Why FOTA???Ogami musashi wrote:timbo:
And won't you agree that MOVEABLE WINGS, were a good solution for overtaking and that now it is all --- up thanks to FOTA?
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Why FOTA???Ogami musashi wrote:timbo:
And won't you agree that MOVEABLE WINGS, were a good solution for overtaking and that now it is all --- up thanks to FOTA?
Yes. But it is wrong to leave out monetary aspects of transition to cost cap rules aside. Once all is settled let Max offer moving wings again.Ogami musashi wrote:But would you disagree that from a situation where more freedom was given (so more interesting solutions) we'll end up with less freedom and that is WORSE?
May be. However, if wings are controlled by electronics it is a driver aid. If wings are operated manually - it is potentially dangerous and probably not too effective.And won't you agree that MOVEABLE WINGS, were a good solution for overtaking and that now it is all --- up thanks to FOTA?
Well, excuse me, but FOTA was formed well after engines were frozen. Or what do you mean?That's my rational...they just again, like they did with V8's nixed progress just to be sure to win by the financial ressources they put in.
Because FOTA were opposed to the 2010 regulations and their proposals were 2009 regulations with even more aerodynamics restrictions and homologation of chassis for 3 years.siskue2005 wrote:Why FOTA???Ogami musashi wrote:timbo:
And won't you agree that MOVEABLE WINGS, were a good solution for overtaking and that now it is all --- up thanks to FOTA?
Well i agree with you that FIA is using PR...so does the FOTA with their "DNA" and "improvement of the show"..Please tell me one concrete measure they've taken to improve the show?timbo wrote:aspects of transition to cost cap rules aside. Once all is settled let Max offer moving wings again.
And I will repeat, fully movable wings were planned as a way of help for new entrant, not in the spirit of technical freedom. So I feel it's just wrong when Mosley uses this rhetorics in his anti-FOTA comments.
???Why would it be a driver aid???? because it gives more grip? well ban every progress on a car then..May be. However, if wings are controlled by electronics it is a driver aid. If wings are operated manually - it is potentially dangerous and probably not too effective.
Well, excuse me, but FOTA was formed well after engines were frozen. Or what do you mean?[/quote]That's my rational...they just again, like they did with V8's nixed progress just to be sure to win by the financial ressources they put in.
Because moveable wings are a tool to regain downforce when your in the wake, and they may have offered for 2010 to be used (for the front wing) assymetricaly.xpensive wrote:Movable wings is just another gimick, to my mind anyway, a car needs typically more aerodynamical downforce the slower they move, so why not make them the engineerish way, let them flex with speed?
Simple and darn less xpensive.
back asswards... the cars need more aero downforce to turn at higher speeds not lower ones, they just dont need that downforce when going straightline.xpensive wrote:Movable wings is just another gimick, to my mind anyway, a car needs typically more aerodynamical downforce the slower they move, so why not make them the engineerish way, let them flex with speed?
Simple and darn less xpensive.
Yes, but it is teams that build the freaking cars.Ogami musashi wrote: Well i agree with you that FIA is using PR...so does the FOTA with their "DNA" and "improvement of the show"..Please tell me one concrete measure they've taken to improve the show?
If wings are controlled by electronics you can control cars aero-balance just like active suspension did. You can use that even to correct driver's mistakes.???Why would it be a driver aid???? because it gives more grip? well ban every progress on a car then..May be. However, if wings are controlled by electronics it is a driver aid. If wings are operated manually - it is potentially dangerous and probably not too effective.
Because it would help with overtaking? Then we have to ban every other series because they actually benefit from "driver aid" situations when they are following a car.
Well, IMHO V8 are more innovative than rev-limited V10s. And the story of GPWC was not much about technical regulations that time.The V8's was a proposal by the manufacturers back in 2005. Yes, the FIA offered to simply lower the max rev of V10. Instead manufacturers screamed and threatened to have their breakaway championship (sounds familiar isn't it?), the infamous GPWC.
Result? V8's...with more restrictions, and millions threw away..to end up one year latter to frozen engines.
Very good points. In the end of 2008 it felt like the teams were pretty even. The rules were stable. There were a few teams realistically racing to win in every race. Now they messed the looks of the cars, messed up the competition, actually failing to improve the show in every possible sence of the word... not to mention the epic fail called KERS.timbo wrote:Yes, but it is teams that build the freaking cars.
I, for one, don't feel the need to improve the show. Yes, Brawn dominate. So did Williams in 92, McLaren in 88, Lotus in 78...
Manufacturers perfected F1 cars so we have a whole grid in 1.5 seconds. We have a thread here about Mark Webber, discussing why he was inconsistent in the race. And his "inconsistency" was a mere couple of tenths of a second.
I admit that perfection may not always be the most exciting thing to watch.
But what is a show for you? And what exactly did FIA to improve the show either?
AFAIK OWG was the first time in F1 history when FIA asked for assistance of teams to create new rules.
Totally agree. I guess the point I was making is that these systems could do more, or other initiatives would have achieved "better" results, but at the end of the day it is the regulations that have led everyone down this path. I don't think we should be overly critical of the outcombe if this is what was defined to be the outcome in the first place. I certainly think this was one of the most flawed technical regs of the last decade. BMW must be feeling pretty stupid insisting this went ahead now.xpensive wrote:For paused;
This is not so much about being correct or not, as about stating technical realities.
Spending hundreds of millions of EUR to recover 400 kJ per lap, when the car is spending 136 000, is plain stupid.
From the video I've seen I suspect he'd like that!