F1 2013 - The begining of the end

sunama said:
In years gone by, the general public would've said exactly the same thing...how/where are they going to make up the performance gap? Surely, this is an impossible task.
Click to expand...

No there have been loops holes, 6 wheels, fans, sideskirts, more recently f-duct they all get banned and similar ideas ruled out through regs, that stream of inventiveness gets harder and harder with each progressive regulation.


Then over the last 2 decades aero has been the main gain, but we are now approaching the last 1/10th of design. it's well understood and easy to extract the high 90% from the aero and costs millions and is very hard to find that last little bit.

other than the last few years, they have also been able to find time with engines both bhp and revs and things like the power curve.


all of these things will be outlawed in 2013, some have already been.
 
Morbius said:
I think the 2013 regs are very encouraging. I'd have preferred the wings to go altogether but it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I too would've liked to see the front and rear wings completely banned. Can you imagine though what the cars would look like? They just wouldn't look like F1 cars.
 
arknor said:
130r became a full speed corner you can even overtake on...
Click to expand...

No it didn't. Alonso did not overtake in the 130R he overtook before the 130R and swept in to take the correct line for entry. At no point have I ever seen anyone overtake in or on the 130R.

I agree with the idea that it's far too easy these days to take corners like these flat.
 
Well these new Aero regulations are actually quite encoraging.

Ground Effects could potentially massively reduce the whole 'dirty air' problem so people will be able to follow each other closer. Big fat grippy tyres and lower Aero could make for better racing.

However...back in the late 90's or early 2000's or whenever it was they raised the front wings the FIA made bold statements that they had "reduced overall downforce by 50%", but by the end of the first season most teams had managed to claw back about 40 - 45% of that 50% loss. So within a few years cars will be back to the levels of downfoce they have now.

But, IMO, Ground Effects = :D
 
People must remember that the designers in F1 are some of the best in the world when it comes to aerodynamics. It is therefore no surprise that soon after aero regs are changed, within a few months, the designers have found ways to claw back 90%+ of the aero which was lost.

For the above reason, the FIA really has to be tight on the aero regs. If they are not, loop-holes will be found and we shall be back to the days of taking corners at full throttle (as we saw in some instances this year), allowing the aerodynamics of the car do all the hard work.

I suggested the complete removal of the front and rear wing a while back, as I feel that designers shall be able to get reasonable amounts of downforce from the monocoque on its own. F1 cars would certainly look distinctive if they ran without wings.
 
I was so disapointed that IRL chickened out and went for the safe bet for the 2012 spec cars. They could have atleast taken some inspiration from the ground effect batmobile thing. :(
 
AcidHell2 said:
* should have reduced aero, but never standadised
Click to expand...
"Standardised" and "limited" are very close terms when you're talking about something like F1. Set limits for aero, and teams will simply make their designs to the very edge of that limit, or around it if they find a way.

It's all very well saying "oh but they're stifling creativity", but that's kind of the point. They're trying to encourage more competitive racing in F1, by discouraging smart aero packages that stop cars getting close to one another, or engine freedom that ensure the richest team makes the best car which qualifies first and flies off into the distance, or smart ways of filling the car with fuel so that all the passing is done in the pits.

But then, I guess we're at different perspectives here. You think R&D and big bucks should be the main goal of F1. I'd rather just see good racing and the car/driver balance finally start to shift a little back towards the latter.
 
in which case, why don't you go watch a same spec series, loads out there, which are all about the driver, that is not what f1is about, f1 is just as much about technology. And development as wellas the driver. I'm actually in favour of cutting aero and allowing ground effect, the problem is egines, kers and the like.
 
Ah yes, the old "go and watch same spec series" argument. Because that's clearly what I want when I said I'd like to see more competitive Formula 1, right?

Or, alternately, I just want to see more competitive F1. You know, the fast cars, with the best drivers, and the glamour and the money, but with better races. Is that so bad? What exactly is that different with me being in favour of regulations that encourage racing, compared to everyone complaining every time they race at another Tilke-inspired boredom track?
 
Becuse you can have good racing and devlopment, you wan to fudementally change f1 just like fia want to something it isn't. Just look back over the decades, more devlopment leads to better and closer racing. It's only when the rules are so tight and all they can devlope is aero you get this problem.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, the more open the development the more likely you are to have small teams find some clever idea and do well because of it

Ever since FIA started to tighten the rules we have got small teams only doing well in wet races and also boring lack of overtakes.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Becuse you can have good racing and devlopment, you wan to fudementally change f1 just like fia want to something it isn't. Just look back over the decades, more devlopment leads to better and closer racing. It's only when the rules are so tight and all they can devlope is aero you get this problem.
Click to expand...
If you're going to keep peddling this fallacy that because I agree with some of these new rules, I must agree with ALL regulations, I'm just going to do the reverse and assume you want no rules in F1 whatsoever.

I'm not going to sit down and give you a bullet point list of what I think the FIA should do, because:

a) It's pointless.
b) I honestly can't be bothered.
c) I don't assume I know better than anyone in charge.
d) It's pointless.

Formula One has rules. It will always have rules. Good or bad. We're never going to change that. I happen to think these new rules coming in just might make it slightly more exciting to watch. That's all.
 
rypt said:
Indeed, the more open the development the more likely you are to have small teams find some clever idea and do well because of it
Click to expand...

When was the last time this actually happened?

Typically, the larger teams have the resources, time and expertise to explore more (experimental) ideas than the smaller teams. In general, the smaller teams concentrate on getting the basics correct. The larger teams concentrate on getting the basics right, as well as researching experimental ideas.

The more leeway you permit, the greater the distance between the bigger budget teams and the smaller teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom