2012 Belgian Grand Prix - Spa

[turbof1]

That is hardly any different.

And that wasnt the point, the point was that reducing aerodynamic dependence by limitting what allowed will increase mechanical importance, however since the latter is so limited in what is allowed this does not happen. There is hardly any room for real improvement, some thing like the f-duct, something big. The only difference you can make is by improvements in dampers etc. but nothing big

The whole approach of making cars slower to increase safety is just wrong. Instead of banning, the FIA should make cars slower by making cars safer. That way cars can get faster without increasing risk for the driver.

[bhall]

The whole approach of making cars slower to increase safety is just wrong. Instead of banning, the FIA should make cars slower by making cars safer. That way cars can get faster without increasing risk for the driver.

I don't understand. Are you saying the FIA's approach is wrong, but they should continue with it nonetheless?

[beelsebob]

That is hardly any different.

And that wasnt the point, the point was that reducing aerodynamic dependence by limitting what allowed will increase mechanical importance, however since the latter is so limited in what is allowed this does not happen. There is hardly any room for real improvement, some thing like the f-duct, something big. The only difference you can make is by improvements in dampers etc. but nothing big

The whole approach of making cars slower to increase safety is just wrong. Instead of banning, the FIA should make cars slower by making cars safer. That way cars can get faster without increasing risk for the driver.

No one's making cars slower – they're making cars no faster.

[turbof1]

That is hardly any different.

And that wasnt the point, the point was that reducing aerodynamic dependence by limitting what allowed will increase mechanical importance, however since the latter is so limited in what is allowed this does not happen. There is hardly any room for real improvement, some thing like the f-duct, something big. The only difference you can make is by improvements in dampers etc. but nothing big

The whole approach of making cars slower to increase safety is just wrong. Instead of banning, the FIA should make cars slower by making cars safer. That way cars can get faster without increasing risk for the driver.

No one's making cars slower – they're making cars no faster.

Now now, lets not get into a interpretation discussion, you know damn well what I meant :p. Taken over several years cars are generally equally fast yes. Between the end of one season and the beginning of the next, cars are generally slower; its only that during the season teams tend to crawl it all back. So basicilly the same you said.

The whole approach of making cars slower to increase safety is just wrong. Instead of banning, the FIA should make cars slower by making cars safer. That way cars can get faster without increasing risk for the driver.

I don't understand. Are you saying the FIA's approach is wrong, but they should continue with it nonetheless?

No. I am saying instead banning concepts like f ducts, double diffusers etc, let them be but enforce extra safety measures on the car. Those extra measures are bound to make the car slower, but it does not block off the innovation.

[beelsebob]

The whole approach of making cars slower to increase safety is just wrong. Instead of banning, the FIA should make cars slower by making cars safer. That way cars can get faster without increasing risk for the driver.

I don't understand. Are you saying the FIA's approach is wrong, but they should continue with it nonetheless?

No. I am saying instead banning concepts like f ducts, double diffusers etc, let them be but enforce extra safety measures on the car. Those extra measures are bound to make the car slower, but it does not block off the innovation.

What extra safety measures are you referring to? How would they slow the cars?

[Richard]

I know the summer break means we're scratching around for something to say, but please try to keep vaguely on topic about Spa.

Posts debating car safety from this point onwards have been moved to the relevant thread. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13258&view=unread#unread

[godlameroso]

This is going to be a very interesting race, many teams can be competitive due to the nature of the track, it's not a Tilke drome at all, but mostly carved out of the natural terrain, it does not follow any preconceived notion of long straights followed by slow speed chicanes except the bus stop and La source, true the circuit has been made safer and slowed over the years, yet it still has the type of turns that you don't see anywhere else on the calendar. The chicanes at Spa have many different lines, unlike the high speed esess of a lot of other tracks like Suzuka, or Silverstone.

