Pre-Season 2017 Testing, Car Launches & Chat

[cider_and_toast]

I hate that moving aerodynamic aid rule.

 

[FB]

The whole car is a moving aerodynamic device.

 

[cider_and_toast]

Exactly

It's a rule so vague that its used as a yardstick to beat down any innovation.

Mass dampers anyone?

Grrrrrrrrrhhhh !!!!!

 

[TR]

The rule also seems to have turned into a purpose on its own. I think it is about time we allow proper upside down planes with full control surfaces. (Cause face it, F1 aerodynamics has long lost any connection with car design.)

 

[Greenlantern101]

Can you imagine how complex the cars would be if moving aero parts were allowed. It would be like watching a transformers movie.

Around corners

Down straights

 

[TR]

I dunno Greenlantern101, have you looked at the wings on the cars lately? Can't get much more complex than that.

 

[Greenlantern101]

TR Well take that complexity, times by 3, and then apply it to every square inch of surface on the car. Thats what we are talking about.

 

[TR]

I am not so sure. A lot of the current complexity comes try to achieve the benefits movable surfaces in a pseudorigid configuration. In general, this type of complexity adds both weight and drag. You might very well end up with much simpler looking cars if one allowed moveable aerodynamic parts.

One could also consider other regulations to limit the complexity of the aerodynamic devices. My utopic ideal would be a max limit on the surface area of the car. However, that seems impossible to effectively enforce (or even measure).

 

[Greenlantern101]

I don't see any downside in allowing it other than cost. 1 area where Road cars are now ahead of F1. Interesting to see how it would develop.

 

[siffert_fan]

I would prefer a mandate limiting aero such as prevailed when this car raced:

The cars would be MUCH better looking and the driver would be a far larger part of the equation.

 

[TR]

Do note that the state of aero on that car was not the result of regulations limiting aero, but simply the limited state aerodynamic development (in F1). Trying to recreate that state of technology through regulations would run a high risk of feeling extremely artificial and gimmicky.

 

[Greenlantern101]

Adaptive aero could actually aid overtaking. Push the extra grip / turbulent air button to pass.

 

[FB]

And as we have seen in sessions in the past where drivers had the opportunity to use DRS wherever and whenever they wanted, the nut behind the wheel didn't always get it right.

 

[Incubus]

Not sure sbout the point you're making siffert_fan . Wasn't the Lotus 72 itself supposed to represent a major advance in aero technology, what with the whole concept of placing radiators on the sides helping reduce drag?

 

[siffert_fan]

The width of the front wings was limited to the inside edge of the tyres by the regulations, ostensibly to prevent the cars becoming unsettled in the turbulent air in slipstreams. This was considered both a safety measure and was thought to facilitate overtaking.

And you have to admit that today, limiting airfoils to two planes would save HUGE amounts of money as there would be very little to be gained by the endless hours of simulation and testing that prevail now.

IMO, each year, the advances in technology brings on a reduction in the importance of the driver to the overall result. As far as I am concerned, that results in a lessening of the stature of the WDC.

If out-and-out tech is your desire, why not do away with the driver entirely and have the cars be RPVs with unlimited tech. Performance would improve dramatically.

 

[Titch]

I'm trying to imagine F1 without drivers. It wouldn't work for me. It might be interesting, but it's not really what F1 is about, it would be the end for me.

 

[Wombcat]

And you have to admit that today, limiting airfoils to two planes would save HUGE amounts of money as there would be very little to be gained by the endless hours of simulation and testing that prevail now.

No, they will just spend it on some other parts.
The teams will try to earn as much money as they can, and spend it in development. on whichever part they think it will make the most difference, how minor that difference may be.
My guess is that the complex wings already make minor differences. Because whenever wingplates or parts of the frontwing disappear due to a collison, the difference in laptimes seems to be neglible.

 

[FB]

If all people are interested in is how the drivers compare then there is always GP2. I despair at some of the seemingly pointless developments F1 comes up with but then you could go back through history and claim the car was more important than the man and that is never true.

As examples, Fangio never would have been World Champion in '54 and '55 if he hadn't been driving the mighty Mercedes. Jack Brabham had such an advantage in the rear engined Cooper in '59 and '60 they may as well have given him the title before the first race and then let the others get on with it. Both arguments are reasonable but totally pointless.

I don't think anyone would argue that either Fangio or Brabham weren't great drivers and when you look through the list of World Champions I don't see a single name where I could, hand on heart, say that the driver didn't have the talent to win what they won and it was that talent that got them in to the best cars.

 

[siffert_fan]

While it's true that nobody ever won the WDC in a less-than-top-tier car, it used to be possible for a great driver to win races in cars that were amongst the dregs:
Clark in the pig of a Lotus 43
Hunt in the Hesketh
Stewart in the March 701
Jones in the Shadow
Andretti in the Lotus 77 (which he developed into respectability)
Pedro Rodriguez in the BRM P153
To name but a few.

Try to convince yourself that even the best of today's drivers could win so much as one race in a Manor, Haas or Force India.

 

[FB]

In recent memory