-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
'Focus On Aerodynamics Unacceptable'
- Thread starter Panther_99FS
- Start date
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
Wing_Z
Charter Member 2011
That's right, you'd expect a little more complaining from him when it suits McLaren, or Red Bull, or...
Aerodynamics affect a vehicle's performance from as little as 50km/h.
If you want to remove aero tuning from F1, you could limit top speed to 49km/h.
Now that would make for an exciting season!
Hey All,
I don't understand his complaint. What is preventing him from working on other parts of the car?
I realize that maximum return on investment probably comes from working on aero but if he takes the attitude that winning doesn't matter what's the problem? Can't he work on other "stuff"?
What would be the point to working on the engine as he suggests? More power? We have to limit speeds. Clearly in racing safety of drivers (and fans) is priority 1 - we've certainly as a species evolved beyond putting life and limb at serious risk - didn't Senna and Earnhardt teach us that? Otherwise what meaning would their deaths have? Haven't you noticed how common it is for people to try to make meaningless deaths mean something by changing laws further restricting freedom - all in the name of safety? Isn't that what human life on earth is all about today?
-Ed-
I don't understand his complaint. What is preventing him from working on other parts of the car?
I realize that maximum return on investment probably comes from working on aero but if he takes the attitude that winning doesn't matter what's the problem? Can't he work on other "stuff"?
What would be the point to working on the engine as he suggests? More power? We have to limit speeds. Clearly in racing safety of drivers (and fans) is priority 1 - we've certainly as a species evolved beyond putting life and limb at serious risk - didn't Senna and Earnhardt teach us that? Otherwise what meaning would their deaths have? Haven't you noticed how common it is for people to try to make meaningless deaths mean something by changing laws further restricting freedom - all in the name of safety? Isn't that what human life on earth is all about today?
-Ed-
wombat666
Administrator
'Aerodynamics' on open wheel racing cars are a complete waste of time and resources, they are simply useless and have no place in motor racing unless the cars are envelope bodied.
Engine design should really be 'free'.
Limiting the amount of fuel allocated for a race, as in Gr.C, would return the engineering back to its rightful place.
Toward the end of the 'Turbo' era of Formula 1 fuel allocations produced parity between normally aspirated and turbo engined cars, Honda in particular designed engines that were economical and powerful.
Ed, the present regulations are so restrictive (all engines must be V8s, with the same V angle, a fixed crankshaft length, along with so many stupid 'parity' tweaks it strangles engineering) that the designs revolve around air flow and allows little or no innovation in the engine design.
Aerodynamics should remain on aircraft.
Engine design should really be 'free'.
Limiting the amount of fuel allocated for a race, as in Gr.C, would return the engineering back to its rightful place.
Toward the end of the 'Turbo' era of Formula 1 fuel allocations produced parity between normally aspirated and turbo engined cars, Honda in particular designed engines that were economical and powerful.
Ed, the present regulations are so restrictive (all engines must be V8s, with the same V angle, a fixed crankshaft length, along with so many stupid 'parity' tweaks it strangles engineering) that the designs revolve around air flow and allows little or no innovation in the engine design.
Aerodynamics should remain on aircraft.
Wing_Z
Charter Member 2011
Colin Chapman would've disagreed...and the Lotus 72 demonstrated why.
It immediately showed an improvement of 20km/h top speed over the Lotus 49 - with the same engine.
A modern F1 car creates sufficient downforce to be able to drive on the roof of a tunnel at 130km/h. That's hardly "useless".
Actually, I don't understand what your point is, at all...
Hey All,
I'm not sure I totally understand the complaint either. My gut feel is that the emphasis on aero is for a couple reasons. The first is cost savings in that engineering aero and engineering mechanical like engines and gear boxes would be cost prohibitive to a lot of teams. I don't know this but suspect it is the case. The second is the fact that the only way cars can get faster in F1 and lots of track racing for that matter is to reduce lap times through aero design. I suspect this has the added advantage of increasing downforce hence a less likely flying car to maim drivers, crews or spectators. So by focusing on aero your promoting reduced cost, some aspects of speed and safety all at the same time.
Is this consistent with the idea that spawned F1 in the first place? No probably not. All kinds of racing at the top series have fundamentally gone away from their roots basically due to costs (competitiveness) and safety. Was racing better "back in the day"? Well to those of us who saw it yes in many respects it was but in other respects no it was not. Will we ever go back to the roots of racing? No we never will - nobody is willing to spend the money, nobody is willing to take the risk (business and liability) and nobody has the sheer pride which will not let them quit when they do poorly. It's a business investment decision pure and simple.
JMO
-Ed-
I'm not sure I totally understand the complaint either. My gut feel is that the emphasis on aero is for a couple reasons. The first is cost savings in that engineering aero and engineering mechanical like engines and gear boxes would be cost prohibitive to a lot of teams. I don't know this but suspect it is the case. The second is the fact that the only way cars can get faster in F1 and lots of track racing for that matter is to reduce lap times through aero design. I suspect this has the added advantage of increasing downforce hence a less likely flying car to maim drivers, crews or spectators. So by focusing on aero your promoting reduced cost, some aspects of speed and safety all at the same time.
Is this consistent with the idea that spawned F1 in the first place? No probably not. All kinds of racing at the top series have fundamentally gone away from their roots basically due to costs (competitiveness) and safety. Was racing better "back in the day"? Well to those of us who saw it yes in many respects it was but in other respects no it was not. Will we ever go back to the roots of racing? No we never will - nobody is willing to spend the money, nobody is willing to take the risk (business and liability) and nobody has the sheer pride which will not let them quit when they do poorly. It's a business investment decision pure and simple.
JMO
-Ed-
wombat666
Administrator
Well........I can't see any value in driving upside down in an F1 car ....
And that old myth has been around since the days of 'Ground Effect', during which time a Porsche 962C and a contemporary NASCAR (mid to late '80s IIRC) ran several comparative laps at one of the big ovals.
The NASCAR was considerably faster than the 962, as no ground effects won out over the Porsche that was 'sucking' itself to the track surface, of course, at Le Mans (for example) it would have been the opposite.
Aerodynamic detailing of the current 'Formula 1 Cars' costs more in time and money than engineering.
Wind tunnels of a suitable size and properly equipped are affordable by the major teams, the minnows end up buying obsolete equipment or renting time in generally unsuitable facilities, Lotus in 1988 were crippled by doing just that!
Chunky actually designed the 72 as a vehicle with greater mechanical grip and smaller frontal area than the 49, and FWIW, Lotus ALWAYS received special 'development' engines from Cosworth, which practice continued right up to the early 80s.
The aerodynamics were really not a big part of the initial 72 'package', as with most cars of the time they were only useful in trimming the car out, and obviously Chunky was happy enough to remove wings completely in an effort to gain extra speed ...... Rindt paid the price for that experiment!!
I know we can't go back as Ed has pointed out, but the very best open wheel racing today takes place in a series where wings are no allowed, Formula Ford.
I'll get 'orf me soapbox now!
:ernae: