new proposred 07 F1 chassis

[trauma1]

for those that didn't like the new CC 07 chassis the new F1 chassis rivals a crapwagon

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/imgactu/zoom05/fia-cdg-z-02_241005.jpg

[rabbit]

:saywhat:

[trauma1]

apparently they are trying to reduce the wake un the rear of the car for increased passing

demonstrated that the vast majority of the viewing public (94% according to the FIA/AMD survey) want more overtaking. This is at a time when overtaking in Formula One has become increasingly difficult.

Most aerodynamic research aims to improve a car’s performance when running in what is known as ‘clean’ air which has not been disturbed by the wake of a car running in front. However, in race conditions when cars follow each other closely, the wake of the car in front significantly reduces the aerodynamic performance of the following car, making overtaking extremely difficult and often impossible.

As a general rule, the better the aerodynamic performance of a car on its own, the worse its effect on the car behind and the greater the loss of performance for that car.

In order to encourage overtaking, the FIA initiated a programme of research into improving the aerodynamic performance of a car when trying to overtake. The objective was to produce regulations for a car shape which would create a wake in which a following car would generate more downforce with reduced drag.

With the help of the FIA’s technology partner AMD, the FIA’s research team have reached a preliminary conclusion which the FIA is now able to publish. The CDG Wing (Centreline Downwash Generating Wing) will be presented to the Formula One Commission meeting in London today.



Zoom
This device is aimed purely at passing

“This new research is important for the future of Formula One," stated FIA President Max Mosley. "By introducing the CDG wing we can give motor sport fans exactly what they have asked for, wheel-to-wheel racing with much more overtaking. It is our hope that the teams will collaborate with us in the optimisation of this radical new idea so that the aerodynamic benefits can be introduced into Formula One in 2007 rather than having to wait until 2008.”

It is intended that the CDG Wing, together with wider wheels and slick tyres, will form part of the 2008 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations. With the support and collaboration of the teams it may be possible to introduce these changes as early as 2007.

"It’s clear the FIA has listened to the feedback of its key constituents - F1 fans around the world - and has taken a bold, innovative approach to improving overtaking and therefore creating a more exciting race experience," explained AMD Executive Vice President Henri Richard. "AMD is committed to encouraging innovation and creativity and to helping the world's leading organizations take advantage of the phenomenal impact of our technology."

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/imgactu/zoom05/fia-cdg-z-01_241005.jpg

[Methanolandbrats]

It looks like a lawn dart.

Overtaking? For the most part I want to see F1 cars go as fast as physics and the drivers balls will allow. Overtaking should be very difficult and not a regular occurance. An example of proper overtaking is Fred going around the outside of Schumi in 130R.

[racer2c]

It looks like a lawn dart.

Overtaking? For the most part I want to see F1 cars go as fast as physics and the drivers balls will allow. Overtaking should be very difficult and not a regular occurance. An example of proper overtaking is Fred going around the outside of Schumi in 130R.

Amen! F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, not because they travel around the world and Bernie says a million trillion people watch it on TV, it's because it is the execution of engineer vs engineer, developing the fastest machine within the limits of the formula with the worlds best drivers racing on the edge. To manipulate the formula for 'sport entertainment' would be to turn it into NASCAR/IRL/CCWS and not the 'pinnacle' of racing. If the top of the ladder is defined by how many people watch it or sit in the stands, count me out.

Racing in it's most simplistic and yet some it the most exhilarating form; running, shows that the purpose of racing is to beat your competitors to the finish line. If you can do that by .005 of a second or by fifteen minutes, no one is going to make you switch to a shoe that slows you down for the sake of the fans watching. That would be absurd.

If a racer wins by a large margin then that racer should be applauded even more than if he won by half a second.

[Insomniac]

Amen! F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, not because they travel around the world and Bernie says a million trillion people watch it on TV, it's because it is the execution of engineer vs engineer, developing the fastest machine within the limits of the formula with the worlds best drivers racing on the edge. To manipulate the formula for 'sport entertainment' would be to turn it into NASCAR/IRL/CCWS and not the 'pinnacle' of racing. If the top of the ladder is defined by how many people watch it or sit in the stands, count me out.

Racing in it's most simplistic and yet some it the most exhilarating form; running, shows that the purpose of racing is to beat your competitors to the finish line. If you can do that by .005 of a second or by fifteen minutes, no one is going to make you switch to a shoe that slows you down for the sake of the fans watching. That would be absurd.

If a racer wins by a large margin then that racer should be applauded even more than if he won by half a second.


Kind of like Ferrari in previous years when the FIA kept changing rules to make it harder for them to whip the competition. I'm not sure why anything is different from what you want to see. They have designed the chassis in a way that will allow a faster car get close enough to pass instead of a slower car (Trulli) hldig everyone up. With aero and computers they just can't keep racing like it's 1980.

[FTG]

With the support and collaboration of the teams

Never happen.

[FTG]

it is the execution of engineer vs engineer

Kenmore versus Whirlpool is also a battle of engineers. Not something I want to watch on TV.

[FTG]

Overtaking should be very difficult and not a regular occurance.

To each his own, but I've never been a "sex is better if you only have it once a year," kind of guy. The more passing, the more I like it.

[FTG]

wider wheels and slick tyres

That's good. Real men race on slicks.

[racer2c]

80, 60, 30 years ago people would pack the stands to watch cars going 80, 100 and 180mph where it was common place to have the winner win by large margins and no one left grumbling that there wasn't enough passing or that the rules sucked because the cars were too spread out.

Thanks NASCAR for showing the world that winning is about how many cars cross the finish line within a second of each other! yea!

[racer2c]

Kenmore versus Whirlpool is also a battle of engineers. Not something I want to watch on TV.


Then I wouldn't recommend F1.

[Methanolandbrats]

Kenmore versus Whirlpool is also a battle of engineers. Not something I want to watch on TV. If a washing machine reved to 19,500 rpm it might be kinda cool :)

[Dirty Sanchez]

Never happen.:gomer:

it passed the F1 commission today.

[cameraman]

To each his own, but I've never been a "sex is better if you only have it once a year," kind of guy. The more passing, the more I like it.

So watch Nascar and the IRL, they are designed just for you.

[racer2c]

Kind of like Ferrari in previous years when the FIA kept changing rules to make it harder for them to whip the competition. I'm not sure why anything is different from what you want to see. They have designed the chassis in a way that will allow a faster car get close enough to pass instead of a slower car (Trulli) hldig everyone up. With aero and computers they just can't keep racing like it's 1980.

To me there is a difference in setting the basic formula that defines the parameters of the car in the name of technical definition and having a formula that is defined for the purpose of "entertainment".

There is no doubt the benefits that such a change could bring, such as the one you mentioned, but that doesn't mean it isn't cheapening the sport, at least to me.

[cameraman]

Look at the wing mounts. Those wings are only supported on the inside. They are a cantilever that is missing the lever. Those wing mounts are going to have to be tremendously strong not to flex under the load.

[Methanolandbrats]

[QUOTE=racer2c]

Racing in it's most simplistic and yet some it the most exhilarating form; running, shows that the purpose of racing is to beat your competitors to the finish line. If you can do that by .005 of a second or by fifteen minutes, no one is going to make you switch to a shoe that slows you down for the sake of the fans watching. That would be absurd.

[QUOTE]

Outstanding. If you don't mind I'm going to use that when I'm assaulted by NASCAR crackers. Pretty much game, set, match :thumbup:

[oddlycalm]

Slicks, wider tires, wider cars, tire changes :thumbup:

Reducing aero downforce and substituting higher mechanical grip is the right way to go. Wider tires will also increase drag and slow the cars on the fast sections, so that's a double positive.

CDW wing :thumdown:

While reducing following turbulence is a noble goal, I think they could have done as well in a less radical manner simply by drastically reducing the rear wing area while allowing more downforce to be generated from the underbody. The centerline downwash wing is not only ugly, there is little doubt in my mind that it will have significant unintended consequences.

Ironic that after years of frigging about the FIA would come up with something very similar, but even more radical, to the type of cars that ChrisB and Kellner were advocating 5yrs ago. It took the FIA a giant survey and all that engineering time to figure out what they could have read on an internet forum half a decade ago from fans that simply had their eyes open and their brains turned on.... :shakehead :gomer:

oc

[KLang]

Does that thing have running boards? :gomer:

[Don Quixote]

"By introducing the CDG wing we can give motor sport fans exactly what they have asked for, wheel-to-wheel racing with much more overtaking.

Great, next they will add ovals and feature drivers with short track experience. :laugh:

[trauma1]

here comes the split, GPWC

[FTG]

:gomer:

it passed the F1 commission today.

won the support of teams for 2007 subject to further input from their technical directors.

And based on recent history Ferrari's technical directors will inevitably agree with all the other technical directors: no disputes, no personal agendas. :rofl:

[FTG]

Then I wouldn't recommend F1.

I don't watch it anymore.

[FTG]

here comes the split, GPWC

But crapus says everything passed. No more disputes.

[trauma1]

But crapus says everything passed. No more disputes.
yeah right :rofl:

[Insomniac]

80, 60, 30 years ago people would pack the stands to watch cars going 80, 100 and 180mph where it was common place to have the winner win by large margins and no one left grumbling that there wasn't enough passing or that the rules sucked because the cars were too spread out.

Thanks NASCAR for showing the world that winning is about how many cars cross the finish line within a second of each other! yea!

I have no problem when a dominant car winning. It's completely different now. Because of aro and computers, most of the cars are the same speed. You can tell just watching that a car behind another is faster and just can't get by because they can't get close enough. And there is further proof when the car gets by it leaves the other very quickly. If you're faster, you should be able to pass, but the aero just won't allow for it.

[Insomniac]

To me there is a difference in setting the basic formula that defines the parameters of the car in the name of technical definition and having a formula that is defined for the purpose of "entertainment".

There is no doubt the benefits that such a change could bring, such as the one you mentioned, but that doesn't mean it isn't cheapening the sport, at least to me.

You're right, I wasn't trying to say it isn't cheapening the sport. I look at it more like evolving. They have used computers and aero to get into this "mess" and now the sanctioning body is doing the same to get out. They need to catch up with the times as well. They can't just write down some regulations and expect the racing we all enjoyed before the parades started. Before you built a car to see how it would run. Now you run simulations on the cars and go through so many things that just were never possible.

[Dirty Sanchez]

won the support of teams for 2007 subject to further input from their technical directors.
it takes 8 out of 10 teams to approve these changes for 2007. no guarantees that it will happen by Christmas... this could easily be tabled for 2008 as its a pretty radical change and you could easily imagine some sticking points. but the fact remains that it was approved at the F1 commission today...

[Dirty Sanchez]

here comes the split, GPWCI don't see this as a GPWC... errr... GPMA issue at all. the threat of a split was never serious anyway. they are just trying to leverage some cash for themselves... and they will get some more scraps from Bernie's plate before too long.

but if you believe that this proposed aero solution is a GPWC... sorry... GPMA issue, you'd expect the principles representing the manufacturers to put up a fight now, wouldn't you? that didn't happen... and Mosley will be re-elected this weekend since no opposition has come forward to challenge him.


