Re: Now this is just getting silly...

Bigbird wrote:
Phil Newnham wrote:

Bigbird wrote:
Hold on you are getting ahead of yourself. Do less or no "twiddly
bits" equate to no aero grip? Do the wings produce (and other
bodywork) produce any aero grip?
Are the wings part of the main bodywork? Are you putting your own
spin on someone elses' preference?

WTF are you on about? No, don't answer that just try to stick with the
original tack.

I.e. how do you get from "It's time they banned any twiddly bits that
are proud of the main bodywork altogether" to "Why not just mandate
that one company makes all the cars" and "Why must the only
alternatives be loads of aero grip or no aero grip?"

It's called hyperbole to make a point. I'd have thought that you'd be familiar with the concept, this being rasf1 and you being a reader and a poster. If you insist on taking everything absolutely literally then you'll end up being confused all the time. Stop trying to pin me into a corner, it's boring and it adds nothing to the discussion.

Would you prefer more or less aero grip or do you think the FIA have
the balance about right?
I want to see a rule that enforces a design that will punch a
reasonably clean hole in the air. This means attacking the cause of
the problem, the diffuser, not the twiddly bits on the front of the
car, which are merely a symptom of the problem and a result of the
FIA mandating ever higher ground clearance for the front wing.

Again could you just answer the question.

What's the question? Are you interested in discussing F1 or scoring usenet points? I am not interested in playing silly games with you, I can do that just as well with MJF and it's more fun.

Ah, so because you can see the Dumbo ears you don't like them,
whether they make it more difficult for a car behind to follow on,
less difficult, or no difference?
The Dumbo ears are irrelevent. My response was to your comment
equating less/no "twiddly bits" to a) no aero grip. b) identical
bodywork.
a) If you regard the wings as part of the main bodywork then fine,
but I don't wish to put words in DC's mouth, and I have read opinions
in here complaining about the design of the front wings and front
wing endplates and people who want to remove the wings, so I'll wait
to see his definition rather than assuming you and he are on the same
page.

I am not talking about DCs words I am responding to yours.

Well I didn't write "Uglier and uglier. It's time they banned any twiddly bits that are proud of the main bodywork altogether." which you seem to be interpreting as a lot more limited than I suggested it might be. For example I have seen twiddly bits written to include barge boards, wing endplates, the second deck wings favoured by BMW and McLaren (but possibly not Ferraris, because theirs is more elegant). Why should the wings be considered automatically acceptable when parts of them may not be? My point was, where do you stop, and for what reasons?

b) Write me a legally enforceable rule against "twiddly bits" that
isn't the same as spec bodywork and I'll believe it could be done.

So you don't believe it can be done. That's interesting. It seems to me
you could get rid of most a good number of devices simply by extending
the current methods and having further exclusion zones.

At which point you move closer and closer to having cars that all look exactly the same. You may as well have done with the pretense that F1 is about high technical innovation and simply make them all use the same aero kit.

In general most "twiddly bits" are there to gain speed in a lap.
When two equally fitted out cars follow each other through a
fast corner the front ones twiddly bits work well while the
bits on the following car in dirty air work less well. Hence
the second car is at a disadvantage.

Less aero bits, less disadvantage.
What if the twiddly bits are designed to work well in clear air,
and better when the car is following another car?
Do you really think that is the net effect of all these devices?
I don't know, and neither do you.

I would have thought you may have a clue. Do you not study these things.

I asked what you thought. Not what you know for certain.

Well, what I know for certain is that the teams are investigating ways of analysing the aerodynamics of a car following another car, and what I think is that team X who run in the midfield would not willingly put something on the car that completely compromises it when following another car unless they have no other choice, and if they could devise something that works just as well or better when following another car, then they would do it.

So you disagree that removing these devices would mean the cars
could follow closer?
Yes, I absolutely disagree. The FIA has mandated a situation where
the cars can produce quite a lot of downforce at the rear (or biased
towards the rear) and systematically reduced the available front
downforce, by limiting how close the front wing is allowed to get to
the floor and by limiting the number of wing profiles allowed. The
teams are allowed to do whatever they want in the diffuser within the
geometric limits and are probably all capable of producing more
downforce than they can reasonably use, with a predominant bias to
the rear.

Therefore to balance the car they're being forced to use devices that
are probably less aerodynamically efficient at the front, to cure the
understeer they get from the lack of balance, and the enforced lack
of grip from the tyres. If you remove these parts from the car,
you'll just enforce F1 cars that understeer all the time,

Don't be daft. They will still balance the car.

Based on the evidence of last year's Renault, no, they won't.

and
understeer even worse when they're following another car,

That doesn't follow. If a balanced car is less dependent on aero grip
as you infer then it will be affected less by the car in front not more.

I'm not inferring any such thing. I'm inferring that you will not achieve any substantial difference by banning the twiddly bits. The disadvantage seen now when running behind another car will still be the same disadvantage, just starting from a different baseline.

--
Phil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Now this is just getting silly...
    ... bits that are proud of the main bodywork altogether. ... Why must the only alternatives be loads of aero grip or no ... The front wing produces downforce at the front and conditions the ... outer edges of the car, ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Now this is just getting silly...
    ... Why must the only alternatives be loads of aero grip or no aero ... Not having the "twiddly bits that are pround of the main bodywork" ... top of the car behind, except at the outer edges of the car, which ... The Dumbo ears are merely a catalyst, ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Now this is just getting silly...
    ... "twiddly bits" equate to no aero grip? ... Are the wings part of the main bodywork? ... So you were talking bollocks in order to attempt to make a point. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Now this is just getting silly...
    ... "twiddly bits" equate to no aero grip? ... Are the wings part of the main bodywork? ... Very RASF1 as you say. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Now this is just getting silly...
    ... "twiddly bits" equate to no aero grip? ... Are the wings part of the main bodywork? ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
Loading