Looks way too prescriptive, fixed angles etc. Wider tyres - good. Need much simpler front wings, not good to have wider cars, less space to overtake especially on street circuits. Need to reduce aero, increase max fuel and greatly increase electrical energy useage.
Quite high up on my wish list is to help Pirelli do their job, not hinder them at every opportunity. http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-set-to-test-2017-f1-tyres-with-v8-engined-car-675909/ Hey Pirelli, we want you to build a tyre that does this this and this, and if you fail we'll bitch and moan endlessly. Oh and by the way, you can't actually test this tyre on a modern car, doesn't be so silly.
FIA has never been so far out of touch with the fans. The **** they keep dreaming up is unreal. Surely Pirelli can be given a simple mandate of a fast race tyre with steady degradation. Why do we complicate things? 2017 should be about bringing the sport back to its roots- competitive racing, and fast cars that give you goosebumps. This engine format needs testing. Now we have development....on a dyno! It's absolute madness that we get 8 days to test the most complex engine formula in the history of the sport. We are still leaning towards locking in a performance advantage. Give these other manufacturers a chance to show their talents! And as well know by now- although we want faster cars, we need them to be able to follow one another and race/overtake. But that still seems up in the air for next year.
The problem with the F1 spectacle is that there's generally one team that does a better job than anyone else, then the fans just have to hope that either a: the car is unreliable or b: the drivers are ****. The current FFP rules mean the cars have to be reliable, so a's out the window, and there are 4 factory teams so it's doubtful a **** driver is going to get a good car. that's why 2010 was a good season. RBR had both at once, a great car that was unreliable in SV's hands, and a great car that was bulletproof, driven by Webber. Buttons 'absurd' win in Canada didn't help F1, it was less a race and more of a lottery and Berinie, in his finite wisdom, decided that was going to be the blueprint for a good race. But it isn't all his fault, it's just they way things have turned out, F1 must be the pinnacle of motorsport, and that means aero, unfortunately science hasn't played ball with the fans it's too advanced, but you can't take it away or F1 falls from it's pinnacle. The tracks are 'too safe', cars that go on off track excursions rarely lose out too badly, which is the one saving grace of the street circuits, if you **** up at Silverstone you may lose half a second, but if you **** up at Monaco you're sunbathing on a yacht watching the rest of the race ten minutes later. I don't want to see drivers dead or injured, I want to see them punished for getting it wrong.
I agree with that but, without reduced aero, it would make the overtaking problem even worse. If I'm following a car in front, with my downforce being impacted by their dirty air, I'll be sliding around and my Pirellis will be jelly babies in no time. I have a short window to attempt an overtake, before I have to give up and drop back. One option is to attempt a risky overtake, maybe try to catch the driver ahead off-guard. I have less downforce than him, so I'm already at a disadvantage. What if I try it, and get it wrong? With more forgiving run-offs, I can expect to lose time, but keep the car intact and I can stay in the race. It might be worth going for that overtake. With more punishing run-offs, I'll be contemplating a DNF, an uncomfortable atmosphere in the garage, a bollocking from the boss, and a reputation as a driver with poor judgement. Now it's looking like there's a lot more at risk than just track position. Once the price of failure becomes too high, there'll be fewer attempts, and even more of a procession. (I'm not a fan of mad Max, but some of his moves last season did bring drama & get people excited.) I think we have to concede to the laws of physics and accept that the pinnacle of aero (more specifically, the pinnacle of downforce) is incompatible with a good racing spectacle with lots of overtaking. I presume today's complicated front wings, and all the other flaps and whiskers etc are trying to create smooth airflow from dirty air. That's a pinnacle of sorts, but I'd much prefer F1 to have reduced downforce, with all the (hoped for) benefits to reduced cost, increased reliance on mechanical grip etc.
Need more drag, so there's an advantage to being behind. Mandatory drag producing rear wings are needed I think.
That's an angle I hasn't considered before, might be a clever way to go about things. A lot safer than replacing aero grip with ground effect too.
Lengthening the slipstream means the following car hits the turbulent air from further away. And being in the slipstream is only an advantage on the straight, it would be even harder to follow through the corners. I've been against these taller rear wings ever since they were introduced for two reasons: first, they look ****. Second, I believe they were introduced to produce more drag and less downforce than the low-slung, wider wings. The reasoning being that the cars used to get within half a second and then struggle to follow, so they wanted to lengthen the slipstream so drivers could attack from further back, the result was that they now get to within a second and struggle to follow. It was a short-sighted change in my opinion. Personally I think the sport is plagued just as much, in fact much more, by too easy overtaking as it is by overtaking being to difficult.
Personally, I disagree. If you look at the factors individually your rationale makes sense to me, but wider grippier tyres will change the balance between aero and mechanical grip in the corners and negate the effect. More drag also means that more power is possible without increasing top speeds. More powerful torquier engines would be more difficult to drive through and out of the corners, which hopefully would lead to more inconsistency in driver performance and hence more unpredictable racing.
This is far to simple, all cars should be fitted with fans to suck them to the floor, the closer you get to the car in front the faster your fan will go. Unfortunately this will take a while to program so for now all cars will be fitted with redundant fans until mid way through the 2020 season. For now wider tires and more 'generic' aero will suffice. By generic I mean less fine tuned devices that'll just fail when the air stream is unsettled. I don't want to see to many standard parts in F1 as I like variation, even if it is a little lacking these days. I wish it were possible to just give designers a box and say if it fits in this it's legal, but sadly I feel those days are long gone.
they shortened all the tracks and now few are really fit for the purpose of F1 racing, in their effort to bring the tracks up to date they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree with this, DRS ruins the mid-race when drivers are out of position through the pit stops. If DRS is powerful enough (which it normally is), then the faster car can sit behind, then close up and use a DRS pass to minimise risk and tyre wear. I'd much rather every position has to be fought for. Gone are the days of Trulli trains and the sport seems poorer for it.