@@allainangcao28 I'm pretty sure Jimmer already has the RSS Formula Hybrid 2020, so who cares if he gets a modified version? Shouldn't be a problem as long as RSS aren't a buncha cunts lol
@@Villoresi at least in the Schumacher, you were never quite sure HOW he was going to win it. Current F1 is for the most part utterly predictable. I have almost worn out the FFW button on my remote this season.
@@bobmcl2406 I think quite a few people have gotten tired of what "strategy" too often means in practical application, and not just in F1. Not to mention, F1 races aren't that long, nor is the probability of a full-on Safety Car usually that high.
I am absolutely stunned at how competently the AI were handling those cars, on a mod circuit with cars that were basically modded twice over it is astonishing how competitive and clean they are
And to think they said no, a modern car wouldn't work without wings. Now all these years later I can say yes, it could work, and it's glorious! Terrific stuff.
modern f1 slicks are designed to produce grip with downforce, without downforce they wouldnt generate enough heat to create grip and would be like driving on wet soap, these 60's tires probably produce more grip without downforce because they were engineered to create more heat
It’s all because of “dirty air”. It use to be if you were behind another car you had the advantage of a draft but now with so much downforce, if you’re behind another car you have less grip than the car in front, making passing extremely difficult. Not to mention with no wings the pack would be tighter as a result with no dirty air (turbulence).
So this is kind of like Formula Ford but on steroids. Those series also have sort of slick tyres with blocks cut in to them. Very nice to see them race.
Love it! They are like great big Formula Fords. I'm with you, let's replace modern F1 with this. Struggling to control four wheel drifts, and making loooong braking zones might generate some actual competition!
It's probably cause you've seen junior formula cars with no wings, its just that but on a bigger scale. Also the air duct on the top is probably also the reason
I've long believed that the best way to bring innovation back to Formula One is to ban wings altogether. Outside of car size, weight, tires, power units, and typical modern safety standards, everything becomes a clean slate. I'd be curious to see what Adrian Newey would be able to do with so much freedom.
This is exactly what I wanted to see after the '60s with slicks video! This just confirms that F1 could be so much better - wonderful video! I can't agree more - FIA get on it!
You lose that "wedge" profile when you take the wings off. That's also why I don't like the look of the 1982 cars so much when they don't have the front wings on them. So these just end up looking overinflated and ungainly from an aesthetic point of view. Unfortunately, the FIA will never go back. The trouble with the '60s cars, even more than the '50s ones, is that, at speed, any object has aerodynamic qualities. Those cars were very aerodynamically neutral, which means they were unstable, and if contact was made, could easily roll and tumble erratically. The FIA would consider that potential to be too great a risk to even consider the idea. Remember, it's the fletching on an arrow, making drag, that ensures the point reaches the target first, rather than the blunt, opposite end of the shaft. And with cars like these, the circuits would be demanded to make other changes, and not really for the better. Run-off is dictated by terminal velocity on the straights. With no wings, that Vmax will be higher, so those run-offs will be required to be larger. I also suspect they'd push barriers and stands (i.e. the fans) farther away on the straights with aerodynamically unstable cars on track. The 2 worst racing incidents in history in terms of fatalities were along straightaways: Monza (1928) and Le Mans (1955). It also defeats the purpose of the sport if you're just going to dictate a static way to go, taken from some idealized vision of an arbitrary point in the past. The dynamism and ever-shifting ground of '60s F1 was precisely due to the rapid and crazy development going on on the cars, but the only way to maintain the vision being put forth here is to freeze everything, forever. It also shouldn't be understated how much the danger factor shapes our view of that time, and upended the landscape of the sport. What were the impacts of the losses of Antonio Ascari, Emilio Materassi, Guy Moll, Bernd Rosemeyer, Richard Seaman, Alberto Ascari, Alfonso de Portago, Luigi Musso, Lorenzo Bandini, Jim Clark, Jochen Rindt, Francois Cevert, Ronnie Peterson, Gilles Villeneuve, Manfred Wnkelhock, and Stefan Bellof?
I don't think we could make a direct comparison with those days. Racing with no seatbelts, in bathtubes extensively made out of magnesium, with not even a though about safety structures, and racing on tracks with little to no escape areas and crowds at close distance from the track. All the dead pilots you listed could be reduced to almost none if they raced cars such as in this video and if the tracks were properly made. Also, you stated that cars with no downforce are unstable in case of loss of control, but have you seen what it happens to cars with downforce when they spin at high speeds or if they raise the nose above a certain angle for any accident? They turn into aircrafts and literally takeoff!!! Far more dangerous. Also, the tremendous power of modern cars have been allowed by the rules right because a large percentage goes on waste in wings; if you tear wings away, of course some restrictions about the engine power have to be added. Before 1966 engines were limited to 1500 cc, yet with 200 HP cars could reach 270 Kph... Nothing sleepy at all, even before switching to the 3000 cc rule with speeds reaching 310 Kph. This video is absolutely clever and should make reconsider races to be redirected towards driving ability, rathere then pure reflexes and timing of gestures, like it is now (kept worsening since half of the eighties).
If the aero profile is fairly neutral (i.e. unstable), no seatbelts and bathtubs full of fuel don't matter in terms of how the car will behave. I brought up all those driver names to point out that it added to the unpredictability of the old days. If the one driver who could get the absolute most out of that given car was lost in a crash, that could totally change the racing landscape by destroying that one team's fortunes. Does Mercedes-Benz have anything like the party they did in 1938-39 if Auto Union still had Rosemeyer? There are plenty of such examples. I honestly haven't seen that many high-speed spin issues with downforce cars when looking at the grand scheme of things. You mentioned Indy Cars elsewhere, but that's only been an issue in the last 20 years, or more, if it was after the car had already hit something. And in that case, most, if not all, of your bets are off anyway. And as for the earlier generation of IRL cars launching, again, it was when they hit something. They made the cars so draggy that to get the rear wing as much out of the air as they could, the cars were often set up to be pitch-up by default. That would therefore be a design flaw, not an inherent problem with all aero. The Mercedes-Benz CLR at Le Mans in 1999, Porsche 911 GT1-98 at Road Atlanta in '98, and BMW V12 LMR at Road Atlanta in '00 had a design flaw that was subsequently rectified. The rules for those GT1s and early LMP900 stipulated that the diffuser had to start aft of the rear-wheel centerline. So in a pitch-up situation, it could lever the car over. The rules changed, allowing the diffuser to start up to a meter in front of the rear-wheel centerline, and we didn't see that problem again. As for what we saw with the LMPs in 2008, hey didn't even need to narrow the rear wings, or add the big honkin' holes and big honkin' fins. Changing the profile of the floor and adding pressure flaps, like we see in NASCAR, pretty well takes care of it. As for those Nissan Group Cs that flipped at Fuji in 1991, that could have been solved by giving the tire manufacturer accurate downforce data, and the same went for their GTPs at Road Atlanta in 1992. In that latter case, Chip Robinson didn't even fly; part of the car started to lift, but came right back down. Geoff Brabham ending up on his lid later in the race was a result of an impact with the barriers, not because the car lifted off at all. The cars even today don't have anything approaching unprecedented power levels. Baseline power for F1 now is 740 hp, which Can-Am had back in 1971. For F1 Qualifying in 1985-86, the cars could have twice what the ICE makes today. And especially if we're restricting another major area, why would I want further engine restrictions, too? Let's face it, most people pile onto this bandwagon because of a nostalgia trip. They like the idea of the open regulations, which goes against what you just said. They liked the unpredictability, which only existed to a large degree because of bad reliability, as well as the potential for a sudden change in fortunes due to the loss of a star driver. They like the looks of those old cars; I do too. However, that aero profile is unstable. Yes, today's cars can fly, but their behavior is comparatively predictable, and that makes all the difference. And slapping sidepods and whatever else on, but only going halfway with it, makes the cars butt ugly; form follows function, so if you're going to go the minimalist, '60s route, that stuff all needs to come off. Besides, having a huge floor because you still have the sidepods will just create a big sail if the car gets pitch-up (I've seen the video of Jackie Oliver flying in the Autocoast Ti-22 at Mont Tremblant). People forget that a lot of those racing cars from the late '60s and early '60s, if anything, were making lift when going forward, especially at high speed. I'll add, some of the attitude on this topic leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of the whole American open-wheel situation. You have that crew of disgruntled old fans who want not only no wings, but front-engined roadsters only back at Indy and the other ovals, and likely only ovals on the schedule (don't even get them started on street circuits). So a certain amount of this is tainted by my familiarity with the mess surrounding CART and the IRL.
@@Villoresi I understand your points. If I can remember well, in this video it's said that part of the body was troublesome to remove from the graphic point of view, otherwise the structure would have been closer to the F1 cars of the sixties. When I saw the notification of your reply, I ran to look for a video I had in mind (before reading), which now comes handy to go further in details: ruclips.net/video/-UvRK_a0vm8/видео.html Your point about wing-cars taking off on straights by a design mistake is out of question then. But let me say: all cars with large bodies can take flight as a consequence of contacts between fast rotating wheels; though, with minimal bodies (F1 1962... 1967) the cars involved in any crash would follow ballistic paths and would fall back to the ground from quite a low height. If the body is large, the flight path is much more unpredictable, because it is like tossing in the air a cardboard rectangle with a stone attached. Please watch that car sliding upside down on the concrete wall aside the straight, clearly nobody figured out that a car could land so far when they devised the safety area aside the track. The cigar-like cars were more like tossing just a stone, in comparison. In facts (and this seems to go against what I mentioned in my previous comment!) the terrible accident in 1955 happened when downforce was not considered at all, but the tragedy was caused by the insufficient distance of the crowd and the fact that the cars involved flew out of a simple ballistic line, at least this is my guessing when watching that video. Though, I would like to point out that wings still make a negative difference in accidents: in the link I posted above, you can clearly see many cars taking off when they spin, again following unpredictable paths before landing, and putting the pilot under the further stress of the fall from a certain height. A wing devised to push the car down when going forward will push the car up when going backwards, of course, so that's a bad risk to bring at 200 mph imho. There's further side of this analysis to be considered: compare Monza 1966 with Monza 2020. Today's track, beyond having way larger escape areas, has multiple chicanes devised to avoid extreme speeds. Paradoxically such chicanes were meant to prevent cars with great downforce from taking wide corners at crazy speeds, but in this case they also force cars to enter straights at lower speeds. And if cars have no downforce, they will take all corners even slower. As an experiment, if you have the opportunity to try fairly accurate simulators, bring a Lotus 49 on today's Monza and then try a recent F1 on old Monza... Eventually the full circuit with banked turns. You will immediately realize how the danger relies on the track, much more than on the car. Yeah I know, simulators are not reality and they won't exactly replicate what it happens after a crash and spin... As for the available power, I guess that pilots themselves would keep the foot up or ask for restrictions if they're sent on 1000 HP beasts with the grip of sportcar tyres... Tyres would keep spinning in almost every gear!
@@mino73T11 The problem is, I can't see the large-body, and therefore large-floor-area, cars going away. If nothing else, they will still use the sidepods for side-impact protection for the driver, plus they can put the radiators there to make the nose more streamlined and slippery through the air. But the thing is, I, and I'm sure many others, if we're going to get rid of the downforce, want the "purity" of those '60s cigar racers back. With that Formula Renault or EuroBoss car that went up at Magny-Cours, there was still quite a large, open area behind the main wall. So that wasn't such an issue. The bridge there was the decidedly larger, potential problem. If you hit any type of a ramp, as quite a number of the cars in that video do, you're still going to get quite some height. Ironically, the large floor may then reduce the vertical impact speed when you come back down. At about 4:20 in that video, there's a crash at the Nurburgring, I think, and that illustrates one of the issues I have. Cars in a more neutral state tend to just keep rolling and tumbling for a very long distance. They also tend to change orientation more quickly and erratically. Another one, and part of why, aside from aesthetics, I don't like the fins on the back of the LMPs, is Anthony Davidson's crash in the Toyota at Le Mans. The fin seems to have played a major role in the car coming back down on its side, rather than righting itself more fully. Of course, one of the biggest things I notice in either part of that compilation is how many of the crashes are caused by late blocking maneuvers. There's definitely serious improvement that is well overdue in enforcing some stricter driving standards. That's especially true if crashes that look as scary as some of those aren't enough to get the drivers to behave better. A number of the old tracks would have a ditch and then an embankment. Aside from Pierre Levegh at Le Mans in 1955, Hans Hermann had a heck of a launch in the 1959 German GP at AVUS. Of course, all this runs into another problem. Because what a lot of people who talk about this say they want are tracks like the old ones, along with the "pure" cigar racers with no wings, sidepods, or whatever. And i know I've said this elsewhere, but I could accept some increase in lap times/reduction in lap speeds, if the circuits were commensurately more interesting. The trouble is, I can't see the FIA going along with this in the end. And that's even with the Driver Delegate, Alexander Wurz, saying that they could maybe go to some "more extreme" circuits if cornering speeds and other things were addressed. And i recall Stefan Johansson saying that if your circuit had a chicane in it by design, you designed it wrong. But yeah, with possible, higher top-end speeds, and cars continuing to roll and tumble for great distances, I don't see barriers being allowed to be any closer in, chicanes being taken out, or any of the other stuff that would make the full package with much slower cars seem worth it. If anything, I'd worry about barriers, and the surrounding environment, being pushed back further in places, even on straights. Even the Porsche Curves seem much less impressive since they took out some more of those trees on the outside of that long right-hander, because I lost that context, that frame of reference. Speaking of sims, there are a number of old music videos of some just absolutely absurd-looking crashes in GPL. I think we already saw with the 1937 Grand Prix cars that, if given the chance, they'll still put 500-600 hp and 600-700 ft-lb of torque in the things, even if all they have to put it to the ground through are the equivalent of bicycle tires. The Auto Union Type C and Mercedes-Benz could do exactly as you say, spin up the tires at well over 100 mph.
Two things;: 1. Getting massive Formula Ford vibes from this. Super cool video. 2. How the hell do you design an AI that can be competent across all sorts of different vehicles? I’m not knowledgeable about programming or anything but that seems very tricky. The AI pick up these cars and run with it in a way that’s really incredible imo.
Granted, it's not F1, but Formula E HAS no Wings and harder tires. And I can confirm that the races are very thrilling. Last 2 seasons' full races are on youtube, if you'd like to check it out...
@John Citizen I'm wondering if that was supposed to be sarcasm targeting the FE pit stops of the Gen 1 car (which would showcase ignorance since this year it's the third season with the Gen2 cars), or if it was honest making fun of F1's pitstops.
@John Citizen You indeed seem to be very ignorant: There are no pit stops, Hysteric or otherwise, in Formula E. For three years now. Maybe take a few minutes effort and get up to date before hating on something. Did you hear what Jeremy Clarkson, "the" number one Petrolhead to make fun of Electric cars, said about Formula E? He said he'd far rather watch it than Formula 1. And it becomes clear why, when you see his Arguments: He wants risky driving - Formula E has it. He wants competition - Formula E is immensly competetive. He wants Cars to be stronger to withstand collisions - Formula E has Strong Cars and loads of contact. Formula E is proper, unpredictable Racing - Formula one is watching Hamilton doing perfect laps, waiting for a
I've thought the same thing about downforce after watching vintage racing like at Goodwood. The cars power sliding through corners is just so great. These F1 cars you've done are kind of like Formula Ford but faster seems like.
Petty sure the new regs is focusing on making sure the floor and such creates a majority of the downforce instead of the wings. The wings on the 2022 cars look WAY simpler than the current regs and certainly wouldn't produce as much downforce.
@@thesciencesphere4273 Yeah, if you focus on the floor and diffuser and rely on those producing most of the downforce rather than the wings dirty air will be less of an issue
A great experiment. I wonder how the car suspensions would have evolved if wings had been banned many years ago. I've believed that aero has overwhelmed the sport for far too long. You may have stumbled on an excellent platform for a league.
You can only do so much with suspension, once it had gone inboard to improve weight distribution and been simplified to a heave spring/damper that's kind of the end of the road. Springs and dampers are pretty hard to beat and there is only so much fancy stuff you need to do with suspension geometry particularly if you've got so much potential flex in the massive tyre.
@@gugubope21 I’m aware fully.. But IT SHOULD AFFECT THE CAR “Removing the wings” doesn’t magically remove the considerable amount of downforce from the floor and diffuser. The point isn’t that he removed it. The point is that if you remove just the wings you don’t remove EVERYTHING
@@MyLonewolf25 I assume he meant that he removed their downforce from the physics, but they are still visually part of the model because it would be too difficult to chop up the 3D body of the car.
@@bibblybobbly9951 its true what Mesder13 says. i did some modding back in the days of rFactor and i know how things work. he actually deletes few numbers and thats it. sets them to 0 actually.
The big issue is that F1 cars in particular make "dirty" downforce; the drag compared to how much downforce they make is very high. It's possible to have a far better L/D, even with an open-wheel car, say, 4:1. That would see a substantial improvement in wake turbulence. However, I think the aero issue is heavily overblown, and what isn't talked about nearly enough is the accordion effect. All these newer circuits have all these really slow corners, so coming out onto the straight, just be virtue of the expansion of the physical gap based on the time gap, the cars spread out immensely by default. What's even worse is, especially where you have repeated slow corners, if the driver behind can't make the pass, he has to give up time, again and again, to the guy in front, in order to avoid a collision.
@@a7racing With Formula Fords, and a number of the other, lower classes, the cars just don't stand out to me, don't grab my attention. And as I've said elsewhere here, it's "easy" to have tight racing when the cars can't use up all the potential provided by the track, and so it's not really a challenge, like driving Daytona or Talladega isn't a particular, technical challenge, and "racing" at those places is "easy" by default. In racing, like any performance pursuit, the best make it look easy, but you can still tell that it actually isn't easy. However, when it cognitively and viscerally seems truly easy, something crucial is lost in the appeal. i also don't agree with the premise. F1 in the 1980s wasn't terrible by any stretch. IMSA GTP and Group C weren't terrible, either, and those cars came to have more downforce than any other category has ever had. If "close racing" is the be all, end all, I can give some even more recent examples. When they were running those really high-downforce packages, there were some fantastically dicey IndyCar races at Indy, Pocono, and Texas. Even the less extreme, base 2012-14 cars could put on quite a show at Fontana.
This would be a reason to watch F1 again! Driver Skill brought to the forefront again instead of who has the best engineers ans driver/resource managers.
It will still be the engineers and managers in the long run. After a period of adjustment from the shake-up, the old order would sort itself out. There's too much money involved for it not to fall to the managers to do their thing. And the greater safety functions to allow in more the celebrity types than the true sportsmen as much, like in the old days. "Driver skill" will only last until the electronics guys figure out some new tricks. It's also a "driver skill" to train yourself to make use of the downforce, because it's counter-intuitive, and kind of against your survival instinct, to think that you'll go faster through the corner if you go at it faster from the entry.
Great idea. Wouldnt the top speed get dangerously fast with no wings, like 250 - 300mph ? ALso the cornering speed might get too slow that it would look . . . a bit boring ? YES I think most F1 fans would agree, PLEASE FIA remove shed loads of the downforce and make the cars more EQUALLY matched. Thank you.
As your 499th commenter, talent really shines when it's just the driver and the car, little to no down force and little tire grip is the way to go for racing. Even in drenching wet, just watch the 1984 Monaco GP (Don't read the rest or the 1984 Monaco GP will be spoiled for you, skip to next paragraph), Senna was at his first year in F1 and you managed to overtake Niki Lauder and take 2nd position and catch up to Alain Prost, sad that the race was red flagged, Senna would have won in the end. But my point still stands that talent will be shown more and this is from which we can for sure know the best driver. Realistically but also sadly, the FIA won't go this route because of 'Safety'.
This is what I've been advocating for F1 for years! Joe Public doesn't give a toss about aero. He knows about engines, tyres, drivers, and he can spot good racing. Aero though, he neither knows nor cares about. Commentators get all excited by a new bit of bodywork because it has an extra twiddly bit on or maybe a swoopy bit has a *slightly* different swoop - motorsport is dominated by aero now and it sucks. You demonstrating how good the cars could look, along with how good the races could look is great. FIA - Just ban 'blatant' aero, so that the cars are smooth again... for sure, designers will still find ways to exploit the design to get DF, but it won't be the OTT aero paradigm that the sport is stuck in atm. Dirty, dirty, dirty air...
This was Patrick Head's suggestion many years ago, i believe early 2000's. But i think he also added the idea to reintroduce the skirts. I think it would really help competition and i also like the idea.
As a longtime F1 fan since the 90's. Now you're talking. Body aero or downforce only. I'm undecided on traction control? If it should be down to your right foot?
I have an idea... Try doing an entire series with these cars, man! With that being said, you, sir, are an absolute mad lad! This is frickin' genius!!! There's a British RUclipsr by the name of Aidan Millward who messed with a few F1 cars in Assetto Corsa, but they were just pretty much swapping engines from 2 different Ferrari F1 cars, more or less.
very interesting and fun experiment. I always thought the other way round. Building a 60's style F1 like the Porknose from Pessio, with a carbon monocoque and modern safety tech and slightly grippier tyres and a bit more ooomph. Almost like a Porknose 2.0 and and get a bunch of racers out there in these cars...that would be an eye opener I guess.
Remove the wings but then open up regulations on floor designs. Granted they look hideous but if you put all the downforce into the floor of the car, you can still follow behind and have decent cornering LOL love that the game is still rendering the shadow of the front wings 🤣🤣
I wish I could like a video twice. This is so cool. Also has me wishing that F1 would return to the glen. I think old school tracks will be more viable in 2022 when the cars (hopefully) put out less dirty air. Thank you for thr amazing content, and it's good to have you back.
I remember reading once in Motorsport magazine someone said after being asked 'why don't you get rid of wings?' and the answer was 'advertising space.'
And some consider the 1938 Auto Union Type C Streamliner that took Bernd Rosemeyer on his final ride to be the first ground-effect car. Mercedes-Benz may well have had the first movable aero, not Chaparral, with their "air brake" on the 1955 300 SLR.
They basically did try going this direction and everyone started crying that they're too slow and wanted them to bring back more downforce. If they did try doing this that would happen again. "F1 is supposed to be the fastest motorsport, this isn't F1, wah wah wah!" I don't think they could go this far, the car looked dangerous, but they could go half way.
Please let us have these modified cars as a purchasable mod! 🙏 I'm totally with you about this idea, not only this combination would make racing much more satisfying and (paradoxically) less dangerous than today, but it would make races much more useful for technological development for everyday life. Road cars don't need to increase energy consumption for facing corners at ludicrous speeds, so all the technological developments related to downforce and 50 miles-lasting tyres is just wasted. When I discovered the cars of the sixties in simracing I got the clear feeling that with those cars you had to be a good driver, while with the recent F1 cars you needed excellent reflexes and timing: it's still racing, but in a totally different way. Ironically, today's cars are more like videogames rather than racecars.
Making cars harder to drive isn't what road cars are about today, either. If anything, we're getting more and more into taking the driving out of the hands of the human altogether.
@@Villoresi I'm not talking about making driving harder, I'm talking about developing useful technology. Downforce makes a difference at speeds far higher than legal, so what's the usefulness? Also, I'd be absolutely glad if the grip of our car tyres were the same as a modern F1 car, but if the cost is changing them every 100 Km and spreading out rubber bits at every corner, it's evident that this technology can't be applied to everyday use. As for autonomous driving, as it is now it's a game for tech nerds... Prendending to live in a digitalized world, while people should be forced to keep their ability alive, instead of being surrounded by stupid distractions like in today's cars.
@@mino73T11 They talked about with the Acura ARX-02a LMP1 that you could feel the difference the downforce made by the time you were at 60 mph. Given a fair few people blast down I-35 to Texas from here at 80-90 mph... Not a knock on you, but what specific 'useful technologies" would the racing cars develop now. I can't say that I've seen these sorts of discussions go to anything particular in a long time. And so many things have been banned for so long in racing (like active suspension) that the road cars are already way ahead of any racing-developed systems from decades ago. As for the tires specifically, most series are designing them to behave a certain way intentionally, to create more "strategy". As a historical note, you could say that Rene Dreyfus won the 1938 Pau Grand Prix on "strategy", so it's certainly nothing new, in principle. Honestly, perception and "entertainment" have mattered more than practical application in a lot of these things for quite some time. So you could get hit with, "Well, you just want no downforce for your perceived entertainment, so what's wrong with what we're doing with the tires and the fuel capacity? One's no more or less artificial than the other at this point."
Now this is something I'd love to see in real life! My own additions to these rule changes: * Get rid of the hybrid bullshit. You want hybrid, start a Formula Prius like Formula E. * Tires similar to the late 1970's / early '80's where they only stopped if they had a puncture (no pit stops 2-3 times a race). * Back to full manual gearboxes with a shift lever. * Analog gauges, no telemetry, only fuel injection and spark are allowed computer control. Get back to guessing setup and a team full of talented mechanics instead of computer engineers. The only regret is not having a Jim Clark, James Hunt, Gilles Villeneuve or Ayrton Senna with the skill and cahones to push such cars to their very limits.
No wings mean MUCH less drag. Less drag = higher top speed, but also slower cornering, longer braking and slower acceleration. Another thing is that you can now follow another car without loosing your grip, resulting in more overtaking.
In NASCAR they do this track with the bus stop chicane in around 1:10. F1 cars without wings and with ass tyres are just American Stock Cars with the v6 hybrids instead of v8s lmao
I really love the idea behind this car. This would make it so much more interesting than what we have had the last few years.Spa and Monaco would be really interesting to see.
Trouble is, a key part of the unpredictability back then was lack of reliability, helped along by things like manual transmissions and a lack of driver aids.
@@Villoresi I would love to see actual gear shifting put back in....no traction control, etc. But just taking the wings off would really enhance the racing....just my opinion.
@@larrydrozd2740 The real problem now is that the rulemakes have been trying to fight physics for decades, and that's always a losing battle. Aero is simply worth more lap time, and it's an increasing return, unlike just trying to put more horsepower to work. More critically though, in trying to slow the cars down, they keep making it such that the aero you can put on gets "dirtier" and dirtier. In other words, the rules are written in such a way to intentionally make the aero less efficient (i. e. make more pounds of drag at a given speed relative to the pounds of downforce you're making at that speed). You could have far less complicated wings and bodywork, coupled with ground effects, and the wake turbulence would be greatly reduced.
@@Villoresi Funny thing...I have recently discovered The Goodwood classic series on youtube. The racing on there is unreal!! So entertaining!!! ....and I think thats what we all want...to be entertained. The last F1 race I watched was basically a parade lap....just dull. Its been strangled.
@@larrydrozd2740 Entertainment can mean different things to different people. Also, you're probably going to have different expectations for a historic race as compared to what's supposed to be a current, up-to-date series that is "alive" and evolving now, rather than something that is at a fixed point in time, and will remain so in perpetuity. I'm familiar with Goodwood. The races are fun to watch, but I don't view them through the same lens as F1, IndyCar, IMSA, etc. I'm not looking for the exact same things at Goodwood as compared to those others. Wouldn't artificially, permanently regressing 53 years in technology also be "strangling" F1, just in a different way? As I said in my standalone comment on here, a great deal of what captures our imaginations about that "classic" era of F1 is the dynamic, rapid, and sometimes crazy development that was going on with the cars. Yet, here we are talking about going back for what's supposed to be a series of today, and not only that, but effectively having to make it a static spec forever in order to keep this arbitrary vision of what "close", "entertaining" racing is. Maybe this question needs to be asked. If the F1 cars of 1967 were as reliable as today's machines, which one would have dominated? And I haven't even touched the matter of the current, pro series not racing on tracks like Goodwood anymore. Of course, the FIA wouldn't approve such a design today anyway, on safety grounds, not to mention, complaints that it doesn't have enough, "conventional" overtaking points.
yeah would have left the original slicks or even put a wider set on. Looks silly with the old treaded tires. Also its funny how the missing front wing still casts a shadow!
Awesome, very interesting experiment! And another example that puts Assetto Corsa on Top of all the actual sims out there: you can simply do all kind of stuff on this simulation platform!
I 100% agree that downforce ruins racing. Back in the 90s Alfa Romeo introduced wings to Touring Cars and it went from the 2nd biggest motorsport to barely surviving in ten years.
Which series was this in? DTM? Honestly, it's pretty much just been the crazier TCs that have ever really grabbed my attention, things like the BMW 320i Turbo silhouette (technically Group 2 Touring, though lumped in with the Group 5 GTs). And again, later, I like the look of the 1995-96 ITC cars comparatively speaking. I mean, I like a number of the road models turned into touring cars back in the '60s, but I don't know that I'd be particularly drawn to watch them going around the track as a consistent, spectator experience. I enjoy Goodwood, but that's a special occasion, an annual one-off. And unfortunately, the TCRs, relative to the TC1s, are too anemic to be able to properly pull the Dottinger Hohe and get enough of a run to be able to reliably pass into the Tiergarten. I don't have much attachment to a lot of modern car models. Too many of them are just amorphous blobs that all sort of blend together in my sight. I've definitely been one who's largely gravitated toward the higher classes. My bad eyesight certainly doesn't help me pick up on the subtler visual details, obviously.
Actually Forghieri was the first to introduce airwings in F1 onto the Ferrari in 1968, not Chapman! Chapman was able to copy and exasperate the idea (until the dramatic crash in Spain 1969 which pushed the FIA to limit airwings size).
The translucent halo strut - is that how they have simulated the effect of binocular vision? So it's not blocking the view as much, & appears more like it would be perceived in reality. Nice touch
The best racing category ever was the old school 70s/80s Formula Ford on grooved tyres. Reason? no slicks, no wings. You could instantly see the effect slicks and wings had on the quaility of racing when you went up to FF2000. less wheel to wheel racing, less passing. then by the time you got to F3 all you got was chasing, not racing. But engineers love aero, and they are the guys that dominate F1 these days, and every single seater formula wants to play at being mini-F1.
Engineers love aero because that's where the lap time is to be gained. Their job isn't to make 'good racing", it's to make their team's car faster than everybody else. I'd liken a lot of this talk to Daytona and Talladega. The track has more potential than the cars can use up. I see the same thing in watching the lower formulae; you only get the crazy, 3-abreast, or whatever, racing in the spots where it's "easy" for the cars to do so, because they're not on the limit. They can't use up the limits that the track provides, hence why it's "easy". You still don't see what many would call "great racing", even with cars like this, at the Nordschleife, and there's a reason for that.
Epic video! Great to see you model these cars yourself. It really sparks the imagination. You just earned a sub! P.S: Hows an idea of fitting 2020 wide F1 slicks to a Ferrari F2004 and the Hybrid KERS + V10?
How russell feels in the Williams after driving the W11
Lol
420 likes
Lol exactly how i felt going from merc to torro rosso on f1 2019
Tough but fair...
About six minutes in I thought to myself "I wonder if he's using DRS". I'm not a smart man.
He is, but it's on all the time.
When you said Im not a smart man..
I felt that.
Well...... he kind of is using drs
I mean he is using Unlimited DRS+
Wouldn’t it be 2x drs because the front and rear wings are removed?
It's funny how, without the wings, you can still see the same basic car shape as the old 60's cars
The handling looks similar aswell
Yeah its cool how they just build upon it
If iRacing ever makes another car from scratch it should be something like this. Tremendous driving
The new Dallara iR-01 isn't too far off this.
Similar to formula ford but with more powah
Lotus 149😳😳😳
they still dont even have their home track on the service, dont give them any ideas
The only tyres harder were sunk into concrete around the corners at Mexico City back in the day. Top video.
GPlaps: *releases modern F1 content*
Also GPlaps “so about the wings...”
Trust me, I don’t need some special mod to lose my wings
The classic on the fly modification, barrier contact!
@@fujineetomori nothing like some rapid disassembly.
He cheated, Red Bull gives you wings
Well, the car was a bit of a Monster. ;)
@@jacobrzeszewski6527 LOL. That's Rich.
@@beachcottage3740 oh boy he thinks he's a Rockstar
I hate all of you
@@tylerhicks621 hahahahahaha i can't
Can we get Jimmer to see how fast this will go 'round the Nordschleife?
YES
I’m sure its possible as long as its not downloadable cause its not entirely his property and he might get sued if he distributes it.
@@allainangcao28 I'm pretty sure Jimmer already has the RSS Formula Hybrid 2020, so who cares if he gets a modified version? Shouldn't be a problem as long as RSS aren't a buncha cunts lol
j r yes
If it's jimmer, no thanks.
The shadows of the invisible front wings make my brain confused...
Thanks, I needed this palate cleanser after today's borefest in Abu Dhabi
Well, thankfully, there was at least one way in which it was distinctly not same old, same old.
First time i legit just shut off an f1 race in the middle of it.
I'm guessing you didn't watch at the height of the Schumacher period.
@@Villoresi at least in the Schumacher, you were never quite sure HOW he was going to win it. Current F1 is for the most part utterly predictable. I have almost worn out the FFW button on my remote this season.
@@bobmcl2406 I think quite a few people have gotten tired of what "strategy" too often means in practical application, and not just in F1.
Not to mention, F1 races aren't that long, nor is the probability of a full-on Safety Car usually that high.
Amazing car control! Perhaps people watching do not realize how difficult it can be to drive such car around, with tons of power and little aero grip.
I am absolutely stunned at how competently the AI were handling those cars, on a mod circuit with cars that were basically modded twice over it is astonishing how competitive and clean they are
And to think they said no, a modern car wouldn't work without wings. Now all these years later I can say yes, it could work, and it's glorious! Terrific stuff.
One thing's for certain, if F1 banned the wings, there's no way people would call a race boring
"Man replaces modern tires with 1960's tires, spends entire race complaining about grip."
modern f1 slicks are designed to produce grip with downforce, without downforce they wouldnt generate enough heat to create grip and would be like driving on wet soap, these 60's tires probably produce more grip without downforce because they were engineered to create more heat
Alternative title: what if a classic f1 car had the power of a modern one?
pretty much, and a better chassis
"red bull DOESNT give you wings" -red bull motto
The only RedBull case but since is just a test ''what if'' so, this test will never ever appear anywhere for the brand commercial..
I hope red bull sees this and tries it for real!
They would too, lmao
You can check another F1 team who actually did this last season:
Ferrari
It’s all because of “dirty air”. It use to be if you were behind another car you had the advantage of a draft but now with so much downforce, if you’re behind another car you have less grip than the car in front, making passing extremely difficult. Not to mention with no wings the pack would be tighter as a result with no dirty air (turbulence).
