-
Trying to regulate what constitutes a 'wing' and regulate aero would be an absolute nightmare IMO.
We managed it in RGB, so I doubt it would be that hard in F1. A wing is bodywork detached from the main structure of the car where air passes both under and over the bodywork in question. Job done. No wings.
Brommers-
So would it be fine if the main body panels have downforce producing elements? Would be interested to have a look at the regs you're talking about, I imagine there's a lot of reliance on the "spirit of the rules"
-
There are a lot of other downforce-generating devices on an F1 car. The front and rear wings make up less than 45% of the car’s downforce these days, maybe less than 40% in some cases. The front wing is mostly used to set up the air for the rest of the car and the rear wing is a very inefficient way of making downforce compared to the floor and diffuser. Personally, I think the big flat floors ought to be banned.
I’ve seen the cars over in the race bays without their wings or floors and they look mental like that. They should do at least one race each year with no aero. Just the main bodywork, 1000hp and gumball tyres!
mmccarthy
Jonny69
I'd put aero on the tech side of things personally.
Honestly I think most criticisms of F1 could be solved by having a parallel spec series. Trying to regulate what constitutes a 'wing' and regulate aero would be an absolute nightmare IMO. I've been watching a fair bit of F2/F3 this season and it probably doesn't come as a surprise that the racing is much more enjoyable to watch.