2015 Formula One Spanish Grand Prix

[Denis Betty]

If not then we have only one other choice: drastic reduction on aero performance, strict regulations curbing all aero development. If your performance is not coming from aeo, you can follow another car; if it is all about aero = DRS is necessary. Don't forget, this is not a new invention, push-to-pass has been in open wheel racing for decades, in the 80s it was literal turbo boost..

So we either have 340km/ top speeds or 280km/h with even more reduction to average lap speeds due to aero parts that could be stamped in 1971.

I've been saying this for years. What's wrong with reducing downforce until dirty air ceases to cause problems for the following car? You then have the possibillity of a quicker driver overtaking a slower one, on track, by virtue of better driving/engine/chassis/stategy or a combination of some/all of the above. People might actually find F1 entertaining for a change. Or would that be too much to ask?

 

[Alberto Casado]

I've been saying this for years. What's wrong with reducing downforce until dirty air ceases to cause problems for the following car? You then have the possibillity of a quicker driver overtaking a slower one, on track, by virtue of better driving/engine/chassis/stategy or a combination of some/all of the above. People might actually find F1 entertaining for a change. Or would that be too much to ask?

The problem is suddenly a lot of people complaining that cars are slower because they compare the track records of season 201x with 200x. Which is absurd IMHO, but for some seems to be a key point (like the sound).

 

[Denis Betty]

The problem is suddenly a lot of people complaining that cars are slower because they compare the track records of season 201x with 200x. Which is absurd IMHO, but for some seems to be a key point (like the sound).

Yes I believe you're correct. So, the illogical belief that quicker lap times = better/more entertaining racing, is a barrier to better/more entertaining racing.
Realistcally though, I wonder how long it would take for these fears to be allayed if F1 did (IMO) the right thing by reducing aero and removing DRS? I might be compelled to start watching races live again, instead of a half interested peak at the highlights (which is my current habit).

 

[Darth]

Mad day for Lotus, MAD ALL THE WAY.

Oh, by the way, Bottas was fantastic yet again.

 

[LacSlyer]

I've been saying this for years. What's wrong with reducing downforce until dirty air ceases to cause problems for the following car? You then have the possibillity of a quicker driver overtaking a slower one, on track, by virtue of better driving/engine/chassis/stategy or a combination of some/all of the above. People might actually find F1 entertaining for a change. Or would that be too much to ask?

They actually have done some changes to alleviate this issue in the past, for example the more narrow rear wings, but I think the primary problem is they don't want to take away from the extreme aerodynamics that teams adapt to on a race-by-race basis. That's become a significant part of the sport that basically all other racing series don't bother with, so you could call it a niche to F1 that they strive to keep. As well, I disagree that push-button passing is even that common at this point that it should be dealt with because DRS combined with ERS makes for extremely entertaining racing that nearly every race has evidence of so far this year.

The only real significant issue with the current rules that allow for such extreme aerodynamic design has also be exemplified this year, with the leader of the race flat out dominating everyone else due to having clean air. However, as I said, the fight for 2-5th in almost all the races so far has been as entertaining as ever, especially compared to last year.

 

[Tony Holder]

How did they allow Pastor to race with most of his rear wing missing? Surely it was dangerous.

 

[Ho3n3r]

How did they allow Pastor to race with most of his rear wing missing? Surely it was dangerous.

It looked pretty sturdy - yes, it would probably have undermined downforce significantly, but I don't believe it was really in danger of falling off. It was still fully mounted on the left, as well as in the middle.

 

[Darren Bentley]

Having taken a read into what Martin Brundle thinks F1 should do I think he is right for those who haven't seen it he wrote 5 points F1 needs to look at doing for 2017 and I am going to show point 1 when it comes to downforce and he has a good point.

Martin said:
"Increase downforce, lowering the car by reducing the step and plank underneath, and improving ground-effect especially with front-wing end fences. Make the front-wing much less complex and susceptible to turbulence while following another car, and therefore hugely cheaper too.

Open up a few of the imaginary exclusion ‘boxes’ around the car to ensure ingenuity and evolution. Have a much cheaper and wider fixed specification two-piece rear-wing which creates drag and slipstream effect, thereby moderating absolute top speed to maintain circuits run offs, but also keeping sponsorship space. Get this right and then lose DRS."


Let's remember the WEC cars are producing more downforce as drivers have been saying but yet the LMP1 cars don't have much trouble racing wheel to wheel and in the turbulent air, watching a couple of hours of the Silverstone race the Audi and Porsche's and the two Audi's against eachother was astonishing how they managed to race wheel to wheel and weren't seemingly affected by dirty air yet they produce more downforce apparently so I dunno what do you guys think below is a link to the full think Brundle wrote
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/2...barcelona-and-a-wish-list-of-changes-for-2017

 

[Alberto Casado]

The big ground effect path was already taken some years ago, and pulled back because of safety. You end up with cars with very high downforce (so, very fast in corners), but a minor bump, a suspension problem, a touch, can suddenly take away that downforce in the middle of the turn.

 

[Darth]

The big ground effect path was already taken some years ago, and pulled back because of safety. You end up with cars with very high downforce (so, very fast in corners), but a minor bump, a suspension problem, a touch, can suddenly take away that downforce in the middle of the turn.

They would also be quite dangerous at low speeds, as the air wouldn't be sucked
off the underneath of the fast enough to pull it down, thus resulting in serious trouble.