I don't think they (the FIA) have to skip all the the stuff, but some of the flappy things on the sidepods / airbox / frontwings can go, if i may say so...
Monaco GP 2007
But than formula 1 won't be the highest in motorsport. Than even IRL or champcar is aerodynamicly more sophisticated / technical ....
I don't think they (the FIA) have to skip all the the stuff, but some of the flappy things on the sidepods / airbox / frontwings can go, if i may say so...
I don't think they (the FIA) have to skip all the the stuff, but some of the flappy things on the sidepods / airbox / frontwings can go, if i may say so...
TdK - (re)tired GrandPrix 2 manic!
TdK - maybe so but Formula 1 (and indeed any motorsport) is supposed to relate to road cars, the technology pioneered in F1 should in theory filter down to normal cars. However I don't see too many Ford Focuses or BMW 320s with winglets and barge boards, so for that reason alone all that aero crap should be banned! That was one of the reasons they got rid of turbos in the 1980's - aside from the safety and cost aspects, turbos just hadn't filtered down to road cars as expected, so turbocharged F1 cars just weren't relevant.
Anyway, as for F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport, it can do that in other ways - for instance, all this talk of regenerative braking systems and such. The level of sophistication of a Champ Car or IndyCar wouldn't even approach F1 simply because there isn't the same pace of development.
Anyway, as for F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport, it can do that in other ways - for instance, all this talk of regenerative braking systems and such. The level of sophistication of a Champ Car or IndyCar wouldn't even approach F1 simply because there isn't the same pace of development.
Wander over to http://www.facebook.com/PixelDreamsGP2 and click "Like" for updates and screenshots from the world of PixelDreams!
Well, I don't see any Ford Focuses or BMW 320s that look anything like a F1 car at all. And neither did any F1 car look like road cars in the 1990s or 1970s. That's because a car that takes you, me or anyone else from town to town has no reason whatsoever to have an extreme aerodynamic as a monoposto race car.Greyhead wrote:However I don't see too many Ford Focuses or BMW 320s with winglets and barge boards,
In my opinion, the barge boards are just a modern extension of this extremist trend that I think has always been a part of F1. They couldn't have been on any cars ten or twenty years ago because back then, the teams didn't have nearly the computer-supported design/analysis/simulation capabilities they have now that would help them calculate how a small piece of something that might look "ugly" somewhere on their car might alter some kind of airflow to some kind of benefit.
I often see this view that race cars can be or should be "sexy" or something like that. Sometimes I agree with it too, but at the end of the day, a race car is designed for performance, performance is based on engineering, and engineering doesn't care what anything looks like if it works. Of course, anyone still has the right to find anything ugly that's produced through such a kind of process - but that's how you, me or anyone else want to see things. And philosophically speaking, reality doesn't care about what anyone wants because it has no reason to do that.
1996 .. 2017 .. 21 years and counting ..
AD, true about F1 cars and road cars being different, but my point was that F1 cars basically exist to be at the forefront of technology, so the man on the street can enjoy better motoring when said technology filters down to road cars. Things such as wings, active suspension, advanced electronics, traction control, multi-valve engines etc all originated in motorsport and are enjoyed by motorists now. But winglets, barge-boards etc have no relevance whatsover to any application other than motorsport. Therefore the world at large isn't interested in them as they aren't going to do anything that will benefit road cars, and they certainly don't do anything for the racing!
I remember reading a quote from Lotus boss Colin Chapman: "If it looks right, it IS right". Well, today's F1 cars do NOT look right! Colin's probably spinning in his grave as we speak...
I remember reading a quote from Lotus boss Colin Chapman: "If it looks right, it IS right". Well, today's F1 cars do NOT look right! Colin's probably spinning in his grave as we speak...
Wander over to http://www.facebook.com/PixelDreamsGP2 and click "Like" for updates and screenshots from the world of PixelDreams!
Well, let's hope the Teams, the FIA, car manufactures and other important company's / people, will think hard in good consideration, and co-operation to make Formula 1 as exciting as it is now... (except the Monaco Gp from last weekend... 
)
And to make it easier for smaller / poor teams to join or to participate....
) And to make it easier for smaller / poor teams to join or to participate....
TdK - (re)tired GrandPrix 2 manic!
Hear hear TdK. Easy way to sort it - Take several BMW 320's, a couple of Alfa 156's, a phalanx of SEAT Leons and a few Chevrolet Lacettis. Then rename the F1 World Championship the World Touring Car Championship. Hey presto - instant close racing!
Wander over to http://www.facebook.com/PixelDreamsGP2 and click "Like" for updates and screenshots from the world of PixelDreams!
The FIA investigation is apparently over and according to their judgement, it was not illegitimate teamorder.
You can read the FIA press release here.
I personally think it's a reasonable decision because I didn't see anything that McLaren did in the same light of what Ferrari did in a race like Austria 2002, and not even on the same page with what McLaren did (for whatever reason) in Australia 98. In those races, the teams apparently actively ordered/forced/whatever the drivers to change their positions to achieve a desired outcome.
What they did here, in my opinion, was that they originally had both drivers on different strategies (Ron Dennis has been quoted saying Hamilton originally had more fuel on board to enable a one-stop strategy, in consideration of a possible safety car phase), which enabled Alonso to form the gap he did, and at some point they apparently told both drivers to slow down.
I think if that were to be team order you'd have to punish any team that a) sends its drivers into the races with two different strategies ("If one driver has the inferior strategy, the team robs him of the opportunity to win the race!") and/or b) at some point orders drivers to slow down and avoid taking any unnecessary risks ("If they tell them to slow down they influence the race result"). To me, that would be ridiculous, but it's not like everything that ever happened in F1 must have been reasonable.
I'm positively surprised FIA apparently judged things on face value instead of creating a big scene so that British Hamilton-hypers (or certain German people who will never like Ron Dennis because of his Anti-Ferrari sentiments) could say "We told you so".
You can read the FIA press release here.
I personally think it's a reasonable decision because I didn't see anything that McLaren did in the same light of what Ferrari did in a race like Austria 2002, and not even on the same page with what McLaren did (for whatever reason) in Australia 98. In those races, the teams apparently actively ordered/forced/whatever the drivers to change their positions to achieve a desired outcome.
What they did here, in my opinion, was that they originally had both drivers on different strategies (Ron Dennis has been quoted saying Hamilton originally had more fuel on board to enable a one-stop strategy, in consideration of a possible safety car phase), which enabled Alonso to form the gap he did, and at some point they apparently told both drivers to slow down.
I think if that were to be team order you'd have to punish any team that a) sends its drivers into the races with two different strategies ("If one driver has the inferior strategy, the team robs him of the opportunity to win the race!") and/or b) at some point orders drivers to slow down and avoid taking any unnecessary risks ("If they tell them to slow down they influence the race result"). To me, that would be ridiculous, but it's not like everything that ever happened in F1 must have been reasonable.
I'm positively surprised FIA apparently judged things on face value instead of creating a big scene so that British Hamilton-hypers (or certain German people who will never like Ron Dennis because of his Anti-Ferrari sentiments
) could say "We told you so".1996 .. 2017 .. 21 years and counting ..
I think that the press release says it quite clearly, that Hamilton was denied his 1st win, because it would be "foolish and dangerous"....
How foolish and dangerous would it be?
He would have overtaken Alonso in the pitlane, now that is foolish and dangerous indeed, FIA.
How foolish and dangerous would it be?
He would have overtaken Alonso in the pitlane, now that is foolish and dangerous indeed, FIA.
DJS Exclusive - Proud member of team NL²
Drivers have sat behind their team-mates for years and years, I don't see what all the fuss was about. I don't remember anyone complaining when Gilles Villeneuve sat behind Jody Scheckter at Monza in 1979, thereby denying himself a shot at the title and ensuring his team-mate won. Mind you, the main reason I don't remember anyone complaining is because I was about two days old...
Wander over to http://www.facebook.com/PixelDreamsGP2 and click "Like" for updates and screenshots from the world of PixelDreams!