zoroastar wrote: ↑04 Jul 2018, 03:37
skwdenyer wrote: ↑03 Jul 2018, 21:08
Re aero correlation issues, this nonsense FIA rule requiring the use of small-scale wind tunnels is costing money rather than saving it.
Wind tunnels don’t scale, because the air doesn’t scale when the model does. So one must perform complex calculations to compare the two. You can’t just scale up the working part from the tunnel and expect it to work on the car.
Reynolds number is the historical basis of those calculations.
When aero goes awry, suddenly the team must knock up full-size parts, air freight them, test then on track, etc.
A return to full-size tunnels, coupled with modern rapid prototyping techniques (3D printing, CNC machining, etc) would likely result in an actual cost reduction.
It would also allow teams to catch up in season more quickly, with real benefits to the sporting contest.
All IMHO of course
the general lack of testing across the board has screwed F1 since it first started. from the 2014 PU regulations, where it has taken 4 years for anyone to catch mercedes on engine developement, much less EVERYONE. but they continue to shoot themselves. bring back in season testing and give everyone a salary cap if that whats needed. if it takes ferrari and mercedes spending triple what smaller teams spend to win, then that isnt really winning is it? and what other sport penalizes the players when the bus breaks down too many times. every cost saving measure that f1 puts in, ends up costing teams more, or helps to ruin the show.
Agreed.
How high were the costs of in season testing anyway? At least compared to what teams like Mclaren are spending trying to catch up or are losing in terms of prize money and sponsorship compared to where they should realistically be in the WCC?
Re PU costs, I have said it many times, cap the costs to the customer teams and allow more PU per season. If Merc, Ferrari, Renault and Honda want to spend however much or development, fair play to them, but it would keep the costs to teams down.