So this is kind of like Formula Ford but on steroids. Those series also have sort of slick tyres with blocks cut in to them. Very nice to see them race.
Love it! They are like great big Formula Fords. I'm with you, let's replace modern F1 with this. Struggling to control four wheel drifts, and making loooong braking zones might generate some actual competition!
Someone get Ross Brawn to watch this.
Yes!! Driver skill would be key again.
idk why but i love the look of the new f1 cars with no rear wing
It's probably cause you've seen junior formula cars with no wings, its just that but on a bigger scale. Also the air duct on the top is probably also the reason
I've long believed that the best way to bring innovation back to Formula One is to ban wings altogether. Outside of car size, weight, tires, power units, and typical modern safety standards, everything becomes a clean slate. I'd be curious to see what Adrian Newey would be able to do with so much freedom.
Yes, force the teams to use the bodywork to produce the downforce instead.
This is exactly what I wanted to see after the '60s with slicks video!
This just confirms that F1 could be so much better - wonderful video!
I can't agree more - FIA get on it!
You wouldn't like what the FIA would do to the circuits if they did this with the cars.
I wish FIA collected votes from spectators and pilots about this!
You lose that "wedge" profile when you take the wings off. That's also why I don't like the look of the 1982 cars so much when they don't have the front wings on them. So these just end up looking overinflated and ungainly from an aesthetic point of view.
Unfortunately, the FIA will never go back. The trouble with the '60s cars, even more than the '50s ones, is that, at speed, any object has aerodynamic qualities. Those cars were very aerodynamically neutral, which means they were unstable, and if contact was made, could easily roll and tumble erratically. The FIA would consider that potential to be too great a risk to even consider the idea. Remember, it's the fletching on an arrow, making drag, that ensures the point reaches the target first, rather than the blunt, opposite end of the shaft.
And with cars like these, the circuits would be demanded to make other changes, and not really for the better. Run-off is dictated by terminal velocity on the straights. With no wings, that Vmax will be higher, so those run-offs will be required to be larger. I also suspect they'd push barriers and stands (i.e. the fans) farther away on the straights with aerodynamically unstable cars on track. The 2 worst racing incidents in history in terms of fatalities were along straightaways: Monza (1928) and Le Mans (1955).
It also defeats the purpose of the sport if you're just going to dictate a static way to go, taken from some idealized vision of an arbitrary point in the past. The dynamism and ever-shifting ground of '60s F1 was precisely due to the rapid and crazy development going on on the cars, but the only way to maintain the vision being put forth here is to freeze everything, forever.
It also shouldn't be understated how much the danger factor shapes our view of that time, and upended the landscape of the sport. What were the impacts of the losses of Antonio Ascari, Emilio Materassi, Guy Moll, Bernd Rosemeyer, Richard Seaman, Alberto Ascari, Alfonso de Portago, Luigi Musso, Lorenzo Bandini, Jim Clark, Jochen Rindt, Francois Cevert, Ronnie Peterson, Gilles Villeneuve, Manfred Wnkelhock, and Stefan Bellof?
I don't think we could make a direct comparison with those days. Racing with no seatbelts, in bathtubes extensively made out of magnesium, with not even a though about safety structures, and racing on tracks with little to no escape areas and crowds at close distance from the track. All the dead pilots you listed could be reduced to almost none if they raced cars such as in this video and if the tracks were properly made. Also, you stated that cars with no downforce are unstable in case of loss of control, but have you seen what it happens to cars with downforce when they spin at high speeds or if they raise the nose above a certain angle for any accident? They turn into aircrafts and literally takeoff!!! Far more dangerous. Also, the tremendous power of modern cars have been allowed by the rules right because a large percentage goes on waste in wings; if you tear wings away, of course some restrictions about the engine power have to be added. Before 1966 engines were limited to 1500 cc, yet with 200 HP cars could reach 270 Kph... Nothing sleepy at all, even before switching to the 3000 cc rule with speeds reaching 310 Kph.
This video is absolutely clever and should make reconsider races to be redirected towards driving ability, rathere then pure reflexes and timing of gestures, like it is now (kept worsening since half of the eighties).
If the aero profile is fairly neutral (i.e. unstable), no seatbelts and bathtubs full of fuel don't matter in terms of how the car will behave.
I brought up all those driver names to point out that it added to the unpredictability of the old days. If the one driver who could get the absolute most out of that given car was lost in a crash, that could totally change the racing landscape by destroying that one team's fortunes. Does Mercedes-Benz have anything like the party they did in 1938-39 if Auto Union still had Rosemeyer? There are plenty of such examples.
I honestly haven't seen that many high-speed spin issues with downforce cars when looking at the grand scheme of things. You mentioned Indy Cars elsewhere, but that's only been an issue in the last 20 years, or more, if it was after the car had already hit something. And in that case, most, if not all, of your bets are off anyway. And as for the earlier generation of IRL cars launching, again, it was when they hit something. They made the cars so draggy that to get the rear wing as much out of the air as they could, the cars were often set up to be pitch-up by default. That would therefore be a design flaw, not an inherent problem with all aero.
The Mercedes-Benz CLR at Le Mans in 1999, Porsche 911 GT1-98 at Road Atlanta in '98, and BMW V12 LMR at Road Atlanta in '00 had a design flaw that was subsequently rectified. The rules for those GT1s and early LMP900 stipulated that the diffuser had to start aft of the rear-wheel centerline. So in a pitch-up situation, it could lever the car over. The rules changed, allowing the diffuser to start up to a meter in front of the rear-wheel centerline, and we didn't see that problem again.
As for what we saw with the LMPs in 2008, hey didn't even need to narrow the rear wings, or add the big honkin' holes and big honkin' fins. Changing the profile of the floor and adding pressure flaps, like we see in NASCAR, pretty well takes care of it. As for those Nissan Group Cs that flipped at Fuji in 1991, that could have been solved by giving the tire manufacturer accurate downforce data, and the same went for their GTPs at Road Atlanta in 1992. In that latter case, Chip Robinson didn't even fly; part of the car started to lift, but came right back down. Geoff Brabham ending up on his lid later in the race was a result of an impact with the barriers, not because the car lifted off at all.
The cars even today don't have anything approaching unprecedented power levels. Baseline power for F1 now is 740 hp, which Can-Am had back in 1971. For F1 Qualifying in 1985-86, the cars could have twice what the ICE makes today. And especially if we're restricting another major area, why would I want further engine restrictions, too?
Let's face it, most people pile onto this bandwagon because of a nostalgia trip. They like the idea of the open regulations, which goes against what you just said. They liked the unpredictability, which only existed to a large degree because of bad reliability, as well as the potential for a sudden change in fortunes due to the loss of a star driver. They like the looks of those old cars; I do too. However, that aero profile is unstable. Yes, today's cars can fly, but their behavior is comparatively predictable, and that makes all the difference. And slapping sidepods and whatever else on, but only going halfway with it, makes the cars butt ugly; form follows function, so if you're going to go the minimalist, '60s route, that stuff all needs to come off. Besides, having a huge floor because you still have the sidepods will just create a big sail if the car gets pitch-up (I've seen the video of Jackie Oliver flying in the Autocoast Ti-22 at Mont Tremblant). People forget that a lot of those racing cars from the late '60s and early '60s, if anything, were making lift when going forward, especially at high speed.
I'll add, some of the attitude on this topic leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of the whole American open-wheel situation. You have that crew of disgruntled old fans who want not only no wings, but front-engined roadsters only back at Indy and the other ovals, and likely only ovals on the schedule (don't even get them started on street circuits). So a certain amount of this is tainted by my familiarity with the mess surrounding CART and the IRL.
@@Villoresi I understand your points. If I can remember well, in this video it's said that part of the body was troublesome to remove from the graphic point of view, otherwise the structure would have been closer to the F1 cars of the sixties.
When I saw the notification of your reply, I ran to look for a video I had in mind (before reading), which now comes handy to go further in details: ruclips.net/video/-UvRK_a0vm8/видео.html
Your point about wing-cars taking off on straights by a design mistake is out of question then. But let me say: all cars with large bodies can take flight as a consequence of contacts between fast rotating wheels; though, with minimal bodies (F1 1962... 1967) the cars involved in any crash would follow ballistic paths and would fall back to the ground from quite a low height. If the body is large, the flight path is much more unpredictable, because it is like tossing in the air a cardboard rectangle with a stone attached. Please watch that car sliding upside down on the concrete wall aside the straight, clearly nobody figured out that a car could land so far when they devised the safety area aside the track. The cigar-like cars were more like tossing just a stone, in comparison. In facts (and this seems to go against what I mentioned in my previous comment!) the terrible accident in 1955 happened when downforce was not considered at all, but the tragedy was caused by the insufficient distance of the crowd and the fact that the cars involved flew out of a simple ballistic line, at least this is my guessing when watching that video.
