Idea to limit DF

[Pierce89]

I just found out Max Mosley had the same
Idea already. That's all the proof I need to know I had a bad idea.

[Tim.Wright]

You're kind missing the inability for f1 cars to put on a proper race. The car behind is always automatically disadvantaged. That seems dumb to me.

This hasn't been the case for a few years now, regardless of DRS. The combination of the narrower rear wings, neutral element on the front wing has all but removed this problem.

[Jersey Tom]

You're kind missing the inability for f1 cars to put on a proper race. The car behind is always automatically disadvantaged. That seems dumb to me.

I think the lack of "good" racing (or at least what I enjoy) in this series is more a function of [a] disparity in performance, crap tires, [c] few if any full course cautions. Though to be fair, I only caught bits of a handful of F1 races this year.

I still think some of the better open wheel racing I've seen in recent years is at the Indy 500, maybe last year's is what I'm particularly thinking of. Lots of slip streaming and a more even field => more quality passes.

[MOWOG]

I just found out Max Mosley had the same Idea already. That's all the proof I need to know I had a bad idea.

How embarrassing for you, sir! Hope you won't let that ruin your Christmas!

[Pierce89]

You're kind missing the inability for f1 cars to put on a proper race. The car behind is always automatically disadvantaged. That seems dumb to me.

I think the lack of "good" racing (or at least what I enjoy) in this series is more a function of [a] disparity in performance, crap tires, [c] few if any full course cautions. Though to be fair, I only caught bits of a handful of F1 races this year.

I still think some of the better open wheel racing I've seen in recent years is at the Indy 500, maybe last year's is what I'm particularly thinking of. Lots of slip streaming and a more even field => more quality passes.

I agree whole heartedly on the Indy 500. It's just a shame they ruined their credibility years ago ,because that ugly new car they got last year puts on a great show at every track.

[Pierce89]

You're kind missing the inability for f1 cars to put on a proper race. The car behind is always automatically disadvantaged. That seems dumb to me.

This hasn't been the case for a few years now, regardless of DRS. The combination of the narrower rear wings, neutral element on the front wing has all but removed this problem.

That's simply not true. I don't remember who, but one of TDs said at two carlengths back they lose 10% of DF and at one carlength back they're losing 17%. That's better than the 25% they lost pre2009, but the trailing car still loses a massive chunk of DF.

[Tim.Wright]

10% isn't much at all when you consider the same effect gives the following car a top speed advantage due to the slipstream.

When was the last time you heard a driver complaining that he couldn't follow someone because of the dirty air?

I haven't heard it at all since the reg changes in 09. We used to hear it every race before then.

[el-Magico]

10% isn't much at all when you consider the same effect gives the following car a top speed advantage due to the slipstream.

When was the last time you heard a driver complaining that he couldn't follow someone because of the dirty air?

I haven't heard it at all since the reg changes in 09. We used to hear it every race before then.

"Keep a 4 sec. distance, otherwise you destroy the tyres.."
I have heard that plenty this year..

[Lycoming]

You're kind missing the inability for f1 cars to put on a proper race. The car behind is always automatically disadvantaged. That seems dumb to me.

That's pretty much unavoidable unless you want them to run Nascar style aero, or reduce speeds to below 50 km/h. It wouldn't be F1 anymore if either of those things happened.

The racing now is not bad because they can't overtake due to aero, it's bad because the tires can't hold themselves together and because Vettel wins everything.

This:

"Keep a 4 sec. distance, otherwise you destroy the tyres.."

Wouldn't be a thing that people say if the tires didn't degrade so fast.

[marcush.]

sorry guys ,i really do not get your point.
It has been ALWAYS the case of :Abuse your material and you will certainly not succeed .so no changes there .Prost got his Professor label not for nothing -he got famous for nursing his kit whenever posible only leaning on it as the opportunities developped -you need to score the big points .
We see lots of drivers wearing out their tyres(or Aero appendages,or ..) in situations when nothing can be gained (apart from pride maybe) and ruining the whole work of a weekend in corner 1.... clever thinking that.

Abusing tyres has never been a good idea so the loss of downforce dictates a different approach to your attack style when trying to snap up an opponent.
but then I remember Mr.coulthard in a 4second per lap quicker car sticking in the gearbox of a Minardi ,Arrows or whatever it was trying to make a pass ...well weaving his arms he did -but forgot how to make use of the advantage of his equipment ,that is.
we see some guys with racecraft creating opportunities and others who think poking your nose into the gearbox of the guy in front is a valid technique of gaining a position.Certainly it is -NOT.
so why limit downforce when guys are prepared to build a train of cars throwing away tons of car potential and never really using the potential available -because they are unable to create the opportunity to make use of the cars potential if it were there.

[Smokes]

Didn't the FIA want to bring back ground effects tunnels to reduce costs?

[marcush.]

yes it´s montecarlo but still ..the racecraft of coulthard is just appalling .Bernoldi who really was never achieving anything played games with him ....embarrassing.

[bill shoe]

I just found out Max Mosley had the same
Idea already. That's all the proof I need to know I had a bad idea.

It's not a bad idea due to Max Mosley. It's a bad idea because it's a bad idea.

The problem with this system is that it gives optimum overall laptimes by putting on lots of downforce and then accepting a very artificially low top-speed along the straights. You gain all the time back (and more) with the downforce advantage in the corners. Basic sims of typical Tilke tracks confirm this.

Cars would drone along the straights at steady-state speeds that were limited by the underplank rather than the ability of the car to propel itself.

I'll go out on a limb and say Mosley was correct that limiting downforce via arbitrary dimensional limits on bodywork was/is crazy and irrelevant to anything outside racing. Just don't like his solution to that problem.

[Pierce89]

I just found out Max Mosley had the same
Idea already. That's all the proof I need to know I had a bad idea.

It's not a bad idea due to Max Mosley. It's a bad idea because it's a bad idea.

The problem with this system is that it gives optimum overall laptimes by putting on lots of downforce and then accepting a very artificially low top-speed along the straights. You gain all the time back (and more) with the downforce advantage in the corners. Basic sims of typical Tilke tracks confirm this.

Cars would drone along the straights at steady-state speeds that were limited by the underplank rather than the ability of the car to propel itself.

I'll go out on a limb and say Mosley was correct that limiting downforce via arbitrary dimensional limits on bodywork was/is crazy and irrelevant to anything outside racing. Just don't like his solution to that problem.

How could they do that with a plank wear test, though?

[bill shoe]

How could they do that with a plank wear test, though?

Sorry, do what specifically?