• Coelacanth@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s because of the spray these ground effect cars produce from the diffuser. Very hard to get around seeing as that aero function is the whole reason for this rules framework. FIA is just not going to green flag any race under conditions that demand Full Wets when the visibility is as poor as it is. Makes sense then to scrap that tire. I’m all aboard on this, it’s perfectly logical given the circumstances.

      I would - of course - prefer to have proper wet races again, but that won’t happen until 2026 at the earliest, I would assume.

        • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The current era cars use ground effect to produce most of their downforce. This air that flows through the underbody is then thrown almost vertically up in the air when it leaves the diffuser. The idea behind this rules framework is that this will get the dirty air out of the way (by tossing it way above the cars) so that following closely is easier. Previous-era cars left a huge wake of dirty air behind them which made following for extended periods of time impossible.

          The side effect of throwing the dirty air high up after it leaves the diffuser is that the same thing happens with water when the track is wet, since it also gets sucked into the underbody. That’s why you see these cars produce “rooster tail” spray when running in the wet. This type of spray hampers visibility enormously and is currently the biggest obstacle in the way of proper wet running.

          2026 will bring the next major change in the rules framework, so there is a chance cars designed under those rules won’t produce the same sort of spray, if they decide to for example move away from ground effect.

  • 47 Alpha Tango@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been watching a lot of old races on F1 TV and the conditions Charlie used to make them race in was sometimes borderline suicidal. But they all got on with it and they produced some amazing racing. With one obvious exception being Japan 2014.

    But motor racing is dangerous and all the drivers accept those risks when they strap themselves into the car.

    So make them race in wet conditions. They’re supposed to be the best racing drivers in the world after all.

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      As has been discussed multiple times for several years now. It’s not the standing water, it’s the spray.

      And despite that whole “Accepting the risks” Gasley sure wasn’t happy last year. Not was anyone else.

      • 47 Alpha Tango@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Go back and watch some of the older races when Charlie was in charge. The spray was an issue then too and they got on with it.

        They may not have been happy but they still accepted the risks by getting in the car.

    • nbcaffeine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m currently rewatching 2010 during the break and there were a couple that definitely match your description. That was the last Bridgestone year so it’s interesting to see the difference.

      New fans would do well to check out some of the older seasons and compare to modern f1. 2005 and 2009 are personal favorites