Qualifying 2016 style (could be fun ? ? )
Discussion
Flooble said:
EnglishTony said:
RichardM5 said:
There must be a way of limiting ground effect,
This is exactly what the regulations do now and have done since the full on ground effects cars were banned. It seems Pirelli can make super-super-soft tyres easily enough, so could mechanical grip be cranked up in conjunction with wing size reductions?
If you remove the wings & replace with increased underbody aero there will be no difference in cornering. May change the disturbed air problem but so would raising the rear wing. Which is what the 2017 regs aim to do without losing valuable advertising space.
More mechanical grip, increase width of tyres. Another 2017 regs proposal.
My main hope for 2017 is that the cars no longer get set up with their ärse in the air. Looks OK on a dragster (perhaps) but not on a monoposto
Should allow unlimited energy storage and use there off, but limit the weight of the storage device.
Would drive battery technology to produce denser storage, and would allow the 'push to pass' followed by the try to keep them behind as my battery is flat scenario similar to the old turbo era when a catchup and overtake would use so much fuel that the following laps would require the boost being wound down giving the following car a chance.
Would drive battery technology to produce denser storage, and would allow the 'push to pass' followed by the try to keep them behind as my battery is flat scenario similar to the old turbo era when a catchup and overtake would use so much fuel that the following laps would require the boost being wound down giving the following car a chance.
EnglishTony said:
The underbody regs were changed when the rear wing size changed.
If you remove the wings & replace with increased underbody aero there will be no difference in cornering. May change the disturbed air problem but so would raising the rear wing. Which is what the 2017 regs aim to do without losing valuable advertising space.
More mechanical grip, increase width of tyres. Another 2017 regs proposal.
My main hope for 2017 is that the cars no longer get set up with their ärse in the air. Looks OK on a dragster (perhaps) but not on a monoposto
That was what I hoped - less wing and more underbody. I was just concerned that it wasn't possible to get a nice balance where you keep speeds roughly the same (and thus avoid the 1980s problems). I wonder if the tyres need to be wider, or just a different compound. If you remove the wings & replace with increased underbody aero there will be no difference in cornering. May change the disturbed air problem but so would raising the rear wing. Which is what the 2017 regs aim to do without losing valuable advertising space.
More mechanical grip, increase width of tyres. Another 2017 regs proposal.
My main hope for 2017 is that the cars no longer get set up with their ärse in the air. Looks OK on a dragster (perhaps) but not on a monoposto
It will be interesting to see what happens with the 2017 regulations, I suspect it depends on how well Ferrari's wind tunnel is doing. Maybe one year too early with the Haas entry that's totally independent, honest gov.
Gary C said:
Should allow unlimited energy storage and use there off, but limit the weight of the storage device.
Would drive battery technology to produce denser storage, and would allow the 'push to pass' followed by the try to keep them behind as my battery is flat scenario similar to the old turbo era when a catchup and overtake would use so much fuel that the following laps would require the boost being wound down giving the following car a chance.
Agreed, however, they already do this: "An unlimited amount of energy can be transferred between the MGU-H and the ES and/or MGU-K."Would drive battery technology to produce denser storage, and would allow the 'push to pass' followed by the try to keep them behind as my battery is flat scenario similar to the old turbo era when a catchup and overtake would use so much fuel that the following laps would require the boost being wound down giving the following car a chance.
I think the intent of the limits is precisely to put drivers in a situation where they can use "push to pass" and then have to hang on for the rest of the lap as they have reached the limit of available energy. The old KERS system used to be a bit like that - they had such a short window of boost that it was supposed to be a hard decision when to deploy it. Sadly there are so many tracks with so few overtaking opportunities it is easy for both drivers to keep enough energy in the bank to be able to both be able to boost out the 2-3 corners where an overtake is possible.
Flooble said:
Gary C said:
Should allow unlimited energy storage and use there off, but limit the weight of the storage device.
Would drive battery technology to produce denser storage, and would allow the 'push to pass' followed by the try to keep them behind as my battery is flat scenario similar to the old turbo era when a catchup and overtake would use so much fuel that the following laps would require the boost being wound down giving the following car a chance.
Agreed, however, they already do this: "An unlimited amount of energy can be transferred between the MGU-H and the ES and/or MGU-K."Would drive battery technology to produce denser storage, and would allow the 'push to pass' followed by the try to keep them behind as my battery is flat scenario similar to the old turbo era when a catchup and overtake would use so much fuel that the following laps would require the boost being wound down giving the following car a chance.
I think the intent of the limits is precisely to put drivers in a situation where they can use "push to pass" and then have to hang on for the rest of the lap as they have reached the limit of available energy. The old KERS system used to be a bit like that - they had such a short window of boost that it was supposed to be a hard decision when to deploy it. Sadly there are so many tracks with so few overtaking opportunities it is easy for both drivers to keep enough energy in the bank to be able to both be able to boost out the 2-3 corners where an overtake is possible.
Trouble is, it feels as I write to be trying to artificially recreate the 80's turbo thang.
Oh well.
Allow free development in season !
Free development would be nice, although I can't see it happening. To an extent it does help to focus the mind of the designers - when they screw up royally over their basic design (McLaren, again and again) they can't then throw money and time to catch up in-season and instead have to suffer.
How long are the cars on "boost" for at the moment, I'm not sure I've seen statistics for it. I have a feeling you may be right and they can "boost" most of the lap.
How long are the cars on "boost" for at the moment, I'm not sure I've seen statistics for it. I have a feeling you may be right and they can "boost" most of the lap.
entropy said:
How about this for an idea:
Q4 for top 6; 5mins for Q3&4 - effectively a one lap shoot out; cars out in Q3 get free choice on tyres as opposed to Q2 in current.
So a five minute Q3 for the top 10 (number as now, only a reduced duration), then bottom four are eliminated before the final Q4 shoot out?Q4 for top 6; 5mins for Q3&4 - effectively a one lap shoot out; cars out in Q3 get free choice on tyres as opposed to Q2 in current.
Might work, but five minutes is very tight and there would be cries of "he blocked me"?
I was pondering whether to just limit the tyres. Make everyone in Q3 run the same tyres they finished Q2 with. And make them start the race on them too.
Only thing is I can see it would lead to reduced running in Q3 as people tried to preserve their tyres, but it would lead to a real struggle for the top 10 in the first few laps. Might cause first lap carnage?
Qualifying today was spoiled a bit by the red flags. Does anyone else feel that if a red flag happens in the last couple of minutes of qualifying then they should reset the clock to such a time that all the drivers can get out and complete one more lap? Today drivers like Massa and Grosjean were rather unlucky in that they had their day spoiled through no fault of their own.
VolvoT5 said:
Qualifying today was spoiled a bit by the red flags. Does anyone else feel that if a red flag happens in the last couple of minutes of qualifying then they should reset the clock to such a time that all the drivers can get out and complete one more lap? Today drivers like Massa and Grosjean were rather unlucky in that they had their day spoiled through no fault of their own.
Nope. Adding time could encourage some less than honourable teams to try to engineer red flag situations in order to improve their positions.
They should all just be out as early as possible trying to do the best lap they can. A red flag appearing close to the end of the session is a risk they take if they choose to wait too long.
marshalla said:
Nope.
Adding time could encourage some less than honourable teams to try to engineer red flag situations in order to improve their positions.
They should all just be out as early as possible trying to do the best lap they can. A red flag appearing close to the end of the session is a risk they take if they choose to wait too long.
True, "Renault-gate" will live on for some time. Adding time could encourage some less than honourable teams to try to engineer red flag situations in order to improve their positions.
They should all just be out as early as possible trying to do the best lap they can. A red flag appearing close to the end of the session is a risk they take if they choose to wait too long.
Hey, that's an idea. Instead of fixed-length sessions how about a variable timing for the chequered flag. Maximum pucker for anyone who doesn't get straight out and on it ...
Evangelion said:
Of course, it's not really fifteen-minute sessions. It's fifteen minutes, minus a few seconds, plus one lap. My personal opinion is that the session should end at fifteen minutes. Anyone on a lap when the chequered flag goes out, tough, they lose it.
Disagree, the dash for the last lap is more interesting.Qual is pretty good as it is actually.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff