|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
12 Jan 2009, 11:35 (Ref:2369866) | #1 | |
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 128
|
Front wings
Sorry but having looked at the new Ferrari I see little chance of the grid ever getting through the first corner of any race without their wings coming a cropper....looks like an own goal to me at this stage.
|
|
|
12 Jan 2009, 12:21 (Ref:2369879) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,067
|
I don't see what all this big fuss is about tbh. I don't see why a few inches is going to make that much of a difference in the first corner etc.
Selby |
||
|
12 Jan 2009, 13:45 (Ref:2369928) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,246
|
The wings are no wider than the cars, so whilst the chances of knocking the wings will undoubtedly be higher than before, when they do hit now they would've probably been knocking wheels before.
|
||
|
12 Jan 2009, 14:16 (Ref:2369945) | #4 | ||
TeaTotal
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 458
|
Well yeah,it's gonna be a little easier to knock the front wing off and we might have a little coming together at turn 1 in Melbourne.But after that if a driver was to keep doing it or couldn't get used to it,well,he'd have to be a bit thick wouldn't he? Like,LMP's have full width front bodywork and they usually manage just fine
|
||
|
12 Jan 2009, 14:48 (Ref:2369963) | #5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Quite a few people dislike the front wings and maintain that they will be knocked off.
Quite a few people think the new rules are a missed opportunity to go back to a wider car. Anybody subscribe to both the above views? Spot the contradiction. |
|
|
12 Jan 2009, 15:46 (Ref:2369987) | #6 | |
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 29,853
|
I don't see how wanting a wider wheelbase impacts on maintaining a sensible front wing width?
That said, I don't think it will be too bad. The drivers will adapt to this new wider front wing. Maybe it will be a bit stronger as well? |
|
|
12 Jan 2009, 15:54 (Ref:2369996) | #7 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,165
|
If you consider the area where there is now wing compared with before. How many times did a driver put another car in that area without contact? Not that many times, I'd guess.
If the wing was wider than the wheelbase I'd see this as a problem, but it isn't. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
12 Jan 2009, 16:16 (Ref:2370008) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Quote:
What is the benefit of having a wider car? None. |
||
|
12 Jan 2009, 16:29 (Ref:2370016) | #9 | |
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 29,853
|
OK then.
|
|
|
12 Jan 2009, 16:39 (Ref:2370023) | #10 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,165
|
I'm not one of those people who think either, but I don't see the contridiction either
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
12 Jan 2009, 16:43 (Ref:2370026) | #11 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Ah well. Just a bit of fun - as I see it these are opposites. A wider car won't squeeze into a small space, and neither will a wide wing.
|
|
|
12 Jan 2009, 20:17 (Ref:2370168) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
i thought EGADS what a wing!
the wing is more fragile than the wheel ideally so a bit of wheel bumping wont lead to shards of tire puncturing shrapnel and under steering inflicted wingless cars... |
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
12 Jan 2009, 20:39 (Ref:2370190) | #13 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,408
|
Nick Heidfeld has predicted problems and I think he's right.
The whole thing was put in perspective for me the other night by the simple comment that the rear wing is 3 feet 6 inches wide and the front wing is 6 feet wide. Sorry for using old-fashioned measurements. The drivers can't see the front wing, but they can see the front tyres. That's the width they will have to allow for, whereas in the past they've known that the front wing is narrower than the tyres. So they will have to adapt. |
||
|
13 Jan 2009, 00:56 (Ref:2370313) | #14 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
13 Jan 2009, 20:03 (Ref:2370855) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,517
|
Wait until there is an incident at Melbourne or Sepang...
