Is Franz Tost correct?
Poll: Is Franz Tost correct?
Total Members Polled: 38
Discussion
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-should-ban-b...
There have been two comments from Franz Tost in the last couple of days - both of them I fully support.
Firstly, there needs to be a cost cap to close up the performance between the top-3 teams and “the rest”. And this, secondly, all appendages need to be removed to improve the look of the cars. A lot of team budgets is blown on this stuff.
I think it would also add to the spectacle - more power / less grip. When the new PU’s arived in 2014, fans loved the way that the back end of the cars stepped-out, but now they are just planted. It seems everything the FIA / Liberty want to do to improve “the show” gets thwarted by the vested interests of the top teams (manufacturers) - now that RB has Honda paying for its PUs, it has also slipped back into the “vested interest” group.
I would much prefer to see a cheap but powerful engine and simple homogeneous aero, rather than the complex but largely unexplained technology that we have currently.
There have been two comments from Franz Tost in the last couple of days - both of them I fully support.
Firstly, there needs to be a cost cap to close up the performance between the top-3 teams and “the rest”. And this, secondly, all appendages need to be removed to improve the look of the cars. A lot of team budgets is blown on this stuff.
I think it would also add to the spectacle - more power / less grip. When the new PU’s arived in 2014, fans loved the way that the back end of the cars stepped-out, but now they are just planted. It seems everything the FIA / Liberty want to do to improve “the show” gets thwarted by the vested interests of the top teams (manufacturers) - now that RB has Honda paying for its PUs, it has also slipped back into the “vested interest” group.
I would much prefer to see a cheap but powerful engine and simple homogeneous aero, rather than the complex but largely unexplained technology that we have currently.
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive and I'd say they're both true.
If you want cheap powerful engines and simple aero for close racing there's plenty of other racing series which will oblige. F1 has always been about competition between car designers first, and competition between drivers second.
If you want cheap powerful engines and simple aero for close racing there's plenty of other racing series which will oblige. F1 has always been about competition between car designers first, and competition between drivers second.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 18th October 14:57
kambites said:
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive and I'd say they're both true.
If you want cheap powerful engines and simple aero for close racing there's plenty of other racing series which will oblige. F1 has always been about competition between car designers first, and competition between drivers second.
I'm not sure it has always been that way. If you want cheap powerful engines and simple aero for close racing there's plenty of other racing series which will oblige. F1 has always been about competition between car designers first, and competition between drivers second.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 18th October 14:57
With the advents of the DFV, there were lots of drivers who were competing for a win in a season.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure it has always been that way.
With the advents of the DFV, there were lots of drivers who were competing for a win in a season.
There's been years when two or more manufacturers have been very close (including pretty recently with completely different engines) but that's because they've done similarly good jobs of engineering their cars not because they've been forced to make identical cars. I suspect F1 is currently pretty much as close in terms of speed differential between manufacturers as it's ever been. With the advents of the DFV, there were lots of drivers who were competing for a win in a season.
Currently you can look at budgets and see which team will probably win the WCC, so TV coverage concentrates on the WDC.
The current PUs were introduced because manufacturers said that they were “road relevant”. They clearly are not, other than having an ICE and a battery, like a Prius. Appendages are there as a demonstration of budget size - employing 600-800 engineers rather than 200. It proves nothing, other than you have cash to burn.
The current regs specify a flat floor, but they are anything but. A little extra specification like “when measured in any plane with a 3m straight edge” or “without perforation” would have saved teams literally $100s millions over the last decade. And be much more road relevant.
The current PUs were introduced because manufacturers said that they were “road relevant”. They clearly are not, other than having an ICE and a battery, like a Prius. Appendages are there as a demonstration of budget size - employing 600-800 engineers rather than 200. It proves nothing, other than you have cash to burn.
The current regs specify a flat floor, but they are anything but. A little extra specification like “when measured in any plane with a 3m straight edge” or “without perforation” would have saved teams literally $100s millions over the last decade. And be much more road relevant.
He is right. The aero does make the cars look ugly and fussy, and also makes them difficult to follow and overtake. While the ICE technology developments are at least road-relevant, the aero is completely irrelevant for most road cars. Get rid of complicated wings, turning vanes, bargeboards etc., add underfloor aero and voila: cars that look good, are easy to follow and overtake, and are still fast.
They should put me in charge of FIA
They should put me in charge of FIA
Have been saying this for years but FFS all they need is 3 x standard versions of a front wing and a rear wing which is mandatory across every car and stop pissing money away in wind tunnels to perfect wings and silly add ons.
Cars will look better, costs will be massively reduced based on wind tunnel time and manufacturing costs and cars will be able to follow closer in less dirty air if the fia design standard wings in a suitable way.
Cars will look better, costs will be massively reduced based on wind tunnel time and manufacturing costs and cars will be able to follow closer in less dirty air if the fia design standard wings in a suitable way.
It's the old question - What Is F1 Meant To Be?
If F1 is all about being the fastest formula then you need to have aero (or ban aero from every other forumla), as it's the speed the cars can carry through the corners that gives an F1 car its current lap time.
If F1 is all about close racing and real overtakes then you want both low aero and mechancial grip - if it's as slippy on the racing line as off drivers can use a lot more of the track. Lap times would drop through the floor though.
If F1 is all about being the fastest formula then you need to have aero (or ban aero from every other forumla), as it's the speed the cars can carry through the corners that gives an F1 car its current lap time.
If F1 is all about close racing and real overtakes then you want both low aero and mechancial grip - if it's as slippy on the racing line as off drivers can use a lot more of the track. Lap times would drop through the floor though.
Salamura said:
He is right. The aero does make the cars look ugly and fussy, and also makes them difficult to follow and overtake. While the ICE technology developments are at least road-relevant, the aero is completely irrelevant for most road cars. Get rid of complicated wings, turning vanes, bargeboards etc., add underfloor aero and voila: cars that look good, are easy to follow and overtake, and are still fast.
They should put me in charge of FIA
Have you got any examples of races I can watch where the cars were following closely and lots of overtaking?They should put me in charge of FIA
//j17 said:
It's the old question - What Is F1 Meant To Be?
If F1 is all about being the fastest formula then you need to have aero (or ban aero from every other forumla), as it's the speed the cars can carry through the corners that gives an F1 car its current lap time.
If F1 is all about close racing and real overtakes then you want both low aero and mechancial grip - if it's as slippy on the racing line as off drivers can use a lot more of the track. Lap times would drop through the floor though.
If you want close racing go watch the 2CVs. Or Legends.If F1 is all about being the fastest formula then you need to have aero (or ban aero from every other forumla), as it's the speed the cars can carry through the corners that gives an F1 car its current lap time.
If F1 is all about close racing and real overtakes then you want both low aero and mechancial grip - if it's as slippy on the racing line as off drivers can use a lot more of the track. Lap times would drop through the floor though.
I know its the engineer in me but i think that the cars look fantastic with all the intricate details of the aero package. Current spec cars don't look that good and nothing like that old lotus.
There is a middle ground here. I accept that F1 won't be a banger race nor will it be a touring car race, so for at least 30 years there have been races where overtaking hasn't been too frequent. However there have been races where there has been rather a lot.
The issue is that even during these era's the cars WERE able to slipstream behind another and overtake organically without the need of an artificial overtaking aid (DRS).
Yes, technology plays a part but it is and always has been a race with drivers and racing involved. The issue we have now is that the teams and costs have risen to absurd levels, and the cars have moved subtly but constantly towards a car that struggles to race in any form of organic way and requires too many fussy 'helpers' to give the impression that the issue doesn't exist.
If you solely base it on technolgy then we are already at a stage where drivers can be removed from the equation all together.!!
Technology moves very very fast and F1 has NOT followed all current technology.. Banned ABS, Banned Active Suspension, Banned Traction Control, Banned Stability Control, Banned Ground Effect, 15 inch wheels (for now)..
We pick and choose to when we believe it's meant to be the pinnacle of technology.
Just accept that F1 can have SOME tech. but not to the detriment of it being a racing series with drivers that want to race in a relatively organic way.
The issue is that even during these era's the cars WERE able to slipstream behind another and overtake organically without the need of an artificial overtaking aid (DRS).
Yes, technology plays a part but it is and always has been a race with drivers and racing involved. The issue we have now is that the teams and costs have risen to absurd levels, and the cars have moved subtly but constantly towards a car that struggles to race in any form of organic way and requires too many fussy 'helpers' to give the impression that the issue doesn't exist.
If you solely base it on technolgy then we are already at a stage where drivers can be removed from the equation all together.!!
Technology moves very very fast and F1 has NOT followed all current technology.. Banned ABS, Banned Active Suspension, Banned Traction Control, Banned Stability Control, Banned Ground Effect, 15 inch wheels (for now)..
We pick and choose to when we believe it's meant to be the pinnacle of technology.
Just accept that F1 can have SOME tech. but not to the detriment of it being a racing series with drivers that want to race in a relatively organic way.
Salamura said:
He is right. The aero does make the cars look ugly and fussy, and also makes them difficult to follow and overtake. While the ICE technology developments are at least road-relevant, the aero is completely irrelevant for most road cars. Get rid of complicated wings, turning vanes, bargeboards etc., add underfloor aero and voila: cars that look good, are easy to follow and overtake, and are still fast.
They should put me in charge of FIA
That car does nothing for me. They should put me in charge of FIA
The latest cars (ignoring the halo) look great to me.
48Valves said:
Salamura said:
He is right. The aero does make the cars look ugly and fussy, and also makes them difficult to follow and overtake. While the ICE technology developments are at least road-relevant, the aero is completely irrelevant for most road cars. Get rid of complicated wings, turning vanes, bargeboards etc., add underfloor aero and voila: cars that look good, are easy to follow and overtake, and are still fast.
They should put me in charge of FIA
That car does nothing for me. They should put me in charge of FIA
The latest cars (ignoring the halo) look great to me.
Current F1 designs are more fussy than a Prada handbag.
sparta6 said:
Current F1 designs are more fussy than a Prada handbag.
F1 teams are no longer engineering enterprises, they're more hi-tech aerospace companies. What are possible are now with CFD and wind tunnels running 24/7 could only be dreamed about in the '80s. Back then you had use university or MIRA wind tunnels and outsourced carbon fibre production but they still recognized the same problems with open-wheeled slicks & wings eg. how the front wing and front wishbones disturbed airflow for the rest of the car. I just read about the Arrows A9 that had turning vanes attached on the front wheels but never caught on.Fire99 said:
The issue is that even during these era's the cars WERE able to slipstream behind another and overtake organically without the need of an artificial overtaking aid (DRS).
Yes, technology plays a part but it is and always has been a race with drivers and racing involved. The issue we have now is that the teams and costs have risen to absurd levels, and the cars have moved subtly but constantly towards a car that struggles to race in any form of organic way and requires too many fussy 'helpers' to give the impression that the issue doesn't exist.
And as before...when?? What time period are you talking about?Yes, technology plays a part but it is and always has been a race with drivers and racing involved. The issue we have now is that the teams and costs have risen to absurd levels, and the cars have moved subtly but constantly towards a car that struggles to race in any form of organic way and requires too many fussy 'helpers' to give the impression that the issue doesn't exist.
During the re-fueling era when sure there was no DRS, we just had cars weighing significantly different amounts and differing tyres.
The cost cap, on the face of it, is a great idea. But it's completely unworkable.
Why? Imagine Mercedes being told they can only spend £50 million a year on their car. Fair enough, there is nothing stopping them creating a separate company dealing with aero or with suspension components and spending £100 million on those two things alone. Red Bull, AFAIK reading from the Newey book, sort of already do this with their Aero. But I might be wrong on that.
But the point is with a cost cap they're going to find ways and means around it. So it's a non-starter in a lot of ways UNLESS the FIA explicitly remove any loophole in the regulations. Good luck with that one.
As for the aero, first race I was was Hill's win in Japan in 1996. I think those early/mid-90's cars look cool. The 80's ones look cool too. Since 2001 the cars look shocking. They don't over take either then either really, and there was still this argument about the top teams always being at the front.
If you want proper racing etc, reverse grid the whole thing.
Why? Imagine Mercedes being told they can only spend £50 million a year on their car. Fair enough, there is nothing stopping them creating a separate company dealing with aero or with suspension components and spending £100 million on those two things alone. Red Bull, AFAIK reading from the Newey book, sort of already do this with their Aero. But I might be wrong on that.
But the point is with a cost cap they're going to find ways and means around it. So it's a non-starter in a lot of ways UNLESS the FIA explicitly remove any loophole in the regulations. Good luck with that one.
As for the aero, first race I was was Hill's win in Japan in 1996. I think those early/mid-90's cars look cool. The 80's ones look cool too. Since 2001 the cars look shocking. They don't over take either then either really, and there was still this argument about the top teams always being at the front.
If you want proper racing etc, reverse grid the whole thing.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff