…can we have 1300bhp qualifying engines as well please! No? Oh well!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341

Can we have fully manual gearboxes please. That is all I ask.

And naked pit dollies.

I thought the 4 cyl 1600(ish) turbo engine format was pretty nailed down already. It's not exactly a return to ground effect either, as blown diffusers, movable floors & flexi wings are doing that anyway. It's probably just a shift in the balance from wing aero to underbody aero, which means more reliable downforce in the wake of another car.

With that in mind one interesting thing is whether they'll manage to get a reduction in wing size past the newly formed sponsors group, or perhaps the proposed tweaks to sidepods will make up for that one?

Also with allegedly around 650BHP is there a chance that GP2 could be quicker than F1 – AIUI one of the reasons the FIA don't want to take away things like exotic materials, paddle gearboxes etc. is that they're also in many of the lower formulae so it could be claimed that F1 is no longer the pinnacle of motorsport (technology).

ThePurist has it.

I knew the engine spec was almost certain – although Patrick Head and a few others are pushing for a V6 as they sound nicer.

I wasn't expecting the return to ground effect as double diffusers are banned next season so I thought they opt for less underfloor aero than they have now.

And naked pit dollies.

Moto GP has much better pit dollies 😉

Gumball slick tyres, variable boost turbos, manual gearboxes, clutch pedals, decent european circuits, drivers with huge sideburns and the guy waving the chequered flag has to stand halfway out onto the track.

Easy.

The DDD banning is to do with the way the current regs are set up though – they were supposedly all about minimising the wake from one car then using mahoosive front wings to deal with whatever turbulent air came their way and sticking the rear wing a bit further into supposedly clean airflow. Then along comes the DDD which leaves a huge chunk of turbulent wake behind one car, so the wings on the following car have less to work on – but paradoxically the DDD on the 2nd car still works quite well so it has some downforce left.

So next year we might get slightly less drop in downforce for a following car, but the job of the aerodynamicist is to make as much use as possible of the airflow over the wings of his car, which means it still wont be in the best shape for the car behind. Maybe the working group have realised this and decided that less reliance on (wing) aero is a good thing.

Of course there's the whole counter-argument that ground effect is more dangerous because as soon as you lose the airflow under the car you lose all the downforce and are in the scenery before you can say "WTF are you doing sebastian?"

and are in the scenery before you can say "WTF are you doing sebastian?"

😛

men usd 2 b men

puffs now

….are in the scenery before you can say "WTF are you doing sebastian?"

Lol 8)

Question – is there much/any CFD/wind tunnel testing done modelling the aero performance as 'the second car' (i.e. – how efficient the car is at working the turbulent air from the car in front), or is all of it done for the car in clean air with the assumption that horsepower or a bit trading-paint is needed to make a pass these days?

TBH I'd like to see a formula with wide open regs

Keep them simple: Minimum weight / dimensions, must have 4 wheels at least 2 of which must be driven. And see what the most talented engineers and designers can come up with

+1 Mark Datz – aye nothing I like to see more than a man burning to death.

Dobber

I think the FIA should spend more time working out why Ferrari keep getting away with cheating all the time

men usd 2 b men

Men used to die to often in Motorsport.