Suggestions to reduce downforce

Tough sh*t, quite simply. The grooved tyres ruined the F1 careers of Damon Hill and Alex Zanardi, but we still have them.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ie, you can not have boxy sidepods on the worlds
> quickest cars can you? besides, how would changing
> the sidepod shape make a difference? make
> understanding of the latest undercut pods is that
> they have better vortex () control from the
> bargeboard and help better seal the floor, or so I
> have been told Though agree about the winglets and
> crap. before the winglets, sharp edges and sticky
> out bits we had good racing battles.

It's the shape of the latest sidepods (the top of and trailing edges at the rear), coupled with the diffuser and the lower rear wing, which is making following another car so difficult. It's natural shape sucks air upwards on leaving the car, taking that air stream away from the front wing of any following car.

Taking away the winglets isn't going to make much difference in my opinion. They're just more devices through which dirty air can hamper your own car, not so much the air being dirtied from those on the car in front.

They should just be banned for the aesthetics of the things.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tough sh*t, quite simply. The grooved tyres ruined
> the F1 careers of Damon Hill and Alex Zanardi, but
> we still have them.

Really I just thought it was the "going to arrows instead of jordan" and then "going to jordan instead of mclaren" decisions. Still, he did very well I thought considering how much difference the car makes in this sport. Hungoring still amazes me to this day.

H E L L O

Hill couldn't drive on the grooved tyres. He complained that they were unstable and susceptible to darting along straights.

Did they introduce them in 97 or 98? I thought 97 at first but now I am thinking 98. I know they then added an extra groove a year later too.

H E L L O



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2007 05:19PM by Daniel Knott.

1998, which is also the year the cars got thinner. Villeneuve spoke out agaisnt the regulations very strongly and got a slap on the wrist for it. Hes another driver who didnt suit the new regulations and you've got to beleive that if Montoya had been in F1 before 1998, he'd have suited those older tyres too.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Daniel Knott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DaveEllis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tough sh*t, quite simply. The grooved tyres
> ruined
> > the F1 careers of Damon Hill and Alex Zanardi,
> but
> > we still have them.
>
> Really I just thought it was the "going to
> arrows instead of jordan" and then "going to
> jordan instead of mclaren" decisions. Still, he
> did very well I thought considering how much
> difference the car makes in this sport. Hungoring
> still amazes me to this day.

Eh, I wasnt quite a fan of Damon Hill, but I was amazed when he put a strong performance in his Arrows @ Hungary. Definately a champion, not a legend, though.

---

"I'm an artist, the track is my canvas, and the car is my brush."

I think Damon was massivly over-rated but I also think he deserved a place on the F1 grid where the grooved tyres denied him the chance.

Similarly, Alex Zanardi is one of the best raw talents I've ever witnessed, but the carbon brakes and especailly the grooved tyres killed his F1 career and left him struggling to get a decent CART driver after that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Zanardi did try steel brakes at Williams but it didn't help him much as they made the car heavier and slower to stop compared with the others on carbons. The grooved tyres certainly didn't help.

Tbh Zanardi was never impressive in F1 before he went to US, maybe his style of driving suited Champ Cars more than F1 cars.

Zanardi did try steel brakes at Williams but it didn't help him much as they made the car heavier and slower to stop compared with the others on carbons.

They helped alot. Ran much better at Monza, crashed at Nurburgring (as did most people...), top 10 at Sepang after above average weekend, and a mixed weekend at Suzuka saw a retirement on lap 1 with electrical failure. Given how poor he was before, the steel brakes helped alot.

The car wasnt any heavier as ballast was simply removed from the car, to run it at the minimum weight. Since the brakes are spread evenly accross the car it doesnt really make much of a difference.

Tbh Zanardi was never impressive in F1 before he went to US

Really?

1991 he had 3 races with Jordan and got 2 top 10s.
1992 he was in a Minardi
1993 he was in a Lotus, scored a point at Brazil, the car broke most of the other races and he missed the end of the year with injury
1994 was more of the same. Lotus braking down constantly

He didnt set the world on fire no, but a lot of people make out he was poor in F1 before he left for America when he really wasn't tbh. Fine Mika Hakkinen showed him up in the Lotus, but Mika was a future double world champion who was able to take the fight to Senna.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Zanardi qualified well at Monza but he soon fell behind and had to let his team mate through, tbh i was really hoping for good results from Zanardi on his return to F1 it just didn't happen sadly.

Here's a statement from his website about his '99 season:


A summary of the 1999 F1 season

When I stepped off the cockpit, and the engine had been silenced by the nth debacle of an electronic system that during one whole year proved to be anything but reliable, I felt I had to say a final farewell to that car and, while walking towards the Suzuka box, I entertained a mental conversation with my Williams no. 5.

Maybe you'll think I'm nuts, but I always talked to the cars I drove throughout my career: before, during and after a race.

That's why I bade that wonderful single-seater farewell - but I tried to convey my sorrow for never having been able to get on well with her and love her, as I actually did so many times during my competitive past. My feeling was right: I'll never get into a Williams again and, as strange as it may sound, I am quite happy about it.

