|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
16 Apr 2024, 09:56 (Ref:4205123) | #4326 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
Lets face it, the FIA dont have a great track record for introducing positive technical changes.
1998 - Narrow cars and grooved tyres. 1999 - Decided the grooved tyres were such a good idea they introduced another groove in the front tyre just for giggles. 2004 - Decided that the front wing should be raised further up from the ground. 2005 - Decided that the front wing should be raised even further up from the ground. You see, unless there has been a change of good race car dynamics thinking, these tech changes listed above are so unfathomable to think that actually they are actually an act of sabotage. |
||
|
16 Apr 2024, 10:15 (Ref:4205125) | #4327 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,757
|
Quote:
Grooved tyres were ok in 98, but they made it worse in 99. Really they should have gone back to slicks then. And they should have got rid of body aero like winglets and barge boards a lot sooner |
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
16 Apr 2024, 11:59 (Ref:4205139) | #4328 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
I guess my point (or maybe a question) is, what is the thinking here, who is making these decisions and what is the logic behind them? I can appreciate that there are likely vested interests, political and commercial forces at play too which cloud the decision making.
|
||
|
16 Apr 2024, 14:11 (Ref:4205152) | #4329 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,757
|
Well it seems they have at least learned some lessons from the past, but not enough of them. Still too many rules that shouldn’t be there, which I won’t go into detail about
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
17 Apr 2024, 05:50 (Ref:4205200) | #4330 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
So grooved tyres, restrictions on width, less effective aero, are all with the purpose of slowing the cars down. The present regulations are so contrived I am of the opinion that they are not good, and have given one team a distinct advantage. There were reasons for this, but it hasn't created a greater spectacle. Many of the historical changes in formula regulation have been driven by either safety or speed reduction. |
|||
|
17 Apr 2024, 06:54 (Ref:4205211) | #4331 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 862
|
Its hard to argue against safety improvements.It isn't hard to argue that many of the changes from the Balestre era onwards have been to make it appear that the racing is closer and interesting.DRS is a prime example and my personal bugbear is the compulsory tyre stops.I would much rather they simply allocated each car a pile of tyres for the weekend and let the teams find out how to make the best use of them.Whether it be mixing sets,with hard on one side of the car on some circuits or risking an entire race on one compound versus three stops on a soft compound.Adding another three teams would be enough to give the existing investors a dose of the vapours,even if they were still solvent,but it might improve the spectacle.
|
|
|
17 Apr 2024, 09:11 (Ref:4205225) | #4332 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,854
|
Quote:
Having said that I do agree with the points you made. |
|||
|
17 Apr 2024, 22:06 (Ref:4205278) | #4333 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,166
|
More details about the 2026 active aero solution and the future of DRS...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...lans/10599603/ Short version * An unidentified team said they think a rear wing only solution was viable. Reports of simulations showing undriveable cars was them validating a rear only solution was unrealistic. * There will be two mode... Normal and low drag * DRS will go away as structured now. There will be zones that allow low drag to be used, but it's not used to help overtake. So it sounds like anyone can use low drag in the appropriate zone. * With the removal of DRS as a passing aid what replaces it? A push to pass system!!! Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
18 Apr 2024, 10:10 (Ref:4205306) | #4334 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,017
|
Quote:
The world's most advanced racing cars, and they are completely flat underneath (1983-1994) or completely flat with a step (1995-2021). Completely undoing the advances in Venturi ground effects of the late 1970's. Within the legality areas prescribed in the 2022 rules, there is quite a lot of flexibility actually. Infamously, cockpit position relative to the axles is quite free. Tunnel height is relative free, centre of pressure is absolutely free, tunnel geometry is relative free, the exact orientation and geometry of the up to four strakes is relatively free et cetera. |
||
|
18 Apr 2024, 10:56 (Ref:4205308) | #4335 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
18 Apr 2024, 11:18 (Ref:4205310) | #4336 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,281
|
All this aero nonsense just demonstrates (again) that neither the teams, the FIA, F1 themselves and all the other involved parties know what F1 is any more.
2026 is, or rather was, a golden opportunity for something really radical to happen. It looks like they're just fiddling. Give them a reducing cost cap, minimal restrictions on design, and a maximum of 50% of the energy input across a meeting that they have now. That'll force some really radical solutions out of the designers and engineers and give us something genuinely new to watch. Cheques payable to Greem, c/o my wife, thanks. |
|
|
18 Apr 2024, 14:31 (Ref:4205329) | #4337 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,166
|
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
18 Apr 2024, 22:34 (Ref:4205381) | #4338 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,166
|
Good video that provides more details about 2026 technical specifications.
https://youtu.be/v4rneWBey9M?si=lsRRA0Xaf1qJFEMw Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
18 Apr 2024, 23:14 (Ref:4205387) | #4339 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
The technical regulations governing power trains that lead to Mercedes domination was simply one organisation perfecting the powerplant. The comment regarding contrived regulations at present was because the present regulations were introduced to end the Mercedes domination but did so by allowing a freedom in aerodynamics and that would automatically put one specific team at an advantage. That has been the case and it shouldn't have surprised anyone. If we wanted a real change there would be an abandoning of underbody aero and a focus on mechanical rather than aero induced grip. Slower lap times and slower cornering speeds initially but probably more interesting racing and technical development. |
||
|
19 Apr 2024, 01:25 (Ref:4205389) | #4340 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,166
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I am curious as to why you think it will produce interesting racing? If it produces new technical developments, would fans even see or know of these things? To my point earlier about Red Bull Racing having worked wonders on tire degradation. Do we as fans have any clue how they did this? Can periods of team dominance be stopped or prevented? I am far from an expert on Indycar, but they have a spec chassis and significant controls on engine (I think). If you look at the past decade, it has been two teams who have won the championship. If you go all the way back to 2003, it is three teams with the third being a small handful of Andretti championships. Now they don't have budget caps, so it seems to come down to how well your team is financed/run, but my point is it's probably hard (maybe impossible) to create technical regulations that will guarantee performance parity between teams. With the idea that performance parity results in large variability in who wins (or low predictability as to who will win) Richard Last edited by Richard C; 19 Apr 2024 at 01:34. |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
19 Apr 2024, 08:49 (Ref:4205414) | #4341 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 862
|
Quote:
I like the idea of encouraging radical thinking,too many of the teams are in the rut of believing they have to go with the herd in all matters.The sticking point is that all of the parties mentioned believe that F1 is a way of making piles of money.The cost cap amplifies this as any excess of income over expenditure can't be spent on racing.I believe it is also at the root of the opposition to additional teams as the money would have to be diluted a bit. |
||
|
19 Apr 2024, 11:37 (Ref:4205433) | #4342 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
I think its a well documented belief that the upper surface aero is what causes the majority of aero turbulance in of top end single seater series. If you removed the wings all together on an F1 car, then by logic, you would have a car that could follow much closer to one another. Take Formula Ford, no wings and they can follow and race very well. As you move up the single seater ladder the reliance on aero (specifically upper surface aero) makes it harder and harder to follow. By that rationale, if you were to not take off the F1 wings, but instead just shrink them massively, you would have cars that could follow much easier than what we have now.
