planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:23 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7502
Location: London
So would you keep DRS? Change how many zones it has? Remove it all together?

Would you change rear wing size? Front wing size? Allow little flick ups again?

Over to you. :)

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 2876
I know it would entirely defeat the point of DRS, but I'd like it to be open all hours for the race. The whole track is a DRS zone. Where you have the balls / grip combination you can open it. I fea, however, this kind of behaviour would lead to a big accident in the wall, or a spin placing a driver facing an oncoming car.


I think I'd also seriously consider utilising ground effects a bit more. I wouldn't balance the downforce in it's favour, but perhaps upping that would reduce the conventional aero (apologies for that term, I can't think what to call it) losses and allow overtaking to occur in a more natural form. I like DRS, but it is a means to an end - if you can get that end without it, then do so.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:44 am
Posts: 260
I'd like to see everything adjustable, as long as it is controlled solely by the driver in real time. They could have settings if they so chose, i.e. a dial that sets the rear wing in increments and one for the front, or they could have thumb controls or something similar and actually fine tune it as they are driving. Brakes too. Why not have 2 pedals, or one pedal that the driver can move around to adjust the balance front/ rear/side to side?

I'm for drivers having all the control possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 2614
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
If the FIA want to save money teams should have to present two or three pairs of wings at the start of the season and not be allowed to make any further changes during. Not what I want but sometimes I wonder why this doesn't happen.

I wouldn't mind keeping DRS as long as everyone could use it (still only in a designated zone), odd as that sounds. The fact only the pursuing driver has it means overtakes are devalued and competing cars are subject to different rules, and that bugs the hell out of me. It would still serve a purpose as it's a talent differentiator, opening it as early as possible would be key. The mistakes that would introduce and the different level of driver ability involved in deploying it should mean it's still an overtaking aid, just not such a phoney one. Basically like what mac_d said but I wouldn't have it available everywhere.

For purely aesthetic reasons I'd like to see front and rear wings somewhere between the 08 and 09 spec. I've stopped believing they have much influence on overtaking, and the manipulation of overtaking shouldn't dictate wing concept anyway.

The less winglets and protrusions on the main bulk of the car the better, but I admit to loving the detail on front wings in particular... and the aero department have to do something.

Current rules on ground effect, diffusers, moveable aero (largely) etc. seem pretty sensible to me, but I wouldn't want cornering speeds to drop any.

_________________
I went skating on your name,
And by tracing it twice,
I fell through the ice,
of Alice


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 463
Location: Canada
I think that Champ Car had it spot on with the Panoz DPO1

Image

I think that this is my favourite racing car. the cars looked amazing and the racing was excellent. Id pick Champ Car over F1 on any day.

So i would; introduce ground effects, allow kickups infront of the rear wheels but no other winglets, narrow the front wing and widen the rear wing but i would make them shallower, i would also remove the regulation plank and make the floor completely flat. I would also make the front of the chassis lower, not just the from of the nose to avoid the stepped noses.

I would also remove DRS and make KERS more like a "push to pass" button. all drivers have 60 or 90 seconds of KERS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 802
Allowing DRS use everywhere on the track or allowing all drivers to use DRS in a designated zone is completely pointless and will only add an unnecessary performance differentiator. We already have a decent performance differential in the DRS systems across teams. The balls to open it early argument is ridiculous, teams with better DRS will be so much more faster over the course of the straights it defeats the point. The only reason DRS was introduced was to promote overtaking, you either keep it as it currently is or remove it altogether.

There are many other ways to make F1 cars faster than they are, return of winglets, movable aero parts, more powerful engines and what not. I don't think really think they should be implemented because faster isn't necessarily better.

One fundamental change I would like to see is the wholesale incorporation of ground effects, remove most of the aero dependence without losing any of the speed (that's very much possible with advanced ground effects, will probably take the teams a season or two to get to grips though). That will completely get rid of the biggest problem that has plagued F1 over the last decade, turbulence. We would not need the funky overtaking needs like DRS anymore, cars will look more old school with small wings and no blown exhausts.

However one of the main reasons the FIA is not keen to bring back ground effects is because of safety concerns as the cars will become very fast if not regulated, but I'm sure they can reach a good compromise if they put their mind to it.

Otherwise, more realistically, I'd like to see them change the wings to pre-2009 specifications, this wide-front narrow-rear configuration is redundant with the introduction of the DRS.

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 1477
Location: UK
Balibari wrote:
If the FIA want to save money teams should have to present two or three pairs of wings at the start of the season and not be allowed to make any further changes during. Not what I want but sometimes I wonder why this doesn't happen.

