Yes, I agree with that too. Again, it's an area of development that could have some application to road cars which, for me (and probably the majority of lay men), is more interesting than the finer points of aerodynamics which are lost on most.Trocola wrote:I think they should have done something with KERS. Since they introduced in 2009, the rules have been the same: 6,6 s and 80 bhp. They could increase the time of using it, one second each year. 7,6 seconds in 2010, 8,6 in 2011, this year 9,6... The same power output, but more time, wich is not too expensive, as cars can produce much more energy while braking
I think exactly the same. F1 should be more like DTM: 2 mandatory pit stops between two given laps. And then, drivers can take different approachs: stay with the same tyres, change them and go faster but with traffic...ell66 wrote:I agree about the tires, there crap...I wanna see drviers going for it, pushing for every last tenth, not tippy toeing around trying to keep the tyres in one piece. If they want extra stops mandate that teams need to stop a minium of 2/3 times a race.
I disagree... no marbles implies no degradation, which destroys the primary reason we're getting overtaking now – because people have tyres that have degraded more than others.MIKEY_! wrote:Tires with less (or no) marbles would make for much more overtaking.
Your suggestion sounds plausible to me - although I have to say I wasn't previously familiar with the coanda effect and therefore expected this year's regulations to stop exhausts being used in this way!MIKEY_! wrote:Here's an idea to stop the exhaust being used for aerodynamic purposes:
Have a mandated exhaust pipe size, shape and position from the point at which it leaves the sidpods to the exit. Have the exit in the area above the sidepods where no bodywork can be placed so no coanda or downwash will be of use. Have the exit in line with the rear of the engine, aimed between the beam wing and rear wing, with no angle inwards/outwards or upwards/downwards. This would mean exposed pipe so an FIA regulated aerodynamic cover might be required. Opinions please
Charlie Whiting wrote the following statement.WhiteBlue wrote:Also the paragraph about limiting the downforce to 1.25 tons was interesting. As we all know it was opposed by the teams and they brought in their own solution. Charlie now confirms that the target has been missed by 100%.
I would explain it as that the downforce limit was too difficult, practically impossible to enforce.Charlie Whiting wrote:Considering the possibility of a downforce limit
CW: Yes, there has been lots of talk about that. In fact, at the beginning of 2009 when we introduced the new aero rules for the wider front wing, arguably, what we wanted to do was restrict overall downforce – though, arguably, it didn’t work particularly well. We drafted a regulation that restricted downforce to 1250kg but it is extremely difficult to police, so we ended up, unfortunately, with more restrictions on the way cars are designed. As usual, the rules were intended to work with a certain level of downforce but the designers have doubled that.
Downforce is not the sole performance parameter, is it?N12ck wrote:downforce limits take the fun out of f1, like, all the cars will be the same! which means no decent race, this is becoming more and more like indycar, we want to see different cars not same cars,