79 replies to this topic

[Proto402]

With all the talk about the new rules for F1 in 2017 to add more downforce (and still allowing complex wings which break with the touch), along with the Indycar aerokits, NASCAR's reduced size splitter and spoiler, and...well...everything else in racing that depends on an external part in which millions of dollars and man hours are invested in order to keep the car stuck on the road, we still question whether we need more or less downforce on the cars to increase the spectacle of the sport.   Well, there is an easy solution.  It may sound as logical as "no **** Sherlock", or as dumb as "are you stupid?", but it is worth a shot, and it does have its merits.

 

The solution is simple:

 

 

 

 

GET RID OF THE WINGS !

 

 

but you knew that already based off the title of the topic.

 

In my opinion, there are only two advantages to wings:

 - The cars can look better (not always).

 -  The cars are faster

 

That's it.  However, I believe there are many more advantages to having no wings on F1 cars, Indycars, just about any race car in existence.  Here they are:

 

  -  Simpler, less complicated car to work on

  -   Lower cost of car

  -  Lower cost of spares and less spares to have

  -  Lower cost of development

  -  Less parts falling off the car in case of contact = less chance of car losing performance = less debris on the track and flying in the air

  -  reduction of downforce as a driver aid = put the car into the hands of the driver

  -  little to no influence of the "dirty air / turbulent air" effect on the front of the trailing car

  -  less drag = higher top speed = larger braking distance = more overtaking chances = No DRS

 

Would the cars be slower?

 

They could, but they can still be fast depending on the tires, engine power, etc.

 

But what about downforce?  Would the cars fly off the ground because of the low downforce?  Would the teams find ways to regain that downforce?

 

Can't really say.  If the underbody remains open for development, teams can use it to regain downforce again via side skirts, diffusers, blowers, Dan Gurney's Boundary Layer Adhesion Technology, etc. Also,they can play around with the ride heights to make the whole shape of the car a more effective aerodynamic device including creating downforce.   In reality, that's something that no one can really control unless you have a spec series.  Also, it's possible that the cars, depending on the design, could develop lift (Mercedes Benz, Le Mans, 1999).  Let's hope we can avoid that.

 

But the cars will still be ugly

 

Really.  Here are some pics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you all think?  Agree or disagree?  Anything I'm missing (aside from more pictures of wingless cars)?   Fill free to contribute you thoughts or ideas.

 

 

EDIT:  Replace a pic with a better pic of the Lotus 38

Edited by Proto402, 17 March 2016 - 02:25.

[Marklar]

Reminds me of the 'ban front wings' discussion.

 

Personally I wouldn't be sad if wings (particulary front wings) would get banned. They are definetely part of the current overtaking problem.

 

Then again I'm all for competition and rear wings are always looking nice and a simple front wing is also looking great and wouldnt harm much....

Edited by Marklar, 17 March 2016 - 02:14.

[Norm]

I never thought I would say this, but I would really like to see this happen. It would improve the racing, and the focus of the "sport" would become about Power (no change), Mechanical Engineering and the Drivers. The aero era has been fun, but it has done a lot of damage to the racing.

Edited by Norm, 17 March 2016 - 02:58.

[mtknot]

How do you suppose we reach similar laptimes to what we have right now without wings? I understand this is to start a discussion but this is kind of the 'ban front wings' thread Pt II.

Without wings, LMP1 cars will be faster than F1. Even if you have huge underbody aero, it only does so much given a certain surface area. 

The regulated mid section of the wing was a good start and it's worked fairly well. 


I don' think i'd watch F1 if they werent at the apex of performance anymore. Honestly, the fact that a Super Formula car has more downforce than an F1 car is already a bit ridiculous. 

Edited by mtknot, 17 March 2016 - 02:56.

[Archer]

Maybe it would be too radical to ban wings, even if I'm supportive of the idea. For a long time I had an alternative idea in mind. I think about an intermediate idea, wings with extremely low downforce, and being standard kits for all the teams, something like in this picture:

 

 

Also, only the front wing would be adjustable, would have very limited adjustment angle, only for balance purposes. It would have the best of the two worlds, not so ugly cars, and no problems with dirty air.

