9 replies to this topic

[Incal]

Would you boffins of the sport agree that if reduce downforce (mechanical grip) we increase driver skill input to the result. And we do it without reducing that all important technology bug.

[Huw Jenjin]

Down force per se is not exactly the problem with top level motorsport, it is the way it is acheived that makes events like the Spanish GP 2000 a waste of resources.
In 1972 and 73 the cars had downforce, but a look at the way the drivers are fighting them, in a way that the public can see, getting real over steer and under steer, and real four wheel drifts, shows that the two can live together.This thing about not being able to overtake due to lack of downforce close to the car in front is just farcicle, and gives you a very good reason to keep to the nostalgic aspects of our sport.

[Jonathan]

Huw Jenjin -

In 1972 and '73 very little aerodynamic expertise existed in F1. The critical space UNDER the rear wings was often occupied with an auxillary engine or transmission oil cooler.

During this era race cars still competed on bias-belted (as opposed to radial) tyre contructions.

Both of these factors made sure that 1. Less downforce was available and 2. The 'break-away' characterics of the cars handeling tended to be far more predictable.

While the off-line 'marbles' certianly existed at the time, I suspect that do to the reduced aerodynamic and mechanical grip available (as compared to more modern designs) their effects were not as drastic.

If anything I think it was actually much easier for a driver to do well and make a difference back then than it is with modern machines. Only a very tiny number of modern day drivers can make much of a difference it seems.

[green-blood]

its not really the place for it here but the ground affects cars had as much if not more downforce as todays machines - it is the manner in which it was achieved that sets them apart. I dont remember John Watson ever complaining that he had too much down force and couldnt overtake when he battled up from the back in America, on a Street circuit with maxed out downforce on every car.

Todays cars utilisation of diffusers to suck the car down at the rear and reliance on front wings on turn in mean that a following car is hugely upset by the lack of downforce as the driver tries to overtake into a corner. This is caused by the car in fronts wash affecting the car behinds front wing - add to that the silly grooved hard compound tires and when you loose front end downforce you understeer off the track. It seems so simple to the watching public but the FIA are a business now more than ever - dont expect exciting racing without rain for the foreseeable future.

[Keir]

How about 0 downforce??
That would have made Spain a much more interesting race!!!

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

[Alfisti]

green blood is right... too much reliane on the front wing to urn in so any air disturbance causes problems.

------------------
"Life will not break your heart, it'll crush it" - Henry Rollins.

[Rogue]

I would have to agree that reliance on the wings is too high these days, but there are other factors aswell. In order to reduce this overall reliance on aerodynamics you would need to look at lowering the nose, reducing the wing sizes and banning some of the other aids like ears and barge boards completely. I'm not sure that underbody aerodynamics is too much of a problem as I don't think it is so reliant on clean air by comparison to the wings.

The problem is that a package of changes is needed and F1 these days tends to shy away from anything so radical due to the cost of redevelopment.

Regards,



------------------
Rogue
f-1@ihug.com.au

[Dave Ware]

http://www.speedvisi...ws/000509a.html

Brock Yates' commentary is worth a read, for those interested in this thread.

Dave

[130R]

The other element at issue is the outrageous cost of building a state-of-the-art wind-tunnel -- which is necessary today to compete. However, if aeordynamic reliance was reduced, I suppose teams would still allocate tremendous resources to aero efficiency. A vicious circle, I'm afraid.

Something needs to be done.

In my view, aero has allowed the cars to corner much quicker, but made the cars more nervous, with a narrower limit. As has been previously stated.

[Keir]

The main areas that need work are, braking distance and the lack of slipstreaming.
Getting rid of wings would return slipstreaming and allow a driver an attempt at out braking. The cars will never be the cars of yesterday, but they will look better and provide better racing.

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"