Slicks and wings
David Betts
regulations for 2004 has - at the behest of Bernie - been swung
dramatically in favour of a return to slicks together with a dramatic
cut back on aerodynamics.
Move has the full support of Max, as long as it can be demonstrated
that sufficient downforce can be lost. (Problem, as always, will be
keeping it lost.) Talk is of smaller wings, smaller overhangs, no
diffusers and flat bottoms.
As usual, it needs the agreement of the teams, but what Bernie wants,
Bernie usually gets. We'll have to wait and see. I guess there's bound
to be a trade-off, though, which means that the electronic driver aids
are likely to stay.
Not sure that the changes will make a great deal of difference to the
racing. After all, most of the perceived lack of overtaking is
probably more down to circuits, driver attitudes, and relative
equality of performance rather than technical regs., but we'll see
eventually. At least is should satisfy those people who feel for some
reason that racing cars simply *have* to have slicks :-)>.
David Betts (dav...@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" - Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Paul Harman
> I take it everybody has heard that the emphasis on technical
> regulations for 2004 has - at the behest of Bernie - been swung
> dramatically in favour of a return to slicks together with a dramatic
> cut back on aerodynamics.
That sounds like good news to me. Over the past few years I've been slowly
convinced that "grooves v slicks" is a false argument and it doesn't,
really, make all that mich difference - but the cars will "look nicer" and
from Michelin/Bridgestone's point of view they would be able to carry the
experience over at least into/from their other motorsport activities. I also
wonder if this move is to sweeten the entry of a new tyre manufacturer who
hasn't previously been involved with grooves.
I welcome the aerodynamic changes. It will be interesting to see how quickly
the teams can claw the grip back again. Probably before they even hit the
track, given the amount of testing time spent in the wind tunnel <grin>.
> Move has the full support of Max, as long as it can be demonstrated
> that sufficient downforce can be lost. (Problem, as always, will be
> keeping it lost.) Talk is of smaller wings, smaller overhangs, no
> diffusers and flat bottoms.
No diffusers is a positive step forward, although coupled witht he other
aerodynamic changes I'm not sure it would have such a great effect (since
there's alerady less reliance on the front wing).
> Not sure that the changes will make a great deal of difference to the
> racing. After all, most of the perceived lack of overtaking is
> probably more down to circuits, driver attitudes, and relative
> equality of performance rather than technical regs., but we'll see
> eventually. At least is should satisfy those people who feel for some
> reason that racing cars simply *have* to have slicks :-)>.
If only we could regulate for, and enforce, the idea of Racing Room.
Paul
Pete Fenelon
>
> Not sure that the changes will make a great deal of difference to the
> racing. After all, most of the perceived lack of overtaking is
> probably more down to circuits, driver attitudes, and relative
> equality of performance rather than technical regs., but we'll see
> eventually. At least is should satisfy those people who feel for some
> reason that racing cars simply *have* to have slicks :-)>.
They may not pass one another very often but if they're hanging the tail
out at 45 degrees with full opposite-lock on while they're doing it, who
cares? :)
The question Max and Bernie should be asking is "Would Ronnie and Gilles
and Ayrton enjoy driving the cars?"
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Richard Walker
dav...@motorsport.org.uk (David Betts) wrote:
> Not sure that the changes will make a great deal of difference to the
> racing. After all, most of the perceived lack of overtaking is probably
> more down to circuits, driver attitudes, and relative equality of
> performance rather than technical regs., but we'll see eventually.
Agreed.
You never know, with less aero and slick tyres, we could find ourselves back
in 1993. And we know what happened to the cars over the 1993-94 winter!
Nah, that's just too sensible... :-)
--
Richard.
"A taste of honey... tasting much sweeter than wine."
David Betts
wrote:
>David Betts <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Not sure that the changes will make a great deal of difference to the
>> racing. After all, most of the perceived lack of overtaking is
>> probably more down to circuits, driver attitudes, and relative
>> equality of performance rather than technical regs., but we'll see
>> eventually. At least is should satisfy those people who feel for some
>> reason that racing cars simply *have* to have slicks :-)>.
>
>They may not pass one another very often but if they're hanging the tail
>out at 45 degrees with full opposite-lock on while they're doing it, who
>cares? :)
Well, slip angles may be a little higher, but I doubt anyone will be
doing that with the traction control still in place. My understanding
is that the slicks and aero-package deal will be instead of the
standardised ecu proposal.
Personally, if it comes to a choice, I'd far rather lose the
electronics. Seems to me that F1 - like so many other things in these
Blairite days - is going for appearance over substance.
Pete Fenelon
> Well, slip angles may be a little higher, but I doubt anyone will be
> doing that with the traction control still in place. My understanding
> is that the slicks and aero-package deal will be instead of the
> standardised ecu proposal.
Yes, the two unfortunately seem mutually exclusive, so it'll still be
arcade games rather than real driving.