 

Edit: I don't know why the image don't be show here. Here is a link: http://www.500legend...y 1994 SW 1.jpg

Edited by Archer, 17 March 2016 - 03:10.

[OO7]

Asking F1 to get rid of its appendages is like asking a man to get rid of his appendages!  Very difficult to do, in fact nigh on impossible.

[alfa1]

Maybe it would be too radical to ban wings, even if I'm supportive of the idea. For a long time I had an alternative idea in mind. I think about an intermediate idea, wings with extremely low downforce, and being standard kits for all the teams, something like in this picture:

 

 

 

Never liked those speedway wings, there wasn't enough of it to make it look like a "proper" wing.

 

I'd prefer a mid-late 80's style...

 

 

It looks like a "real" front wing, but it is so technically primitive that it would not be as susceptible to turbulence as the vortex generator wings they have now.

Edited by alfa1, 17 March 2016 - 03:49.

[Lee Nicolle]

In reality wings are an essential unless the cars are slowed to FF type speeds.

Even on faster tin tops, the lift is dangerous and does cause accidents.

BUT wings should only be simple devices with limited adjustment. With flat bottomed cars with a reasonable ride height.[say 75mm] And max of 2 elements front and rear. With such rules I suggest a larger more efficient wing to be used on slower tracks and a slimmer less drag wing on fater tracks

The drivers/ teams can then manage the drag v downforce and make their choices.

[RedOne]

No thanks, it will corner and look like a bath tub.

[Proto402]

How do you suppose we reach similar laptimes to what we have right now without wings? I understand this is to start a discussion but this is kind of the 'ban front wings' thread Pt II.

Without wings, LMP1 cars will be faster than F1. Even if you have huge underbody aero, it only does so much given a certain surface area. 

The regulated mid section of the wing was a good start and it's worked fairly well. 


I don' think i'd watch F1 if they werent at the apex of performance anymore. Honestly, the fact that a Super Formula car has more downforce than an F1 car is already a bit ridiculous. 

 

To be honest, we really don't know how fast they can be.  I don't expect them to be as fast as the current crop of open wheel cars, but with all the current technology including tires, cornering speeds shouldn't be as slow as a stock car tip toeing through the corners.  If someone wants downforce, they can always play around with the underbody.

 

I'm aware this could, and probably will end up like the "Ban Front Wings" thread that started two years ago with much of the focus on visibility of the wing and the element of it acting like tire slicers, and also on costs and the spectacle.  However, I feel the focus on aerodynamics have changed because of the 2017 F1 rules to make the cars faster by increasing downforce, the Indycar aerokits seemingly not helping the growth of the sport, and NASCAR moving to the low downforce package at all tracks which seems to work well.  All this makes you wonder if these aero devices are even necessary to make a fast race car AND put on a spectacle at the same time without cautions and DRS gimmicks.

Edited by Proto402, 17 March 2016 - 04:13.

[Peter0Scandlyn]

No thanks, it will corner and look like a bath tub.

 

Well isn't that appropriate?

People have been saying for yonks that F1 is going down the drain......

[Ncedi]

Lovely, another take F1 backwards in order to make it better thread...I may be alone in this but these are getting a bit tiring just like the drivers need simpler helmets brigade. 

[Wuzak]

Bigger rear tyres, wider cars, more under body dad and narrower front wings. Ie update 1994 or 1988 rules.

[Rocket73]

^^ cars should be faster in the slipstream than not.

[Jimisgod]

Shame on you for not including the single finest looking F1 car to ever grace the road.

 

 

Edited by Jimisgod, 17 March 2016 - 08:15.

[Nicktendo86]

I wouldn't ban wings but I would simplify them greatly, mandate that the FW can only have one plane or something. The Merc wing, in particular, is just nuts.

[DrF]

Ban CVC

[Scotracer]

And people are complaining cars are already too slow.

 

F1 cars make their lap-time in the corners. Without wings, they'll be 10+ seconds a lap slower.

