Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sidepods - Wings, air deflectors.. anyone else find them distacting and ugly


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 7,251 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 February 2019 - 17:01

Imagine how much nicer the cars would appear if their were rules banning all this wings, winglets, air deflectors in front of and around the rads.. 

 

Yes we have to live with the HALO as a result of safety..so it goes.

 

But all these unncessary and hugely unappealing appendages around the rads is just plain ugly..I wish i had photoshop skills to try and remove them and clean-up the look of the cars for both the Ferrari and Mercedes.

 

Also the rear monkey seats need to go as well.

 

Yes we need long cars as a result of battery packs etc.

Yes we need HALO as a result of safety.

 

But man... can we just get a nice clean car already.  Getting back to the era of X-wings soon if they isn't controlled.  If anyone with PS skills, be awesome to see a rendering of these things being remove and how much nicer the car would appear.



Advertisement

#2 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 February 2019 - 17:02

Sadly, I don’t have a time machine to take you back to 1967.

#3 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 15 February 2019 - 17:11

Poll, this thread needs a poll!

And the easiest way to reduce the complexity around the sidepods would be an extension of the minimum radii rule that is already in place for the majority of the sidepods. I think it's a Radius of 75mm that applies there.

Edited by thegforcemaybewithyou, 15 February 2019 - 17:15.


#4 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 4,033 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 15 February 2019 - 17:53

They do detract from the overall shape of the car in fairness. Although I’m not sure what I’d rather see- ugly quick cars, or only slightly less ugly slow ones. Bring back 2017, when cars were pretty.

#5 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 February 2019 - 18:08

I don't care if the cars are ugly. I like visible differences between cars.



#6 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 February 2019 - 18:13

They do detract from the overall shape of the car in fairness. Although I’m not sure what I’d rather see- ugly quick cars, or only slightly less ugly slow ones. Bring back 2017, when cars were pretty.


Of all the seasons you could pick, you just go for 2017 when the cars were virtually the same as this year but with more fins and winglets that the OP is talking about. Fair enough but it seems strange to me.

#7 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 4,033 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 15 February 2019 - 18:17

Of all the seasons you could pick, you just go for 2017 when the cars were virtually the same as this year but with more fins and winglets that the OP is talking about. Fair enough but it seems strange to me.


I don’t mind the winglets all that much- it’d be better if they weren’t there aesthetically but I understand without them the cars would be dog slow. It’s the halo that really stinks for me; 2017 is genuinely the year of the prettiest cars ever in my opinion.

#8 TF110

TF110
  • Member

  • 3,068 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2019 - 18:35

I don’t mind the winglets all that much- it’d be better if they weren’t there aesthetically but I understand without them the cars would be dog slow. It’s the halo that really stinks for me; 2017 is genuinely the year of the prettiest cars ever in my opinion.

The Halo is the worst thing to happen to f1 cars aesthetically imo. I don't agree these are the best looking cars (2017 that is) but they are up there.



#9 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 4,033 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 15 February 2019 - 18:38

The Halo is the worst thing to happen to f1 cars aesthetically imo. I don't agree these are the best looking cars (2017 that is) but they are up there.


Agreed- as in your avatar, full canopies are the way forward. Especially now LMP cars are going the way of the dodo- something needs to be pretty!

#10 eibyyz

eibyyz
  • Member

  • 1,819 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 February 2019 - 18:44

Sadly, I don’t have a time machine to take you back to 1967.

 

I'd settle for 1978.  1991, tops.



#11 917k

917k
  • Member

  • 2,958 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 15 February 2019 - 19:06

I'm a big F1 fan and have criticized the non-stop whinging here about the sport, which I think is still wonderful,but.......the more recent F1 cars, with all their flat surfaces, discordant angles and bibs and bobs look like lego cars and have totally lost the sleek look from the past.

 

I would love to see regs. that force teams to build low, trim and sleek cars once again, even if it is counter to the idea of open development.



#12 DrArrow

DrArrow
  • Member

  • 63 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 15 February 2019 - 19:27

We fortunately have indycars, which are sleek and eye pleasing. On the other hand - F1 with HALO, ultra long wheel base, wide frontwings, broken noses and over-complicated sidepods, I can't find anything aesthetically pleasing on those cars. Aesthetically this is for me by far the ugliest F1 era. More over Halo as horrible as it is, is the worst integrated in F1 among all categories, which use it and has not improved a single bit from the last year... I am rather investing my energy and time to indycar and watch now F1 only seldom.



