2008 French Grand Prix - Race 8/17

penski said:
Ban rear wings - the rear end aero of current designs is what prevents other cars from following closely. Remove the rear wing and you let the cars run closer to each other and move the focus of the cars back to mechanical grip which brings us to...
Click to expand...
Personally I'd keep the rear wing, it's good advertising space if nothing else. I'm all for bringing back ground effect and getting rid of the front wing like some teams did in '82. With no front aero pieces to be affected it should be possible to follow closely through the corners while the underbody does all the work. It would need some fairly careful wording to regulate the tunnel dimensions and some kind of control over skirts etc but it should be do-able.

The scary thing is that you should also be able to generate a downforce reduction with this too - a Lotus 79 generates around half of the downforce of a modern F1 car.
 
Banning of rear wings? That would make F1 almost a completely different sport. Every other Formula racing series allows rear wings... That is just silly IMO. I doubt it is even feasible to do on a Formula car. You always have to have something pushing those huge rear wheels into the ground. So by banning the rear wing you would effectively completely change the sport altogether. The whole format and layout of the car would change.

I'm all for getting the cars to overtake and tussle more but surely there is a line that shouldn't be crossed? Both for interests of not changing the sport *entirely* from its grass roots and for modern day safety.
 
NathanE said:
Banning of rear wings? That would make F1 almost a completely different sport.
Click to expand...
What? Like tennis?
Every other Formula racing series allows rear wings...
Click to expand...
Not true.
That is just silly IMO. I doubt it is even feasible to do on a Formula car.
Click to expand...
Perfectly feasible. All it requires is a redesign of the car's bodywork to work within the new rules.
You always have to have something pushing those huge rear wheels into the ground.
Click to expand...
No...You don't. Do you realise just how much grip you get from a slick tyre? Even so, removing the rear wing does not remove all rear downforce, even on current cars. Do you understand aero in F1/in general?
So by banning the rear wing you would effectively completely change the sport altogether. The whole format and layout of the car would change.
Click to expand...
The only major physical difference would be the absence of a rear wing. You still end up with a wheel at each corner, a wing at the front, an engine in the middle and a jockey in front of it. I don't understand what pointtt, if any, you are trying to make here... :/

I'm all for getting the cars to overtake and tussle more but surely there is a line that shouldn't be crossed? Both for interests of not changing the sport *entirely* from its grass roots and for modern day safety.
Click to expand...

The sport's 'grass roots' is zero aero and wheel-to-wheel driving on skinny crossplies. Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

With regards to safety, even in the last couple of years we have seen some very big accidents that have resulted in nothing more severe than a bruised ego and dented pride. Both circuit and car design has come on in leaps and bounds since the post-Senna pussyfooting. Monocoque design, driver enclosement, post-impact component retention and flyaway design, and HANS-style devices have all made it very, very difficult for a driver to injure themselves. Look at Kubica last year; fifteen years ago, he'd be a footnote in an obituary column. Tracks now have huge amounts of runoff, high-grip tarmac runoff at that. No more bridge parapets and concrete walls on corner exits...

*n
 
Ban fuel stops?! Races would need to be around 30% less distance - crazy.
Ban rear wings?! Not required - just limit the amount of downforce they can produce (which they are going to do anyways).

F1 should still be a 'cutting edge' sport - let the designers and engineers push the rules to the limits and if a bad side effectg comes of it (i.e. aeros), limit them so they explorer new avenues etc.
 
penski said:
What?


*n
Click to expand...

just something from al murray :p


to make it more exciting and close racing they could add ballast to the winning cars, think they do it in touring car, then it comes down to driver skill and the slower cars can be in the race too. i watched the last few laps of a touring car race and it was more exciting than a whole F1 race.
 
Last edited:
Goksly said:
Ban fuel stops?! Races would need to be around 30% less distance - crazy.
Ban rear wings?! Not required - just limit the amount of downforce they can produce (which they are going to do anyways).