Gary Anderson suggested something similar in his BBC column. He proposed that teams can only bring updates to specified races each season (he suggested 3 races in which teams could bring updates), and the cars must not change at any other time. Teams could then play a 'wildcard' once in the season if they were behind and desperately needed some development. So for example, if this had been in force for this year then Ferrari most likely would have played their wildcard early on as they were so far off the pace at the start of the year, and McLaren would be looking to play theirs now. It would lower development costs dramatically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 802
j man wrote:
Balibari wrote:
If the FIA want to save money teams should have to present two or three pairs of wings at the start of the season and not be allowed to make any further changes during. Not what I want but sometimes I wonder why this doesn't happen.

Gary Anderson suggested something similar in his BBC column. He proposed that teams can only bring updates to specified races each season (he suggested 3 races in which teams could bring updates), and the cars must not change at any other time. Teams could then play a 'wildcard' once in the season if they were behind and desperately needed some development. So for example, if this had been in force for this year then Ferrari most likely would have played their wildcard early on as they were so far off the pace at the start of the year, and McLaren would be looking to play theirs now. It would lower development costs dramatically.


Probably for the midfield teams, but the top teams will start spending even more to try to fast track the upgrades to these designated races. For example Ferrari this season more or less raced the same car for the initial 4 flyaway races, then started bringing significant upgrades from Barcelona onwards at each race. If any such rule was introduced Ferrari would have increased their spending significantly to slot all of their upgrades for Barcelona. It also has some potential conflicts with the RRA.

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 1477
Location: UK
sultanofhyd wrote:
j man wrote:
Balibari wrote:
If the FIA want to save money teams should have to present two or three pairs of wings at the start of the season and not be allowed to make any further changes during. Not what I want but sometimes I wonder why this doesn't happen.

Gary Anderson suggested something similar in his BBC column. He proposed that teams can only bring updates to specified races each season (he suggested 3 races in which teams could bring updates), and the cars must not change at any other time. Teams could then play a 'wildcard' once in the season if they were behind and desperately needed some development. So for example, if this had been in force for this year then Ferrari most likely would have played their wildcard early on as they were so far off the pace at the start of the year, and McLaren would be looking to play theirs now. It would lower development costs dramatically.


Probably for the midfield teams, but the top teams will start spending even more to try to fast track the upgrades to these designated races. For example Ferrari this season more or less raced the same car for the initial 4 flyaway races, then started bringing significant upgrades from Barcelona onwards at each race. If any such rule was introduced Ferrari would have increased their spending significantly to slot all of their upgrades for Barcelona. It also has some potential conflicts with the RRA.

That is true, but I think over the course of the year it would work out cheaper as each part has fewer design iterations. Rather than making numerous small tweaks for each race, the upgrades would be lumped together and introduced simultaneously at one race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 2797
On the DRS front, do you remember Bernie had that ridiculous idea about shortcuts on every track a few years ago? maybe have the DRS like that, each Driver gets maybe 3-5 uses per race. we see reduced use, but still more overtakes than before. best of both worlds?

I agree with the 2007/8 wing specs, they looked much better.

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV X XVII
Image
gif from reddit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:29 pm
Posts: 4691
Location: u.k
AngusWolfe wrote:
On the DRS front, do you remember Bernie had that ridiculous idea about shortcuts on every track a few years ago? maybe have the DRS like that, each Driver gets maybe 3-5 uses per race. we see reduced use, but still more overtakes than before. best of both worlds?

I agree with the 2007/8 wing specs, they looked much better.


I personally don't like the idea of shortcuts. It seems to defeat the point of racing, if one driver is just going to use a completely different area of track which the defending driver cannot.

Plus, I can see hundreds of potential hurdles to overcome to actually get it to work.

_________________
Formula Mercedes

Forza Alonso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 2797
RunningMan wrote:
AngusWolfe wrote:
On the DRS front, do you remember Bernie had that ridiculous idea about shortcuts on every track a few years ago? maybe have the DRS like that, each Driver gets maybe 3-5 uses per race. we see reduced use, but still more overtakes than before. best of both worlds?

I agree with the 2007/8 wing specs, they looked much better.


I personally don't like the idea of shortcuts. It seems to defeat the point of racing, if one driver is just going to use a completely different area of track which the defending driver cannot.

Plus, I can see hundreds of potential hurdles to overcome to actually get it to work.


i know, that's what i was saying. it's so stupid. but i like the idea of Drivers getting only a few uses of the DRS per-race.

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV X XVII
Image
gif from reddit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5540
- Remove DRS
- Remove KERS (I know, not aero)
- Bring back ground effects
- Reduce front wing (fugly and breaks too easily)
- Reduce rear wing (or whatever it takes to reduce the dirty air effect considerably)

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3808
Location: Belgium
I would get the OWG that worked on the new formula for 2009 together again, and identify the areas in which that formula could have been made to work - and then acting upon that.

