Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"Top of Friday's agenda was the planned increase in downforce"


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

Poll: For 2017 they plan on increasing downforce (89 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think itis a good idea to increase the downforce?

  1. Yes (21 votes [23.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.60%

  2. No (59 votes [66.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.29%

  3. Don't care (9 votes [10.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.11%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 04:26

Seriously? I thought most fans agree that downforce is the devil?

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/122644



Advertisement

#2 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,281 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 01 February 2016 - 07:18

It depends how you increase the downforce though

#3 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 01 February 2016 - 07:25

It depends how you increase the downforce though

Exactly. Downforce isn't evil, dirty air is. They've tried to fix the issue with adjustable front wings, adjustable rear wings, higher narrower rear wings, lower wider front wings etc. 

 

Ground effects anyone?



#4 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 08:29

Exactly. Downforce isn't evil, dirty air is. They've tried to fix the issue with adjustable front wings, adjustable rear wings, higher narrower rear wings, lower wider front wings etc. 

 

Ground effects anyone?

I don't agree. The more downforce you have the more the car behave "as on rails" and that takes out the sensation of speed, the sensation of.... sensation. 

 



#5 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 February 2016 - 08:35

A pair of venturi tunnels of a standard profile is the way to go, simple, cheap and effective



#6 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,281 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 01 February 2016 - 08:37

I don't agree. The more downforce you have the more the car behave "as on rails" and that takes out the sensation of speed, the sensation of.... sensation.

https://www.youtube....h?v=_9Tgw8yzGnQ

On the other hand this means that it is usually physically more difficult to drive then and the cars are faster. All has its pros and cons

Edited by Marklar, 01 February 2016 - 08:46.


#7 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 01 February 2016 - 09:46

On the other hand this means that it is usually physically more difficult to drive then and the cars are faster. All has its pros and cons

That  car can pull more G's hardly translates to spectators and on tv I think? A more nervous car that needs to be corrected while being cornered would seem more ecxting to me.



#8 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 February 2016 - 09:55

It all comes down to the type of downforce the car relies on. I would think the aim is to have downforce that doesn't disappear as soon as you start following another car, for this reason underbody downforce is the way to go, a form of ground effects. 



#9 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,507 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:11

I don't think they should be planning to increase the downforce of cars at all. But if they do it should be via underbodies, rear wings, whatever it is that suffers least in the wake of another car.

But F1 can't even carry out its own ideas anymore, why should they care about ours?

#10 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:12

And a way to increase the slipstream effect perhaps. So overtaking comes more easy and not only relying on the dreaded DRS zones



#11 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 18,050 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:19

That  car can pull more G's hardly translates to spectators and on tv I think? A more nervous car that needs to be corrected while being cornered would seem more ecxting to me.

 

This is why  I think the cars should be made wider and shorter. A squarer track to wheel base ratio (think go-kart as opposed to top fuel dragster) can support higher slip angles and make the cars more fun to watch.

 

I heard the 2017 rules will increase the track to 2000mm again as per pre '98 rules? This will be a good thing as long as they don't allow the cars to grow longer too.

 

Another possible benefit of a shorter car is the reduced aerodynamic surface avilable. This should (in theory) reduce the performance gap between teams as there will be less surface area to innovate (providing they don't allow wider bodywork along with the wider track).



#12 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:29

Yes, the cars are visibly too slow -- the corner speeds are obviously lower than Super Formula Japan, that's a joke  :o  .  [ Yes, difference in corner speeds are obvious to viewers.  Compare a 1995 F1 to 1995 CART on a road course -- the lower corner speed of CART is obvious. ]

 

 

 They should both increase downforce (ideally using a tightly controlled underbody) AND reduce weight by around 100kg.  This will increase visible cornering performance significantly and cement the status of F1 as the premier open wheel car circuit  racing.  :up:  :)



#13 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:31

Exactly. Downforce isn't evil, dirty air is. They've tried to fix the issue with adjustable front wings, adjustable rear wings, higher narrower rear wings, lower wider front wings etc. 

 

Ground effects anyone?

 

I agree that dirty air behind the car is a major problem.

