WhiteBlue wrote:Scotracer wrote:WhiteBlue wrote:
And this is the basic misconception. If downforce is limited there is no need to make any restrictions to aero configurations. Teams will automatically find the one which is best for the performance. The rules do noit have to be changed in the future to adjust to performance increases. The development will automatically reduce drag and turbulence for any config that is more efficient.
And this is a basic misunderstanding. I am
not supporting a downforce limit, I find the idea ridiculous.
You are not telling anything new. The last thing we need is another round of OWG delays. Last time they have only been used as an excuse to shoot down the downforce limit. Even P. Lowe from the OWG says that DDDs were the wrong thing to do and that too much downforce is the problem. He doesn't think that diffusor downforce is any more beneficial on wake turbulences than wing downforce. We now have as much downforce as in 2008. So should we give the tricky Dickies of F1 yet another opportunity to define aero rules which supposedly cut downforce but in reality will never do this? The aero guys have played everyone for sucker much too long!
The
last thing we need is some poorly conceived design decision made on the hunch of a random internet poster. We need a properly methodical and systematic analysis of the implications of each design choice
within the context of F1 cars. You can't just say "look, this bigger aircraft has a larger wake signature therefore...". That's an equivocation fallacy and correlation is
not causation. Until you have data to back up the idea of limiting downforce and opening up the ways in which that downforce can be produced not being either just as bad or worse for the overtaking situation I'll gracefully ignore your proposals...but I'll continue to point out how baseless they are.
I am not proposing a solution, I'm proposing
we find the actual problem.
Downforce, as an absolute is not the problem. The cars have more downforce this year than they had in 2008 yet they can follow each other more closely. Bang goes your theory. The intention of the 2009 rules was to reduce total downforce by 20-35% - they knew they'd never get the 50% first conceived but it was the DDD loophole, not foreseen that caused them to overtake the 2008 levels. And many, many engineers have said since then that the DDD has not had a negative impact on the situation. And until you can bring me the data I am asking for (and the only way to get the real data is for the OWG to get back to work) it's your opinion versus that of some very senior engineers in the F1 field, including Sam Michael. Now are we gonna run this on anecdotes, appeals to authority and other scientific no-nos or actually do it properly,
as engineers?
