my monthly Max Mosley rant... ;-)
> Max Mosley interview:
> "We are always told 'reduce the aerodynamics'. Trouble is we've
> learned from experience that it never succeeds. For thirty years we've
> been constantly trying to reduce the aerodynamic potential of the cars
> to keep the speeds in check and this has failed.
> So if you have a responsible governing body you must have a final
> point of defense and that for us is the grooved tires. Now if we had
> some magic way of reducing the downforce or, even better, reducing the
> downforce and increasing the ability of the cars to run close to each
> other in the corners we would take it but we know there isn't
A blatant lie.
FOC has agreed on higher front wings and 4 segment rear wings,
and about every engineer agrees this will decrease downforce to
an extend that will at least compensate the expected progress from
the 2001 tire war.
Other measures reducing downforce would include
-worse aspect ratio of the wings
-completely flat underbody, ie. no diffuser & Venturi tunnels
-higher ride height
-ban of turning vanes, eg. by defining a rectangular
"aero-device free" box around tires
> In the end, if they are on bicycle tires - and obviously you don't
> want to go to that extreme - they could have 10,000 horsepower and all
> the downforce they want and they will not go quick enough in the
> corners to hurt themselves. So it is finding a balance that is our
> But the grooved tires were probably the most important contribution to
> keeping speed and therefore safety under control."
True for the cornering speeds, however he conveniently
fails to mention that his '98 rule change increased the *top*
speeds. The reason is quite simple; smaller cars mean smaller
frontal area, mean faster top speeds.
This is the main problem with Mosley's blind regulations rampage;
the most dangerous accidents don't happen when drivers lose it
in fast corners -- anyone witnessed both BAR drivers crashing in
Eau Rouge and walking away, joking about it.
(coincidentally, Eau Rouge became more dangerous with grooves)
The most dangerous moments are when something goes wrong on
the straights, at top speed. Usually brake, wing or suspension
failures; Ratzenberger, Senna, Wendlinger, Panis, M Schumacher,
Zonta and Sarrazin's crash all fall within this category.
Mosley hasn't done anything about it, despite a simple solution;
larger frontal area (eg. wider track, larger tires).
MM also defends "his equations". The article mentions Mosley's
a physics major able to comprehend the mathematics involved.
This is hilarious, any ninth grade student with a reasonable
education can understand them.
While the logic behind his equations holds true, their assumptions
and application to F1-reality are ridiculous. Considering we're
talking about driver's safety here, they're malicous manipulation.
"energy of impact is proportional to tire grip" matters only when
something goes wrong *in* the corner. Usually it doesn't, it goes
wrong *before* the corner, at the end of the straight.
"braking distance equals half the curve's radius" is even worse.
The assumption is that the entire run off has the same coefficient
of grip as the track. This is ridiculous; gravel and grass provide
only a tiny fraction of grip on asphalt. The 2nd assumption is the
car retains it's aerodynamic performance, which is again utter
bullshit; the underbody downforce is completely lost once off track,
and for the wings to work the car must point exactly forward.
Max Mosley is either an ignorant fool, or a lying bastard.
He managed to do what nobody considered possible -- he's a worse
president than Jean Marie Balestre. Unfortunately, MM is a much
better professional lier^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpolitician.
 This BTW explains why most drivers don't steer when they leave
the track at high speeds.
there's *always* something tempting