Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ross Brawn announces new technical regulations for 2021 [split]


  • Please log in to reply
402 replies to this topic

#251 Celloman

Celloman
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 02 November 2019 - 15:24

Just look at Formula 2/GP2, that's completely ruined by the introduction of DRS. It used to be a category with great racing, always a lot of fun to watch but since they've adopted DRS I barely watch it anymore. These cars can follow each other pretty well and there was no need for DRS whatsoever but they introduced it because the drivers "had to learn" how to overtake with DRS before progressing into F1( yup that was the official line of why they introduced it).

 

Because these can follow each other quite well through the corners DRS robs us of any great fight, they just fly past on the straights. Fastest car wins, no matter where they start because "overtaking" has become so easy.

I watched some races around the time Bottas was doing GP3 or GP2, I reckon those were without DRS. I don't remember much excitement, in fact I remember watching many lower category races around circuits like Hungaroring or Monza with literally zero overtaking. Some of those races were so boring the commentators ran out of things to speak about half-way through the race. I would say overtaking was an even bigger problem in the lower categories before DRS got introduced.



Advertisement

#252 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,222 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 November 2019 - 15:27

The break rule is awful and completely the wrong direction for the sport

Hopefully that gets dropped

I really don't see the problem. Should be easy enough to make components last a weekend.

#253 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 02 November 2019 - 15:30

I won't get too excited yet. So far, the last 10 years or so, all the new rules to revamp racing has been failures. They still can't seem to solve the fundamental aero problem yet. The cars looks sleeker though, but they should not allow

the engineers to develop all those ugly aero sprouts over time. Oh well, it seem like 2009 again.



#254 Celloman

Celloman
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 02 November 2019 - 15:40

DRS increased overtaking numbers, but made races even more dull. There is no excitement from a DRS fly-by!

I agree about fly-by overtakes, but we shouldn't forget there are many circuits that were brought to life by DRS. I'd actually argue that almost all of the exciting races we have had in 2019 (there was a good stretch around the summer, four or five good races in a row) wouldn't have been much exciting without DRS. Verstappen's fight from 7th to 1st at Austria would almost certainly have been hampered at some point without DRS. Hamilton would never have got close enough to Bottas in Silverstone to go side-by-side after Wellington. The Monza Hamilton vs Leclerc battle would have been a complete non-battle without DRS. And finally, the best example, Hungaroring. Pre-DRS, Hungaroring was won by taking pole or being first in the first corner, that was it. Verstappen would most likely have lead from start to finish and after the first pit stop the race would definitely have been over. But having DRS, it gave Hamilton the opportunity to try something different and pit twice, since he knew overtaking was possible.



#255 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,162 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 02 November 2019 - 15:44

Just one question: why have they kept the wide front wing? Everyone seems to agree that they are not good for racing in close quarters, either because they are more prone to falling off entirely with contact, even slight contact, or they tend to cause punctures easier, I would imagine, than narrower wings. 



#256 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 02 November 2019 - 16:09

If you don't have anything in front of the wheels, they will create more dirty air.



#257 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,113 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 November 2019 - 16:24

Just one question: why have they kept the wide front wing? Everyone seems to agree that they are not good for racing in close quarters, either because they are more prone to falling off entirely with contact, even slight contact, or they tend to cause punctures easier, I would imagine, than narrower wings. 

 

 

If you don't have anything in front of the wheels, they will create more dirty air.

 

Yeah I think it has to do with being used as a flow control device as much as anything. Anyway, the drivers should well be used to the width of their front wings by now. Even narrower front wings were knocked off at a similar rate anyway.



#258 Turboflame

Turboflame
  • Member

  • 542 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 02 November 2019 - 18:04

How big the chance will be Ferrari or Merc will ultimately use their veto against this new set of rules?

Could the rules realistically still change a big deal?

Ferrari stated they think it's good starting point, but they didn't exclude they were going to use their veto.



#259 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,222 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 November 2019 - 18:09

How big the chance will be Ferrari or Merc will ultimately use their veto against this new set of rules?

Could the rules realistically still change a big deal?

Ferrari stated they think it's good starting point, but they didn't exclude they were going to use their veto.

 


When did Merc get a veto?

Advertisement

#260 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,222 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 November 2019 - 18:18

With the new Parc Ferme rule and returning the car to it's scrutineering spec, how does that affect the engines? If they are using a spec A in practice, but want a spec B in the race, does that count as a near enough one for one swap?

#261 Turboflame

Turboflame
  • Member

  • 542 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 02 November 2019 - 18:24

When did Merc get a veto?

 

 

I've only seen this:

https://www.autospor...o-not-ruled-out

 

Could another top team do this as well, theoretically?  Like Merc.



#262 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,222 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 November 2019 - 18:30

I've only seen this:

https://www.autospor...o-not-ruled-out

 

Could another top team do this as well, theoretically?  Like Merc.

 


Nope, Ferrari are the only team that have a veto.

#263 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,580 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 November 2019 - 19:20

With the new Parc Ferme rule and returning the car to it's scrutineering spec, how does that affect the engines? If they are using a spec A in practice, but want a spec B in the race, does that count as a near enough one for one swap?

 

I don't see why it wouldn't count. I got the impression that the car must be returned to the same spec and I can't see how the PU would not be included.



#264 Danyy

Danyy
  • Member

  • 2,305 posts
  • Joined: September 17

Posted 02 November 2019 - 19:25

As far as I know, teams don't have much to do with brake development and nothing with construction. It makes some kind of sense to reduce cost of such parts. It leaves teams more money to spend on design and construction of their own, capped or not.


I don’t think it’s as simple as that, F1 never is. The biggest way they could improve the wear and tear of brake discs/pads is by how they are integrated into the car and how well they are cooled ect.. something a big team will be able to do a lot better than a small team.

#265 ArchieTech

ArchieTech
  • Member

  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 02 November 2019 - 19:28

Just one question: why have they kept the wide front wing? Everyone seems to agree that they are not good for racing in close quarters, either because they are more prone to falling off entirely with contact, even slight contact, or they tend to cause punctures easier, I would imagine, than narrower wings. 

Wings becoming detached is one of the reasons they've changed how they attach to the nose, now the flaps fully attach to the side of the nose rather than the whole wing being attached by two tiny mount points in the middle. Perhaps the vertical sides to the wing might help a bit with punctures too.



#266 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 02 November 2019 - 19:38

Bigger brake discs, then...
They really need to make a move on and make those standard parts, with a spec that more or less doubles braking distances. 
The tyres don't need 5-6G braking, the racing doesn't need it. The safety doesn't need a car to still do 320 kph a mere 50 meters before the raceable tarmac runs out.



#267 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,222 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 November 2019 - 20:00

I don't see why it wouldn't count. I got the impression that the car must be returned to the same spec and I can't see how the PU would not be included.

 


Me neither, but it got me thinking of possible implications.

#268 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,162 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 02 November 2019 - 20:15

Wings becoming detached is one of the reasons they've changed how they attach to the nose, now the flaps fully attach to the side of the nose rather than the whole wing being attached by two tiny mount points in the middle. Perhaps the vertical sides to the wing might help a bit with punctures too.

Be that as it may, why keep the wide wings? I haven't heard an engineering/aero POV for this and, even if there was, is it really that important as to compromise racing, their golden objective, and risk having many important abandonments after the first lap? 



#269 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 2,310 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 02 November 2019 - 22:29

Hybrid components are added for extra power to te the ICE.
You ask for return of the V10, I think that you want the kind of V10s as in the last stages of their existance, thus 19000+ rpm 3 liters.

Such engines had more than enough power on their own and were not in need at all for hybrid components.
For hybrid assisted V10s you would need an entirely new, way less powerful concept of V10 with new specs. (And no doubt they had to be so that lots of noise and rpms to make that howling noise too, somehow I can't envision that all those fans who beg for the return of V10s would like to see versions that rev at only 10000-11000 rpm instead of that 19000+ when they screamed the most and the loudest and appealed the most to such V10 fans.)
Anyway, when you need another spec of V10, yet another manner of starting a spending war beause of the need to start all over again. Like what happened for the current PU's. And we all know by now that, based on the lessons learned by Mercedes, you need budgets beyond belief for that.
I have the feeling that continuing with the current V6 ICE it eventually will be cheaper for the ICE part of the PU's that drop the V6 and start all over again with yet another ICE concept to be integrated within a PU package.

 

The current engines aren't getting any cheaper. How many more teams need to drop off before the cost and complexity of this formula are actually acknowledged? 

 

The 19K RPM engines were around very briefly towards the end of the V10 era. I don't recall anyone complaining about the noise of the 1998 Merc engines or the 1996 Ferraris, neither of which turned anywhere near 19,000rpm. The early 1990s cars sounded pretty good, a damn sight better than the current powerplants. 

 

Just because it would expensive to change to *something else* doesn't mean we have to accept an engine formula with price tags in the tens of millions of dollars. It's all well and good to have a rule for a cost cap, but what's the point if no one is prepared to accept on a cost basis, the V6 Hybrid era has been a disaster. 

 

There simply isn't that much money in the world to be spent on motor racing to sustain that cost. Grids used to be huge and I feel that everyone has gotten used to there being ten teams of less, when it should be seen as a massive indictment on how much unsustainable spending has been locked in by the top end of the grid. The engine and gearbox costs are a huge part of that, and any rule changes that don't acknowledge that are basically a waste of time. 



#270 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 02 November 2019 - 22:46

The 19K RPM engines were around very briefly towards the end of the V10 era.


I think that 19,000 limit was in 2007 with the V8’s. V10’s were unlimited as was the first year of V8’s in 06 that were moving towards almost 21,000.

The only rev limited V10 was the one in the Toro Rosso in 2006 as they couldn’t get a V8. I think that was in the 16’s. Like 16,700 or something.

#271 suggerla

suggerla
  • Member

  • 186 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 02 November 2019 - 22:50

Be that as it may, why keep the wide wings? I haven't heard an engineering/aero POV for this and, even if there was, is it really that important as to compromise racing, their golden objective, and risk having many important abandonments after the first lap? 

 

At least for the 2009 rule change the wide front wing was to help with the downforce when following other cars closely. I assume for 2019 to some extend, too.



#272 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 02 November 2019 - 23:18

The 2009 wide front wing was in conjunction with the neutral section, so it had similar working area to the 2008 wing. 2021 wing has lost the neutral section but looks like it will be aiming to have it's surfaces working less, perhaps to be less sensitive to airflow.

#273 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 02 November 2019 - 23:21

The current engines aren't getting any cheaper. How many more teams need to drop off before the cost and complexity of this formula are actually acknowledged?

The 19K RPM engines were around very briefly towards the end of the V10 era. I don't recall anyone complaining about the noise of the 1998 Merc engines or the 1996 Ferraris, neither of which turned anywhere near 19,000rpm. The early 1990s cars sounded pretty good, a damn sight better than the current powerplants.

Just because it would expensive to change to *something else* doesn't mean we have to accept an engine formula with price tags in the tens of millions of dollars. It's all well and good to have a rule for a cost cap, but what's the point if no one is prepared to accept on a cost basis, the V6 Hybrid era has been a disaster.

There simply isn't that much money in the world to be spent on motor racing to sustain that cost. Grids used to be huge and I feel that everyone has gotten used to there being ten teams of less, when it should be seen as a massive indictment on how much unsustainable spending has been locked in by the top end of the grid. The engine and gearbox costs are a huge part of that, and any rule changes that don't acknowledge that are basically a waste of time.


The hybrids are only expensive to the manufacturers. To the teams, they are cheaper historically than the unrestricted V10's were.

#274 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 02 November 2019 - 23:25

I think that 19,000 limit was in 2007 with the V8’s. V10’s were unlimited as was the first year of V8’s in 06 that were moving towards almost 21,000.

The only rev limited V10 was the one in the Toro Rosso in 2006 as they couldn’t get a V8. I think that was in the 16’s. Like 16,700 or something.


Only the Cosworth was believed to hit 20k in 2006, and that was likely the end of year special Webber ran in Brazil.

#275 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 2,310 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 02 November 2019 - 23:39

The hybrids are only expensive to the manufacturers. To the teams, they are cheaper historically than the unrestricted V10's were.

 

What do you think the political consequences of having fewer manufacturers willing to enter the sport are? 

 

The only way these changes will get through is if the big teams who throw their weight around think it won't affect them i.e. they won't work. 

 

For my mind we've had the same single-team dominance that was boring when it was Schumacher/Ferrari. Since then we've had two different teams dominate but the racing has generally been poor. 