Though, I would like to point out that wings still make a negative difference in accidents: in the link I posted above, you can clearly see many cars taking off when they spin, again following unpredictable paths before landing, and putting the pilot under the further stress of the fall from a certain height. A wing devised to push the car down when going forward will push the car up when going backwards, of course, so that's a bad risk to bring at 200 mph imho.
There's further side of this analysis to be considered: compare Monza 1966 with Monza 2020. Today's track, beyond having way larger escape areas, has multiple chicanes devised to avoid extreme speeds. Paradoxically such chicanes were meant to prevent cars with great downforce from taking wide corners at crazy speeds, but in this case they also force cars to enter straights at lower speeds. And if cars have no downforce, they will take all corners even slower. As an experiment, if you have the opportunity to try fairly accurate simulators, bring a Lotus 49 on today's Monza and then try a recent F1 on old Monza... Eventually the full circuit with banked turns. You will immediately realize how the danger relies on the track, much more than on the car. Yeah I know, simulators are not reality and they won't exactly replicate what it happens after a crash and spin...
As for the available power, I guess that pilots themselves would keep the foot up or ask for restrictions if they're sent on 1000 HP beasts with the grip of sportcar tyres... Tyres would keep spinning in almost every gear!
@@mino73T11 The problem is, I can't see the large-body, and therefore large-floor-area, cars going away. If nothing else, they will still use the sidepods for side-impact protection for the driver, plus they can put the radiators there to make the nose more streamlined and slippery through the air. But the thing is, I, and I'm sure many others, if we're going to get rid of the downforce, want the "purity" of those '60s cigar racers back.
With that Formula Renault or EuroBoss car that went up at Magny-Cours, there was still quite a large, open area behind the main wall. So that wasn't such an issue. The bridge there was the decidedly larger, potential problem.
If you hit any type of a ramp, as quite a number of the cars in that video do, you're still going to get quite some height. Ironically, the large floor may then reduce the vertical impact speed when you come back down.
At about 4:20 in that video, there's a crash at the Nurburgring, I think, and that illustrates one of the issues I have. Cars in a more neutral state tend to just keep rolling and tumbling for a very long distance. They also tend to change orientation more quickly and erratically.
Another one, and part of why, aside from aesthetics, I don't like the fins on the back of the LMPs, is Anthony Davidson's crash in the Toyota at Le Mans. The fin seems to have played a major role in the car coming back down on its side, rather than righting itself more fully.
Of course, one of the biggest things I notice in either part of that compilation is how many of the crashes are caused by late blocking maneuvers. There's definitely serious improvement that is well overdue in enforcing some stricter driving standards. That's especially true if crashes that look as scary as some of those aren't enough to get the drivers to behave better.
A number of the old tracks would have a ditch and then an embankment.
Aside from Pierre Levegh at Le Mans in 1955, Hans Hermann had a heck of a launch in the 1959 German GP at AVUS.
Of course, all this runs into another problem. Because what a lot of people who talk about this say they want are tracks like the old ones, along with the "pure" cigar racers with no wings, sidepods, or whatever.
And i know I've said this elsewhere, but I could accept some increase in lap times/reduction in lap speeds, if the circuits were commensurately more interesting. The trouble is, I can't see the FIA going along with this in the end. And that's even with the Driver Delegate, Alexander Wurz, saying that they could maybe go to some "more extreme" circuits if cornering speeds and other things were addressed. And i recall Stefan Johansson saying that if your circuit had a chicane in it by design, you designed it wrong.
But yeah, with possible, higher top-end speeds, and cars continuing to roll and tumble for great distances, I don't see barriers being allowed to be any closer in, chicanes being taken out, or any of the other stuff that would make the full package with much slower cars seem worth it. If anything, I'd worry about barriers, and the surrounding environment, being pushed back further in places, even on straights. Even the Porsche Curves seem much less impressive since they took out some more of those trees on the outside of that long right-hander, because I lost that context, that frame of reference.
Speaking of sims, there are a number of old music videos of some just absolutely absurd-looking crashes in GPL.
I think we already saw with the 1937 Grand Prix cars that, if given the chance, they'll still put 500-600 hp and 600-700 ft-lb of torque in the things, even if all they have to put it to the ground through are the equivalent of bicycle tires. The Auto Union Type C and Mercedes-Benz could do exactly as you say, spin up the tires at well over 100 mph.
Holly shit this video is amazing! Well done thinking out of the box GPLaps! Keep it up!
It would be amazing if F1 actually did this.
70's-early 80's ground effect without aero over the car and tires that last long when pushed hard. That would make F1 competitive again.
the 2022 regs have ground effect
@@mayto420 I know, but they also allow much aero on top of the car.
Two things;:
1. Getting massive Formula Ford vibes from this. Super cool video.
2. How the hell do you design an AI that can be competent across all sorts of different vehicles? I’m not knowledgeable about programming or anything but that seems very tricky. The AI pick up these cars and run with it in a way that’s really incredible imo.
I can just hear Colin Chapmans reaction “You want to do what!”
"Why are we not funding this?"
-Peter Griffin
beat me to it! :D
Granted, it's not F1, but Formula E HAS no Wings and harder tires. And I can confirm that the races are very thrilling. Last 2 seasons' full races are on youtube, if you'd like to check it out...
@John Citizen let me guess: "BeCaUsE iT DoEsN't MaKe NoIsE"
@John Citizen I'm wondering if that was supposed to be sarcasm targeting the FE pit stops of the Gen 1 car (which would showcase ignorance since this year it's the third season with the Gen2 cars), or if it was honest making fun of F1's pitstops.
@John Citizen You indeed seem to be very ignorant: There are no pit stops, Hysteric or otherwise, in Formula E. For three years now. Maybe take a few minutes effort and get up to date before hating on something. Did you hear what Jeremy Clarkson, "the" number one Petrolhead to make fun of Electric cars, said about Formula E? He said he'd far rather watch it than Formula 1. And it becomes clear why, when you see his Arguments: He wants risky driving - Formula E has it. He wants competition - Formula E is immensly competetive. He wants Cars to be stronger to withstand collisions - Formula E has Strong Cars and loads of contact. Formula E is proper, unpredictable Racing - Formula one is watching Hamilton doing perfect laps, waiting for a
I've thought the same thing about downforce after watching vintage racing like at Goodwood. The cars power sliding through corners is just so great. These F1 cars you've done are kind of like Formula Ford but faster seems like.
This formula would not work in F1 anymore. F1 needs wings to stay the fastest sport in the world. But this is what Formula Ford is for
if modern racecars focussed on ground effects the racing would improve
Petty sure the new regs is focusing on making sure the floor and such creates a majority of the downforce instead of the wings.
The wings on the 2022 cars look WAY simpler than the current regs and certainly wouldn't produce as much downforce.
@@Nox_Desiree That's to help fighting the dirty air problem
@@thesciencesphere4273 Yeah, if you focus on the floor and diffuser and rely on those producing most of the downforce rather than the wings dirty air will be less of an issue
TyrannicalTeapott And racing will be much better. Can’t waitZ
Mmm I may be wrong, but the so called wing-cars proved to be very dangerous because they relied only to ground effects...
This is awesome, I always wondered what F1 would be like if wings never became a thing.
“Take the wings off”. - Jochen Rindt, Monza, 1970
(actually something broke on the Lotus suspension)
(I thought it was the brakes)
This is a great video! A really good idea, well executed, great sound quality and good voiceover. Nice job!
A great experiment. I wonder how the car suspensions would have evolved if wings had been banned many years ago. I've believed that aero has overwhelmed the sport for far too long. You may have stumbled on an excellent platform for a league.
You can only do so much with suspension, once it had gone inboard to improve weight distribution and been simplified to a heave spring/damper that's kind of the end of the road. Springs and dampers are pretty hard to beat and there is only so much fancy stuff you need to do with suspension geometry particularly if you've got so much potential flex in the massive tyre.
The way the engine cover tapers down looks so good without the wing.
Unless you removed the diffuser they’d still have a good bit of downforce
he said in the beginning of the video, the floors are doing nothing. just would be a hassle to remove them from the model itself
@@gugubope21 I’m aware fully..
But IT SHOULD AFFECT THE CAR
“Removing the wings” doesn’t magically remove the considerable amount of downforce from the floor and diffuser.
The point isn’t that he removed it. The point is that if you remove just the wings you don’t remove EVERYTHING
@@MyLonewolf25 I assume he meant that he removed their downforce from the physics, but they are still visually part of the model because it would be too difficult to chop up the 3D body of the car.
@@bibblybobbly9951 its true what Mesder13 says. i did some modding back in the days of rFactor and i know how things work. he actually deletes few numbers and thats it. sets them to 0 actually.
read this ^^
This was a great idea. It seems when you get rid of aero, the racing gets better
The big issue is that F1 cars in particular make "dirty" downforce; the drag compared to how much downforce they make is very high. It's possible to have a far better L/D, even with an open-wheel car, say, 4:1. That would see a substantial improvement in wake turbulence.
However, I think the aero issue is heavily overblown, and what isn't talked about nearly enough is the accordion effect. All these newer circuits have all these really slow corners, so coming out onto the straight, just be virtue of the expansion of the physical gap based on the time gap, the cars spread out immensely by default.
What's even worse is, especially where you have repeated slow corners, if the driver behind can't make the pass, he has to give up time, again and again, to the guy in front, in order to avoid a collision.
Check out formula ford racing. It’s proof aero ruins racing
@@a7racing With Formula Fords, and a number of the other, lower classes, the cars just don't stand out to me, don't grab my attention.
And as I've said elsewhere here, it's "easy" to have tight racing when the cars can't use up all the potential provided by the track, and so it's not really a challenge, like driving Daytona or Talladega isn't a particular, technical challenge, and "racing" at those places is "easy" by default.
In racing, like any performance pursuit, the best make it look easy, but you can still tell that it actually isn't easy. However, when it cognitively and viscerally seems truly easy, something crucial is lost in the appeal.
i also don't agree with the premise. F1 in the 1980s wasn't terrible by any stretch. IMSA GTP and Group C weren't terrible, either, and those cars came to have more downforce than any other category has ever had.
If "close racing" is the be all, end all, I can give some even more recent examples. When they were running those really high-downforce packages, there were some fantastically dicey IndyCar races at Indy, Pocono, and Texas. Even the less extreme, base 2012-14 cars could put on quite a show at Fontana.
Oh, if you can make the gears longer, definitely try Monza, maybe an older layout without the sharp first chicane.
This would be a reason to watch F1 again! Driver Skill brought to the forefront again instead of who has the best engineers ans driver/resource managers.
It will still be the engineers and managers in the long run. After a period of adjustment from the shake-up, the old order would sort itself out.
There's too much money involved for it not to fall to the managers to do their thing. And the greater safety functions to allow in more the celebrity types than the true sportsmen as much, like in the old days.
"Driver skill" will only last until the electronics guys figure out some new tricks. It's also a "driver skill" to train yourself to make use of the downforce, because it's counter-intuitive, and kind of against your survival instinct, to think that you'll go faster through the corner if you go at it faster from the entry.
Might as well all drive the same car ! F1 is about development
Great idea. Wouldnt the top speed get dangerously fast with no wings, like 250 - 300mph ? ALso the cornering speed might get too slow that it would look . . . a bit boring ? YES I think most F1 fans would agree, PLEASE FIA remove shed loads of the downforce and make the cars more EQUALLY matched. Thank you.
I'd prefer to see it with modern hard F1 tires. Throwing on old tires seems too artificial to be interesting.
you keep this up and you will take over youtube sim racing.. Actual original content
When you think about it, It’s remarkable that f1 cars can actually go as fast as they can with literal parachutes on the car
I'm sold
Much more fun to look at then real F1 ... !
As your 499th commenter, talent really shines when it's just the driver and the car, little to no down force and little tire grip is the way to go for racing. Even in drenching wet, just watch the 1984 Monaco GP (Don't read the rest or the 1984 Monaco GP will be spoiled for you, skip to next paragraph), Senna was at his first year in F1 and you managed to overtake Niki Lauder and take 2nd position and catch up to Alain Prost, sad that the race was red flagged, Senna would have won in the end. But my point still stands that talent will be shown more and this is from which we can for sure know the best driver.
Realistically but also sadly, the FIA won't go this route because of 'Safety'.
This is what I've been advocating for F1 for years! Joe Public doesn't give a toss about aero. He knows about engines, tyres, drivers, and he can spot good racing. Aero though, he neither knows nor cares about. Commentators get all excited by a new bit of bodywork because it has an extra twiddly bit on or maybe a swoopy bit has a *slightly* different swoop - motorsport is dominated by aero now and it sucks.
You demonstrating how good the cars could look, along with how good the races could look is great.
FIA - Just ban 'blatant' aero, so that the cars are smooth again... for sure, designers will still find ways to exploit the design to get DF, but it won't be the OTT aero paradigm that the sport is stuck in atm.
Dirty, dirty, dirty air...
Yeah, well said mate :~)
Ive always wanted to see this as a tradition for the monaco grand prix
That was absolutely amazing. I need to see more
This was Patrick Head's suggestion many years ago, i believe early 2000's. But i think he also added the idea to reintroduce the skirts.
I think it would really help competition and i also like the idea.
Nascar cup layout goes hard, no need to be ashamed my dude
As a longtime F1 fan since the 90's. Now you're talking. Body aero or downforce only. I'm undecided on traction control? If it should be down to your right foot?
Creative thinking, very cool!
This is just basically the Modern Take of F1 cars in the 50s
I have an idea... Try doing an entire series with these cars, man! With that being said, you, sir, are an absolute mad lad! This is frickin' genius!!! There's a British RUclipsr by the name of Aidan Millward who messed with a few F1 cars in Assetto Corsa, but they were just pretty much swapping engines from 2 different Ferrari F1 cars, more or less.
very interesting and fun experiment.
I always thought the other way round. Building a 60's style F1 like the Porknose from Pessio, with a carbon monocoque and modern safety tech and slightly grippier tyres and a bit more ooomph. Almost like a Porknose 2.0 and and get a bunch of racers out there in these cars...that would be an eye opener I guess.
Remove the wings but then open up regulations on floor designs. Granted they look hideous but if you put all the downforce into the floor of the car, you can still follow behind and have decent cornering
LOL love that the game is still rendering the shadow of the front wings 🤣🤣
Hell yeah, if only the fia did something along these lines... Overnight F1 would become interesting again.
Knowing the FIA though, they'd demand that everything else be slowed down to be slower than F1.
I mean the new cars will have less down force anyway
I wish I could like a video twice. This is so cool. Also has me wishing that F1 would return to the glen. I think old school tracks will be more viable in 2022 when the cars (hopefully) put out less dirty air. Thank you for thr amazing content, and it's good to have you back.
I think we both know the FIA would still find a way to butcher the Glen for F1 if a return started looking like an actual reality.
I remember reading once in Motorsport magazine someone said after being asked 'why don't you get rid of wings?' and the answer was 'advertising space.'
I've been saying for years that they should take the wings off, it's sort of heading that way with reduced down force for 2022. Good video 👍
This is so cool dude. Subbed!
i've been crying out for this for years.
One more vote from me
Why ?
Wings, or aerofoil, were fitted first on a Ferrari for Spa ‘68. Lotus being the first is a false myth
And some consider the 1938 Auto Union Type C Streamliner that took Bernd Rosemeyer on his final ride to be the first ground-effect car.
Mercedes-Benz may well have had the first movable aero, not Chaparral, with their "air brake" on the 1955 300 SLR.
They basically did try going this direction and everyone started crying that they're too slow and wanted them to bring back more downforce. If they did try doing this that would happen again. "F1 is supposed to be the fastest motorsport, this isn't F1, wah wah wah!" I don't think they could go this far, the car looked dangerous, but they could go half way.
Indycar is a bit closer to this
Please let us have these modified cars as a purchasable mod! 🙏 I'm totally with you about this idea, not only this combination would make racing much more satisfying and (paradoxically) less dangerous than today, but it would make races much more useful for technological development for everyday life. Road cars don't need to increase energy consumption for facing corners at ludicrous speeds, so all the technological developments related to downforce and 50 miles-lasting tyres is just wasted.
When I discovered the cars of the sixties in simracing I got the clear feeling that with those cars you had to be a good driver, while with the recent F1 cars you needed excellent reflexes and timing: it's still racing, but in a totally different way. Ironically, today's cars are more like videogames rather than racecars.
Making cars harder to drive isn't what road cars are about today, either. If anything, we're getting more and more into taking the driving out of the hands of the human altogether.
@@Villoresi I'm not talking about making driving harder, I'm talking about developing useful technology. Downforce makes a difference at speeds far higher than legal, so what's the usefulness? Also, I'd be absolutely glad if the grip of our car tyres were the same as a modern F1 car, but if the cost is changing them every 100 Km and spreading out rubber bits at every corner, it's evident that this technology can't be applied to everyday use. As for autonomous driving, as it is now it's a game for tech nerds... Prendending to live in a digitalized world, while people should be forced to keep their ability alive, instead of being surrounded by stupid distractions like in today's cars.
@@mino73T11 They talked about with the Acura ARX-02a LMP1 that you could feel the difference the downforce made by the time you were at 60 mph. Given a fair few people blast down I-35 to Texas from here at 80-90 mph...
