Vettel says slower cars in 2019 would be comical
- Published on 13 May 2018 11:44
-
- By: Fergal Walsh
Sebastian Vettel says that it would be "comical" if Formula 1 produces slower cars for the 2019 season. New aerodynamic regulations for next year will see simplified front wings with a larger span, a wider and deeper rear wing and simplified front brake ducts with no winglets.
FIA's Head of Technical Matters Nikolas Tombazis said recently that he expects the cars next season to be 1.5 seconds a lap slower than the 2018 machines. And Vettel thinks that it would be comical, due to the implementation of more downforce in 2017.
"I find it a bit comical," Vettel said. “Why? In 2009 we went ‘oh let’s go, less aerodynamics and better racing’, and in fact it didn’t change too much. Then we said the cars were too slow, let’s go put more aerodynamic and make them wider, more spectacular.
"The drivers' feedback was 'thank you very much, spectacular, that’s what we like'. You see us more exhausted after the races now they want to make us slower again. I don’t know. It’s a bit like, I don’t know, cruising to America then changing direction a hundred times."
Vettel only seemed to receive the news via his rival Lewis Hamilton in the post-qualifying press conference. Both four-time world champions agreed that drivers should have a say on the car regulations in the future.
"I think you should ask us what we need to overtake," Vettel said. "We are drivers. Not to say that we know everything, we don’t know anything about engineering a car but we know how to drive the cars, the feel, how to drive the cars and then what it takes to overtake. But they don’t really ask."
Hamilton added: "If you make us three seconds slower or a second and a half slower, it’s not going to make the racing any better and we just want to go faster, we want to improve technology, we want to push the boundaries and the limits."
“Is it the same people making the decisions every time, the same group, making the decision every time the rules go… not necessarily the best?. We should make the decisions," he added.
Fergal Walsh
4
Replies (16)
Login to replycalle.itw
Posts: 8,527
I honestly dont think the current regulations for the cars are the issues. Its more down to cars being hard to follow due to e.g increased tyre degradation. So... How about making tyres that arent as fragile as my pale skin on a very sunny summer day, Pirelli?
TimberVD
Posts: 42
Tyres are actually better then they were before. The issue is 100% the aero. You get within 2 seconds of the guy in front and you are already losing downforce. On top of that engine overheating and brakes being an issue. Don't think the tyres are at fault here. That's the point of the 2019 changes.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Better doesnt mean sufficient. The tyres melt like cheese behind other cars. Im sure we'd see much better racing if the tyres wouldnt burn away from below the car. Of course the aero is also an issue, but at this rate I dont think less aero will help. 'sides, DRS is already helping that on the straights, get close enough and it wont be an issue. But then again, I'd think having 4 PUs instead of 3 would be even more helpful.
TimberVD
Posts: 42
One pitstop a race is also not good for the sport in my opinion. Can they make a tyre that lasts most of the race? Well they already did most of the race today so not really sure where you'd want Pirelli to go next? They are pretty good and not cheese. It's not the tyres. It's the wake. This was alreay warned for and established for certain right after the regulation change. If you lose downforce, the tyres are not going to like that, which is obvious. But it's not the cause, it's an effect, and not a major effect that needs sorting.
Ram Samartha
Posts: 1,172
The main issue isn't tire degradation when following, it's the washout. Sure that causes tire deg because they have to work them harder, but still they can't control the car very well because of the aero packages in the front of the car being too sensitive to dirty air.
Hombibi
Posts: 137
Kevin Magnussen: “I think F1 and Liberty should just do their own research and not listen to the drivers too much because the drivers will just say what is in their best interests.”
When asked which kind of racing he enjoys the most, the Dane replied: "I enjoy most when I win. I don’t care about racing if I can win. That’s it.
"All the drivers, there feedback will be for their own best interests. None of us drivers care about making the show better, we want to win. We want the best for ourselves.”
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
And thats the same for most parties. All of them care for their own goals, and little about the rest. All of the teams have their own agenda, the FIA have their agenda, and Liberty have their agenda. Introducing one more party like that might not be a bad thing, it'll likely just introduce more perspectives into the mix, and I dont think thats too bad.
Hombibi
Posts: 137
Well, what is the point of inviting people into a discussion when their objective is not relevant for, or even the opposite of the actual topic or objective of the discussion? In other words, why invite drivers who's objective it is to prevent overtaking, into a discussion on how to promote overtaking? I'd think that that is straight counter productive. And that means that the teams must be excluded too, obviously. And they don't need to be involved, they just have to build cars and run them around the track. Horses for courses.
Hombibi
Posts: 137
This should have been a reaction to Calle.ITW's comment. Aps
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Because its a mute point. They have already invited people with such objectives. And most drivers want to be able to overtake, they just dont want to get overtaken. So far from all of them will block things that might hinder overtaking, because its a thing they find annoying aswell.
Hombibi
Posts: 137
Just because there are already distractions invited around the table they should invite more? That does not make sense to me. But anyway, this concerns Vettel and Hamilton. I don't believe for a second they are interested in cars that are better in overtaking, not as long as they drive the fastest cars on the track and are nr one in their team. Look at their comments (if they are quoted correct), they want to persist with wider cars and more aero. All that makes is harder for their team mates and the few cars that might challenge them to get close. It seems to me that they focus all effort on the qualification, and then wait out the race, "see first to get close, and second to pass me, you'll ruin your tires, and have less downforce, see ya!"
2GRX7
Posts: 108
This is getting ridiculous! The technical working group are jokes; the FIA tech guys are jokes! They're making sure they stay relevant as well!
They all know that having one major center of pressure near the center of gravity with simple stabilizing wings on either end, is easier to recreate, therefore needing less resources (jobs) to perfect that type of downforce dynamic, and we've all seen it work (Indycar)!
The wake at the diffuser is energized by that rear wing, meaning, the air coming out of that tunnel is shot up so high, the wake from it's extraction has little effect on the following car. DONE! THIS is stupid!
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
If it was that simple, they'd have used that solution, but it isnt.
2GRX7
Posts: 108
AH! There are few things that stop logic from prevailing. One is money-the other, egos, CALLE.ITV! The money aspect is as simple as people loosing jobs, the ego-end could be saving face and not admitting Indycar formula as the best for passing, or not admitting that technology banned 40 years ago is, in fact, the course F1 should have stayed on.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Problem is that your solution is cheaper, and the people ruling F1 are cheapskates. If it were the best solution, they'd not hesitate in implementing it. Pride isnt on the table for business folks, especially not in F1. Remember when they implemented hybrids after WEC did it? It isnt a coincidence really. They need to stay on top, and if some other series is doing something, F1 needs to do it better.
2GRX7
Posts: 108
Hum-i'll agree to disagree! ;-)