 

If you really want to change the long-term future of the sport, accept the spectacle is part of the package, bring back the noise and try to attract more engine manufacturers so the grid isn't beholden to the most dominant team. 



#276 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,113 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 November 2019 - 23:51

Wings becoming detached is one of the reasons they've changed how they attach to the nose, now the flaps fully attach to the side of the nose rather than the whole wing being attached by two tiny mount points in the middle. Perhaps the vertical sides to the wing might help a bit with punctures too.

 

That won't make much difference to how strong the attachment points are. They'll still be just a bit stronger than what's needed to support themselves with the downforce they produce and the transient loads from normal lapping.

 

 

Be that as it may, why keep the wide wings? I haven't heard an engineering/aero POV for this and, even if there was, is it really that important as to compromise racing, their golden objective, and risk having many important abandonments after the first lap? 

 

Do you actually have any data to support your idea that more front wings get broken since we went to full width wings? The drivers know how far their wings extend, and they couldn't see their wings pre-2009 either. Drivers always race close and these things happen. They happened with the narrower wings too.

 

I'll provide an engineering/aero POV for you though. The quality of airflow coming off the car depends greatly on how it starts. It's why outwash front wings have been a problem. It's why the neutral section on the current wings had backfired with the utilisation of the Y250 vortex. The width of the front wing will have been arrived at in the studies leading up to this package because they've been studying bodywork/wheel interaction. It's undoubtedly why there are the two little fins over the front wheels too. It's all been about managing flow structures around the car.

 

Though it can be argued that having cars pit and end up out of position means there'll be some more excitement in the race as they'll be out of position. That is, more racing. But I would support the above.



#277 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 8,936 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 02 November 2019 - 23:55

This thread always gets my expectations up, as it shows as "Ross Brawn announces new te..." and I always think "new teams"  :cat:



#278 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,580 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 November 2019 - 23:58

If you really want to change the long-term future of the sport, accept the spectacle is part of the package, bring back the noise and try to attract more engine manufacturers so the grid isn't beholden to the most dominant team. 

 

Are these two things possible? By that I mean going back to the spectacle of big noisy ICE units and also having more manufacturers? I think you'll find that as the years go on, there will be less and less interest from manufacturers in producing ICE units.



#279 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,113 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2019 - 00:01

Are these two things possible? By that I mean going back to the spectacle of big noisy ICE units and also having more manufacturers? I think you'll find that as the years go on, there will be less and less interest from manufacturers in producing ICE units.

 

Unless hydrogen ICE's become a thing.



Advertisement

#280 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,162 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 03 November 2019 - 00:16

 

Do you actually have any data to support your idea that more front wings get broken since we went to full width wings? The drivers know how far their wings extend, and they couldn't see their wings pre-2009 either. Drivers always race close and these things happen. They happened with the narrower wings too.

 

 

Though it can be argued that having cars pit and end up out of position means there'll be some more excitement in the race as they'll be out of position. That is, more racing. But I would support the above.

Sadly, I haven't been able to find statistics for pre and post wide front wing incidents. However, seeing as to how with wider wings, the edge of the front wing is closer to others cars' tyres and other parts, it would seem a reasonable educated guess. 

 

Regarding the second statement, that would be racing in the same way as reverse grids constitute racing I guess...I'd rather have similarly matched cars with narrower front wings racing wheel to wheel than a much faster F1A team passing F1B cars, with DRS on top of that! 



#281 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,859 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 03 November 2019 - 03:39

I like the look of the cars and very happy to see that they've gotten notably shorter. The trend to larger and larger cars was the wrong direction and good to see these cars looking something closer to the svelte 2009 and earlier cars.

 

The weight needs to come down and the idea of limiting brake discs and pads is ridiculous. So they want closer racing and drivers being able to push, but then limit a key component of racing on the limit? This makes no sense. It's almost like they want to add a negative just so they have something to "remove" in a later season to show "improvement".



#282 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,113 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2019 - 09:03

Sadly, I haven't been able to find statistics for pre and post wide front wing incidents. However, seeing as to how with wider wings, the edge of the front wing is closer to others cars' tyres and other parts, it would seem a reasonable educated guess. 

