Timstr11, on Dec 5 2012, 20:03, said:
According to AMuS, the reason they scrapped the 2014 aero changes is because the cars would have become an average of 5 seconds per lap slower.
I was saying exactly the same thing since those changes (along with the engine regs) were proposed. That the cars will be as slow or slower than current GP2 cars. They will be slow anyway, given the big power loss.
Timstr11, on Dec 5 2012, 20:07, said:
I agree with Ferrari that we need less aero and more mechanical. To compensate for the 5 seconds per lap, they could have considered re-introducing active suspension.
I'm a big fan of the idea to reintroduce proper ground effects with reduction of wing dependent downforce (paired with engines capable of delivering V10 era power levels and relaxing a bit the reliability regulations so the drivers wouldn't need to nurse the cars too much).
But I must say that reducing aero while reintroducing active suspensions sounds like a interesting idea. This paired with downforce coming almost solely from ground effects could provide a very good formula. The only problem is that it would probably be too expensive.
Timstr11, on Dec 5 2012, 23:12, said:
In 2014, exhaust blown floors will not be possible or worthwile I think, so some downforce will be lost as a result.
AFAIK the EBD effect was more potent with turbo engines. But it will mostly be down to other regulations.
BigCHrome, on Dec 5 2012, 22:51, said:
So, in 2014 the cars will have loads of downforce and LESS power than what we have now.
Ugly, on-rails cars that generate 0 excitement.
I very much would want them to have MORE power. But I think you have this a bit wrong - due to less power they will want to cut drag, so they'll probably race lower DF levels on most tracks. Though not necessary much lower and we can expect the power to downforce ratio to be lower (and much lower when (K)ERS will be inactive).
Disgrace, on Dec 5 2012, 20:15, said:
Yes it is. Removing these silly wide front wings would reduce the occurrence of punctures resulting from marginal racing incidents, e.g Perez and Ricciardo in India.
The wings also just happen to make the cars look like silly toys.
That's a good point, but I wouldn't lay a trip solely on the wide wings. And as far as looks are concerned, I got used to them and IMO they don't look that bad. It would be better if the rear wings were more proportional (like pre-2009).
TifosiUSA, on Dec 5 2012, 21:08, said:
5 seconds a lap slower? How the **** would a lower nose and different RW/FW make them five seconds a lap slower? Oh yeah, probaly partly due to these weak new engines.
I don't know it that estimate includes the engine power loss, but the noses are high for a reason. High noses allow the splitter and the diffuser to be feed with more air. The floor provides a big portion of car's downforce. That's the reason why lower noses began to be replaces by higher ones in the 90s. Lower noses are better aerodynamics-wise by themselves, but higher noses are better if you look at the whole package.
As for the FW, having it closer to the ground improves downforce. Wide wings allow the endplates and winglets to interact with the front wheels in a different way than before (probably more beneficial)
Maybe without the aero changes the cars will be "only" three seconds per lap slower?
@up: road car relevance is mostly a myth. Though it may affect funding..
Edited by DrProzac, 06 December 2012 - 18:43.
