planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:42 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1582
Cold Gin wrote:
I like the tires as they currently are, I hope they don't get more narrow again like they were. Downforce just needs to be cut, and more of it needs to be produced by the underside of the car. Which everyone here has been screaming for a long time. Steel brakes are a good idea, but the idea of going backwards technology wise when the carbon brakes have been used so long is probably difficult for some to swallow. So, it should be about ground effect and downforce reduction, at least in terms of how the wings are produced. More power and less grip is a scenario I think we'd all like to see.

Also, in response to the OP, it is already against the rules to crowd another car off the edge of the track. Whether or not it is enforced is an entirely different matter.


BIB
Is that not just on the straights though?

I remember seeing Hamilton and Button racing when they were both at McLaren and while racing, they both allowed the outside car to stay on the track when racing round corners. It made for more exciting racing than if they had just run wide and forced the outer car off the track.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5736
Location: Michigan, USA
babararacucudada wrote:
Cold Gin wrote:
Also, in response to the OP, it is already against the rules to crowd another car off the edge of the track. Whether or not it is enforced is an entirely different matter.

BIB
Is that not just on the straights though?

No, it's always (supposed to be) illegal, it's just very poorly defined in the rules.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:30 pm
Posts: 4
Would it be feasible/possible to change the rules around the rear wing such that it is required to improve the airflow behind the car?

With the advent of CFD modelling would it be feasible for the FIA to assess the level of wake flow created by wing or car and that it must then meet certain criteria?

This would do two things - 1. keep the aerodynamicists happy (employed) as now they have to come up with a new solution that creates downforce AND at the same time reduces the wake 2. It would allow cars to follow more closely as they would be less affected by the wake.

This is based on a very limited knowledge of aerodynamics just fyi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23682
asupersonicboy wrote:
Would it be feasible/possible to change the rules around the rear wing such that it is required to improve the airflow behind the car?

With the advent of CFD modelling would it be feasible for the FIA to assess the level of wake flow created by wing or car and that it must then meet certain criteria?

This would do two things - 1. keep the aerodynamicists happy (employed) as now they have to come up with a new solution that creates downforce AND at the same time reduces the wake 2. It would allow cars to follow more closely as they would be less affected by the wake.

This is based on a very limited knowledge of aerodynamics just fyi.

I think the problem is more in how sensitive the front wings are, tbh. If they weren't so sensitive to every gust of wind by having multiple levels and angles then the dirty air would be much less of an issue. And I would imagine it would be quite hard to develop a rear that emitted almost no wake to upset the airflow behind


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4828
The floor/diffuser at the rear kicks up a lot of dirty air *cough* deliberately *cough*. The rear wing isn't that bad I don't believe.

Spec front wing and floor/diffuser would solve most of the problems with it but it just won't get passed the vote without the concessions elsewhere for the chassis makers who can get denied supply by the best EM's so need all advantages on the chassis side they can get so rely on not having spec chassis parts.

Being fairer with one can lead to fairness everywhere else in the new regs but Brawn has to resist the Ferrari/Mercedes threats first.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:58 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1309
Location: Far side of Koozebane
For me the day F1 starts to run spec parts with major components like wings and suspensions is the day the sport begins to lose it's DNA and uniqueness and begins it's journey as just another racing series. I for one want the sport to avoid the use of spec parts as much as possible.

Obviously by a mile the biggest factor in these issues is the dirty air due to aero components, we all acknowledge this, and i'm not sure the sports governing body has the desire or the kahunas to dictate terms to the teams in this area, but I also think there are other factors that contribute, even slightly,to the processional state of races in the last decade or so such as increased component reliability, limits on components and testing, advancements in computer diagnostic software making it easier to optimise car setup and introduction of technologies such as the semi automatic gearboxes which eliminate missed gear changes, removal of track hazards such as gravel traps no longer penalise driver errors. All this has in some way, to me at least, led to a reduction in the overall excitement of a race and an increase in predictability of results, at least at the front of the grid. As I pointed out in another thread, every single pole position and race since Australia 2013 has been won by either a Merc, a Ferrari or a Red Bull.

If the FIA is loathe to rock the boat too much on the aero front, and it looks like they are by their decision to go down the 3rd DRS zone route, the only option I can see to increase the excitement of the race and promote overtaking opportunities, is to introduce more variables into each race. Even these aero loaded cars of today can be caught and passed if the following car has an advantage that negates the disadvantage of following the car in front. I firmly believe that tactical options such allowing teams to use any tyre compound however they want at each race, maybe, although i'm not 100% sure of this myself, re-introduce re-fuelling, not the way it was done last time mind you but allow teams to set fuel strategy at the start of the race, and I know this isn't popular but I think it has merit, change the DRS from a zoned to a timed concept or introduce a turbo boost system to be used for a limited time at the drivers discretion, would increase the tactical options for each team at each race. As I said earlier ,they had the turbo boost in the 80's turbo era so it's nothing new. The only difference is that back then it's use was unlimited, where this concept would time limit it's use which would force drivers to actually consider the tactical component of it's use and it's likely that we'll see some drivers with no boost time left while others will have a varied amount left.