 

Regarding the second statement, that would be racing in the same way as reverse grids constitute racing I guess...I'd rather have similarly matched cars with narrower front wings racing wheel to wheel than a much faster F1A team passing F1B cars, with DRS on top of that! 

 

What about my middle paragraph? Any thought's on that?



#283 ArchieTech

ArchieTech
  • Member

  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 03 November 2019 - 11:03

That won't make much difference to how strong the attachment points are. They'll still be just a bit stronger than what's needed to support themselves with the downforce they produce and the transient loads from normal lapping.

At least this way I suppose it's more likely only one side will get detached, unless the entire nose snaps off, so less potential for debris. Also there will be less chance of the whole wing failing in such a way that it ends up under the front wheels in quite such a dramatic fashion as happened to Vettel earlier this year.



#284 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 November 2019 - 14:53

Only the Cosworth was believed to hit 20k in 2006, and that was likely the end of year special Webber ran in Brazil.

 

I could be wrong, but i do recall reading Brazil 2006, MS's Ferrari ran at 22k revs. 



#285 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,113 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2019 - 16:43

At least this way I suppose it's more likely only one side will get detached, unless the entire nose snaps off, so less potential for debris. Also there will be less chance of the whole wing failing in such a way that it ends up under the front wheels in quite such a dramatic fashion as happened to Vettel earlier this year.

 

That is a positive.



#286 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,162 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 03 November 2019 - 19:09

What about my middle paragraph? Any thought's on that?

 

I'll provide an engineering/aero POV for you though. The quality of airflow coming off the car depends greatly on how it starts. It's why outwash front wings have been a problem. It's why the neutral section on the current wings had backfired with the utilisation of the Y250 vortex. The width of the front wing will have been arrived at in the studies leading up to this package because they've been studying bodywork/wheel interaction. It's undoubtedly why there are the two little fins over the front wheels too. It's all been about managing flow structures around the car.

I'm no expert, but it seems that latest aero paradigm has been centered on moving air to the outside of the car as opposed to other eras when they tried to move it to the inside. My question, then, would be, did they work with what existed, the current paradigm and wide front wings, because it proved to be much better for their objective of minimizing turbulence to the following car? Or did they use what was there because it was more convenient and less costly for teams to develop from an existing framework than a completely new one? Did they even do what we were talking about: check the statistics of racing being ended or interrupted by the wide wings vs narrower ones? IIRC, they were talking about taking a look at the negative effect of the wide wings on racing, but it seems to have died down after 2019. In any case, just some stuff I found quickly on the matter: 

 

https://www.racefans...age-even-worse/

https://thejudge13.c...than-last-year/

https://motorsportwe...m/news/id/24600



#287 Lephturn

Lephturn
  • Member

  • 125 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 03 November 2019 - 21:40

I don't really understand why reverse grids would solve anything. Anyone can see that the only thing that would lead to is that teams would just drive slower in qualifying to not get pole, just like they did to not sacrifice tyre life for pole position in 2013.

 

It would change what the engineers and designers need to design and build the cars to do. That changes everything. Right now the best way to win is to get pole and run away. If there were reverse grids based on or modified by championship position you would have all of this engineering, design and technical genius pointed at making cars that are able to overtake vs. cars that are simply the fastest in clean air. That makes all the difference. When cars are designed and built to be as quick as possible over a lap in non-racing conditions you get cars that are optimized to do exactly that. Change the conditions to win the driver's and constructor's and you change the goals for all of these amazingly skilled people. If the championship leader started 10th or had some grid penalty applied based on championship position at the start of every GP they have to build the cars with a different goal in mind. To avoid anyone coasting in qualifying all you need to do is award some points for it.

 

I can see a system where at the first race there is no penalty and then championship position carries a grid penalty that increases as you get through the first part of the season - then have it consistent. To win the cars leading the championship have to qualify as fast as possible because it isn't a simple reverse grid, it's a grid penalty. Also throw a few points for the top positions in qualifying and you have something interesting.



#288 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 November 2019 - 21:54

I could be wrong, but i do recall reading Brazil 2006, MS's Ferrari ran at 22k revs.


At this rate soon there will be quotes of someone hitting 23k

#289 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 72 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 03 November 2019 - 23:38

The restriction on brake pads per "round" is ridiculous - for a championship which constantly shouts "safety safety safety" to justify pretty much anything they want, putting a restriction on brake pads is ludicrous and goes very much against the safety push.  Might as well put a limit on the number of visor tear offs a driver can have...  The next time the FIA or Liberty tout "safety" as a reason for doing something, everyone should point and laugh at them.



#290 BalanceUT

BalanceUT
  • Member

  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 04 November 2019 - 00:47

god I can't stand those 18 inch rims and caps, they just look awful

There's one clear new sponsor on those, especially for any team running a red or a white liveried car: Target. https://www.google.c...iw=1378&bih=766



#291 BalanceUT

BalanceUT
  • Member

  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 04 November 2019 - 01:33

I wonder how this ground effect aero approach will work on circuits as bumpy as we saw this weekend in Austin? I do worry of resurfacing of the former issues of randomly losing ground effect grip leads to cars flying off the track. 



#292 Celloman

Celloman
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 04 November 2019 - 01:49

I like the look of the cars and very happy to see that they've gotten notably shorter. The trend to larger and larger cars was the wrong direction and good to see these cars looking something closer to the svelte 2009 and earlier cars.

What makes you think they are or will be shorter? As long as there is no regulation on length unlike with width, it won't happen. Teams will design the cars as long as is optimal to fit the PU and fuel tank as low as possible.



#293 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,921 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 04 November 2019 - 01:51

where are the rules posted?



#294 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,113 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:18

I wonder how this ground effect aero approach will work on circuits as bumpy as we saw this weekend in Austin? I do worry of resurfacing of the former issues of randomly losing ground effect grip leads to cars flying off the track.


Watch Indycar for your answer.

It was the sliding skirts that caused the problems in the old days, because they’d fail and the seal would be broken.

#295 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:55

The cars are already 60% underbody apparently. I would think the flat floor was more sensitive to bumps than the venturi tunnels.

#296 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:57

Watch Indycar for your answer.

It was the sliding skirts that caused the problems in the old days, because they’d fail and the seal would be broken.

Indycar doesn't have more floor biased aero than current F1, except in speedway form. So we might as well watch current F1 for the answer.

 

In addition to skirts issue:

 

Old days suspensions were much worse.

 

They had really high kerbs that were better at killing ground effect than any bumps.

 

Current floor is more sensitive to ride height than the new one... or the olden one minus skirts. We still have tyre warmers because the ride height reduction from cold tyres is considered too dangerous.



#297 TheGoldenStoffel

TheGoldenStoffel
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 18

Posted 04 November 2019 - 09:11

I'm no expert, but it seems that latest aero paradigm has been centered on moving air to the outside of the car as opposed to other eras when they tried to move it to the inside. My question, then, would be, did they work with what existed, the current paradigm and wide front wings, because it proved to be much better for their objective of minimizing turbulence to the following car? Or did they use what was there because it was more convenient and less costly for teams to develop from an existing framework than a completely new one? Did they even do what we were talking about: check the statistics of racing being ended or interrupted by the wide wings vs narrower ones? IIRC, they were talking about taking a look at the negative effect of the wide wings on racing, but it seems to have died down after 2019. In any case, just some stuff I found quickly on the matter: 

 

https://www.racefans...age-even-worse/

https://thejudge13.c...than-last-year/

https://motorsportwe...m/news/id/24600

 

There's an interesting 30 minute piece with Pat Symonds on the new regs on F1TV. Their initial plan was to go back to narrower front wings but decided against that because their main objective was to minimise the wake the cars leave behind and they quickly found out that exposing the tire even more by narrowing the wing caused even more turbulence so they stuck with the wide front wings. 



#298 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 November 2019 - 16:30

Low nose, ground effect. I won’t even bother to search how many times I said that. When I gave a **** about it.

#299 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 November 2019 - 16:31

The cars are already 60% underbody apparently. I would think the flat floor was more sensitive to bumps than the venturi tunnels.


But it’s too biased to the rear. Now the floor cp matches the cg.

Advertisement

#300 suggerla

suggerla
  • Member

  • 186 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 04 November 2019 - 18:53

What makes you think they are or will be shorter? As long as there is no regulation on length unlike with width, it won't happen. Teams will design the cars as long as is optimal to fit the PU and fuel tank as low as possible.

 

Wheelbase is limited to 3,600 mm.