In reply to codrus :
Is it because they are spec chassis/aero or because the spec aero is such low downforce? Karts have no aero and the chassis and engine combos are numerous and they follow right on each others bumpers. MotoGP have many different chassis and aero packages but because of little downforce, they are right up on each other.
The way I understand it is due to the way the downforce is made. F1 is not allowed much in the way of undercar aero. Undercar aero is much less susceptible to "dirty air".
In reply to wvumtnbkr :
Right, so if Formula 1 just had a spec single plane, low downforce front wing and allowed ground affects, they would have much closer racing and would save a ton of money because those front wings are around $250,000 each (How much money has Romain Grojean cost the team?).
The undercar aero is part of it, but I think the biggest factor is that the downforce is just a lot lower in order to reduce drag (and thus raise Formula E's fairly miserable top speeds by a bit). Less downforce means you don't lose as much following someone in dirty air.
Unfortunately, lower downforce is (IMHO) really only possible because it's a spec chassis. The problem with aero is that downforce is far and away the biggest performance improvement you can make in a modern race car, so it's the place that teams spend their money. Historically, attempts to lower downforce through regulations on wing size, configuration, etc have had an effect for a brief time, but the teams recover it fairly quickly by spending a ton of money on new CFD & wind tunnel work. The only really effective way to limit it given the kinds of budgets that F1 teams have is to go with spec parts.
loosecannon said:In reply to wvumtnbkr :
Right, so if Formula 1 just had a spec single plane, low downforce front wing and allowed ground affects, they would have much closer racing and would save a ton of money because those front wings are around $250,000 each (How much money has Romain Grojean cost the team?).
AIUI, underbody aero is massively more efficient than wings which is pretty much why it was banned in the first place. I suspect if you allowed open underbody aero you'd see a huge jump in total downforce, a huge jump in cornering speeds, and now every high speed corner on every circuit is unsafe due to a lack of adequate runoff.
If you add spec wings and spec underbody aero and spec diffusers and spec everything else that would go along with it, you've destroyed the concept of an F1 constructor.
Even then, the big teams will win because Mercedes spends more on CFD than the bottom teams have for an entire budget for the year.
I've said it multiple times, I'd like to see the regulations opened up and a spending cap imposed. Unfortunately, it will never happen because the big teams don't want their advantage taken away.
Mercedes has something 4x the employees and budget of a team like Force India. Of course they can't compete.
One thing to remember when comparing aero across classes is that it becomes rapidly more important as speeds rise. I'll bet downforce increases with the square of speed like drag does. With Formula E pootling around, aero has far less effect. Meanwhile, at F1 speeds, it's probably the easiest and cheapest way to separate yourself from your competition.
z31maniac said:I've said it multiple times, I'd like to see the regulations opened up and a spending cap imposed. Unfortunately, it will never happen because the big teams don't want their advantage taken away.
More importantly, it's essentially impossible to enforce. How do you decide whether money spent by the parent manufacturer is F1 research or dual-purpose, proprietary R&D that's being done primarily for the street cars and only used on F1 cars as a secondary benefit? How many sets of books do you require to be open to prove stuff? I can guarantee that no manufacturer is going to be happy to hand over their corporate accounting files to the FIA. (I wouldn't be surprised if doing that would actually be illegal under securities/etc laws).
Even if someone came up with some kind of definition, you're going to have teams arguing over whether or not a particular expenditure counts. People complain about championships being decided by which team can hire the better engineers and aerodynamicists to design a better car -- add something like this and now you've got championships riding on which team has the better accountants and lawyers. No thanks.
I'm not advocating spec chassis or all aero, just the front wing. Teams could go sick on rear aero but the balance would be terrible so this would limit how much downforce they could get. The front wings wouldn't even look the same because they would be single plane and the perfect place to splash a sponsor decal. I really think a shift away from aero grip to mechanical grip would be great for close racing.
codrus said:z31maniac said:I've said it multiple times, I'd like to see the regulations opened up and a spending cap imposed. Unfortunately, it will never happen because the big teams don't want their advantage taken away.
More importantly, it's essentially impossible to enforce. How do you decide whether money spent by the parent manufacturer is F1 research or dual-purpose, proprietary R&D that's being done primarily for the street cars and only used on F1 cars as a secondary benefit? How many sets of books do you require to be open to prove stuff? I can guarantee that no manufacturer is going to be happy to hand over their corporate accounting files to the FIA. (I wouldn't be surprised if doing that would actually be illegal under securities/etc laws).Even if someone came up with some kind of definition, you're going to have teams arguing over whether or not a particular expenditure counts. People complain about championships being decided by which team can hire the better engineers and aerodynamicists to design a better car -- add something like this and now you've got championships riding on which team has the better accountants and lawyers. No thanks.
Correct, no one is able to control spending in any sport, business, or investment.
"I don't want accountants and lawyers" determining the championship, "I want the company with the most money to determine it."
Adrian_Thompson said:Ross Brawn says F1 could go all electric in 10 years
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Breaking news- Alonso will not be in F1 in 2019.
Interesting wording. ‘Leaving F1’, but nothing about leaving McLaren.
https://www.mclaren.com/formula1/team/fernando-alonso/mclaren-confirms-fernando-alonso-decision/
In reply to racerfink :
Not surprising. I may tune into some more Indy car road races if he ends up there. Hoping he also goes back to Le Mans.
McLaren is probably hoping that Vandoorne also announces his retirement from F1.....maybe he will have better results next year if he sticks around. He certainly has shown promise in other series.
In reply to T.J. : I thought driving for Toyota, that you can't race in a competiting Japanese company such as Honda in Indycar. I read that in one of the many what if Alonso stories. He could really pet his ego in WEC with the Toyota domination.
Driver weight minimum coming? 80 kg? 176 lbs? Most of those guys are under 160 lbs.
Where is this headed? Add weight to the car to make up for the 145 lb driver and then all cars weight exactly the same with driver?
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/1003352/lewis-hamilton-f1-news-driver-weight-rules-2019
I think it's a good change for the drivers. Before, it was just the total weight of the car and driver and, to meet minimum weight and be able to utilize ballast anywhere they wanted, the teams pushed the drivers to be lighter. This rule basically separates the car and the driver by saying part of the overall weight of the car and driver has to include 80kg in the "driver area". Depending on the rules, teams may still push drivers to be lighter so they can move the ballast to the bottom of the seat (for example), but it should hopefully allow for drivers to be heavier. Take a look at Webber in the RB heydays. His face, specifically, became more and more thinner as he tried to drop weight. At some points, he looked sick because he'd lost so much. For guys like him and Button who were 6 ft tall, they had to lose a lot.
Some interesting reading that rule changes (like the halo addition) caused extra weight on the cars, so teams turned to the drivers to try to make up the difference. That can't be healthy....
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/133983/fia-working-on-f1-driver-weight-limit-for-2019
-Rob
I read a bit where Lewis talked about it. He seemed happy to be able to train differently, add a bit of meat, and still be competitive. He was able to keep his weight reasonabIy close, but had real sympathy for taller guys, like Mark Weber. I think a large part of the trick is that they now have to carry any driver compensating ballast up higher. Used to be a skinny guy got to sit on a big pile of weight. Now, its up at chest height apparently, so the benefit to having a refugee physique is far less important.
Well Sainz has signed with Mclaren, will be interesting where Ocon goes.
T.J. said:In reply to racerfink :
Not surprising. I may tune into some more Indy car road races if he ends up there. Hoping he also goes back to Le Mans.
I watched a F1 talk/comment video last night and the panel of three Brits seem to think he'll go to IndyCar. They suspect he really wants an Indy 500 trophy and just wants a challenge of racing in a series where the car is less of a deciding factor. He also seems to be leaving the door open to come back to F1 if either a "Top 3 team" seat becomes available or McLaren becomes more competitive. There was also a rumor that McLaren might, might - start an Indy Car team, although they didn't consider it likely. Personally, I can't see a manufacturer like McLaren being happy buying a spec chassis built by someone else, so I'd agree with it not being likely, although maybe the road car division may be an associate sponsor.
In reply to Ian F : The Indycar experts (Robin Miller & Marshall Pruett) believe that McLaren is coming to Indycar, more then likely will be associated with Andretti, whether that is purchasing the Harding (Chevy engine) team or the many other silly season scenarios. Rahal is another landing spot for Mclaren, as they are expanding to 3 cars next year. There has been talk about Penske dropping Simon P and picking up Alonso. The experts believe that a decision has already been made and everything in motion, otherwise Alonso wouldn't have made the move. They believe the announcement will come after the season.
Spa this weekend. So far I haven't read that driver changes for 2019 will result in swaps for this race.
I hope Hamilton can extend his lead. This and the GP of Japan are the two races I look forward to. I am excited for practice.
The thought of McLaren back in Indycar using a spec car instead of one made in-house makes me throw up in my mouth a bit.
I thought Gasly going to RBR was not too surprising and seems like a good fit.
T.J. said:I thought Gasly going to RBR was not too surprising and seems like a good fit.
Only if they don't play him like they did Bourdais. He has the skills if the team will get behind him. RB is rather toxic team. A lot of snide comments made even about their current drivers.
You'll need to log in to post.
