"[The] start is sixty or seventy percent of result"

May be, but given how bad the FIA has been at drawing up tech standards I find it hard to believe that they need "just one more try".

 

Always interesting to get the Australian take on things

 

The present F1 rules impose too many contradictory parameters: open wheels and ground effect for example.

Just like ordering a jet fighter but stipulating that it must be a biplane first!!

 

The problem though is that the designers say one thing and then do the opposite. If your car has an slight advantage over the competition, then it's in your best interest to devise a way of staying ahead by making it harder to be overtaken.

A classic example is the double diffuser from last year.

The FIA wanted to introduce a standard diffuser to increase the overtaking possibilities in races. None of the teams wanted standard parts on their cars so an agreement was made for a single level diffuser to be used.

However, Ross Brawn made a big deal to the FIA that there was a risk as to how the teams could interpret the diffuser rules and use a double diffuser. The FIA were convinced that all the teams would abide by the spirit of the law concerning the diffusers and therefore didn't need any additional regulations to cover it.

So what did Ross Brawn do?, he put a double diffuser on his car because he knew the FIA hadn't covered it fully, whilst at the same time knowing it was outside the spirit of the rules!.

Why did he do this?, because he knew it would give his team a big advantage and help make his cars harder to overtake!.

If the interest of the sport came first then he wouldn't have used the double diffuser.

The designers don't design these cars for the good of F1 racing. They design them for the good of the team only. Sure they'll make all the right noises about wanting to increase the chances of overtaking in F1, but only if it means overtaking other cars and not being overtaken themselves. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast these days.

 

"Wasn't it the Bard who said "First we kill the lawyers"?
For every new rule that is we mandated what say that first two existing ones be struck from the books?

 

I don't see how it follows that Brawn's prime objective was to make his car harder to pass as opposed to making it just faster?

 

Making their car faster than everybody elses by using a device that was outside the spirit of the regulation intrinsically makes it harder to overtake.
With the single level diffuser, they would not be able to stay ahead of the other cars so easily around the corners and would therefore be more open to being overtaken.

The amount of air disruption would be more coming off the rear of their car and it would be coming out at a higher level, further hampering following cars from getting close.

My main point though is that the designers all came to an agreement about the diffusers and chose to go with a single level diffuser in the interest of closer racing. One designer then spotted a loophole in the regulations, and despite it being against the spirit of the agreement made between the teams, decided to exploit it in order to give his team an advantage.

 

Which is why the tighter the regulations the more likely this will happen.
The fact that faster cars are tough to pass is a given. What you seem to be saying is that the double diffuser was designed primarily to make the car harder to follow closely. I don't see how that is more likely than it being designed to add speed and grip.

 

blame your Colin for that addition, I have never agreed with wings in any form

If GP is to have ANY correlation to improving the breed then take the wings away and then let the designers have open slather

 

we're upside-down so the BIG ideas sink to the head

 

LOL!

 

You giveth with one hand and take with the other.
Why does everyone and their uncle think they know better than the designers when it comes to making cars go fast?

 

Is that another way of saying "s*** floats?"

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the primary function of the double diffuser was to make it harder for the following car to follow closely, that is obviously a secondary function.

Being pedantic though, technically, if you add speed and grip for going round corners via the double diffuser, then you automatically make your car harder to get close to.

the point I was attempting to make (poorly it appears), is that there seems to be this wonderful idea of all the designers getting together and working out how to increase the amount of overtaking in F1. However, as the double diffuser situation has shown us, when the designers get together and come up with an agreement, they can't help themselves and at least one will break the agreement in order to get an advantage over the rest.

This, to Me at least, is why F1 has ended up with so many regulations, because you can't trust the designers to live without regulations.

 

what I mean is that I want the great ideas to be more relevant to everyday driving :

ABS (forget who started this, I don't do google)
traction control (Ferrari's Russian programmer hid this in the software )
mag wheels (Bugatti started this)
carbon fibre (first car I remember using this was the F40)
disc brakes (Jaguar C type)
flappy paddles (the Barnard Ferraris were the first)

Wings in today's speed focused police world are pointless , they only work above 200 kph or so and at that speed you get locked up and the car impounded .... well here you do but then we're "civilised"


So get rid of the wings and magically the speeds will be reduced for cornering and overtaking will be easier for the more talented drivers

 

does it ??!!

I love fchat, I learnt something everyday

 

The idea of the designers getting together is a nice one. Of course once the meeting is over they'll all go off and find ways to circumvent the new rules. Its the nature of the beast. Think herding cats.

 

Moi Aussi

BTW The idea that race tech improves the breed is quaint but passe. The jump these days is mostly from aerospace to cars with, at best, a brief detour through motor sport.

 

that's a bit unfair, the race guys have adapted or invented some great innovations that are directly applicable to some great lawsuits in road cars like the Prius

 

LOL

Ray Haroun's Wasp gave us the rear view mirror. In the first running of the Indy 500.
Since then, notsomuch

 

Now We're on the same page!

 

Sorry about that

 

LOL yeh ok..learn ^ that is..

 

rear view mirror !!!

That's useless to me, I'm only looking at the guy ahead not behind .... ya think I'm Schuey looking for old team mates or sumpin'??

 

your grammer is atrocious for a pom, are you really illiterate or just stupid ?

but thanks for pointing out my typo dingbat