Motorsports Thread

[Reynard]

Wasn't the reason for banning ground effect years ago was that if the car hit a bump it could take off like a plane ?

Umm, I mentioned this a little while ago...

The banning of ground effect / side skirt cars midway through the 1982 season after a spate of really nasty accidents*, catching virtually everyone on the hop. I can just about remember this, as it was the first year I was into motor racing.

*one of the contributing factors to Gilles Villeneuve's fatal crash at Zolder, although not the reason behind it. With the side skirt cars, as soon as the venturi underneath was disrupted, the driver pretty well had zero control as the remainder of the aero was vestigal / minimal. Rear wings were really skinny and some cars had no front wing at all.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Wasn't the reason for banning ground effect years ago was that if the car hit a bump it could take off like a plane ?

Discussed earlier thread that relying on it for all your grip is dangerous, but this is part of a package which has been tested and simulated within an inch, so presumably it's just one part of the broader package.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

No it's not. Because no one was behaving with decorum - not Toto, not Horner, and most definitely not Masi.

The whole thing makes *everyone* look stupid and unprofessional.

It's the very definition of unedifying

 

[Reynard]

Discussed earlier thread that relying on it for all your grip is dangerous, but this is part of a package which has been tested and simulated within an inch, so presumably it's just one part of the broader package.

Race car engineering has come along light years in the last four decades. Back then, it was still a "let's chuck it on the car and see if it works" kind of thing. Whereas now, computer modelling of chassis structures, impacts and aerodynamics is par for course, and when coupled with small-scale models in a standard engineering lab, can narrow down engineering performance and solutions to close to optimum before a part has even been made.

The advantage of the former approach is all the cars looked different, and it was up to the teams' designers and engineers to think up sometimes completely unique solutions to assorted problems. Of course, you had a lot of testing in those days. But think the Brabham fan car, the twin chassis Lotus 88, all the teams which developed active ride and adjustable suspension so that a car complied to the ride height test in parc ferme, but that could be lowered on track once a car was up to speed...

Wind tunnels in the late 80s / early 90s were a big step up, and then in the late 90s / early 2000s, computer modelling became much more accurate and dependable. (I know, I was involved in some of that development). Sadly, this also massively increased spending, which put pay to a lot of the "garagistes"

The downside of the current situation is that with the computing power being what it is, both from statics, dynamics and CFD modelling perspectives, the mathematics takes everyone to a very similar place in terms of what works best.

Though having said that, the downside of all that computing and wind tunnels is also an upside, as it gives the current crop of F1 engineers a much better understanding of their cars than their counterparts from the late 70s and early 80s. So I'm not sure we'll repeat some of those whopping shunts from then, but then of course, simulations can only take you so far. Until the cars actually run on circuit, we'll just have to hope they've got it right.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I still think the sport would be massively improved if the drivers did their own pitstops.

 

[Illaveago]

They say they want more overtaking . Well it was their fault by making all these twisty windy circuits that they went crazy about years ago. I think there was one designer that they particularly favoured .

 

[Rusty Nails]

Umm, I mentioned this a little while ago...

I think you did , but I understood @Illaveago.

With the side skirt cars, as soon as the venturi underneath was disrupted, the driver pretty well had zero control as the remainder of the aero was vestigal / minimal.

Wasn't the reason for banning ground effect years ago was that if the car hit a bump it could take off like a plane ?

 

[Bonefish Blues]

They say they want more overtaking . Well it was their fault by making all these twisty windy circuits that they went crazy about years ago. I think there was one designer that they particularly favoured .

Tilke. He did Saudi, so he's very much still the 'in house' guy.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Seems to me some of the new tracks just involve concreting over a small town and painting a course on it. Bring back gravel traps and the like that brought real consequences.

 

[Reynard]

Tilke. He did Saudi, so he's very much still the 'in house' guy.

Although outside of the "inner circle" he isn't much liked from what I gather.

He's ruined some perfectly good older circuits as well.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Although outside of the "inner circle" he isn't much liked from what I gather.

He's ruined some perfectly good older circuits as well.

Agree. He only has one set of crayons, sadly.

 

[Fat Lars]

I'm not getting into a pointless debate, and the comments above are all well and good, but my main point was that whether good, bad or indifferent, the actions were not against the rules.

Hamilton slowed to try to trap Verstappen, which left him further than 10 lengths behind the safety car, and he gained an advantage going off the track, (when other drivers stayed on in exactly the same scenario) and never gave the position back.

It's one event, albeit a key one, but people seem to focus on that as it supports their man, without considering events earlier in that race, or in others this season, all of which had some sort of influence on the final outcome.

It's done.

What's this post about then ?

 

[Drago]

I've heard that Hamilton has shelved plans to retire from F1 and start his own Musical Youth tribute band.

It seems he can't pass the Dutchie on the left hand side.

 

[Illaveago]

It's been detailed in several articles and by commentators, and summarised in the FIA report.

"The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible
it was highly desirable for the race to end in a “green” condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car). "

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f...otest-over-abu-dhabi-gp-race-restart/6878855/

Masi initially stated one thing and then later changed it . It wasn't an immediate correction but there was a time delay .

 

[derrick]

Apparently Lewis has asked Mercedes to drop the case. Not sure how true this is.