planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:33 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:21 am
Posts: 44


Yep, loving the new Road Course Aero Kits as well. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 126
Blinky McSquinty wrote:

I fully agree Blake.

I come from the aerospace world, and classic designs were sleek and smooth, devoid of extra fences or vortex generators. And if they were installed, they were a solution to a component that should have been designed better. State of the art jet fighters (such as the Su-35) appear extremely simple and clean in appearance.

In Formula One the extra winglets and parts are there because of just one simple reason. The regulations leak, they are poorly constructed and allow aerodynamic engineers to add little pieces of crap where allowed. And if the regulations are so poorly written, I can never accept that this series is the top because it is painfully obvious it could be improved. Everyone talks about controlling costs, yet these loose rules force teams to spend insane amounts of money. That doesn't even make sense. The cars are just the external reflection of the efficiency of the organization that control the sport. And inefficient never equates to "top".


The Su-35 doesn't have to clean up the turbulent air that's coming off four wheels rotating at high speed. The reason for all of the winglets is performance, not regulations. The regulations do the exact opposite of what you say and stop there being more of them. We saw in 2008 what the cars look like in the quest for performance and the absence of regulations to reduce them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4000
Location: Michigan, USA
optimisteprime wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:

I fully agree Blake.

I come from the aerospace world, and classic designs were sleek and smooth, devoid of extra fences or vortex generators. And if they were installed, they were a solution to a component that should have been designed better. State of the art jet fighters (such as the Su-35) appear extremely simple and clean in appearance.

In Formula One the extra winglets and parts are there because of just one simple reason. The regulations leak, they are poorly constructed and allow aerodynamic engineers to add little pieces of crap where allowed. And if the regulations are so poorly written, I can never accept that this series is the top because it is painfully obvious it could be improved. Everyone talks about controlling costs, yet these loose rules force teams to spend insane amounts of money. That doesn't even make sense. The cars are just the external reflection of the efficiency of the organization that control the sport. And inefficient never equates to "top".

The Su-35 doesn't have to clean up the turbulent air that's coming off four wheels rotating at high speed. The reason for all of the winglets is performance, not regulations. The regulations do the exact opposite of what you say and stop there being more of them. We saw in 2008 what the cars look like in the quest for performance and the absence of regulations to reduce them.

:thumbup:

If you want a clean, fast car that can race closely, give it a closed cockpit and closed wheels, and it will look more like a fighter jet aerodynamically. Getting air to not be fouled by the wheels is what the entire front wing is for.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 34
mds wrote:
Image

I like the basic look of this FR 2.0, but the small wheel diameter bothers me.
Especially when you see it driving past, it just looks as if the wheels are too small and they have to rotate very fast, while the rest of the car seems to look "driving by at normal speed". A bit like a racebike with only 16 inch tires.

I loved the new Indycar look, but now that I see the high downforce look, my enthousiasm dropped..a lot.
The thing that bothers me most, and I think it's something I dislike on any open wheeled racecar; as soon as the front wing is wider then the tires, view from upfront: I dislike (I think).

The FR 2.0 is just about acceptable: the wing covers the tires a bit, but acceptable. the Indy 2018 low-downforce left enough of the tires visible too.
I checked the MP4/4-8 cars; all have a front wing that fits within the inside of the wheels. I absolutely love that!

I guess, since the current front wings serve more as wind deflectors for the front wheels then downforce inducing items, adding groundfloor would make it possible to go for smaller wings again?

Ow, the Indycar 2018 fron wing also goes "up" way too much. Wing should be flatter, not a snowplough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4383
A lot of this is going to come down what you value more; Form or function.

If you want to have the highest performance possible while retaining an open wheel format then you're going to have make compromises on the aesthetics of the design.

If you want to have the front wing be small and simple, and have fewer little winglets all over the place so that the car looks better you're compromising the performance.

So, as a governing body, who do you aim to please? However in the end whether you go for one of the extremes or just try to find a happy middle ground there will be a segment of fans who will complain.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 34
RaggedMan wrote:
If you want to have the front wing be small and simple, and have fewer little winglets all over the place so that the car looks better you're compromising the performance.

