It is currently Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:39 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Aero Research Penalties
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2254
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Just got through watching Marc Priestley's YT vid & in it he mentioned there's an idea floating around regarding handicapping wind tunnel development time depending on a teams final position in the WCC. Obviously the lower you finish the more wind tunnel testing you'll be allocated.

Here's the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjC1LOT0jHk. Start it at about 3:55 into the vid.

Now i'm against this concept as I don't believe in punishing excellence but I had a though while watching the show & it had to do with the budget cap & the continuing struggle to make overtaking easier. I'm sure this would've already been thought of but i'm asking you guys of superior intellect where the floor in this line of thinking is.

I'm of the opinion with a budget cap being introduced the FIA must open the regs right up to encourage development. In my mind tight regs plus a budget cap can lead to nothing other than performance stagnation the same as we've had for the past decade or so. So with the budget cap, overtaking issues & current aero regs in mind, why can there not be just one, simple statement in the regs that say's something like:

"The car must be designed in such a way so as to create an aero disturbance of no more than ( insert number & units here), within an arc of (insert degrees here) from the centre of the rear wing at a distance of (insert distance here) measured from the trailing plane of the rear wing"

That's it. Nothing more except the maximum length & width of the vehicles plus a few other necessary bits & pieces I suppose. I think a simple regulation worded this way would really encourage innovative concepts, which was once one of pillars of F1, all within the budget cap, & make catching & passing easier without all the technical stuff regarding wings & barge boards etc. As long as the car complies with that one statement, design what you want.

So what are your thoughts?

Is this even practical or measurable?
Could the following & overtaking issues that F1 has been struggling with for so long now be remedied with a simple statement like this?
Is it just too simplistic & pie in the sky thinking?

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Abu Dhabi - 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Last edited by Jezza13 on Thu May 07, 2020 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8253
I agree broadly with your idea, freedom!

As for the idea of handicapping any team because they have done a better job than others, it is just absurd, I can't believe that doing a good job is rewarding you with a penalty of sorts...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4561
I think you'll also find that CFD is fast overtaking wind tunnel testing as a way to improving a cars aerodynamics because you cant test parts without having to build them.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2254
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Asphalt_World wrote:
I think you'll also find that CFD is fast overtaking wind tunnel testing as a way to improving a cars aerodynamics because you cant test parts without having to build them.


Yeah it was aero research penalties, not just wind tunnel

Title changed

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Abu Dhabi - 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 726
Location: illinois
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8253
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


Same as every sport. I just find it so weird that there are sports that people just admire Federer or Loeb being the best and winning absolutely everything, while other sports just want budget caps and crippling competition to level the playing field.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 726
Location: illinois
^yep. usain bolt didn't have to strap extra weight around his waist, just because he was faster than everyone else


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


We have never had a such a long period of such stability at the front. This is the only time in the history of sport that I could tell you at the start of one season who would be at the front at the start of the next.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8253
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


We have never had a such a long period of such stability at the front. This is the only time in the history of sport that I could tell you at the start of one season who would be at the front at the start of the next.


This is very true, but I find myself wondering; so what? Why is this such a bad thing? Loeb won 9 in a row. Not overall, but in a row. For a whole decade (well, 9 years) you would know who would win the championship. We never heard a word about WRC being boring...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4561
Jezza13 wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I think you'll also find that CFD is fast overtaking wind tunnel testing as a way to improving a cars aerodynamics because you cant test parts without having to build them.


Yeah it was aero research penalties, not just wind tunnel

Title changed


I see, thanks for that.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


We have never had a such a long period of such stability at the front. This is the only time in the history of sport that I could tell you at the start of one season who would be at the front at the start of the next.


This is very true, but I find myself wondering; so what? Why is this such a bad thing? Loeb won 9 in a row. Not overall, but in a row. For a whole decade (well, 9 years) you would know who would win the championship. We never heard a word about WRC being boring...


We did loads and it pretty much killed off the WRC as a top level championship. It was considered almost on par with F1 in terms of prestige names like Sainz, McRae and Makkinen were famed throughout motorsport. The WRC was massively more popular at the beginning of Loeb's run in 2003 than at the end in 2012.

Having the competitive order pretty much set in stone is never good in a team sport. It removes one of the most important variables.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 726
Location: illinois
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


We have never had a such a long period of such stability at the front. This is the only time in the history of sport that I could tell you at the start of one season who would be at the front at the start of the next.



true, but what are we supposed to do, blame mercedes, go to a spec series ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
pc27b wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


We have never had a such a long period of such stability at the front. This is the only time in the history of sport that I could tell you at the start of one season who would be at the front at the start of the next.



true, but what are we supposed to do, blame mercedes, go to a spec series ?


There are other options. Doing nothing will only result in Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull to continue to slowly pull away.

I think the budget cap is a good start and once that is implemented I'd actually open up development avenues. I know that sounds counter intuitive but here is my reasoning - Currently with the spec so locked down once a team has built up a performance gap it's very hard to close as there really is very little avenue for development that will give a large jump. It's all refining, cutting weight etc. Look back even to the recent past and teams had the space in the regs to make a big jump. In 2009 Force India moved from being the slowest car on the grid to getting a pole position in one upgrade. And remember this was an independent team against a far deeper field of big budget opposition than we face today.

That couldn't happen now as their simply isn't the freedom in the regs for a team to make that jump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4561
A spec series I do not wan't, but a big part of me has long wanted a standardised front wing and nose cone. There appear to be the area of the car that is developing more than anything during a year with tiny little changes here and there. This costs a crazy amount of money. They are far too weak and puncture tyres too easily. I'm sure they could be strengthened a little and above all else, it could make all the cars look a lot nicer!

