|
"..So, I'm not sure that reducing the aero dependancy on the cars is a bad idea."
My point is that they're trying to make a reduction in something that isn't finite. Aero improvement is on a constant up-curve. How do they propose to reduce aero by 10% if the reference point constantly changes? Note: All F1 cars are not aero-equal. It will never be as long as someone has a big wind tunnel, some innovative engineers and a commensurate budget.
If they're trying to contain costs, they should stick with one engine and chassis spec. whatever it is, and stick with that. Standardizing certain components might help without the effect of turning it into a spec series. The change to V8 engines will only save the cost of replacing 4 extra con rods, pistons and a few valves - surely outweighed by the R&D cost of starting with a new engine spec. - again. If less is more, how about 6 cylinders?
Here's another idea. If you want to "slow" them down, limit the caliper and rotor size and material (M brakes and non-vented rotors?). While top speeds may increase, the amount of time at that speed will decrease as braking zones become longer and perhaps encourage more dicing in this area. That is, until they pour massive amounts of R&D funds into anti-acceleration forces, then we're back to square one. But then maybe our little pcars will benefit from brakes that look more like ours and less like a Boeing 747.
Sherwood
|