Your opinion on 'Drag Reduction System'

[BDunnell]

And F1 has always been an equivalency formula

How?

[ioan]

How?

Since they made rules that limit everything.
Nowadays they even have to build the same engine architecture.

[BDunnell]

Since they made rules that limit everything.
Nowadays they even have to build the same engine architecture.

But you said 'always'.

[ioan]

But you said 'always'.

We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. Good night.

[BDunnell]

We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. Good night.

It was quite a fundamental one in terms of your argument, though. But you are forgiven. Good night!

[Rollo]

You're missing the point.

The point I'm making is that if you look at the major international championships there is an 'equivalencey' formula - nee formula to manipulate the competition in their respective regulations.

Formula One IS an "equivalency" formula. There are loads and loads of regulations including engine capacity, number of cylinders, control tyres, dimensions of body work, car widths, car lengths, ride height, weight distribution, centre of gravity, location of various fluid systems... <Yul Brynner> etcetera, etcetera, etcetera </Yul Brynner> and extends to 72 pages of formula. For goodness sake, it's even called Formula One.

It's only in the rarefied atmosphere of the uppermost tiers of motorsport where thousandths of a second in difference in performance count.

[BDunnell]

Formula One IS an "equivalency" formula.

I wouldn't use that modern phrase in relation simply to the age-old application of certain technical parameters, personally.

[Rollo]

"Certain technical parameters"???

The regs which define Formula One are probably the most exhaustive set of regulations for any motorsport category in the world. The only other qualifier I can think of would be the BTCC which uses the general principle that if the rules don't say it, then you can't do it.

Even in something like the V8Supercars where the word "parity" was being bandied about as though it was some magical being, the regulations still tinkered with the relative dimensions of various components on the two brands of car to bring them in line with each other.

In principle the whole idea behind the DRS isn't to make the cars "equivalent" anyway, it's specifically to provide the car following with an advantage.

[BDunnell]

"Certain technical parameters"???

Yes, those certain ones (no matter how many) that, at any one time, have formed the basis of the technical regulations. The term 'equivalency formula' is a modern phenomenon that I consider to be entirely removed from the basic application of technical regulations to the formula.

[AndyL]

Yes, those certain ones (no matter how many) that, at any one time, have formed the basis of the technical regulations. The term 'equivalency formula' is a modern phenomenon that I consider to be entirely removed from the basic application of technical regulations to the formula.

I agree with that assessment. Equivalency formulas (formula as in equation, not as in recipe) are about adjusting different sets of technical regulations to make them evenly matched. In F1 everyone works to a single set of technical regulations now, so equivalency formulas don't come into it.
F1 has had an equivalency formula for long periods of its history though, with different capacity limits for turbo and normally-aspirated engines. In the 80s when the FIA was doing things like restricting boost and increasing the NA capacity from 3 to 3.5 litres, those were adjustments to the equivalency formula.