[Rules] Something to be done about 'overtaking' ?

[Marbot]

Yesterday the FIA met with people from many areas of motorsport (not just FIA series) to discuss what needs to be done about overtaking.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21981.html

Nice to see that Todt is getting things done.

[Born Racer]

Good to see the FIA doing this, but they ought to ignore the teams' requests not to restrict aerodynamics (if indeed it is the teams who have an issue with this). Aero needs to be slashed massively, if not having diffusers and/or wings banned entirely or such like.

We have seen this talked about for years, so forgive me if I don't believe anything will come of it.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Excellent news. You can't knock him for tackling this massive issue. Alot of people say they enjoyed the 2009 season. I have to say, I didn't overall. We're here to watch racing, and frankly, we didn't see too much of that this year however way you try to slice it. It was unpredictable, it was topsy turvy, but at the expense of proper racing.

Go Todt and good luck.

Selby

[chris bailey]

Take away the front wing ENTIRELY! The rest of the car follows (literally and aerodynamically)..............

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chris bailey

Take away the front wing ENTIRELY! The rest of the car follows (literally and aerodynamically)..............

Nope! Just arm-fulls of understeer.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by chris bailey

Take away the front wing ENTIRELY! The rest of the car follows (literally and aerodynamically)..............

Originally Posted by Marbot

Nope! Just arm-fulls of understeer.

Yup! That's why I say ban the rear wing ENTIRELY. The front wings will magically shrink because most drivers aren't real fond of massive high speed oversteer.

[Marbot]

The problem with 'losing wings' is that the teams lose sponsorship space, and that, my friends, will never do!

[chris bailey]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Nope! Just arm-fulls of understeer.

Yes but no but yes, etc.......... If you remove the front wing, you then have to adjust the rest of the aero so that you don't get loads of understeer. That means a smaller rear wing for starters. You could even mandate a maximum plan area for the rear wing, and limit the assembly to two elements. A rear wing gives you stability at speed, important for safety reasons. All your aero is then developed behind the front wheels and back, so the air is already massively disturbed. Following another car will only exacerbate the situation by a small(ish) percentage. That's why you'd be able to get close without compromising your own speed/grip level. Oh, and the cars would be much faster in a straight line, grip less in the corners, and braking distances would go up by at least 30%.

Might just work. Anyone got a wind tunnel/CFD programme to run it through?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by chris bailey

Yes but no but yes, etc.......... If you remove the front wing, you then have to adjust the rest of the aero so that you don't get loads of understeer. That means a smaller rear wing for starters. You could even mandate a maximum plan area for the rear wing, and limit the assembly to two elements. A rear wing gives you stability at speed, important for safety reasons. All your aero is then developed behind the front wheels and back, so the air is already massively disturbed. Following another car will only exacerbate the situation by a small(ish) percentage. That's why you'd be able to get close without compromising your own speed/grip level. Oh, and the cars would be much faster in a straight line, grip less in the corners, and braking distances would go up by at least 30%.

Might just work. Anyone got a wind tunnel/CFD programme to run it through?

The center of pressure on modern cars is way aft. The challenge is getting adequate downforce on the front without a big floor to do it with. Even with prototypes, with floors under the front, the designers are always looking for ways to get adequate downforce on the front.

Meanwhile, rear wing turbulence is the primary enemy for the following car. The rear diffusers don't cause a lot of problem, and they are the most aero efficient downforce on the car, so they do a lot of good things.

Agreed on your assessment of what reduced downforce would accomplish. If only the powers that be would listen to the fans.

[Born Racer]

Ban all wings.

This will also make F1 less of an aerospace-like technology showcase, and more to do with cars (as long as rules were freed up about other parts).

[kartracer41]

Sounds like we should put them in karts then.

[ralf fan]

They do this every year don't they. Discuss. Come up with new rules which ultimately fail as engineers find ways around the new rules.

Just put them on good tracks that not only challenge drivers but also give the braver ones an opportunity to overtake. Interlagos case in point. But then I guess the toilets are terrible in Interlagos and really that is what's most important.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by ralf fan

But then I guess the toilets are terrible in Interlagos and really that is what's most important.

haha, i just used a similar line in another thread. its funny because its true

but yeah it is becoming a little silly as they do seem to go down this route every year only to have smart people figure out ways around it. hopefully the lack of testing and smaller budgets and staff slow the development process down enough that we can at least see some benefits from their proposed changes.

[duke_toaster]

I think we could start by eliminating the DDDs and bringing in some undertray effects (a la GP2) - changing some of the phraseology of the aero rules (e.g. not having about "bodywork in front of the front axle" et al) might produce tighter definitions.

[Born Racer]

I'm curious as to why when Ross Brawn brought this up, other teams didn't wish to seek to close this "loophole" (considering some of them weren't planning to run one).