So what you are effictively are saying is that the cars should have no downforce at all and become undrivable aeroplanes(wow that sounds cool, combining 2 words that do not fit together). You forget one thing, DF and drag arent directly related to each other, a 50% cut in DF will not result in an 50% cut in drag.autogyro wrote:Sorry but it gets me so heated.
DF comes with drag.
High DF has dominated F1 for far to long at the expense of all other technologies.
Formula 1 is an high downforce formula, it has always been, it is about the team who can build the best car within the given rules, and since there are much more gains to make in aerodynamics teams focus on that.
I can understand what you are saying, you say that tewams focus too much on aerodynamics and with that downforce and body efficiency will evolve quickly.
Let me give you an example, the Group C had incredibly quick development, because alot was allowed, this development came from both engine and aero, but when teams were forced to head to an 3.5 litre engine there were less gains to get from an engine and teams focussed more on aero, what happened with that was unbelievable as those cars became quicker then the F1 cars on the track due to the enormous downforce. In the imsa it was even worse, due to the lack of an consumption limit(wich was also gone in the WSC for 1991) the teams could simply head for dowforce, drag wasnt a problem at all as they ran mostly street circuits wich require high downforce. Drag wasnt a problem due to the lack of an consumption limit, they could just go and stop more often. Too bad these cars are banned, they are great to watch, an LM lap could be done in like 2 minutes 45 if we were still running the same rules
What my point is, give more freedom on the mechanical part will reduce the need to focus on aerodynamics.
