Standard front wing
Discussion
I've read many, many threads all over the internet on the "problem" with F1 and I think a lot of the time people think that overtaking = excitement. That's not always the case IMO. Button push DRS overtakes leave me cold.
What is exciting for a lot of people is a battle with cars right on the edge and the drivers having to work their socks off to stay in the battle. The problem with F1 cars is that they are so planted we have no idea from outside how much effort the driver is putting in.
The most exciting races to watch are often those where the cars have more power than grip (mechanical or aero). That hasn't been the case with F1 for a long time.
Personally I don't have an issue with a lot of what people complain about in F1 as I follow many different forms of motor racing and they all excite me in different ways. With F1 it's the chess like strategy and the engineering battles that appeal to me. Not enough people like me around though to sustain the insane levels of income F1 needs though.
What is exciting for a lot of people is a battle with cars right on the edge and the drivers having to work their socks off to stay in the battle. The problem with F1 cars is that they are so planted we have no idea from outside how much effort the driver is putting in.
The most exciting races to watch are often those where the cars have more power than grip (mechanical or aero). That hasn't been the case with F1 for a long time.
Personally I don't have an issue with a lot of what people complain about in F1 as I follow many different forms of motor racing and they all excite me in different ways. With F1 it's the chess like strategy and the engineering battles that appeal to me. Not enough people like me around though to sustain the insane levels of income F1 needs though.
Aero needs to come off. I'm up for standard or at least much simpler (single/ double element) rear wings which reduce the downforce from current levels and make it easier to follow.
Also would mean that less of the circuit is full throttle allowing for a lot more driver differentiation. When everyone is flat out and just steering it through the bends then the only thing that separates them is the car.
Also would mean that less of the circuit is full throttle allowing for a lot more driver differentiation. When everyone is flat out and just steering it through the bends then the only thing that separates them is the car.
I think that the big change is removing end plates which effectively increase the length of the front wing, but is massively reduced by turbulence when following.
Downforce will be reduced for the whole lap, but will not be switched On / Off while following, in the same way. There is no subsequent increase in air being fed to the diffuser, but probably more turbulent air / drag from the front wheels and side pods.
Downforce will be reduced for the whole lap, but will not be switched On / Off while following, in the same way. There is no subsequent increase in air being fed to the diffuser, but probably more turbulent air / drag from the front wheels and side pods.
budgie smuggler said:
Derek Smith said:
Whatever happens, I can't see this helping overtaking. Even if it was made single plane with no aerofoil I can't see it affecting the turbulence at the rear.
What makes you say that? I have been known to be wrong before even when talking about stuff I understood so all I'm drawing conclusions that I can't justify.
Derek Smith said:
From what I understand, the problem with following another car is the turbulance. I fail to see how a standard minimised front wing will change this.
I have been known to be wrong before even when talking about stuff I understood so all I'm drawing conclusions that I can't justify.
Ah okay. If you get 5 mins, have a read of thisI have been known to be wrong before even when talking about stuff I understood so all I'm drawing conclusions that I can't justify.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/f1-2...
The best formula for winning F1 races is to build a car with high aero downforce that cannot follow another car, hope that you've added enough downforce to give you pole position and drive away at the front, never needing to follow a car during the race. Red Bull were particularly good at this when Vettel was winning World Championships with them.
If we change the format of the race so that faster cars aren't always at the front the teams will build cars that can follow and overtake because they'll know that they have to in order to win races.
If we change the format of the race so that faster cars aren't always at the front the teams will build cars that can follow and overtake because they'll know that they have to in order to win races.
budgie smuggler said:
Derek Smith said:
From what I understand, the problem with following another car is the turbulance. I fail to see how a standard minimised front wing will change this.
I have been known to be wrong before even when talking about stuff I understood so all I'm drawing conclusions that I can't justify.