Carmakers close to agreement, says Mosley

By Jonathan Noble Monday, 24 October 2005 16:41

FIA president Max Mosley believes Formula One's carmakers are not far from reaching a deal before they ditch their plans to start a breakaway series.

The five manufacturers - BMW, DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes, Renault, Honda and Toyota - this month signed a binding agreement emphasising their determination to race in a championship that would satisfy their demands.

Talks are ongoing between the carmakers and Formula One's commercial right holders, with a meeting taking place last Sunday in Paris, where Mosley, teams representatives and members of the banks who own the commercial rights of the sport discussed the future.

Mosley believes talks of two different series is damaging for Formula One, but the FIA boss believes all parties are willing to reach an agreement.

"I think there have been a lot of positive meetings and a lot of positive feeling in China and that is why I stopped the press conference," said Mosley of the scheduled press conference that he cancelled at the Chinese Grand Prix weekend.

"Because someone would have said, what do you think about GPMA, and I would have said what I believe, and it is not conducive to friendly negotiations.

"But I had a meeting with the GPMA representatives before this meeting, we had not reached agreement but got a lot closer to see a way forwards so it looks like it will all come together in due course.

"I think there is a real willingness on everyone's part now to start agreeing what is happening and give certainty. It is very negative with sponsors and contracts to do with F1 and I think everyone is bored with it, including the teams.

"It is time to stop pissing about."

[Andrew Longman]

I think it is entirely OK for FIA for try to legislate the dirty air thrown off a car. They black flag a car for spewing oil on the track behind it. Why not ensure that engineers aren't devising ways to make the air so roiled it is impossible to pass?

But they are trying to fix a problem they been making worse bit by bit for years. Let they undertray and tunnel make most of the downforce so downforce from the wings are less needed and less effected by turbulance, make the cars wider with wide slicks to make more mechanical grip, and strictly limit the area of front and especially rear wings.

Kind of sounds like a champ car ;)

That all said, I sympathize with those who poo-poo the need for more overtaking. More than any other series, F1 is about the smarts of the engineers and skill and bravery of the drivers. That's their brand and winning by a wide margin is fine with me.

But cars run on money and money comes from people watching. If F1 is losing fans (and in turn sponsor dollars) because too many find it "boring" then the business men have to do something. But it that happening? Is attendance and viewership down and is it because of the lack of overtaking?

Or is it because they've jerked the schedule around, and built the schedule at non-descript, uninteresting tracks? Or because I'd have to sell my kids into slavery to afford a ticket?

(FWIW I think the FIA design looks goofy. Certainly will help control costs though...not)

[Dirty Sanchez]

I don't watch it anymore.that's fairly obvious :gomer:

[trauma1]

GPWC, GPMA who know's what they are calling themselves this week, , i don't think it will be a big issue, but may be one of them

[Dirty Sanchez]

here comes the split, GPWC

i don't think it will be a big issue

but may be one of them



yeah, dude... way to take a stand :thumbup: :gomer:

[cameraman]

Or because I'd have to sell my kids into slavery to afford a ticket?

That would be it right there :shakehead

[Methanolandbrats]

"The Show" and Formula One should not be used in the same sentence. If folks want a show, go the circus or the movies. The distance running analogy was perfect. F1 is the last refuge of pure motorsport. There are rules, you build a car and if you're two seconds faster than anyone else, then the other teams have to catch up. Might take two weeks, might take two years. The idea is to reward excellence and go as fast as possible without leaving the road. There should be no screwing around with the rules to bunch the field, promote dozens of meaningless passes each race or otherwise dilute F1 into another "entertaining" racing series. Around the Globe there are plenty of TV sets tuned to F1 and I don't see too many empty seats at the track, so why the hell is there even a problem?

[trauma1]

yeah, dude... way to take a stand :thumbup: :gomer:
ok , the wing, it's not going to see the light of day, the manufactures have threatened the split because they want cutting edge tech, this wing and chassis is not cutting edge, they weren't thrilled going to v-8, this design may be the thing they are waiting for to split to happen, just wait until the morning when were hear from drivers and teams on this,. It's not going to be positive

[Dirty Sanchez]

^I agree with that M&B... BUT... you have to recognize that even a significantly faster car has difficulty passing at times. I think its an area that deserves some attention... and I think this idea actually has some potential. rather than adopting a known solution from the past (wider track cars, wide slick tires and groundeffects), I like that they are considering a completely new aero solution as it opens up a brand new area for innovation. I think it would be great to see the various interpretations of this... and to me that's exactly what F1 is all about. let's face it folks... aero is here to stay. the teams have invested tremendously in windtunnels... 1 or even 2 running 24/7! and you know they will still do everything in their power to disrupt the air for a following car anyway.

I sure don't see them saving any money on ideas like this. but what do I care? it ain't my money.

the aesthetics of a split rear wing isn't even a consideration, imo. these cars look like swiss army knives as it is already.

and tickets are too expensive??? waaaaaah cry me a river :cry: a few hundred bucks for 3-days of F1 is nothing. go score tickets for 3 pro games in just about any sport for less than that. Champ Car is a steal... doesn't mean F1 should be.

[racer2c]

I think it is entirely OK for FIA for try to legislate the dirty air thrown off a car. They black flag a car for spewing oil on the track behind it. Why not ensure that engineers aren't devising ways to make the air so roiled it is impossible to pass?



that's a very interesting and good point. :thumbup:

[Dirty Sanchez]

just wait until the morning when were hear from drivers and teams on this,. It's not going to be positiveThe meeting was attended by Max Mosley, the president of the sport's governing body, the FIA, Formula One commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone, the team bosses and representatives of the sport's key sponsors and promoters.

who cares what drivers think.

[Sean O'Gorman]

Once again F1 proves that the most interesting events in the sport don't even take place on track.

[Ankf00]

and tickets are too expensive??? waaaaaah cry me a river :cry: a few hundred bucks for 3-days of F1 is nothing. go score tickets for 3 pro games in just about any sport for less than that. Champ Car is a steal... doesn't mean F1 should be.

attending an NFL practice session doesn't cost $100 :gomer:

[cameraman]

waaaaaah cry me a river :cry: a few hundred bucks for 3-days of F1 is nothing.

Spa grandstand tickets were between 500-600USD each.
Seems the folks who live near Spa don't agree with your judgement of value.
So we most likely will never see the race again.
Hope you and your rich friends are happy.

[Methanolandbrats]

Spa grandstand tickets were between 500-600USD each.
Seems the folks who live near Spa don't agree with your judgement of value.
So we most likely will never see the race again.
Hope you and your rich friends are happy. Damn, that is kinda steep. What do they charge for general admission? Can ya just buy a cheap ticket, wander around and sit in the mud?

[FTG]

Once again F1 proves that the most interesting events in the sport don't even take place on track.

Which is why you don't need to actually watch the races.

To state my opinion in more detail, if there are new rules, it'll only be because Ferrari has figured out a way to create dirty air under the new rules. Everyone might say they've come to an agreement, and might claim that the agreement will produce clean air for everyone, but there won't ever be clean air for everyone.

[cameraman]

The cheapest tickets I saw were 290-USD. They the racing version of obstructed view :shakehead

It is a joke and people are not will to pay that kind of cash for a race. The cheapest ticket is a almost double what the better USGP tickets cost. Good ones are 4x. And they wonder why the gate is down? :saywhat:

[Methanolandbrats]

Which is why you don't need to actually watch the races.

To state my opinion in more detail, if there are new rules, it'll only be because Ferrari has figured out a way to create dirty air under the new rules. Everyone might say they've come to an agreement, and might claim that the agreement will produce clean air for everyone, but there won't ever be clean air for everyone. Are you in a secret society with truebrit? ;)

[Dirty Sanchez]

Spa grandstand tickets were between 500-600USD each.
Seems the folks who live near Spa don't agree with your judgement of value.
So we most likely will never see the race again.
Hope you and your rich friends are happy.far less than half the people there sit in the grandstands. its a road course. as a champcar fan, I can forgive you for forgetting what that's like. people actually don't mind walking around in europe :gomer:

I paid somewhere between 120-150 euros for my bronze ticket this year. a bit more last year... because I sacked up with gold in eau rouge. done it once, wouldn't do it again.

I wasn't rubbing elbows with the elite and I had tons of unobstructed views this year in bronze. even had video screens in some of the bronze areas


The cheapest tickets I saw were 290-USD. They the racing version of obstructed viewtypical know-nothing internet post :shakehead

[pchall]

Look at the wing mounts. Those wings are only supported on the inside. They are a cantilever that is missing the lever. Those wing mounts are going to have to be tremendously strong not to flex under the load.


Lots of fun on track fun when they break. ;)

BTW, that layout does have a really wrong look to it. Joining the forces on those wing planes down the struts and across the bottom at the level of the diffuser only just can't be right.

Good catch.

[cameraman]

far less than half the people there sit in the grandstands. its a road course. as a champcar fan, I can forgive you for forgetting what that's like. people actually don't mind walking around in europe :gomer:

I paid somewhere between 120-150 euros for my bronze ticket this year. a bit more last year... because I sacked up with gold in eau rouge. done it once, wouldn't do it again.

I wasn't rubbing elbows with the elite and I had tons of unobstructed views this year in bronze. even had video screens in some of the bronze areas

typical know-nothing internet post :shakehead

That was the quote from the travel agent. I guess he was trying to rip us off but we didn't go so he didn't get the money.

And I am going to fly to the other side of the damn planet to see a race I sure as hell am going to have a grandstand ticket even if I don't spend the whole race weekend sitting in said seat. And if Spa was so damned cheap how come nobody bothered to go?

[Dirty Sanchez]

That was the quote from the travel agent. I guess he was trying to rip us off but we didn't go so he didn't get the money.

And I am going to fly to the other side of the damn planet to see a race I sure as hell am going to have a grandstand ticket even if I don't spend the whole race weekend sitting in said seat. And if Spa was so damned cheap how come nobody bothered to go?stop posting bollocks!! who said no one bothered to go? the race was very well attended. the reason the race is being threatened is not attendance. these races need government funding and that has dried up apparently. now neighboring luxembourg has also refused to lend the organizers the money needed to pay bernie.

this was taken on Friday!

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/spa_fans2.jpg

the racing elite :laugh:

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/spa_fans3.jpg

taken on raceday @pouhon

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/spa_fans.jpg

more fool you if you need a grandstand ticket to enjoy yourself at spa.

[Methanolandbrats]

That was the quote from the travel agent. I guess he was trying to rip us off but we didn't go so he didn't get the money.

And I am going to fly to the other side of the damn planet to see a race I sure as hell am going to have a grandstand ticket even if I don't spend the whole race weekend sitting in said seat. And if Spa was so damned cheap how come nobody bothered to go? Travel agents are scumbags, grandstands usually suck and one possibility for people not going is the Euros may have become lazy aholes just like Americans and they won't travel to a real racetrack.

[Dirty Sanchez]

here are a few of the "obstructed" views a bronze ticket has to offer :gomer:

bus stop

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/button_busstop.jpg

rivage approach

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/villeneuve_rivage.jpg

rivage corner

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/wurz_rivage.jpg

[Dirty Sanchez]

rivage again

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/luizzi_rivage.jpg

blanchimont

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/button_flying.jpg

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/massa_blanchimont.jpg

eau rouge (all of the grandstands were open this year on Friday... all you needed was a 3-day ticket)

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/eaurouge.jpg

[Dirty Sanchez]

those corners and the distance between them equals about 3 laps around san jose :gomer:

[Dr. Corkski]

here are a few of the "obstructed" views a bronze ticket has to offer :gomer:

bus stop

http://www.speedgeezers.com/albums/album56/button_busstop.jpgSpeedfreak? No wonder no one wants to go. :gomer:

[Badger]

The proposed regs may take some time to get used to, but if they can create better racing, I'm all for it. When Ground effects were first banned, many teams had winglets mounted in front and above the rear wheels which were allowed to be to the maximum width of the car. The Toleman even mounted a full width wing in this location. The point is, the cars looked funny at the time, but eventually looked ok. Certainly no more silly than the little horn that McLaren ran with this year.

[coolhand]

who still deals with a travel agent this day and age?

you will never find a good deal with them

[Cam]

who still deals with a travel agent this day and age?

you will never find a good deal with them

BS!!!! When I had to fly back to Oz earlier this year all my internet tries came up with NOTHING reasonable. I went thru a travel agent and got flights at 1/2 what I was finding. Sometimes it helps to get some knowlegable help! :rolleyes:

[racer2c]

Damn crapus, once again, simply awesome pictures. Simply awesome. :thumbup:

[pchall]

I think the shot without all the winglets and crap is much more attractiive. But then, I'm not interested in Fredrick's of Hollywood adornments, either.

[Methanolandbrats]

Great photos as usual. I'm sorry I called Euros aholes who won't travel to a real track. Looks like lots of em are real racefans who sit in the mud and drink beer. :thumbup:

[TrueBrit]

I think far too many people mis-interpret the "folks wanna see more passing" line...

Above and beyond the fact that F-1 tracks are not conducive to the roundy-round 18 passes a lap type bollocks that is generated by drivers that only turn left, the point that is trying to be made is that the sort of passing that is being mentioned is the good old-fashioned slip-streaming type of passes of the not so long ago era when some of my early heroes like Ronnie Peterson and Gilles Villeneuve drove...back then it was possible to get RIGHT up on someone's exhaust and at the last second dive out from under and outbrake into a corner. Nowadays that isn't possible due to the washout factor, so instead of careful, well-planned and daring passes under braking, we see retarded attempts to out-brake one another into a turn where there is no grip because the air is all buggered up, and almost inevitably the door either gets slammed, or the track gets a showering of expensive carbon fibre race-car extremeties as two (or more) boneheads forget the distinction between discretion and valour...and more importantly neither numpty figures out what the brake pedal is for until it's too late...

For what it's worth, this new idea is quite possibly the most hideous thing I have ever seen, and further proof that as an engineer Max "brownshirt" Mosely makes a damned fine lawyer....

It's time to get rid of the fancy aero bits, you get a nose and a tail and that's it...no fancy underbody rubbish, and DEFINITELY no barge boards, you get bloody great big, SLICK tyres on all four corners, enough fuel to go the distance, and drop the bloody flag....first person to the flag wins...

See, it's so simple really....

[High Sided]

for those that didn't like the new CC 07 chassis the new F1 chassis rivals a crapwagon

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/imgactu/zoom05/fia-cdg-z-02_241005.jpg


i like it myself. $500,000,000 budgets will turn those drawings into one hell of a racecar!

[Insomniac]

"The Show" and Formula One should not be used in the same sentence. If folks want a show, go the circus or the movies. The distance running analogy was perfect. F1 is the last refuge of pure motorsport. There are rules, you build a car and if you're two seconds faster than anyone else, then the other teams have to catch up. Might take two weeks, might take two years. The idea is to reward excellence and go as fast as possible without leaving the road. There should be no screwing around with the rules to bunch the field, promote dozens of meaningless passes each race or otherwise dilute F1 into another "entertaining" racing series. Around the Globe there are plenty of TV sets tuned to F1 and I don't see too many empty seats at the track, so why the hell is there even a problem?

You think these rules ares going to make Minardi run faster or run as anything better than a backmarker? The top teams are stiull going to spend so much more money still. The rules aren't changing, only the design of the car.

[Insomniac]

ok , the wing, it's not going to see the light of day, the manufactures have threatened the split because they want cutting edge tech, this wing and chassis is not cutting edge, they weren't thrilled going to v-8, this design may be the thing they are waiting for to split to happen, just wait until the morning when were hear from drivers and teams on this,. It's not going to be positive

Could you define cutting edge technology?

[trauma1]

the day after and not all are on board with it

New F1 Wing Might Not Fly
Written by: Cassio Cortes
London, UK – 10/24/2005 While good for racing, the new "split" CDG design would devalue what has long been a prime advertising spot for F1 teams. (FIA image)

While a good idea on paper, the FIA’s newly-proposed “split” rear wing design, approved by the Formula 1 Commission this Monday to debut in 2007 (click here for story), might face challenges before taking off.

Most prosaic among those is the fact splitting the rear wing effectively “kills” what has long been the teams' prime spot for advertising. Wide and tall on the majority of the sport's circuits (high-speed Monza being the most notorious exception) the large main rear wing plate is one of the few areas that’s well visible from practically every angle on TV, and in fact commands the highest stand-alone price when it comes to advertising real estate in an F1 car - so much so that it is sometimes sold to a separate non-title major sponsor, like Telefonica in the case of Renault’s Mild Seven-backed effort.

Other than that, the new design is raising concerns about engineering a brand-new concept in a relatively short timeframe.

"There may be structural problems to overcome, with wings falling off, or vast turbulence created behind the cars,” Williams F1 co-owner Frank Williams told Autosport-Atlas.

“To get it done and tested is a lot of work, but the only thing that worries me is that there are just two months from tomorrow until Christmas for us to agree," added Sir Frank. Minardi owner Paul Stoddart, set to leave the paddock in '06 following Red Bull’s takeover on November 1, also deemed the idea unlikely to fly.

But FIA president Max Mosley remained optimistic his concept will be on the 2007 grid.

"Everyone who has seen the cars is very enthusiastic about it, so unless there is an unforeseen difficulty it will all be okay," he insisted.

Final approval for the new design demands at least eight votes from F1’s ten teams in an upcoming FIA Technical Working Group meeting.

[racer2c]

the day after and not all are on board with it

New F1 Wing Might Not Fly
Written by: Cassio Cortes
London, UK – 10/24/2005 While good for racing, the new "split" CDG design would devalue what has long been a prime advertising spot for F1 teams. (FIA image)

While a good idea on paper, the FIA’s newly-proposed “split” rear wing design, approved by the Formula 1 Commission this Monday to debut in 2007 (click here for story), might face challenges before taking off.

Most prosaic among those is the fact splitting the rear wing effectively “kills” what has long been the teams' prime spot for advertising. Wide and tall on the majority of the sport's circuits (high-speed Monza being the most notorious exception) the large main rear wing plate is one of the few areas that’s well visible from practically every angle on TV, and in fact commands the highest stand-alone price when it comes to advertising real estate in an F1 car - so much so that it is sometimes sold to a separate non-title major sponsor, like Telefonica in the case of Renault’s Mild Seven-backed effort.

Other than that, the new design is raising concerns about engineering a brand-new concept in a relatively short timeframe.

"There may be structural problems to overcome, with wings falling off, or vast turbulence created behind the cars,” Williams F1 co-owner Frank Williams told Autosport-Atlas.

“To get it done and tested is a lot of work, but the only thing that worries me is that there are just two months from tomorrow until Christmas for us to agree," added Sir Frank. Minardi owner Paul Stoddart, set to leave the paddock in '06 following Red Bull’s takeover on November 1, also deemed the idea unlikely to fly.

But FIA president Max Mosley remained optimistic his concept will be on the 2007 grid.

"Everyone who has seen the cars is very enthusiastic about it, so unless there is an unforeseen difficulty it will all be okay," he insisted.

Final approval for the new design demands at least eight votes from F1’s ten teams in an upcoming FIA Technical Working Group meeting.

Another crap piece by Cassio. The advertisement point he makes is his own and a weak one at that IMO. Then he gets into the gist of the title of his piece and none of the players say they aren't on board. They only speculate that it's an aggressive time line to implement it. Keep 'em coming Cassio!

[Dirty Sanchez]

exactly. and wgaf what stoddart says? he's out :thumbup:

[trauma1]

he lifted it again from someone else, grand prix. com

The downside of the FIA rear wing
There may be any number of benefits from the new FIA-inspired rear wings, which will - if all goes to plan - be introduced in 2007. The teams will no doubt soon have the wings in their windtunnels to see what the effect will be on the cars running closely behind. According to the FIA research the following cars will be able to get a lot closer than previously and this will be better placed to overtake. There will, however, be one big disadvantage of the new system: the rear wing is the part of the car that is most visible from TV cameras around the circuits and cutting it in two will mean that sponsors will be less able to get their messages across. And that menas that their value is likely to drop. There may now be two possibilities but the logos that will fit are much smaller and they will have nothing like the impact of the big rear wings. There is some vague talk of the TV coverage being altered to concentrate more on the back of the cars, which will increase the value of the engine covers but this sounds like wishful thinking rather than sound broadcasting sense.

[trauma1]

he stole it from autosport, just part of the article

By Jonathan Noble Monday, 24 October 2005 17:27

The FIA's hopes of getting their radical double-winged car into Formula One for 2007 are likely to be dashed, according to team bosses who claim that it will be too difficult to get the necessary approval before the end of this year.

[Dirty Sanchez]

ofcourse there are no quotes from any of the team bosses other than Paul Stoddart who won't have a say on the matter. but nice try :thumbup:

as mentioned, its possible this won't be adopted for 2007... but I'd expect they will continue hammering away at this for 2008 as it seems like the number one stumbling block is not the design or even the idea... but the loss of prime advertising real estate.

[Dirty Sanchez]

oh wait... I found a quote from a team boss who does have a say on the matter :gomer:


Frank Williams believed that it was not going to be straightforward to get the 2007 regulations finalised before the end of the year - although he claimed it would be great for the sport if the car actually did increase excitement as much as has been predicted.

"I think there is total support for it, but the only thing that worries me is that there are just two months from tomorrow until Christmas for us to agree," he told Autosport-Atlas.

[trauma1]

crapus here's more, just how many links do ya want

Qualifying reform and tyre changes





Tyre changes look set to return in 2006

Formula One will introduce a new qualifying format and revert to tyre changes for the start of next season after a positive meeting of the Formula One Commission in London on Monday.

A spokesman for the FIA confirmed that a knockout proposal is set to be introduced for qualifying and that the single tyre rule introduced this year will be scrapped after just one season.

The return to slick tyres, a move to run a single tyre supplier and a new split rear wing to improve overtaking were also passed for a provisional introduction in 2007 pending the input of the teams' Technical Directors.

"It was a very positive meeting and I think we have seen a positive outcome," said Red Bull Racing boss Christian Horner. "The changes for next year will be good and it is encouraging for the bigger picture of Formula One."