Your post does indeed contain a valid argument about form or function, but a small front wing can easily (?) be offset with more ground effect it seems.
But performance:I've already accepted long time ago F1 isn't the fastest possible racecar (newbies all seem to think it is, in the beginning). it's the fastest car within a certain set of regulations.

If we/FIA wants to aim for, say 1.40 around Spa, that is perfectly achievable these days with an array of combinations of engine, downforce etc.

Since we're (back) at a level of speed most fans like (?), I think there's a possibility to rearrange the the configuration and go for something that improves close racing. I guess I associate a smaller front wing with better racing. I know that relationship isn't as straightforward as my subconscious would like it to be, but more top-generated aero just doesn't seem the route to choose.

Aero development has not always led to ugly cars, but of all the new bits, only aero seems to wield the power to majorly dissappoint fans by creating very ugly cars/carparts. ;-)

But I'm going to look for pics of nice looking cars with wide front wings now :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 174
speedy_bob wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
If you want to have the front wing be small and simple, and have fewer little winglets all over the place so that the car looks better you're compromising the performance.

Your post does indeed contain a valid argument about form or function, but a small front wing can easily (?) be offset with more ground effect it seems.
But performance:I've already accepted long time ago F1 isn't the fastest possible racecar (newbies all seem to think it is, in the beginning). it's the fastest car within a certain set of regulations.

If we/FIA wants to aim for, say 1.40 around Spa, that is perfectly achievable these days with an array of combinations of engine, downforce etc.

Since we're (back) at a level of speed most fans like (?), I think there's a possibility to rearrange the the configuration and go for something that improves close racing. I guess I associate a smaller front wing with better racing. I know that relationship isn't as straightforward as my subconscious would like it to be, but more top-generated aero just doesn't seem the route to choose.

Aero development has not always led to ugly cars, but of all the new bits, only aero seems to wield the power to majorly dissappoint fans by creating very ugly cars/carparts. ;-)

But I'm going to look for pics of nice looking cars with wide front wings now :-)

Also depends on the function you are after. Close racing with ability to follow and overtake without needing drs, or most efficient aerodynamically and sod the racing...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 97
I HATE the current indyCAR chassis. I really really like this 2018 high downforce look. Maybe more than current F1 cars and almost as good as the CART cars from late 90s (Raynards)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 936
optimisteprime wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:

I fully agree Blake.

I come from the aerospace world, and classic designs were sleek and smooth, devoid of extra fences or vortex generators. And if they were installed, they were a solution to a component that should have been designed better. State of the art jet fighters (such as the Su-35) appear extremely simple and clean in appearance.

In Formula One the extra winglets and parts are there because of just one simple reason. The regulations leak, they are poorly constructed and allow aerodynamic engineers to add little pieces of crap where allowed. And if the regulations are so poorly written, I can never accept that this series is the top because it is painfully obvious it could be improved. Everyone talks about controlling costs, yet these loose rules force teams to spend insane amounts of money. That doesn't even make sense. The cars are just the external reflection of the efficiency of the organization that control the sport. And inefficient never equates to "top".


The Su-35 doesn't have to clean up the turbulent air that's coming off four wheels rotating at high speed. The reason for all of the winglets is performance, not regulations. The regulations do the exact opposite of what you say and stop there being more of them. We saw in 2008 what the cars look like in the quest for performance and the absence of regulations to reduce them.


Image
http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/Su-35S-KnAAPO-2P-1S.jpg

The Su-35 and it's wings. They are simple, devoid of fences, notches, vortex generators. Yet this is one of the top, if not the best dogfighters. Just like the F-15 it has to deal with spanwise flow of air, turbulence, shock waves, and many other aerodynamic abnormalities on the wing that destroy efficiency. Yet it is very clean and simple in appearance. That is good engineering, something simple and elegant.

The McLaren MP4/4, definitely one of the greatest Formula One cars of all time, winning 15 of 16 races. Simple, elegant.

Image
http://snaplap.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/30190622/senna-detroit.jpg

The reason for today's complex wings and winglets is to compensate for the design written into the regulations. The rear end is tight by the regulations, and there is limited scope in what an engineer can do back there. So in order to maximize efficiency the winglets and strakes around the radiator inlets are there to condition the air and direct it so that by the time it arrives at the back end, it has the correct flow and pressure to maximize back end efficiency. And further forward at the nose, most of what is there exists to condition the air so it arrives mid body at the correct direction and pressures.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 892
Sigh....the MP4/4 was a stunningly beautiful car. Looking back on that car in the picture above reminds me how truly far we have fallen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:07 pm
Posts: 159
Yes the MP4/4 is simple, elegant and classic. But we have to accept that if we gave the 1988 rulebook to
Adrian Newey and asked him today to design a car for that era the car would look very odd in comparison
and it would destroy the MP4/4 on the racetrack. Technology moves on. Celebrate the past without getting
stuck in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 806
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
optimisteprime wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:

I fully agree Blake.

I come from the aerospace world, and classic designs were sleek and smooth, devoid of extra fences or vortex generators. And if they were installed, they were a solution to a component that should have been designed better. State of the art jet fighters (such as the Su-35) appear extremely simple and clean in appearance.

In Formula One the extra winglets and parts are there because of just one simple reason. The regulations leak, they are poorly constructed and allow aerodynamic engineers to add little pieces of crap where allowed. And if the regulations are so poorly written, I can never accept that this series is the top because it is painfully obvious it could be improved. Everyone talks about controlling costs, yet these loose rules force teams to spend insane amounts of money. That doesn't even make sense. The cars are just the external reflection of the efficiency of the organization that control the sport. And inefficient never equates to "top".


The Su-35 doesn't have to clean up the turbulent air that's coming off four wheels rotating at high speed. The reason for all of the winglets is performance, not regulations. The regulations do the exact opposite of what you say and stop there being more of them. We saw in 2008 what the cars look like in the quest for performance and the absence of regulations to reduce them.


Image
http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/Su-35S-KnAAPO-2P-1S.jpg

The Su-35 and it's wings. They are simple, devoid of fences, notches, vortex generators. Yet this is one of the top, if not the best dogfighters. Just like the F-15 it has to deal with spanwise flow of air, turbulence, shock waves, and many other aerodynamic abnormalities on the wing that destroy efficiency. Yet it is very clean and simple in appearance. That is good engineering, something simple and elegant.

The McLaren MP4/4, definitely one of the greatest Formula One cars of all time, winning 15 of 16 races. Simple, elegant.

Image
http://snaplap.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/30190622/senna-detroit.jpg

The reason for today's complex wings and winglets is to compensate for the design written into the regulations. The rear end is tight by the regulations, and there is limited scope in what an engineer can do back there. So in order to maximize efficiency the winglets and strakes around the radiator inlets are there to condition the air and direct it so that by the time it arrives at the back end, it has the correct flow and pressure to maximize back end efficiency. And further forward at the nose, most of what is there exists to condition the air so it arrives mid body at the correct direction and pressures.


Sorry if I come across pedantic Blinky but im pretty sure that's not the MP4/4 but the MP4/5.

This is the 1988 MP4/4 which I think, if anything, even better illustrates your point.

Image
http://www.statsf1.com/constructeurs/photos/68/341.jpg

_________________
Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way when you do judge him, you're a mile away, and you have his shoes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 936
Jezza13 wrote:
Sorry if I come across pedantic Blinky but im pretty sure that's not the MP4/4 but the MP4/5.

This is the 1988 MP4/4 which I think, if anything, even better illustrates your point.

Image
http://www.statsf1.com/constructeurs/photos/68/341.jpg


Thank you Jezza13, I stand corrected on my mistake.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1329
Location: Ontario Canada
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Sorry if I come across pedantic Blinky but im pretty sure that's not the MP4/4 but the MP4/5.

This is the 1988 MP4/4 which I think, if anything, even better illustrates your point.

Image
http://www.statsf1.com/constructeurs/photos/68/341.jpg


Thank you Jezza13, I stand corrected on my mistake.


What a beautiful car. No clutter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4000
Location: Michigan, USA
I don't know if anyone else saw the feature on Autosport recently where Lando Norris drove some classic McLarens in F1 2017, but one thing I found interesting was that when he got to the MP4-23, he said it was the most beautiful car of the lot, and he loved all the aero appendages. So at least one racing driver agrees with me! :D

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: IDrinkYourMilkshake and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group