1239 replies to this topic

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
The teams can use the flap for whatever purpose they choose. They may use it for one part of the track - such as the main straight - and not for the rest of the track. The use of it to balance the car is related to why the rules permitted it. I am not aware that the rules specify the flap can only be used to balance the car when following another.

The problem with the overtaking working group was that their mission was floored from the outset. Grandprix.com's interview published:
http://www.grandprix...ft/ft20831.html

The reason why this flap is there is for balance reasons. The fact that teams may use it for some other purpose is non relevant to the original fact: it is to help with balance problems.

LMP900
Oval racers in CART ran very low CL - more in line with what I think should be used in F1 racing on "European-type" (lazy shorthand) tracks. The track design issue is beyond the scope of this discussion really

If you talk about Cl for the sensitivity To wake then you're right, if you talk about low cl for wake creation then , low Cl wings let turbulences develop hence poses some problem.
But when several parameters (including tracks, balance of downforce etc...) and balanced you can have succesful close racing. I do mean close racing as the fact that you can follow the other one.

I suggest you read my post again - I didn't assert that the active wing control was to alter either balance or downforce level. I simply said I felt it was a tacit admission by the OWG that their modified "passive" aero rules probably aren't going to work.

I think i got your point and that precisely i talked about the purpose of the flap: balance, and that you can't get rid of it, EVEN if you had no wing. As i say often, a car is an object moving through air. Aero shifts do occur.

If you'd work to have less wake, you'd also have less slipstream; this is a trade off. Even in the context of a non downforce car.

When you say "any car be it with a faster or not driver..." - how would you determine whether it was the car who was fast, or the driver? That's never been possible to measure objectively, and it's always been the fastest driver/car combination that wins

Because that would mean the overtaking (necessarily by a faster driver in this case) would be ponctual and caused mainly by the slipstream condition (because 0 differential needed means no loss in downforce thus grip);

And let's add a bit of flow pattern there; you want 0 differential thus no downforce less; it involves having no wake...so no slipstream.
(except if you use adjustable aero)

See, the thing works with no downforce car because they lift.



And what about the lmp wake problem? i'd really like to know more about it.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi


And what about the lmp wake problem? i'd really like to know more about it.

There was a spate of blow-overs 9 or ten years ago. This is what led to the revision of the LMP regulations. True, some of these apparently happened without wake interaction, but at Le Mans the Mercedes (I believe it was Webber's), which had just left the pits, was overtaken by (I think) a Toyota. Even though it wasn't up to racing speed, the Mercedes took off. Blow-overs happened several times, to Mercedes, BMW and Porsche. The event that triggered the rule revision was Alboreto's death in the Audi, which, as far as I know, was not a wake interaction, but the result of a punctured rear tyre which caused the car to yaw. So the emphasis in the rule revision was on reducing drastic CL changes with increasing yaw and roll. Most of the previous events, however, had not been yaw-related, but pitch- or wake-related.

A combination of the new regs and a rather more thoughtful approach to designing and setting-up the cars (both the Porsche and the Mercedes GT prototypes had short wheelbases and huge overhangs, and usually ran with minimal, zero, or even nose-up rake) has reduced the danger. Nevertheless, since upwash in the wake is a necessary corollary of a downforce-generating car, any following car that relies on downforce is still affected - it's inevitable.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
The reason why this flap is there is for balance reasons. The fact that teams may use it for some other purpose is non relevant to the original fact: it is to help with balance problems.

Literally, the flap is there because it effects the aero. It was put there to aid staying close to the car in front, in order to benefit overtaking.

It's obvious that it can be used various ways. If the teams choose to use it for instance on their qualifying lap, which has nothing to do with overtaking, they will still be able to do so. And since cars go through a qualifying procedure, overtaking is not going to be typical of every lap. Hence the teams may decide to use the flap adjustments every lap - and not for the reason why it was introduced - which was to aid overtaking.

[phantom II]

Right.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Literally, the flap is there because it effects the aero. It was put there to aid staying close to the car in front, in order to benefit overtaking.

It's obvious that it can be used various ways. If the teams choose to use it for instance on their qualifying lap, which has nothing to do with overtaking, they will still be able to do so. And since cars go through a qualifying procedure, overtaking is not going to be typical of every lap. Hence the teams may decide to use the flap adjustments every lap - and not for the reason why it was introduced - which was to aid overtaking.

