|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
23 Dec 2010, 19:42 (Ref:2807880) | #51 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
So, what we really need is......slower F1 cars? Which is what they will probably be in comparison to the 2012 cars, which will no doubt be getting back to 2004 Ferrari levels of performance by then.
|
|
|
23 Dec 2010, 21:09 (Ref:2807919) | #52 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,293
|
I dont really agree there. The first one or two seasons of GP2 were great due to the way the aero worked. Then after that I believe they changed the chassis (oddly?) to make them more aero dependant. Those cars were all identical, yet the racing was great.
|
||
|
24 Dec 2010, 10:25 (Ref:2808076) | #53 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
The 2013 cars are planned to be slower. I'm not sure if we will hit 2004 speeds in 2012, but I think it should be the aim to peg the cars at current speeds; in 2004 the cars were cornering a little faster than desirable. |
|||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
24 Dec 2010, 13:12 (Ref:2808141) | #54 | ||||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,454
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
Bill Bryson: It is no longer permitted to be stupid and slow. You must choose one or the other. |
27 Dec 2010, 10:38 (Ref:2808734) | #55 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,530
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
27 Dec 2010, 15:53 (Ref:2808809) | #56 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,293
|
If they are going to go to underfloor aero, what will become of the wooden plank?
|
||
|
27 Dec 2010, 18:06 (Ref:2808842) | #57 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
It might possibly wind up being dispensed with.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
27 Dec 2010, 18:47 (Ref:2808846) | #58 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,293
|
|||
|
27 Dec 2010, 20:25 (Ref:2808856) | #59 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 692
|
Another thing with touring cars is that a lot of the overtakes there are down to a bit of pushing and shoving. Body contact is not as much of a problem compared to F1, and this means the drivers are far more willing to bump bumpers and 'nudge' each other a little just to slow them down or knock them off the racing line enough for the following car to overtake.
NASCAR of course has the bump draft which is kinda like KERS. The difference of course is that the leading car can't do anything about being slipstreamed in a bump draft, whereas with KERS the leading car can hit their KERS button too (if they have it) and try to outrun the overtaker. I partly agree with pingguest - the performance differential needs to be there, but it must only be there at certain points. That's the biggest problem in my eyes. |
|
__________________
Please, call me dye. |
27 Dec 2010, 20:47 (Ref:2808859) | #60 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,498
|
Basically what a number of us have been saying for more than 5 years....
About time, although the devil will be in the detail... |
|
|
27 Dec 2010, 21:13 (Ref:2808863) | #61 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,293
|
Quote:
To be honest, ive been saying it for at least 12 years. The 1998 tech regs were the biggest step in the wrong direction in the history of motorsport. Sure, motorsport has been heading on a crash course with downforce ever since 1968, but 1998 for me was a straw that broke the camel's back. F1 has not been the same since. If we can get back to some cars that have mechanical grip, and force the designers to use less downforce then it can only be a good thing. Simply just reduce the surface areas the designers can work with, racing will improve. Give the designers a wing area of 2 metres sq, and he might get 1000kg of downforce. Give the same designer a wing area of 2 inches sq, and he might get 2kg of downforce. Perhaps overstating the point, but you get the idea. If you limit the surface areas that can be developed, there is less "gain" that can be attained. This would also close up the grid, as the lesser funded teams wouldn't have to spend 2000 hours in wind tunnels in order to gain 50grams of downforce. Limit the surface areas for downforce, close up the grid, improve the racing. |
|||
|
27 Dec 2010, 22:16 (Ref:2808869) | #62 | |||||||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
28 Dec 2010, 05:37 (Ref:2808911) | #63 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,404
|
Quote:
The DFV engine was the only real option in F3000 for quite a few years until the Mugen / Honda V8 was developed, which in turn forced Cosworth into a new engine to match the Mugen. But yes I at the time missed the F2 cars.... |
||||
|
28 Dec 2010, 09:05 (Ref:2808929) | #64 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
28 Dec 2010, 09:25 (Ref:2808933) | #65 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
And if downforce is indeed an integral part of the sport, then to what extent? Downforce was discovered in the late 1960s, but became dominant in the ground effect era and from 2007 its virtually the only area where development is allowed. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
28 Dec 2010, 10:38 (Ref:2808942) | #66 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
It's one of those Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" things. |
||||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
28 Dec 2010, 12:32 (Ref:2808959) | #67 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
One could also think to the opposite. Formula 1 was found as the ultimate drivers' championship in the first place. Although the sport is a technical warfare, the driver should be most influential and thus securing his input deserves being a top priority. Downforce makes the car unnecessarily easy to drive and should therefore be eliminated. Last edited by Pingguest; 28 Dec 2010 at 12:39. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
28 Dec 2010, 14:00 (Ref:2808981) | #68 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
The pit-stop is an integral part of car racing, something virtually unique to it, like the lineout. However, that generally applies mainly to tyre changes, rather than refuelling. Driver aids, well, not really. |
|||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
28 Dec 2010, 14:55 (Ref:2808987) | #69 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 692
|
||
__________________
Please, call me dye. |
28 Dec 2010, 19:01 (Ref:2809036) | #70 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Interestingly, until the ban on tobacco advertisement Marlboro used an image the 1982 McLaren-Cosworth. That car didn't have a front wing, at least not in that image. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
28 Dec 2010, 19:41 (Ref:2809044) | #71 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,364
|
Still got pit stops. Until they get rid of those everything else is just tinkering at the edges.
Jim |
||
__________________
Life is not safe, just choose where you want to take the risks. |
28 Dec 2010, 19:43 (Ref:2809045) | #72 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,364
|
|
||
__________________
Life is not safe, just choose where you want to take the risks. |
28 Dec 2010, 20:59 (Ref:2809062) | #73 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,107
|
Quote:
Remember: if you have car A and car B 0.5s apart and doing exactly the same laptime, car B will have the slipstream advantage on every straight. So let's assume that all the aero problems are fixed and the cars can run very close together, we then end up looking at performance differential: scenario 1 (Significant difference): Car B is much faster than Car A. It successfully gets in the slipstream of Car A, passes, and then disappears into the distance because it has a significant raw pace advantage. scenario 2 (Little difference): Car B is of a very similar raw speed to Car A. Car B gets in the slipstream of Car A and overtakes. Car B cannot get away as the performance difference is too small. Car A now has the slipstream and the possibility to overtake. |
|||
|
28 Dec 2010, 22:38 (Ref:2809077) | #74 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
Mistakes and strategy differences are factors as well. In the first case, cars that are not as easy to drive would help - that is not easy to achieve, but perhaps the tyres could be changed so that they are harder to work. On the latter, it's all about the aero package. |
|||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
29 Dec 2010, 09:52 (Ref:2809138) | #75 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,364
|
Quote:
Regards Jim |
|||
__________________
Life is not safe, just choose where you want to take the risks. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jos "Dead Loss" Verstappen & Enrique "Not Piquet" Bernoldi | I Ate Yoko Ono | Formula One | 16 | 9 Oct 2001 14:44 |