That first pic ... thought I'm looking at a truck with a dually.
How much are they cutting downforce by?
although a few teams' engineers did raise concerns but they were summarily ignored.
The working group came up with the rule changes. The working group consisted of FIA (Todt), Bernie(FOM), and the key team principles. Based on the people I think we can agree that motivations weren't exactly to make the sport fair.
Yeah, I actually thought the working group may prove useful with regards to being able to follow another car closely because I was under the misapprehension that the engineers would get a say. However, when they posted the new rules I saw from the wings that they did "little" to address this issue.
Edit for clarity: they did give the cars more mechanical grip which is a huge step in the right direction but they failed when it comes to air flow from the rear of the car hindering cars behind. Only side skirts (ground effects) can solve this issue now.
Last edited by RidgeBack; 09-09-2016 at 07:26 PM.
I had a good idea for limiting downforce, but then it would just fuel a drag-limiting war. Downforce could only go up by specific percentages of car weight (say 100% at 120mph, 120% at 140, something like that) Sure would be easy to test...apart from not having a windtunnel at the track.
What is the reason they don't move away from current aero towards ground effect type stuff to facilitate increased opportunities for overtaking?
Someone at Merc have control over this?
Last edited by xxxxxxx; 09-11-2016 at 10:37 PM.
It is widely espoused that ground effects were responsible for Senna's death.
The cars have to keep a constant distance from the ground for the skirts to work properly - generating the required downforce. The cars had slowed because of an incident and thus the tires had cooled down. They therefore lost a little ride height and therefore the skirts were not 100% operational. There are other claims as to what occurred but the loss/lack of downforce has been blamed.
It's not a tire where you can feel it slipping - ground effects either work or not - there was no warning. Thus they were considered too dangerous and made illegal.
Modern tech can enforce changes to ground effects so that it's safer but no-one has tested if it can be made safe "enough".
It's difficult to say with all the mis-information going about.
I believe it played its part. However, there's also (evidence by omission) that his steering column snapped during that corner. There's inboard footage of going into the corner then already going full speed towards the armco. The bit in the middle was missing.
It went to an italian court and there were many many theories about it. Williams didn't want it to be a car failure though - why theorists suggest the missing footage.
But, IMHO, based on Damon Hill's testimony, I think it was a ground effect failure. Damon said he worried about that corner because of the lack of heat (pressure) in the cold tires so he took it slower. Senna took it flat out.
Could the steering column have snapped... possible but there must have been one huge cover up by Willaims, members of the FIA, etc.
The corner also had a few bumps in it which made it difficult for the ground effects hence why Damon was hesitant to take it flat out on cold tires.
Last edited by RidgeBack; 09-12-2016 at 01:50 PM. Reason: the corner was pretty bumpy too
It was mostly due to the badly designed steering column but yeah ground effects have also played a role in it. Remember 1994 was the season when a lot of electronic aids were banned such as: active suspension, ABS, traction control, drive-by-wire, etc. All had a role in conjunction with aerodynamics of the car that gave Williams the supremacy over their rivals and dominated in the preceding years. While the FW14/15/15C was an all futuristic, highly advanced car, the FW16 was more of an orthodox car. It was a complete turn around for the team. For 1994 season, Williams had to go back to square one and start everything from scratch.
- - - Updated - - -
Senna really wanted to race for Frank Williams back in 1992-93 because he described those cars as, "From another world."
Actually they didn't start over from scratch; that was the problem. The FW16 was essentially the FW15C without the electronic aids. The FW15C was designed around the aids; without them, the '16 became very unpredictable and twitchy. If Williams had developed a clean-sheet car for 1994, they might have been less competitive (although the Renault engine that year was almost unbeatable and would have ensured its competitiveness) but the car would have been a hell of a lot more predictable and safer.
Current: '94 MX-6 V6/5 • '72 240Z • '10 Mazda5
Past: '02 330i/5 • '85 RX-7 GSL-SE • '95 540i/6 • '95 525i/5 • '86 635CSi/5 • '88 JZA70 • '86 4K quattro • '85 RX-7 S
Wish list: Type 44 • Manta • Pre-'85 CGT • 405 Mi16 • SVX • W123 Coupe
Well, scratch, in a sense, they had to work around without the help of all those electronics. So, it was like going back to square one. It wasn't until the German GP I think when they had finally sorted out majority of the problems. The car had then become faster, less twitchy, and more predictable to drive.
Working on it right now.
Bookmarks