If we accept that putting a greater emphasis on mechanical rather then aero grip is the way to go, then I was referring to a significant reduction in surface area. What proportion of a current F1 car's surface area is taken up by all the fins, barge boards, and wing endplates and other wee aero bits? Halve the allowed surface area and give the drivers stickier tyres might make for more exciting racing ...

 

Double-cobblers. The cars won't be 'slower' per se; with the same power they are more likely to be 'faster' than the current aero equipped cars on the straights, due to considerably lower aerodynamic drag. Sure, they will be slower in the corners, and under braking - but isn't that where the real driver skill comes in? The current importance and emphasis upon aero' is a major contributory factor to the lack of overtaking - and the devaluation of F1 as an exciting sport to watch. Throw into the mix non aero-assisted cornering and braking and there is the recipe for very exciting racing, and thus spectating.

Anyone can drive fast in a straight line.

If the drivers don't like it/can't handle it (which I doubt) then they can go back to driving DPD vans.

And no one is talking of un-inventing aerodynamics, merely outlawing aerodynamic components fitted to F1 cars. It's no different from changing the rules apropos engine configurations, induction, KERS, whatever.

 

I don't think reducing the surface area will do it. They already banned all the silly stick on winglets they used to have; there's already limits on the size of the wings so they could very easily bring in rules to get rid of wing endplates and 6 element wings if that was going to make a difference. Most of the downforce comes from underneath anyway.

A lot of people are complaining the cars are slower than they were 10 years ago and yet other people are complaining that the cars are too fast and want to make them much slower.

 

It's the cornering speed that makes F1 so amazing to watch. You really want a point and squirt championship? Sure there'd be overtaking, but it wouldn't be exciting as whoever has the most powerful engine would simply power past down the straight.

Exactly.

 

The underneath still counts as surface area in my book.

If someone could scan Jim Clark's Lotus and calculate its total surface area, I think you'd be staggered at just much greater the area would be on a modern F1 car.

The fewer facets a car's body has, the smaller its surface area. I think my idea would produce some interesting designs with the body and probably suspension parts doing as much aero work as they could ...

 

Whilst we are on the subject of aero, how come the surface of the F1 cars aren't like shark skin - watching the documentary.. erm "Shark" on BBC last night they were talking about the skin being super slippery in water and air - how come this hasn't been adopted to F1 (or has it and I've missed it)

 

The F1 drivers have just released a questionnaire for fans to fill in about the sport. Will be interesting to see what people think.

My link

 

i thought the same...wonder if you can get a shark skin wrap

 

I think you all have it wrong. It is time to allow the most aero with the most HP and introduce an upside down straight so we can finally answer the age old question. =D

 

Yes, but it won't do well on the modern side impact test. Plus with the modern engines they need the sidepods for all the cooling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are better ways. You could reduce the downforce from underneath by raising the minimum ride height which wouldn't change the surface area at all.

It must be possible to write the aerodynamic regulations in a way that keeps the downforce, and therefore speed, but with no penalty for running close in the corners to make the racing more exciting. Part of the problem is all the best engineers are working for the teams. Perhaps if Newey worked for the FIA...