The meeting was attended by FIA President Max Mosley, Formula One commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone, the team bosses and representatives of the sport's key sponsors and promoters. It was the culmination of a long discussion period over the future of the sport and was described by an FIA spokesman as 'all pretty positive' as most of the FIA's 2006 draft regulations were voted through.

It is understood that the qualifying format was voted in unanimously by the Commission while the return to tyre changes received some opposition but was carried through in the meeting. The banning of spare cars for 2006 and the end to third cars running in Friday practice sessions, was not accepted, however, due to opposition from many of the smaller teams who benefit from that ruling.

The knockout format for qualifying will see five cars drop out after 15 minutes then another five out after a second 15-minute session before the remaining cars battle for the top grid spots in a final 20 minutes. To retain the successful element that has mixed up grids this season the final ten cars will have to qualify carrying the amount of fuel with which they will start the race, bringing race strategy into the grid-deciding runs.

"I think qualifying will be an interesting spectacle now," said Horner. "What we will see is it will build to a crescendo and it has the best of everything, a busy finish, with and without fuel, it is a good solution."

But Minardi boss Paul Stoddart, who will hand his team over to Red Bull in November, was not so convinced by the qualifying solution and believes the tyre changes will create a costly tyre war once again. "The qualifying, time will tell, but the tyre changes will bring a tyre war and a massive escalation in costs and I do not think it is the smartest move," said Stoddart. "Only time will tell if it is a good day for Formula One or a bad day for Formula One but unfortunately, and I don't like to say this, I don't think it will prove to be a good day."

The banning of spare cars for 2006 and the end to third cars running in Friday practice sessions, was not accepted, however, due to opposition from many of the smaller teams who benefit from that ruling.

"There was a bit of a split opinion on that," said Horner. "The promoters were keen on keeping it because it brings extra interest to Friday mornings and we of course were in favour of keeping it because it is to our benefit."



Zoom
It remains to be seen if this design works

The proposed new rear wing is the result of a long investigation by the FIA into the problems of overtaking, which have apparently increased this season, and was only unveiled just hours ahead of the afternoon meeting. "This new research is important for the future of Formula One," said Mosley. "By introducing the (new) wing we can give motor sport fans exactly what they have asked for, wheel-to-wheel racing with much more overtaking. It is our hope that the teams will collaborate with us in the optimisation of this radical new idea so that the aerodynamic benefits can be introduced into Formula One in 2007 rather than having to wait until 2008."

However, Horner warned the jury was out on this measure as to its potential effectiveness. "It is a very interesting concept but the question is does it work? If it does, then it should be a good thing. It will be referred to the technical committee and we will see what happens."

Stoddart warned that it might not be imposed before 2008. "Much was made over the new split wing car but it does require an eight-out-of-ten majority from the technical working group to be brought in before 2007, so I expect it will have to hold until 2008."

The results of the vote will now be passed to the FIA World Motorsport Council when they meet in Rome on Wednesday for a final confirmation but it is understood that Wednesday's vote will merely be a formality.

[Dirty Sanchez]

show me a quote from a team principal or representative that says "we are against this idea". you've suggested that the GPWC will split over this matter... now back it up :laugh:

[trauma1]

i,ve supplied the quotes, the facts so spin them any way ya want to, because nothing is going to be enough for ya :shakehead :shakehead

[Stu]

Another crap piece by Cassio. The advertisement point he makes is his own and a weak one at that IMO. Then he gets into the gist of the title of his piece and none of the players say they aren't on board. They only speculate that it's an aggressive time line to implement it. Keep 'em coming Cassio!


Why is the advertising point a weak point? Do you think so many dollars would go to NASCAR for advertising if their ads couldnt be seen? Now, Neckar is an extreme example since the entire car leaves room for spots; but I don't see how you can cut half the wing apart, get rid of a huge section for advertising, and expect advertisers to value smaller ads at the same previous rate.

[racer2c]

Why is the advertising point a weak point? Do you think so many dollars would go to NASCAR for advertising if their ads couldnt be seen? Now, Neckar is an extreme example since the entire car leaves room for spots; but I don't see how you can cut half the wing apart, get rid of a huge section for advertising, and expect advertisers to value smaller ads at the same previous rate.

I don't feel that splitting the wing in half diminishes the value on the real estate that's left. It's grasping at straws. To compare NASCAR rolling billboards whose business model is for consumer driven product placement to sleek open wheel cars whose sponsors are not on the side of an F1 or Champ Car so that the people in the stands go out and buy aluminum bleachers is apples to oranges.

[RichK]

With all the dirty air coming off the rear tires, I'd be surprised if those dual rear wings could generate enough downforce in all conditions to balance the front.

Also, both rear wings will still generate lots of turbulence, and in a turn the car behind will still be affected by it. The 2D flow models on page 1 of this thread only show the nice clean air coming from the middle of the car.

[Andrew Longman]

With all the dirty air coming off the rear tires, I'd be surprised if those dual rear wings could generate enough downforce in all conditions to balance the front.

Also, both rear wings will still generate lots of turbulence, and in a turn the car behind will still be affected by it. The 2D flow models on page 1 of this thread only show the nice clean air coming from the middle of the car.

I had much the same thought, but then I don't have the benefit of computer models or a degree in fluid dynamics.

Intuitively though it seem that with this design there would be two wakes and in total they will be wider. It seems the solution would be found when the following car does not have to move so much to the inside to find clean air/downforce to hold the turn.

