55 replies to this topic

[Tenmantaylor]

Completely agree only front and rear wings should include complex multiple surfaces. Its that when they allowed these to start filling up the bargw board and intake areas again the racing suffered. Simple rule is more complex aero = faster laptime bit also more dirty air and worse racing. Force them to innovate in the smallest box possible. This will also have another desirable effect of equalizing the performance of the cars as less design and body. work will be required. And there'll be less debris and punctures on the track from the bits falling off.

Is it really that hard for them (rule makers) to see that simplicity is better in every conceivable way?

[Gary Davies]

You’re quite right, tenperson.... and the points you make go the gigantic philosophical elephant in the room that Liberty has to deal with.
In one corner we have the argument that what sets F1 apart... its very DNA ... is its cutting edge technology. Take away its DNA and you wreck it. Yet we know, those of us who have been watching it for more than five minutes, that the more you pour money and computer power into designing and developing these cars, the less likely it is that you’ll get close racing throughout the field.
And in the other corner the argument that F1 is entertainment and (as an example) gearboxes that shift ratios in 0.0005 sec are irrelevant.
I don’t know the answer but I would put in the point that Liberty has purchased a property that intrinsically costs a lot to run and requires a very large following through a variety of media if it is to remain viable.
Not a straighforward question and one that takes on an extra piquancy for those charged with setting the technical and sporting rules.

[Mauseri]

It would be interesting to see how a wingless formula would go. I don't care if it looks like a mushroom plant - as long as it is fast. Cleaned side pod surface is not really a formula.

[PayasYouRace]

Completely agree only front and rear wings should include complex multiple surfaces. Its that when they allowed these to start filling up the bargw board and intake areas again the racing suffered. Simple rule is more complex aero = faster laptime bit also more dirty air and worse racing. Force them to innovate in the smallest box possible. This will also have another desirable effect of equalizing the performance of the cars as less design and body. work will be required. And there'll be less debris and punctures on the track from the bits falling off.

Is it really that hard for them (rule makers) to see that simplicity is better in every conceivable way?

 

It's the complex multiple surfaces on the wings that do the most damage, as they work the air the hardest. They also need to be simplified to improve the racing. The bargeboard areas, while perhaps looking "ugly" aren't solely responsible for poor racing.

[MikeV1987]

I like them. They make the cars look meaner to me, seeing all the different solutions the teams choose to do is also interesting and part of the charm of F1.

Edited by MikeV1987, 17 February 2019 - 09:36.

[Mat13]

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.

I always liked the shark fins...


*runs for the door, ducking*