[RedBaron]

Dreadful idea to take away wings, for numerous reasons.

 

50% of people will think it looks horrible.

 

They won't corner at any speed.

 

That's a huge area lost for sponsorship.

 

You can achieve a lot without losing a lot by simplifying the wings and creating downforce elsewhere.

[GoldenColt]

These cars look like crap without wings. I'm all for wings on F1 cars.

[cokata]

banning wings will be super dumb. The cars will be super slow, won't be much quicker than motogp around a track, plus the wings aren't the only thing that makes following other cars difficult. Look at LMP1.

[LeClerc]

You don't have to get rid of wings, but if you could somehow get rid of the small castles that are currently being build on the front wings, that would probably help.

[jure]

Get rid of the engine!

Edited by jure, 17 March 2016 - 10:00.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Completely getting rid of the wings is too much, but reducing the aero influence is the right direction. Once again i present the perfect concept for everybody but the big manufacturers(road relevance)!

 

 

A few steps to a better racing formula:

 

1. Maximum total car width 2.15m

2. Set a maximum wheelbase

3. # of tyres: 4

4. Unlimited tyre and rim dimensions, chose those that give the best grip (2G cornering might be possible without aero)

5. Minimum car weight 600kg, including a minimum driver weight of 80kg

6. Minimum radius for all bodywork parts is 100mm -> no complex and sharp parts possible

7. Suspension members shape is a simple NACA profile, negative angle of attack of ~1° so that they are pretty much aero neutral when the car is raked

8. Free engine and ERS choice

9. 150kg/h fuel flow limit, standard pump fuel, no refueling, no total fuel consumption limit

10. No limits on energy recovery

11. Front and rear wing with only two elements each, angle of attack <=10°

12. Camber of the wing elements is limited to a low percentage of profile length

13. Reduce wheel drag by adding small bits of bodywork behind the wheels, the wheels can still be seen from the front, the side and the top

14. Front and rear wing have to fit between the wheels in front view

15. The cars will have a lower cd than currently because of the efficient wing geometry and reduced wheel drag, which means the wake of the car is smaller and the following in corners is easier

16. If the ability to follow through corners still isn't enough then there are ways to increase the downforce by 10% for the trailing car when the gap is below 1s, this could be an AoA increase by 10% for both the front and rear wing, or active aero controlled by a standardized blowing/suction system monitored by the FIA or a combination

 

Eat this!

[Kev00]

People like to come up with crazy ideas for pretty simple solutions. The current aero is a problem, but that doesn't mean you just get rid of aero! Like most people are saying, the wings need to be simplified. Also some ground effect and better mechanical grip would reduce the importance of the wings.

[sabjit]

Ground effect and active suspension.........................

 

Nope, they still wont listen to me.

[superden]

Shame on you for not including the single finest looking F1 car to ever grace the road.

Phwoooooar. One of my favourites!

[PayasYouRace]

Shame on you for not including the single finest looking F1 car to ever grace the road.

That's not a Jordan 191...

[noikeee]

The cars would be absurdly slow and look absurdly slow in the corners. So, no. I'm all for simplifying F1 in some aspects, but stop thinking we can make F1 go back to the 1980s or 70s or 60s.

[ensign14]

No thanks, it will corner and look like a bath tub.

 

Which is in a way the point.  If every car corners on rails, how can driver A show how he is better than driver B? 

 

If one wants good racing, one has to have the braking distances at 500m not 50m, as if you need to outbrake by 10% to get past, you can do so with 450m to spare, not with 45m.  One also needs to be following right behind to do it, which one cannot do with the current aero.

 

It wouldn't matter if cars were slower.  The difference is not that visible.  But it is visible if the cars are right at the edge of what is possible.  That is where the funambulism comes to the fore.

[superden]

The cars would be absurdly slow and look absurdly slow in the corners. So, no. I'm all for simplifying F1 in some aspects, but stop thinking we can make F1 go back to the 1980s or 70s or 60s.

Yes, because they look so great now, just look at how the popularity of F1 and resulting fan interest is blossoming ... oh, wait.

