I agree completely with what Ross is saying. If you remember, I commented on these problems in a thread on Fchat not long ago. This year is the worse year I've seen when it comes to the cars' inability to race each other.
I'm all for reducing it to 10% of current levels. Besides the factors the article cites, aero has virtually zero carry over to street cars.
If you look at Motorcycle GP racing, there is no Aero (except for some streamlining) and the wheel to wheel competition is far better than F1. The main goal of bike streamlining is to make it harder for the rider behind to catch a draft, and slingshot past. An added bonus to dropping the aero, is that the switch would make it easier for Motorcycle God Rossi to switch to 4 wheels, and kick car guy ass like there is no tomorrow.
Aero in terms of an open wheel race car this 100% true but we are not talking apples to oranges here. Nearly all of the current passenger cars are derived in a wind tunnel or on a computer using CFD (Computational Fluid Dyanamics). Every thing is studied aero drag, Cooling air flow with minimal grill openings, Crosswind stability, Etc. I would like to see some aero reduction in F1 such as maximum wing area, a true flat bottom, raising the car up off of the road further, No flick ups or barge boards. One item i would like to F1 try out before taking away all of the aero is the hanford device. This would create a huge hole in the air behind the car allowing for sling shot passing and close racing. Picture of the hanford device mounted on an AAR Toyota Eagle CART Car Image Unavailable, Please Login
Ever looked underneath a 360, an Enzo or a Maser MC12? However I do agree that reducing aeros is the way to go. Pre 1967 cars with today's carbon fibre survival cells and other safety devices (fuel lines and rubber tanks etc) coupled with slicks, that's the ticket.
I agree. To me, F1 was much more interesting when there were virtually no aerodynamic devices, and you could actually tell one car from another. In today's world, the only way to really tell one car from another is by paint scheme.
But don't you think it is weird that the single biggest performance enhancing discovery that has ever been made is being asked to be ignored? Look I am all for close racing, but making zero downforce cars is like ignoring Richard Pearse's first powered flight in 1902 ... and thus lets not move forward. We should INSTEAD be advancing the technology so that it does NOT inhibit the following car (like what I think Rob is refering to with the Hanford device). If we ignore (as F1's current direction is ...) aero then we are getting very, very close to another NASCAR series, aren't we. Pete
The only issue I see here would be one of marketing the series. If the aero is eliminated, the cars may no longer be faster than Indy or Champ cars. It would be tough to call F1 the ultimate race series if other cars were faster around a circuit.
Yes, not another NASCAR series where lead changes occur frequently ,many teams have a chance of winning, everyone is tightly packed, ETC ;so Bourgeoisie.
This debate has been going on for thirty years, at least. Personally, I'm all for reducing aero aids. Aero development has stagnated in the past decade. All cars look essentially the same and advancements improve times by thousandths of a second. That's not to say that aerodynamics should be ignored, but that racing has made its contribution and it's time to get back to racing. We might find that the current hotshoes aren't able to cope with reduced aero cars. It would make racing exciting again.
But the aero devices on these cars have no real practicle street application. I guarantee you the diffusers make little difference at 70 mph.
I meant when the last technological improvement was the invention of the slick tyre ... assuming NASCAR actually use those. We have to remember that F1 DID come about to advance automotive engineering ... maybe we have learnt everything and F1 has no place anymore? Pete
i believe pete's sarcasm speaks volumes here. i think aero pieces should be allowed, tire changes be allowed (like last year), and to preserve the drivers' lives reduce engine size to reduce speeds. i think that the FIA's idea of reducing speeds (for safety) is to inhibit aero and tire situations, which arguably makes the car more unstable at speed. as us performance drivers have realized, when driving canyons or tight technical courses, it is not (usually) the most powerful car, it is the best handling car. i believe if teams were unrestriced on their handling capabilities, but restricted as the FIA feels necessary power-wise, the sport would be bettered for all parties involved (i might, however, be slightly biased, as i am studiying for aeronautical engineering, and am sufficiently young enough to not have seen F1 racing prior to ~2000)
And tight technical courses generally do not benefit the car with the best aero...good mechanical grip and chassis generally prevails. This year, of course, McLaren has good everything except engine...
I completely agree with Ross. I think reliance on aerodynamics is killing the sport. I suppose your point of view is effected by what you feel is more important. Do you want F1 to be the peak of technical excellence or a race series with the best drivers in amazing cars? I'd go for the latter.
Yes I know and understand Anthony, but we have to remember that so far from the very first days of F1 (and even pre F1) this series was NOT only the best drivers BUT the best cars that technology could build also. Now we are saying 'that's it, we can no longer advance anymore' so lets just stop thinking, scheming and pushing the boundaries ... What will happen to the image of the sport?, we already have hundreds of race series where everything is (over) controlled so that it is all about the drivers ... do we really want another? I personally think we don't need another driver ONLY series, we have CART, we have NASCAR and Aussis V8 Supercars, etc. F1 without the cleverness (ie. looking forward all the time) looses something big time for me ... and that is why I stated 'maybe we have learnt everything and F1 has no place anymore?' (was not intended to be sarcastic ). Thus motorracing even including F1 really is just a driver demonstration show now ... All the engineers in the world just shed a tear , it's over no more fun. Pete
I dont know about that. People usually forget about how heavy air really is around a car. Its just like when you put your hand out the window when your going 40 mph, and if you put your palm into the wind, it will push your entire arm back very quickly. On the other hand if you put your hand facing down toward the ground the air will pass over your hand and your arm will stay in place. Apply that same thinking to a F430, but remember that the Ferrari is like a big hand in the air. Of course the only reason that the F430 uses a undertray is to reduce drag and lift. If the F430 didn't have an undertray then the air would get into the undercarrige and act like a parachute or like your arm being pushed back very quick. Just think of how much drag your hand makes when its out in the air, let alone a car thats pushing through the air. Of course the undertray won't make the same difference on the street at 70mph that it would at 200mph but i almost gaurentee you that taking a turn at 70 mph will feel a lot better with the undertray than without it. I think the car would be a lot more stable with the undertray.
The only problem with taking away the aero is that the car will be a lot more dangerous to drive. If they took away 50% of the aero on a f1 car with 800hp when only weighing 1200 lbs than the drivers would be driving a death trap. Even with traction control a car like that would just be unsafe for the drivers. Think about 800 hp in the rain with a 1200 lbd car. This is what i think they should do. Their should be a common front and rear wing given to the teams by F1. The teams complain about not being able to follow somebody when it their own faults. If you don't think that the teams spend hours in the tunnel making the air good for their car and bad for the car behind them then your crazy. 3 car teams-i think 30+ cars would make it more interesting Last years rules with pit stops Traction control but no launch control-that make it engineer vs engineer Get rid of the semi-automatic gearbox's -put the drivers skill back into it Qualifying should be an open session again-takes the tire war out of it Run the current tire-no slicks Make the race longer-this sprint race style means that if you qualify first,second,or third then you'll probably finish there. Make all the cars start with a full tank of fuel Thats just a brief list of what they should do. Honestly i really don't think F1 will ever be the way it was in the 60's and 70's when there was a lot more passing. With all of these rule changes it doesn't really matter because the teams will just spend more money to make their cars better than the other guy. And when they say their trying to save money, it a crock. I think all of the teams can afford to change tires when the sponsers pay for almost everything. I doubt that Ferrari spent a single cent last year to win the world championship. I've read that Marllboro alone was forking out $300m last year, let alone shell and vodaphone. But it is the worlds largest advertising market and the sponsers have to be making back three or four times what they put into it.
I think making efforts to reduce aerodynamic downforce would be a welcome change for teams and fans alike. Just as the FIA limits the amount of engine capacity, why not limit the amount of available downforce? Set a limit of 400 lbf, at X mph, in standard atmospheric conditions. How the teams distribute that downforce throughout the car is up to them. Enforcement would be an issue of course, but testing models of the cars in a wind tunnel to approve body panels would be an option. At any time, the officials could impound the actual race car to test it as well in a full scale wind tunnel. Further limitations to engine capacity could also limit horsepower with the new cars. Perhaps capacity could be limited based on the number of cylinders, with each theoretically making about the same power (500-600 hp). 7-8 cyl: 1.5L 5-6 cyl: 2.0L 1-4 cyl: 2.4L Turbo: 1.0L (4 cyl max) I would leave launch control and traction control in place, although I would ban paddle shifters, fly-by-wire, and automatic clutches. The ride height would be increased by a substantial amount, to say 3 inches minimum with a full tank, new tires, and driver. No functional wings, although for sponsor signage some form of wing might be allowed.
Depends on what streets you're driving on. Aeros don't play much of a role below 70mph, that's just the nature of the beast. But if you try to maintain a mere 70mph on the German Autobahn, you better make sure you stay in the far right lane.
