|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 15, 2019 17:30:35 GMT
The ridiculous charade of protective toilet seats in Formula One escalates with Red Bull's latest design proposal for IndyCar almost entirely removing drivers from sight, with only its stupidity clear.
Why not protect drivers with a roof and rollover structure and have large windscreens and side windows so they can be seen? Open cockpits are doomed and open wheels an endangered species.
Like Kafka's metamorphosis, single seat racing may transform overnight into monstrous prototypes. They should reestablish Group C rules and call it whatever they like, as long as drivers can be seen.
----------------
Edited for complete discharge of nausea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 24, 2019 20:48:22 GMT
I think what we're seeing is the detestable legacy of bernie ecclestone, whose self-serving machinations turned the sport into a putrid enterprise concerned only with money and directing it into the pockets of bernie ecclestone.
The sport was always the last consideration and bound to suffer. ecclestone should be in prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jul 26, 2019 3:37:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Jul 26, 2019 5:02:08 GMT
But hopefully the 2021 blueprint will have some margin, or allow some slack, such that the new cars eventually will come out with some differences in their design.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jul 26, 2019 14:03:49 GMT
From my own perspective I believe that the more prescriptive the regulations become the more the cars will evolve into being undistinguishable. This is even more apparent when one considers that if you place these parameters into a computer then the results will become alike. Sadly gone are the days when a designer comes up with his idea of what the car will be and look like; the human element has gone, just as in so many other things in modern times. Here is the challenge. Sit all of the teams design leaders in a room under examination conditions, issue them with a drawing board and drawing equipment; then hand out the regulations for the coming season. The designs they come up with have to be used for the construction of the teams cars  . |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jul 27, 2019 3:44:39 GMT
I agree that original designs are a defining hallmark of Formula One, one that has provided a great portion of interest. But... ...when a celebrated genius (arguably an idiot savant) is entirely focused on the aerodynamic elements that allow a single car to be faster but impede all those behind and trying to close, something is very wrong.
A design that prevents close racing rather than being faster on merit is graceless and subversive.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jul 27, 2019 9:17:46 GMT
Many good points about the rules (current and proposed 2021) being too prescriptive. However, I do think the rulemakers face one big problem which is almost impossible to overcome namely the fact you can't undo knowledge. The variety in design philosophies which was at its peak in the seventies is something we won't see again I'm afraid. That could only exist in a short period of time when the level of aerodynamic knowledge was on the one hand still rudimentary and on the other hand growing fast through aviation and space travel technologies. That balance made for an exciting time that didn't last very long.
Nowadays with computers, wind tunnels, CFD and stuff there's no way you can expect any real variety. They will all end up with the same concept. And as long as you don't forbid winglets and turning vanes they won't stop using them. There is hardly a way back so at least they (the rule makers) need to make sure we have good racing like in IndyCars.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jul 27, 2019 9:21:23 GMT
I agree that original designs are a defining hallmark of Formula One, one that has provided a great portion of interest. But... ...when a celebrated genius (arguably an idiot savant) is entirely focused on the aerodynamic elements that allow a single car to be faster but impede all those behind and trying to close, something is very wrong. A design that prevents close racing rather than being faster on merit is graceless and subversive. Maybe true but I don't believe any of the design geniuses of the past would really care. It wasn't exactly fun to drive behind the Brabham fan car according to Mario and other drivers at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jul 29, 2019 14:19:50 GMT
I agree that original designs are a defining hallmark of Formula One, one that has provided a great portion of interest. But... ...when a celebrated genius (arguably an idiot savant) is entirely focused on the aerodynamic elements that allow a single car to be faster but impede all those behind and trying to close, something is very wrong. A design that prevents close racing rather than being faster on merit is graceless and subversive. Maybe true but I don't believe any of the design geniuses of the past would really care. It wasn't exactly fun to drive behind the Brabham fan car according to Mario and other drivers at the time. According to Gordan Murray in his new book, which MotorSport keep punting by publishing excerpts, the fan car didn't throw up stones etc. Murray states that Chapman asked Andretti to say that to the other drivers so that he could get the car banned on dangerous grounds. Who to believe? I don't know but to me it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Neither designer was above pushing the rules in a manner that a very long time ago used to be called cheating. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jul 29, 2019 15:52:59 GMT
I agree that original designs are a defining hallmark of Formula One, one that has provided a great portion of interest. But... ...when a celebrated genius (arguably an idiot savant) is entirely focused on the aerodynamic elements that allow a single car to be faster but impede all those behind and trying to close, something is very wrong. A design that prevents close racing rather than being faster on merit is graceless and subversive. Maybe true but I don't believe any of the design geniuses of the past would really care. It wasn't exactly fun to drive behind the Brabham fan car according to Mario and other drivers at the time. That indifference defines the idiocy of the (designer) savant
-- Edited for clarity
|
|
.