For the umpteenth time:

Faster.
Is.
Not.
Necessarily.
Better.

It is not the panacea for all ills.

[JHSingo]

That's not a Jordan 191...

 

Hot take: The Jordan 191 is really over rated.

 

I agree with what others have said - simplifying the wings rather than removing them entirely would be a better move.

[noikeee]

Yes, because they look so great now, just look at how the popularity of F1 and resulting fan interest is blossoming ... oh, wait.

For the umpteenth time:

Faster.
Is.
Not.
Necessarily.
Better.

It is not the panacea for all ills.

 

I agree making cars fast doesn't necessarily solve problems, but I genuinely believe one of the current problems with the current cars is they're not quick enough in the corners (even if the fact they're not being pushed doesn't help them look fast in them neither). So I'm certainly not going to support those who want to go the other way around and make them slower...

[Pingguest]

Banning wings does not address the root cause of Formula One's lack of close racing and on-track passing. Convergence is the true reason. With the banning of wings on one hand and keeping almost similar power units, standardized tires and standardized tires, we will almost get more of the same. The banning of wings would only allow for smaller performance differences to make a successful passing.

 

In my opinion, regulations should allow and even promote more divergence. Here is an idea to achieve exactly that.

 

There are three fundamentals that govern the cars' performances: 

• accelerative G-forces;
• deccelerative G-forces;
• lateral G-forces.

The FIA could specify a 3D curve which links the three fundamentals (i.e. with high accelerative G-forces requiring correspondingly low corning G-forces, etc). As the fundamentals are linked by a 3D curve and hence a mathematical formula, the FIA always alter the connection for the sake of safety, competition or cost reduction. Using this 3D curve, it would be possible to promote (relatively) high-powered but low-grip cars.

Before the season starts, teams would have to decide what position their cars will be on the curve for that very season. In principle, teams could be allowed to do whatever they like within that framework after that. As limits are put in place regarding the fundamentals that govern the cars' performances, no regulation is needed to slow down the cars.

The enforcement of such a rule is quite easy, as cars are already fitted with sensors measuring the G-forces.

 

The design of the cars would mostly be engaged in maximising the time spent at the limit values (e.g. nice wide spread of power, adaptive aerodynamics, etc). In-season development could continue, but because the position on the curve is fixed at the beginning of the season, it would maintain a performance differential between cars at different points on the track (and indeed, between one track and another).
Costs would be constrained by limiting the peak values on the curves. Lower peak values are easier to achieve at all points around the track.

Edited by Pingguest, 17 March 2016 - 13:48.

[Henri Greuter]

My suggestion would be to reduce front and rear wings in number of elements and sizes. But also get rid of the raised nosed and tea tray in der the drivers legs  and a massive redaction in overall length permitted to make sure that downforce won't be tried to be regained with side pods being moved even more forward.

 

Banning winges entirely is not a good idea but something needs to be dane againt the current frontal art works and book shranks at the rear.

 

Henri

[pdac]

Cars should not be quick in corners - that's the point of having corners. The corners are where one driver shows their skill over another. If cars are on rails then there is no racing.

[Donkey]

They just need to limit the number of elements they are used and write the rules so the teams can't take the piss with what consistutes a single continuous panel or whatever it currently says.

 

Apply some common sense subjective rule like 'if it looks fugly it isn't allowed'....

[LeClerc]

They just need to limit the number of elements they are used and write the rules so the teams can't take the piss with what consistutes a single continuous panel or whatever it currently says.

 

Apply some common sense subjective rule like 'if it looks fugly it isn't allowed'....

 

Best rule ever

[noikeee]

Cars should not be quick in corners - that's the point of having corners. The corners are where one driver shows their skill over another. If cars are on rails then there is no racing.

So we arrive at Eau Rouge, with 3 different type of cars:

 

a) a car that is so grippy you can take it flat out no problem

b) a car that's on the edge of grip that you may or may not need a substantial lift, depending on how well you nail your line, and the amount of fuel and tyres you have

c) a car that needs you to slow down on approach and take it on 3rd gear

 

Are you going to argue that c) is the one that requires more driver skill? I'd say b) takes just as much skill, and on top of it looks more impressive and asks for more courage as well. As long as it doesn't go the way of a) in most corners, it's all good.

[Jimisgod]

They just need to limit the number of elements they are used and write the rules so the teams can't take the piss with what consistutes a single continuous panel or whatever it currently says.

 

Apply some common sense subjective rule like 'if it looks fugly it isn't allowed'....

 

Then a Newey or similar will complain the moment his fantabulous new innovation is banned and another one is allowed because it looks purdy.

[CountDooku]

NO!

 

If anything the cars should be allowed bigger wings! The more downforce the better.

 

The cars should be able to corner like they are using super-glue tyres on a Velcro track, but also able to break traction like a cheap g-string because of monster engines. The fastest drivers should be those who are the bravest and the biggest balls, willing to make an overtake outside Pouhon going flat out.

 

F1 should always be larger than life. Bigger, more powerful, more outrageous, more glamorous, more downforce, faster than any other series. The wings are part of this.

[Risil]

 

So we arrive at Eau Rouge, with 3 different type of cars:

 

a) a car that is so grippy you can take it flat out no problem

b) a car that's on the edge of grip that you may or may not need a substantial lift, depending on how well you nail your line, and the amount of fuel and tyres you have

c) a car that needs you to slow down on approach and take it on 3rd gear

 

Are you going to argue that c) is the one that requires more driver skill? I'd say b) takes just as much skill, and on top of it looks more impressive and asks for more courage as well. As long as it doesn't go the way of a) in most corners, it's all good.

 

Blanchimont becomes a bit more interesting though. Reminds me of when MotoGP went to Turkey. F1 raved about Turn 8, but in MotoGP it was the blind kink on the backstretch that captured riders' attention.

 

Anyway, you can make a very grippy F1 car with no external wings, good tyres and underbody channels. Look at the early 80s.

[Retrofly]

Reduce wing size and complexity, give them bigger tires and allow FRIC suspension.

[Donkey]

NO!

 

If anything the cars should be allowed bigger wings! The more downforce the better.

 

The cars should be able to corner like they are using super-glue tyres on a Velcro track, but also able to break traction like a cheap g-string because of monster engines. The fastest drivers should be those who are the bravest and the biggest balls, willing to make an overtake outside Pouhon going flat out.

 

F1 should always be larger than life. Bigger, more powerful, more outrageous, more glamorous, more downforce, faster than any other series. The wings are part of this.

Unfortunately Spa would be one of the first tracks to be removed from the calendar for being too dangerous if the cars started doing those sorts of speeds.

[kevinracefan]

this discussion should move to the "It'll never happen" thread, LOL...

[LeClerc]

Then a Newey or similar will complain the moment his fantabulous new innovation is banned and another one is allowed because it looks purdy.

 

Then we take a long hard look at him, and ban him because...

[CountDooku]

Unfortunately Spa would be one of the first tracks to be removed from the calendar for being too dangerous if the cars started doing those sorts of speeds.

 

They were doing them fine in 2004.

[kevinracefan]

NO!

 

If anything the cars should be allowed bigger wings! The more downforce the better.

 

The cars should be able to corner like they are using super-glue tyres on a Velcro track, but also able to break traction like a cheap g-string because of monster engines. The fastest drivers should be those who are the bravest and the biggest balls, willing to make an overtake outside Pouhon going flat out.

 

F1 should always be larger than life. Bigger, more powerful, more outrageous, more glamorous, more downforce, faster than any other series. The wings are part of this.

 

yeah.. sure.. that would be great for a single car on track..  NOT FOR RACING... yet you want drivers to be vulnerable at the same time..

[Retrofly]

yeah.. sure.. that would be great for a single car on track..  NOT FOR RACING... yet you want drivers to be vulnerable at the same time..

 

Taking a hairpin at 100mph, what could go wrong?

[CountDooku]

Taking a hairpin at 100mph, what could go wrong?

 

A mere prang on the ARMCO. You swap insurance details then off home for tea 'n biscuits.