[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

...
Perhaps the testing regimen is just a manifestation that the teams do not believe they can win, so why bother yourself trying.
...

One of your more tenuous links.

[Casper]

If you accept that the aerodynamics that exist in F1 have no real world application beyond racing cars why do it at all unless the only reason to do it is entertainment value brought on by high speeds which in itself becomes self defeating. A novel way of looking at it I know but cars were and are entertaining to watch when they actually drifted and moved and long periods of opposite lock were the norm. The pictures of drivers drifting through corners etc illustrate what I am talking about. I think the aero part of F1 is a dead end exercise and self defeating because the fast speeds that are enabled result in racing cars that are boring to watch as they stick to a given trajectory and go around and around. It was the movement of the cars and the drivers being on that teetering edge of control or off that gave the whole thing a life that cannot be duplicated today because the cars of yesteryear relied purely on mechanical grip until the late 60's. After that the most entertaining part was keeping the wings attached to the cars and when that was resolved it was all downhill.

BTW I don't expect anyone else to see it that way but I would rather watch any non-aero open wheeler class at a club meeting than watch F1 now because it is all mechanical grip. If they really want aero it should be absolutely free with driver controlled moveable surfaces like a plane then we would have some fun. You could put two people in a car and go really quickly instead of mucking around like they do now.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Casper

If you accept that the aerodynamics that exist in F1 have no real world application beyond racing cars why do it at all unless the only reason to do it is entertainment value brought on by high speeds which in itself becomes self defeating. A novel way of looking at it I know but cars were and are entertaining to watch when they actually drifted and moved and long periods of opposite lock were the norm. The pictures of drivers drifting through corners etc illustrate what I am talking about. I think the aero part of F1 is a dead end exercise and self defeating because the fast speeds that are enabled result in racing cars that are boring to watch as they stick to a given trajectory and go around and around. It was the movement of the cars and the drivers being on that teetering edge of control or off that gave the whole thing a life that cannot be duplicated today because the cars of yesteryear relied purely on mechanical grip until the late 60's. After that the most entertaining part was keeping the wings attached to the cars and when that was resolved it was all downhill.

I do feel sympathy for your stance. However, downforce allows a more aggressive driving style and thus drivers to attack corners. It is difficult to imagine Keke Rosberg, Ayrton Senna and Gilles Villeneuve to be as aggressive as they were without downforce. And would be just to have a slower driver being able to pass a faster one, as slipstreaming would only be beneficial?

Indeed, downforce generating aerodynamics are a dead end. But with downforce being advantageous to some degree and the will to see divergence, I do not really know how to effectively downforce. One could propose a downforce limit, but would that be in accordance with Formula One's principles? One could propose regulations that more or less prescribe aerodynamic components, but no much room for divergence would be left then.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I do feel sympathy for your stance. However, downforce allows a more aggressive driving style and thus drivers to attack corners. It is difficult to imagine Keke Rosberg, Ayrton Senna and Gilles Villeneuve to be as aggressive as they were without downforce. And would be just to have a slower driver being able to pass a faster one, as slipstreaming would only be beneficial?

Indeed, downforce generating aerodynamics are a dead end. But with downforce being advantageous to some degree and the will to see divergence, I do not really know how to effectively downforce. One could propose a downforce limit, but would that be in accordance with Formula One's principles? One could propose regulations that more or less prescribe aerodynamic components, but no much room for divergence would be left then.

What I would suggest is a small spec front wing similar to the Indycar BJ posted above, keep the rest of the aero package the same, then re-visit in 2017.


As Casper posted above, high downforce racing is impossible I would submit actual racing is inversely proportional to the grip available

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

What I would suggest is a small spec front wing similar to the Indycar BJ posted above, keep the rest of the aero package the same, then re-visit in 2017.


As Casper posted above, high downforce racing is impossible I would submit actual racing is inversely proportional to the grip available

Just remember that the Reynard was a ground effect car and when in Super Speedway configuration, like in the photo I posted, most of the downforce was produced by the undertray, the wings provided some downforce but were mainly used to help trim the airflow.

[Casper]

Attacking aggressively will happen whether the car is controlled by mechanical grip or aero grip, watching karting or a category such as FF or FV shows what I mean. I have always believed that racing is in the end a time v distance thing, reduce the time component and racing other cars goes out the door, sure they go faster but actual car to car racing doesn't happen because the time needed for that to happen does not exist. Is the ultimate aim of F1 to race or to achieve shorter and shorter lap times, you can't have both at the end of the day. The GP just gone (I haven't seen it, no TV coverage where I am but Uncle Torrance will work in the end) was not a race as I would like to see it, from what I can read it was a series of events that led to an interesting scenario of who could get to the finish line first. To me racing is a pack of cars whose drivers are climbing over each other to get to the front, others may not see it that way and so be it. Was it exciting, a definite yes, was it an on circuit ding dong race, no it wasn't. I want to see what happens when five F1 cars are falling over each other to get to the front for the whole event, that is what I am talking about. For that to happen requires mechanical grip and the slower lap times that will happen when the aero is taken away. I know it is a strange concept and one that hasn't been advanced elsewhere but it is my view and I am sticking to it.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Attacking aggressively will happen whether the car is controlled by mechanical grip or aero grip, watching karting or a category such as FF or FV shows what I mean.

To me racing is a pack of cars whose drivers are climbing over each other to get to the front, others may not see it that way and so be it.


Was it exciting, a definite yes, was it an on circuit ding dong race, no it wasn't. I want to see what happens when five F1 cars are falling over each other to get to the front for the whole event, that is what I am talking about. For that to happen requires mechanical grip and the slower lap times that will happen when the aero is taken away. I know it is a strange concept and one that hasn't been advanced elsewhere but it is my view and I am sticking to it.

Agreed, actual racing would be what I am looking for too!

[kurski]

Heikki Kovalainen: Formula One must keep striving to improve safety

[chillibowl]

so with Merc being beaten on what seemed to basically be merit in dry conditions, i wonder how keen they will be to allow the other teams to amend the engine rules?

Ferrari have clearly made improvements without the need for testing so is pre and in season testing really that important compared to simulation work?

both Ferrari and RB showed a desire to win and/or move up the ladder despite common sense suggesting they would be better off saving their money until next year.

one race doesn't change much but surely the quality of this past race calls into question many of the notions we have of 'whats wrong with F1' no?

or is this just a happy blip on an otherwise downward trajectory?

[Mike Harte]

One thing that it seems to have highlighted is that the "usual order" is disturbed when an electronic gimmick is turned off. I believe that I am right in saying that this was the first race when the electronic pre-determined clutch bite was banned, and the drivers had to actually control their movement away from the grid at the start.

It would appear that some drivers were better at it than others!

[chillibowl]

was not aware that that had come into effect yet, but yes both merc drivers did struggle with the start.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

One thing that it seems to have highlighted is that the "usual order" is disturbed when an electronic gimmick is turned off. I believe that I am right in saying that this was the first race when the electronic pre-determined clutch bite was banned, and the drivers had to actually control their movement away from the grid at the start.

It would appear that some drivers were better at it than others!

I was under the impression that Spa was the first race with the new clutch / start rules.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I was under the impression that Spa was the first race with the new clutch / start rules.

Your impression was right. Seems Mercedes just dropped the ball again with the electronics.

[wnut]

Alonso shares out frustrations with lack of testing and car development:

http://sport360.com/article/formula-...st-formula-one

[Richard C]

Interesting (and sad) quotes from Alonso. I can believe what he is saying.

Regarding the news around reduced testing. I think during the US broadcast of the race (or maybe during one of the practice sessions) I thought I heard them say that this was proposals and that in reality the teams actually wanted more testing! So is the reduced testing proposals or something that has been agreed upon? If proposals, where did it come from?

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so with Merc being beaten on what seemed to basically be merit in dry conditions, i wonder how keen they will be to allow the other teams to amend the engine rules?

Ferrari have clearly made improvements without the need for testing so is pre and in season testing really that important compared to simulation work?

both Ferrari and RB showed a desire to win and/or move up the ladder despite common sense suggesting they would be better off saving their money until next year.

one race doesn't change much but surely the quality of this past race calls into question many of the notions we have of 'whats wrong with F1' no?

or is this just a happy blip on an otherwise downward trajectory?

I doubt MB will be disturbed at all, in a straight race with no external issues MB will still be way out in front. let's wait and see what the trend is in three races time, if Hamilton keeps stuffing the starts then things will get interesting but head to head on the track Ferrari are still behind.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

One thing that it seems to have highlighted is that the "usual order" is disturbed when an electronic gimmick is turned off. I believe that I am right in saying that this was the first race when the electronic pre-determined clutch bite was banned, and the drivers had to actually control their movement away from the grid at the start.

It would appear that some drivers were better at it than others!

Or some cars are easier to get off the line than others.

[nickyf1]

This is new, and it's definitely not some concept thing.

Animation of how a 2017 F1 car could look

The two metre track is a positive, but why increase the front wing width to match?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by nickyf1

This is new, and it's definitely not some concept thing.

Animation of how a 2017 F1 car could look

The two metre track is a positive, but why increase the front wing width to match?

The rear wing reminds me of an A1 GP car



but no inclusion of a ground effect undertray, in that presentation.

[nickyf1]

Larger area for underbody downforce at the rear, but not much much. But again, this is how the proposals are just now. They could change.

I was hoping for some front end proportions similar to the A1GP Ferraris which were based off the 2004 Ferrari chassis.

[bjohnsonsmith]

It looks like ground effect will make a return in 2017.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120362

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It looks like ground effect will make a return in 2017.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120362

Fernley has also suggested a standardisation of parts, namely the floor, beam wing and crash structures, which he claims would lead to a form of cost control via the technical regulations....

"But the chances are they won't do it. It's too logical."



every quote, the guy just says it like it is. im a big fan!

[Sodemo]

Making the front wing wider is a bad idea on so many levels. But then again, the FIA never learns, just like when they progressively raised its minimum height from 2001 to 2008.

[wolfhound]

If they reintroduce ground effect then they will need to do something to restrict the crazy front wings we have now.
An example might be a maximum of 2 profiles that are the same across their entire width with no vertical elements other than an end plate and structural parts that would be aero neutral.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound2

If they reintroduce ground effect then they will need to do something to restrict the crazy front wings we have now.
An example might be a maximum of 2 profiles that are the same across their entire width with no vertical elements other than an end plate and structural parts that would be aero neutral.

In that article Force India's deputy team principal Bob Fernley talks about the front wing being more of a trim wing.