Printable View
They should be banned if it can be proved that they are hurting the racing. The aesthetic improvement will be a bonus.
I believe that they are hurting the racing but that's just my opinion. I haven't read anything definitive that proves that point. So whilst I would love to see the ugly little buggers go I don't want to see the designers hamstrung by yet another restriction that may not improve the racing (grooved tyres being a good example).
Aerodynamics should go, as well as the "narrow cars" regulation. And grooved tyres too.
But if the aerodynamics are restricted (good idea in my book) then what other outlets are there for the teams to innovate? I think they should ditch the engine freeze rule, for one.
tamburello has rightly defended the role of the aerodynamicists in another thread as all they're doing is making a car as aero efficient as possible within the regulations.
Winglets and flip-ups need to be looked at as a part of the whole issue of aero and 'dirty air' that seems to be preventing racers from racing.
The FIA have banned everything else and as much as I hate the dozens of wings all over each car, there is nothing else to make the cars different. Take them away and you might as well have a one-make-chassis-F1???Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
If they are outlawed, I agree that slicks should be brought back and some room for the diffusers to be modified should be allowed to make up for the loss of grip. Having the downforce generated under the car should allow better racing. The cars should also be widened a bit (more like the early to mid '90s style)
But wouldn't that simply raise cornering speeds which is exactly why the FIA has spent the last decade narrowing the cars, introducing the plank, and giving us grooved tyres.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
More than 25yrs ago ground-effect was sucking the cars to the ground so effectively that skirts were banned, which led to rock-hard suspended go-karts...and so it goes on, and on, and on...
That certainly is the overall goal and a rule addressing the preferred outcome is preferable to band-aid solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
One question I struggle with - how do you measure the "dirtyness" of the wakes the cars leave? It seems that you quickly get into an environment where aerodynamics must be frozen, so that the FIA can wind tunnel test each car's package and ensure its "cleanliness" and ensure that new shapes don't impose unacceptable levels of "dirty." I can't even begin to envision the practical or logistical issues that regimen might impose.... :eek:
Lacking a good measure for the real goal or a reasonable measuring/enforcement mechanism, the FIA is left with less than ideal choices, akin to practicing the kind of "eyeball aerodynamics" common on this forum. (I am not criticizing others here - I've entered "looks fast" assessments, too.) One element that could improve following ability is requiring that undertray downforce be generated in front of the rear tires and on the sides of a flat center section. That way, dirty air from a diffusor or similar profile is scattered by the tires. Together with a single-element, high-mounted rear wing, that should lead to more classic slipstreaming, where following can actually be an advantage due to lower resistance (see Monza 1971).
Downforce could be limited by restrictions on the maximum volume of the undertray channels - this should both limit overall Bernoulli effect while allowing innovation in the shaping of the channels to achieve the best combination of downforce amount and center of aerodynamic pressure. And limits on wing size, number of elements and chordal profile could be used to restrict front and rear downforce. Reduce traction control and thrown in wider tracks and slicks, and you could get a car that demands driving again, complete with power oversteer.
But I could still go for banning winglets, flip-ups and other little aero elements just because they put the "ugh" in ugly. :p
ClarkFan
P.S. None of the above should be viewed as coming from an author with any technical qualifications in aerodynamics. :s
I personally don't prefer that attitude of working against innovations. Someone has developed a new part for the car and a moment later it will be banned - only a waste of time and resources for a team! They should better try to find some stability in rules.
And about preventing good racing. Well, I have heard complaining about lack of overtakings since the end of turbo-era. That winglet-ban won't chance anything conceptual. The problems, if I can say so, are far deeper. Better ban carbon fibre brake discs. :)
I would like to see them ban all those terrible winglets and aerodynamic doodads, I'm not going to hold my breath though.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
We all know they look butt-ugly but that's not a good reason to want them banned, now if the FIA can prove they're really making overtaking more difficult then let's ban them.
anyway without winglets, the Honda still looks ugly :p :
I think the one thing we have not discussed here is that those winglets are costing teams a huge amount of time and money to develop. My question here is that, with the freezing of engine designs, is this aero development (including all the new fancy front wings) the new frontier of F1 extravagence?