[Rules] Aero: overtaking, laptimes and aero freedom

[Taxi645]

We have seen the latest 2017 technical regulations proposal trickle through.

To my disappointment it seems that laptimes and aero engineering freedom are being given prevalence over cars being able to follow each other therefore making proper racing almost impossible. I read Adrian Newey say that he doesn't like "GP1". I say screw that. The first and foremost priority should be cars being able to follow one another. All the rest is by the grace of this condition being met.

If they can come up with a set of regulation that allows cars to follow each other they can have all the aero engineering freedom and laptimes they want, but that condition must first be met. Not the other way around. Now they've completely rewriten the rules, reduced laptimes, maintained lot's of aero freedom and complexity, but oh yeah we forgot about overtaking, whoops. And let's not forgot that a lot of aero freedom and aero complexity leaves the door open to a lot of potential cost spiralling.

I hope they come to their senses, postpone the aero, chassis and PSU changes to 2018 and first come up with something that doesn't reduce racing to DRS-ing your way past people. Complete boredom that is.

[Sodemo]

I have every confidence in the FIA's ability to rubber-stamp a set of regulations that will massively drive up costs and provide further ineffective racing.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I have every confidence in the FIA's ability to rubber-stamp a set of regulations that will massively drive up costs and provide further ineffective racing.

Plus 1 here!

[Pingguest]

I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.

You are dead right that the racing should be paramount and the aero and anything else purely secondary.

I like this idea, although I would like to see fixed single element wings, even better, no wings and free undertray.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

You are dead right that the racing should be paramount and the aero and anything else purely secondary.

I like this idea, although I would like to see fixed single element wings, even better, no wings and free undertray.

When downforce is considered a necessity, ground effects might provide a solution. However, a 'free' undertray is undesirable. Such an undertray would exist of sliding skirts, which are inherently unsafe. And even without sliding skirts, ground effects do have their drawbacks. A ground effect undertray is very prone to ride height changes and thereby requires a rocked-hard suspension setting. With a return of ground effects, one could also expect the calendar to only have entirely flat tracks. What a shame that would be!

This raises the question why Formula One should have high downforce levels. The whole idea of cars cornering faster every year is simply unsustainable. It also forces the legislator to outlaw freedom and hence creativity and intelligence in other, probably more relevant area's. Instead of teams spending an awful lot, almost an infinite amount of resources on aerodynamics, I would rather see them spend that money on the chassis, suspension, drive-trains and even electronics.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.

Your post gets my vote ... Get rid of those ridiculous front wings and DRS ..

[S griffin]

For me let's go back to bigger tyres. Let's also get rid of those winglets and have front and rear wings only and not wider wings either. Let's also go back to manual gearboxes to increase the mistake factor. Then we hopefully won't need DRS ever again

[Sodemo]

Make the tyres wider, the chassis wider. The cars will be much faster in the slower and medium corners (the safer corners), the aero can take car of itself in the high speed stuff.

One thing I notice when I look at races from 20-30 years ago is how much faster the cars look in slower corners. The opposite is true of high speed corners. Less aero and more mechanical grip would make the cars more spectacular through the slower stuff, which I think would be enough. The cars are already fast enough in the fast stuff.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Make the tyres wider, the chassis wider. The cars will be much faster in the slower and medium corners (the safer corners), the aero can take car of itself in the high speed stuff.

One thing I notice when I look at races from 20-30 years ago is how much faster the cars look in slower corners. The opposite is true of high speed corners. Less aero and more mechanical grip would make the cars more spectacular through the slower stuff, which I think would be enough. The cars are already fast enough in the fast stuff.

I fail to see the need for more mechanical grip, even in exchange for a massive reduction of downforce. The pace of Formula One is a part of its attraction and entertainment, but it is very relative. In fact, harder and smaller tires could actually allow for better racing. Harder and smaller tires will cause braking distances to be increased and slip angles to be greater.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I fail to see the need for more mechanical grip, even in exchange for a massive reduction of downforce. The pace of Formula One is a part of its attraction and entertainment, but it is very relative. In fact, harder and smaller tires could actually allow for better racing. Harder and smaller tires will cause braking distances to be increased and slip angles to be greater.

Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.

I think the first question that should be asked is this..

Is F1 primarily about the fastest car or the fastest driver?

After they work that out the regulations, aero etc will be obvious because they can't have both. If it is the fastest driver get rid of all the aero and let the cars move, four wheel drift etc the way they did pre Chapman. If it is the fastest car stack the aero on and let's see who wins. For me it is the fastest driver, let's see who the biggest testicles in a car with marginal grip on the very fastest high speed circuits. Opposite lock for long periods at high speed on long bends is definitely character building.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Casper

I think the first question that should be asked is this..

Is F1 primarily about the fastest car or the fastest driver?

After they work that out the regulations, aero etc will be obvious because they can't have both. If it is the fastest driver get rid of all the aero and let the cars move, four wheel drift etc the way they did pre Chapman. If it is the fastest car stack the aero on and let's see who wins. For me it is the fastest driver, let's see who the biggest testicles in a car with marginal grip on the very fastest high speed circuits. Opposite lock for long periods at high speed on long bends is definitely character building.

In reality it is a mixture of both. The problem is to get the balance right between car technology and driver ability.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.

Everything is relative. In 1998 mechanical grip was more reduced than downforce, causing the cars to be 'under-tired'. But is not what I propose.

[S griffin]

RE the 1971 Italian GP. That was the last race at Monza before they put the chicances in, so that was the real reason why. We never had one like that again

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

RE the 1971 Italian GP. That was the last race at Monza before they put the chicances in, so that was the real reason why. We never had one like that again

You're right chicanes just make brilliant high speed corners into technical twiddles where nobody can ever pass.
Another problem is that most of the tracks now feature consecutive corners that are in reverse directions; left right; corners need to be in the same direction to create passing opportunities, you position the car in the first corner and overtake into the second, it is very difficult to go right round the outside of a car of similar performance.

Bumps also make a track more unpredictable and the computer system simulations much less accurate - good!

[wolfhound]

Bumps F1 drivers love them have you ever seen the kerbs that insist on driving over.

[bauble]

The point is that tracks have evolved to suit the cars rather than having a car designed for a circuit. I am fairly sure that if designers had to produce a car just for Monaco it would not look a lot like todays cars.

[Sodemo]

The first thing they need to do is to stop the front wing from becoming a mounting platform for 12 wing elements. The front wing should be kept to around about its current width, but with massively reduced surface area, say 80% of what is there currently. It should be ideally a "trim wing" used to tweak handling, not for the outright generation of downforce.

[Sodemo]

For me, the tyres shouldn't be falling apart after 5 laps. I hate seeing the outside of corners with a carpet of marbles after only 20% race distance. People want to encourage overtaking, but then they insist on having these tyres which generate massive marbles which is detrimental to overtaking. I would vote for more durable tyres, but wider tyres which would give more grip.

[S griffin]

For me F1 is about getting to the edge of performance as well as the racing and it's not right that Pirelli should make sub standard tyres. I'm surprised as PR would be better if they made their tyres last

[Casper]

Pirelli are supplying what is dictated to them by the category promoter. They are not to blame for making a tyre that will not do what is generally expected of a race tyre so why do they cop all the flack?

[djinvicta]

Just give them a gear stick and a conventional clutch.. Sort the men out from the boys. Limit the wings, big tyres, fuel them up...Oh,that's not the pinnacle of motor sport is it? It's spectacular entertainment.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by djinvicta

Just give them a gear stick and a conventional clutch.. Sort the men out from the boys. Limit the wings, big tyres, fuel them up...Oh,that's not the pinnacle of motor sport is it? It's spectacular entertainment.

Yes, fast a flashy does not necessarily make good racing.

[Taxi645]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...ymonds-668220/

"Symonds said his desire for the new rules to be delayed until 2018 reflects the fact that there is still debate about exactly what direction the sport should take, and that time is running out.

Completely agree.