rec.autos.simulators

        1.  Keep the flat bottom rules.   2.  Add "No part of the body
work or any aerodynamic device shall exceed 36 inches in width or
height.  No part of the suspension or anything else extending outside
these dimensions shall create downforce.  This shall be enforced
through wind tunnel testing of the cars with and without all parts
extending past the 36 inch limit."

        I'd like to see thousands of pounds of downforce with _that_.
As a bonus the cars would have a more classic look, especially if
there was an appropriate restriction on total width.  Have at me.

                bob

1. Go back to steel brakes to make the braking zones longer
2. Add more underbody downforce and less 'over-the-wing' downforce
3. Go back to slicks.

Randy

1. Slicks:  Safer, more grip, more fun.

2. No carbon brakes:  Cars have to start stopping sooner, more braking
duels.

3. Reduce wing widths 30%:  Less dependance on aero, closer drafting.

4. Extend flat bottoms to back of rear tires:  Minimizes diffuser, less dn
force, better tow.

5. Bodywork protrusions (ie:turning veins) not visible from the bottom of
the car:  Gets rid of ugly, impractical extraenious bits that fall off,
reduces aero effects.

6. Raise min. height to 9cm (3.5"):  Gets out of gravel traps easier, less
dependance on  stable ground effect platform, and makes more compliant
suspension possible.

=rez=

The concern there is that when the car lifts and the downforce is gone
it's utterly gone - dramatic loss of grip and control.

I totally agree with that - I'd have turbos back too, and no
refuelling nonsense. I always liked that someone could turn up the
boost to get close and/or have a go, keeps things interesting.

Cheers!
John

That's why they have gravel traps :).  Are the cars any easier to
drive for their downforce NOW?

Randy
Randy Magruder
http://members.home.com/rmagruder

A.      Are too hard to pass.
B.      Are too technology, rather than driver, dependent.  Better
motors or better downforce/drag ratios are simply used to dial in
_more_ downforce (note that top speeds are quite equal and have been
relatively unchanged for several years), drastically reducing any
advantage of driver skill in braking/cornering/accelerating.

        Your solution addresses neither.  

        Randy - steel brakes are perfectly capable of locking the
wheels for the entire race.  Consistency of feel with carbon-carbon
may make a minor difference, but nowhere near enough.  Slicks are
pretty irrelevent, as grooved tires appear little different.
Downforce (total) is the problem, not the solution.

        So, I ask again, what about 36X36?  It would make a huge
difference as compared to any of the above sugestions.  

I quote....
"........in the later years - particularly with the arrival of sintered
carbon metallic friction materials - cast iron brakes in many respects
caught up [ to carbon brakes].  Friction coeeficients are now about the
same, as is the range of acceptable operating temperature.  When Damon Hill
tested cast iron brakes at Williams in 1995 he and the teaqm reported little
obvious difference, deflating arguments that outlawing carbon/carbon would
improve overtaking opportunities.
Carbon discs do retain one clear benefit over cast iron equivalents, though:
they are about a quarter the weight........"

Matt

--
---------------------------------
Matthew Birger Knutsen

The Art of Legends;
http://www.gpl.electra.no

Cheek Racing Cars;
http://www.cheekracing.electra.no

Hmm, steel brakes are pretty much as effective as carbon these days.

Totally agreed. Ban the "plank" to lower ride-heights, shrink the wings
and remove diffusers.

Only if they're soft, unlike the modern grooved compounds. If F1 uses
slicks as hard as 1999's tyres, there will be no change.

--
Cheers!
Graeme Nash

http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk
ICQ# 11257824

I'm just not convinced that steel brakes are the way to go, given the
tests that Williams made when F1 were considering re-introducing them.

The cars are nervous now, the drivers somewhat expecting a problem.
The problem with downforce via ground-effects (skirts or venturis) is
that it grips, Grips, GRIPS....GONE - sudden loss with little or no
warning - couple that with soft slicks which have a more rapid fall
off and the car goes pretty quickly. Still, I do think that is still
safer than the current regs, since when the car is spinning the
grooved hard compounds do little to slow the car down before any
impact.

Cheers!
John

There was an article in Performance Racing News (a Canadian motorsports
magazine) a year or two ago in which several F1 designers and engineers
where asked what was needed to bring back passing to F1. Almost unanimously,
they said that turbocharged engines would do it. Right now, with natural
aspiration, the car that is following loses a considerable amount of power
as the airflow to the engine is restricted by being in the wake of the car
in front. So it's easy to catch the car in front, but once you get there you
lose power and can't pull out to make the pass. Turbocharge the engines and
that problem goes away.

Wayne Hutchison

Randy
Randy Magruder
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

I don't really think though that lengthening the braking distance is
the best way to increase passing, since in almost any factor you can
think of F1 has gone the wrong way. Smaller tires increaes aero
reliance, so when aero is lost through turbulence it's impossible to
follow another car closely enough. Smaller front-on profile with
tightly tucked in wheels means less slipstream for the following car
to grab, no turbos, no undercar downforce to offset aero loss, grooved
tyres to further limit grip - it goes on and on. Passing is certainly
possible as we can see when Schumi, Coulthard, Hakkinen etc get dumped
at the back of the grid, but with cars more closely matched on
performance overaking becomes just way too risky. Look at DC and EI
today and in Austria - despite a massive performance advantage
Coulthard couldn't pass - same too against Salo at Hockenheim. With
small wings and heavy reliance on front-end downforce there's no way
you can a) follow closely enough through the preceding corner, nor b)
catch a good tow down the long straights.

In a way I'm almost sorry that the races since Spain have been
exciting, because a few more boring races may have forced a longer,
harder study of the rules. As it is things may not change, although a
return to slicks would be a step in the right direction.

Cheers!
John

On the subject though, my seriously unqualified, opinion is that they need to
reduce (not eliminate) the effect of the wings, increase (not become 100%
reliant) on undercar downforce, and go back to slicks with at least two
manufacturers supplying the teams.