Specifying performance is the most direct way of getting the outcome you want. Obviously you do have to actually specify it correctly, with mirrors and neck protection or anything else, but then you can get a better solution than trying to do the designing yourself. Because to do the designing yourself you first have to specify the performances anyway and analyse it for unintended consequences too
Hmm, that front wing looks ugly, though I suppose I will get used to it.MtthsMlw wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:04 pmhttps://i.redd.it/wv57xnxe8jr31.png
From reddit, uploaded to the Formula 1 LinkedIn page.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... urce=share
Besides the teams can already suggest safety features, if they want. But of course they don't spend extra money on safety.wesley123 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:22 pmNo offense, but that is probably the worst idea someone could implement.
Apart of the reasons stated above, there is no way to actually confirm the safety of the drivers in a reasonably, timely manner.
There are some things competitors shouldn't innovate on, and safety is one of those things. The innovation will revolve around performance, not safety.
it's not playing with safety to let teams design safety. they do it already with the nose for example - it just has to meet a force test. Same with helmets. HANS was developed with a crash test dummy presumably, instrumented for the various forces and accelerations, so if teams can meet the same criteria with a device that allows more sideways vision why shouldn't they? Does there need to be so much friction?
No it isn't, a good chunk of added weight is crash protection. Staying upside down for a while is not an increased safety issue. If the driver is seriously injured the marshals can't just drag him out anyway.
I doubt it. It won't compensate for lack of peripheral vision. You have to choose mirrors and focus your attention there.Capharol wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:34 pmThe only problem is.... those small mirrors, if they would made these a bit bigger (and use a better angle) the drivers has enoug to see what happens behind and on the side of them.....
i recall one driver was saying, why should we have these mirrors at all, you can't see a thing anyway with them...
mzso wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:22 amF1 would be better if the cars weren't as heavy as they've become, and yes FIA have to specify the safety, my point is they could specify the safety performance not the design or its weightizzy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:55 pm
But they wouldn't. They wouldn't spend time and money on something that doesn't increase the car's performance. They don't care.
Now if the FIA mandated something that requires both peripheral vision and lateral protection than they'd spend a lot on it to make it the lightest. (Won't improve competition though.)
Majority against new cars
The three top teams have prepared an alternative concept that gives the engineers a bit more freedom, yet does not miss the main goal of steering the turbulent air behind the car so that the following vehicle does not lose too much downforce.
The rule-keepers are ready to talk as long as CFD simulations or wind tunnel tests bring the same result as their own product. In the last version of the 2021er car the following car loses in a range of two car lengths only 10 percent contact pressure. Right now it's 50 percent.......
The teams must put forward good arguments if they want to score with their proposal. You have no chance by vote to avert the reform. The World Association is not bound by a vote by the teams because the Concorde Agreement expires at the end of 2020. There is only one vote in the FIA World Council, in which the teams are only represented with one vote from Ferrari. Not enough to block the 2021 regulations.
Why? Because they want a bit more design freedom, something that literally defines F1?
So same old, same old then.
Yes i agree, and after all the teams could be proposing the same concept just without the 50 boxes limiting it so much. Cos obviously part of Liberty's agenda is closing up the field, going spec, which is another thing