FIA to ban winglets?
Posted by mikef1
maybe they could at least assign a team to design and build a car with ground effect technology of today, and see how it goes?
Lauda is talking about his experiences from over 25 years ago, surely a better system, or better way of coping with it from a drivers point of view, can be found?
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Lauda is talking about his experiences from over 25 years ago, surely a better system, or better way of coping with it from a drivers point of view, can be found?
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
would an active suspension system get rid of the need for the cars to be so hard ?
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Heh, mentioning Pironi in the thread about winglets makes me think of the Ligier JS11/15.
Muks_C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe they could at least assign a team to design
> and build a car with ground effect technology of
> today, and see how it goes?
Look at a GP2 car, as far as I'm aware the technology on the floor of the GP2 cars is far more advanced than what F1 regs allow.
The thing I have never understood is why the FIA put in the rule to raise the front wing for the 05 season, by a considerable amount to. Surely someone must have realised the side effects this was going to have...
But then the FIA aren't exactly making a good job of any series they run at this moment in time.
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe they could at least assign a team to design
> and build a car with ground effect technology of
> today, and see how it goes?
Look at a GP2 car, as far as I'm aware the technology on the floor of the GP2 cars is far more advanced than what F1 regs allow.
The thing I have never understood is why the FIA put in the rule to raise the front wing for the 05 season, by a considerable amount to. Surely someone must have realised the side effects this was going to have...
But then the FIA aren't exactly making a good job of any series they run at this moment in time.
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
Quote
gary42
IIRC, wasn't ground effect banned because it caused the cars to take off? And wasn't it because of ground effect that the Mercs flew at Le Mans a few years ago, and Alboreto had his fatal crash in the Audi R8 in testing? So bringing back ground effect cars may not be a good idea.....
I seems to remember reading quotes from several people in Autosport (including F1 tech people and drivers) at the time, saying that the Merc wouldn't have taken off if it had ground effects. IIRC, Prototypes were allowed them, but tin-tops had to have flat bottoms á la F1.
Quote
keiran
Look at a GP2 car, as far as I'm aware the technology on the floor of the GP2 cars is far more advanced than what F1 regs allow.
The thing I have never understood is why the FIA put in the rule to raise the front wing for the 05 season, by a considerable amount to. Surely someone must have realised the side effects this was going to have...
But then the FIA aren't exactly making a good job of any series they run at this moment in time.
I think you may be right about the GP2 cars. It's definitely the case with the World Series by Whoever cars.
I think that raising the front wings exacerbated the problem with cars following each other. Bearing in mind the amount of dirty air that is whipped up by the car in front, all they seem to have done is raised the front wing directly into it. I guess reducing the diffuser size this year didn't help
Ground effect would not necessarily be a bad thing. The GP2 cars actually use ground effect today, although nothing like how F1 used to be back in the 80s...mainly because technology has moved on alot since the 80s.
Ground effect would probably be a good solution, but people do seem to be stuck in the opinion that it is stupidly dangerous because they instantly think how it was back in the day, and not what you could do with it in this day and age. It is a good way of providing downforce without the turbulent air problem if developed correctly.
Ground effect would probably be a good solution, but people do seem to be stuck in the opinion that it is stupidly dangerous because they instantly think how it was back in the day, and not what you could do with it in this day and age. It is a good way of providing downforce without the turbulent air problem if developed correctly.
100% all for banning winglets
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
97kirkc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ground effect would not necessarily be a bad
> thing. The GP2 cars actually use ground effect
> today, although nothing like how F1 used to be
> back in the 80s...mainly because technology has
> moved on alot since the 80s.
>
> Ground effect would probably be a good solution,
> but people do seem to be stuck in the opinion that
> it is stupidly dangerous because they instantly
> think how it was back in the day, and not what you
> could do with it in this day and age. It is a good
> way of providing downforce without the turbulent
> air problem if developed correctly.
Agreed, and Kieren makes a good point.
thing is if (which is unlikley) this comes through, that the FIA agree to ground effects, my bet is that they make the underfloor standardized or some bollocks.
edit - or the regs would be so tight like in lmp that when u see one uve seen them all.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2007 12:24PM by chet.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ground effect would not necessarily be a bad
> thing. The GP2 cars actually use ground effect
> today, although nothing like how F1 used to be
> back in the 80s...mainly because technology has
> moved on alot since the 80s.
>
> Ground effect would probably be a good solution,
> but people do seem to be stuck in the opinion that
> it is stupidly dangerous because they instantly
> think how it was back in the day, and not what you
> could do with it in this day and age. It is a good
> way of providing downforce without the turbulent
> air problem if developed correctly.
Agreed, and Kieren makes a good point.
thing is if (which is unlikley) this comes through, that the FIA agree to ground effects, my bet is that they make the underfloor standardized or some bollocks.
edit - or the regs would be so tight like in lmp that when u see one uve seen them all.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2007 12:24PM by chet.
whats wrong with that chet?
the cars need to have tighter rules on them anyway, so they cant put these stupid aero devices all over them.
The problem with raising the front wing, is that the rear still produces the same, so all they did was cut the front grip. bit silly.
the cars need to have tighter rules on them anyway, so they cant put these stupid aero devices all over them.
The problem with raising the front wing, is that the rear still produces the same, so all they did was cut the front grip. bit silly.
NeilPearson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whats wrong with that chet?
>
> the cars need to have tighter rules on them
> anyway, so they cant put these stupid aero devices
> all over them.
>
> The problem with raising the front wing, is that
> the rear still produces the same, so all they did
> was cut the front grip. bit silly.
It was always nice to see other peoples solutions, and just say one team had a greater performance advantage, it was always good to know how and why. And underbody downforce has inspired some interesting things on cars.
And when they raised the front didnt they move the rear wing forward and made the endplates huge ?
at first the 2005 cars were uuuuugly, but ive gotten used to it now, but still when u compare lets the F2004 and F2005, the F2004 destroys the 2005 :p
Who was it that though of raising the front wing? Was it supposed to encourage more overtaking or just make the cars slower?
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
-------------------------------------------------------
> whats wrong with that chet?
>
> the cars need to have tighter rules on them
> anyway, so they cant put these stupid aero devices
> all over them.
>
> The problem with raising the front wing, is that
> the rear still produces the same, so all they did
> was cut the front grip. bit silly.
It was always nice to see other peoples solutions, and just say one team had a greater performance advantage, it was always good to know how and why. And underbody downforce has inspired some interesting things on cars.
And when they raised the front didnt they move the rear wing forward and made the endplates huge ?
at first the 2005 cars were uuuuugly, but ive gotten used to it now, but still when u compare lets the F2004 and F2005, the F2004 destroys the 2005 :p
Who was it that though of raising the front wing? Was it supposed to encourage more overtaking or just make the cars slower?
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
as i said Chet, to make the cars slower in the corners. which then has the added disadvantage of allowing even less following of another car through the corner.
the FIA did it in the name of safety as corneing speeds were too high, and steadily increasing year upon year. but what they were scared of is cars cornering sooo fast, that if something goes wrong mid-corner, the car would be thrown off the circuit at a huge speed, possibly giving us another Senna incident.
we want fast exciting racing, they want it to be slowed down and made safer and safer, diluting all the excitement out of it.
the last good looking cars IMO were 2003, before the huge engine covers were brought in for '04. just look at the beautiful curvy F2003-GA, compared to the big and clumsy F2004.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2007 02:08PM by Muks_C.
the FIA did it in the name of safety as corneing speeds were too high, and steadily increasing year upon year. but what they were scared of is cars cornering sooo fast, that if something goes wrong mid-corner, the car would be thrown off the circuit at a huge speed, possibly giving us another Senna incident.
we want fast exciting racing, they want it to be slowed down and made safer and safer, diluting all the excitement out of it.
the last good looking cars IMO were 2003, before the huge engine covers were brought in for '04. just look at the beautiful curvy F2003-GA, compared to the big and clumsy F2004.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2007 02:08PM by Muks_C.
Muks_C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as i said Chet, to make the cars slower in the
> corners. which then has the added disadvantage of
> allowing even less following of another car
> through the corner.
>
> the FIA did it in the name of safety as corneing
> speeds were too high, and steadily increasing year
> upon year. but what they were scared of is cars
> cornering sooo fast, that if something goes wrong
> mid-corner, the car would be thrown off the
> circuit at a huge speed, possibly giving us
> another Senna incident.
They could have done it other ways rather than make following in the turbulent air even worse. The easiest solution would be to limit the softness of the compound of tyre that Michelin and Bridgestone were allowed to produce at the time.
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as i said Chet, to make the cars slower in the
> corners. which then has the added disadvantage of
> allowing even less following of another car
> through the corner.
>
> the FIA did it in the name of safety as corneing
> speeds were too high, and steadily increasing year
> upon year. but what they were scared of is cars
> cornering sooo fast, that if something goes wrong
> mid-corner, the car would be thrown off the
> circuit at a huge speed, possibly giving us
> another Senna incident.
They could have done it other ways rather than make following in the turbulent air even worse. The easiest solution would be to limit the softness of the compound of tyre that Michelin and Bridgestone were allowed to produce at the time.
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
Yeah, that would have been good, how can that have been tested though?
And would be slightly harder to enforce that rule wouldnt it?
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
And would be slightly harder to enforce that rule wouldnt it?
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
@ Keiran, true, but the FIA don't think of sensible options, do they? they fix one "problem" and create 3 more.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Indeed. However, maybe adding a limited amount of ground effects á la CART would help, methinks.
Keiran's tyre suggestion is good, but it wouldn't *currently* work - because of the nasty aero wake, a car trying to follow another current spec car is only going to slide more on harder tyres. Damn you Max!
Keiran's tyre suggestion is good, but it wouldn't *currently* work - because of the nasty aero wake, a car trying to follow another current spec car is only going to slide more on harder tyres. Damn you Max!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.