[LotusLover]

I just read a great post from Orange on Sky about cars in the mid 70s and the unique differences and got me thinking "F1 cars are all about the PU developments and hidden changes" i really have to agree over the last 25 years maybe more there cars do look the same? Has F1 just evolved to where it can be on Chassis design or have things been taken away due to other areas being developed. Lets talk evolution

PS. I was enjoying the whole thread then that twat BoB ruined it

[Jody Barton]

Wow, I honestly don't know. There is no question the rules on technical limitations were far more lax in the 70's, but you actually saw quite rapid adoption of ideas that worked. So there was homogenisation going on, it's just that it started from a broader position and then narrowed. The 80's though you started to see F1 DNA emerge I think. There were certain aerodynamic concepts that engineers gravitated towards because they worked. That's the thing with design, you often get a consensus, especially when it is based on physics, and maths. Often there are 'correct' or 'right' designs.

I was told to look at planes, trains and other things to note that even in areas where there aren't rules and regulations that define parameters, there is a sort of accepted homologation process going on. It is the nature of design as stated, a language is developed within the artifacts created, and until somebody disrupts that (RBR and Enstone with rake) designs often say the same things. The thing is, to those of us who are super nerdy, and like going over these cars with a fine toothed comb, there are significant differences. The problem is most people don't notice them.

McLarens rear suspension is revolutionary, and possibly revolutionarily bad ?. No, it actually seems to work well, it's the rest of the car that is seemingly pants. Ferrari's approach to their diffuser is different, Mercedes nose and front wing concept remains on its own, with Toro Rosso The only other team getting close to it, but nowhere near as extreme really.

There are massive differences between a lot of the teams in front suspension, and the sidepod areas. It is all exceedingly fine details, but it is there. I also refute somewhat that this is a PU formula. Maybe the last set of rules were (2014 to 2016), but these rules now give far more scope for aerodynamics to play a role. RBR's philosophy has diverged from Mercedes and Ferrari, who are seemingly heading towards having pretty much the same car...

No... the issue as I see it is that the sport has advanced far beyond where your average Joe can follow, or indeed would want to follow in terms of the technicalities. That's absolutely OK and fine, if it is providing good racing on track, and allowing drivers to go wheel to wheel, because let's be honest, that's exactly what punters and fans want to see. Making the cars look different, or sexy is pointless if they don't provide drivers with the tools to go racing properly.

[LotusLover]

Wow, I honestly don't know. There is no question the rules on technical limitations were far more lax in the 70's, but you actually saw quite rapid adoption of ideas that worked. So there was homogenisation going on, it's just that it started from a broader position and then narrowed. The 80's though you started to see F1 DNA emerge I think. There were certain aerodynamic concepts that engineers gravitated towards because they worked. That's the thing with design, you often get a consensus, especially when it is based on physics, and maths. Often there are 'correct' or 'right' designs.

I was told to look at planes, trains and other things to note that even in areas where there aren't rules and regulations that define parameters, there is a sort of accepted homologation process going on. It is the nature of design as stated, a language is developed within the artifacts created, and until somebody disrupts that (RBR and Enstone with rake) designs often say the same things. The thing is, to those of us who are super nerdy, and like going over these cars with a fine toothed comb, there are significant differences. The problem is most people don't notice them.

McLarens rear suspension is revolutionary, and possibly revolutionarily bad ?. No, it actually seems to work well, it's the rest of the car that is seemingly pants. Ferrari's approach to their diffuser is different, Mercedes nose and front wing concept remains on its own, with Toro Rosso The only other team getting close to it, but nowhere near as extreme really.

There are massive differences between a lot of the teams in front suspension, and the sidepod areas. It is all exceedingly fine details, but it is there. I also refute somewhat that this is a PU formula. Maybe the last set of rules were (2014 to 2016), but these rules now give far more scope for aerodynamics to play a role. RBR's philosophy has diverged from Mercedes and Ferrari, who are seemingly heading towards having pretty much the same car...

No... the issue as I see it is that the sport has advanced far beyond where your average Joe can follow, or indeed would want to follow in terms of the technicalities. That's absolutely OK and fine, if it is providing good racing on track, and allowing drivers to go wheel to wheel, because let's be honest, that's exactly what punters and fans want to see. Making the cars look different, or sexy is pointless if they don't provide drivers with the tools to go racing properly.

Nice reply Jody, I agree and do believe I mentioned a lot of design is beyond the eye of a standard fan with little knowledge of the technical aspect. So in essence are we suggesting it has rather plateaued in terms of appearance? I think the last part of your comment is most important in terms of F1 advancing not only as a technical sport but as a spectators sport to keep it open to a wider audience.

[url=https://www.bing.com/search?q=ferrari+advert&FORM=HDRSC1#][/url]


PS Favourite Sound is 53s in for me pure sex!!!!!!!!

[Purple-banana]

I guess it somewhat summarises what Jody has said already, but 70s = Paper & pencils, 2018 = Computers.

You could have 100 different computers running 100 different CFD software packages, but give them a set of parameters (i.e. the technical regs) and eventually they will all churn out the same design - the reason being that it is the most efficient shape. Different philosophies will yield the slight variations we see, such as high-rake, long wheelbases etc, but broadly speaking that's why we end up with cookie cutter cars (from a distance at least anyway).

"PS. I was enjoying the whole thread then that twat BoB ruined it Sad" - Pretty much sums up any comment-enabled article on the SSF1 website. Shame.

[morini]

"PS. I was enjoying the whole thread then that twat BoB ruined it Sad" - Pretty much sums up any comment-enabled article on the SSF1 website. Shame.

I went back on the SSF1 comments sections for a while a few weeks back as even though I hate they way the place is run and the business model behind it, sometimes it is quite entertaining. Used to be quite a giggle post weekend beverages! However, lately I found myself posting more about how bad I thought the place was than having decent conversations. So, realising that is a bit sad I've made a decision to give the place a miss for the foreseeable future. I don't even read the articles now (as most of those are ill informed shit as well).

[Antilochos]

Interesting thread Lotuslover. Kudos for that.

Anyway, I can't go back that far in time to compare, since I only start watching when Senna died (yes, as a kid the reaction of my father and a friend of ours caught my attention and just like that, I started watching).
Besides, I am a average joe like Jody says and don't go that deep in technology. Just asking to much time and energy and wish spending that differently.

So, from that standpoint, I still share the view F1 needs to get back on track. I might be totally wrong, but I think the technology, engineering, etc is becoming so good, the margins between the cars became so small (think purple banana has it right), but still so large because the driver part became less important (because the huge tech jump the cars made). Sounds unlogical, but maybe because English is not my language it is that I can't explain my view on this any better.
Then you get the tracks that need to adjust a bit more to the new cars.
Last thing, the amount of money now needed is insane and is killing the sport. Maybe more than anything. Make the playing field more even!

And maybe not important, but still, those silly changes like a halo, banned pit girls, etc, does not help either for the sport. Like him or hate him, the old Bernie understood what F1 should be.

[Jody Barton]

Antilochos firstly I want to assure you the 'average Joe' comment was not an insult, and I hope you and nobody else took it that way, because I absolutely didn't mean it that way, just that in my experience the average F1 fan and Motorsport fan in general just wants to see great drivers / pilots racing wheel to wheel and making the difference. I genuinely feel if that's sorted fans won't really care too much what the cars look like.

On the whole though I think you're spot on. The aim of F1 has often been to push certain technology, engines, ABS, power steering etc. etc. every now and then above the sporting interests of F1. At other times the aim has been to push the speed of the cars up, or drive them down, often without regard for the quality of the racing. These current cars were designed to look better and go quicker, and quite frankly at the time I thought it'd make the racing worse.

One of the things F1 really needs to sort out is dealing with the wake coming off of the cars and there are a few ways that can be done:

1) Cut down the amount of aero on the cars, that's certainly part of it, but go too far and it'll become a purely engine formula and nobody wants that.
And...
2) Allow technology that helps mitigate the wake from another car like ground effect, active suspension and even moveable aero parts, and F1 desperately needs to get that right.

The issue isn't just cars though, much of it is the tracks. Some tracks just aren't suitable for F1 and just don't provide good racing. I think some tracks can make changes and should be encouraged to do so to aid racing, others can't and some like Sochi are just pants and there needs to be serious discussion about whether or not we drop them.

[LotusLover]

The last piece here is bang on the money. We need more tracks like Spa imo and Silverstone. God if Silverstone goes it will be a travesty imo. Bin Dubai looks nice but been there and found it so so dull as a spectacle imo

[Jody Barton]

Abu Dhabi is an utterly pants track, hate Singapore (I know like the night time race) and Sochi is just an awful track... and I'd drop the Hungaroring and Melbourne, I'm expecting that'll raise some eyebrows, but they're pants. To me I love the history of the Hungaroring, but it's well past its sell by date. I'm also sad to say Melbourne, because it has provided me with some great memories over the years, but they just have nowhere to go in terms of improving the track in terms of widening the circuit etc...

If it wasn't for the history and glitz it provides I'd ditch Monaco in a flash. Crap race. Utterly crap.

Personally bring back Turkey, Malaysia in a flash. No more city circuits, I know Liberty Media want more destination races in places like Copenhagen, but hell no, please no, no, no not suitable for F1 races. Even Baku which tried to avoid the pitfalls of city circuits it literally provides 1 and a half over taking places. Not great. So for me I'm really concerned about where Liberty Media will take F1 metaphorically and physically in terms of venues.

[forzaferrari]

Abu Dhabi is an utterly pants track, hate Singapore (I know like the night time race) and Sochi is just an awful track... and I'd drop 

 Not great. So for me I'm really concerned about where Liberty Media will take F1 metaphorically and physically in terms of venues.

Agree with all that Jody except the Baku bit...I quite like it (but I get what you are saying)