The whole story had been wrong since the beginning and was badly managed. The cause was not the poor expertise of some people, as it was printed on some magazines. Instead, it was due to the fact that we did not get along as far as finding the right approach was concerned, so that we could do our best, on both sides.

No doubt, there was not enough pressure on somebody's part for things to improve and some others even adopted an averse attitude. Basically, I believe that my adventure with the Williams failed exactly because of the above-mentioned reasons.

I certainly am responsible for it, as I should have imposed my ideas since the very beginning, when I had a way to do so, that is when the people who had chosen me still respected and trusted me. I did make a mistake - I challenged my feelings instead of other people's choices, I did not succeed in bringing up a competent working group that may help me achieve the results I hoped for.

On one occasion only, at Monza, did I get close to my limit and this was due to two basic reasons: 1) in Monza, we had six days of trials; 2) in Monza, thanks to a special feature of the asphalt, tires stay in working order for over 40 laps. With 'rationed out' tires and only three sets per day during trials, it is sometimes impossible, if one is not clear-headed, to develop the single-seater on the basis of the results achieved during the few "good" laps. In fact, once tires are deteriorated, the car becomes totally 'untouched' by any modification.

This explains the trick of my performance at Monza. Quite simply, the gap hindering my performance throughout the season was suddenly wiped out by the chance to have several trial laps, to get where my rivals arrived in a much shorter time.

I don't want to insist much longer - a word to the wise is enough. I know there will always be people who have a good opinion about me - and I must thank you, 'cause you really are a crowd - and I owed you some explanation. Other people think that Zanardi is just "motionless" - well, maybe the words I just wrote will only sound as excuses to them.

I will conclude by saying that I did not declare my withdrawal, since I love my job, which was very rewarding and I hope it will still be. I believe that any experience might turn to be a positive event, even if no new trophy goes into the collection.

I simply want to take my time to reflect and avoid repeating the same mistakes. I hope that, when you see me again on the track, you will still have a good time, not with cracks and jokes, but with my victories and my overtakings during the last lap. Bye!

P.S. My dear friends, during the past three months I received over 1000 e-mail messages, to which I could not reply. I cannot do it now person by person, but I plan to send a message to all of you - at least to thank you for your warm friendship.


"He didnt set the world on fire no, but a lot of people make out he was poor in F1 before he left for America when he really wasn't tbh. Fine Mika Hakkinen showed him up in the Lotus, but Mika was a future double world champion who was able to take the fight to Senna."

Yes i wouldn't call Zanardi's F1 career ('91-94) poor, just not exceptional or promising much imo. Hakkinen in all honesty only took the fight to Senna in qualifying, in the races Senna just left him behind. Plus correct me if i'm wrong but i don't seem to remember Zanardi being a team mate to Hakkinen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2007 07:48PM by mikef1.

The next year the Traction control is out. We will see the real talents of the drivers. That means more drivers battles. Example: Kubica (BMW) could overtake Massa (Ferrari). I don´t say that robert is better than felipe, but if Kubica is faster than Massa, maybe he can overtake, including that the BMW could be a little slower than the Ferrari

Traction Control wasnt the problem, its the "aero-dependency" of the cars the main problem. Like everyone said here a few million times, get rid of the extra aero devices, lower the frontwing and bring back the slick tyres. The ground effect that is used with success in GP2 is a must have.

With cars less dependant of aero efficiency, they'll look for mechanical grip and what FIA wanted to do with their ridiculous ideas - reduce cars speed - would finally happen, because with less downforce, the drivers won't go that fast in the corners, unless they have balls for it.

---

"I'm an artist, the track is my canvas, and the car is my brush."

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1991 he had 3 races with Jordan and got 2 top 10s.

The only time he wasn't out qualified by his distinctly average team-mate (de Cesaris ) he was beaten by him in the race. de Cesaris never finished either of the other races in which Zanardi was in but he was ahead of him when he retired in both... I'll let you off on one of those though, as de Cesaris was taken out on lap 1 after spinning on oil from Alesi's car in Japan.

The only time he wasn't out qualified by his distinctly average team-mate (de Cesaris ) he was beaten by him in the race.

Zanardi in his first F1 season (of which he only does 3 races), de Cesaris in his 11th year of Formula 1, it says more than he managed to out qualify his team mate once out of 3 attempts given the circumstances IMO.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Yes it was quite impressive for Zanardi to out qualify a driver known to be fast but curiously accident prone. That Jordan was a great car though.

Front Wing:
lower it and remove that crap off of it

Side Pods:
Remove the crap from it

Rear Wing:
Remove the lower wing

Under Body:
Bring back the ground effects

Diffuser:
Now this is a tricky one. Although removing it would clear out alot of dirty air, it would make the cars really hard to control due to the big loss in downforce. I say keep it, but make it so that it releases the air in a fashion that most of it would back under the trailing car

IMHO 1994 spec with high cockpit (like sauber after monaco) and without planks would be just fine. No active susp, no TC, 3.5l engines. I think we would get decent races

Neither the cockpit sides or the plank would make any difference to the racing at all...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

I think he's using it to describe what car he did mean, not just change those parts...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]