|
||
|
19 Apr 2024, 12:58 (Ref:4205441) | #4343 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
19 Apr 2024, 14:13 (Ref:4205448) | #4344 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,166
|
Quote:
IMHO, F1 will never move in this direction for the reasons mentioned above. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
19 Apr 2024, 14:44 (Ref:4205454) | #4345 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 862
|
Quote:
Once in a while you might find a CFD visualisation published and it shows the visualisation of the flow around the cars,together with the vortices that get thrown off.The wings and wheels seem to be the source of most of the turbulence.Maybe 15 inch wheels would have been a good idea..... Take a look at these to see what the computers say is going on: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...ained/4315882/ https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/se...le-front-wing/ https://fetchcfd.com/view-project/72...-(F1)-Race-Car https://www.racecar-engineering.com/...cars-with-cfd/ |
||
|
19 Apr 2024, 15:56 (Ref:4205461) | #4346 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,307
|
Quote:
I think that’s the only way to organically allow cars to follow closer. The fundamental problem is that as soon as turbulent air hits that front wing of the car behind, it’s robbed of hundreds of kilos of downforce and then enters an under steering scenario. |
|||
|
19 Apr 2024, 16:59 (Ref:4205468) | #4347 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,757
|
Quote:
That’s why they have reduced the plane on the front wings, so there’s less downforce to lose behind another car |
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
20 Apr 2024, 04:10 (Ref:4205533) | #4348 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
Lotus introduced tunnels in the 1970's and dominated. But each of these dominant seasons were for a relatively short period as other teams developed expertise in the design and function of the skills required. Williams developed suspension systems that outclassed the field in the early 90's but these systems were outlawed by the governing body. However, since 2010 we have had regulations that have seen aerodynamic advantage that has been perpetuated by the team that mastered the the design. One was the Red Bull diffuser that enabled Vettel to nab four championships on the trot, and we have a similar situation now with the Red Bull operation and Max V. Kudos to RBR fand Adrian Newey for the expertise and execution of design and engineering to create such domination. My argument is that the cost and effort that goes into aero development of such aero development would be better spent and more relevant to automotive engineering, both in the end result and the training of people, if it was focused more on engineering skills than wind tunnel exploitation. You won't stop dominant periods outright, but mechanical engineering solutions are easier to assimilate than aerodynamic underbody advantage, and as we have seen from both the Vettel era, and the present era there are some uniquely qualified people working in the sport who are head and shoulders above everyone else. Newey has produced cars that were outstanding designs with every team who employed him. Kudos to him and his early designs were exceptional. Even the Leyton House march that Capelli was able to use the lead the French GP for over half the distance was a refined idea that just happened to have its day. a similar event today would be like Yuki, or Hulkenberg, or Bottas, leading most of Sunday's Chinese GP on merit. Teams spending enormously on aero development is actually like diving down a rabbit hole time after time looking for something to break a never ending cycle. As for the argument about speed and slower cars, it has already happened. Driver 61 has put out a video that compares other classes of FIA motorsport that is producing cars that are faster than F1 in some situations, so the idea that F1 has the fastest cars in the world is not a direction that F1 is headed in. F1 is more about the drama of competition and the broader public is not enthused so much by sheer speed but more by personality and the drama of competition as Drive To Survive has so effortlessly demonstrated. Even Max V said back in 2020/21 when discussing racing issues following cars that it wouldn't matter if the cars were 5 seconds a lap slower than they now are because the public wouldn't be able to even notice the difference and the gap between wet and dry running is like that now, and it doesn't detract from the spectacle so it's a nebulous argument. There is also a comparison video on You tube which is taken from Senna's pole at Suzuka in 88 or 89, and Vettel's pole about 30 years later. Vettel is across the line while Senna is still coming up to 130R. No one would suggest that the senna lap was boring or too slow, but all the gains were on corner speed, not outright speed, and that takes us back to the safety of circuits and the distances required to move spectators back out of harm's way, which also persists in making them more distant and removed from the action. All of my earlier post is simply my opinion about the emphasis on aero development which I feel is an expensive rabbit hole the sport doesn't need. Research and development would be far better served if it was directed toward mechanical rather than aero development, and there is nothing I have seen or heard in the last twenty years that actually effectively refutes that opinion. |
|||
|
20 Apr 2024, 13:40 (Ref:4205571) | #4349 | ||||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,166
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
||||||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
20 Apr 2024, 14:08 (Ref:4205576) | #4350 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,017
|
Quote:
I do not follow your point. I already pointed out that suspension development is important (these Pirellis are temperature sensitive and all F1 teams must have a good tyre modelling department) but not as important as aerodynamic development: Frank Dernie, Williams: Quote:
The Senna in a McLaren laps you refer to were the state-of-the-art at the time, just like Stewart in a Tyrrell before him, and Brabham in a Brabham before him, Fangio in a Mercedes before that, Nuvolari in a Auto Union before that, and Nuvolari in an Alfa Romeo before that. If you recall correctly it was more than possible to have strung out, processional races at the equivalent of GP2-speeds in the early 90's. The whole point of Grand Prix cars is to be state-of-the-art! The problem with making the dampers and mechanical setup the only difference between teams like in Indycar is that this is totally invisible to fans unlike aerodynamic development. This reduces technical interest considerably. By contrast, the variety of different upper body aerodynamic shapes seen at the start of 2022 was very interesting! Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 20 Apr 2024 at 14:16. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |