I have seen the article about LcdM hpoing that with the new rules aero will be less important to performance. I think it goes the opposite way round: the more the rules put constraints on aero, the more aero becomes important.
I think we have ssen that from 2008 to 2009: with the new rules for 2009, with much less freedom, aerodynamicists have had to step up their game and look into details they had not fully exploited before. The differenc between good and very good has widened.
I agree that in 2014 the engine will be a big performance differentiator also - but narrowing the legality boxes and banning things will increase the performance potential of aero instead of reducing it in my opinion.
For once I have to agree with Montezuma as x calls him. F1 makes too much effort to spend money on aero and too much to restrict what can be done on the power train and suspension side. Next year we will probably have parity but then again power will be frozen and aero will be basically unlimited. There are no measures in place to similarly limit what teams can spend on aerodynamics. There need to be either a budget cap or homologation of aerodynamic packages. Either that or they free the engine development either. Unfortunately we do no have enough power train manufacturers any more in F1 to get an equilibrium with the chassis constructors who will always vote down mechanical design freedom. It is an issue that needs some guidance from the federation IMO. As Monte says the way it is now F1 is still unattractive to automotive companies like Porsche and Audi who prefer to compete in LMP1 because the rules offer more freedom and make more sense to them.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
I think di montezemolo's comments a born out of frustration to be honest. For the last 5 years they have been beaten by an aerodynamically superior car with a less powerful engine. His comments echo Enzo Ferrari who also thought engine and drivetrain was what the sport should revolve around. The reality is Aero will always be a vital part of racing fast cars, no matter what you do to the regulations. That isn't going to change and perhaps he should offer Adrien Newey an obscene sum of money to design a Ferrari instead of moaning.
I do agree with him, however, same as WhiteBlue, F1 needs to find an balance. I think F1 should revolve around 3 main areas, Aero, powertrain, mechanical.
Id love to see a aero dominant Red Bull up against a active ride car and a car and a car that is powerful as it can be.
I think its time to peruse F1 in a power and mechanical direction, however ideally id like to see every team go down a different direction with their resource, however without a proper and just RRA F1 cant have parity.
I read once that Force India uses a car with active ride in their straightline car, the cost for the active ride was €350,000 for the car, the car would be 1.5-2 seconds faster and take a pit stop off the race distance if it was allowed to be used. I just dont see why tech like this cant be used. Yes the best resourced teams will still be able to run a season going in two directioons, but maybe not in the third.
Id happily give more freedoms back to the suspension and powertrain guys if i thought that they could instantly take Red Bull out of the picture. If the Mercedes and Ferrari guys could add 40hp extra to their cars and make their cars better on tyres over the invincible RB9 id be happy to do so, however it must be done in a economically viable way and not a lets put rocket fuel into the engines way or lets put X material into the engine to make it 4.2Kg lighter where the material costs €3m per engine.
Im happy with the present spec ECU as it prevents a lot of things going on that were bad.
However, i do draw the line at fully active aero, however id like to see flexi rear wings back again, as long as they passed a load test, id give the aero guys a little more freedoms in their technologies, but for that they must give alot back to the mechanical and powertrain guys.
How to do it financially?
Engine only manufacturers (Honda/Renault) get €100m per year, Constructors (Williams/Force India) get €150m, however manufacturer only teams (Mercedes/Ferrari) shall have a overall budget of €230m. The reason is that they can have a budget for developing both, makes them go down 2 paths and not 3 that would give them an advantage. However engine only manufacturers must then have all their engines that are produced for racing all within a 1% power bracket for all teams so that Renault cant have engines that are 30hp more powerful than the ones in a Caterham or Toro Rosso.
Its about getting a freedom of engineering expression within a set of regulated and fair rules. Making sure there are more than just 1 way to skin a cat. And if there is a protest about something, it is decided within 24 hours, and if it can be, the result stands. So if there is something that a team has found a loophole to, either copy to gain or forget and go home with regulations standing for the year unless theres a safety need.
The only reason why Aero is so important is because there is no possible development in the mechanical side. A large part of the diversity in the earlier days was that a car could win because it was superior on the mechanical side for example. It cold win a race, and the next be nowhere.
I understand the need to keep the race engines for multiple races, but just allow development in them. Why do we need different manufacturers if they all run the same engine due to rule restirictions? I would love to see a team running a larger angle, an in-line engine etc. etc. Due to consumption rules teams would all be on a similar level.
Personally, I think the ruleset should be opened up a little, I think that tires could be a great piece in limiting the cars pace, even though they could go much faster. Might make the Pirelli's useful too. Not only that, but it would allow changes in the field every race. One race the car with huge downforce might win, because it suits the circuit, the other a lower weight car because it suits that trakc better. Also it brings back the aspect where the driver could make the difference.
I do not like the refrainf "aero should be limited, because we make cars not planes/satellites" (the satellites' one was funny); besides this opinion of mine, what I believe is that the more the rules become restrrictive on aero, the more aero craftmanship can emerge.
That is what I think happened in 2009: with the 2008 rules, it was easier for a well funded team to bulid a car with good aero, building a lot of winglets and aero conditioners specific foer each track; since 2009, with much less elements to work on, the difference betwen teams very good at aero and just good has become bigger[youtube][/youtube]
I agree with Shelly. The more you restrict the level of aero, the more effort is needed to find the small improvements. As downforce is the single most important way of getting a fast lap time, so those who can find the improvements get the best lap times. That's why the RedBull is so quick - it's got the best aero package. FdeM was happy with the rules when they were winning every year a few years ago. Funny that, eh?
The only way the FIA can make aero a non-issue is to have fully defined bodywork. So the teams can not make their own wings, floors, sidepod covers, engine covers etc. If the teams are allowed to design their own within FIA-set limits then one team will get a better design and gain more downforce. If they do, they'll be quicker than anyone else.
So, if you want to reduce aero's importance you need to accept GP2-style cars. Allow the teams to design their own engines, suspension and gearboxes and that's it.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Just_a_fan wrote:I agree with Shelly. The more you restrict the level of aero, the more effort is needed to find the small improvements.
...
Why the point is to eliminate the areas where the effort can be made, the ghoulish frontwing is one such, ditch it in the rules.
As I said, the only way to do that is for the rules to define every surface with which air comes in to contact. If the teams are allowed to shape a surface then they will use that to create downforce.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
I have nothing good to say about his comments. Pretty pity situation he is in.
Aero is a major part of the modern car design and it is arguably cheapest to develop.
I am all for more free rules but he is not saying that. He is saying "rules should be in line with Ferrari's strengths" which is smt pretty shameful to say.
shelly wrote:I have seen the article about LcdM hpoing that with the new rules aero will be less important to performance. I think it goes the opposite way round: the more the rules put constraints on aero, the more aero becomes important.
I think it´s the same no matter how much or little aero you have.
At the end of the day someone is going to have more then the rest.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"
Montezemolo should better stay silent on that issue. Ferrari puts a lot of effort into aero and most likely is using more wind tunnels than any other team. Also their engine is far from being the best on the field.
I'm convinced that F1 has got it wrong for the post 2014 years. IMO the ACO got it much more right. More design freedom and better balance of aero vs engine vs recovery. LMP1 will become a hot bed of manufacturers fighting spectacular battles with fascinating freedom of technology in the years to come. F1 could take a leaf out of their rule book.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