When I look at the present generation of front wings, I cannot help but shake my head in disbelief.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 460
AngusWolfe wrote:
On the DRS front, do you remember Bernie had that ridiculous idea about shortcuts on every track a few years ago? maybe have the DRS like that, each Driver gets maybe 3-5 uses per race. we see reduced use, but still more overtakes than before. best of both worlds?

I agree with the 2007/8 wing specs, they looked much better.


I think, without having a better understanding of aerodynamics, this is the best solution I can see. That way drivers who are having to fight from the back don't have to save their DRS for faster cars. This makes the DRS aided passes more exciting because rivers are more likely to use it on closely matched cars, and it really matters when they fail. It also makes overtaking slower cars more exciting because unless you want to waste your DRS you have to do it "properly". Furthermore, it also makes overtaking a skill worth having again.


The best solution, though, would be to solve the problem that caused all the fuss in the first place. Before it was too easy to defend, and now it's too easy to overtake. The problem is that I'm not convinced DRS will ever offer us any middle ground, especially with the current tyres.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 3212
Some of you guys are on the same page as I am. For a following car, aero turbulence limits how close they can get, and for how long before the tires scrub too much and go off.

But ground effects isn't that sensitive. Put ground effects back it, but in a very limited and controlled manner, and one that definitely limits cornering performance to a specified value. I don't know exactly how to make it happen or word the regulations, but it should be attempted.

I used to be strongly opposed to adjustable aero because of some tragic accidents a long time ago. But the moveable front wing experiment has proven to me that they can be made safe, if used in such a manner. Allow front and rear wings to be adjustable by the driver, to balance the car. The adjustment allowed would not be that much, just enough to allow balance adjustments.

All or nothing for blown diffusers. Either make such a crazy rule that it would be impossible, or throw that rule wide open and allow everyone to go that route.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:08 pm
Posts: 370
I'm all for ground effects, but to regulate them would be difficult. I think the ground effect can produce a maximum amount of downforce (what is downforce measured in?) so teams don't go too far with the ground effect and endanger safety of drivers and/or spectators.

Also, I hear conflicting views on which wing is the best at reducing turbulence. Some say the pre-2009 wings are best, while others say the current generation of wings are.

In the end, I would try to regulate aerodynamics to the point where turbulent air becomes a minor or nonexistent issue, so cars can overtake without DRS. It must be difficult, if they haven't done it yet.

_________________
Supporter of:

Fernando Alonso
Pastor Maldonado
Sergio Perez
Michael Schumacher
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 5
I would completely deregulate aerodynamics, allow active computer controlled aerodynamics, ground effect, aeroelastic aerodynamic components.... everything. Besides aerodynamics I would completely deregulate electronics and make fuel and battery only regulated components in engines/KERS/transmission. In addition to energy available only thing that should be regulated should be crash safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:03 pm
Posts: 262
Almost total aero freedom except for "defensive" aero; that which creates a dirtier wake than needs be (difficult to police though)
Size shape configuration ground clearance to fit within defined "box"
Allow active to be controlled by driver (driver only - no remote)
Forget DRS zone, whole circuit is zone ,amount of drag you take off is proportional to the size of your veg.


Enjoyable as racing was in the pre-aero days I don't think getting rid of all aero is the answer. If that's what you want go to Historic F1 and if Historic turns out to get more popular allow manufacturers to offer "continuation" cars a la Lola T70 - would work with McLaren and Ferrari dunno who's gonna build a Tyrell or a BRM (Hall and Hall - are you listening?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:40 pm
Posts: 4
Possibly forget DRS, Possibly maybe use the rear wing's over rear wheels downwash design, allow diffuser to be larger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 2797
painless wrote:
Almost total aero freedom except for "defensive" aero; that which creates a dirtier wake than needs be (difficult to police though)
Size shape configuration ground clearance to fit within defined "box"
Allow active to be controlled by driver (driver only - no remote)
Forget DRS zone, whole circuit is zone ,amount of drag you take off is proportional to the size of your veg.


Enjoyable as racing was in the pre-aero days I don't think getting rid of all aero is the answer. If that's what you want go to Historic F1 and if Historic turns out to get more popular allow manufacturers to offer "continuation" cars a la Lola T70 - would work with McLaren and Ferrari dunno who's gonna build a Tyrell or a BRM (Hall and Hall - are you listening?)


The problem with that is the people with the biggest balls are going to end up without a head.

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV X XVII
Image
gif from reddit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:30 am
Posts: 116
I think a lot of the comments on this thread have lost sight as to how and why we ended up with the regs we have now. In particular:

1) underbody aero is inherently unsafe compared to "wing" driven aero. It relies upon a precise gap between the car and the track, and the more this varies, the less the effect. That means that if a car gets unsettled at high speeds, say by hitting a curb, another car, etc., then it loses it's downforce suddenly - and it has nothing but gravity to bring it down. If it is travelling in an upwards arc, or bouncing around as it flies off the track, downward aero will not be regained. Contrast this with winged aero, which is exerting downforce as a function of it's forward speed - it works pretty well even if airborne - it's only limitation is that it loses effectiveness with the cosine value of the car's floor to the track. So as long as it is fairly upright, it will have some downforce, even if oscillating. This difference in failure modes is an important feature as to why underbody aero was banned.

2) DRS is supposed to give a _temporary_ burst of speed to allow an overtake that would have probably happened if not for the aero disturbance of the leading car. The idea of making it operate over the whole track runs right into the situation that got V8 turbos banned - many tracks simply are not safe for that amount of speed. The current DRS zones operate only where the track is known to be safe while carrying a higher speed, hence their appearance on relatively straight sections only. Remember, the whole mantra of the past 8 years or so has been to try and reduce speeds, while still providing good, competitive racing. Track-wide DRS does not do that. If we cannot limit the speeds and still have good racing, then frankly F1 would have to scrap a whole heap of tracks - starting with Monaco.

3) This discussion of totally unlimited aero just scares the teams. Truth be told, there are only a few really, really good aero men on the planet (you know that when FERRARI start decrying "too much aero"!), and giving them blank canvases will _radically_ reduce the competitiveness of the lower half of the field. The differences in lap times are likely to be huge - perhaps as much as 5 or more seconds per lap on many tracks. This obviously flies in the face of the percentage rules, and also destroys the aspirations of the lower teams - which means that sponsors will probably leave if they can't even be remotely competitive.

I would like to add that the one thing I would like to see changed is the width of the front wing. When they increased it's width a few years ago, they disallowed significant aero on the middle of the front wing for reasons I do not understand. What that has done is to make the front wing too sensitive to damage, especially on the first few laps. Unless someone can provide a good explanation as to why that is a positive thing, I would like to see a return to a slightly narrower front wing with significant aero effects carried in the middle, where they are less sensitive to damage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
futureshock999 wrote:
I think a lot of the comments on this thread have lost sight as to how and why we ended up with the regs we have now. In particular:

I hope you consider my comments as really serious. I have a proposal that, to my best knowledge, can make most people happy...

futureshock999 wrote:
1) underbody aero is inherently unsafe compared to "wing" driven aero. It relies upon a precise gap between the car and the track, and the more this varies, the less the effect. That means that if a car gets unsettled at high speeds, say by hitting a curb, another car, etc., then it loses it's downforce suddenly - and it has nothing but gravity to bring it down. If it is travelling in an upwards arc, or bouncing around as it flies off the track, downward aero will not be regained. Contrast this with winged aero, which is exerting downforce as a function of it's forward speed - it works pretty well even if airborne - it's only limitation is that it loses effectiveness with the cosine value of the car's floor to the track. So as long as it is fairly upright, it will have some downforce, even if oscillating. This difference in failure modes is an important feature as to why underbody aero was banned.

I understand your point. Underbody downforce means also a less challenging sport for drivers. Cars could really be stick to the floor given the right technology development. Banning it, kind of solves the problem but, anyway, teams manage to produce more downforce all the time, and so, many extra rules need to be introduced (winglets, DDD, high rear wings, etc). Limiting downforce is a good solution here, but How to do it in a completive and simple way?

futureshock999 wrote:
2) DRS is supposed to give a _temporary_ burst of speed to allow an overtake that would have probably happened if not for the aero disturbance of the leading car. The idea of making it operate over the whole track runs right into the situation that got V8 turbos banned - many tracks simply are not safe for that amount of speed. The current DRS zones operate only where the track is known to be safe while carrying a higher speed, hence their appearance on relatively straight sections only. Remember, the whole mantra of the past 8 years or so has been to try and reduce speeds, while still providing good, competitive racing. Track-wide DRS does not do that. If we cannot limit the speeds and still have good racing, then frankly F1 would have to scrap a whole heap of tracks - starting with Monaco.

Good racing with lower speeds is exactly what my proposal would achieve.

futureshock999 wrote:
3) This discussion of totally unlimited aero just scares the teams. Truth be told, there are only a few really, really good aero men on the planet (you know that when FERRARI start decrying "too much aero"!), and giving them blank canvases will _radically_ reduce the competitiveness of the lower half of the field. The differences in lap times are likely to be huge - perhaps as much as 5 or more seconds per lap on many tracks. This obviously flies in the face of the percentage rules, and also destroys the aspirations of the lower teams - which means that sponsors will probably leave if they can't even be remotely competitive.

I think aero should be developed by the teams and not simply hampered by the rules. You say that there are not enough aero gurus out there but I think that is the point: to show who are the best aero designers in the world so that people can learn from them and, eventually, "overtake" them one day.
This is why aero rules should allow anyone to quickly catch on the leaders without impeding technological development from those with enough resources. Also, driver skill should be an important factor so that teams can search for new talented drivers around the world to counterbalance their resource disadvantage.

futureshock999 wrote:
I would like to add that the one thing I would like to see changed is the width of the front wing. When they increased it's width a few years ago, they disallowed significant aero on the middle of the front wing for reasons I do not understand. What that has done is to make the front wing too sensitive to damage, especially on the first few laps. Unless someone can provide a good explanation as to why that is a positive thing, I would like to see a return to a slightly narrower front wing with significant aero effects carried in the middle, where they are less sensitive to damage.

It would be nice to see that car that have the slightest contact are not punished with a pit stop. But, to a certain level that is the responsibility of car designers. If they make a fragile car they will have to pay.

Now, take a deep look at the following proposal and let me know what you think.

Aero rules:
1.- Any aerodynamic surface must have a minimum curvature radius of R.

Simple, isn't it? Of course R is a constant given number that is sufficient to reduce downforce to safe levels. I would start with say R=5cm.

Implications:
a) wings and winglets would have to be at least 2R in width wich makes designers think twice if they will really help performance since drag would be high. The point is that Downforce is achievable if you are clever.
b) underbody aero rules can be freed because it would be really difficult to achieve too much downforce with such a restriction. This should promote creativity and useful tech developments.
c) DRS could be dropped completely because cars would be harder to drive (and safer) producing more driver mistakes and much more good racing.
d) Contact would produce less harm. The whole body surface of cars would be smoother so there would probabli be no front wings at all but, if there are, they would be more robust and less probable to puncture another car's tyres.

Maybe more...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 2986
I need to ask, what is the goal?

better racing or being on the edge of technology? there is always a compromise, but which would the people here be more inclined to?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
I need to ask, what is the goal?

better racing or being on the edge of technology? there is always a compromise, but which would the people here be more inclined to?

How about both?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:30 am
Posts: 116
Ummm...I don't get it. From a definitional point of view, the SIDEPODS are aerodynamic devices, entire FLOOR is an aero device, etc. These are things that cannot possibly fit an R=5cm rule. Basically the entire CAR profile counts as an aero device these days.

I can also approximate a curve via a series of very, very, very fine straight lines (I took calculus, doh). How small can these be before you rule them a curve?

So I am just not sure how this can be fit into a rule...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
futureshock999 wrote:
Ummm...I don't get it. From a definitional point of view, the SIDEPODS are aerodynamic devices, entire FLOOR is an aero device, etc. These are things that cannot possibly fit an R=5cm rule. Basically the entire CAR profile counts as an aero device these days.

I can also approximate a curve via a series of very, very, very fine straight lines (I took calculus, doh). How small can these be before you rule them a curve?

So I am just not sure how this can be fit into a rule...

I think it is possible. Take your mouse and check if all (external) parts comply with the rule. It is very easy to check. Why should it be more difficult with a bigger object?

An easy method would be the following: Use a sheet of paper or so and cut off a 5cm radius bite. Use this to check if the piece has a bigger or smaller radius in its surface shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 2986
readonly wrote:
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
I need to ask, what is the goal?

better racing or being on the edge of technology? there is always a compromise, but which would the people here be more inclined to?

How about both?


I'll tell you why i asked.

Aero is severely damaging driver skill (in terms of the advantage needed for overtaking) today and we ended up having to add DRS for cars to be able to pass each other which many people believe is fake (i am not one of them) but this thread is all about that. and i agree, without DRs you would have to rely on outbraking the other driver to overtake and with the current braking distances cars would have to be VERY short to gain an advantage under braking.

So let's say we Ban the usage of wings all together, and allow diffusers, underbodies and ground effects.

Pros (among others):

- overtaking more of a driver skill
- teams will develop new suspension innovations
- Ground effects will be thoroughly developed
- If active suspension is allowed it would be a ground braking innovation and is something in which development in would be an overall advantage to the automotive industry

Negatives (among others):

- Cars will develop less G-forces (less than indycar i would guess!)
- Aerodynamic wing related advances will be frozen
- technology improvements in terms of manufacturability of the complex wings made today will be frozen


So what you will have now is a very close racing series, with excellent drivers and good development.
What you will lose is being at the front of technology in terms of aerodynamics and manufacturability, but will gain that in Simulation and control, and the cars will be slower.