 

But as already mentioned. if major levels of downforse are obtained it makes cars look like cornering on rails. And it does mean that corner speeds are high, and thus: differences between straightline top speed and corner speeds smaller. And if that is the case, then I doubt that you can generate large enough speed differences to allow overtaking. The more because, the faster the car can corner, th less time is needed to cover a certain/given distance. and if it is increasingly more difficult to create enough of a speed difference already...

 

If you ask me: downforce itself is just as much havoc for actual racing as turbulent air generated by downforce generating devices.

 

 

Henri



#14 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:31

They should be looking for a ground effects solution that generates 75% or so of the current downforce levels but without the turbulent air.  No Need for DRS...



#15 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 13,178 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:32

It depends how you increase the downforce though

this.



#16 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:34

I don't agree. The more downforce you have the more the car behave "as on rails" and that takes out the sensation of speed, the sensation of.... sensation. 

 

 

True for closed wheel cars - DTM cars are mightily dull to watch compared to lower touring classes sliding about.., but not really an issue of open wheel cars where you can see the tyres working.

 

Plenty sensation of speed here with EBD high downforce trickery!

 

Compare to the low downforce World Series Renault V6 car, which has visibly less sensation of corner speed:

 

I can't see why people want F1 to have lower downforce and be like a junior or lower tier formulae...  :confused:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 01 February 2016 - 10:43.


#17 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:49

People don't wont less downforce, they want less aero sensitive cars because that kills racing. Ground effect is a good way to achieve that, or bigger tires. An onboard view of a pole position lap where the car is driven on the edge is not really representative of how the audience experiences the cars while watching a race.



#18 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,281 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:02

That car can pull more G's hardly translates to spectators and on tv I think? A more nervous car that needs to be corrected while being cornered would seem more ecxting to me.

Certainly.

I dont really care much about these aspects. Most importantely is that they solve the dirty air problem. And that can be done with less DF, but also with more

#19 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:04

I agree that dirty air behind the car is a major problem.

 

But as already mentioned. if major levels of downforse are obtained it makes cars look like cornering on rails. And it does mean that corner speeds are high, and thus: differences between straightline top speed and corner speeds smaller. And if that is the case, then I doubt that you can generate large enough speed differences to allow overtaking. The more because, the faster the car can corner, th less time is needed to cover a certain/given distance. and if it is increasingly more difficult to create enough of a speed difference already...

 

If you ask me: downforce itself is just as much havoc for actual racing as turbulent air generated by downforce generating devices.

 

 

Henri

 

Exactly. I tried to illustrate with the Carrera video. Of course increase cornering speed also leed to bigger runoffs which puts the cameras further away and the sense of speed reduced again. When FE can give you more sense of speed than F1, the it is not the level of downforce that is the F1's problem.



Advertisement

#20 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,182 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:11

The current cars in the corners look slow, and look like they're not being pushed. This is a problem and I agree they need to be made quicker to be more appealing.
 
Now, whether increasing downforce is the best way to do this is debateable. I reckon if they put performance tyres back again they'd easily gain 2 or 3 seconds, and they'd already be halfway to a sensible limit of how quick the cars can be for safety (I consider this to be around 2004-levels, when the cars were quicker than ever, and there were no horrible crashes or driver blackouts from the G-forces). So perhaps give them different tyres and then increase downforce only very slightly.

Edited by noikeee, 01 February 2016 - 11:13.


#21 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:15

True for closed wheel cars - DTM cars are mightily dull to watch compared to lower touring classes sliding about.., but not really an issue of open wheel cars where you can see the tyres working.

 

Plenty sensation of speed here with EBD high downforce trickery!

 

Compare to the low downforce World Series Renault V6 car, which has visibly less sensation of corner speed:

 

I can't see why people want F1 to have lower downforce and be like a junior or lower tier formulae...  :confused:

 

 

I can't see why people want ever higher corner speeds. If speed is your thrill, maybe. But if you wanna see fightinng for positions and want such battles to stand a chance to succeed, then ever increasing speeds is not what you need.

An formula with ever more downforce will possibly create spectacular qualifying with cars as if on rails. And if outright speed is the major thrill....

But in the race they can only follow another in that track since there simply is not enough time and track distance left to create enough of a speed difference to allow overtaking.

