New F1 rear wing in action.

[Andy3536]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ6fpdVIGVI&feature

Thought some of you might be interested.

[Terbinator]

Should be fun when its breaks for someone and they have it in the wrong position for the remainder of the race.

[kalniel]

Horrendous idea.

Even less fun would be to have someone in a qualifying position only for the FIA to fail to give the signal that it can be opened.

[this_is_gav]

Should be fun when its breaks for someone and they have it in the wrong position for the remainder of the race.

I've no idea how true it is, but I have read that it's impossible for it to fail in the 'thin' configuration, and that if it were to fail, it would fail in the normal position.

I guess that was one of the first concerns to be addressed.

[Terbinator]

I've no idea how true it is, but I have read that it's impossible for it to fail in the 'thin' configuration, and that if it were to fail, it would fail in the normal position.

I guess that was one of the first concerns to be addressed.

Hmmm, i would of just thought basic mechanics meant it could fail in some way.

Edit: I like the idea overall though, just because i have a faux vision of the speederbikes from Return of the Jedi in my head haha.

[this_is_gav]

Hmmm, i would of just thought basic mechanics meant it could fail in some way.

You mean fall off? Well that's happened many times anyway, and that I can remember the last time it caused issues in an official session (in terms of injury or fatalities) was in the 70s at Montjuïc Park. While I'm not someone who would suggest resting on laurels, it would be an over-reaction to ban them on the grounds of safety because they could fall apart. F1 are always pushing boundaries, so they're constantly attempting to get away with the minimum material needed to make all parts of the car using new designs and techniques - a movable rear wing isn't going to give an F1 team much of a challenge - they'll still push to the limits and have a few issues here and there.

Regarding a wing being left 'open' due to mechanics, that shouldn't be possible. The wing would naturally be forced down. The bigger problem may be electronics, though they must have overcome that somehow if the wing cannot be stuck 'open'.

My concern isn't one of safety (yet - the closing speeds this year will be 'interesting', but I'll await judgement on that), it's that they're artificially creating overtaking opportunities. There's no skill in overtaking a car because you can adjust a wing and they can't. What's the point? Sort out the aerodynamics properly rather than fannying about with movable this and movable that or trimming off "25% of the available downforce", as it makes sod all difference.

[Mutley]

My concern isn't one of safety (yet - the closing speeds this year will be 'interesting', but I'll await judgement on that), it's that they're artificially creating overtaking opportunities. There's no skill in overtaking a car because you can adjust a wing and they can't. What's the point? Sort out the aerodynamics properly rather than fannying about with movable this and movable that or trimming off "25% of the available downforce", as it makes sod all difference.

^this.

I love that F1 is all about pushing the boundaries both in engineering technology and driving, but I think this is going the wrong way. It makes for artificial racing; a contrived spectacle. I don't believe anybody wants to see that. I agree with Martin Whitmarsh when he says that the debate on over-taking is often mischaracterised and misses the point. I'd far rather see one great, courageous overtaking move, than ten hum-drum ones made possible through a 'push to pass' system.

And I count KERS in this too. KERS was a failure a couple of years ago. I believe it will be so again this year. The bottom teams won't be using it, so straight away, you don't have a level playing field. It is extremely expensive to design and build, which contradicts the FIA's directives around reducing cost. It creates artificial racing. It adds further complexity for the driver (a different debate I know). It adds further complexity for the viewing public to try and follow what is going on. KERS (at least the battery type) is not especially environmentally friendly either, and is not at all a new idea.

While I'm at it, I'll have a go at the stupid and arbitrary tyre rules too. Forcing drivers to use both compounds is ridiculous. Even more so to force drivers to use the same compound they qualified on (on the top ten places). Teams should be free to use the tyres that would benefit them most. I think that would add to the racing, not detract from it.

Roll on this season - looking forward to it, despite what i've said! (And in HD too).

[kalniel]

While I'm at it, I'll have a go at the stupid and arbitrary tyre rules too. Forcing drivers to use both compounds is ridiculous. Even more so to force drivers to use the same compound they qualified on (on the top ten places). Teams should be free to use the tyres that would benefit them most. I think that would add to the racing, not detract from it.

Completely agree.

But to applaud some innovation, check out Renaults exhaust system!
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...xhaust-system/

Brave to reveal it so early on as well.

[Mblaster]

Should be fun when its breaks for someone and they have it in the wrong position for the remainder of the race.

It's written into the regulations that it should be designed in a way that if the mechanism to move the wing fails, it will stick in the 'off' position (high down force).

Even less fun would be to have someone in a qualifying position only for the FIA to fail to give the signal that it can be opened.

There won't be a guy hitting a button when he sees the car at a certain point, it'll all be automated. F1 already has accurate timing and positioning systems so I'm sure they'll have no trouble adding this.

As for whether the movable rear wing is actually a good idea, I guess we'll have to wait and see. It does seem a bit contrived to me, but if it makes the races more interesting I can't complain.

[kalniel]

There won't be a guy hitting a button when he sees the car at a certain point, it'll all be automated. F1 already has accurate timing and positioning systems so I'm sure they'll have no trouble adding this.

I'm sure it'll work just as well as the blue flag system...

[dkmech]

And I count KERS in this too. KERS was a failure a couple of years ago. I believe it will be so again this year. The bottom teams won't be using it, so straight away, you don't have a level playing field. It is extremely expensive to design and build, which contradicts the FIA's directives around reducing cost. It creates artificial racing. It adds further complexity for the driver (a different debate I know). It adds further complexity for the viewing public to try and follow what is going on. KERS (at least the battery type) is not especially environmentally friendly either, and is not at all a new idea.

While I'm at it, I'll have a go at the stupid and arbitrary tyre rules too. Forcing drivers to use both compounds is ridiculous. Even more so to force drivers to use the same compound they qualified on (on the top ten places). Teams should be free to use the tyres that would benefit them most. I think that would add to the racing, not detract from it.

I think the way they've implemented KERS is stupid. It could've worked if they did not limit the time you can use the energy. Make a more efficient system - you get more power and somewhere down the line an advance in regeneration technology filters through to the public. One of the reasons we used to get more overtaking in the past (apart from aerodynamics) was that the cars weren't as locked down (e.g. engines locked for several years) and teams were trying different things. But then you did end up with one team dominating a season and no one being able to stop them. At least we had some very close racing recently.

As for tyres - I think this happened after Michelin left. With one tyre provider and no choice of what compounds to use (i.e. no tailor made tyres for each team) some would be disadvantaged if one tyre compound (which didn't suit them at this track) proved to be superior to the other. By forcing everyone to change it evens things out a bit. Same with qualifying - yes you'd like to use softs in quali and maybe something else for the race, but it would give you both a high starting position and a favourable strategy - if you want to give others a chance then the current system seems a little fairer.

[BeeP]

Apparently it should be 2 pit stops in most races this year, could be good.....as yet undecided.

The wing looks a bit iffy, one of the drivers said he was a bit worried about it sticking or even just getting used to it for braking etc.

[Mutley]

As for tyres - I think this happened after Michelin left. With one tyre provider and no choice of what compounds to use (i.e. no tailor made tyres for each team) some would be disadvantaged if one tyre compound (which didn't suit them at this track) proved to be superior to the other. By forcing everyone to change it evens things out a bit. Same with qualifying - yes you'd like to use softs in quali and maybe something else for the race, but it would give you both a high starting position and a favourable strategy - if you want to give others a chance then the current system seems a little fairer.

I don't believe that is why the rules were introduced. It was to increase the variability in the race because the hard and soft compounds would require very different approaches. However what happened was that the hard and soft compounds weren't really that different - the soft tyre could be made to last 30 laps. This year, it would seem that Pirelli have been given a clear directive that there should be a LARGE difference between the two compounds. This, I believe, will make the racing more exciting and competitive this year. However, forcing this rule for teams to change tyres becomes even less relevant , and takes away the opportunity for a team to be more creative in the strategy. Anyway, I could go on, but I'm boring myself!

As for overtaking, I really believe that this is not simply about car design, but is much more down to track design. It seems strangely coincidental that almost without fail, the new tracks produce uninteresting races, whilst older tracks often (not always) produce better ones. One key ingredient seems to me to be the change in altitude the older tracks seem to offer. Look at Bahrain and Abu Dhabi - the two dullest races there are; almost entirely flat. And then there is the corner design - it simply doesn't encourage and provide opportunities for overtaking.

I see there is growing concern over the unrest in Bahrain. Much as I don't wish civil unrest on anyone, if it means scrapping the Bahrain GP this year, I won't mind :-p

[kalniel]

if it means scrapping the Bahrain GP this year, I won't mind :-p

That and Valencia should go. Valencia I'll be happily skipping, but first chance to see the cars at their true speeds.. gah, I'll have to watch qually for Bahrain at least.

[BeeP]

Half the time Monaco is a bit of a procession too, yes it's the "jewel in the crown" etc etc but unless someone makes a mistake then it's over at the start.

/me prepares to be slaughtered.

[this_is_gav]

No, you're right, but Monaco provides a unique challenge to the teams and drivers.

F1 has never been about overtaking, and with all the nanny-state modern Tilke-fests, it's good that you've still got drivers circuits like Monaco. Unfortunately Monaco itself has been castrated over the past few years, with the changes to St Devote, the Swimming Pool and La Rascasse, but it's still one heck of a challenge.