F1 should still be a 'cutting edge' sport - let the designers and engineers push the rules to the limits and if a bad side effectg comes of it (i.e. aeros), limit them so they explorer new avenues etc.
Click to expand...

umm ... they would make fuel tanks 3 times as big

or they could ..... oh never mind
 
penski said:
What? Like tennis? Not true.Perfectly feasible. All it requires is a redesign of the car's bodywork to work within the new rules. No...You don't. Do you realise just how much grip you get from a slick tyre? Even so, removing the rear wing does not remove all rear downforce, even on current cars. Do you understand aero in F1/in general? The only major physical difference would be the absence of a rear wing. You still end up with a wheel at each corner, a wing at the front, an engine in the middle and a jockey in front of it. I don't understand what pointtt, if any, you are trying to make here... :/



The sport's 'grass roots' is zero aero and wheel-to-wheel driving on skinny crossplies. Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

With regards to safety, even in the last couple of years we have seen some very big accidents that have resulted in nothing more severe than a bruised ego and dented pride. Both circuit and car design has come on in leaps and bounds since the post-Senna pussyfooting. Monocoque design, driver enclosement, post-impact component retention and flyaway design, and HANS-style devices have all made it very, very difficult for a driver to injure themselves. Look at Kubica last year; fifteen years ago, he'd be a footnote in an obituary column. Tracks now have huge amounts of runoff, high-grip tarmac runoff at that. No more bridge parapets and concrete walls on corner exits...

*n
Click to expand...
You're being completely unrealistic. Do you seriously want Formula 1, which is meant to be the pinnacle of motor sport, to go back in time as though it was the 60's? Whilst all the other formula series stay in the present?

Without downforce the slick tyres just grain away. Slip'n'slide is all there will be.

I'd love to see the "bodywork" that can generate comparable downforce as a rear wing. Maybe you should start up a new sport for your theoretical, unproven car design? :p

You question whether I know about aero in general... but now I have to question if you know about car physics in general! :p Do you seriously think removal of the rear wing will result in the same car layout??? Erm nope! To counteract the zero downforce at the rear they'd have to push the engine much further back, like a Porsche. At least that is one way. The side pods might get moved back too. Who knows what crazy solutions they would come up with. But for absolute certain the standard formula car layout would not remain in the sport for much longer.

Re the safety... my point was about bunching the cars up like you want to do in your new sport. There is a point IMO where accidents will occur far more often if cars are allowed to regularly get very close together.

Do you really mean any of this or are you being the devil's advocate?
 
NathanE said:
I'd love to see the "bodywork" that can generate comparable downforce as a rear wing.
Click to expand...
Like an 82 FW08 for example? Sure it has a rear wing but that's basically just there to provide some adjustable downforce to tweak the balance of the car. Virtually all the downforce comes from the undertray.
 
JRS said:
Like Heikki, he's had some poor luck with the car as well.

Australia - clutch failed.
Bahrain - gearbox failed.
Canada - brakes failed.
Click to expand...

And what about the other 5 rounds? :p I think he did well in 1 round (I cant remember which GP it was), but the rest of them, he has been abysmal.

I actually think he wouldve been best at Renault. He wouldve got the continuity from being in the same team and he wouldve been able to copy Alonso's set-ups, so he couldve concentrated more on driving the car. I think he wouldve been about 0.3s/lap slower than Alonso (which is what seems to be the case with Hamilton), however, at least he would've scored some points for Renault.

Piquet has been under immense pressure. And every bad result he gets, piles on even more pressure. So it becomes a vicious circle. And the worst thing is having Alonso as your team mate, who makes you look slow as hell. Piquet wouldve done well by joining a lesser team (with a slower team-mate) and gradually getting used to F1, becoming competitive and then making a move for a big team. Unfortunately for him, it looks like this might be his last season in F1, unless he can bring in some big sponsorship money, in which case he might goto a lesser team.

I dont know Piquet's history, but apparenly, he has done well in motor racing, until this year.
 
sunama said:
And what about the other 5 rounds? :p I think he did well in 1 round (I cant remember which GP it was), but the rest of them, he has been abysmal.

I actually think he wouldve been best at Renault. He wouldve got the continuity from being in the same team and he wouldve been able to copy Alonso's set-ups, so he couldve concentrated more on driving the car. I think he wouldve been about 0.3s/lap slower than Alonso (which is what seems to be the case with Hamilton), however, at least he would've scored some points for Renault.

Piquet has been under immense pressure. And every bad result he gets, piles on even more pressure. So it becomes a vicious circle. And the worst thing is having Alonso as your team mate, who makes you look slow as hell. Piquet wouldve done well by joining a lesser team (with a slower team-mate) and gradually getting used to F1, becoming competitive and then making a move for a big team. Unfortunately for him, it looks like this might be his last season in F1, unless he can bring in some big sponsorship money, in which case he might goto a lesser team.

