[BariGrootrego]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/04/1...ownforce-cuts/

So, FOTA have been discussing reducing the amount of downforce the cars produce, which of course should mean overtaking becoming easier due to less dirty air effecting the car. in theory.

but, this is something I've been wanting and i think there are alot of people who think the same. a positive step by FOTA I feel, even if nothing is set in stone just yet.

[boxcigsnick]

My reaction to this was two parts;

Good: At least FOTA are considering us, the fans. Increasing the spectacle is a noble aim.

Bad: Another pointless downforce reduction which would probably be ineffective. If we were talking a 50% slash the designers are so clever it would probably end up being no more than 15%. Its all been done before, and thanks to the thread listing all the overtaking stats from '83, we can see how poor they have been in increasing on track action.

[orison]

My reaction to this was two parts...

Mine too There's no point cutting downforce if, as has happened before, aerodynamicists are able to find a way to get it all back and we end up back at square one.

[BariGrootrego]

very true sonic. quite how you would reduce downforce, i don't know (apart from wing adjustments obviously), but im no expert. It may be just another attempt to increase the action etc, but If you've got a situation where 1 driver storms up to the back of another driver and then can't get past due to dirty air and severe downforce loss when behind another car, it almost feels unfair on the following driver.

[Soadiassy]

Likewise, I believe while cutting downforce would be a good step, the engineers would soon claw most of it back, and more importantly that's the way it should be, the last thing we want is homologated aero packages and all that rubbish.

I'd rather see some rigid regulations that cut over-body downforce generation to almost nothing (and as mentioned in other threads, this would need to be applied down the ladder to stop GP2 and F3 cars being quicker than F1 cars!)

This would need to be coupled with an opening up of engine regs, a free-for-all KERS regulation and so on, and let the engineers focus on this, and on aero efficiency.

[ebonytipchik]

1m2 vertical board at the rear of each car..............

WT

[BariGrootrego]

1m2 vertical board at the rear of each car..............

WT

no. just no.

how about each car has to towe a caravan?

on a serious note, up until about 8/9 years ago the sidepods on F1 cars had more or less vertical outermost bodywork. nowadays, these parts are more more shapely with obviously more aerodynamic efficiency. I wonder if this affects car downforce as well. this could be one area to look at: make the sidepods have vertical outermost parts, if that would help.

[boxcigsnick]

1m2 vertical board at the rear of each car..............

WT

As I've said before, I'm all for something like that - well not quite so extreem - but a similar theory to the hanford wing from days gone by CART. Dirty air isn't a problem so long as a decent tow can be picked up from the distance the dirty air forces you to follow on corner exit.

[socialkiiii]

Monza aero package mandated for every track.

[Seerseraxlils]

Less aero is the neccessary step to increase the driver factor during a race. however the question is how far will they really be able to go?

The top level of racing cannot reduce it to the point where GP2 is quicker round a track - and we have this season a BRAND NEW GP2 car for the series.

So the reduction will be governed by this. Still too little? Its a possibility at least.

Just look at the recent races - the tyres have made the difference and tyre stops.

So in addition to aerodynamic [we will know when aero has been reduced enough because Adrian Newey will LEAVE F1 :-] it ought to be the end of control tyres and once again allowing tyre wars [Michelin want this].

Further, TYRE STOPS ought to not be mandated or even prevented. Just look how good the racing has been when the drivers have had to conserve those as well.

I say reduce aero, let a tyre war break out and mandate no more tyre stops.

We will once again return to real motor racing and show just how damned ridiculous the intervention of the motor racing equivalent of "command economics" is.

Laissez Faire et laissez passer. LET ME GO AND BE FREE!!! I am Formula One!!

[HoqCBYMl]

Let the circus begin yet again It's a pity that F1 teams and the FIA know so little about their own indusry and what the fans want

[BariGrootrego]

i think flat wings would help for a start.

as for aerodynamic deffinciencies, I think large air intakes behind the driver either side of the engine cover could be good. reminds me of the bennetton B188. ofcourse, for aeshetical reasons, id say the actual engine cover would need to be widened so it looked in proportion with the air intakes. and if we are talking about the aesthetics there, id say lengthen the sidepods by making them go further foward than the front of the cockpit, all so the air intakes dont look out of place.

In the old days we always saw the nosecones go straight to the front wing, as opposed to nowadays with the struts in between the nosecone and the wing. maybe changing that could make a difference.

[xanonlinexan]

reducing aero is required, but more important is where they take it from - if they can create a decent amount of downforce, but not create as much turbulent wake alloqwing the cars to run closer thn they will have succeeded. i think losing the double diffusers will go a long way. if the cars do become slower then they can always allow better tyres and more powerful engines to counteract.

[idobestbuyonlinepp]

In the old days we always saw the nosecones go straight to the front wing, as opposed to nowadays with the struts in between the nosecone and the wing. maybe changing that could make a difference.

I think ( and I stress "think") that struts with a high nosecone allow more under the car and into the diffuser.

[ElcinBoris]

I seem to remember that sometime ago, I saw a picture mock-up of a "split" rear wing (i.e. two rear wings sitting side by side with a gap in the middle - kind of the opposite of the shark fins) in the context of eliminating turbulence behind that makes passing more difficult. Is this a viable proposal?

The problem isn't F1 cars going fast(est), but the aerodynamic conditions for passing - so it's not so much trying to slow the cars down, but just building them in such a way that the following car can catch a good draft, and pass easily. A good draft used to have the same effect than a "push to pass" button in the past...

Would splitting the rear wing, eliminating diffusers (why not eliminate them completely?) and using a different more low-tech material for brakes make any difference? I am not saying it would, I am asking if...

[boxcigsnick]

I seem to remember that sometime ago, I saw a picture mock-up of a "split" rear wing (i.e. two rear wings sitting side by side with a gap in the middle - kind of the opposite of the shark fins) in the context of eliminating turbulence behind that makes passing more difficult. Is this a viable proposal?

The problem isn't F1 cars going fast(est), but the aerodynamic conditions for passing - so it's not so much trying to slow the cars down, but just building them in such a way that the following car can catch a good draft, and pass easily. A good draft used to have the same effect than a "push to pass" button in the past...

Would splitting the rear wing, eliminating diffusers (why not eliminate them completely?) and using a different more low-tech material for brakes make any difference? I am not saying it would, I am asking if...

I don't recall the spit wing concept, but on the subject of brakes I do remember that Zanardi's ill fated return to F1 in '99 was marked by his inability to run carbon brakes so instead he ran standard metal disks. As I recall the performance was very similar, the main disadvantage being weight. So unless we are going to use wood for brake material it wouldn't make a huge difference to braking distances.

[BariGrootrego]

http://newsonf1.net/im/05/n/CDG-1b.jpg

that's the split wing concept, looks awful in my view.

turismo: I hope what you 'think' is true, because that could be changed and I'd imagine that would have an effect.

[BariGrootrego]

The problem isn't F1 cars going fast(est), but the aerodynamic conditions for passing - so it's not so much trying to slow the cars down, but just building them in such a way that the following car can catch a good draft, and pass easily. A good draft used to have the same effect than a "push to pass" button in the past...

yes, I agree.

now, here's the thing: Id much rather see cars with less aerodynamic and downforce producing bodies if they have superb V12s or even better turbo's in the back to keep performance similar, than what we currently have: alot of downforce and aerodynamic effiency produced by the body but IMO, too smaller engines (V8s may be reminicent of the cosworth DFVs and everything, but if all teams have the same engines then i'd prefer something more meaty!)

[12Dvop4I]

http://newsonf1.net/im/05/n/CDG-1b.jpg

that's the split wing concept, looks awful in my view.

turismo: I hope what you 'think' is true, because that could be changed and I'd imagine that would have an effect.

I used to have nightmares with that picture.

[boxcigsnick]

http://newsonf1.net/im/05/n/CDG-1b.jpg

that's the split wing concept, looks awful in my view.

turismo: I hope what you 'think' is true, because that could be changed and I'd imagine that would have an effect.

Oh yeah! How could I forget? Looks a bit of a minger, but if it produces a tow and passing i'd love it like a fat kid loves cake.