That said

The cars are actually slower this year, by a decent margin, the teams have not been able to claw back what Red Bull had last year. All the pole laps have been slower, all the race fastest laps have been slower, not only that the racing has been closer this year. Perhaps there is a delicate balance that needs to be struck, the cars have to have enough downforce to be the fastest machines on the planet by a wide margin, but they must also be difficult enough to control that it rewards the truly talented. Perhaps the spirit of the regulations is to strike this delicate balance, which itself is a moving target because the natural trend of humanity is to improve over each succeeding generation.

The regulations should function like a good suspension, flexible enough to handle any bumps, but not so soft that it goes out of control and vice versa.

[astracrazy]

Didn't RB run a crazy amount of chamber for Vettel to get pole last year? They seemed fine with the tyres during the race though - which was rather odd, based on the amount of controversy there was prior to the race.

They did, but didn't they have to change the camber and was allowed to under safety grounds? not sure, perhaps i'm talking bull. I remember a lot of arguments and suggestions flying around

[fiohaa]

F1 with grooved tyres was a joke

In-before-they-were-intentionally-brought-in-to-suit-Schumacher .

and all other drivers were having tyres made outta wood i believe

exactly.
also the only point is - not only did it make the cars difficult to drive and make them WORK at the wheel, to actually use some of that skill, but they could still drive flat out on them.

honestly if you saw some f1 cars in the wet youd change your mind about what is needed in f1.
they were having to use every bit of skill to keep it on the road, most of the drivers had very different ways of tackling that wet track, from what i saw. you could visibly see the differences in talent.

less mechanical grip, a LOT less, is the only easy answer.
the Aero you can't do anything about, they will always claw it back with innovation. THey can't do anything about tyres which give half as much raw grip though. Give them consistent, durable tyres with half as much grip, and let the entertainment commence.

[PlatinumZealot]

THe grip from the tyres does not change whether or not you are trailing another car, but the Downforce does... So the "can't follow another car" problem will still be there with harder tyres. Maybe they should just remove all the wings and rely on body derived downforce instead. Ground effects aren't so sensitive to dirty air...

[ajdavison2]

And would look cool as hell!

[fiohaa]

THe grip from the tyres does not change whether or not you are trailing another car, but the Downforce does... So the "can't follow another car" problem will still be there with harder tyres. Maybe they should just remove all the wings and rely on body derived downforce instead. Ground effects aren't so sensitive to dirty air...

DRS fixed that problem.
yes its artificial but motor racing simply didnt account for the level of turbulence caused by wings, thus killing any kind of racing.

i think DRS is good - it definitely needs a revamp, they need to understand exactly how big of an effect it has and adjust the zones properly so its not too easy. MAybe link it to GPS so when the driver is side by side with the other car, DRS cuts out immediately (infact surely that could be implemented now?)

if they did that, and brought back maximum attack durable tyres, all the worlds problems are solved.

[zyphro]

Didn't RB run a crazy amount of chamber for Vettel to get pole last year? They seemed fine with the tyres during the race though - which was rather odd, based on the amount of controversy there was prior to the race.

They did, but didn't they have to change the camber and was allowed to under safety grounds? not sure, perhaps i'm talking bull. I remember a lot of arguments and suggestions flying around

I believe they wanted to change them, but weren't allowed to (else they'd have to start from the pitlane). I seem to remember Newey being in tears, because of this event after the race?

[astracrazy]

Didn't RB run a crazy amount of chamber for Vettel to get pole last year? They seemed fine with the tyres during the race though - which was rather odd, based on the amount of controversy there was prior to the race.

They did, but didn't they have to change the camber and was allowed to under safety grounds? not sure, perhaps i'm talking bull. I remember a lot of arguments and suggestions flying around

I believe they wanted to change them, but weren't allowed to (else they'd have to start from the pitlane). I seem to remember Newey being in tears, because of this event after the race?

ye your right. I remember now.

[raymondu999]

Vettel stopped on L6, and Webber on L3 - not exactly your typical stop window... Lol. But it seemed while their tyres were blistering, there wasn't much structural damage going on. When the first stop happened for them with Webber on L3, they cut the tyre open and then calculated the strategy based on the data they saw