So we get to a race where the team has to decide which tyres to use through the race and how to fuel the car through the race as well as the driver then having to manage their time limited DRS or turbo boost options through the race, could encourage some adventurous tactical choices, especially if the use of the turbo boost increases fuel consumption. It'd be a tacticians nightmare and could lead to some interesting racing.

To me it's simple, the more variables introduced to the equation, the greater the chance of a variety of results occurring.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1312
Jezza13 wrote:
To me it's simple, the more variables introduced to the equation, the greater the chance of a variety of results occurring.


Even with multiple choices in a car design, within two years all the teams find the optimal configuration. A very good example is the V-10. At the time of it's introduction V-8's were the most common, with Ferrari and their V-12. But the V-10 proved to be the optimum design for the formula, and we saw everyone migrate to this configuration.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5306
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
To me it's simple, the more variables introduced to the equation, the greater the chance of a variety of results occurring.


Even with multiple choices in a car design, within two years all the teams find the optimal configuration. A very good example is the V-10. At the time of it's introduction V-8's were the most common, with Ferrari and their V-12. But the V-10 proved to be the optimum design for the formula, and we saw everyone migrate to this configuration.

That was primarily because of the mandate that they use 3 liter engines; making the V10 the optimal configuration in terms of liters per cylinder. You're right though. More variables won't make for better racing in the long run. It will just make for increased costs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23682
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-calls-urgent-meeting-to-discuss-overtaking-1022018

Looks like they are going to compete to see whose knee can jerk the highest in Bahrain, after Melbourne's race. One interesting point, though:

The Sommerville idea is to improve the quality of the airflow onto the car behind by simplifying the front wing. That would involve the removal of certain elements that are specifically designed to control the airflow around the front wheels.

It's this flow – that starts with the front wing of the car ahead and interacts with the turbulence around the front wheels – that subsequently makes it difficult for the car behind to follow. Removing the elements would slow the lead car slightly, and allow the following car to get closer.

It's understood both ideas could be incorporated into the 2019 rules.


This is only something that has been discussed on this forum for many years. Why it's taken them this long to come up with is beyond me, but hopefully they'll look at things like this, rather than more gimmicks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 926
Location: Brazil
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
To me it's simple, the more variables introduced to the equation, the greater the chance of a variety of results occurring.


Even with multiple choices in a car design, within two years all the teams find the optimal configuration. A very good example is the V-10. At the time of it's introduction V-8's were the most common, with Ferrari and their V-12. But the V-10 proved to be the optimum design for the formula, and we saw everyone migrate to this configuration.


This is true. Some stick to a design out of tradition, but even Ferrari was no longer able to justify building a V12 when, in the 3.0L era, having more cylinders became a significant drawback in terms of weight and reliability.

V8s couldn't rev as hard so they couldn't get as much power as a V10 either. This put the nail in the coffin of all Cosworth-derived engines.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2784
Location: Perth, Australia
Remove front wings or make them smaller, permit ground-effect aerodynamics. :thumbup:

Chuck in more varied engine configurations like in LMP1.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 504
Go to a different circuit...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 423
Want more overtaking - devise aero regulations that promote 'clean air' coming off the rear of a leading car so that the following car doesn't lose significant down force on their front wing. If competitors can run closer together, the opportunities to pass increase geometrically.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5736
Location: Michigan, USA
dompclarke wrote:
Go to a different circuit...

This is a good point. Did anyone actually feel that overtaking was too hard in Bahrain?

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1582
Exediron wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Go to a different circuit...

This is a good point. Did anyone actually feel that overtaking was too hard in Bahrain?


Max Varstappen?

If they applied a rule that you were not allowed to force another car off the track on the outside of a corner, maybe Max would have had to brake harder and Lewis could have succeeded in pinning him behind the McLaren?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9256
babararacucudada wrote:
Exediron wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Go to a different circuit...

This is a good point. Did anyone actually feel that overtaking was too hard in Bahrain?


Max Varstappen?

If they applied a rule that you were not allowed to force another car off the track on the outside of a corner, maybe Max would have had to brake harder and Lewis could have succeeded in pinning him behind the McLaren?

He started 6 places behind Lewis so obviously he didn't feel it was too hard to overtake.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5306
Having seen the Chinese GP, I think this issue is more important than ever. This will be a season like the ones we had before DRS was introduced. That's how hard it is to overtake in these cars. I think these cars suffer MUCH more from dirty air than the previous era's cars. F1 has clearly headed in the wrong direction here and Ross Brawn and Co. need to course correct. 2021 is soooo important for the future of the sport. They need to get it right and the cars being able to actually race is far and away the most important factor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 1004
babararacucudada wrote:
http://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-open-to-using-more-drs-zones/

More DRS Zones. It might help a bit at a few circuits. They probably are already using the parts of the circuit where DRS could be the most use, though sometimes having 2 DRS zones close together can create another opportunity.

If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.


- Track alterations to enable overtake areas
- More DRS zones and no DRS for catching up back markers
- Remove blue flags
- Remove aerial reliance for 'dirty' air

These are only simple ideas from a fan, I know nothing about actual racing etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:54 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1309
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Answer:

21 races at Baku

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jezza13, Laz_T800 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group