You have to see this

Its ugly as hell but if it works i'm all for it.

 

More messin' by the FIA.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

a wing à la FXX ?

 

Touche!

I like it. Looks wild and exotic and aside from the obvious aero advantages allowing more overtaking the wings act as bumpers for the rear tires preventing a following car to get airborne. Good.

 

Yep

 

What the hell are they doing to F1. The cars are supposed to be gorgeos.

 

No, they are supposed to be fast and effective. Gorgeous is a bonus.

 

will this mean less d/force, slower cars and less overtaking?

 

No, the opposite: Less "dirty air" behind the car, which allows the following cars front wing to work more efficiently.

Remember how Kimi struggled to get by MS whereas Alonso had no issues? Kimi's front wing needs clean air to work properly or the car washes out and he understeers blowing his pass.

 

I don't like it because it will gave the advantage to the guy behind the car. Just like years back in CART, or even NASCAR, when a guy would sandbag behind the front car until the last lap, and then draft past him to win the race. It's a stupid idea. If they want more racing, get rid of the aero altogether. Then you will see who really can drive.

 

IMHO I dont see this as a bad idea at all. If it works then Im all for it. As many have stated, its not the best looking but it does look exotic and very advanced. And thats what F1 cars are supposed to look like. At least the FIA is looking for better ways to improve the show than not changing tires. Even further this promotes the engineering aspect of the sport. Teams will have to figure out how to get all they can out of it, and to me thats the best part of F1.

my 2 cents
Mark

 

And a Technical wonder.

 

The data looks like is missing something. THe graphical prepresentation looks good for the centerline of the car, but what is going on behind the wings and tires. I REALLY doubt that the airflow is the same as the center.

 

Agree, fast and effective first and if change allows more passing, well, all the better.

 

You will recall that F1 already figured out a proper formula before. Ground effects. Use of technology that allowed greater speed with the added benefit of allowing the cars to run very closely together.
Ground effects cars were eliminated in the name of safety and slowing the cars down. The result: aerodynamics became the biggest ingredient for speed. Over time, the cars became incredibly fast once again. Great. But........they can't follow closely because these aero cars have great sensitivity to disturbed air. During this aero age, attempts to slow the cars down have only been speed bumps (i.e. grooved tires, narrower chassis, raised front wing, rear wing moved forward, etc.), as the time is made up in the wind tunnel. The most drastic effort to slow cars, the one tire per race weekend rule, is silly and unsafe. Now, the FIA are keen to slow the cars down once again. Witness the 2.4 litre V8 coming in 2006. We will now have slow(er) cars that cannot overtake unless there is a revision to the aero rules. The FIA seem intent on continuing to fiddle with aero rules as illustrated by this new wing. I say a this is a wrong move and a costly move. Aerodynamics r&d is a huge part of a team's budget. Plus, changing rules equals increased spending. I say bring back ground effects and control speed through engine displacement and tires (use slicks but control the compounds) rather than through constantly changing aero rules. Plus, stability in the rules = parity among teams and cost savings. Sorry to vent.

 

Groundeffect cars (skirts) are cool, but dangerous because of their high cornering speeds. Bad solution and a good thing we got rid of them.

No aeros or restricted aeros as in this proposal is the way to go.

The FIA got it right for once.

Besides: Big changes like this is what is needed, not incremental changes. Only big changes stir the pot enough to create new playing fields every year.

 

If the post-car airflow can be controlled to the extent as shown, then why not adopt an in-between solution that keeps the airpressure vectors going straight back rather than up or down?

 

The FIA is seemingly so hypocritical. They scream and shout and jump up and down about cost cutting, cost cutting, cost cutting. Yet every single year they propose radical changes that do nothing but 1.) drive up developement costs each year and 2.) try to make racing 'better' because the regs and rules they keep changing didn't work to make racing better.

This years aero specs are a great example. They changed them to make them better, they don't work and then they change them again.

And qualy??? How many times has that changed in the last couple of years ?You tend to lose count

 

It seems they are trying to constantly balance three divergent objectives:
- safety
- show
- costs

It is very difficult to cater to all three goals without hurting one in the process. And quite often they use one to really fix another.

 

They stopped being gorgeous after Dan Gurney's 1967 Eagle-Westlake V12.

 

Wouldn't the new rear wing reduce the cornering speed do to less down force?

 

There was also mention of slicks coming back in 07 or 08 which would greatly enhance mechanical grip.