F1: 2011 regulations, death of F1?

[Davros]

Trust Clarkson to have the answer "there is less overtaking today because drivers dont want to ruin their hairstyles" my god that man is a genius

ps: im pretty sure that ground effect isnt affected much by turbulance - so its a bad example

I cant understand how 1 car not being able to get close to another can ever be considered good for overtaking

 

[Frank]

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.

There is snomething very crucial you seem to have a blind spot to: doing everything manual and internal combustion engines are so very last century. Not exactly high-tech. You don't want better and cutting edge tech: you want to go back to the 1980s. Because, at that time things were much better than they are today, in your opinion.

If you want F1 to go forwards, you should welcome elecrtonic driver assistance and control. And electric motors are the way to go for F1 as well.

Things like grip, downforce and all can easily be done on demand: electronically.

That way, you can even actively "clean up" the dirty air behind the vehicle.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

There is snomething very crucial you seem to have a blind spot to: doing everything manual and internal combustion engines are so very last century. Not exactly high-tech. You don't want better and cutting edge tech: you want to go back to the 1980s. Because, at that time things were much better than they are today, in your opinion.

If you want F1 to go forwards, you should welcome elecrtonic driver assistance and control. And electric motors are the way to go for F1 as well.

No. F1 should be a battle between the car and the driver. The car should offer the best technology available but the driver should controll that, not the car electronics.

Things like grip, downforce and all can easily be done on demand: electronically.

How can you electronically make a car twice as heavy? without moving aero parts that is.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

This quite an interesting read on the history of F1 aerodynamics to about 1994, and there's also some info on the massive effort being put into F1 aero developments today.

 

[_xxx_]

No but they are lower than the cars of 2007

You sure? Source? Because I very much doubt that.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Fromm bouncings link:

During 1996, the FIA commissioned studies into aerodynamics of cars following each other closely, in an apparent attempt to find a general configuration that would enable close running and overtaking to occur, increasing the spectacle.

It seems the studies indicated that if the total downforce was reduced, far from making it easier for cars to follow each other, things actually got worse, causing an adverse effect on the following car.

So I was right all along.

Following the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna at Imola in 1994, the FIA, the governing body of motorsport, produced some rapidly imposed rule changes, which had the effect of cutting back down force quite significantly.

old cars having more downforce, I was right too.

 

[_xxx_]

That's what I thought as well, given that

the cars used to run just a few MM from the ground

 

[Davros]

Following the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna at Imola in 1994, the FIA, the governing body of motorsport, produced some rapidly imposed rule changes, which had the effect of cutting back down force quite significantly.

Fromm bouncings link:
old cars having more downforce, I was right too.

again no that just says cars after in 1994 had less downforce than cars before 1994 it makes no comparison with cars of 2007

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

From the second link (my bolding):

The use of wind tunnels for aerodynamic testing in Formula One can be traced back to the BRM team of the 1960’s but it wasn’t until the Lotus ‘ground effect’ cars of the late 1970s that teams really started to understand the importance of aerodynamics. By today’s standards, even the turbocharged cars of the mid-1980s were relatively crude.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Following the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna at Imola in 1994, the FIA, the governing body of motorsport, produced some rapidly imposed rule changes, which had the effect of cutting back down force quite significantly.



again no that just says cars after in 1994 had less downforce than cars before 1994 it makes no comparison with cars of 2007

Dude, give up already. Ever since Senna died the FIA has been intorducing the one dowforce/grip/speed reducing rule after the other. Teams have always been able to remain alot more downforce than the FIA wanted to reduce but you dont honestly think that downforce reducing rules suddenly end up actually being able to generate more downforce?

From the second link (my bolding):

In what context do they say that? as it doesnt really say cars generate low downforce, just that they are crude but as there were alot less aero rules back than even a relative crude design could still mean more downforce but just used as efficient as could be possible today.

 

[_xxx_]

Those cars were crude as a whole, he definitely didn't refer to aerodynamics alone.

 

[DJ12]

increase mechanical grip (including but not limited to allowing ground effect and huge diffusers)

Reduce the reliance on massive "aero" packages to generate the downforce.

Problem solved.

Ohh, and add the boost button that will allow even the shittest turbo engine to generate at least 1000 bhp (brief upping of the boost pressure should do the trick, it worked wonders on my old RS turbo ) to aid overtaking.

Obviously the driver being overtaken could realise that the turbo "turbo" button was being used, but by then the other car should be going so much faster it won't make any difference.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I believe the ground effect and diffusers are part of the aerodynamic downforce.

And please no turbo button, F1 aint A1. F1 should drive to the max all time, not have a reserve left for overtaking. Also overtaking with a button is lame because its still not due to the driver or better car that you'll see overtaking but just someone pushing a button.

 

[RobertR1]

Dude, give up already. Ever since Senna died the FIA has been intorducing the one dowforce/grip/speed reducing rule after the other. Teams have always been able to remain alot more downforce than the FIA wanted to reduce but you dont honestly think that downforce reducing rules suddenly end up actually being able to generate more downforce?

You're not understanding it. With private windtunnels, areo experts, full blown computer simulations, the amount of downforce teams are squeezing out of the package is incredible.

While the rules were relaxed back in the late 80's and early 90's, the technology wasn't nearly as advanced and the FOCUS of the teams on areo was not as great.

I'll easily state that todays car is producing much more downforce per square meter than the cars of the senna era. You should post this question on Speedtv forums where Steve Matchett, ex Benetton engineer posts also. Maybe his answer will be more acceptable to you?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Well why dont you post there and post the numbers here? I just find it hard to believe that with almost 15 years of FIA making rule after rule to decrease downforce we now actually have more downforce than we had 15 years ago. Along with the quote from the site that less downforce actually means less overtaking I think we can agree that lowering the downforce wont increase overtaking?

 

[dizietsma]

tongue_of_colicab,

Please provide video evidence of high downforce, high grip, allowing overtaking.

I have shown two examples of low downforce, low grip with multiple passes and yet when I request the same from you I see nothing. I get the feeling it is all theory, in your head, with nothing physical to back it up. That suggests that your theory is wrong.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

You provided 1 video wich showed a once in a 40 year time overtaking battle with cars that wernt that low on downforce and 1 video of a rain race, wich as I explained involes alot more factores so you cant really put it on downforce (we are talking about downforce, not other things) and that video was from 93 and I've said all along that the cars from the beginning of the 90's had plenty of downforce (slicks, big wings, very low to the ground, almost ground effect'ish, far less limiting FIA rules).

I've showed you a video from the 90's, and a quote, from the FIA mind you, that low downforce actually makes overtaking harder, not easier. And if the FIA examined that, I dont think you can keep on saying less downforce is what will cause more overtaking.

 

[_xxx_]

I'll easily state that todays car is producing much more downforce per square meter than the cars of the senna era. You should post this question on Speedtv forums where Steve Matchett, ex Benetton engineer posts also. Maybe his answer will be more acceptable to you?

Then you might want to compare the relevant area (wing sizes etc.) on the cars from now and then, you'll be surprised to find out that the area has significantly decreased since then.

 

[RobertR1]

Then you might want to compare the relevant area (wing sizes etc.) on the cars from now and then, you'll be surprised to find out that the area has significantly decreased since then.

The decrease in size has been compensated by the advancement in areo technology. The point I'm trying to make.

Going back to those wing sizes, along with today's areo tech, would make the cars have ridiculous corner speeds. This be worse for the car behind.

 

[Davros]

also cars of today have more aero devices than just the front and rear wings they have little wings all over the place + they have the advantage of lookin bloody ugly

wouldnt it be great to see drifting again ???

oh and one last rule i'd bring in "all drivers must race while smoking a pipe" like graham hill