Or do you want changes of position becoming entirely dependent on pit stops?

Increasing the effect of DRS is the only option left apart from push-to-pass, eacht of those options has its dangers.

 

Too much downforce and too much outright speeds kill the racing, as I already tried to explain in post #13.

But it seems to me that most F1 fans are more concerned about outright speeds and lap records broken instead of wanting to see good racing and battles for positions between drivers, be it with slower lap speeds.

 

 

Henri



#22 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,236 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:24

I can't see why people want F1 to have lower downforce and be like a junior or lower tier formulae...  :confused:

Because it can be more fun to watch. :)






#23 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:42

 

 

I can't see why people want F1 to have lower downforce and be like a junior or lower tier formulae...  :confused:

Too slow for you?
 



#24 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,994 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:58

I dont understand why they dont just use ground effect and active suspension.



#25 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 February 2016 - 12:09

I don't agree. The more downforce you have the more the car behave "as on rails" and that takes out the sensation of speed, the sensation of.... sensation.

https://www.youtube....h?v=_9Tgw8yzGnQ

I don't remember the ground effect cars looking slow.

#26 lamo

lamo
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 February 2016 - 12:15

Exactly. Downforce isn't evil, dirty air is. They've tried to fix the issue with adjustable front wings, adjustable rear wings, higher narrower rear wings, lower wider front wings etc. 

 

Ground effects anyone?

Did we ever get adjustable front wings or did the idea nearly make it?



#27 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 01 February 2016 - 12:16

Yes, the cars are visibly too slow -- the corner speeds are obviously lower than Super Formula Japan, that's a joke  :o  .  [ Yes, difference in corner speeds are obvious to viewers.  Compare a 1995 F1 to 1995 CART on a road course -- the lower corner speed of CART is obvious. ]

 

 

 They should both increase downforce (ideally using a tightly controlled underbody) AND reduce weight by around 100kg.  This will increase visible cornering performance significantly and cement the status of F1 as the premier open wheel car circuit  racing.  :up:  :)

 

I think that's more down to the Bridgestones in SF producing more grip....... or so I'm told. The Pirellis in F1 are an odd beast to say the least. And that's not the fault of Pirelli at the end of the day.

 

Put it this way: If you wanted to race in BOSS GP - you'd sell your favourite granny for a set of SF Bridgestones.



#28 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 12:56

I don't remember the ground effect cars looking slow.

They were slower than todays cars, so what's your point?



#29 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 February 2016 - 13:06

They were slower than todays cars, so what's your point?

Today's cars look slow, especially trackside. They don't attack the corners or hustle them round as in the past.

#30 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 01 February 2016 - 13:07

They were slower than todays cars, so what's your point?

Cars don't need to be fast to look fast maybe? I don't care about the laptimes, as long as they don't get ridiculously slow of course. I want proper race cars, with proper racers, doing proper racing.



#31 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 February 2016 - 13:08

Did we ever get adjustable front wings or did the idea nearly make it?

They were there but never worked in the advertised way. The drivers just used them as a trimming aid.

#32 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 5,750 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 01 February 2016 - 13:19

Furthermore, high downforce cars have much shorter brake distances. Since long braking zones are usually the best place to pass lower downforce seems to be an obvious solution.



#33 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 10,268 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 01 February 2016 - 13:49

More downforce = less overtaking. We'd all like the cars to look faster - so let's give them more power instead. Lots and lots more power.



#34 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 February 2016 - 14:21

More downforce = less overtaking. We'd all like the cars to look faster - so let's give them more power instead. Lots and lots more power.

No matter what solution anyone comes up with or the sport implements none will be of any use with the current tyre spec. That's the first thing that needs to be addressed and that instruction has to come from BE.



#35 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 01 February 2016 - 14:30

Cars don't need to be fast to look fast maybe? 

 

Trouble is they don't sound fast either.  The cars of the 90s, while often slower, sounded fast...  Sure the driver should look like they are on the limit, but the engine should sound like it is on the limit too.

 

 

Sounds fast.  Sounds like it is on the limit.  It was the fastest F1 had ever gone at that time...  