As for the lost ad space, remember this will improve the racing, which will increase eyeballs on the sport, raising sponsor returns. Right? :shakehead

[oddlycalm]

^I agree with that M&B... BUT... you have to recognize that even a significantly faster car has difficulty passing at times. I think its an area that deserves some attention. Absolutely, even passing backmarkers is too difficult at the moment. I want to see the fastest cars and drivers go to the front, not a 10 car procession behind one slower car. As things stand it takes around a 2 sec per lap differential for the drivers to get around the car in front, which is a lot.

oc

[Stu]

Absolutely, even passing backmarkers is too difficult at the moment. I want to see the fastest cars and drivers go to the front, not a 10 car procession behind one slower car. As things stand it takes around a 2 sec per lap differential for the drivers to get around the car in front, which is a lot.

oc


Which is why this shouldnt be a bad thing.

I dont understand why people are saying that F1 should be about going as fast as you possibly can, while complaining about the split wing. The split wing should allow for cars to NOT be slown down when they are behind another one. It doesnt slow down the cars up front, it simply allows faster cars in the back to not be slowed down by a slower car.

[racer2c]

Which is why this shouldnt be a bad thing.

I dont understand why people are saying that F1 should be about going as fast as you possibly can, while complaining about the split wing. The split wing should allow for cars to NOT be slown down when they are behind another one. It doesnt slow down the cars up front, it simply allows faster cars in the back to not be slowed down by a slower car.

Considering that the car hasn't even been built yet, on track performance has yet to be determined. I simply don't like it for pure aesthetic reasons.

[Sean O'Gorman]

Considering that the car hasn't even been built yet, on track performance has yet to be determined. I simply don't like it for pure aesthetic reasons.

So is F1 in the same category as Grand-Am for you now? :laugh:

Personally, I think it is ugly, but I'm loving the fact that they are at least trying something different.

[racer2c]

So is F1 in the same category as Grand-Am for you now? :laugh:

Personally, I think it is ugly, but I'm loving the fact that they are at least trying something different.

An ugly car is an ugly car. Take the MR2 for instance. :gomer:

[Sean O'Gorman]

An ugly car is an ugly car. Take the MR2 for instance. :gomer:

At least it isn't a chick car. :gomer: :gomer:

And what does that have to do with the topic anyway? Isn't the important thing the actual on-track product, not the aesthetics? It is a race, not a car show.

[racer2c]

At least it isn't a chick car. :gomer: :gomer:

And what does that have to do with the topic anyway? Isn't the important thing the actual on-track product, not the aesthetics? It is a race, not a car show.

I remember passing in F1 without the need for ugly split wings. :gomer:

[Ankf00]

so how is this thing not going to create vortices and upwash again and make the car less sensitive to turbulence?

Rear Aerofoil: check
No Ground-Effects: check
Exposed Rear-Tires: check

As non-sensical as reducing frontal surface area to "reduce" top speed back in '98 or whenever: check



I still say they go with full ground-effects and non-functional spec wings for advertising purposes

[Cam]

I remember passing in F1 without the need for ugly split wings. :gomer:

Oh c'mon 2c...... You know all to well that was before Max had to meddle after proclaiming himself as the worlds greatest race car engineer with all the answers! :rolleyes: :p

[racer2c]

Oh c'mon 2c...... You know all to well that was before Max had to meddle after proclaiming himself as the worlds greatest race car engineer with all the answers! :rolleyes: :p

:D

[Insomniac]

Considering that the car hasn't even been built yet, on track performance has yet to be determined. I simply don't like it for pure aesthetic reasons.

I'm with you 100% here. I don't like the look of the split rear wing. But if it means no more parades, I'm all for it. I'll forget about the look if the racing is better.

TrueBrit said it best. Slip-Streaming. That is what is missing and needs to come back.

[Dr. Corkski]

Absolutely, even passing backmarkers is too difficult at the moment.Especially if you are the #2 driver for McLaren. :gomer:

[Methanolandbrats]

TrueBrit said it best. Slip-Streaming. That is what is missing and needs to come back. Ya, but if a big loss of aero grip is going to mean much slower cornering speeds, is it worth it?

[Cam]

Ya, but if a big loss of aero grip is going to mean much slower cornering speeds, is it worth it?

Does not the wider track and slick tyres make up for that?

[Methanolandbrats]

Does not the wider track and slick tyres make up for that? If so, it would be the ultimate formula, but I doubt it.

[Cam]

The ultimate question? :saywhat:

[emjaya]

Two rear wings + a different sponsers on each wing at the same price= twice the money. That Max Mosely is a ....ken genius. :rofl:

The thing is ugly though. :thumdown:

[Insomniac]

Ya, but if a big loss of aero grip is going to mean much slower cornering speeds, is it worth it?

Somehow I think the cars will be just as nimble.

[trauma1]

http://www.formula1.com/insight/technical_analysis/team/2005/182/214.html

[oddlycalm]

so how is this thing not going to create vortices and upwash again and make the car less sensitive to turbulence?

Rear Aerofoil: check
No Ground-Effects: check
Exposed Rear-Tires: check So it would seem to me from my direct experience with airplanes. Not sure how any downwash effect will cancel out the vortices. The good news is that they all seem to agree that the underlying issues need resolution, so even if the split wing doesn't prove out we can hope they find a solution that will work.

I have to agree with your statement that a ground effect car with a non-function "advertising board" wing would seem like a better solution. The banning of most ground effects to reduce speed was an ill-considered approach made by well-meaning non-technical people, just as in Champcars, and the unintended consequences have diminished the racing. It was a knee jerk safety related ruling and, like gravel traps, intuitively right but wrong in practice.

Further, one wonders about AMD's involvement as they have zero expertise other than processing power to bring to the table. To steal a point from truebrit, Max and his staff are non-technical people who have not a clue as to how this will work. What F1 needs is a technical advisory staff that has the knowledge to advise management on such issues.

oc