I dont know Piquet's history, but apparenly, he has done well in motor racing, until this year.
Click to expand...

Just a quick comparison of Piquets first season in a Renault to Heiki's first season in a much poorer Renault:

Piquet after 8 races: 0 points - Highest finish 11th (Malaysia)
Heiki after 8 races: 12 points - Highest finish 4th (Canada)

Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is i'm surprised Flavio hasn't dropped Piquet yet!
 
tonyyeb said:
Just a quick comparison of Piquets first season in a Renault to Heiki's first season in a much poorer Renault:

Piquet after 8 races: 0 points - Highest finish 11th (Malaysia)
Heiki after 8 races: 12 points - Highest finish 4th (Canada)
Click to expand...

Piquet is certainly having a very poor season. He keeps driving his car off the track and getting DNFs.

I think Renault shouldve tried to keep Heikki, but perhaps, they felt that Piquet was going to be special (like Alonso before him). Obviously, they have to take chances on their drivers. Some pay off and others (like this one), dont.

Lets hope for his sake, he manages to keep it on the road tomorrow.
 
sunama said:
And what about the other 5 rounds? :p I think he did well in 1 round (I cant remember which GP it was), but the rest of them, he has been abysmal.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to think of a round this year where Piquet has done anything approaching "well".

Or did you think I was talking solely about Heikki and want to jump in with yet more bashing?

*checks rest of post*

sunama said:
I actually think he wouldve been best at Renault. He wouldve got the continuity from being in the same team and he wouldve been able to copy Alonso's set-ups, so he couldve concentrated more on driving the car. I think he wouldve been about 0.3s/lap slower than Alonso (which is what seems to be the case with Hamilton), however, at least he would've scored some points for Renault.
Click to expand...

Yep, seems so.

Remind me again - when has Heikki *properly* screwed up this year*? I mean, on the level of Hamilton's Bahrain and Canadian grands prix. His car has ****** up a few times, and he's been slower than Hamilton a lot, but at least he hasn't driven into the back of a stationary car in a pit lane.

sunama said:
Piquet has been under immense pressure. And every bad result he gets, piles on even more pressure. So it becomes a vicious circle. And the worst thing is having Alonso as your team mate, who makes you look slow as hell. Piquet wouldve done well by joining a lesser team (with a slower team-mate) and gradually getting used to F1, becoming competitive and then making a move for a big team. Unfortunately for him, it looks like this might be his last season in F1, unless he can bring in some big sponsorship money, in which case he might goto a lesser team.

I dont know Piquet's history, but apparenly, he has done well in motor racing, until this year.
Click to expand...

And as history shows, doing well before F1 can mean jack **** once you get there. If that wasn't the case, we might have seen Martin Brundle continue his rivalry with Senna where they left off in F3 for example.


***edit***

Just remembered - Australia, he hit the limiter button and allowed Alonso by into 4th. Not quite the same as missing a dirty great flashing red light and two cars stopped in front of you, but definitely an error.
 
Heikki: he also didnt unlap himself at Monaco, though he was so far back it didnt count for much.

In general, he has shown that he lacks the ability to compile points. Hamilton has made 2 big mistakes this year causing him to get no-scores. Heikki though, finishes races, but doesnt finish high up. He is getting beat by cars that are about 0.5s/lap slower than him.

I'd like to say he would be a decent No.2 driver, but he isnt. No.2 drivers have to defend their team leaders and when their team leaders get knocked out, they have to step up and pick up the pieces. They have to score points to help win the constructors title. Heikki isnt good at this either. He's a slow driver - plane and simple. I'm afraid there are far more deserving drivers in F1, to McLaren's 2nd seat. A lot of people malign Massa, but the fact is Massa mixes it with his team leader and with Hamilton (and with Alonso last year). Heikki is unable to do this.

I'd rather have Button in the other McLaren and thats saying something.

Speaking of Button. Honda seem to have taken a step backwards. Everyone except for ForceIndia have gone past them.
 
Honda could not just change the direction they were going in before ross arrived. If they are anything like us they would pretty much have designed most of their cars for this season long ago. Im sure some people think its easy to just turn things around when the going is bad.

Button is a class driver but just doesn't have the car under him to show his full potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom