Andres125sx wrote:Basically because I don´t want to trade one GE solution for another GE solution, but a wing based solution for a GE based solution.
Anycase GE is just an idea, the target is to reduce dirty air problem and you´ve stated yourself there are solutions wich would reduce the problem. Let´s talk about that instead of explaining why this or that solution will never work. I think nobody is defending a particular solution, we only want to discuss about how to reduce the problem as much as posible
The 2009 rule change already shifted performance from wings to ground effect. As it stands, the rear wing is basically the only aerodynamic device on the car that doesn't work like a venturi tunnel. Moreover, its efficacy has been diminished so much over the last few years that it's currently little more than a way to facilitate DRS.
What I've been trying to say here is that I don't think there's a solution beyond complete chassis standardization, and going down that route would only open the door to the mere possibility of increased overtaking. "Dirty air" is the symptom; it's not the disease.
We have to understand that F1 is in a rather unique position when it comes to racing. Driven by goals unrelated to "the show," its historical dynamo is simply incompatible with prolific overtaking...
Tim.Wright wrote:As always, it's close racing or fast racing. You can't have both.
In a spec-series, overtaking works because the prime performance differentiator is an imperfect biological entity, and every single car ostensibly has the capability to win on merit alone. This is not the case in a developmental series like Formula One where there are many potential performance differentiators and all but the driver are capable of near-perfect reliability. That ultimately means a 0.1s advantage is virtually insurmountable until the system that provides it fails, and F1 cars don't fail that often anymore. (Apologies to Renault and Honda.)
If you want to genuinely mitigate the detrimental effects of "dirty air," you have to standardize the entire chassis, because F1 engineers will quickly make a mockery of any and all half-measures. And if you want to guarantee that chassis standardization will increase overtaking, you have to standardize power trains for exactly the same reason. Otherwise, you're just trading one problem for another.
For me, the ideal answer is to restore F1's status as the Great Race Against Possibility. Who gives a --- about overtaking when you have cars flying around Monza at speeds up to 400kp or tackling Silverstone so quickly that g-suits wouldn't necessarily be an unreasonable idea?
Let's allow the cars to be both the tool and the obstacle.
rjsa wrote:Look at the floor pressures on your image. Where is the center of pressure? In the back.
The point discussed by me and a few here is that it must be brought to the cars center of mass. That simple.
And experience proves - from the 80's F1 cars and the CART/IRL up to today - that cars with GE tunnels can race close by. They can pass. On any track. Period. It's there, it's happened, it still happens. No amount of patronzing, CFD images and second hand wisdom will change that.
Prove it. At this point, it's probably more helpful to see it for yourself.
And I'm sorry for being so brusk with you. Like Pastor Maldonado, I'm not especially skilled at toeing the line between assertive and aggressive.
.