Discussion
They'd end up looking something more like the slipstreamed cars of the 1960s if they were designed without wings from the outset.
Wording the rules to ban aero innovation would be hard. You couldn't just write 'no wings' because the engineers will always find a way around it, so you'd probably have to have homologated body designs, with teams submitting models to the FIA for them to be tested to be aerodynamically neutral within a certain small tolerance before they were allowed to be raced, then checked against body templates at scrutineering as they do in NASCAR.
Wording the rules to ban aero innovation would be hard. You couldn't just write 'no wings' because the engineers will always find a way around it, so you'd probably have to have homologated body designs, with teams submitting models to the FIA for them to be tested to be aerodynamically neutral within a certain small tolerance before they were allowed to be raced, then checked against body templates at scrutineering as they do in NASCAR.
thegreenhell said:
Evangelion said:
"Bodies should be devoid of aerodynamic devices" oughta cover it.
Followed by fifty pages of small print defining precise meanings of 'body', 'devoid', 'aerodynamic' and 'device'.External
Internal
It didn't get far, but the front engined Nissan LMP car had massive air tunnels along the side of the car to the rear diffuser.
.Whatever the rules are, Newey & co will find their ways around it in ways that are fine and legal, or in ways they will keep using until they get found out and the parts get banned. Slightly off topic from 'see how nice F1 cars looked in the 90s' but hey ho
An F1 car without wings is rightly consigned to the 60's.
They'd look so wrong without them, far too basic.
Again probably showing my age because I'm a 90's child but the 60's cars have never appealed to me aesthetically, there's literally nothing to them.
90's proportions and basic aeros would be perfect but we're all dreaming regardless, going back a few eras and starting again would never happen.
The FW19 for me is the absolute pinnacle in terms of proportions, stance and livery.
They'd look so wrong without them, far too basic.
Again probably showing my age because I'm a 90's child but the 60's cars have never appealed to me aesthetically, there's literally nothing to them.
90's proportions and basic aeros would be perfect but we're all dreaming regardless, going back a few eras and starting again would never happen.
The FW19 for me is the absolute pinnacle in terms of proportions, stance and livery.
Evangelion said:
"Bodies should be devoid of aerodynamic devices" oughta cover it.
A decent aerodynamicist would have that rule worked around and on its arse in five minutes flat. That sir, no sir, that's just body work sir. Protects the front wheels sir.
As said above - you need a million addenda because in every set of regulations written for something at all ever 'simple sentence' oughta cover it, has never ever covered it
Also you can free up engines all you like it won't make up the time deficit - physics will win that fight every time.
Your proposed racing series sounds fun - but it's not Formula One.
I just think the 'good old days' has never been the answer to any problem ever
F1GTRUeno said:
Again probably showing my age because I'm a 90's child but the 60's cars have never appealed to me aesthetically, there's literally nothing to them.
That's rather belittling the technical achievements of people like Vittorio Jano, Rudolf Ullenhaut, Colin Chapman, Bruce McLaren and Jack Brabham.And yes, you are showing your age because the cars most people like are the car that were around when they were young - usually pre or early teens.
My "era" is the mid 60s to the mid 70s and, naturally, I like those cars. But that does not blind me to the achievements and engineering skills demonstrated by those who have designed racing cars from the dawn of the motor racing through to the present day. From an aesthetic point of view, I like some eras and don't care for some other eras.
My favourite eras are the 50s and 60s but I also like the very late 80s and early 90s. I'm not a huge fan of the looks of the 80s turbo cars and I don't care for most F1 cars since the late 1990s on as they always look too messy to me.
Evangelion said:
"Bodies should be devoid of aerodynamic devices" oughta cover it.
Bodywork, by its very definition is an aerodynamic device. It reduces drag by giving the air a cleaner surface to pass over the all the oily bits.As for no engine regulations. There is a reason we don't have that rule. Nobody can afford it. Mercedes and Ferrari would have parallel development paths for petrol, diesel, electric, hybrid, hydrogen, natural gas, etc.
One would be better than the other, and all the money spent of the others is simply wasted.
F1GTRUeno said:
90's proportions and basic aeros would be perfect but we're all dreaming regardless, going back a few eras and starting again would never happen.
It's happened before:- Banning of skirts was a step back in aerodynamic development.
- Turbo to N/A engines was a significant technical step backwards (but a massive step forward in terms of experience for the enthusiasts who bothered to go to a race).
- The banning of electronic driver aids.
I'm hopeful that history will repeat itself with the engines...
I go to VSCC and historic race events, and I can appreciate a nice looking car form any era. However, my favourite by some margin is '89 - '92. It's no coincidence that '89 was the first year of the 3.5 N/A engines after turbos, and '92 was the last year of the wide rear tyres.
I always thought the Lotus 107 series of cars were beautifully proportioned (for cars whose aesthetics are ultimately compromised by a rule book), especially if you can get beyond the colour scheme:
That's obviously someone's model car (with a dodgy rear wing), but I couldn't find a decent image of the real thing!
Surely how a race car looks doesn't even matter at all? Look at some of the monstrosities of the past where function over form mattered the most, these are all fondly remembered as the pinnacle of "how a race car should look". They are iconic, not pretty.
If a group b really car wasn't developed by a race team but the chav at the end of the road then everyone would find the looks revolting. It's the performance that gives the perceived cosmetic appeal, much like the go-er from down the pub....
All just MO though,
Dunc.
If a group b really car wasn't developed by a race team but the chav at the end of the road then everyone would find the looks revolting. It's the performance that gives the perceived cosmetic appeal, much like the go-er from down the pub....
All just MO though,
Dunc.
Edited by dunc_sx on Thursday 8th June 17:13
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff