2011 F1 Cars and the Regs

[Manipe]

Sadly Woodcat I am not old enough to remember the sixties!! Although driver aids may have made driving easier, I don't think it has stopped the best coming to the fore.

I remember talking to Timo Glock about this a few years ago, and he said that while the cars were relatively easy to drive, reaching the limit was still extremely difficult. The closer to the limit you get, the more difficult it is to make the next step.

Drivers of today still have to drive the cars to the best of their ability, and even more so because the talent out there today is on an even better scale than it was in years gone by, helped by the cars being closer together than ever before. In China there was just over eight tenths of a second separating the top 17 runners in Q1. The fact that the cars are so close together is putting even more emphasis on driver skill. Drivers can no longer rely on their cars to get them up to the front, it's now all down to talent.

[Woodcat]

My subject is jumping ahead a bit to the 2013 technical regs, but I felt this was of enough interest that I would share it with my fellow fans here.
This story appears in one form or another on several websites today, and frankly I'm not all that happy with the decision FOTA has made on this subject. I can see how they might have come to the conclusions being put forth, but in reality they are still not looking with a long view at the big picture. The flat bottom cars came about as a result of the ground effects cars becoming so wide as to hinder a passing car, and as a result along with the flat botton, the FIA regulated the maximum width of F1 cars.
My thoughts are that if ground effects (under body venturis) were again allowed for use, it would be necessary to regulate them just as strongly as they are regulating the cars length, width, and even weight balance under this years rules. As the wings are being made smaller and of less use, and aerodynamics rules are further reducing the rear diffusers, is it wise, or perhaps even safe for the drivers who risk thier lives to drive F1 cars? I think not....

Ground effect abandoned as teams plan for 2013
A FOTA technical proposal to rival that of the FIA has been put forward for approval ahead of the 2013 F1 season.
There will be no return of ground effect technology when F1 overhauls its technical specification for the 2013 world championship, after teams gave their support to alternative, and cheaper, means of limiting performance.
The FIA had recruited F1 veterans Patrick Head and Rory Byrne to formulate technical regulations that would, at once, make the cars both more efficient and more challenging to drive, without compromising performance too much. Despite the pair coming up with a set of rules, based around the return of shaped floors last seen in the ground effect era, they were opposed by the teams, which felt that a series of aerodynamic restrictions could achieve the same result, but at far less expense. Ironically, Byre was also involved in devising the alternative proposal which, according to a BBC exclusive, looks set to be set in stone at a meeting of F1's technical working group on Wednesday.
Among the changes included on the FOTA proposal, which seeks to mirror the FIA's target of 35 per cent less fuel consumption with a drag co-efficient of around 0.7Cd, will be a front wing of reduced width, a shallower rear wing albeit with DRS retained, significantly lower noses, a restriction of front wing endplate design and a limit on extraneous bodywork, particularly between the front wheels and sidepods.
"The only point of contention between FOTA and the FIA has been on the tunnelled floor, having a shaped undertray," Williams' Sam Michael told the BBC, "Everything else is pretty much the FIA proposal, or pretty close to it with just some tweaks. The biggest concern was that it's a massive amount of investment for the teams.
"It's quite a big departure. If you were going to go down that route and have a very different set of drag and lift coefficients that you couldn't achieve with the current rules, fine, that's different. But the teams saw it as a massive amount of investment and work for something we don't really understand. We're not scared of that but, if you do spend all that money, why do that and not something you can get to very quickly and cheaply with the current floor. The FIA understood that in the end."
The chassis changes are due to be introduced along with a new engine, dropping the current specification in favour of 1.6-litre turbo-charged units. Bernie Ecclestone has already made his views on the change well known, and continued to oppose the change over the Turkish GP weekend.
"First of all, I do not have any problems with [FIA president] Jean [Todt]," he told the official F1 website, attempting to quell suggestions that the opposition is personal, "We have a very good relationship, [but] I am not happy with the engines. Take a GP3 car - it is how an F1 car will sound in the future!
"People come to an F1 race for the sound and the speed, [but] I think Jean is following what Max [Mosley] started - and I do not know why he started the whole idea about 'green' racing. If you think that there is more fuel used in the Tour de France, then we should start a different discussion. If you really want to reduce emissions, you could say to the promoters to reduce the capacity of their circuits by ten or 15 per cent. Fifteen percent less people coming to a race would make a difference and then you could do the same with football. That would make a difference."
The problem with Bernie's thinking is that if you reduce the number of fans attending the races, then he can't charge the circuit owner's as much as he does to hold a Grand Prix....