92 replies to this topic

[cpbell]

Of recent, most on my contributions in the Racing Comments section of this forum (as opposed to my previous 'home' in the Nostalgia section) seem to have to do with bemoaning the quality of racing this season with the high-downforce technical regulations that have improved the show when one car is being driven flat-out by itself, but seem to have had a negative effect on the on-circuit action.  I'm aware that, as someone in his thirties who has followed the sport for over 25 years( ), I'm at risk of 'rose-tinted glasses syndrome' which, for those who don't know, makes one tend to think everything was better in the past than it is now; however, I'm convinced that, until fairly recently, the point at which a driver closing-in on a competitor in front ceases to gain on them due to turbulence/dirty air reducing the downforce available to them was around half a second, whereas, judging by Monaco and Hungary, at slower-speed circuits it's now around a second, sometimes slightly more.

 

Given that I'm not an aerodynamicist, I am unqualified to suggest what regulation changes ought to be made to reduce this effect.  I seem to recall Gary Anderson arguing shortly after the 2009 technical regulation changes explaining that the wider, lower front wings were encouraging developments in terms of design complexity and philosophy that increased sensitivity to turbulent air, and, as I respect his background and credentials, I'm taking his word for it.

 

As an illustration of what I mean, here's a newly-uploaded video of an on-track battle from the Silverstone round of the historic F1 championship.  The camera car appears to be a ground-effect Williams FW07 or FW08; if so, it will have ground-effect tunnels, but not the sliding skirts which sealed them, and, as a consequence, won't be generating as much overall downforce as it does in period.

https://www.youtube....h?v=nSVl7fWxcVA

 

Note that the camera car is able to close on the car in front through some high- and medium-speed corners.

 

What do other members think?  Should the FIA and Liberty Media consider new Technical Regulations that promote such racing, or is that a retrograde step which would damage F1's credibility and relevance?  Ought old gits like me accept that modern Formula 1 is different from that of the past, and should we learn to love a less 'raw' version of the sport in which pit strategy, safety car windows and tyre deg. are the be-all-and-end-all  of competition?

[Timstr11]

Ross Brawn has put an aero team together to study exactly what is needed to make closer racing possible.

[f1paul]

Basically, these cars are too complex and all of the bits on the front wing is killing the racing and creating a lot of dirty air. The front wing needs to be made simpler and that will improve things a lot. Just compare this year's wings with one from 2012 for instance. 

 

Also, the braking distances are too short now and the cars have too much downforce IMO which needs to be sorted out. Because there's less braking needed, the chance for divebombs and other maneuvers are minimal. 

 

The next set of regulations should be to promote racing and not speed. As much as I like the look of this year's cars and the speed of them, the racing has not been good. The best race for me this year was Spain which was the perfect race. It had strategy, overtakes and drivers pushing on their absolute limits. More races like this are needed!

[f1paul]

All of the above could be complete poo (or other words that have the same meaning) BTW, that's literally just what's come from my head which isn't a good thing.

Edited by f1paul, 01 August 2017 - 20:11.

[cpbell]

All of the above could be complete poo (or other words that have the same meaning) BTW, that's literally just what's come from my head which isn't a good thing.

Well, you can be reassured that you're not the only one - those are pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

[w1Y]

Has there been good overtaking in the last 20 years?

F1s problem is that everything is so clinical and understood to the nth degree.

- They know exactly when the tyres performance will drop off.
- They know exactly what times they should be averaging.
- They know exactly when they should be pitting.

This all leads to everyone using the same strategy. The only time this is slightly different is when we have someone force the change.

What's the solution? I don't know.

Maybe reduce the amount of data that can be captured from the car during practice, qualy and race.

Simplify the front wings.

Or

ease up on the regs. It's boring now because cars basically carry their advantage through the season because of limited changes.

I don't know. It's a very difficult problem to resolve outside of mixing things up through reverse grids.

