I've to say I'm bit perplexed because, while Whiteblue applauds my post and says to agree with what I said, he then says some things I don't really agree with indicating a position that is quite distant from my take of things...
I've to assume that presumably I didn't make my position clear enough, possibly trying to put too much stuff while contemporarily limiting length of post (not succeeding much...) it came out in words differently from how it was in my mind.
To make it clear, my position is lot more similar to flynfrog's, in that rules on bodywork should be made more open.
The only thing I don't agree with him is that generating downforce is easy. I don't think teams can, with current rules, easily generate as much total downforce as it would be optimal for the current tracks and with current power level.
In some tracks certainly that's the case (Monza, Suzuka, UK, Spa) but they are more like the exception, for most, almost all the others, optimal downforce is not easily reachable and for that reason for the most part the work done on aerodynamics is aimed at getting more downforce, being distant from optimal level the sensitivity of laptime reduction to downforce increment is just too high for teams to ignore it.
The analysis of speed data was aimed at that, showing with real data and in a way as easily readable as possible, which characteristics the current tracks have, and consequently on which direction teams work is naturally focused on, independently by bodywork rules.
Hardly the result is surprising though, one has just to look at the cars, in most of tracks the rear wing is maxed out or close to it, and that's not a coincidence; besides, I think that the fact the cars that, in term of performance, virtually dominated the last few years are typically also been the ones that universally were rated as generating highest downforce level, especially in the low/medium speed range (which is incidentally also the speed range where EBD was making most of difference) often at expense of peak speed, should be rather conclusive already.
So, in that sense my position is that, if one (not necessarily including me, but apparently FIA and many others) is unhappy about the state of things, and wants to move away the focus from pure downforce generation and induce teams to work also on how the downforce is generated (less drag, smoother reaction to variations of conditions like ride height thus allowing more freedom on mechanical setup, reduced sensitivity to external disturbances so to better work in the wake etc), the approach of constantly trying to directly limit downforce to a level lower than what teams would like to have is totally wrong and will bring nothing.
That applies to a limitation done via changes of bodywork rules (that just make teams focus on recovering df no matter the way, accepting more critical designs working right in a very limited range of conditions), and even more to the idea of putting an arbitrary limit of downforce as Whiteblue proposes (let alone one kept fixed for years...).
The latter actually would be IMO the most stupid approach, for a start because it really is not enforceable, for a variety of reasons; even assuming downforce could be measurable real time with the required accuracy, which probably is not, how would that limit work? Certainly can't be a single peak value as it's too dependent from speed, attitude and a quantity of other factors so already the ruling becomes a mess, go figure the application (and considering FIA's record...).
Then, even if such limit could be introduced it would just lead to teams wanting to beat it in any possible way and in a matter of weeks we would be submerged in an amount of controversies that would make the sum of all the various "-gates" of recent years look like nothing.
Last but not least, would certainly not make cars less sensitive to wake (likely more actually) thus wouldn't improve ability of cars to stay close each other, thus wouldn't improve racing.
IMO approach should be opposite, rules on bodywork should be made more open so to allow teams to easily be able to reach the downforce level optimal for most of tracks, that way the main focus would naturally move on other aspects of performance as the low hanging fruit (downforce) would be taken more easily and getting more would add nothing.
If then the downforce level is felt too high and speeds have to be controlled, then work has to be done on boundary conditions, engine power mainly, and track's layout then, which are the basic parameters defining the design philosophy of the cars.
xpensive wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:
Sorry, but Reca's analysis seems to contradict your thesis.
...
And what made this analysis the truth of the day, perhaps you subscribe to it but that doesn't give you the right to patronize on other people's opinions? I don't agree with Reca, but I respect another position, you should try that WB.
I certainly don't pretend to represent the truth of the day (if anything I would be the truth since years
as it's lot of time that I maintain these ideas, you can check my old posts in this same forum, I repeated a few times already that limiting downforce is a wrong approach IMO), and what I posted is nothing but putting together a few real data and couple of basic laws of physics.
If you don't agree with me, or these data, I'd like to know on which parts exactly, so maybe we can discuss them in detail.
