Most important technical development in F1?

[timbo]

Performance wise it has to be aerodynamics.

Agreed.
No over way to expand g-g-V diagram other than aero.

[WhiteBlue]

But a lack of performance has never been the problem for F1 in the last 30 years. Usually it is a problem to curb the performance. And in that regard aerodynamics have been very poor.

[xpensive]

Agreed WB, as difficult it could be to admit that, but as my former boss used to xpress:

"I'd take someone I have to hold back, rather than someone I have to push forward, any day of the week".

Nobody had a clue what aerodynamics would lead to when Ferrari showed up with that wing in 1968, just imagine a CanAm style "libre" aerodynamics rule after 1980, the cars might as well had been asked to run upside-down today.

Wouldn't be surprised if even Gyro agrees with that.

[WhiteBlue]

There is a reasonable limit for any performance and most technologies in racing reach that fairly quickly. You can find that principle in the performance drivers displacement, rpms, torbo charging, tyre development or aerodynamics. Each of these technologies can produce an unsuitable amount of performance which is detrimental to the safety and the sporting side of motor racing. This is why performance drivers get limited in a formula to provide for an interesting and safe sport.

The shitty thing with aero is that nobody got serious to restrict aerodynamics at the root of the performance generation physics. While displacement, rpms and even turbo pressure got restricted by physical values F1 has been messing around with geometric restrictions to an aerodynamic formula forever. It is no surprise that current F1 cars are completely aerodynamically dominated because the performance driver is effectively not restricted. This is not admirable. It is simply a cheat that aerodynamicists have come up with to perpetuate their reign on F1.

My view is that performance gains should be earned by improving the efficiency of any technology within the restrictions of a proper formula. Engine designers had to make real efforts to improve the efficiency to gain a competitive advantage out of restricted engines. I would love to see the downforce of F1 restricted like the displacement or turbo pressure of the engine. Then you could make a judgement how important aerodynamics really are. Alternatively fuel can be limited for aero use. It would impress me if an F1 designer gets one metric ton of downforce with 30% less power than another less worthy competitor. The current loop hole science in aero does not impress me as a really important technology. Sure you need bit of downforce, but how clever do you have to be to optimize once for a given force or power consumption? It would be done with 10% of todays aero budgets and money could be used for other more worthy performance drivers.

[xpensive]

Here's more of the same;

I used to be an advocate for a flat-bottom rule as long as there is a car to measure, but when I behold today's goulish front-wing contraptions and learn how important it is, while how detrimental the lack of it's downforce contribution is for overtaking, I say get rid of it once and for all?

If you ditch the thousands of Newtons of downforce at that end, there's little need to keep the same at the rear if you wish to make the car driveable. Studying the FIA technical-regulations as they are, outlawing all bodywork outside 250 mm from car's centerline, ahead of the front wheels, would be very easy indeed.

[aral]

Here's more of the same;

I used to be an advocate for a flat-bottom rule as long as there is a car to measure, but when I behold today's goulish front-wing contraptions and learn how important it is, while how detrimental the lack of it's downforce contribution is for overtaking, I say get rid of it once and for all?

If you ditch the thousands of Newtons of downforce at that end, there's little need to keep the same at the rear if you wish to make the car driveable. Studying the FIA technical-regulations as they are, outlawing all bodywork outside 250 mm from car's centerline, ahead of the front wheels, would be very easy indeed.

Or provide a spec, single plane wing??

[xpensive]

Naah gil, I'm somewhat allergic to spec components, thugh it's surely an idea, but see what it brought us so far?

[dren]

One of if not the biggest performance gain comes from the kind of tires used. I would then say it would be aero developments.

[seenathkumar]

We really need this kind of development. F1 fans always wait to see new developments and a single news excites them.

[autogyro]

If F1 followers wait for every little aero idea and upgrade they are acting in a very naive way.
It means the square root of nothing in the real world.
At last more people are starting to see how irelevent it is.

[timbo]

It means the square root of nothing in the real world.

Does it have to?
Does football or hockey mean something?
Why does F1 need to be a test-bench for anything?

[747heavy]

If F1 followers wait for every little aero idea and upgrade they are acting in a very naive way.
It means the square root of nothing in the real world.
At last more people are starting to see how irelevent it is.

What is it with your crusade against aerodynamics autogyro?
What makes one engineering discipline better then the other?

F1 is not relevant to road car engineering, and was not for at least the last 20 years -
so what?

Are another 500 rpm more on a engine which revs >18000 rpm (in the past) more relevant, then another 2 point of downforce?

Both are engineering achievments in their own right, and should be applauded or at least recognized - IMHO.

[WhiteBlue]

Racing engines revving at over 20,000 rpm and double diffusors are equally irrelevant to the real world of automobile transportation. They are simply incomparable to inventions like the fully stressed mid-rear mounted engine, the radial tyre, the turbo charger or the monocoque chassis design in my view. Those inventions will influence race, sports and road cars forever, while double diffusors and 20,000 rpm are gone after two years and will never be seen again.

[autogyro]

I agree with your points 747 heavy.
I have nothing against aero as a discipline in engineering.
My objection is that it now dominates F1 to such an extent, that nothing else even gets sensibly discused.

[Mysticf1]

The reason aero is discussed so frequently by fans is because it is visual, we can see it where as almost all other aspects of development are hidden behind a vail of secrecy.