I also like the idea of providing more strategy such as allowing a certain number of Drs in the race but it can be used at any time.

I also think have unmarked tyres. Dont allow team's to know what tyres the competitors cars have on them. Yes we as fans may suffer but it would all add a level of suspense. Allow cars to also start on any tyres.

Edited by w1Y, 01 August 2017 - 20:34.

[Proto402]

Has there been good overtaking in the last 20 years?

F1s problem is that everything is so clinical and understood to the nth degree.

- They know exactly when the tyres performance will drop off.
- They know exactly what times they should be averaging.
- They know exactly when they should be pitting.

This all leads to everyone using the same strategy. The only time this is slightly different is when we have someone force the change.

What's the solution? I don't know.

Maybe reduce the amount of data that can be captured from the car during practice, qualy and race.

Simplify the front wings.

Or

ease up on the regs. It's boring now because cars basically carry their advantage through the season because of limited changes.

I don't know. It's a very difficult problem to resolve outside of mixing things up through reverse grids.

I also like the idea of providing more strategy such as allowing a certain number of Drs in the race but it can be used at any time.

I also think have unmarked tyres. Dont allow team's to know what tyres the competitors cars have on them. Yes we as fans may suffer but it would all add a level of suspense. Allow cars to also start on any tyres.

 

 

Here is a better question.   Why has Formula 1 been oblivious to finding a solution to the dirty air problem?  Pretty much every junior series and now Indycar and Super Formula use the underbody diffusor to generate the majority of the downforce, and the wings to adjust front/rear balance.  Why doesn't Formula 1 go that route?  Why do they have to come up with ridiculous solutions that are complicated and look silly, such as the split rear wing concept from the last decade?

 

EDIT:

 

As for the overtaking problem, I believe you can't control the on track action every time to guarantee an exciting race.  This happens in EVERY sport.  There will be games that are one-sided, and games that go down the wire to the very last whistle.  It's just the nature of the sport.

Edited by Proto402, 01 August 2017 - 20:42.

[cpbell]

Has there been good overtaking in the last 20 years?

F1s problem is that everything is so clinical and understood to the nth degree.

- They know exactly when the tyres performance will drop off.
- They know exactly what times they should be averaging.
- They know exactly when they should be pitting.

This all leads to everyone using the same strategy. The only time this is slightly different is when we have someone force the change.

What's the solution? I don't know.

Maybe reduce the amount of data that can be captured from the car during practice, qualy and race.

Simplify the front wings.

Or

ease up on the regs. It's boring now because cars basically carry their advantage through the season because of limited changes.

I don't know. It's a very difficult problem to resolve outside of mixing things up through reverse grids.

I also like the idea of providing more strategy such as allowing a certain number of Drs in the race but it can be used at any time.

I also think have unmarked tyres. Dont allow team's to know what tyres the competitors cars have on them. Yes we as fans may suffer but it would all add a level of suspense. Allow cars to also start on any tyres.

As to your first question, I wonder if the answer depends on how you define "good overtaking"!  For me, the answer is a qualified 'no', with the qualification being that I don't expect Formula 1 to feature masses of overtaking manoeuvres.  I tend to prefer quality over quantity, but it seems to me that the current regulations, while arguably improving the chances of successfully overtaking at circuits like Barcelona which have traditionally been bad for racing owing to there being several mid-high speed, long radius corners, have greatly reduced the chances of successful manoeuvres at slower circuits by increasing the distance behind a car in which dirty air will impede a faster car that is closing-up to it.

[pRy]

Ross Brawn is F1's final hope on this issue. If he can't resolve it then I doubt anyone can.

[Kev00]

How much money do f1 teams waste on pointless aerodynamics every year. All the time and money that is spent on the front wings, which as far as I know have absolutely no relevance to anything else in the universe. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like a complete waste of money. I would just give them all a spec front wing, with 2 plains, and say build the rest of you car with the current regs.

