Could F1 follow MotoGP and ban aeros? "Aerodynamic additions banned from Moto2 and Moto3 Aerodynamic additions banned from Moto2 and Moto3 | MCN The wings have raised a number of concerns in recent weeks, with MotoGP racer shouting out at the turbulence created by the Ducatis wings when slipsteaming them on long straights. However, the Grand Prix Commissions ruling is more likely a consequence of cost cutting, with the development of complicated aerodynamics seen by many within the paddock as potentially an almost-bottomless pit of money for the sport, as it has been for F1."
They should. Not ban them totally but place limits on wing elements and flip ups and barge boards and crap. Too aero dependant, not enough mechanical grip. That's why it's so hard to pass.
I hate the aero stuff and believe they would build a better car without them ....... they would have to
Limit size (cut down fronts by at least 30%), limit elements and winglets. Have one solid piece and a single element for adjustment.
Agree as well. We've achieved diminishing returns - not on the effectiveness of aero, but on the positive impact to the racing. I remember the days of early ground effects, and the way drivers describe the "dead zone" that occurs when mechanical grip is at the limit, but aero grip isn't at full capacity. That's when you saw guys like Villeneuve wrestling the car like a rider on a bull. THAT'S my memory of F1, and I wish to see THAT again. Pfft to the idea that it needs to be "cutting edge tech". That has NOTHING to do with why I watch F1. Maybe I'm an uneducated hillbilly American, but I like the sounds of the engines, the curves and colors of the cars, and the sparks that fly when the cars bottom out. A wiggle here and there of the back end, and you've got me hooked. Time to bring it back.
Encourage the type of downforce that makes it easier to follow and pass and limit the type that makes it harder. Easy and simple...until the teams and egos get involved.
I have said this for years. What they should do is ban all wind tunnels. This would drastically reduce the cost of developing a car. Then I would give each team one computer aero software package that cannot be altered. Everyone gets the same. The engineers can run all sorts of simulations as they want when designing the car. Then reduce the size and influence of wings, particularly at the front which break too often or cut down tires.
I would go for that too but it's impossible to control. I would like to see F1 become more about how drivers drive cars and less about how engineers get around the rules. I also think they should give an award for the best looking car. Today's cars are really hideous. I don't think that's good for the sport.
I think the aero should also be limited and innovation should take over. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Interesting thread, but I doubt F1 will go too far with it. If wind tunnels and computer telemetry were banned, it would no longer be "Formula" One, would it? As beautiful as yesterday's F1 cars were, teams aren't going to hire design artists to conceptualize anything that disregards friction just for a more sporty look.
F1 existed before wind tunnels and computer telemetry, and did very well. More technology isn't what the sport needs, nor what the fans wish for. What about imposing standard front and rear wing design, just like the FIA limits tyre choice?
I think there's an argument for a reduction in aerodynamic devices and widening of the tires to increase the proportion mechanical grip contributes to overall grip. What I don't understand is why so many folks compare MotoGP to F1. How are motorcycles relevant to F1 in any way? All the best, Andrew.
I'm in agreement with limiting the aero work and cost. The easiest solution would be to mandate a common spec front wing and rear wing. Design them to reduce the wake turbulence, greatly reduced aero downforce, maybe simple two or three elements on the front, straight end plates on the rear, they could still keep DRS. The teams would have their billboards for sponsors, the FIA would have the reduced aero downforce and reduced aerodynamic development costs, overtaking would be easier. The teams could paint the spec wings any colors they like, the fans wouldn't notice any difference for the most part compared to their current mega dollar wings.
Amazing at how simple it really is to make F1 racing what it should be: 1.) 1200 hp or more 2.) Simple and small front wing and rear wing. 2 elements max. 3.) Tires that are grip limited-that is make it so the driver has to control the throttle pedal coming out of any curve to limit wheelspin. 4.) No fancy electronic "driver aids". 5.) Minimum weight around 1000-1200 lbs. 6.) Keep crash tests/criteria and slowly increase the requirements. 7.) Simple and minimal tunnel package. This is needed to minimize the CP changes that would occur with a flat floor. Design the tunnels to be aero stability devices. 8.) Tires small enough that you are g limited on braking. Keep carbon brakes as they are actually cheaper over a season than steel. All of this would mean a car that is fast in a straight line but limited in corner out acceleration-which has a massive impact on top speed on the shorter straights. Also with limited braking people would have to brake earlier and longer. This means that the top speed of any car will be limited on this end also. Can't accelerate for as long (so top speed drops) if you have to brake earlier. Also means more chance to overtake under braking. Also means a driver who can use his right foot for traction control (by keeping wheelspin to minimum) coming out of corner can pass some driver with less control over his right foot. By limiting the total G force a car can produce you slow the car down around corners, make braking longer, and actually keep top speeds below where they are now or very close to where they are now-with the possible exception of some very long straights. So cars would be safer, runoff room could be less, spectators could get closer to cars, drivers would have more importance-as their skill would show in more places, and the cars could race very close to one another without fear of losing aero grip. Also-if you really want to see some interesting ideas change the rules from mandating the shape and size of car, number of tires, engine size, etc go to a "balanced" performance set of rules. Define power/weight ratios, maximum energy capacity a car can carry, etc, but no other real rules. So I can show up with a 6 wheeled, gas turbine car powered by peanut oil if I want. And you can show up with a 3 wheel all electric car using hamsters rotating a generator wheel if you want. That is if you want the series to be about showcasing new technologies/concepts. Me--I say give 'em 1200 hp in a Formula Ford chassis and let them go at it.
So many people are willing to assume that every fan is just like they are... Please don't speak for me. Advanced technology and innovative solutions are a BIG part of F1 to ME. F1 has always been about the best technologies battling the best technologies. You have been around long enough and have to agree that F1 has never, EVER been a series that featured twenty, ten...or even five year old hand-me-down technology. F1 is currently and always has been the pinnacle of motorsport technology. Historically and currently, there are series which are close...but F1 is the pinnacle and always has been. There's much more to the game than JUST technology...but make no mistake about its major contribution to what makes the series compelling.
Formula one is what they make it. Let them put in 3000 hp gas turbines if that's what improves the sport. IMO they should work towards removing computers and towards drivers. After all, that's just like you and me.
I would absolutely love for F1 to ban wings, front and rear. Let them design the body to incorporate any kind of downforce that can be generated without wings, and get it to where the vast majority of the grip is mechanical. It would take away the disadvantage that a car following another closely experiences with "dirty" air.
You have a point. But most of the public don't see where the technology goes. How can you understand the £millions spent on developing things you cannot see? Aeros are devoring teams budgets, but hardly thrilling the fans, aren't they? Also, why is the F1 so keen accept some technologies and ban others? Why spend £M on aeros, to go around the problems of open wheels? Why allow ERS, but not ABS ? Why allow hybrid system, but not traction control? etc, etc... Why limit tyre technology? To me, and a few people I gather, watching a GP2 race with less technology is just as interesting than watching a hi-tec F1; it's just the name of the drivers that matters.
You want the best technology? Remove the drivers and have computers remotely control the cars and strategy. Save weight, no problem with someone hurt in an accident, make the cars go around faster than a human could sustain consciousness Let the fastest car win. Raise the national flag and sing the anthem. Better? I don't think so. But awesome technology!
