IRL to gain more Downforce for Ovals

[roost89]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76634 News that IRL will give the teams extra aero parts for more downforce on Ovals in an attempt to create more over-taking.

Admittedly I don't watch IRL often and when I do it's really late at night and I'm barely awake. I watched the previous race highlights and the overtaking was almost non-existant. IRL is going the opposite way to F1 for creating over-taking. Will the added parts aid passing or hinder?

[gcdugas]

I was just going to start a thread about this very thing. In principle I am against mid season rule changes but my comments were going to focus on the different attitudes towards the fans and the show. In F1 generally they are content with little passing. In other series they want to act quickly if there is no overtaking. I do think F1 is starting to wake up a bit but it is too little. This is due to Max's rule over the years. He unilaterally kept raising the front wing in years past which gives the cars less ground effect and worse characteristics in dirty air. We don't need movable aero, we need less wing and more power. Maybe even outlawing carbon brakes to make the braking distances longer. Also ban tire changes at fuel stops to encourage a race distance tire (less marbles) but a driver can change a flat spotted tire or all tires if he abuses them. It will cost him a pit stop though. (I predict that the ban on refueling will be a disaster)

But it is the attitude that I was going to address. F1 has had troubles with overtaking since the 1998 changes (grooved tires, narrow width). IMHO F1 was given a warning that something seriously must be done in the famous Bernoldi/Coulthard incident of 2001 when DC couldn't get past the Arrows of Bernoldi at Monaco despite being 3 seconds a lap faster. As soon as the fuel stops intervened DC was 3 sec faster to prove this point. And let's not forget the "Trulli train" phenomenon when lots of faster cars got stuck behind JT because he is such a good qualifier and gets his slower car high up the grid. F1 needs radical changes to address this but they haven't cared about it for a decade or more. In the American series they respond quickly only after a few races of limited overtaking.

[PNSD]

Bigger wings mean more slipstream.

if the wake isnt too much of a problem it should help!

[gcdugas]

Bigger wings mean more slipstream.

if the wake isnt too much of a problem it should help!

Bigger wings = more wake. You can slipstream a car with no wing. Areo-grip dependency is the problem. We need much less wing.


What is so sacred about 20K rpm and small engines? Why not allow 5 liter engines? They would easily make 1200+ BHP at 14K rpm. This would keep the lap times down and increase braking distances. MUCH less wing is needed. We need much more area of partial throttle. This would do it.

In theory if we had unlimited aero we would take every corner flat, there would be very limited passing (cars get "wide" in the corners) and the only difference would be in the car's aero slipperiness. If there was no aero, then the cars would be able to pass in mid-corner. We see this in tin-top series all the time. F1 needs this but they also need some wing or the lap times would be higher that other series which is unacceptable.

Large engines would be very reliable, cheaper and free from bogus homologation, we could see V8s vs V12s vs flat10s etc. Cheaper because no team is going to spend a gazillion dollars squeezing out an extra 10BHP when the lap is 85% partial throttle and the chassis can't handle more power. They will concentrate on suspension, traction, packaging, handling, etc.