F1technical.net

I doubt if a vehicle that relies on wings and aero devices won't be affected to some degree by the wake of the vehicle close ahead. I think this new wing is just to allow the car behind to get closer, almost in a "pocket" directly behind the lead car. It's not perfect or a total solution, it just reduces the negative aero effect the car behind experiences.
IMO, only a suction car, like the Brabham BT 46C would suffer less in such a scenario.

in my openion, that wing design looks like crap........im not going to get into technicalities, but for me it has the visual apeal of a dual fuselage airliner (theres a concept image floating around somwere, but i cant find it at the moment).....

if this wing allows yo to get closer in behind another car, wouldnt that also lead to more collisions? id hate to see the race where every car on the grid crashes out and noone finishes.......


one thing i want to see more than these aero concepts are more teams......i want to see 26 cars on the grid, and more variety of engine suppliers (or atleast multiple teams with the same engine supplier)....just as long as that doesnt turn it into a CART or IRL like problem, that is.....

Dont like the new wing, it looks like a 4 year old designed it. and i know it won't solve the overtaking problem because the teams will probably just add more "flip ups" and such things, to get back downforce, which will destroy the "downwash" (again it sounds like a 4 year old).

personally i think there should be a complete rewrite of the formula, instead of all these "band-aid" channges in a vain attempt to reduce speed and increase the spectacle of the race.

I would also like to see the engine rules brought up to date with modern technology, utilsing direct injection, variable valve timing, variable length intake/exhaust and other such things that are currently banned. but to limit power give them a maximum amount of fuel for a race, say 200 litres. and gradually reduce the amount each season

give the teams some freedom to innovate in aerodynamics, engines, suspension and materials. and the interest and spectacle of racing will return naturally.

in theory anyway

manchild wrote:Can’t the aero situation be observed in way that specific problem isn’t in a rear end of the car in the lead but in the front half of the following car?

I mean if following car would have low front wing and low nose with flat floor than there wouldn’t be a problem?

If that is so and since 2007 or 2008 we'll have again wide cars and wide slicks than why we wouldn’t have again low noses if that would fix the problem (which I doubt if seq. gearbox stays).

That's one way to look at the problem - from my limted aero understanding, quite a reasonable statement.

But why not also tackle the other end of the car too?

Bender wrote:Dont like the new wing, it looks like a 4 year old designed it. and i know it won't solve the overtaking problem because the teams will probably just add more "flip ups" and such things, to get back downforce, which will destroy the "downwash" (again it sounds like a 4 year old).

personally i think there should be a complete rewrite of the formula, instead of all these "band-aid" channges in a vain attempt to reduce speed and increase the spectacle of the race.

I would also like to see the engine rules brought up to date with modern technology, utilsing direct injection, variable valve timing, variable length intake/exhaust and other such things that are currently banned. but to limit power give them a maximum amount of fuel for a race, say 200 litres. and gradually reduce the amount each season

give the teams some freedom to innovate in aerodynamics, engines, suspension and materials. and the interest and spectacle of racing will return naturally.

in theory anyway

I always like the sound of a fuel formula with lots of freedom elsewhere (contradicts earlier stuff I said - I know! ). I suppose you could argue that with a fuel formula you risk turning the end of races into economy runs (it will happen). Also, you could argue that fuel efficiency is critical now - less weight to carry for a given car performance. My understanding is that Renault paid particular attention to the fuel consumption trade-off with their engine architecture this year - seemed to work Ok

Oops too many posts!

Here's one for Manchild..............

Nigel Mansell seems to agree with you

And although Mansell has admitted that he is not qualified enough to comment on the effectiveness of the new Centreline Downwash Generating (CDG) wing, he believes the sport's chiefs would have been better off getting rid of high-tech driver aids if they wanted to improve overtaking.

"They are all looking at it from the wrong point of view," explained Mansell. "They are blaming the cars for the aero problem.

"With the computer age, when was the last time a computer missed a gear? When was the last time a computer spun the wheel at the wrong time without traction control? Drivers now don't make mistakes unless they make a complete balls up.

"They have also taken some of the corners away like in Japan. The chicane there was great in my day. It penalised you if you missed it - you had to slow down for it. Now you can just drive through it and cause an accident if you want."

He added: "The point being that actually that if you want more overtaking or excitement in F1 then give the driver more input into the cars. Let him change the gear up and down when he wants to. If he screws up then you have got an overtaking opportunity.

"Then take away traction control. If you get a twitch then you get sideways and you slow down and you have an overtaking opportunity.

"What they have done it sterilise it with too many driver aids through no fault of the drivers who don't write the rules. Put the sport back in the hands of the drivers and all of a sudden you don't need all this bullshit."

RH1300S wrote:That's one way to look at the problem - from my limited aero understanding, quite a reasonable statement.

Well, it came from MY limted aero understanding


Thanks for the Mansell quote!

Now there is two of us charging at windmills (I'm the guy on donkey)

The only bad thing about getting rid of traction control is there is no way to police them and there is so many ways to hide TC. The only true was is a spec ecu but then that would make F1 retarded. no TC would spice things up a lil bit

i think fia could detect easilly the use of tc

the guy on the donkey is "Sancho Panza"

johny wrote:the guy on the donkey is "Sancho Panza"

…in original version he is but here in this topic Nigel is the guy on horse and I'm the guy on donkey

i knew manchild, just pointing it to not don quijote readers

how can the cars have the same/more down force with only half the wing they have now??. i know they can change the pitch of the wing but still!!!

and wont it make more turbulance for following cars, making it harder to pass??

change some downforce for some good slicks tyres

http://www.f1technical.net/news/1293

FW: Max Mosley brought several documents and sketches to China and he presented them to several teams – including ours.

Why did Max take such approach?
Unofficially, nothing important… just some sketches (as if they were made on paper napkin )

If AMD was doing CFD for FIA how come that best graphic Max had were “just some sketches”?
I’m not too familiar with CFD but I suppose since CFD of CDG was conducted than there must be a picture/graphic of much better quality and scale/precision than the ones Max brought along and published on FIA website?

Isnt the CDG just a concept that is being passed on to the TWG for evalution and approval ?

Where lies the problem ?

/ Fx