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8253
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


We have never had a such a long period of such stability at the front. This is the only time in the history of sport that I could tell you at the start of one season who would be at the front at the start of the next.


This is very true, but I find myself wondering; so what? Why is this such a bad thing? Loeb won 9 in a row. Not overall, but in a row. For a whole decade (well, 9 years) you would know who would win the championship. We never heard a word about WRC being boring...


We did loads and it pretty much killed off the WRC as a top level championship. It was considered almost on par with F1 in terms of prestige names like Sainz, McRae and Makkinen were famed throughout motorsport. The WRC was massively more popular at the beginning of Loeb's run in 2003 than at the end in 2012.

Having the competitive order pretty much set in stone is never good in a team sport. It removes one of the most important variables.

I honestly do not remember any talks about the WRC getting boring. And I do not think it is as bad as you make it, a period of domination happens and then it is the next guy/team. Bolt, Bubka, Karelin, Jordan, Maywether, Armstrong, Phelps, the list goes on. Take your pick, it is always awesome to see the rest trying to dethrone the king, the man/team to beat.

We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion, which is fine, so I'll leave it here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
i don't understand this budget cap and wanting the smaller teams to compete for wins each week, same as merc and ferrari in F1.
for me, f1 has always had a class system, sure there have been obvious era's of dominance by one team or another. so be it. the idea is to build a better machine and beat the competition.


We have never had a such a long period of such stability at the front. This is the only time in the history of sport that I could tell you at the start of one season who would be at the front at the start of the next.


This is very true, but I find myself wondering; so what? Why is this such a bad thing? Loeb won 9 in a row. Not overall, but in a row. For a whole decade (well, 9 years) you would know who would win the championship. We never heard a word about WRC being boring...


We did loads and it pretty much killed off the WRC as a top level championship. It was considered almost on par with F1 in terms of prestige names like Sainz, McRae and Makkinen were famed throughout motorsport. The WRC was massively more popular at the beginning of Loeb's run in 2003 than at the end in 2012.

Having the competitive order pretty much set in stone is never good in a team sport. It removes one of the most important variables.

I honestly do not remember any talks about the WRC getting boring. And I do not think it is as bad as you make it, a period of domination happens and then it is the next guy/team. Bolt, Bubka, Karelin, Jordan, Maywether, Armstrong, Phelps, the list goes on. Take your pick, it is always awesome to see the rest trying to dethrone the king, the man/team to beat.

We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion, which is fine, so I'll leave it here.


Dominance effects different sports differently. In individual sports dominance is almost cherished I agree team sports less so especially when the victor is not decided by tournament. In a tournament format no matter how dominant the team it's still all up for grabs until the last.

There is also the fact that F1 is unique in that most people focus on drivers yet the most important factor is the team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3388
Location: UK
pc27b wrote:
^yep. usain bolt didn't have to strap extra weight around his waist, just because he was faster than everyone else

The problem is that at the moment we have something more akin to the opposite situation. Imagine the other runners being forced to strap extra weight around their waists because Bolt was the most famous name in the sport and drew in the most fans, so therefore it was in the sport's interest for him to be rewarded with a competitive advantage to keep him winning.

Anyway I don't like this idea of turning things round the other way and penalising the winners, I just want all the teams to compete on an equal footing. If the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes really want to demonstrate to the world that they are at the forefront of automotive engineering then perhaps they should prove it by building a faster car than everyone else with the same budget and resources available.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2020 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 10040
The way I'd approach the budget cap would be by making it a "soft" cap. Ie don't restrict the teams for exceeding the cap, but disencourage them instead. For every dollar a team exceeds the cap, they'd need to give another one to the rest of the field, distributed e.g. proportional to each team's previous WCC standing so that the lowest ranking teams get the largest portion of this penalty compensation.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2020 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
Covalent wrote:
The way I'd approach the budget cap would be by making it a "soft" cap. Ie don't restrict the teams for exceeding the cap, but disencourage them instead. For every dollar a team exceeds the cap, they'd need to give another one to the rest of the field, distributed e.g. proportional to each team's previous WCC standing so that the lowest ranking teams get the largest portion of this penalty compensation.


Yes that could have been a good solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2269
Still think that this could result in some silly performances by teams if there are two well off the pace. As they may even end up trying to be last in the championship if they are that desperate to improve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2020 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
Still think that this could result in some silly performances by teams if there are two well off the pace. As they may even end up trying to be last in the championship if they are that desperate to improve.


I think the cost would be too high. Don't forget championship position directly effects prize money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 10040
mikeyg123 wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
Still think that this could result in some silly performances by teams if there are two well off the pace. As they may even end up trying to be last in the championship if they are that desperate to improve.


I think the cost would be too high. Don't forget championship position directly effects prize money.

Yes and they would be gambling on next year's compensations.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1439
I always want racing to be a meritocracy. But in team sports like Formula One, the individual teams do not start off in anything comparable to an equal footing. yes, money has always made the difference, and usually, the team with the biggest budget succeeds. But for the last 20+ years Formula One has stagnated, and it's business model is not sustainable. We witnessed that when three teams were introduced in 2010, and we watched as they folded soon after.

For the sport to flourish and grow, it must draw in the fans. And that is definitely not happening these days. All major sports organization recognize that they must have a changing of the guard frequently.

This attempt to limit aero development stems from the fundamental financial disparity between teams. Some can afford the time, some can't.

IMO my proposal for a common front wing, underbody, and rear wing would cut costs.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group