Not a knock on you, but what specific 'useful technologies" would the racing cars develop now. I can't say that I've seen these sorts of discussions go to anything particular in a long time. And so many things have been banned for so long in racing (like active suspension) that the road cars are already way ahead of any racing-developed systems from decades ago.
As for the tires specifically, most series are designing them to behave a certain way intentionally, to create more "strategy". As a historical note, you could say that Rene Dreyfus won the 1938 Pau Grand Prix on "strategy", so it's certainly nothing new, in principle.
Honestly, perception and "entertainment" have mattered more than practical application in a lot of these things for quite some time. So you could get hit with, "Well, you just want no downforce for your perceived entertainment, so what's wrong with what we're doing with the tires and the fuel capacity? One's no more or less artificial than the other at this point."
Now this is something I'd love to see in real life!
My own additions to these rule changes:
* Get rid of the hybrid bullshit. You want hybrid, start a Formula Prius like Formula E.
* Tires similar to the late 1970's / early '80's where they only stopped if they had a puncture (no pit stops 2-3 times a race).
* Back to full manual gearboxes with a shift lever.
* Analog gauges, no telemetry, only fuel injection and spark are allowed computer control. Get back to guessing setup and a team full of talented mechanics instead of computer engineers.
The only regret is not having a Jim Clark, James Hunt, Gilles Villeneuve or Ayrton Senna with the skill and cahones to push such cars to their very limits.
Ok boomer
No wings mean MUCH less drag. Less drag = higher top speed, but also slower cornering, longer braking and slower acceleration. Another thing is that you can now follow another car without loosing your grip, resulting in more overtaking.
In NASCAR they do this track with the bus stop chicane in around 1:10. F1 cars without wings and with ass tyres are just American Stock Cars with the v6 hybrids instead of v8s lmao
Next video : Modern cars with tires from the 50s 😊☺
I really love the idea behind this car. This would make it so much more interesting than what we have had the last few years.Spa and Monaco would be really interesting to see.
Monaco would still be quite boring most likely. Cars are too big for Monaco to create proper racing. Have been too big since like the 90s.
Zooms on wingless redbull
Adrian Newey: [sobbs in the distance]
It would be like 1960's racing without the threat of horrific death. All the safety, the paddle gears, etc, but the driving skill is put back in
Trouble is, a key part of the unpredictability back then was lack of reliability, helped along by things like manual transmissions and a lack of driver aids.
@@Villoresi I would love to see actual gear shifting put back in....no traction control, etc. But just taking the wings off would really enhance the racing....just my opinion.
@@larrydrozd2740 The real problem now is that the rulemakes have been trying to fight physics for decades, and that's always a losing battle.
Aero is simply worth more lap time, and it's an increasing return, unlike just trying to put more horsepower to work.
More critically though, in trying to slow the cars down, they keep making it such that the aero you can put on gets "dirtier" and dirtier. In other words, the rules are written in such a way to intentionally make the aero less efficient (i. e. make more pounds of drag at a given speed relative to the pounds of downforce you're making at that speed).
You could have far less complicated wings and bodywork, coupled with ground effects, and the wake turbulence would be greatly reduced.
@@Villoresi Funny thing...I have recently discovered The Goodwood classic series on youtube. The racing on there is unreal!! So entertaining!!! ....and I think thats what we all want...to be entertained. The last F1 race I watched was basically a parade lap....just dull. Its been strangled.
@@larrydrozd2740 Entertainment can mean different things to different people. Also, you're probably going to have different expectations for a historic race as compared to what's supposed to be a current, up-to-date series that is "alive" and evolving now, rather than something that is at a fixed point in time, and will remain so in perpetuity.
I'm familiar with Goodwood. The races are fun to watch, but I don't view them through the same lens as F1, IndyCar, IMSA, etc. I'm not looking for the exact same things at Goodwood as compared to those others.
Wouldn't artificially, permanently regressing 53 years in technology also be "strangling" F1, just in a different way?
As I said in my standalone comment on here, a great deal of what captures our imaginations about that "classic" era of F1 is the dynamic, rapid, and sometimes crazy development that was going on with the cars. Yet, here we are talking about going back for what's supposed to be a series of today, and not only that, but effectively having to make it a static spec forever in order to keep this arbitrary vision of what "close", "entertaining" racing is.
Maybe this question needs to be asked. If the F1 cars of 1967 were as reliable as today's machines, which one would have dominated?
And I haven't even touched the matter of the current, pro series not racing on tracks like Goodwood anymore. Of course, the FIA wouldn't approve such a design today anyway, on safety grounds, not to mention, complaints that it doesn't have enough, "conventional" overtaking points.
Me, living in Western NY: Hey this track.... is this.... is he... IS THIS THE GLEN?! My duuuuuude.... you even left out the chicane.... *tears*...
The audio in this is great you usually can’t hear the car over people’s talking
I feel like we need this, but with the F2004 and FW26 entirely for that V10 mosquito whine to go with the tire squealing.
yeah would have left the original slicks or even put a wider set on. Looks silly with the old treaded tires. Also its funny how the missing front wing still casts a shadow!
Is this available? looks super fun
They pretty much did remove wings in the haydays of ground effect. No front wing at all and only a tiny one at the rear for balance purposes.
now this is __________ racing
This reminds me of the setup I have for GT and Formula cars in LFS, 0 downforce for all the speed in the earth
I wish these cars existed for real, Some kind of "Formula 0", with zero downforce would be really funny to watch =)
Good luck finding someone willing to drive it and also get permission from the FIA
Awesome, very interesting experiment! And another example that puts Assetto Corsa on Top of all the actual sims out there: you can simply do all kind of stuff on this simulation platform!
honestly this is my dream formula 1 rulebook
It looked so good I subbed
Gem of a channel
These tyres might be actually better than pirellis
I 100% agree that downforce ruins racing. Back in the 90s Alfa Romeo introduced wings to Touring Cars and it went from the 2nd biggest motorsport to barely surviving in ten years.
Which series was this in? DTM?
Honestly, it's pretty much just been the crazier TCs that have ever really grabbed my attention, things like the BMW 320i Turbo silhouette (technically Group 2 Touring, though lumped in with the Group 5 GTs). And again, later, I like the look of the 1995-96 ITC cars comparatively speaking.
I mean, I like a number of the road models turned into touring cars back in the '60s, but I don't know that I'd be particularly drawn to watch them going around the track as a consistent, spectator experience. I enjoy Goodwood, but that's a special occasion, an annual one-off.
And unfortunately, the TCRs, relative to the TC1s, are too anemic to be able to properly pull the Dottinger Hohe and get enough of a run to be able to reliably pass into the Tiergarten. I don't have much attachment to a lot of modern car models. Too many of them are just amorphous blobs that all sort of blend together in my sight.
I've definitely been one who's largely gravitated toward the higher classes. My bad eyesight certainly doesn't help me pick up on the subtler visual details, obviously.
Imagine these things at the old Nordschleife. Nice one GPLaps!
Please do one of these at an existing F1 track so we can compare laptimes and how you have to approach the lap.
@@v10-e8y Let's not make it boring.
Actually Forghieri was the first to introduce airwings in F1 onto the Ferrari in 1968, not Chapman! Chapman was able to copy and exasperate the idea (until the dramatic crash in Spain 1969 which pushed the FIA to limit airwings size).
The translucent halo strut - is that how they have simulated the effect of binocular vision? So it's not blocking the view as much, & appears more like it would be perceived in reality. Nice touch
The best racing category ever was the old school 70s/80s Formula Ford on grooved tyres. Reason? no slicks, no wings. You could instantly see the effect slicks and wings had on the quaility of racing when you went up to FF2000. less wheel to wheel racing, less passing. then by the time you got to F3 all you got was chasing, not racing. But engineers love aero, and they are the guys that dominate F1 these days, and every single seater formula wants to play at being mini-F1.
Engineers love aero because that's where the lap time is to be gained. Their job isn't to make 'good racing", it's to make their team's car faster than everybody else.
I'd liken a lot of this talk to Daytona and Talladega. The track has more potential than the cars can use up. I see the same thing in watching the lower formulae; you only get the crazy, 3-abreast, or whatever, racing in the spots where it's "easy" for the cars to do so, because they're not on the limit. They can't use up the limits that the track provides, hence why it's "easy".
You still don't see what many would call "great racing", even with cars like this, at the Nordschleife, and there's a reason for that.
@@Villoresi i think thats the point i'm making robert
Haha great video. Crazy early braking to get them slowed up.
Epic video! Great to see you model these cars yourself. It really sparks the imagination.
You just earned a sub!
P.S: Hows an idea of fitting 2020 wide F1 slicks to a Ferrari F2004 and the Hybrid KERS + V10?