I seriously want to see F1 run free(er) regulations with a budget cap. Engineering is all about efficiency and the development spending should be no different.
Just think about the 2010 cost-capped cars...that should be enough to make people drool =D>
Max Mosley knows all too well (and has stated) that F1 should be in the pinnacle of motorsport and retain it's main enticing values (fast, loud and complex cars) and it is obviously why he wont just cut downforce to a fraction of even 2009 levels.
Putting my serious hat on for a second, I really would like to see a return to 1996/1997 regulations as they were true racing cars. Those regulations with a budget cap would be a dream come true for me. I mean, just look at this:
kilcoo316 wrote:An artificial downforce limit is a silly idea.
If you want to limit downforce, quit beating about the bush - eliminate the diffuser - imposing a flat floor everywhere (use the shadow plate ruling) and cut the rear wing to 1 element.
They can drastically cut downforce to 10% current levels easily. They just choose not to.
Why eliminate the diffuser? Those are road car relevent, wings are not... plus they still provide DF when following another car unlike wings.... wings should be minimized and underbody aero should be allowed back in... intelligently, something more akin to what they run in the indy 500
Again, guys, here you go on discussing means to reduce downforece by banning this and getting rid of that. That's nothing new. That's what we see every year.
Imagine these simple rules.
1. Aero: min/max dimensions and hights + DF limit (possibly reduced slightly every season to maintain avg. speeds)
2. No refueling and limited tank capacity (reduced slightly every season to improve fuel efficiency). More or less free rules for engines.
xpensive wrote:Not only the technical benefits you mentioned mod, imagine having cars that actually might look different in shape
As I said. More entertaining for the fans too.
Jersey Tom wrote:I strongly disagree with this. You don't need to spend lavish amounts of money to be at a talent peak.
But not THE pinnacle in comparison to say LMS/ALMS who'd run w/o budget caps.
Before considering downforce levels and how to manage them, political considerations have to be addressed. The powers in F1 (Bernie, Max, etc.) know that one major appeal of Formula One is the amazing cornering speeds. But cornering speeds have to be controlled, else we find ourselves in the dilemna of the ground effects era, where cars and drivers were just going too fast around corners. There is a limit to human physiology and we have reached it regards cornering levels.
Personally, I'd love to see leading edge tech with fly-by-wire computerized controls, sprouting moveable wings and exotic, experimental powerplants. But it just ain't going to happen kids, that's the sad but harsh reality of Formula One politics and the direction it is going.
We're entering an era of spec components. Right now there isn't too much on a Formula One car. But it's coming. Heck, right now all powerplants seem to have been reduced to parity. Gone are the days of, for instance the start of the turbo era, when Renault showed up with a 1.5 liter turbo. It sucked down low in revs, but once up to full song, it delivered amazing power. It delivered power in a very different way than the norm, and had to be driven differently than the rest of the pack. We just don't see that disparity anymore, no powerplants stand out, they all seem quite similar. All the fan is aware of is when an engine fails or has issues, and has to be changed. Notwithstanding the concerns of the teams that manufacture their own engines, a spec powerplant wouldn't change the fan's perception of the spectacle of the racing. Of course there will be devoted tech-heads (such as the participants in this forum) who will always know the differences, but we are the minority.
There are many who express the opinion that Formula One is and should be the pinncale of technology in racing. Personally, I have abandoned that lofty utopian ideal. The truth is less kind. Man is planning for a manned mission to Mars. The ITER and LHC are coming online soon. We have nanobots, exotic chemistry, drone aircraft capable of independant combat, tons more of examples. But a Formula One car is old tech. Sure, the teams use state-of-the-art communications and management techniques, but the fundamental technology was invented before most of the readers of this post were born. Internal combustion engines with poppet valves and round pistons. Carbon fiber chassis. Hydraulic brakes, and the list goes on and on.
So why not spec underbodies? I actually agree on this one. And further down the road, the rules clean up the bodywork even more, finally ridding the cars of flip-ups, diverters, and anything else sitting out in the wind just to adjust airflow. If the rules can be adjusted so that certain components cannot improve, then the teams will spend their limited money elsewhere. If studies can identify that the greatest gains can be made by changes to the wings, none for the underbody, and just a very small gain from body change, then the teams are going after wing changes..followed by some interest in body changes.
At present, I support the idea of an FIA supplied underbody, rules requiring a cleaner bodywork, and wings carefully controlled in their size, number, and location.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
Because they kill the front end downforce of the car behind.
ISLAMATRON wrote:plus they still provide DF when following another car unlike wings....
Unfortunately, that will only result in understeer.
ISLAMATRON wrote:
wings should be minimized and underbody aero should be allowed back in... intelligently, something more akin to what they run in the indy 500
I disagree. Enforce a flat floor everywhere and a maximum blockage ratio between the rear wheels.
That will mean the following front wing will get cleaner air (unfortunately, the turbulence caused by the wheels will persist), and more importantly, it will be largely free of upwash.
Look at the lower formulae. They have wings, but they also have much smaller underfloor effects than F1 - and they can battle closely.
Because they kill the front end downforce of the car behind.
ISLAMATRON wrote:plus they still provide DF when following another car unlike wings....
Unfortunately, that will only result in understeer.
ISLAMATRON wrote:
wings should be minimized and underbody aero should be allowed back in... intelligently, something more akin to what they run in the indy 500
I disagree. Enforce a flat floor everywhere and a maximum blockage ratio between the rear wheels.
That will mean the following front wing will get cleaner air (unfortunately, the turbulence caused by the wheels will persist), and more importantly, it will be largely free of upwash.
Look at the lower formulae. They have wings, but they also have much smaller underfloor effects than F1 - and they can battle closely.
Quite the opposite... GP2, like Indy car rely much more on underbody down force and ground effects, which is why they can follow so closely, as we saw from the comparo vid of the cars in testing this winter when they ramped up the diffuser it did seem to lessen its effect on the front wing... but that would not be as big a deal if they relied more on the ground effects/underbody aero more.
Please watch the Indy 500 this weekend and watch how they can dice at high speed(200+ mph) with single plane front & rear wings. This is the direction F1 needs to move towards in the future.... plus it is much more efficient downforce/drag wise, those cars can reach 230 with much less hp and fuel usage. I understand that is not the F1 goal, but reducing the fuel consumption is something F1 is keen on and lowering the drag is the best way to get that done as xpensive likes to remind us, CONSTANTLY. How to lower the drag and keep the downforce? switch to underbody, ventury, ground effect type downforce which is much more efficient.
It is common knowledge that underbody aero on a single-seater produce understeering cars.
One idea I had is to extend the front wing rear-ward underneath the suspension arms to give more area for ground effect. This would allow smaller rear wings.
=D>