 

Today's cars look slow, especially trackside. They don't attack the corners or hustle them round as in the past.

 

:up:

 

 

Furthermore, the Minardis and backmarker-era Jordans looked hard to drive.  Unfortunately the top cars, in that era and especially nowadays, are too sorted (especially with the lowering cornering limit)... Somehow we need to make the top level teams have chassis that handle as bad as the backmarker teams (or indeed as crudely as F1 cars handled in the 1990s)... 

 

 

 

 

I don't know one would enforce this though.  How do you ensure the top teams have bad handling!!??  Low downforce, contrary to other's opinions above, is not enough to ensure bad handling.


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 01 February 2016 - 14:40.


#36 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2016 - 14:42

No matter what solution anyone comes up with or the sport implements none will be of any use with the current tyre spec. That's the first thing that needs to be addressed and that instruction has to come from BE.

 

Trouble is they don't sound fast either.  

 

Okay, so it took less than a page to get back to the tyres and the sound.



#37 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 14:43

Cars don't need to be fast to look fast maybe? I don't care about the laptimes, as long as they don't get ridiculously slow of course. I want proper race cars, with proper racers, doing proper racing.

Well that was my point, so since he responded like that I assumed he had another one. 



#38 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 01 February 2016 - 14:43

Okay, so it took less than a page to get back to the tyres and the sound.

 

The problems are all linked.  They don't exist independently...  :well:

 

Higher grip tyres would make more mech. grip and make better racing, and of course multiply any downforce gains as

 

grip = friction coefficient * (weight + downforce)


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 01 February 2016 - 14:45.


#39 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 14:53

 

 

Furthermore, the Minardis and backmarker-era Jordans looked hard to drive.  Unfortunately the top cars, in that era and especially nowadays, are too sorted (especially with the lowering cornering limit)... Somehow we need to make the top level teams have chassis that handle as bad as the backmarker teams (or indeed as crudely as F1 cars handled in the 1990s)... 

 

 

I don't know one would enforce this though.  How do you ensure the top teams have bad handling!!??  Low downforce, contrary to other's opinions above, is not enough to ensure bad handling.

Sorry, but you make no sense. You want more downforce and cars that are harder to handle, cars should be twitchy and gripless like a Minardi of the last century?

First thing to understand is that when you increase speed through a corner you also reduce the time the driver have to react and you put higher demands on the precision with which he, or she, has to react with. That means that you must reduce the movement and unpredictability to the same amount unless you want cars to just suddenly spin off everywhere. You can not increase the speed AND increase the unpredictability. It would like pressing the throttle and the brake at the same time. When I think about, that is a very F1 way of doing things...
  


Edited by ardbeg, 01 February 2016 - 15:08.


Advertisement

#40 DS27

DS27
  • Member

  • 4,681 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 February 2016 - 15:00

Too slow for you?
 

 

 

Seen it lots of times, but it still makes me grin, especially the sound from about 1:00

 

If we still had cars that visceral, and on-boards that good (sensation of speed), I would happily watch a GP and wouldn't even care whether there was that much overtaking or not.


Edited by DS27, 01 February 2016 - 15:05.


#41 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,395 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 01 February 2016 - 15:32

I don't agree. The more downforce you have the more the car behave "as on rails" and that takes out the sensation of speed, the sensation of.... sensation.

Current cars move around more than the 2010 cars did, but the sense of speed of those earlier cars is greater simply because they were cornering a lot faster.



#42 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 15:42

Current cars move around more than the 2010 cars did, but the sense of speed of those earlier cars is greater simply because they were cornering a lot faster.

It was? They did? 



#43 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,395 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 01 February 2016 - 16:16

It was? They did? 

When I look back at some of the older events (2006-2008 and 2010), the cars look faster to me.  Some of this may be down to better camera angles (not including the wide angle onboard) but also sheer cornering ability.

 

Adrian Newey has stated that the 2010 RB6 produced more downforce than any other car in the history of the sport.  This coupled with those potent Bridgestone Potenza slicks, formed a devastating combination, one that enabled the car to negotiate Campsa in Barcelona flat out.