There are plenty of tweaks to be made and each has its own merits and its own negative so you do need to have a goal. Aerodynamics is improving the cars but damaging the racing, you can't get everything you want.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 2:07 am
Posts: 62
make the cars lighter again and shorter just a little bit. Get rid of the ugly rectangular trays underneath the cars the spread out to the back, i think that makes the cars less versatile and agile in the corners. You can make up downforce and lateral movement by either widening the sidepods and put the center of gravity in the middle even more. Another way is stuffing the engine and the aero design more on the back with aggressive design. The Redbull is using it now where the exhaust is next to a very aggressive approach to the back of the car in regards to the aero..It should be even more aggressive and more vertical with this design next year..Another approach is the cars will look linear as more of the wings are taken off and the rear downforce. In order to tame the cars that drift nowadays and cars that are longer wheelbase i think the aero parts, sidepods, the back aero designs should look more linear and cut than curvature and smooth i believe.

So lower the cars a bit, cut or shorten the undertray so you can expand the sides of the car or design them different to give more versatility for the cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 2:07 am
Posts: 62
Also, the big front wings are ugly but they are getting smaller and smaller. I think next years cars are going to look very good and very fast once again and drivers that like to dive into the corners again will benefit because there will be equal downforce on both ends..The tires need to become a little bit more stronger too like the hard tires this year i think work well as opposed to the fragil yellow soft tyres. Get rid of anything extra heavy like Energy Recovery System, it is just a liability on the cars. Keep the DRS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 1
Location: British Columbia
Why not simplify them and get rid of all the micro-meddling. Essentially, all the myriad rules are written to indirectly limit down force in order to control cornering speeds, so why not throw them all out and limit down force directly? Couldn't a rule be written stating that under a specific wind tunnel test (or series of tests) the maximum combined down force on all four wheels is X kgs. The aero-boffins could then beaver away reducing drag and improving balance within that parameter; a type of research that has the advantage of being more directly applicable to production motorcars than ultimate down force at 200 mph and might be attractive to major manufacturers. If the cars become too quick it would be simple to lower the allowable down force without restricting specific areas of development. A similar approach, with similar benefits, could be taken with engine regulation by limiting maximum fuel flow at the injectors to X ml/sec and dispensing with all the other regulations on rpm, engine configuration, and even displacement. Simplified regulation would encourage and reward real innovation and that can't be a bad thing - can it?

Not that I ever expect to see it happen; micro-management has become the FIA's raison d'etre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:23 pm
Posts: 191
Just draw a box 1m high by 4.5m long by 1.6m wide 50mm off the ground and say all of the cars bodywork must be inside the box at all time, except the wheels and suspension and that no part of the car, including wheels and suspension can be more that 20cm from the box at any time. That and a stringent crash test that also tests for car on car collisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
readonly wrote:
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
I need to ask, what is the goal?

better racing or being on the edge of technology? there is always a compromise, but which would the people here be more inclined to?

How about both?


I'll tell you why i asked.

Aero is severely damaging driver skill (in terms of the advantage needed for overtaking) today and we ended up having to add DRS for cars to be able to pass each other which many people believe is fake (i am not one of them) but this thread is all about that. and i agree, without DRs you would have to rely on outbraking the other driver to overtake and with the current braking distances cars would have to be VERY short to gain an advantage under braking.

So let's say we Ban the usage of wings all together, and allow diffusers, underbodies and ground effects.

Pros (among others):

- overtaking more of a driver skill
- teams will develop new suspension innovations
- Ground effects will be thoroughly developed
- If active suspension is allowed it would be a ground braking innovation and is something in which development in would be an overall advantage to the automotive industry

Negatives (among others):

- Cars will develop less G-forces (less than indycar i would guess!)
- Aerodynamic wing related advances will be frozen
- technology improvements in terms of manufacturability of the complex wings made today will be frozen


So what you will have now is a very close racing series, with excellent drivers and good development.
What you will lose is being at the front of technology in terms of aerodynamics and manufacturability, but will gain that in Simulation and control, and the cars will be slower.


There are plenty of tweaks to be made and each has its own merits and its own negative so you do need to have a goal. Aerodynamics is improving the cars but damaging the racing, you can't get everything you want.

So, we must see the Pros and Cons and see what proposal gets the best balance.

My goal in this is to free regulations as much as we can because this improves the top technological development aim. Another goal is to make it very easy to check if any team or driver is cheatting or not because this would return F1 its former credibility. The simplification of rules is for me the answer to both. Simpler rules open room for creativity and transparency. Meanwhile, if the ruleset can limit downforce, the result is still better and even safer racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Bloggins wrote:
Why not simplify them and get rid of all the micro-meddling. Essentially, all the myriad rules are written to indirectly limit down force in order to control cornering speeds, so why not throw them all out and limit down force directly? Couldn't a rule be written stating that under a specific wind tunnel test (or series of tests) the maximum combined down force on all four wheels is X kgs. The aero-boffins could then beaver away reducing drag and improving balance within that parameter; a type of research that has the advantage of being more directly applicable to production motorcars than ultimate down force at 200 mph and might be attractive to major manufacturers. If the cars become too quick it would be simple to lower the allowable down force without restricting specific areas of development. A similar approach, with similar benefits, could be taken with engine regulation by limiting maximum fuel flow at the injectors to X ml/sec and dispensing with all the other regulations on rpm, engine configuration, and even displacement. Simplified regulation would encourage and reward real innovation and that can't be a bad thing - can it?

Not that I ever expect to see it happen; micro-management has become the FIA's raison d'etre.

I am all for simplification but also for transparentation. How could you mortal see if a team is cheatting or not about this rule? It would become a FIA secret. Using the R=5cm radius surface even the least experienced fan could take a look and check. Whenever downforce is again too high simply increase R.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
readonly wrote:
...
d) Contact would produce less harm. The whole body surface of cars would be smoother so there would probably be no front wings at all but, if there are, they would be more robust and less probable to puncture another car's tyres.

Maybe more...

Punctures at India ... Perez and Maldonado.

Wouldn't it be better to avoid that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 2986
http://www.roadandtrack.com/racing/motorsports/the-secret-underside-of-a-modern-f1-car

F1 Underbody explained, we can see how underbody details currently have an enormous effect on the car. I wonder how allowing ground effects would shape the car's underbodies


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:00 am
Posts: 19
Location: Australia
I would like to see the use of exhaust gases banned from use in aero. The exhaust gases should be released out a horizontal pipe/s behind the rear wings. The only aero effect available should be what is generated by the vehicle's passage through the air. If one wanted to play a little game, I think you could argue that blown diffusers are a movable aero device since the wind is produced with an eight cylinder compressor which is maybe not all that dissimilar to the 78? Brabham fan car that produced downforce with a fan. And the engine mapping and off throttle blowing show that the intent is to harness the wind from that compressor. This maybe getting a little cute but I would have it at the top of my list to remove from the aero equation.

Beyond this it gets complicated. As a previous poster asked, "Do we want close racing or state of the art technology?"
The top speed of cars reached 300+ km/h back in the early fifties and the cars were pulling as many or more G's as the human body could stand back in the eighties so in some ways we have already found the limits and with the current technology once a formula is set it is explored to the nth degree with massive cost for minimal advances. (A $20 000 guitar sounds better than a $200 one but not that much better.)
As a personal preference I would rather simplify the wings with only a few elements allowed and maybe take the sculpting off the body with flat tops and slab sides but in effect I have just taken the cars back to the eighties and that defeats the intent of Formula 1 being the pinnacle of motorsport, so back to my first point of no exhaust gases to be used for aero. Beyond that I've got nothing!

The fundamental problem as I see it is the same problem that afflicts all forms of motor racing. As we have developed over the years the cars have got closer together, there is only one line a car can run on and no matter how big a drivers balls may be he cannot 'over drive' a car (for want of a better term) to get something out of it. Keke rosberg and Alan Jones were both good at getting into a car that may not be quite right and they would wring the neck of it and extract some extra performance. These days the driver is still absolutely crucial but he cannot make that sort of difference anymore.

Just one example of this is the Bathurst 1000 in Australia. It is a tin top race but the illustration still holds. Back in the seventies, Peter Brock won the race by six laps! The last two years total combined margin from first to second is less than half a second. When Brock won by six laps he had the best car and a team that was almost military in it's approach but you just don't get margins like that now.
Right or wrong, when the sport is as close to the limit as it is now the only way to prevent processional races is with artificial inputs such as KERS, DRS, Push to Pass and scheduled yellow flag periods as well as greater emphasis on rules about blocking, weaving and staying inside the lines.

As I have already said, I would prefer to reduce the aero and return to more mechanical grip but I suspect that whatever happens it is going to become more of a defacto "Spec" series as time goes on and performance gets even closer. Even now if one team develops something it is either copied by the other teams or banned taking us back to a parity situation (Amongst the top teams). We can't unlearn stuff or put the genie back into the bottle so it is up to the rule makers to come up with a sensible formula that allows development and promotes good racing. I wish the governing bodies well in their pursuits.

_________________
Nothing you say really matters until the part that comes after, "But"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Thumpah wrote:
I would like to see the use of exhaust gases banned from use in aero. The exhaust gases should be released out a horizontal pipe/s behind the rear wings. The only aero effect available should be what is generated by the vehicle's passage through the air. If one wanted to play a little game, I think you could argue that blown diffusers are a movable aero device since the wind is produced with an eight cylinder compressor which is maybe not all that dissimilar to the 78? Brabham fan car that produced downforce with a fan. And the engine mapping and off throttle blowing show that the intent is to harness the wind from that compressor. This maybe getting a little cute but I would have it at the top of my list to remove from the aero equation.

