I know that. Greats like Jackie Stewart, Alain Prost, Aryton Senna. That was F1! Brutally fast cars. F1 cars are still cool to look at as my Lego Technic F1 Ferrari would attest to. But they are killing the sport. Thats why I am only limiting myself ot WRC and bike races though in the US coverage sucks. I need to know how I can get more coverage of those events!
F1: 2011 regulations, death of F1?
- Thread starter tongue_of_colicab
- Start date
I know that. Greats like Jackie Stewart, Alain Prost, Aryton Senna. That was F1! Brutally fast cars. F1 cars are still cool to look at as my Lego Technic F1 Ferrari would attest to. But they are killing the sport. Thats why I am only limiting myself ot WRC and bike races though in the US coverage sucks. I need to know how I can get more coverage of those events!
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Agree with that. Though im personally not such a big fan of WRC and bikes. i do like watching 30 minute conclusions of what happend in WRC though and sometimes small parts of bike races. But not a whole race.
Hopefully 2008 will be a bit better with TC gone, I guess we'll see plenty of drivers having trouble with that.
Hopefully 2008 will be a bit better with TC gone, I guess we'll see plenty of drivers having trouble with that.
TOC
Youguys are really mixing metaphors.
The friction is dependent on downforce from the mass of vehicle and the aerodynamics.
The cornering speed is dependent on the mass of the vehicle and the friction.
So it doesn't matter how heavy or light the car is the mass is pretty much irrelevant. If they weighed 2000lbs the friction would be greater and cornering would be the same. Acceleration would suffer. A light car takes less power to accelerate, but a heavy car does not increase the ability to corner. Thus you want a light car and a lot of downforce for yourself, but as has been stated over and over that downforce screws up whoever is following.
Personally I find all this stuff pretty boring. All the rules hamper any real innovation to begin with. Without the rules it would not be competitive and the skill of the driver would not matter as much theoretically, but an all out technology war would be much more entertaining to me.
Youguys are really mixing metaphors.
The friction is dependent on downforce from the mass of vehicle and the aerodynamics.
The cornering speed is dependent on the mass of the vehicle and the friction.
So it doesn't matter how heavy or light the car is the mass is pretty much irrelevant. If they weighed 2000lbs the friction would be greater and cornering would be the same. Acceleration would suffer. A light car takes less power to accelerate, but a heavy car does not increase the ability to corner. Thus you want a light car and a lot of downforce for yourself, but as has been stated over and over that downforce screws up whoever is following.
Personally I find all this stuff pretty boring. All the rules hamper any real innovation to begin with. Without the rules it would not be competitive and the skill of the driver would not matter as much theoretically, but an all out technology war would be much more entertaining to me.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Not exactly. You might get the same amount of grip with a car weighting 2000kilo's compared to a 600kg one generating alot of downforce, but that doesnt mean the heavy car gives the same result. Balance also is very important.
Anyway, like I said its not so much downforce screwing others up. Its the teams disturbing the air as much as possible (not using it to generate downforce). Look at the old F1 video's to see what I mean, cars with lots of downforce and still alot of overtaking because the air doesnt get nearly as much disturbed as today.
Anyway, like I said its not so much downforce screwing others up. Its the teams disturbing the air as much as possible (not using it to generate downforce). Look at the old F1 video's to see what I mean, cars with lots of downforce and still alot of overtaking because the air doesnt get nearly as much disturbed as today.
oh you mean when cars produced less down force
you cant have it both ways if cars produce downforce they disturb the air behind them + the cornering speed for the car behind is either decreased or it will have to back off out of the dirty air
you cant produce a car that produces huge downforce + doesnt disturb the air behind your trying to argue that the teams can but they dont want to because its disadvantaging the car behind + if you admit the car behind is being disadvantaged then your agreeing with me + adding even more downforce wont solve that problem
a while ago there was a similar debate about wether a plane on a treadmill would be able to take off
(it can btw + dont even think about arguing with me on that one
) anyway i got the definative answer from ask a scientist. tommorrow i will submit the question to them (its late now too tired) after ive cleared it with you so you agree that the question is fair and im not wording it in any way to support my case and well see who's right.
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Oke im going to give up. Your right. Never mind '90's cars being high downforce, never mind what you see in those videos, never mind what drivers say, never mind team distrubing airflow more than neseccery.
ok i watched the video you seem to be saying "look how close they are racing each other through the corners compared to today"
Exacltly my point the racing has more overtaking because those cars were less dependant on downforce than todays cars - your supporting my argument, slicks (ie more mechanical grip) + less reliance on downforce = more overtaking
and for every driver you can quote saying we need more downforce i can find one support my argument that high downforce is lessening overtaking former f1 drivers martin brundle + mark blundell commentate for itv and they say it practically every race
and as for disturbing the airflow more than nesesary, it is neseccery. the more downforce you produce the more you disturb the air + the teams want their cars to produce as much downforce as they can
if you want them to disturb the air less they will have to produce less downforce
1. if you cant corner as fast as the car infront of you or you need to increase the distance between you and the car infront to maintain your cornering speed your chances of overtaking it are reduced
2. you cant corner as fast in dirty air as you can in clean air if your cornering speed is reliant in downforce
3. more downforce = more turbulence behind you
how can you not agree with those 3 points
Exacltly my point the racing has more overtaking because those cars were less dependant on downforce than todays cars - your supporting my argument, slicks (ie more mechanical grip) + less reliance on downforce = more overtaking
and for every driver you can quote saying we need more downforce i can find one support my argument that high downforce is lessening overtaking former f1 drivers martin brundle + mark blundell commentate for itv and they say it practically every race
and as for disturbing the airflow more than nesesary, it is neseccery. the more downforce you produce the more you disturb the air + the teams want their cars to produce as much downforce as they can
if you want them to disturb the air less they will have to produce less downforce
1. if you cant corner as fast as the car infront of you or you need to increase the distance between you and the car infront to maintain your cornering speed your chances of overtaking it are reduced
2. you cant corner as fast in dirty air as you can in clean air if your cornering speed is reliant in downforce
3. more downforce = more turbulence behind you
how can you not agree with those 3 points
Last edited by a moderator:
No. F1 cars always needed much downforce in order to not lift off like an airplane. The cars back then had bigger differences in hp, thus you had more reserves for overtaking.
The whole field has to choose between more downforce or higher top speed, that's just a matter of choice/strategy.
That has less to do with disturbing the air, you could as well build a car with tremendous downforce and next to no air disturbance (think of the drop-like form or such), but it wouldn't work for the real-life situations for other reasons.
The cornering is less reliant on downforce, since the speed is usually much lower when cornering. On straights or high-speed curves, it does matter. So:
1. only in extremely bad-case situations, since increasing distance, err well, increases the distance which is not what you want as a driver
2. only in high-speed curves
3. not necessarily, you have to count in the direction and the "dirtyness" of the turbulences.
Reducing grip IS the way to introduce more overtaking, you have it the wrong way around. When you have a wet race you get far more overtaking in the reduced grip conditions and it is more exciting. Far better to have the cars slower but more of a handful by removing downforce.
How much downforce does a MotoGP bike have and how much more overtaking than F1 is there? Answers are almost zero and about a zillion times , respectively.
You need a serious rethink on F1 in regards to what the cars need to be like to make it more exciting.
Last edited by a moderator:
The cornering is less reliant on downforce, since the speed is usually much lower when cornering. On straights or high-speed curves, it does matter. So:
1. only in extremely bad-case situations, since increasing distance, err well, increases the distance which is not what you want as a driver
2. only in high-speed curves
3. not necessarily, you have to count in the direction and the "dirtyness" of the turbulences.
How can you say this?
You should be aware of the fact that friction is dependent entirely on downforce, both from aerodynamics and mass of vehicle.
And cornering speed is dependent on friction and suspension.
On a sharp enough corner you may slow down so much that the downforce is diminished, but if they were allowed to do whatever they wanted they could change the aerodynamics properties (like flaps on airplane) as they went into low speed turns.
Sxotty, I just tried to get the point across that it's all a compromise and a matter of strategy. More downforce will obviously reduce the top speed when not cornering, so which is better? Depends on many factors, including the driver's personal preferences to some extent as well.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I've said this already, take a look at the old F1 movies. Plenty of overtaking, lots more than nowdays. Ever since Senna died the FIA has been on a frenzy to reduce everything on the cars. Less downforce, less grip, less power. All that has done is make the sport more boring. Reducing downforce isnt going to change anything. What should be done is allow more, remove driver electronics and make rules against the on purpose distrubing of airflow (like the split rear wing FIA rule).
All reducing downforce will do is make cars slower, have teams figure out another way to disturb the air so the car behind still wont come any closer. Even if you manage to slipsteam your way around a car, it wont do any good as now your car is alot lower on downforce so you'll have to break earlier because you cant take the corner at high speeds. Its only going to work if you have a real long straight as you need to totally pass your oppenents car. That wont happen very often. Drivers should catch up/pass in the corners and use a bit of the straight for the final push, not turn the straight into the new pitlane for overtaking.
so your saying back in the days when f1 cars produced less downforce and had more mechanical grip than the cars of today there was more overtaking - your proving my point once again
oh and i'll reverse the question if i may, if cars did not rely on downforce for their cornering speed what exactly would stop a car closely following another through a corner - i personally cant think of anything
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
FFS dont you even read my posts? I know my english isnt perfect but I thought i did make it clear that the early 90's cars arnt exactly low on downforce, meaning they have plenty of it (the cars used to run just a few MM from the ground, wich did wonders for the downforce, unlike mdoern cars that look like AWD cars compared to that to name a example).
I also remeber Bridgestone saying that their tires wernt that much behind in performance compared to the old slicks if at all so tires isnt the problem either. Though it could be nowdays with only 1 tire supplier.
I also remeber Bridgestone saying that their tires wernt that much behind in performance compared to the old slicks if at all so tires isnt the problem either. Though it could be nowdays with only 1 tire supplier.
No but they are lower than the cars of 2007
back in the days of senna, mansel ect cars produced less downforce than today + and there was more overtaking than today can you see the relationship here
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
If you consider that a car moves forwards because of aerodynamics, mechanical grip, and engine power, I'm pretty sure the dependence on aerodynamics has gone up in proportion to engine power and mechanical grip. A greater percentage of the speed of the car now depends on the aerodynamics, and that's why older cars didn't hit a brick wall so badly when their aero package was being disturbed.
Each time the FIA make the engines smaller, or put bigger grooves in the tyre, they just increase the importance of the aerodynamics, and so make it harder and harder for the car to work when that aero package gets disturbed.
Each time the FIA make the engines smaller, or put bigger grooves in the tyre, they just increase the importance of the aerodynamics, and so make it harder and harder for the car to work when that aero package gets disturbed.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Oke im still searching for downforce numbers on the old cars, but in 2005 the FIA already had the teams drop 30% in downforce (though team managed to keep it down to 5 - 10% according to wikipedia) but 2005 and 2006 didnt have alot of overtaking either.
are you trying to suggest that cars of 1991 produced more downforce than cars of 2007 ??
dont forget mechanical grip as well it needs to be factored in, 1991 cars had more of it than 2007 cars do
ps: does anyone know if there was more overtaking in the 60's when cars didnt rely on downforce ???
dont forget mechanical grip as well it needs to be factored in, 1991 cars had more of it than 2007 cars do
ps: does anyone know if there was more overtaking in the 60's when cars didnt rely on downforce ???
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is you are stuck in the 1990's for an example, so please show us an example from the 1990's where there was lots of overtaking due to high downforce.
Can it beat the low downforce era of the 1970's such as this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sDtn8QnpFg
???
The best overtaking I ever saw in the 1990's was Senna at Donnington Park in 1993, to remind you
http://www.farzadsf1gallery.com/features/donin93.html
Now, was that down to high downforce in the 1990's or just the rain causing a serious lack of grip equalizing the cars and allowing genius to show? Watch the video. Please provide a better example of mass overtaking in high grip high downforce races for evidence to the contrary.
You are just completely wrong. Sorry, but that's the ugly truth, at least for you, in this case.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
That video is from 79, you say low downforce, did you never heard of cars like the brabham fancar (78 season btw) who were know for the insane amounts of downforce they generated because of the ground effect? If you want low downforce you have to go back to the 60's when cars didnt had any wings. If there was alot more overtaking in that era? I wouldnt know, its more than 20 years before I was even born. But it probably was plenty of spectacle, cars drifting around corners, lots of crashen and cars breaking down being more of a rule than a exeption.
I dont think the rain race is a good example. You can cut the downforce of the cars but that wont give you the same effect as a rain race. A rain race involes alot more factores. The cars arnt build for racing in the wet, some cars do alot better in the wet than others, bad track conditions, the gap in driver skills will be alot more obvious, tires. Obviously in the rain tires cant get as much grip as in the wet, no alot of downforce probably wont be a big help in the wet because the tires just cant grip as much but as I said above a rain race involes alot more factores than a normal race so its not a good argument of showing how low downforce would improve overtaking.
I dont think the rain race is a good example. You can cut the downforce of the cars but that wont give you the same effect as a rain race. A rain race involes alot more factores. The cars arnt build for racing in the wet, some cars do alot better in the wet than others, bad track conditions, the gap in driver skills will be alot more obvious, tires. Obviously in the rain tires cant get as much grip as in the wet, no alot of downforce probably wont be a big help in the wet because the tires just cant grip as much but as I said above a rain race involes alot more factores than a normal race so its not a good argument of showing how low downforce would improve overtaking.
Last edited by a moderator:
