Active Aero in '26 to slow leaders?

I'm about ready to puke!
It seems that 'reverse DRS' is being considered to slow the leaders down, and make racing closer.
I cannot believe teams will want to tarnish their reputations by participating in a such a farce; or is the money and interest Liberty is generating enough to sway them?

 

Why not just BoP rules.

As long as your car is faster, more weight gets thrown on until it is no longer faster.

 

I prefer Ferrari’s 2022 implementation of BoP.

 

If implemented every race(like IMSA now), it's pretty much the same thing as far as the 'integrity' thing goes, aina?
(As an aside, I remember reading about a NASCAR race in the '60s, where the winner was ahead by 7 laps or more. I don't remember that vast numbers left early. Would that pro racing still had the technical challenges and resulting unreliability that existed then. Wait, F1 could still do that...why not?)

 

I don't understand this obsession with close racing, I really don't.

 

yeah, this doesn't sound like F1 anymore. I'm all for loosening the development rules and letting teams find more ways to go faster, but if you want all the cars to be the same in terms of ability and speed just mandate a chassis and engine and stop each team from producing a separate car. It's like IndyCar Europe if you do this (e.g. reverse aero)

 

Yes, everything seems to driving us towards a F1 specs series.

It will be a sad day when we arrive to that.

 

Just go full spec series if this is Liberty's "vision" for F1. Did they forget what makes Formula 1, Formula 1?

 

We come from 4 years of Red Bull and 7 of Mercedes so I get that they want different winners. But this is too gimmicky. Actually DRS as is now is already too gimmicky. If this is the best idea they had to level the field, we're ****ed.

 

The WWE comes to F1. Thank you Netflix!

 

What I find more concerning is the following:

Ferrari "dominates" (in reality only 2002 and 2001 won more than they should due to Mclaren reliability, a bit like 2022), rule changes for 2003. More domination follows a year later and again, desperate rule changes in order to stop domination (FIA's actual wording).

Fast forward a few years and 2010 is won by Red Bull (in the very last race), 2011 they dominate...FIA starts to meddle mid season instantly. More rule changes every year to stop domination.

Mercedes becomes incredibly fast and dominates like never before. FIA reaction? *crickets*. And no, I don't count minor rule changes with nearly a year in advance as a reaction.

Red Bull wins 2 titles, 1 incredibly marginal and with a slower car, 2nd one car was only fastest in 2nd half and margin won by was more due to Ferrari ****ing up...FIA reaction? Rule changes to stop teams from winning too much.

Clear as glass.

 

Well, with Red Bull they were quite generous too. They ducked out banning the blown difusser in 2011, didn´t apply a penalty for yellow flags to Vettel in Brazil 2012 that would have cost him the title, and changed the tyres in 2013 (although that helped Mercedes too). And now the engine freeze because Honda was leaving but they didn´t leave. I laugh at how much we moaned about the Williams dominance of he early 90s with the active suspension, and it only lasted two years before it was banned.

The thing is if you pour money in Liberty´s pockets you are untouchable, and Red Bull is pouring a lot.

 

I can see Formula-E implementing this............F1??? No. Please do not do this.

 

The yellow flags is irrelevant as it wasn't a rule change to stop domination. Same goes for the tyres, the 2013 ones kept blowing up left right and centre. I can't recall if only a few teams lobbied for the change back to 2012 or all teams agreed to it.

I'm talking of specific rule changes in order to hamper a dominating team. 2003 points changes, end of 2004 last moment diffuser/tyre changes and so on.

FIA is scrambling hard now after sitting on their ass twiddling their thumbs for 8 years straight. now "domination" it's a problem all of a sudden?

Do they even understand what domination is?

Might as well hand out participation trophies.

 

The tyre change was not a safety issue, it was rigging the championship: Ferrari and Lotus were doing perfectly fine with those tyres, it was Red Bull and Mercedes´ problem. When Ferrari was blowing Bridgestones in 2005 nobody gave a ****. Also when tyres kept falling in later seasons they didn´t change them, just imposed pressure and camber limitations, The same thing that Red Bull and Mercedes should have done in 2013 but didn´t bother to try because it didn´t suit them.

 

But Ferrari was one of the teams that asked for a fix (having suffered double tyre blow out in silverstone).

 

This is exactly what is wrong with the cost cap::
a) spending money on building cars and racing them is limited
while
b) spending money to bribe officials is not.

It should be the other way around.

 

Before Silverstone they already had changed the compounds, and there were rumours about that they already had changed the structure before telling anyone.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-changed-tyres-without-consent-at-silverstone-report/436886/

 

That's quite interesting, I can't recall that to be very honest...I know they changed the compounds again in Hungary though.

IMO this is one of the issues with a control tyre.

 

I'm with you. I was watching real F-1 last night the 1982 Season recap, and it seems to me that the best way to have better racing is to have more cars. When you have grids of 26 - 28 cars, there is a LOT more traffic... therefore more "racing"... I don't get all this fixation on close "racing".... Jim Clark used to check out and hide and win by miles - or break down. Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna - they all usually won by miles... I don't get it at all.

 

One year, Jackie Stewart won the German GP on the Nordschleife by ... 5 minutes !!

In 1970, Pedro Rodriguez on a Porsche 917 won the Brands Hatch 1000 km by ... 5 laps !

Yet, I don't recall anyone calling these races boring at the time.

 

Exactly. The conditions that Stewart won at the Ring in 68 - would never happen today. while I agree early years of racing were excessively dangerous, today its excessively safe.... I'm sure I'll be condemned for saying that.

 

I think Rodriquez was something like 11 Sec faster than F-1 cars at the time ... and that it's still the fastest average speed around a closed circuit... 167MPH? I remember Rosberg beating the F-1 record at Silverstone for an average speed over 160 MPH...

 

Bill Eliot qualified for Daytona over 220 MPH.......Indy has seen near 240 MPH around a lap. Neither series is within 10 MPH of their past glory.

I think you mean a circuit with more than 4 corners.

 

yes - road course...