[cpbell]

 

As for the overtaking problem, I believe you can't control the on track action every time to guarantee an exciting race.  This happens in EVERY sport.  There will be games that are one-sided, and games that go down the wire to the very last whistle.  It's just the nature of the sport.

Absolutely.  If you study the history of top-level single seater motorsport, you'll find that every season has featured some dull races.  It just seems that an increasing number of races nowadays are almost guaranteed to be processional unless it rains.

[cpbell]

How much money do f1 teams waste on pointless aerodynamics every year. All the time and money that is spent on the front wings, which as far as I know have absolutely no relevance to anything else in the universe. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like a complete waste of money. I would just give them all a spec front wing, with 2 plains, and say build the rest of you car with the current regs.

 

Not sure about the idea of spec parts, but I don;t see why a team of talented ex-Technical Directors and aerodynamicists cannot write a set of Technical Regulations that define what counts as a wing element and thereby prevent teams from producing these technically-impressive but otherwise irrelevant wing designs.

Edited by cpbell, 01 August 2017 - 20:56.

[djparky]

F1 should take a look at the 2018 Indy Car....road course spec has basic wings and will use ground effects for under car down force

[johnmhinds]

As an illustration of what I mean, here's a newly-uploaded video of an on-track battle from the Silverstone round of the historic F1 championship.  The camera car appears to be a ground-effect Williams FW07 or FW08; if so, it will have ground-effect tunnels, but not the sliding skirts which sealed them, and, as a consequence, won't be generating as much overall downforce as it does in period.

https://www.youtube....h?v=nSVl7fWxcVA

 

Note that the camera car is able to close on the car in front through some high- and medium-speed corners.

 

 

I'm not really sure you can use a classic race as an example, those cars may not all be racing at 100%.

 

If you watch the 1979 British Grand that the FW07 competed in it doesn't look that different from what we currently have with massive amounts of field spread going on.

[Kev00]

Not sure about the idea of spec parts, but I don;t se why a team of talented ex-Technical Directors and aerodynamicists cannot write a set of Technical Regulations that define what counts as a wing element and thereby prevent teams from producing these technically-impressive but otherwise irrelevant wing designs.

Yeah I was thinking that but I just took it to the extreme.

[JHSingo]

It was an entirely predictable thing to happen, as soon as these regulations were set in stone.

 

At the time, I thought it was the wrong move. I still do think so - I mean, great, the cars are faster. But most the time you can't really tell anyway, unless you're watching a side-by-side comparison from last year.

 

My signature sums up my feelings on this. Nobody goes to races to see aerodynamicists. I find F1's obsession with aero both tedious and baffling, who really cares about the intricacies of whoever's front wing?

 

Hopefully Ross Brawn and his team come up with a solution that will guarantee consistently exciting racing in F1 - something that is long overdue.

[cpbell]

F1 should take a look at the 2018 Indy Car....road course spec has basic wings and will use ground effects for under car down force

I saw the photos on here just now, and it's almost exactly what I imagined for Formula 1, although I think I'd make the front wing slightly narrower to reduce the risk of damage in contact.

[cpbell]

I'm not really sure you can use a classic race as an example, those cars may not all be racing at 100%.

 

If you watch the 1979 British Grand that the FW07 competed in it doesn't look that different from what we currently have with massive amounts of field spread going on.

Indeed, the field spread in the historic championship is probably misleading, but my point was more that it was factually possible for the camera car to stay close to the car in front through several high-speed sections, which enabled the driver to pass the car in front in the Village/Loop section by using the cut back.  Field spread in itself is inevitable and has always happened, and re-writing those sections of the Technical Regulations pertaining to aerodynamics probably won't do anything to change it.  What I'd like to see is that, when two or more cars converge on-track, those catching the cars ahead are able to stay close enough to the car in front to enable the driver to set-up a passing attempt, or to give him a chance of taking full advantage should the driver ahead run wide.

Edited by cpbell, 01 August 2017 - 21:07.

[Fatgadget]

Perhaps F1 be like rallying eh! ..Send em off at 1 minuite intervals.That way no problem with trivialitiies such as dirty  air from the wake of the car in front!

[FNG]

Maybe my memory is going off a bit but I find that the cars can follow each other MUCH better than they could around the early 2000's. I remember seeing cars understeer if they got to within 4 or 5 car lengths, doesn't seem nearly as bad  these days. Not to say that it can't be improved but 15 years ago F1 cars were skating on ice if they could even see the car in front.

[noriaki]

I agree with everything you had said. 

 

I saw the photos on here just now, and it's almost exactly what I imagined for Formula 1, although I think I'd make the front wing slightly narrower to reduce the risk of damage in contact.

 

Indycar is exactly why claims "nothing wrong with the cars, it's the tracks" which I often spot, are totally false.

 

The DW12 road course spec Indycars, introduced in 2012, had almost no problems following each other closely, within 0.5 seconds - and therefore Indycar put up a great show almost every time until 2014, despite that half of their tracks are actually way worse for overtaking than Hungaroring and Monte Carlo. (Same for GP2 and other junior series, they usually put up a good race even on tracks where the modern F1 cars need a massive pace advantage to even dream of reaching the DRS zone.) But for 2015 Indycar decided to go the F1 route with allowing teams to find more downforce from complex bodywork aero, and consequently the quality and closeness of racing reduced drastically, with cars now struggling to follow each other that close - and thus way less instances, where cars roughly at each other's pace can dice with each other, occur. 

 

It only took Indycar 2 years to see the problem, understand the root cause, and effectively solve it. Thereby I can promise that next year's Indycars, which have been designed to a ruleset that actually promotes good, natural and close racing will also produce good, natural and close racing. On the other hand, with F1's track record of rule changes, I guess it will take them another 20 years of coming up with half-assed DRS and cheese tyre patchwork solutions before actually understanding the root cause... 

[cpbell]

Maybe my memory is going off a bit but I find that the cars can follow each other MUCH better than they could around the early 2000's. I remember seeing cars understeer if they got to within 4 or 5 car lengths, doesn't seem nearly as bad  these days. Not to say that it can't be improved but 15 years ago F1 cars were skating on ice if they could even see the car in front.

I'm sure you're correct that they slid wide more often; my argument is that they were closer to the car in front than they are now at circuits like the Hungaroring.

[cpbell]

 

The DW12 road course spec Indycars, introduced in 2012, had almost no problems following each other closely, within 0.5 seconds - and therefore Indycar put up a great show almost every time until 2014, despite that half of their tracks are actually way worse for overtaking than Hungaroring and Monte Carlo. (Same for GP2 and other junior series, they usually put up a good race even on tracks where the modern F1 cars need a massive pace advantage to even dream of reaching the DRS zone.) But for 2015 Indycar decided to go the F1 route with allowing teams to find more downforce from complex bodywork aero, and consequently the quality and closeness of racing reduced drastically, with cars now struggling to follow each other that close - and thus way less instances, where cars roughly at each other's pace can dice with each other, occur. 

 

. 

Thanks for that information - I don't have the necessary TV package to follow Indycar, though I did see some online footage of one of the road courses prior to the Indy 500 and found myself wondering whether a GP there would see any position changes via. overtaking manouevres at all...

[Scotracer]

I'll say it for the 1000th time - quit saying that more underbody aero is better for racing unless you have solid data to back that up.

 

The 2017 F1 cars have much more powerful floors and diffusers than they have for a long time. The proportion of aero is now probably biased towards the floor vs 2014-2016. 

[Ricardo F1]

I just think they need a regulation where all air from the rear of the car must be blown up by very large dustpans.

[josepatches]

If there is not dirty air then they should remove DRS.

[Proto402]

I'll say it for the 1000th time - quit saying that more underbody aero is better for racing unless you have solid data to back that up.

