Webber has become the latest driver to criticise the moveable rear wing. His comments are similar to those made by Barrichello and come after Vettel's hint that the drivers may strike if they feel the regulations unsafe. This comment in particular was similar to what Rubens was saying. I don't really understand the argument at all, if you don't feel comfortable using it through high speed corners, don't. Personally I think this presents an opportunity for drivers who know the limits of their car, and are prepared to push them, to gain an advantage. The argument that Webber and Barrichello have made is pretty weak. It's like saying by braking late you run the risk of hitting the armco at Monaco. Formula One is about pushing the limits, if you aren't prepared to do that you'll be punished by those who are, if you push it too hard you'll punish yourself. The ARW hasn't changed that, it's just increased the number of places where a driver can push the limit and made corners like Eau Rouge, which had become easy in modern F1 cars, a challenge again.
I sort of understand his point that everyone will have the same advantage from the wing if its used freely in qualifying, making it somewhat pointless. However, like you say the best drivers are the ones that can hold it together when the cars on the edge, and less downforce in a highspeed corner will put the car on the edge. Therefore the best driver will benefit whilst less skilled (loose term as they're all brilliant drivers) will have to do the corner with high downforce and loose a a few thousandths or so on acceleration out/through of the bend.
Webber has already flipped a couple of cars so it's probably thinking about eau rouge in the same terms as Le Mans back straight. At the end of the day, these guys have been pulling together to make the races safer, hence the record of 17 years without fatalities on track (RIP Ayrton the true Master) I cannot see the issue as a simply "you don't have balls to take it flat out". Aerodynamics are some much push to the limits that a similar accident could happen - let's hope not, but if it does the driver has little to do to save the situation. I cannot picture the driver getting a feeling that the car is likely to take off. This is the difference I see with what AbsolutelyGlorious is saying. If you push to the limit in a turn you do realise you are just about to lose the car, but does this happen in occassions when the car lifts off? I think not.
I'll keep my judgement until I've seen it raced a few times. I don't want to see any fatalities in the sport but if these drivers are getting worried about the possible dangers of the device then perhaps they should rethink their carrers. They are not paid millions for no reason, the sport is always going to be dangerous. There are drivers out there who will make good use of this device, these are the real racers who make this sport great.
If the fears were that drivers could suffer more rear wing failures then I would understand. But the rear wing is something the drivers are in control of, so if they dropped it on a fast corner it's their own fault, the same as any other misjudgement.
Should be interesting to see how team mates use the wing differently in qualifying. I'm sure the bbc will do a side by side lap comparison at some point. One driver opening the flap through the corner whilst the other waits till the car straightens up for example.
I'm not against the idea of the one taking more risks wins; I'm just pointing out safety seems to win these days which is why I think the awareness of the danger of the sport has dramatically decreased, hence the criticism of some drivers. Anyway, I can only agree with safety concerns on relation to gradient changes of the track for the reasons I explained above. If you complain you have too many things to do at the wheel, don't use so many buttons. But apart from all said, I doubt is going to make any difference, and I don't like the concept of it either: an adjustment that can only be used on certain parts of the track? It remains me of the turbo-like markers you have on the arcade games Mario Kart style; drive over them and you'll go faster, miss them and everybody will pass you. I think the sport deserves something more intelligent (and serious) than that
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/6831407/Alonso-Drivers-Should-Be-Adaptable At last a proper racers view on the rear wing, and I'm not even an Alonso fan!
Perhaps they are complaining because their ARW system is not as good as other teams. Both Red Bull drivers have complained (they activate by a button - although I could be wrong on this), while the likes of Massa and Alonso use a pedal and are praising the system.
Your right Jose. Mclaren last year had the F-duct controllable by the knee, but other teams had to use their hand to use it. Mclaren's version made it easier for the driver and less distractions.I'm pretty sure Mclaren would do the same as Ferrari and have the activation of the device not on the steering wheel, besides they did create the F-duct and it works well with the knee thing
As I understand it, McLaren's rear-wing activation is by use of a pedal. Back to the original point raised by AbsolutelyGlorious about not understanding some of the criticisms of the system, I would like to make the following points: When racing, a race driver is living on the edge of safety for as long as possible. - He (or she) will make every effort to go as fast as possible within the levels of perceived risk. Of course, it is every driver's prerogative to make use of any devices according to his/her own assessment, just as it is every driver's prerogative to choose to go through a corner 'flat' in 5th or feathering in 6th (for instance). However, there are pressures upon any driver to remain competitive and this results in a tendency for a driver to take the risk he perceives others succeeding with. In a sense, it becomes an act of faith. Two examples: Eau Rouge was a challenge before everyone was able to take it 'flat'. But it was not a case of "today we cannot take it flat but tomorrow we will all take it flat". - No. Some drivers did it first. They gained the advantage if they survived it. But this meant taking the plunge to actually do it; it meant that a driver would have to commit to it fully (it cannot be done in half-measure). And of course, initially some cars would facilitate this better than others. With the evolution of design, gradually all drivers came to realise that Eau Rouge could be taken flat. I did say two examples didn't I? Well, the other example is a comparison of drivers, some of whom are more willing to take risks. (We are not all the same). So I'll just leave you with a name and ask that you contemplate both his driving and the reason for his ultimate fate: Gilles Villeneuve.
