Ben Bowlby is a car designer. In the 11/09 Racecar Engineering (great article highlighting his career and interviewing him):
I'm confused . In one statement he says the cars have too much downforce in the next he says he wants the cars to be more efficient. Efficient cars produce downforce.
i found that bit a little confusing as well. i suppose he has a subtle definition of efficient that he didn't explain.
No not at all inconsistent. You are confusing high cornering capability with efficiency they are not at all the same. Efficiency is related to drag, not downforce. Cars with high downforce have high drag and use a lot of power to pull themselves through the air. Any time you create lift or downforce there is a drag penalty associated with it. Getting rid of a lot of downforce would produce, IMHO much better racing. I was watching motorcycle racing this weekend and the racing was great. Nobody had downforce there was plenty of passing and great riding. Nobody was cornering at more than 1 G, and it was still plenty fast.
Maybe he meant less downforce = less aero drag = better fuel efficiency. edit: did not see solofast's post when I made my post, since I hadn't refreshed before replying.
Either way, while his point is absolutely correct, he isn't saying anything that hasn't been crowed about by many people for years.
it's been over 25 years since I was with a group of crew chiefs in a USAC (remember them?) meeting debating some rule changes. Almost to a man we all said, "Less wing, more straight speed, less tire, lower corner speed, hence braking distances and passing oportunities". Nobody listened then and we've watched some amazingly boring 500 since. The knee jerk reactions over the past few years in F1 have done the same. thank goodness for wet races!
Yet on Speed's Brazilian GP broadcast the guys were saying that LOTS more passing would be contrary to what F1 was all about......they didn't explain further why they felt that way which left me scratching my head....WTF?
I think Matchett's point was, people have been carping about the lack of overtaking in F1 for decades, and perhaps this is what the sport is.
this guy sounds quite intelligent; I like the way he states his views. However, I admit sheer ignorance here; who the **** is he? what team does he design for? I know the names we hear all the time (Newey, etc.), so who is Ben? Tritone
Matchet was saying F1 was about technical excellence not competitive racing. While that may be a great viewpoint from his and Hobb's sides being inside the sport from the outside spectator view watching the pole car tear off into the distance with #2 slightly behind then gap to #3 etc in a procession is freaking boring.The lead from one car to the next increasing about the same time as their gaps in qualifying. Bo-Ring, Watching cockroaches race has more interest because of the unpredictability. I love to watch really close lower formulas race. FV's for example where there are sometimes trains of cars passing and repassing courtesy of aero rules (read "no aero allowed") that promote drafting. Fun for the driver, fun for the spectator.
I'd never heard of him either. I Googled him and it looks like he's a designer for Lola. Saying that racing would be better with less reliance on aero is certainly not a new thing. I have been calling for the banning of wings on F1 cars for a long time - bring back slipstreaming where getting close to the car in front actually gave you an advantage, rather than lost you grip. I'd be in favour of steel brakes as well.
The problem that F1 has is that they have told the world that they are the pinnacle of the sport. They have to be the fastest cars on a closed course or they think that nobody will want to watch them. The public (and Bernie) equate faster cars with requiring more skill and therefore requiring the best drivers. JPM proved pretty much that all drivers put their pants on one leg at a time. I think that they are afraid that their house of cards will collapse if they slow the cars down too much. Imagine what would happen if IRL cars were perceived as faster? Now truth is there were always faster cars than F1 (think Can Am) until the turbo era which also coincides with a lot of the growth of the sport. Not sure what happened first the chicken or the egg.... I disagree and think they need to get rid of a lot of aero, make sure the cars have big power and take a driver with cajones to handle them (without traction control), but hey, I'm just a paying spectator what we want to see doesn't count.
