You're not the only person thinking that...bhallg2k wrote:I still don't see a logical basis for such a rule. I think it's because one doesn't exist.
This is just about tailoring F1 to suit one person's megalomaniacal desires.
What is megalomaniac about the idea of avoiding ultimately useless aerodynamic research? F1 cars need a certain amount of aerodynamic downforce to reach the performance they are supposed to have and to be entertaining.bhallg2k wrote:I still don't see a logical basis for such a rule. I think it's because one doesn't exist.
This is just about tailoring F1 to suit one person's megalomaniacal desires.
thats not exactly trivialWhiteBlue wrote:You actually cannot measure downforce alone. You need to measure the balance of all three forces as they occur on the wheels. Hubs or wheel bearings could be a good spot. And then the SECU needs to compute the weight/mass of the car and the inertial forces in order to subtract them from the balance. But as previously shown it would not be a big deal.flynfrog wrote:just for sake of actually talking about something technical. Where do you plan to put the DF sensor?
WhiteBlue wrote:What is megalomaniac about the idea of avoiding ultimately useless aerodynamic research? F1 cars need a certain amount of aerodynamic downforce to reach the performance they are supposed to have and to be entertaining.bhallg2k wrote:I still don't see a logical basis for such a rule. I think it's because one doesn't exist.
This is just about tailoring F1 to suit one person's megalomaniacal desires.
That does not mean that one always has to destroy the aero configuration as soon as it is optimized and replace it with a completely arbitrary set of new geometrical rules that make no more sense than the configuration before. That is completely artificial and brings no progress at all. It is like wrecking the Golden Gate Bridge every year and rebuilding it in order to stimulate the economy. Nobody would do it.
The money would be much better spend in suspension, engine, material and energy recovery technologies. Those are activity fields that could generate useful solutions to real world problems.
The current focus on optimizing a row of ultimately useless aero configs unfortunately is the darling of all constructors. They do not want the money to go into techologies that they do not dominate. So it looks like we will have to live with the status quo for a long time.
The megalomaniacal part is because every time you get the bright idea to save something from itself, you almost always begin your rationale with the words, "I want." I think that's very telling. You also seem to want changes that no one else wants, a fact that never seems to bother you.WhiteBlue wrote:What is megalomaniac about [...]?
This post confirms a misunderstanding of the objective and a wrong concepts about aero in road cars.flynfrog wrote:What real world problems do you really think F1 will solve? As I pointed out earlier your rule would do nothing to limit spending on AERO just changes the focus. Last I checked Technology flowed up from F1 not down from it.
Right now the biggest gains to be made it fuel consumption in the real world are areo problems not suspension not engine. But once again F1 will have nothing to do with fixing either of those.
It is not trivial indeed but compared to other things that have been done in F1 (active suspension, two way telemetry, sophisticated engine mapping for downforce generation) it is a task that can be solved with relative ease. After all aircraft and submarines have done it for fifty years. You once solve the problem you automate the solution and then you can forget that there once was a problem. You just have to do it. And there lies the crux. The constructors have an agenda that does not agree with the motivation. They do not want that technologies common in general automotive fields are promoted in F1 because it would not suit their own competencies.flynfrog wrote:thats not exactly trivialWhiteBlue wrote:You actually cannot measure downforce alone. You need to measure the balance of all three forces as they occur on the wheels. Hubs or wheel bearings could be a good spot. And then the SECU needs to compute the weight/mass of the car and the inertial forces in order to subtract them from the balance. But as previously shown it would not be a big deal.flynfrog wrote:just for sake of actually talking about something technical. Where do you plan to put the DF sensor?
Your point being...?WhiteBlue wrote:And there lies the crux. The constructors have an agenda that does not agree with the motivation. They do not want that technologies common in general automotive fields are promoted in F1 because it would not suit their own competencies.
Your post confirms you lack of a grasp on reality F1 has never been and never will be about research for road going cars. Your solution to freeze DF levels will not begin a shift away from areo as I pointed out earlier.WhiteBlue wrote:
This post confirms a misunderstanding of the objective and a wrong concepts about aero in road cars.
The objective of the DF fixing rule proposal is avoiding to spend money in aero research that is wasted on irrelevant configuration changes. The money should go into engineering fields which are relevant to high performance and average vehicles.
The reversed flow of technology is because F1 has the wrong incentives. It would be better to free up the rules in technology fields that attract more automotive companies. We have only two who are really involved beyond sponsoring and they have often enough criticised it.
Aerodynamics is actually a very small activity in the road car industry compared to engine, combustion, ignition, turbo charger, fuel injection, down sizing, electrification of ancillaries, hybridization, battery, electricity storage, light weighting with affordable materials, and other fields of research.
In case the downforce is to be limited explicitly to a comparatively low amount - e.g. 750 kg - any fuel consumption limit becomes unnecessary, as cars would lack the required amount of grip for a constant increase of engine power. Particularly if Formula 1 would adopt all-weather tyres which last the entire race distance as well.WhiteBlue wrote:I have little doubt that with current electronics and advanced sensors a real time computation of the total downforce is possible.
It should be possible to regulate the available power by adapting the fuel consumption rule in the future. If you also enforce a legal downforce level you can limit aerodynamic activities to drag reduction.
All one has to do is look back at the turbo era to see that low grip did absolutely nothing at all to thwart increases in engine power. Cars during that period featured extremely powerful engines, often well over 1,000 bhp, and aerodynamics that were still in the nascent stages of development. There's no reason to doubt that this would happen again if a downforce cap was introduced in concert with a loosening of other regulations.Pingguest wrote:In case the downforce is to be limited explicitly to a comparatively low amount - e.g. 750 kg - any fuel consumption limit becomes unnecessary, as cars would lack the required amount of grip for a constant increase of engine power. Particularly if Formula 1 would adopt all-weather tyres which last the entire race distance as well.
It would allow a massive deregulation in areas such as engines (any design to be allowed), weight, bodywork (ground effects, fans, active aero, active suspension), transmission (four-wheel drive, maybe even CVT) and tyres (no longer standardized). I doubt any regulation stipulating a minimum longevity - e.g. post-qualifying parc fermé, five-race gearboxes and the maximum of eight engines per season - would be necessary either. As creating a winning car will become a matter of creativity, intelligence and human instincts instead of using an increasing amount of resources, costs may well go down.