M. Lee
> That sounds like good news to me. Over the past few years I've been slowly
> convinced that "grooves v slicks" is a false argument and it doesn't,
> really, make all that mich difference - but the cars will "look nicer" and
> from Michelin/Bridgestone's point of view they would be able to carry the
> experience over at least into/from their other motorsport activities.
Work with slicks would certainly allow carryover between different
motorsports (though I imagine Bridgestone might have a bigger
advantage there through CART). What I was wondering, though, is if
there is any real carryover between grooved F1 tires and your everyday
road car tire technology? Or are the conditions so vastly different
that nothing really trickles back down to the tires you and I might
buy.
Keith Crossley
> eventually. At least is should satisfy those people who feel for some
> reason that racing cars simply *have* to have slicks :-)>.
My dislike of the grooved tires is founded, to a great degree, in the same
dislike others had for other artificial manipulations of the sport. The
grooved tires are an aberration. There is a difference between applying
limits (aero, engine capacity) and compelling use of irrational design
elements.
Keith
(yes, I realize the grooves can be seen as a "limit". But I think the groove
rule crosses some line somewhere)
David Betts
wrote:
>Work with slicks would certainly allow carryover between different
>motorsports (though I imagine Bridgestone might have a bigger
>advantage there through CART).
Not likely to be any carry-over from CART while it's a single-tyre
formula. The development work is being done in F1 24/7. If there is
any carry-over, it will be the other way.
> What I was wondering, though, is if
>there is any real carryover between grooved F1 tires and your everyday
>road car tire technology? Or are the conditions so vastly different
>that nothing really trickles back down to the tires you and I might
>buy.
The tyre companies will tell you that they are learning all the time
about construction techniques and tyre compounds and that this
benefits road tyre technology. Essentially, though, they are there for
promotional purposes.
Jon Jenssen
news:g8sguus1a4foidn3r...@4ax.com...
> Personally, if it comes to a choice, I'd far rather lose the
> electronics. Seems to me that F1 - like so many other things in these
> Blairite days - is going for appearance over substance.
If tyres are insignificant, how come speeds have risen sharply now that we
have a tyre battle between Bridgestone and Michelin? It also seems to be
usual to attribute tyres when certain teams have performance advantages on
race weekends, sometimes Bridgestone is even credited for Ferrari's whole
performance advantage!
Seems to me that tyres are a very important factor, with or without traction
control and other electronic systems. I'm not saying that the electronics
should remain, because I don't think they should, but I think it would be a
step in the right direction if they go back to slicks again.
Oh, and I almost forgot, the cars will look much better!
--
Jon Jenssen
James J Stanley
"Jon Jenssen" <see_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPoI9.6256$hV6.1...@news2.e.nsc.no...
> should remain, because I don't think they should, but I think it would be
a
> step in the right direction if they go back to slicks again.
>
> Oh, and I almost forgot, the cars will look much better!
David Betts
<see_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> skrev i melding
>news:g8sguus1a4foidn3r...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:02:05 GMT, pe...@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon)
>> wrote:
>
>> Personally, if it comes to a choice, I'd far rather lose the
>> electronics. Seems to me that F1 - like so many other things in these
>> Blairite days - is going for appearance over substance.
>
>If tyres are insignificant, how come speeds have risen sharply now that we
>have a tyre battle between Bridgestone and Michelin?
I don't think I suggested for a moment that tyres were
'insignificant', did I. I just felt that a return to slicks was, of
itself, primarily a cosmetic exercise.
It will, inevitably, increase cornering speeds (and reduce braking
distances) unless a truly significant loss of downforce (without loss
of stability - remember flying sportscars) can be achieved and
maintained, which ain't easy.
I've already seen a statement from someone at Ferrari (Brawn or Byrne)
opposing the return of slicks on safety grounds.
> It also seems to be
>usual to attribute tyres when certain teams have performance advantages on
>race weekends, sometimes Bridgestone is even credited for Ferrari's whole
>performance advantage!
>
>Seems to me that tyres are a very important factor, with or without traction
>control and other electronic systems.
In performance, yes obviously. But in terms of overtaking and closer
racing? I rather doubt it. The performance difference between
individual tyre manufactures at the various races won't necessarily be
affected, although they would at least both be starting again from
scratch.
>I'm not saying that the electronics
>should remain, because I don't think they should, but I think it would be a
>step in the right direction if they go back to slicks again.
Very possibly, but much less important than the electronics as far as
I'm concerned.
>Oh, and I almost forgot, the cars will look much better!
That's what this is all about, isn't it. The change is to make the
cars 'look better' for a generation which has grown up associating
racing cars with slicks. Personally, I think that slicks - with or
without grooves - look ridiculous.
If we're concerned about looks, I'd like tall, thin, narrow wheels and
tyres with all weather treads please - preferably on front-engined
cars.