 

The 2017 F1 cars have much more powerful floors and diffusers than they have for a long time. The proportion of aero is now probably biased towards the floor vs 2014-2016. 

 

True, the diffusors are more powerful, except for two problems:

 

1.  The front wing still generates a lot of the downforce for the front of the car.

 

2.  The starting point of the diffusor is still in the rear.  It should be much further forward, toward the middle of the car or more forward in order to have an effect on the front end.

 

So if you move the starting point of the diffusor toward the middle, or even more forward, plus simplify the front wing to act as to trim the front/rear balance, you can have a car that is less dependent on dirty air.  Other things you can change would be to lower the ride helght, remove the legality plate, and make the diffusor exits even bigger.

[J2NH]

Maybe my memory is going off a bit but I find that the cars can follow each other MUCH better than they could around the early 2000's. I remember seeing cars understeer if they got to within 4 or 5 car lengths, doesn't seem nearly as bad  these days. Not to say that it can't be improved but 15 years ago F1 cars were skating on ice if they could even see the car in front.

 

In an effort to slow the cars down F1 in the 2000's raised the height of the front wing (and ride height in general) to reduce downforce and as a consequence the wing was placed directly into the disturbed air of the following car.  Lowering the front wing helped dramatically but the complexity of the current wing is absurd.  Current wings are aerodynamic works of art but probably would serve the sport better in a museum and not on the front of an F1 car.

 

Imagine the money spent on the front wings of this years crop of F1 cars.  Now imagine the impact those millions have had on the actual racing.  I don't see the value for the sport.

[PilotPlant91]

Scrap the front wing

[THEWALL]

OMG how many times can this nail be hit on the head?

 

Yes, cars need to be able to follow closer for racing to be better.

No, turbulent air wake is not allowing them to be close enough for long enough to make it exciting. There have been like a million suggestions on how to improve this, F1 hasn't listened.

Yes these cars have too much downforce, generally bad for generating passing opportunities.

Yes, these cars brake too well, eliminating passing opportunities as well.

No, artificially manipulating the sport with DRS, mandatory use of compounds, parc ferme rules, refueling, reverse grids, etc., etc., etc., does not compensate for not being able or willing to do what's right.

Yada, yada, yada...

[Pingguest]

As far as I know, there is very little evidence that ground effect tunnels are a solution for the lack of on-track passing. Most series using tunnels are having spec aerodynamics, resulting in a lack of efficiency. 

[w1Y]

We have hot The Wall

[V8 Fireworks]

Not sure about the idea of spec parts, but I don;t see why a team of talented ex-Technical Directors and aerodynamicists cannot write a set of Technical Regulations that define what counts as a wing element and thereby prevent teams from producing these technically-impressive but otherwise irrelevant wing designs.

 

That can indeed do that.  At the moment, the front wing boxes are completely free that is why they have so many elements.  If you restricted them to two elements (which IS the rule for the rear wing) they would comply with that.

[V8 Fireworks]

Thereby I can promise that next year's Indycars, which have been designed to a ruleset that actually promotes good, natural and close racing will also produce good, natural and close racing. . 

 

With 33% less downforce, they will also look slow in corners, which is surely not something you are proposing as a good thing!?

 

Old low downforce CART cars looked like they were in slow motion in the corners, if you happened to switch over after just watching an F1 race.  

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 02 August 2017 - 07:15.

[Henri Greuter]

With 33% less downforce, they will also look slow in corners, which is surely not something you are proposing as a good thing!?

 

Old low downforce CART cars looked like they were in slow motion in the corners, if you happened to switch over after just watching an F1 race.  

 

 

I am still surprised as of how much focus you put on speed, speed, higher speeds, tospeeds and higher corner speed within F1 as being the most entertainig part to watch, even if it makes an event boring in predictability. (I won't call what you want within F1 a race any longer. I almost think your ultimate dream is an event on a track put down a the Bonneville salt flats. I know of at least one year in which they put down an 11 mile long circular track for a 24 hour world speed record attempt. 11 miles flat out cornering.....

 

If we get better racing with more battles for position between drivers who actually can overtake another in a straight fight instead of the current highspeed processions where DRS decides if  and when there can be (yes, can be, not will be but can be) overtaking, then I'm fine with lower corner speeds. and ower overall speeds.

 

If I wanna see high corner speeds I'll put in a DVD with Indy or Michigan reports, In F1 I prefer to see racing. No drivers worn out because of hghspeed cornering n a race with little to no overtaking on the track possible because of high downforce, high corner speeds and thus `follow the leader ` processions.

 

Old CART racers did indeed look slower in corners but I also remember how often in the early 90s, after having seen yet another boring F1 race dominated by McLaren-Honda and/or Williams-Renault I still could look forward to the CART event of later that evening, knowing that it would have a lot more racing and battles for position and it not being sure yet who was going to win.

 

F1, do we want it to be racing or a speed contest? I know what I prefer, I have the feeing that I know what your preference is

 

 

henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 02 August 2017 - 08:14.

[7MGTEsup]

Why not just let them all have fan cars so they create their own down force and the wake from the car in front doesn't matter.

[Racing4Me]

Dirty air......yeah, but let's call it what it is (from a non technical viewer  ) It's shitty showcars that are not meant for racing. Just keep car 2-3 seconds behind and all is fine 

 

I'm still waiting for them to make proper race cars......ment for racing. If they can do it in F2 they can do it here as well, right? Or am I just not thinking technical enough?

[noriaki]

With 33% less downforce, they will also look slow in corners, which is surely not something you are proposing as a good thing!?

Old low downforce CART cars looked like they were in slow motion in the corners, if you happened to switch over after just watching an F1 race.

F1 cars look like they are on rails while old school CART cars looked like the downforce wasnt enough to tame all the power and the cars actually had to be driven. I would take 5 seconds slower laptimes for F1 without batting an eyelid if that meant better racing.

[Retrofly]

Bigger faster engines, bigger wider fatter tires. Less aero.

Sure the apex speeds will be slower, but they will get between the apexes a lot quicker.

Also you get the added benefit of longer braking zones, and longer traction zones. Places where skill full drivers can make more of a difference.

 

i never understood the "must go quicker in the corners" mentality, if I'm honest I can tell the difference between this year and last. Everyone seems to be creaming themselves about "going flat" and all that other bullcrap but I'm pretty sure most of it is placebo.

F1 cars have always looked quick to me regardless of the regs. I mean speed is all well and good but what use is a car going fast if no ones watching?

[cpbell]

True, the diffusors are more powerful, except for two problems:

 

1.  The front wing still generates a lot of the downforce for the front of the car.

 

2.  The starting point of the diffusor is still in the rear.  It should be much further forward, toward the middle of the car or more forward in order to have an effect on the front end.

 

So if you move the starting point of the diffusor toward the middle, or even more forward, plus simplify the front wing to act as to trim the front/rear balance, you can have a car that is less dependent on dirty air.  Other things you can change would be to lower the ride helght, remove the legality plate, and make the diffusor exits even bigger.

That's my undestanding as well, based mainly on reading articles by those with technicalor aerodynamic backgrounds.  It seems to be the case that, presuming that front-end downforce is mainly generated by the front wing and not by a full ground effect underbody, the more complex that wing is, the worse it'll be affected by turbulent air.  Anyone who subscribes to AUTOSPORT here on the website, as I've just done, might have seen a Youtube video of an animation showing airflow off the front wing of an F1 car and how it's directed.  It seems that the complex outer elements don't generate much if any downforce themselves; what they do is to generate vortices which are manipulated by the barge boards to run down the sides of the car at reference plane level, thereby sealing-off the underbody of the car, which is necessary with the high rear ride heights that were introduced by RB in order to prevent air leaking out from the diffuser.  In other words, turbulent air over the front wing reduces front downforce, but, because the front wing increases underfloor downforce at the rear of the car as well, it removes that downforce just when the car most needs it.

