Here you go. It also looks more like the RBR "shark fin" than the Mcl "anvil". Still don't like it though. I do wonder how long it'll be before it sprouts bunny ears at the front though.... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Wow, remember when F1 cars were beautiful, maybe night racing isn't such a bad idea, they would look better in the complete dark! Let's hope next year's regulations do something about this, my eyes cannot take much more of this.
What I dont get is why arent the teams putting missiles and rockets on all these little wings these cars have nowadays. Now that would be exciting!
This is a much prettier Ferrari formula racer. Seriously, the wings are getting crazy in F1 Image Unavailable, Please Login
I wonder if they'll start to crack down and insist on aesthetically pleasing car designs. Of course that's subjective but the wings etc. are getting out of hand.
Doesnt it seem a little late to have started testing this idea?? Red Bull, MerMcl, Renault and I think Toyota have already tested and said no or are using it.
Everybody on this site is constantly saying that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport because of the technical innovation. Now as soon as a team does an aerodynamic test that is more function than form, everybody complains about the changes. With an engine/gearbox freeze, and elimination of electronic aids, where ELSE do you expect to see innovation? Aerodynamics are the final option. Peter
Yep, right on! I am with Steve Matchett, I think the Renault of 2006 was a beautiful F1 car. Here's what surprises me... the FIA heavily regulates many of the dimensions on an F1 car. Many of the other dimensions are heavily regulated by packaging (i.e. the driver compartment has to be at least a certain size, as does the engine compartment, etc). But if you take all the rest of that space in which the designers create the actual shape... and took all those billions upon billions of points, at a few-thousandths-of-an-inch-seperation scale of measurement, and plugged all those points into a gigantic supercomputer, could you not develop *the* theoretically best shape for the car? You could tune it however you like - you could specify the amount of downforce you want at each corner and how the car reacts to racing conditions (draft of a car in front, changes in ride height due to turning or going over uneven track surfaces, etc). But if you just let the computer crunch for a few months, you'd think you'd hit that ideal. But rather, it seems what the F1 aero guys do instead is stick on appendages here and there to try to get more out of the car. It reminds me of planes. Back in the day they would stick winglets on here and there and holes everywhere, etc. Now if you look at a modern plane designed with top-shelf CFD programs on supercomputers, you get gracefully curved shapes like the A380 which would have been impossible previously. Surely the teams can do the same, no? Rather than sticking on wings and flaps and control surfaces on every spare inch of space.
I'm no aerodynamicist, but it would sure seem that when you add up the drag created by all those appendages, it has to be pretty significant.
Mmm, now had that Anvil idea been tested first by Ferrari two weeks ago instead of Maclaren. I am sure the words "cheats" and "espionage" would have been banded around like sweets Surly Ferrari are not copying Maclaren ideas