Beyond this it gets complicated. As a previous poster asked, "Do we want close racing or state of the art technology?"
The top speed of cars reached 300+ km/h back in the early fifties and the cars were pulling as many or more G's as the human body could stand back in the eighties so in some ways we have already found the limits and with the current technology once a formula is set it is explored to the nth degree with massive cost for minimal advances. (A $20 000 guitar sounds better than a $200 one but not that much better.)
As a personal preference I would rather simplify the wings with only a few elements allowed and maybe take the sculpting off the body with flat tops and slab sides but in effect I have just taken the cars back to the eighties and that defeats the intent of Formula 1 being the pinnacle of motorsport, so back to my first point of no exhaust gases to be used for aero. Beyond that I've got nothing!

The fundamental problem as I see it is the same problem that afflicts all forms of motor racing. As we have developed over the years the cars have got closer together, there is only one line a car can run on and no matter how big a drivers balls may be he cannot 'over drive' a car (for want of a better term) to get something out of it. Keke rosberg and Alan Jones were both good at getting into a car that may not be quite right and they would wring the neck of it and extract some extra performance. These days the driver is still absolutely crucial but he cannot make that sort of difference anymore.

Just one example of this is the Bathurst 1000 in Australia. It is a tin top race but the illustration still holds. Back in the seventies, Peter Brock won the race by six laps! The last two years total combined margin from first to second is less than half a second. When Brock won by six laps he had the best car and a team that was almost military in it's approach but you just don't get margins like that now.
Right or wrong, when the sport is as close to the limit as it is now the only way to prevent processional races is with artificial inputs such as KERS, DRS, Push to Pass and scheduled yellow flag periods as well as greater emphasis on rules about blocking, weaving and staying inside the lines.

As I have already said, I would prefer to reduce the aero and return to more mechanical grip but I suspect that whatever happens it is going to become more of a defacto "Spec" series as time goes on and performance gets even closer. Even now if one team develops something it is either copied by the other teams or banned taking us back to a parity situation (Amongst the top teams). We can't unlearn stuff or put the genie back into the bottle so it is up to the rule makers to come up with a sensible formula that allows development and promotes good racing. I wish the governing bodies well in their pursuits.

I have a sensible formula that allows development and promotes good racing...

1) cars must carry a predefined weight (water in a suitable tank), enough to reduce speeds to the desired safety level.
2) eliminate all limits except: car overall maximal dimensions and safety-related limits such as safety cock pits, dangerous substances, parts that could possibly hamper other cars' performance.
3) include more challenges in the track design: bumpy sections (either tarmac or dirt), jump sections, very stiff elevation changes, etc. Even sprinklers could be good. These would incentive a less aerodinamic car design that emphasizes more on mechanical grip.
4) give WDC points for saturday's results too and run a parallel "saturdays" championship.
5) Start races in reverse order of current WDC points standings. Drivers would have to actually work they way through to a win.
6) let costs be on teams. If they can't afford the cost of winning, so be it. They should work to be successful and efficient. If the public (us) can't afford the tickets, then the series would be in danger of extinction so prices would not be increased too much. But I am sure we would be willing to pay more for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
readonly wrote:
I have a sensible formula that allows development and promotes good racing...

1) cars must carry a predefined weight (water in a suitable tank), enough to reduce speeds to the desired safety level.
2) eliminate all limits except: car overall maximal dimensions and safety-related limits such as safety cock pits, dangerous substances, parts that could possibly hamper other cars' performance.
3) include more challenges in the track design: bumpy sections (either tarmac or dirt), jump sections, very stiff elevation changes, etc. Even sprinklers could be good. These would incentive a less aerodinamic car design that emphasizes more on mechanical grip.
4) give WDC points for saturday's results too and run a parallel "saturdays" championship.
5) Start races in reverse order of current WDC points standings. Drivers would have to actually work they way through to a win.
6) let costs be on teams. If they can't afford the cost of winning, so be it. They should work to be successful and efficient. If the public (us) can't afford the tickets, then the series would be in danger of extinction so prices would not be increased too much. But I am sure we would be willing to pay more for it.

How many of those are relevant to the thread title? And why have you not given in on your reverse-WDC grids when you were almost universally shouted down at least 4 years ago, last time I saw you here?

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2334
I would like to remove all wings.
Partly to prevent those dodgem-car, front-wing blades-cum-nerf-bars from ruining so many races.
To make following/overtaking easier
And cars better-looking

I realise this is dreamland though.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


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: No registered users 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