 

I don't think a reduction in downforce will lead to cars moving around much more.  F1 has become so refined that designers (mid-field and top teams) can balance the cars quite impeccably for the most part.  At Monza where the cars run very little downforce, we don't really notice them sliding much more than usual.

 

I think another issue may be the controls (software) available to the engineers for mapping the throttle pedals and the engine/PU.  For a while cars have employed a form of pseudo traction control, as well as rear wheel ABS and I believe these systems are partly responsible for the cars looking so 'controlled' when on circuit.


Edited by OO7, 01 February 2016 - 19:47.


#44 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 01 February 2016 - 17:49

I dont understand why they dont just use ground effect and active suspension.

I think it is because people involved in F1 still seem to think that turbos, ground effects and active suspensions kill people. 



#45 Donkey

Donkey
  • Member

  • 947 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 01 February 2016 - 18:20

When I look back at some of the older events (2006-2008 and 2010), the cars look faster to me. Some of this may be down to better camera angles (not including the wide angle onboard) but also sheer cornering ability.

Current F1 camera angles are terrible, why are they all so high and wide? Not everyone watches on a huge wide-screen TV. I can understand not wanting to put cameramen in dangerous positions and the high definition cameras are expensive so you want to reduce how many you need, but if they want to give more of a sense of speed then putting more of them at barrier level would surely help?

Also the TV director who insists on multiple replays of the start on lap 3 regardless of whether there is still action going on track just as DRS is enabled needs to be sent to North Korea and publicly executed. Or at least have a splitscreen of the current action at the same time, if NASCAR can figure it out then how hard can it be!

#46 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 February 2016 - 19:26

I dont understand why they dont just use ground effect and active suspension.

 

Remember (or in case it was before your time) the tremendous andvantage Williams had on everyone eles becouse they had mastered the technology way before anyone else? A bit like what we now see with Mercedes mastering the engine technology?

You will gonna get jet another such money demanding race for supremacy between all the teams. (What now budget cap????)

Unless the technology will be standarized as much as possible with simiral/identical compounds for all teams.

Which won't happen.....

 

Henri



#47 917k

917k
  • Member

  • 2,958 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 February 2016 - 19:42

Threads like this prove one thing and one thing only - not only do teams have no clue what they want, fans are all over the map with what they want and how they want it. Just find a reasonable fast formula that can allow close racing. Of course, people forget this is F1 where close racing is pretty rare, and has always been so.



#48 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,395 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 01 February 2016 - 19:53

Current F1 camera angles are terrible, why are they all so high and wide? Not everyone watches on a huge wide-screen TV. I can understand not wanting to put cameramen in dangerous positions and the high definition cameras are expensive so you want to reduce how many you need, but if they want to give more of a sense of speed then putting more of them at barrier level would surely help?

Also the TV director who insists on multiple replays of the start on lap 3 regardless of whether there is still action going on track just as DRS is enabled needs to be sent to North Korea and publicly executed. Or at least have a splitscreen of the current action at the same time, if NASCAR can figure it out then how hard can it be!

A member hear who mentioned that they had worked in TV and were involved in the coverage of F1, said that the poor camera angles are designed to give trackside sponsors as much exposure as possible.  In the past those sponsors negotiated contracts with the circuit promoters and managers, now it is done with FOM.



#49 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 February 2016 - 19:54

Threads like this prove one thing and one thing only - not only do teams have no clue what they want, fans are all over the map with what they want and how they want it. Just find a reasonable fast formula that can allow close racing. Of course, people forget this is F1 where close racing is pretty rare, and has always been so.

 

 

The faster it has to go, the less close racing is possible. You don't see the best duels for positions and tremendous overtaking on merit in the lower formula. A full field of Formula Fords provide more entertainment in battles between drivers trying to outdo another in a single race that F1 in an entire season.

Formula Ford is too slow, F1 too fast, somewhere between is the golden window of perfection.

 

Henri



#50 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,879 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2016 - 19:56

Today's cars look slow, especially trackside. They don't attack the corners or hustle them round as in the past.


Because they have too much downforce. Plus.. Pirelli...

Take some of it away, and up the rpm and fuel flow limit of the engines.

Edited by P123, 01 February 2016 - 19:57.