The end of F1

[dans79]

I can't think of any words i'd be allowed to use on the forum to describe how I feel about this, so I'll just quote the article!

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1s-a ... /10406752/

Grand Prix racing’s chiefs have openly been looking at introducing active aero from the start of the next rules era from 2026.

This was originally spoken about as a way of helping improve fuel efficiency, with cars able to have low drag configuration for the straights and then switch to a high downforce setup for the corners.

But F1 is evaluating going much further than that and using active aero to help improve the spectacle.

This would most likely be as a means for it to be used as an effective replacement for DRS in helping boost the performance of chasing cars - through either less wing on the straights or even more in the corners.

However, there is also an idea being evaluated for it to be implemented as a means of holding back the race leader so he faces a tougher challenge from behind.

F1’s outgoing managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn has revealed that some thought is being given to potentially using it as a way of reducing the downforce of race leaders to ensure they cannot break clear easily.

[AR3-GP]

Frightening.

[chrisc90]

Stupid idea. Bring back the good old days,. V10s and V12s in the back screaming their nuts off

Problem with hindering the leader, is they just wont drive away from the rest, they will just cruise round at marginally faster speed and keep the gap a couple seconds rather than putting their foot down and increasing it.

[_cerber1]

Teams will block it. Obviously, it is not safe to give the driver a car with inconsistent performance in the turn, it can simply kill him.

[johnny comelately]

Libertyesque marketing to provide more "exciting" racing, which is a euphemism for false.
The originator of this must have genetic links to the Roman emperor Vespasian...

[NL_Fer]

And then we pay-vote our favourite driver for extra downforce.

[Vanja #66]

Teams will block it. Obviously, it is not safe to give the driver a car with inconsistent performance in the turn, it can simply kill him.

Killing the driver would be the least of their concerns... Marshals and even spectators would be at tremendous risk.

[Greg Locock]

We always joked that in solar car racing it would be better to control the car from the strategy computer and just use the driver for ballast.

[the EDGE]

To my knowledge, Ferrari have never used their right of Veto

I’m sure they would in this instance, and I’m pretty sure everyone involved in and who follows F1 would stand behind them in unity

[ispano6]

Brawn:
“It’s still got to be sorted to see how that can be done, and if it can be done safely and predictably. But, active aerodynamics, we semi have them at the moment with DRS, as DRS is active aerodynamics.

“But can you do something much more significant?

“If you have active aerodynamics, then of course you could affect the car in front. You could have a proximity [that] once you get within a certain degree, the car in front loses a little bit of downforce and you gain a little bit of downforce. There’s tricks you can play with that. It becomes an opportunity.

“I’m not saying we would do that, but it becomes an opportunity. So, the 2026 car is lessons learned from what we have now and I think we’ll incorporate some form of active aerodynamics.”

I think it's counter-intuitive of F1/FOM/FIA to consider a way for the leader in the fastest car to be hindered. It makes more sense to let the slower cars behind have some kind of extra e-boost or more fredom to use DRS outside of DRS zones. Slowing down the fastest car with aero means that the lead car also could require more fuel to cover the same distance. They should take some learning from Indy 500 where the lead car on the last lap is at a disadvantage due to lack of slipstream. The goal would be to be in 2nd place on the penultimate lap so that you can use the last one to get by. Might as well make the races 2 laps then.

[AR3-GP]

On second read by, you know what this is.....Liberty have some middle ground in mind, so they put this horrible and unlikely idea out there, in order to make their middle ground approach seem less bad than this.

See, we could have been this bad, but we're only going to be this bad.


Remember when there was talk of reverse grid races, and then we settled on sprint races?

[Sevach]

This would kill it no doubt, even performance ballast(which i hate) is fairer... at least you understand why you are losing performance and when your rival catches up in the championship he'll have the same problem.
This is just ridiculous.

[Stu]

Not a fan of an artificial parachute for the leader (I can imagine huge differences in speed if DRS is active on a following car while DIS (drag induction system) is active on the lead car …
I’m not averse to the systems generally (within certain operating parameters, though).

As far as active aero is concerned, further additional mass on the cars is not a great idea, but something akin to the old ‘double-drs’, f-duct and/or driver adjustable front wing could add a layer of tech that is currently missing. Any added mass should be offset by a fuel mass reduction (forcing efficiency into the strategic mix).

[Juzh]

To my knowledge, Ferrari have never used their right of Veto

They have.
https://www.racefans.net/2015/10/26/fer ... e-cut-fia/

Ferrari used its veto privilege to prevent a reduction in the price of engines, the FIA has revealed.

The FIA says it will not challenge Ferrari’s move in court “in the interest of the championship” but said it will continue its push for the introduction of a low-cost “client engine” from 2017.

“A large majority” had agreed on cost-cutting measures including the increased used of standardised parts before Ferrari stepped in to nix the plan, the FIA claimed.

[jjn9128]

Feels like another "if we float this insane idea in the press we'll get our less insane idea through in private" type of deal. Look at my left hand to hide what my right is doing, smoke and mirrors, so on.