Here's the video link:

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

Edited by cpbell, 02 August 2017 - 12:39.

[cpbell]

F1 cars look like they are on rails while old school CART cars looked like the downforce wasnt enough to tame all the power and the cars actually had to be driven. I would take 5 seconds slower laptimes for F1 without batting an eyelid if that meant better racing.

Part of the visual perception of speed is related to how much apparent work the driver is having to put in to control the car.  It's why very smooth drivers whose steering inputs are always progressive and who keep the car straight appear slower to the naked eye than those like Vettel in the blown exhaust era whose technique uses harsher steering inputs to achieve direction change and who are then prepared to correct any excess oversteer that results.

[ArrowsLivery]

I'll say it for the 1000th time - quit saying that more underbody aero is better for racing unless you have solid data to back that up.

 

The 2017 F1 cars have much more powerful floors and diffusers than they have for a long time. The proportion of aero is now probably biased towards the floor vs 2014-2016. 

 

Indycar tech chiefs seem to believe that underbody aero is better for racing. Unfortunately F1 teams are too selfish to spend any money or effort to look into a solution so we don't know how an F1-spec ground effects car would work. As for the 2009 technical changes, even Brawn admitted they were very half-assed, the wind tunnel they used was not designed to run two cars at once. 

[Rob]

F1 cars look like they are on rails while old school CART cars looked like the downforce wasnt enough to tame all the power and the cars actually had to be driven. I would take 5 seconds slower laptimes for F1 without batting an eyelid if that meant better racing.

 

This, absolutely! I don't want the cars to look like they're on rails. They should twitch and squirm - basically, they need to give the appearance that the driver is working hard to keep them pointing in the right direction. 

[Mosrite]

the FIA has a habit of fixing one problem, but introducing 3 new ones. Whatever their solution for this will be, it will also create more problems.

[Fatgadget]

Ross Brawn is F1's final hope on this issue. If he can't resolve it then I doubt anyone can.

Gordon Bennett!...Fiinal hope in whose opinion exactly?...Yours???

[Mosrite]

[V8 Fireworks]

if I'm honest I can tell the difference between this year and last. 

 

Good.  I can too.  They are much faster this year, it is very obvious.  Much more exciting to watch. 

 

This, absolutely! I don't want the cars to look like they're on rails. They should twitch and squirm - basically, they need to give the appearance that the driver is working hard to keep them pointing in the right direction. 

 

This is more to do with having an inadequate suspension setup, than anything to do with downforce.  The race engineers job is to make the car stable and easy to drive.

 

 

I'm still waiting for them to make proper race cars....

 

This already exists... The easiest way is just to make the cars small enough that they can run four or five wide. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 02 August 2017 - 14:28.

[V8 Fireworks]

Why not just let them all have fan cars so they create their own down force and the wake from the car in front doesn't matter.

 

Fantastic idea.

[Fatgadget]

the FIA has a habit of fixing one problem, but introducing 3 new ones. Whatever their solution for this will be, it will also create more problems.

That is the way of the world we live in..What would you rather them do then?..Nothing?..I would allmost bet that you amongst the first  scream..Why the hell dont they do something!

[V8 Fireworks]

That is the way of the world we live in..What would you rather them do then?..Nothing?..I would allmost bet that you amongst the first  scream..Why the hell dont they do something!

 

Like the strict engine specification, they should have a underbody aero floor developed by an independent (say Pescarolo or Panoz or even TMGbH) and then tightly regulate the rest of the aerodynamics (as in no winglets, no bargeboards, no "I-assure-you-this-is-a-brake-duct", very simple front and rear wings) the teams are permitted to add to this. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 02 August 2017 - 14:40.