[wewantourdarbyback]

Williams have some snazzy flaps by the drivers head, presumably to manage the flow onto the engine cover, is this an are that is free from restrictions? I haven't read up on it yet.

[pgj]

No, no that's incorrect. The front wing flap adjustment is there for balance, not for downforce; wake structure induces both understeer or overtseer depending on the separation gap and the flap is just there for that.

Ogami, with respect this is the same point that I made, the one that you took exception to. Namely that wing could be added or taken away in order to facilitate overtaking, vis a vis trim. Saying that a VAD is not there for downforce, but is used to trim understeer or oversteer is an oxymoron. Any movement of the VAD will change airflow over the front wing and is therefore affecting downforce. Oversteer and understeer is nothing more that too much or too little grip respectively and is primarily caused by the operation of the front wing.

Because in the view of the OWG, and in my view, the car that wants to overtake should be faster. being faster means simply that you have more downforce available or need less grip so in the end, the downforce you lose should bring you exactly to the same level of grip as the lead car.

Will you expand on this last point please.

[phantom II]

Oh please, no.

Originally posted by pgj
Will you expand on this last point please.

[anbeck]

Originally posted by wewantourdarbyback


Williams have some snazzy flaps by the drivers head, presumably to manage the flow onto the engine cover, is this an are that is free from restrictions? I haven't read up on it yet.

I'm not a specialist, but I think the rules specify an area 15 cms to the left and right of the car's centreline, in which regulations aren't as strict. IIRC this is also why Williams placed their intakes there.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Literally, the flap is there because it effects the aero. It was put there to aid staying close to the car in front, in order to benefit overtaking.

It's obvious that it can be used various ways. If the teams choose to use it for instance on their qualifying lap, which has nothing to do with overtaking, they will still be able to do so. And since cars go through a qualifying procedure, overtaking is not going to be typical of every lap. Hence the teams may decide to use the flap adjustments every lap - and not for the reason why it was introduced - which was to aid overtaking.

Sorry, i don't see the point of your post..

Teams can use it the way they want. The reason it was introduced is to tweak any balance problem( coming from aero shifts) in wake.

that's the OWG statement.

Period. The latter (that teams may use it for anything else), i never disagreed with.

Originally posted by pgj

Ogami, with respect this is the same point that I made, the one that you took exception to. Namely that wing could be added or taken away in order to facilitate overtaking, vis a vis trim. Saying that a VAD is not there for downforce, but is used to trim understeer or oversteer is an oxymoron. Any movement of the VAD will change airflow over the front wing and is therefore affecting downforce. Oversteer and understeer is nothing more that too much or too little grip respectively and is primarily caused by the operation of the front wing.

You said that the lifting section would in the wake cause a increase in downforce by inversing effect.

I said already twice that no such thing exists.

And that the next thing is that the flap will be trimed not for overall grip but for balance. That's is you will still lose downforce from the front wing, but you may lose more from the rear. In this case you'll lower the AOA of the flap on the front to have a neutral balance.

So you have too much downforce on the front wing compared to the rear one, but certainly not too much downforce coming from a pseudo inversion effect that would add downforce to the front wing.

Will you expand on this last point please.

Having a car with 2 secs/lap an advantage means the car is faster overall; in the case of overtaking we admit this advantage to be a pure cornering advantage.
So that means the car with the 2sec/lap advantage has more downforce than the leading one.

Considering a loss in grip, the goal of the OWG would be to have the following car losing some of his downforce to end up with about the same level of grip than the leading car.

What the OWG did, is to lower the necessary downforce advantage (translatable into Seconds/lap advantage) from 2sec to 0,5 seconds which means that a car that wants to overtake would need less downforce advantage to do so.



lmp900 thank you for the explanation.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi

that's the OWG statement.

Is it?

I have never actually read such a statement. Such statements have been typically interviews with members of the OWG, which get reported.

As an example, is there an FIA instruction that's been published about what the OWG's mission was?

I am still bemused by the article which reported a member of the OWG saying that part of OWG's mission was to avoid making overtaking "too easy". IMO making overtaking easy would never have been easy to do. I suspect that member was being sarcastic, and his words got mis-reported.

In fact I think the only way do make such downforce laden and downforce dominated cars easy to be overtaken by a similarly performing car would be to have a proximity sensor that would make the car in front loose power! Hence "too easy" was never part of the OWG's mission. IMO.

Have the OWG actually published their findings and their consequent intentions and rule recommendations?

Or are we just presuming things?

[LMP900]

Originally posted by phantom II
Oh please, no.

LOL

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Have the OWG actually published their findings and their consequent intentions and rule recommendations?

Or are we just presuming things?

Published? For who? For the public? no.

For some other..yes.


PII: Why don't you keep on posting your magnificent messages on politics (within that technical forum..of course) and leave aerodynamics subjects until you get enough knowledge?

[phantom II]

Why don’t you practice what you preach, you communist you.

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
PII: Why don't you keep on posting your magnificent messages on politics (within that technical forum..of course) and leave aerodynamics subjects until you get enough knowledge?

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by phantom II
Why don’t you practice what you preach, you communist you.

Because you don't either...and you're quite off any aero matter 90% of the time. (remember your "air is falling" thing? or the "lift on plane is not due to pressure forces"?)



you, capitalist.

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Is it?

I have never actually read such a statement. Such statements have been typically interviews with members of the OWG, which get reported.

Something like this?

REVISED AERODYNAMICS

What was the idea behind all the changes we’ll see this year in this area?
CW: This was all a result of the work done by the Overtaking Working Group, as it was called, made up of the technical directors of Renault, Ferrari and McLaren, plus myself. After a lot of research, we came up with a package that gave a following car less disturbance and would make overtaking less difficult.

Technical Briefing with Charlie Whiting

HaPe

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by HaPe


Something like this?

Technical Briefing with Charlie Whiting

HaPe

yes, well, that's as close as they go on the FIA web site. But others on the working group have described their thinking, and the reasons behind it - but most of that reporting has been second hand.

I feel fans like us, should be able to read what the OWG was asked to achieve. For instance, if it is true that they were told to improve overtaking, but still make it "not too easy", then I'd like to know how a committee could possibly interpret such an instruction.

I'd like also such a committee, to say things like the following:
" We could have changed the rules so that the marginally quicker trailing car could pass the car in front, but we did not do so for the following reasons".

Or

"It is possible to make a car which is one tenth of a second per lap faster than the car in front of it, able to catch that car and then overtake that one tenth of a second slower leading car, if the following issues were resolved: X, Y and Z".

But we have never been told what the OWG's instructions were. And we also have not been told their findings.

I guess that is OK? Afterall, the teams are spending some money, for good reasons ... or are they?

[Greg Locock]

In what other sport do the fans have any right, or even access, to the detailed deliberations of the ruling bodies?

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
In what other sport do the fans have any right, or even access, to the detailed deliberations of the ruling bodies?

Only another development "sport" would be relevant to F1. So MotoGP would be relevant. And they are debating the issue of TC - whether to allow it or not. The decision about that would be quite open too - why they might remove it.

In the America's Cup - another development sport - when they change the rules in the AC, the reasons why such rule changes are made have been quite open and specific.

In a development series, if the rules are not changed, the competitor's equipment gets closer and closer in comparative performance. When the rules are changed, the performance differences will therefor widen. And changing rules increases development costs.

Changing rules therefor threatens the viability of every F1 team. And therefore threatens the viability of the whole of F1.

Currently there is a shortage of funding from F1 major sponsors, and there is concern about the availability of future funding. An example of this happening, was Ford's (via Jaguar) leaving F1. More recently Honda has quit F1. Renault's involvement in F1 has been reported as being parlous. There are less teams involved in F1 than has been planned for by the FIA. In fact, currently there are less F1 teams than the previously announced minimum number required.

Max Mosley (the President of the FIA) said when Honda announced their withdrawal from F1, that he thought another large player might also soon withdraw. Another is the announcement of RBS's withdrawal. Teams who seek sponsorship - such as Williams does - have said obtaining funding is currently very difficult. The announcement of the withdrawal of ING is another example of funding leaving F1. The viability of the Melbourne GP is therefor threatened, as ING was its major sponsor. Other GPs are also threatened by sponsors withdrawing. Sponsors withdrawing from F1 threatens the whole F1 business model.The shortage of funds from the automotive industry, who are F1's biggest financial contributors, is widely known.

Therefore the reasons for rule changes in F1 should be fully explained and validated. The private contributors - such as the half owner of Red Bull, and others (which I won't list) - also deserve to know that their dollars are being valued. In other words, sponsors are entitled to know that their sponsorship funds are not being wasted.

Working groups - such as the OWG - cost money. The people and resources used by the OWG all cost money - as an example, the wind tunnel tests the OWG conducted, also cost money. If such a group does not have specific requirements - or a specific enunciated mission - then its performance cannot be soundly judged.

The outcomes from the OWG are a major issue for all sponsors. If such a group is not following sound guidelines, then major sponsors might question the soundness of being involved in the F1 (some still refer to it as a "sport" - F1 is not a "sport"). F1 needs to satisfy its sponsors that it is being well run, otherwise further sponsors might withdraw, and the task of attracting new sponsors will become more difficult.

The FIA has conducted appraisals into what the "fans" want - via various marketing tools (which all cost money). That the OWG's specific function has not been published, I find unsatisfactory. I presume though that the teams were informed about what the OWG's specific requirements were. But I do not know if that is the case. And as a fan, I'd like to know exactly what its mission was. Fans spend money on being fans. It costs money to be a fan, in numerous ways. I won't list them, but is it worth it? How otherwise can I judge that F1's rule changes are worthwhile to me?

And if they are not worthwhile to me, then I'll quit too. No more paying subscriptions, no more going to GPs, no more interest in the marketing.

[Tony Matthews]

Very well put, MP

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Tony Matthews
Very well put, MP

Thanks. Too long a post though, but I do think the FIA should be more consequent. They say for instance, that costs should be reduced. But they continually change the rules. And this year, more than ever.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Only another development "sport" would be relevant to F1. So MotoGP would be relevant. And they are debating the issue of TC - whether to allow it or not. The decision about that would be quite open too - why they might remove it.

In the America's Cup - another development sport - when they change the rules in the AC, the reasons why such rule changes are made have been quite open and specific.

In a development series, if the rules are not changed, the competitor's equipment gets closer and closer in comparative performance. When the rules are changed, the performance differences will therefor widen. And changing rules increases development costs.

Changing rules therefor threatens the viability of every F1 team. And therefore threatens the viability of the whole of F1.

I both agree and disagree. Changing the rules often does add to the costs of F1. But I would also like to point out that whilst maintaining the same rules does have the effect of having the teams become closer together, after a certain amount of time the search for the smallest of gains becomes ridiculously expensive. And I guess it is also true of restrictive legislation - the smallest gains in performance cost a lot of money.

At the end of the day the teams will spend all of their money they earn - in prize money or sponsorship, or wherever else.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Thanks. Too long a post though, but I do think the FIA should be more consequent. They say for instance, that costs should be reduced. But they continually change the rules. And this year, more than ever.

And now there is talk of standard KERS for next year, or banning of battery KERS. That means that many of the teams will have wasted 3 or 4 years of development only to have to use something else next year.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Wuzak



I both agree and disagree. Changing the rules often does add to the costs of F1. But I would also like to point out that whilst maintaining the same rules does have the effect of having the teams become closer together, after a certain amount of time the search for the smallest of gains becomes ridiculously expensive. And I guess it is also true of restrictive legislation - the smallest gains in performance cost a lot of money.

At the end of the day the teams will spend all of their money they earn - in prize money or sponsorship, or wherever else.

Quite true, about them spending their money.

And quite true about having close cars does not mean the big spenders will not continue to win. due to still having a distince advantage - although small.

But my issue is more about being consequent. Hence the OWG, and our lack of understanding about what their "mission" was. One member was reported as saying, that they wanted to still make overtaking "not too easy". What the heck does that mean?

Another example of the lack of consequence, is the new downforce rules. The rules people say that downforce was reduced by "55%". But that the teams will get much of that back, and as to how much, the simply do not know. So I ask, what the hell are they doing? IMO, if they want to get the downforce down, then they should put a maximum level of downforce allowed on the cars.

How does one do that? Well, we discussed on a thread years ago. There are several ways - one way is to have load cells that measure the downforce during the race. Another would be to have rolling road sections on the track, which measure a cars downforce. Another place would be in the pitlane, where the cars have to travel at a maximum speed. One would change the rules, and make the cars travel at a set speed, and then have them go over a rolling road where the weight of the car would be measured. Such a place could be in between the end of the pit lane, and the entry to the track. The speed could be say 160khm. Or 120kmh - whatever. Such a simple system would ensure that teams did not have excessive downforce ...

Likewise, if the rules makers want overtaking, then ensure the car behind - all else being equal - does have an advantage. And please don't suggest that would not be possible. It most certainly is.

[SpaMaster]

Something related to what we have been discussing lately.
Sam Michael from Williams:
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/73509
"A lot of it was because traditionally when you followed somebody you got a lot of understeer because you lost front downforce. Now, you can correct it all using the front wing flap."

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
... but I do think the FIA should be more consequent. They say for instance, that costs should be reduced. But they continually change the rules. And this year, more than ever.

As already often said: cutting costs is only one task. Improving the show / the races is another.
I think everybody agrees that F1 needs to improve the show, especially in regard of overtaking (or at least the chance to try it).

However, the often made claim that rule changes costs more money has yet to be proven. I'm not convinced, as no team can use the car of the previous season, they have to develop a new car each year anyway. And nobody was yet able to explain to me, why developing a car with just different parameters (read: changed rules) would be more expensive!
- do the engineers demand more salary because of changed rules?
- gets energy more expensive?
- are the computers, used to develop the 08 car not able to develop the 09 car?
- does a team spend more time in wind tunnel?

The answer to all thses questions is "no". So what is making it more expensive? I dont see any point, that really makes a significant difference.

And finally:
"If you want to win, then you will spend every available cent." Adam Parr (Williams)

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by HaPe


As already often said: cutting costs is only one task. Improving the show / the races is another.
I think everybody agrees that F1 needs to improve the show, especially in regard of overtaking (or at least the chance to try it).

However, the often made claim that rule changes costs more money has yet to be proven. I'm not convinced, as no team can use the car of the previous season, they have to develop a new car each year anyway. And nobody was yet able to explain to me, why developing a car with just different parameters (read: changed rules) would be more expensive!
- do the engineers demand more salary because of changed rules?
- gets energy more expensive?
- are the computers, used to develop the 08 car not able to develop the 09 car?
- does a team spend more time in wind tunnel?

The answer to all thses questions is "no". So what is making it more expensive? I dont see any point, that really makes a significant difference.

It obvious that if a team employs 1,000 people, it is going to use those human resources.

You ask do rule changes increase costs to a team? They can, as exampled by the outsourcing extra costs incurred by KERS. The big teams have spend on average 30 million euros on the KERS programs, a lot would be outsourced. To fly the batteries around and replace them will also cost extra money (flying Lithium Ion batteries, a most toxic material, in large quantities is a major cost and problem also).

Rule changes favor a big team, because they have the resources to handle a bigger project.

Without rule changes, the benefits of extra spending would be reduced - but they would still exist. But the cars would become close in speed, as the ideas matured.

F1 has become a development formula. Hence the teams focus their huge resources, on polishing where they might ultimately gain the most per dollar spent. If the formula was frozen for 10 years, the ultimate result would be more driver focus, with drivers being paid more, because the cars would be so similar, it would be worthwhile spending extra on getting a better driver. If pitstops were allowed, then lots of resources would be spent on those. So too simulation equipment.

Another way would be to publicize the entire design of each car every year, and lock out development of the car, hence providing the equivalent of not being able to copy any innovations for lets say one year. Such a rule would allow fans to understand the differences between the cars, and their technologies. And a competitive advantage might in theory only last one year.

The car formula has to be wise too, which is not easy to achieve. I think the way new ideas are permitted is an area where F1 does not handle things so well - hence the scandals with Renault's TMD, Renault's front wing weights a few years earlier, the tyre width accusations which involved Michelin and effected Williams, the allowance of wing and body flex for years, the fuel header tank fiasco which effected Honda/BAR, the front floor issues of 2007 - the list could go on further too. A key problem IMO lies in the demand for secrecy whereby a team discovers a way around a rule, and therefore does not inform the measurement body of their what innovation really is (if they did, then it would soon get banned).

I also do not think that banning technology is sensible. As an example, TC and ABS are normal in road cars, but are banned in F1. When they banned ABS, McLaren had 10 separate teams working on rear brake alternatives. That is the sort of huge development projects that result from a simple rule change, and which processes favor huge resources. The same will be happening with KERS - because there is no ABS allowed, and no TC, the whole KERS rule is troubled. If ABS and TC was allowed, then KERS would work just fine under braking and with extra acceleration. But because ABS and TC are banned, the benefits of KERS will only come to those who spend huger amounts on developing effective braking and effective power transmission technologies that really should not need resources spent on them.

Ultimately it comes down to the wisdom of the rule makers, and how well they are administered IMO. I don't think the current structure works that well - but then, with 6000 or more brilliant people working to skip around the intent of rules, its never going to be easy to establish good rules or administer them. That is the case now, so IMO other structures need to be looked at.

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

You ask do rule changes increase costs to a team? They can, as exampled by the outsourcing extra costs incurred by KERS. The big teams have spend on average 30 million euros on the KERS programs, a lot would be outsourced. ....

I dont meant KERS here.
That has cost money for sure, but that was because it was about introducing a totally new technology to F1.
Thats not what I call a normal rule change.

About the rest:
The history shows that adopting to rule changes was never an issue for any team, even the smallest teams with smallest budget. Simply because they have to develop a new car each year anyway, thus this is quite a fixed amount of costs (paying employees and environment).

The really expensive stuff has always been the hunt for the last 0,5sec gap to the top runner.
And this was and is always the case, no matter whether the rules stay for some years or change in some parameters in some years.

And Toyota as well as Honda have proven that even with an almost unlimited amount of money (in the previous years) and huge resources, there is no guarantee to find that last step in performance.
Its not the money that makes your car fast, its the engineering.
Renault has beaten the big spenders since 2005 with a sensible lower budget, but better engineering.

And constant rules for some years wouldnt change anything about that (in general).

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by HaPe


I dont meant KERS here.
That has cost money for sure, but that was because it was about introducing a totally new technology to F1.
Thats not what I call a normal rule change.

About the rest:
The history shows that adopting to rule changes was never an issue for any team, even the smallest teams with smallest budget. Simply because they have to develop a new car each year anyway, thus this is quite a fixed amount of costs (paying employees and environment).

The really expensive stuff has always been the hunt for the last 0,5sec gap to the top runner.
And this was and is always the case, no matter whether the rules stay for some years or change in some parameters in some years.

And Toyota as well as Honda have proven that even with an almost unlimited amount of money (in the previous years) and huge resources, there is no guarantee to find that last step in performance.
Its not the money that makes your car fast, its the engineering.
Renault has beaten the big spenders since 2005 with a sensible lower budget, but better engineering.

And constant rules for some years wouldnt change anything about that (in general).

Constant rules would change things. As I said earlier, constant rules would increase spending on the drivers.

If one had constant rules, and made the teams publish their blueprints every year, the cars would get closer in performance. According to you, what the teams would do then would be to re-arrange their spending, so that where there was an opportunity for greater spending to provide a competitive advantage, then the teams would direct spending to that area. Evenentually though, such areas would only provide marginal competitive gains, and the rewards for greater spending would become un-reasonable. And that IMO is when the spending on drivers and perhaps track based issues would increase.

One of the most irrititating things for me, is that all the great technology in F1 is hidden from the fan. Once a ground effect car or a fan car or even a wing was a major competitive showpeace, and a symbol of pride by the team that thought of it. Nowadays, such innovations have to be kept secret. An example being Renault's TMD. The result of the rules, is that now the very innovations that should make the formula concept fascinating, is hidden from the fans.

Often we don't even know if a car is fast or not, or whether a driver is great or just average and that it is really the car. We are so ignorant these days, that the whole formula concept is making little sense. Which is why I suppose that Max Mosley suggested standardizing the engines, and just labelling them as being different.

What is the point of development, if we do not know what the development was?

There are ways around that type of issue - but F1 is not going in such a direction. Instead they are standardising more parts and are intending to limit expenditures. I have no objection to budget limits, but I'd like a formula that enforced innovations into the public arena, and gave the teams who introduced such innovations some protection against copying.

[Ogami musashi]

Pat Symonds on GE vs wings downforce and the Mechanical grip vs Aero grip:

http://www.ing-renau..._tcm3-81630.mp3

(Around 14:00)


Oh...so surprising.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
Pat Symonds on GE vs wings downforce and the Mechanical grip vs Aero grip:

http://www.ing-renau..._tcm3-81630.mp3

(Around 14:00)


Oh...so surprising.

I listened to that at last, and I find Pat Symonds smug assertion, that because there's more overtaking in the wet it proves that it's wrong to say that the balance of aero grip to mechanical grip is irrelevant to overtaking, facile beyond belief, and wrong. For one thing, wet set-ups are extremely difficult to optimise (just how wet is wet, and how long will it stay like that? - it's basically guesswork), so there's a huge variation of set-up effectiveness across the grid. And crucially, overtaking usually occurs during the transition from one "wetness" to another, as one car's handling improves and the other's deteriorates. Another factor is the bravery/blind stupidity of the different drivers - anyone who's worked with drivers knows that some have the "benefit" of no imagination, while other don't.

Symonds then proceeds to undermine his own argument by admitting that, even with the OWG's "improvements", there's a big effect on the downforce distribution of the following car, hence the need for the moveable wing. That really blows his earlier assertion out of the water, I'd say.

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
If one had constant rules, and made the teams publish their blueprints every year, the cars would get closer in performance.

I think finally this point - as well as the always repeated opinion that the big teams can react best to rule changes - has been proven wrong now by Williams and BrawnGP / the quite close field in Australia 2009.

HaPe

[LMP900]

So - did the aero changes work, did they make it easier for a faster car to pass a slower car in Australia? It seemed that KERS helped against non-KERS, but I didn't see any difference when it was non-KERS against non-KERS, with one exception - the supersoft tyres gave most cars oversteer, which made them vulnerable to a car on primes.

[Ben]

Originally posted by HaPe


I think finally this point - as well as the always repeated opinion that the big teams can react best to rule changes - has been proven wrong now by Williams and BrawnGP / the quite close field in Australia 2009.

HaPe

Um, problem with that argument is that the Brawn was developed as a Honda and has had a 16 month development cycle AFAIK.

What the team has achieved in terms of running the car and getting the new engine installed is exceptional from an operational perspective, but don't pretend the car didn't have a monumental development budget behind it in terms of both time and money.

Ben

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by HaPe
I think finally this point - as well as the always repeated opinion that the big teams can react best to rule changes - has been proven wrong now by Williams and BrawnGP / the quite close field in Australia 2009.

HaPe

How do you quantify 'quite close' anymore? With qualy split into 3 sessions and race setups required in the last (top) group, it's impossible to know exactly how much faster/slower one car is to another.

seven years ago we could quantify the differences in performance, and that analysis showed that rules stability helped narrow the performance gap between cars.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by LMP900
So - did the aero changes work, did they make it easier for a faster car to pass a slower car in Australia?

yes.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by HaPe


I think finally this point - as well as the always repeated opinion that the big teams can react best to rule changes - has been proven wrong now by Williams and BrawnGP / the quite close field in Australia 2009.

HaPe

I am not so sure.

For one, Honda seems faster than Williams, and Honda is a big team. Errhh ... it was anyway! The Toyota seemed quick - and they are not a small team either ...

Also the big teams spent a lot on KERS, and at Melbourne, it seems KERS did not make the cars faster. BMW is evidence of that I think. So the big teams spent a fortune, on something that did not contribute to speed at Melbourne!

The model for getting the small teams to be competitive, was to change the regulations as late as possible to the season, hence restricting development time - which is a big team competitive advantage.

The regs were delayed a lot weren't they? Some issues about the engines only were confirmed a couple of months ago. Same too with tyres I think. The KERS battery issues were in doubt too.

If KERS had worked, then I think the big teams would have had a competitive advantage. But so far, it hasn't! Nonetheless, BMW could have won on Sunday. And maybe a Ferrari too?

I think its a bit early to add up whose fastest yet anyway!!! I haven't a clue actually!!!

[gruntguru]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
I think its a bit early to add up whose fastest yet anyway!!! I haven't a clue actually!!!

Well as far as Melbourne is concerned :
Qualifying - Brawn 1st and 2nd
Podium - Brawn 1st and 2nd

I think I've worked out who's fastest so far!!!

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Ben
Um, problem with that argument is that the Brawn was developed as a Honda and has had a 16 month development cycle AFAIK. n

But it also is Williams up at front again.
At least in front of the 2 big names McLaren and Ferrari.

HaPe

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Nonetheless, BMW could have won on Sunday.

No way. Theissens claim that KUB could have won is ridiculous.
Have a look at the laptimes of KUB compared to Button with 3 laps to go. Kubica hasnt closed much of the gap to Button in the previous 7 rounds before. How could he do it for a 4sec gap for 3 laps to go.

HaPe

[Der Pate]

Kubica obviously didn´t go for second place...he saw Button within his reach...therefore he made an attempt to overtake Vettel, where he needed cooperation of the German...

I´m not saying, that Kubica is guilty...neither Vettel...it was a normal racing-incident...Vettel crashed into Kubica...but Kubica could have waited a few corners or even laps to overtake Vettel safely...but Kubica wanted to pass as soon as possible to have a chance for the win...