#13 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 15 February 2019 - 19:29

The rule I mentioned above is 3.5.7 and it says:

"Bodywork shape (R75 rule)
Any vertical cross section of bodywork parallel to the plane C-C situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm for volumes (a) to (g) and any radius less than 25mm for volume (h) only :"

 

A picture from the 2019 regulations to show which areas/volumes are meant.

xWB3gPO.png

And the 2019 Ferrari for comparison, the green bits from the sketches above are very smooth and no winglets or vortex generators can be found there.

DzcNsvkXQAAblTe.jpg



#14 djparky

djparky
  • Member

  • 1,992 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 15 February 2019 - 19:48

yes they look rubbish, with the halo adding to it. happily I have Indy Car which not only has actual racing but the cars look amazing as well

#15 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 February 2019 - 20:05

Thing is, I think this year’s cars are looking to be the best looking in a while. They only have a few small areas of winglets and fins, and are much cleaner than most cars of the last 20 years or so. They look fast. Personally I have to go back to the 3.5 litre era to find cars I find prettier.

#16 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,879 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 15 February 2019 - 20:11

The cookie cutter regulation stipulated front ends and thumb noses ruin a lot of them. They don't look terrible (there has been worse!) but I'm with Gordon Murray- you have to have some sympathy for aesthetics, which F1's current breed of CFD led design teams don't have. And more than ever, if you painted them all the same colour you would struggle to tell many of them apart.

#17 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 February 2019 - 20:16

Thing is, I think this year’s cars are looking to be the best looking in a while. They only have a few small areas of winglets and fins, and are much cleaner than most cars of the last 20 years or so. They look fast. Personally I have to go back to the 3.5 litre era to find cars I find prettier.

 

Still damn ugly, though.



#18 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 February 2019 - 20:20

Still damn ugly, though.

 

Not at all. The only F1 cars I'd ever apply that label to are the pre-ground effect, early winged cars. 1968-1978 ish.



#19 chrisj

chrisj
  • Member

  • 1,000 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 15 February 2019 - 20:21

I don't mind all the extra bits, and actually liked the '08 cars that had horns and everything else protruding from all over the cars. I'd be happiest if they banned all wings and aero, but that's not going to happen.



Advertisement

#20 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 11,565 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 15 February 2019 - 22:08

The cars seem a bit out of balance - simple front wing, simple rear bodywork and then all manner of aero gubbins in the space between the front wheels and sidepods - and by god they are cramming in as much as they can.

If anyone falls over in that area they are going to give themselves a terrible injury...

Edited by krapmeister, 15 February 2019 - 22:08.


#21 Garndell

Garndell
  • Member

  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 16 February 2019 - 01:57

If it was up to me I'd make the barge-boards one continuous piece with no slots, holes or gaps of any kind.  I'd mandate the floor be smooth and devoid of holes, slots etc.  I'd remove all sidepod wings, slats, poles... basically anything other than a smooth continuous surface.  I'd also get rid of monkey seats, T wings etc and basically make them all drive a 1994 F1 car.



#22 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 16 February 2019 - 02:23

 

But all these unncessary and hugely unappealing appendages around the rads is just plain ugly..I wish i had photoshop skills to try and remove them and clean-up the look of the cars for both the Ferrari and Mercedes.

 

 

I agree that they could be banned or restricted (as they are currently very effectively banned by a minimum radius rule over the rear of the sidepods) in order to restrict avenues for aerodynamic development.  :up:

 

Teams sure are cramming a LOT of stuff in the free bodywork area of the bargeboards/turning vanes.

 

8sf546soc5511.jpg

 

haas-f1-team-vf-18-bargeboard--1.jpg

 

While the intricate designs are impressive, I would be in favour of extending the areas of the car where the minimum radius rule applies to close the field.  :up:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 February 2019 - 02:24.


#23 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 16 February 2019 - 02:28

I don’t mind the winglets all that much- it’d be better if they weren’t there aesthetically but I understand without them the cars would be dog slow.

 

I don't know about "dog slow".  They may lose around 4-5 seconds per lap, if they didn't have the bargeboards there to increase the efficiency of the floor by pushing the front tyre wakes away and directing clean air from under nose around the undercut to drive over the top of the diffuser (and thus draw more air flow out from underneath).

 

Conversely, making the car (the under body) constantly have to operate in the wake of it's own front tyres would mean that it would not be disturbed as much by external dirty air therefore the cars should be able to follow more closely.   :clap:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 February 2019 - 02:29.


#24 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 08:26

I don't know about "dog slow".  They may lose around 4-5 seconds per lap, if they didn't have the bargeboards there to increase the efficiency of the floor by pushing the front tyre wakes away and directing clean air from under nose around the undercut to drive over the top of the diffuser (and thus draw more air flow out from underneath).

 

Conversely, making the car (the under body) constantly have to operate in the wake of it's own front tyres would mean that it would not be disturbed as much by external dirty air therefore the cars should be able to follow more closely.   :clap:

 

Interesting logic, but unless you enforce that the wake from the tyres is actually diverted under the entire floor, no doubt with some even uglier mandatory bargeboard, then that's not going to work.



#25 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 09:24

Not at all. The only F1 cars I'd ever apply that label to are the pre-ground effect, early winged cars. 1968-1978 ish.

 

Each to his own. I'd take any (well, almost) of those cars over today's versions.



#26 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 February 2019 - 09:26

Imagine how much nicer the cars would appear if their were rules banning all this wings, winglets, air deflectors in front of and around the rads.. 

 

Yes we have to live with the HALO as a result of safety..so it goes.

 

But all these unncessary and hugely unappealing appendages around the rads is just plain ugly..I wish i had photoshop skills to try and remove them and clean-up the look of the cars for both the Ferrari and Mercedes.

 

Also the rear monkey seats need to go as well.

 

Yes we need long cars as a result of battery packs etc.

Yes we need HALO as a result of safety.

 

But man... can we just get a nice clean car already.  Getting back to the era of X-wings soon if they isn't controlled.  If anyone with PS skills, be awesome to see a rendering of these things being remove and how much nicer the car would appear.

 

 

 

Why do we need long cars because of the batteries? Right now the battery is below the fuel tank but why not make the package wider and more flat?

Everything is focussed on putting the side pods as much forward as possible and as narrow as possible in order to make the entire center fuselage as narrow as possible to enhance the aero efficiency.

But simply cut down on the maximum wheelbase and force the teams to make more use of the width of the car, get real side pods again. Perfect manner to slow the cars down since that will reduce aero efficiency,

 

 

BTW, for all those people still complaing about the high weight of the cars, I wonder how much lighter a car would end up if all the barge boards, flaps, vanes etc. would be taken off the cars.



#27 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,879 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 16 February 2019 - 09:34

If it was up to me I'd make the barge-boards one continuous piece with no slots, holes or gaps of any kind.  I'd mandate the floor be smooth and devoid of holes, slots etc.  I'd remove all sidepod wings, slats, poles... basically anything other than a smooth continuous surface.  I'd also get rid of monkey seats, T wings etc and basically make them all drive a 1994 F1 car.


I was with you until that final bit. That era had some of the worst 'racing' ever.

#28 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 16 February 2019 - 09:43

Less complex aero rules could also have another positive effect in that it might lead to a smaller gap between the front and the midfield cars. If the regulations would limit the volumes teams had to analyse via CFD and in the wind tunnel, then I believe it should become easier to build a competitive car even on a smaller budget.

#29 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 10:34

Each to his own.

 

Which is my overall point. There's nothing more boring than yet another "I find the current cars ugly so I want them changed" thread, which is what this is.



#30 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 10:36

If it was up to me I'd make the barge-boards one continuous piece with no slots, holes or gaps of any kind.  I'd mandate the floor be smooth and devoid of holes, slots etc.  I'd remove all sidepod wings, slats, poles... basically anything other than a smooth continuous surface.  I'd also get rid of monkey seats, T wings etc and basically make them all drive a 1994 F1 car.

 

How about a year where the car weren't so horrendously aerodynamically unstable that resulted in numerous drivers being put in hospital (or worse)?



#31 djparky

djparky
  • Member

  • 1,992 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 16 February 2019 - 10:42

How about a year where the car weren't so horrendously aerodynamically unstable that resulted in numerous drivers being put in hospital (or worse)?



Happily we haven't had any years like that since the 1960's, but if these are the best drivers in the world they should br able to cope with less downforce. Having 1985 levels wouldn't result in endless drives going to hospital. And although this point seems to elude the safety obsessives motor racing is dangerous past time

#32 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 11,533 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 16 February 2019 - 10:58

Why do we need long cars because of the batteries? Right now the battery is below the fuel tank but why not make the package wider and more flat?
Everything is focussed on putting the side pods as much forward as possible and as narrow as possible in order to make the entire center fuselage as narrow as possible to enhance the aero efficiency.
But simply cut down on the maximum wheelbase and force the teams to make more use of the width of the car, get real side pods again. Perfect manner to slow the cars down since that will reduce aero efficiency,


BTW, for all those people still complaing about the high weight of the cars, I wonder how much lighter a car would end up if all the barge boards, flaps, vanes etc. would be taken off the cars.


I reckon this could be the solution to be honest.

#33 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 11:04

Happily we haven't had any years like that since the 1960's, but if these are the best drivers in the world they should br able to cope with less downforce. Having 1985 levels wouldn't result in endless drives going to hospital. And although this point seems to elude the safety obsessives motor racing is dangerous past time

 

The problem wasn't the lack of downforce in 1994. It was the instability. Those are two different things. Cars were doing things that were unpredictable and it took a while for the teams to figure it all out. Even the best drivers in the world cannot cope with a car that will do something on one lap that it has never even hinted at on previous laps, and sadly it caught a lot of them out. 1994 is a poor choice on Garndell's part, especially as he didn't say he wanted cars that looked like 1994 cars, or had the downforce of 1994 cars, but specifically that they'd drive like 1994 cars.



#34 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 11:22

Which is my overall point. There's nothing more boring than yet another "I find the current cars ugly so I want them changed" thread, which is what this is.

 

As is often (correctly) pointed out to others, if you find a thread uninteresting, you don't have to participate or even read it. Of course, if threads are duplicated, then they ought to be merged.



#35 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 11:28

The problem wasn't the lack of downforce in 1994. It was the instability. Those are two different things. Cars were doing things that were unpredictable and it took a while for the teams to figure it all out. Even the best drivers in the world cannot cope with a car that will do something on one lap that it has never even hinted at on previous laps, and sadly it caught a lot of them out. 1994 is a poor choice on Garndell's part, especially as he didn't say he wanted cars that looked like 1994 cars, or had the downforce of 1994 cars, but specifically that they'd drive like 1994 cars.

 

You are right, of course, that it can be somewhat dangerous if a car behaves in an unpredictable manner, but on the other hand, if it's totally predictable then there is precious little to differentiate an excellent driver from just an averagely good one. One can argue that F1 is about designing the best car, but the reality is that the attraction for many people is how those cars are driven and people want to see situations where a great driver recovers where the would rest crash out.



#36 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:33

 I wonder how much lighter a car would end up if all the barge boards, flaps, vanes etc. would be taken off the cars.

 

Not much, carbon fibre parts like these weigh almost nothing.  Even the front and rear wing elements that actually carry a lot of load, still don't weigh that much.



#37 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:43

As is often (correctly) pointed out to others, if you find a thread uninteresting, you don't have to participate or even read it. Of course, if threads are duplicated, then they ought to be merged.

  

You are right, of course, that it can be somewhat dangerous if a car behaves in an unpredictable manner, but on the other hand, if it's totally predictable then there is precious little to differentiate an excellent driver from just an averagely good one. One can argue that F1 is about designing the best car, but the reality is that the attraction for many people is how those cars are driven and people want to see situations where a great driver recovers where the would rest crash out.


There’s threads that I’m not interested in which I don’t go to, and then there’s threads that retread the same circular arguments over and over again but sometimes have something worth commenting on, as in your second post.

There’s a limit to how difficult to drive you want a racing car. Something of the performance of an F1 car needs to be predictable because things can go wrong very quickly. A car can still be difficult to drive without a driver not having any confidence in it because he never knows when it is going to throw itself off the road. For example, someone mentioned 1985. Having a car with huge amounts of power will be difficult to drive on the limit, especially with low grip. But as long as that grip is understandable for the driver, the best drivers can make a difference.

#38 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:44

Not much, carbon fibre parts like these weigh almost nothing. Even the front and rear wing elements that actually carry a lot of load, still don't weigh that much.


With what’s left on modern F1 cars, I’d say in the region of 10 kg.

#39 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 February 2019 - 13:58

Not much, carbon fibre parts like these weigh almost nothing.  Even the front and rear wing elements that actually carry a lot of load, still don't weigh that much.

 

You're gonna be surprised to find out how much it would be. I have read somewhere here at this forum that a front wing arrangement on last year's cars was some 14 kgs!!

 

Have a look on all the junk in front and near the entry of the sidepods and under the nose. Take all of that away and I think you're getting clase to some 10 or so kgs.

 

Think about your fly-away vacation in which you are easy on your luggage. But that extra t-shirt, that extra pair of undies, ans socks and all of a sudden you still end up more heavy than you expected. A lot of light things combined add up rapidly.

 

BTW, Long time no see!!! Where were you? Good to see you back.



Advertisement

#40 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 16 February 2019 - 14:15

There’s a limit to how difficult to drive you want a racing car. Something of the performance of an F1 car needs to be predictable because things can go wrong very quickly.

 

Or.....   ;)

 

 

If Mr. Armstrong has impeccable reaction rate and calmness when things go wrong, why not also F1 drivers who are also supposed to be the best of the best?

 

[Although... Mr. Grosjean did somehow manage to spear into the wall at Azerbaijain 2018 under the safety car....  :eek:  ]



#41 Garndell

Garndell
  • Member

  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 16 February 2019 - 20:10

I was with you until that final bit. That era had some of the worst 'racing' ever.

 

 

How about a year where the car weren't so horrendously aerodynamically unstable that resulted in numerous drivers being put in hospital (or worse)?

 

 

The problem wasn't the lack of downforce in 1994. It was the instability. Those are two different things. Cars were doing things that were unpredictable and it took a while for the teams to figure it all out. Even the best drivers in the world cannot cope with a car that will do something on one lap that it has never even hinted at on previous laps, and sadly it caught a lot of them out. 1994 is a poor choice on Garndell's part, especially as he didn't say he wanted cars that looked like 1994 cars, or had the downforce of 1994 cars, but specifically that they'd drive like 1994 cars.

 

 

I originally put 1964 but changed it before posting as a ~1994 car would be easier to adapt for more modern safety standards.  I also originally had a lot more about adding ground effect but thought the thread was more about something being aesthetically displeasing so cut it out.

 

My basic point is the cars were clean aesthetically, even if I didn't word it as well as I could have.  I don't agree that I said drive like, you may have in inferred that but that is putting a little extra editorial to what I posted.  Hopefully I am more clear in this post.  I'd like to add that the driver should be able to easily get in & out of the car without having to be assisted or jump or make excessive movements to avoid the carbon maze alongside the cockpit.



#42 Kobasmashi

Kobasmashi
  • Member

  • 734 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 16 February 2019 - 21:07

I don’t mind the winglets all that much- it’d be better if they weren’t there aesthetically but I understand without them the cars would be dog slow. It’s the halo that really stinks for me; 2017 is genuinely the year of the prettiest cars ever in my opinion.


2017 had potential but the shark fins and penis noses ruined that. The side profile of the launch spec Mercedes, before they put the shark fin on it and before the nose got more penisy in the European season, was stunning.

#43 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 16 February 2019 - 21:22

The missed opportunity I see in these rules is cleaning up the cuts and flow vanes at the rear of the car. There was an emphasis on front wings and the airflow at the front of the car but too little to ensure clean airflow off the back as this directly affects how closely the cars can run together. This is a much harder problem of course but I hope it is something Ross Brawn and his team are looking at.



#44 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 February 2019 - 21:27

I haven't been able to figure out why F1 wants super-clean rear bodywork, to the point of having the rear wheels hang out there somewhere in no-man's land, but goes all in on these ever more ridiculous contraptions around the mid-area of the car. :well:

 

I understand why engineers are keen to exploit that as much as possible it, but not why the regulators think this is a great idea. F1 cars are already aerodynamic disasters due to their open wheels. Just go all in with the concept and keep everything clean.

 

And ditch the awful Halo.


Edited by Nonesuch, 16 February 2019 - 21:27.


#45 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2019 - 21:42

I originally put 1964 but changed it before posting as a ~1994 car would be easier to adapt for more modern safety standards.  I also originally had a lot more about adding ground effect but thought the thread was more about something being aesthetically displeasing so cut it out.

 

My basic point is the cars were clean aesthetically, even if I didn't word it as well as I could have.  I don't agree that I said drive like, you may have in inferred that but that is putting a little extra editorial to what I posted.  Hopefully I am more clear in this post.  I'd like to add that the driver should be able to easily get in & out of the car without having to be assisted or jump or make excessive movements to avoid the carbon maze alongside the cockpit.

 

Apologies Garndell. I appear to have misread your post..

 

Now I don't agree that the driver's safety should be compromised from today's excellent high standards, but I do agree that it would be nice if cars could look as clean as they did in the early 90s. In reality that would only need tidying up the bargeboard areas and resizing the wings a bit. Maybe mandate a maximum overall length, but if they were as short as they were back then they'd look a bit stumpy as cockpits are taller today, for good reason. The teams know enough today and are thorough enough in their aero work that we don't have that instability that I wrongly thought you were not necessarily intentionally wanting in the cars but perhaps, I thought, simply unaware of.



#46 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 6,994 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 16 February 2019 - 22:03

The cookie cutter regulation stipulated front ends and thumb noses ruin a lot of them. They don't look terrible (there has been worse!) but I'm with Gordon Murray- you have to have some sympathy for aesthetics, which F1's current breed of CFD led design teams don't have. And more than ever, if you painted them all the same colour you would struggle to tell many of them apart.

Apart from the Mercedes - there nose is unique...

#47 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 February 2019 - 22:20

I haven't been able to figure out why F1 wants super-clean rear bodywork, to the point of having the rear wheels hang out there somewhere in no-man's land, but goes all in on these ever more ridiculous contraptions around the mid-area of the car. :well:

I understand why engineers are keen to exploit that as much as possible it, but not why the regulators think this is a great idea. F1 cars are already aerodynamic disasters due to their open wheels. Just go all in with the concept and keep everything clean.

And ditch the awful Halo.


Yeah the inconsistency of the rules is what makes it look worse.

We have simpler engine covers and wings but the barge board area is still a garbage pile of carbon fibre.

It has always been very impressive that they can do all this complex modelling it but I don’t think it’s really adding anything to the sport to have them spend so much money on the development of it all.

#48 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 7,173 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 February 2019 - 04:49

I haven't been able to figure out why F1 wants super-clean rear bodywork, to the point of having the rear wheels hang out there somewhere in no-man's land, but goes all in on these ever more ridiculous contraptions around the mid-area of the car. :well:

 

I understand why engineers are keen to exploit that as much as possible it, but not why the regulators think this is a great idea. F1 cars are already aerodynamic disasters due to their open wheels. Just go all in with the concept and keep everything clean.

 

And ditch the awful Halo.

 

The direction you are trying to point in this note here is right, In a way, as long as if one sees Formula1 as car design as the exercise to deliver car that are easiest to drive at the highest speed. 

 

Now what I am sayings somehow can be misinterpreted to a wrong direction, especially thinking that this week GrandTour showed a rolling three wheeler...

 

But let me put it in this way, I support the assertion, because I do think that a race car should test the skill of race driver much more than what current Formula1 cars does.

 

After seeing what the teams did on 2019 front wings, I say that the formula1 reg can at least reduce the width of front wing by 1 meter.

 

In the different way I say that the rear wigs can be lowered as low as current upper rear wishbone. 



#49 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 6,460 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:54

Which is my overall point. There's nothing more boring than yet another "I find the current cars ugly so I want them changed" thread, which is what this is.

For someone who apparently finds the subject of this thread boring, you have certainly participated in it with admirable with vigour. Bravo!  :clap:

 

Anyway, back to someone who understood F1 from inside the cockpit, I have long been delighted by Chris Amon's wry comment in 1968, the dawn of the wing era in Formula One: "Jesus, what can of worms are we opening here?"  :lol:



#50 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 February 2019 - 08:16

For someone who apparently finds the subject of this thread boring, you have certainly participated in it with admirable with vigour. Bravo!  :clap:

 

Anyway, back to someone who understood F1 from inside the cockpit, I have long been delighted by Chris Amon's wry comment in 1968, the dawn of the wing era in Formula One: "Jesus, what can of worms are we opening here?"  :lol:

 

Well I've tried to develop the worthwhile discussion points that are to be had on the subject. The OP might be terrible but we don't have to let that stop us. Plus, it's always helpful to try to correct misconceptions about aerodynamics.