xsiveone

Am I the only person that thinks that the new F1 cars look hideous with the tall, narrow rear wings and the low, wide front wings? Couldn't they come up with a more elegant solution?

This is what the Ferrari F60 reminds me of.

burners

You are not alone and you have a great visual comparison. A shopping cart also comes to mind. We'll see how they look on TV during the race but I have a feeling I'm not going to enjoy looking at them. They are pretty stupid looking.

xsiveone

Here's Kimi!



Lewis Hamilton testing for Ferrari.



All will be forgiven if this aero package allows passing and improves the racing.

drivinhard

It appears they are trying to reduce the aero grip/downforce on the body, and replace most of that with mechanical grip of the slicks (claimed to be 2-2.5 sec lap over the grooved tires on the same compound). Net result is close to past results.

Lap times at Albert Park are right in the ball park with past times, save for the pretty fast peak 2004ish era. Not bad considering they are using 1k less revs

63Corvette

No you're not alone.....All of the F1 drivers and mechanics think so too...Quote from Kovalinen "The car is not only slow, but we don't know where to look to fix the problem".

TLGunman

I do like the cleaner look, without all the widgets sticking out everywhere. The narrow rear wing is a bit odd looking though.

VetteDrmr

The assymetry is what bugs me. It seems like they could have come up with a more balanced visual look and still limited the downforce via other control methods (angle of attack, airfoil, SOMETHING).

It almost looks to me like their thought was "hey, we can save some teams some money by cutting the rear wings in half from last year." I know that wasn't their thought process, but still...

Wayne O

I doubt "elegant" was a consideration when they re-wrote the rule book. For me, most of the changes are a turnoff...less aero, less engine, KERS, etc. I'd rather they have a 'reasonable' set of rules to establish the base running conditions/restrictions for the class and then leave the rules alone. I understand the escalating cost factor but I'd much rather see teams do whatever's allowed within a set of stable rules (or not specifically prohibited) and create the fastest cars possible. I don't feel the radical rule changes do anything to enhance viewer interest. In fact it's the contrary, I feel the radical rule changes decrease viewer interest. I'm disappointed, Formula 1 is my favorite racing venue.

xsiveone

The car would've looked much better if the front wing was narrower to match the rear wing. That would've taken more aero off of it. I don't see why they let the teams use the underbody rear diffusers either. They are taking away some aero and giving them options to add it back.

I like the KERS system. I'm all for developing technology through racing that will eventually end up in our street cars. I'm not sure that I like the rules for KERS though. Every team should have to use it. If they aren't going to make it mandatory to run KERS, they should let the teams using KERS take more weight off of their cars.

jlcvt

I like the older style much better.

WBHighwind

Judging by the qualifying times today, the cars are definitely not slow. They are just as fast as last year, and the Brawn GP guys are within .5 sec of the track record in Australia. We shall find out tomorrow if the racing is better. The rule changes have certainly caused more drama and spiced things up. I appreciate the KERS implementation to push the technology. Its refreshing to see that in motor sport. Just like Formula Hybrid and Grassroots challenge. Not at all like nastycar.

63Corvette

Judging from the sunday Australian GP race...........they don't HANDLE very well either

ghoffman

Well, since they are quicker, I guess they don't handle that badly.

Everett Ogilvie

Yep, the lap times don't support the theory that they are slower, and I like seeing someone else win. I think this car has to be "driven" more than the old car, kind of like the situation Nascar had with the COT when it was new - it drove so badly that many of the top drivers did not do very well for a long time, and it made some other drivers shine. On The Speed Report they just mentioned that this was a unique opportunity in F1 where the teams work in the off season to build to the new rules and don't really have the advantages of knowing as much about what other teams are doing, so whoever gets it right may lead for a while, which was clearly the case this weekend.

VetteDrmr

KERS scares the daylights out of me. 400 volts at >100 amps = death, instantly. I imagine they've got some safeguards in place, but I fear the worst...

AU N EGL

The best thing Honda F1 team did was to get out, sell the team to Ross Braun which he put a Mercedes engine in.

That should be a big slap in Honda's face. The cars, drivers, and engineers were not the problem with results, The f1 Honda engine was the problem.

ghoffman

I thought I heard 400 volts at 200 amps! 80 HP=59,600 watts (@100% efficiency) and 59,600 watts @400 volts =149 amps (so the 200 amps is probably close to reality). The other thing is they don't use batteries, they use super capacitors that can discharge very rapidly. As was said, this is instant death. I am not sure that the 80 HP is worth the extra mass, regardless of the safety, reliability, or cost. They said that it weighed about 80 pounds and that is only slightly better than the existing power to weight ratio, but with losses factored in it is probably a push.
I thought it was one of the best races I have seen in a while, and Honda certainly is looking really bad.

BrianCunningham

mrt1

Well if you think about it, on a whole the concept of storing energy created by the car you are driving and use it later is quite interesting. I'm not sold that this is a venue for this experiment. The weight factor, the inherent dangers, the cost of transporting the capacitors, the fact that they are only used once, the disposal problems, all these are indicators that this technology just isn't ready for prime-time. Alonso is quoted as saying he didn't see a positive result. The teams are sure o be crunching the numbers today. Although, one of the drivers indicated that he couldn't get around Alonso on the straights seemingly because Alonso kept using the KERS. I dread the first shunt with one of the KER cars and the driver or a rescuer gets the jolt of his life. I vote to get rid of KERS.

xsiveone

I don't think that Honda's engine had as much to do with it as you think.

Brawn joined Honda just last season and hadn't had any time to develop the team or the car. By mid-season, they had stopped developing the 2008 car and put all their efforts into the 2009 car. The contenders for the championship had to keep developing the 2008 car through the end of the season. This wouldn't have been such a big deal in an ordinary season, but since F1 made some of the biggest changes in the history of the series from last season to this season, it made a huge deal.

The KERS also has something to do with it. The big manufacturers have an interest in developing it, but the smaller teams don't. It appears that the non-KERS cars currently have the edge. Some adjustment needs to be made to the rules IMO. I'd give them more boost time (if that's possible) or let the KERS teams take more weight off the car. It isn't just the weight of the system. It's that they are at a disadvantage because of the weight distribution. Just six seconds of boost per lap doesn't make up for the extra weight or the disadvantage in weight distribution.

Brawn GP also has a superior rear diffuser. How much better? It's hard to say and it will be interesting to see what the FIA do about it, if anything in the coming weeks.