If it were wet all the time the same disparity would still exist.
It's "motor"racing isn't it. If any class should define what "motor"racing really is or where this term originated, it should be F1. Horse racing with a control-horse just isn't the same
(Tongue in cheek).
I don't think F1 should be defined purely by the laptimes the cars are capable of.
Agreed - the regulations don't permit any innovation, and whenever a new idea does come up, they think of a way to ban it. And then they wonder why it's not exciting anymore? :doh:
Alternatively we could just cull all of these new fly-away races and, you know, bring F1 back to Europe where it's happily survived for most of the past (nearly) 60 years! After all, virtually every European F1 race sells out, a good number of the fly-aways don't (except Brasil and Japan, basically).
I think if the materials teams could build their cars/ engines out of were restricted (Relatively basic things like Carbon Fibre, Aluminium, Steel etc), and the number of Aerodynamic planes limited to 6 (Front wing, Rear Wing and another Rear wing like they used to have in the Mid-Late 90's, all two planes), then costs could be cut.
Perhaps they could have a Group C style formula where engine capacity an configuration are completely unlimited, but the Engines must only be allowed to consume a certain amount of fuel per race, this leads to manufacturers trying to get more power for less fuel, and so advances engine efficiency and F1's 'green' image. (Of course this will not help cut costs at all! :razz
Perhaps bring horsepower down to around 550-600 maybe 700 max in race trim would slow cars down enough to allow them to race on more circuits (Brands Hatch, Watkins Glen etc) of course I'm only dreaming.
im no expert on aerodynamics but from my knowledge any aerodynamic surface comes with vortices induced drag and lots of other problems... obviously the benefits will outweight those but sticking lots of wings to something is polishing a turd that could be a lot better aerodynamically with more design freedom to not require the polish in the first place
Allow me to clear things up, when i say 6 aerodynamic planes, I dont mean 6 giant box wings, I guess the basic 'wing' on a car consists of one 'fixed' plane and another adjustable one behind/above it, so 6 planes would mean 3 wings, obviously it would also be a good idea to limit the size and width of said aerodynamic pieces.
I don't deliberately try to disagree with you, in that previous thread I was rather trying to 'polish a turd' and get myself out of a hole that I had dug without 'backing down'.
I believe the FIA has a system of classifying circuits as a way of deciding wether its safe to race certain championships on them (with exceptions ofcourse, for example Monaco!).
I heard somewhere that Brands is an FIA 'grade 2' circuit, and seeing as they raced Champ Car there only 5 years ago (and now 500+ hp DTM and A1GP cars), I think it wouldnt be hard to make Brands suitable for F1 without murdering such a fine track, as for Watkins Glen, I don't think they would have too much trouble getting up to F1 standard.
Group C was exciting and interesting because of the massive variation (not like Modern F1), eventually the killed it off by forcing everyone to run 3 litre engines.
Well, first off the engines are so close to each others that to average viewer they are all the same already. I'd bet 99.9% can't even tell how you could make two V8 engines different, except for color. Tbh. I couldn't care less if all the teams had to use similar engines, what I do care about is all this non-sense about saving money and then introducing stuff like kers which is yet another money pit. Going back to slick tires is yet another decision I can't understand.
As for making F1 teams to use standard parts, there are better parts to standardise than engine. Gearboxes, brakes and wings to name a few that can be done so that the cars would still look and driver a bit differently. Naturally any standardisation needs to be done at good moment, just changing to standard gearbox would be plain stupid if the teams had to redesign their engines and the whole rear of the car for that one "money-saving" part.
It's still quite hard dilemma as high tech translates directly into high cost and F1 has always been about both. You can't take the cost out without taking some of the tech out and to keep f1 as the pinnacle of motorsport as the fastest and most high tech you can't limit it too much either. I can't imagine f1 as single make series where the cars would be standardised even if it might provide more interesting races for the simple reason that f1 has never been about the best driver. It's been about the best car with the fastest driver.
Well that is if power and speeds in F1 were brought down a bit, and if Max and Bernie were to somehow suddenly decide to retire.
If they can make Donnington suitable, then they can make Brands suitable.
(Of course they cant really make Donnington suitable, I betcha it wont be ready in time, and the race will end up back at Silverstone, or most likely fall off the calendar completely.
Yes, but you are talking about the last 10 years, when restrictive rules mean that the engines are virtually the same.
But looking at a grid from the early (and even the mid) 90's, theres everything from the high pitched whine of Renault V10s and Ferari V12s and the lower roar of Judd and Ford V8s.
thats not what i meant to say
what im on about is that they wouldnt need nearly as much silly looking aerodynamic bits if they had a lot more freedom to design the shape of the car
It's not really about the amount of downforce. It's the amount of downforce you can get versus the amount of drag you get as well. Modern f1 cars are far more efficient in creating downforce than they were at 1982
aaand...
Yes, I'd love to see different types of engines, V12s, V8s and V10s along with boxer 6s and whatnot there has been but it would be just awfully expensive today. The point was though that in modern f1 the engines are already so similar that it is imho way over the top to get upset of the idea of standard engines, even if I don't oersonally see it as a good idea.
True, but it was getting to the point where cars were losing their drag inducing wings altogether (e.g. The Lotus 80), and the cars were becoming more and more reliant on 'Ground effect', which I believe produces less drag than a wing.
That wouldnt be a good idea in F1 now though, as the slightest bump or undulation in the track can cause a loss of all downforce, unfortunately this kind of thing lead to Gilles Villeneuve's death and probrably contributed to Senna's as well.
And F1 engines are so similar because the regulations are too restrictive already, we don't need them getting any more restrictive.
i rather quite doubt that... they had about the same frontal area possibly less thanks to thinner front tyres and much much bigger venturi intakes and a lot less aero srufaces that will cause induced drag (well sealed venturis should be almost completely free of induced drag)
gilles crash had nothing to do with ground effects and sennas was largely caused by the fias ban on hydraulic suspensions which led to all sort of gorund effect related crashed that year which would have been preventable with a car able to adapt quickly enough
Surely that is quite an overstatement when you look at how much the teams are currently spending in wind tunnels and all that computing stuff. For example the amount of air the engine needs for cooling and to run and all the airflows and all that aero can be calculated, estimated and designed much more efficiently minimizing all those losses that build up all those precious percentages towards more downforce and less drag.
Here's two pics and just by looking at them I can't imagine that any part of that '82 car is even comparable to modern f1 car as long as aerodynamics (for example) are in question. It has simply come a long way. Sure the wings look the same and principles are all the same as they were 20-30 years ago but that is just artificial and just hides all the work. How you control the airflow from front to rear, how you use the air the most efficiently that goes "through" the car and how you make everything work in the car by distracting that airflow the least
I heard somewhere that it was caused by Gilles having to take an unusual line around Jochen Mass, cauing him to go over the crest in a way that killed all his downforce and made him plow straight on?
But it turns out he actually collided with Mass.
In 1982 you didn't have to worry about carefully conrtolling the air flow around the car, all you had to do was build two giant, almost drag free venturis and you were sorted.
Modern F1 cars are a compromise, shed loads of downforce could easily be produced by relatively simple venturi sidepods, but obviously these are banned, and so teams spend millions on aero to simply 'claim back' the lost downforce. The only reason teams spend so much on it is because they're strying to work around restrictive regulations, back in the 80's when these were more relaxed, simplistic, larger wings did the trick.
Just because a car looks ungainly doesn't necessarily mean it has the aerodynamics of a brick, Thrust SSC looked like a tank, but it went supersonic, Boeing 747s arent exactly sleek either, but they can do 500+mph.
If you look at the 1982 Williams, it only has 2 drag inducing 'wings', the Sauber has more than 5.
The fact is that Modern F1 cars are a very finely tuned compromise between downforce and drag, whereas a 1982 formula 1 car could obtain masses of downforce with little or no drag through it's underfloor 'venturis', hence why many teams began removing Front wings (and even rear wings) altogether.
f1 teams will spend lots of money on anything they can
as i said earlier theyre spending their time polishing aerodynamic turds... and you can imagine a turd will take quite a bit of polish
it has lots of very well functioning underfloor downforce
i couldnt find any more recent numbers shortly but assuming that this is accurate http://www.one-pablo.com/technique/tablaero.gif
you can see that a relatively recent f1 has a lift to drag ratio of less than 3 with more recent developments i rather doubt its gotten anywhere near 4 certainly not above it
just from looking at it youll see that half the car is aero surfaces and the other half is winglets which brings us back to the aforementioned induced drag that venturis dont suffer from nearly as much
No I was talking about wings and left the undertrays and ground effects out on purpose. But I should have said so in that repply so that's one epic fail right there on my part :sigh:. I was only talking about wings, not the underside of the car. As for understanding my posts and all that... another topic
What good would a road car manufacturer have if all they can do is make the chassis? Then they have to compete with McLaren who aren't road car builders, they are race car builders, and they would be top. All the teams lose out bigtime if F1 goes to a generic engine for all cars. BMW, Honda, Renault and Toyota will split with F1 because all they get to create is the chassis and in future rules I doubt there will even be much changes that are allowed to chassis as far as modifications. A single engine series for F1 would not be a good idea at all they would lose more than half of the grid. Toyota can't power Williams as a result, Ferrari can't power Toro Rosso, Renault can't power Red Bull, Mercedes can't power McLaren or Force India (in the future prespecively) so F1 just goes...... poof.
After all, virtually every European F1 race sells out, a good number of the fly-aways don't (except Brasil and Japan, basically).