Five or six cars lost or delayed at turn one including a Ferrari or two.... The solution is ridiculous and arises from the imposition of some mixed objectives given to the working group. I would not be surprised to see a revision come before the end of the season.... |
||
|
13 Jan 2009, 20:34 (Ref:2370878) | #16 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,164
|
Quote:
Plus they look better - have a look at pre-93 F1 cars. The '91 Jordan is a good case. I'd trade good looking cars that can race for ugly cars that can race any day of the week |
|||
__________________
Dallara F307 Toyota, MSV F3 Cup - Class and Team Champion 2012 Monoposto Champion 2008, 2010 & 2011. |
13 Jan 2009, 21:30 (Ref:2370913) | #17 | |||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,408
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
14 Jan 2009, 12:37 (Ref:2371289) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Quote:
Secondly, I do know what old F1 cars look like. But I watch F1 races as races, not as static images. If regulations can improve racing I'm all for them - aesthetics come second. Thirdly, if racing is a priority over looks then slim cars are good because they can overtake each other more easily. |
||
|
14 Jan 2009, 13:18 (Ref:2371307) | #19 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 393
|
I think this will quickly prove not to be an issue. It's the same with any change - the first race you may get incidents but the drivers will quickly adapt and learn where the new limits are. If not they hardly deserve to be in F1!
|
||
|
14 Jan 2009, 13:59 (Ref:2371327) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 867
|
imo i think the cars from 2007 were the most good looking cars, i really like the narrow profile and all the detailed curves
|
||
__________________
CG |
14 Jan 2009, 14:06 (Ref:2371335) | #21 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
This may be stating the obvious,but it's going to take longer to change a front wing/nose cone in 2009.
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44924 |
|
|
14 Jan 2009, 14:35 (Ref:2371352) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,164
|
They have plenty of grip, but the ratio is too much in favour of aero. That's why a following car can't get close. A wider track (as in the distance between wheels, not the surface they drive on!) will make the ratio slightly more favourable, which should help the racing. The width of the cars with regards room to overtake isn't an issue in the slightest, except perhaps at Monaco.
A wider track with the existing front wing would look okay. The rear wing would still look silly (sillier?), but I reckon the overall look would improve. And I base that on some photoshops someone did on another forum. Nose cone changes shouldn't be increased. Look at how many plugs it takes to connect a steering wheel - none; it's all part of the release mechanism. A version of that on the nose cone and it'll take 0.00 seconds longer to change a nose cone. Of course, a hydraulic one will be slightly different, but there are still panel mounted quick release couplings for hydraulics that would cope with the environment available. Last edited by tristancliffe; 14 Jan 2009 at 14:37. |
||
__________________
Dallara F307 Toyota, MSV F3 Cup - Class and Team Champion 2012 Monoposto Champion 2008, 2010 & 2011. |
15 Jan 2009, 19:11 (Ref:2372217) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,517
|
Pick up a picture of a 97 Ferrari, Williams or McLaren (the last season with slicks and wide track) photoshop or draw a 2009 front and rear wing onto it.
It doesn't look silly although the narrow wing looks out of proportion (as do the 2009 front wings on a 2009 car). The 2009 rear wing is a silly issue even now. The wing is narrower to reduce the amount od available downforce, but higher to separate it from interference with wash to the car behind. Surely a wider less efficient wing, still mounted higher, common to all so a 'standard' piece would have provided a more balanced look. Then the front wing would not have had to carry as much down force, and be narrower. |
||
|
15 Jan 2009, 19:24 (Ref:2372223) | #24 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
|
||
|
15 Jan 2009, 19:35 (Ref:2372231) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,517
|
Or the wash effect isn't as strong out wide so standardise the central part of the front wing and widen it with the outer limits doing the work and stuff what it looks like.
This still ignores the effect of the diffuser air but they didn't want to do away with that because they still wanted as much downforce as possible... and I continue to maintain that the commitment to that philosophy is part of the problem.... |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2005 Front Wings | Chaynes321 | Formula One | 11 | 25 Apr 2005 14:20 |
front wings | Osella | Racing Technology | 3 | 30 Jan 2005 18:14 |
Front wings | boyracer | Racing Technology | 5 | 24 May 2002 02:38 |
front wings | bigtallnick | Racing Technology | 6 | 7 Jun 2001 07:54 |
What about front wings? | Super Tourer | Formula One | 1 | 26 May 2000 20:49 |