Ah okay. If you get 5 mins, have a read of thisI have been known to be wrong before even when talking about stuff I understood so all I'm drawing conclusions that I can't justify.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/f1-2...
kambites said:
Yes they are, as I believe are things like the ECU but that doesn't make it good for other components to go down the same path.
Even if it makes for great show? Dare I say IndyCar is way more exciting than F1 and it's mostly a spec formula, even more so starting from this year.Sam993 said:
kambites said:
Yes they are, as I believe are things like the ECU but that doesn't make it good for other components to go down the same path.
Even if it makes for great show? Dare I say IndyCar is way more exciting than F1 and it's mostly a spec formula, even more so starting from this year.I guess I just can't understand the attitude which says "I want to watch this form of racing which F1 has never provided except accidentally; therefore F1 should change to what I want to watch even though there's loads of other televised racing series which already provide exactly what I want".
IMO Formula 1 has always been a sport which is about engineering first and on-track racing second and that is a perfectly valid thing for it to continue to be.
Edited by kambites on Friday 20th July 18:29
Sam993 said:
Even if it makes for great show? Dare I say IndyCar is way more exciting than F1 and it's mostly a spec formula, even more so starting from this year.
So go watch IndyCar then. Why do you watch a sport which provides a poor show, and then moan about it? People focus a lot on the "show" element of the sport, and forget that it's never been about that. Many of the "golden eras" of F1 have actually been dominations due to one team finding a superior formula to all others, yet we look at them with such nostalgia. I'm all for leaving the engineers to find innovative solutions, and to have cars which are different and unique, even if that results in less overtakes.
I recently watched a few old Grand Prix from 1992. Williams completely obliterated the opposition, there really wasn't much racing going on. But I think everyone agrees that these were fantastic years and fantastic races. We had V12s, V10s, V8s, even Boxer 12s, and cars which were very different to each other, with nothing being specced. I think making the things that make a F1 car what it is, i.e. the core mechanicals and aero, a standard part, is a step against the spirit of the sport. A tight formula - yes, a spec - no.
Salamura said:
People focus a lot on the "show" element of the sport, and forget that it's never been about that. (...) I'm all for leaving the engineers to find innovative solutions, and to have cars which are different and unique, even if that results in less overtakes.
(...) We had V12s, V10s, V8s, even Boxer 12s, and cars which were very different to each other, with nothing being specced. I think making the things that make a F1 car what it is, i.e. the core mechanicals and aero, a standard part, is a step against the spirit of the sport. A tight formula - yes, a spec - no.
Either (...) We had V12s, V10s, V8s, even Boxer 12s, and cars which were very different to each other, with nothing being specced. I think making the things that make a F1 car what it is, i.e. the core mechanicals and aero, a standard part, is a step against the spirit of the sport. A tight formula - yes, a spec - no.
1) make it exciting by letting engineers find innovative solutions and have the diversity of different configurations on the grid, like it used to be.
2) Or create spec for bits that get in the way of excitement and create processional racing, like e.g. the ridiculous front wing.
The way it is right now is neither 1 nor 2.
Although to be fair this year has been pretty exciting so far, but that's mainly thanks to factors other than cars and their design.
Salamura said:
even if that results in less overtakes..
Use of the work "overtakes" is half the battle. Nobody want's to see lots of overtakes. That's what DRS gives you. Lot's of overtakes.What people get excited about is close racing. As in physically close, not always in lap time. I could happily watch 2 cars battle for a position, for an hour, with perhaps 1 overtake if any. So long as it's an actual battle with the cars overlapping in the braking zone.
Munter said:
Salamura said:
even if that results in less overtakes..
Use of the work "overtakes" is half the battle. Nobody want's to see lots of overtakes. That's what DRS gives you. Lot's of overtakes.What people get excited about is close racing. As in physically close, not always in lap time. I could happily watch 2 cars battle for a position, for an hour, with perhaps 1 overtake if any. So long as it's an actual battle with the cars overlapping in the braking zone.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff