's less air flowing over.  Hence increasing the size of the wings to make that easier.  Well, if the front downforce is taken off the car, there's no difference whether you're running on your own or behind one.  Plus all the cars will go more slowly into corners, there will be more braking space for someone to concoct an overtake.

 

5. They're a waste of money.  Teams spend millions in the windtunnel and making ever-more-complex wingshapes.  Yet we've seen cars barely slowed by losing large elements of wing.  In one or two instances, they seem to go faster.  They don't provide bang for buck.

 

 

I need to correct you on these.

 

4. It's the total downforce that's lost when following closely. The front wing is obviously affected, but it would still happen even with a rear wing only car. But of course a rear wing only car wuold have to have a very skinny wing to not produce impossible understeer at high speeds. As I mentioned above, we'd be talking about much slower cars. I've addressed why ground effect would have to be included to bring performance up, and that brings me to...

 

5. You'd not have much of a saving because the teams would simply focus on getting the front downforce back by other means.

[muramasa]

It would require a somewhat forward splitter design.

 

Remember that we'd be talking about replicating the current balance-providing downforce of the front wing with an underbody effect. If you wanted to run more rear wing you'd have to have an underbody effect that is even greater than the current front wings.

 

A front wingless car would probably force the cars to run less rear wing.

agree. Somewhere nice middle ground b/w current config and no front wing config, with some clever and fresh ideas.

[Ali_G]

Do my eyes deceive me? I see quite some front wing there.

 

(I like their simplicity BTW)

 

I give you, front wingless.

 

[scheivlak]

I give you, front wingless.

 

And suddenly a lot uglier 

[Shambolic]

Ban front wings. Ban rear wings, Allow "flow conditioners" of no more than x size, with a radius of no less than y. Bring back the scrapped aero rules (that would have seen teams having to redo rather than retweak their existing packages/ heirarchy).

 

But then someone other than the established top teams might get it right, and where would all those (missing, possibly due to paywall tv) sponsor logos go?

 

 

Sorry to actually take the thread seriously for a moment, but wings, their fragility, their expense and their clung to for adspace irk me.

[ensign14]

I give you, front wingless.

 

 

A rare shot - I believe that's Geoff Lees up.  Which means it must be France 1982. 

[Pingguest]

If we are looking for radical solutions any way, why shouldn't designers be allowed to make closed-wheel single-seaters? Closed-wheeled cars were used by Mercedes-Bens in the 1950s.