Fia Unveils Radical Plans For 2011

[Max Mosley 2]

And yes you did sound slightly arrogant in 1 of the posts, but I know you aren't nor intended to sound arrogant, either!

You give me too much credit as always, but I won't complain!

[pabloh20 1]

You give me too much credit as always, but I won't complain!

Well Ali always said 'it's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am!' Maybe you should use that line!

[Quiet One 15]

Cheers Paul! I sounded a little arrogant myself in my last posts, which wasn't the intention. Anyway, I appreciate your comments. DOF just makes me laugh. He seems to think a masters makes you a genius.

I agree with DOF, you have no clue and you never had it. You are an incompetent dimwit and I am wasting no more time with you!

(What ? You wanted more agression on the Forum! )

Good job Muzza! You have irritated DOF enough as to make him show some personality! No offense meant DOF, I really appreciate your knowledge of the golden era of F1, but you repeated the same posts so many times it sounded like a chanting from some cult. Once this little argument you are having with Muzza wears out, I hope to hear you posting on other subjects as well. Welcome to the fierce side of TF1

From my part, I've always been a Renault fan, but also loved to watch drivers from other teams. F1 is about both. F1 was always a complex system were teams, drivers and regulations played their part. Many of the greatest drivers had a mediocre or inexistent record of WDCs but that never meant they got forgotten or not recognized as GOATs. Nor was old F1 much better than today's. We just take 50 years of F1, recall just the good moments and compare them against nowadays F1, that's not fair! Balestre's era was almost like a dark age, people always complained that F1 was being killed. Ditto when turbos appeared. F1 just changes a lot from age to age, more so than most sports. Still, I think that the 3 elements must be kept and balanced: Teams, Drivers, Regulations.

[ecapdeville 0]

Murray, or Muzza, may be many things...

Yes...he can be many things...but I think he is telling the truth from his point of view, I that am really far from the F1 world could share the point of view of DOF, but since Murray tells he knows the circus I belive him.

ahhh, and He is arrogant too.

cheers and play fair boys!

[YHR 0]

Quite frankly it's obvious you're the one not having a clue.

And you showed it in most of your posts. Anyone who talks about spec-ing F1 clearly doesn't have any clue what it's all about.

And because you're just one or two exception proves it. You're just a nut case who bash/insult drivers and teams and their hard work, and would like to GP racing for the sake of your twisting fantasies.

This is an incredible observation, I am overwhelmed

Chubby Checker does it for me.

Lets Twist again

Like we did last summer

Lets twist again like we did last year

[YHR 0]

Using the stats in Germany, and the loss of MS to validate drivers are not important to fans, is flawed

Germany is interested, because

BMW

Mercedes

SAP

RS

NH

Vettel

I can't think of another country other then England that has more input into F1 then Germany.

Drivers matter, and they should matter. I am all behind any move to increase the importance the driver has on the outcome of an F1 race.

These are cars man, not space ships. Cars are built to be driven. The ultimate passion is driving a car on the edge of out of control. With the current technology you might as well send them off on a rail every 10 seconds and see the gap open or close. That's about how much passion there is shown driving these cars now.

When all the position changes happen during pit stops you have a serious problem on your hands. I hope F1 gets it figured out

[Max Mosley 2]

Once this little argument you are having with Muzza wears out, I hope to hear you posting on other subjects as well. Welcome to the fierce side of TF1

Yes. I respect DOF's knowledge about GP racing in the past. I find that a fascinating subject. Hopefully he can continue to educate us all about that.

From my part, I've always been a Renault fan, but also loved to watch drivers from other teams. F1 is about both. F1 was always a complex system were teams, drivers and regulations played their part. Many of the greatest drivers had a mediocre or inexistent record of WDCs but that never meant they got forgotten or not recognized as GOATs. Nor was old F1 much better than today's. We just take 50 years of F1, recall just the good moments and compare them against nowadays F1, that's not fair! Balestre's era was almost like a dark age, people always complained that F1 was being killed. Ditto when turbos appeared. F1 just changes a lot from age to age, more so than most sports. Still, I think that the 3 elements must be kept and balanced: Teams, Drivers, Regulations.

Each to their own Andres! I don't mind it when people prefer different things, obviously. It's only a matter of personal choice. I still think most people would prefer to see a fair drivers contest with no teams. I actually think you would enjoy it more too, but you just don't realise it yet! Anyway, I like these new FIA proposals!

Yes...he can be many things...but I think he is telling the truth from his point of view, I that am really far from the F1 world could share the point of view of DOF, but since Murray tells he knows the circus I belive him.

Well, I'm not saying I know the F1 circus. I've never worked there. (But some friends do.) What I'm saying is that the technical innovation in F1 is nowhere near as high as some people seem to believe.

If you look at how well qualified the engineers in F1 are, you'll see that they are quite well qualified but they're not geniuses. You don't have to believe anything about my academic record to see that this is true. I mean, does anyone here seriously think that Adrian Newey is as smart as Stephen Hawking? Does Brawn compare to Einstein? Is Geoff Willis as smart as a Nobel Prize winner? No of course not.

I just want people to get it into perspective! The people in F1 are smart, but not real geniuses. The science/engineering in F1 is innovative, but not as innovative as the work in any good university.

Finally, on a related matter, I don't understand why people pretend to care about the technical side so much. Very, very few people (even!) on this site know the basics let alone the details of how an F1 car works.

ahhh, and He is arrogant too.

A wise man once said 'it's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am!'. Thanks for capitalising He, though. God gets it so why shouldn't I?

Drivers matter, and they should matter. I am all behind any move to increase the importance the driver has on the outcome of an F1 race.

Yeah I agree................................ Damnit, it doesn't get any easier.

[monza gorilla 1]

Customer cars, yes. Spec cars, no.

[Eric 0]

And along with that do you have a Bachelors an/or a Masters from places like Oxford, Cambridge, Southampton, Bristol, or the Imperial College, London ?!

I worked with a guy who got a degree from Harvard. We had the same job. He got fired. I got promoted. I didn't go to an elite school. People who graduate from schools like those just have a stereotype that they're genuises. A lot of the reasont they go to those schools is they have the money.

Furthermore, just because Murray's in the minority doesn't mean he's wrong. He agrees with me, so I think he's 100% right.

Though of course he did promote my blog that one time, so I'm sort of forced to agree with him...

-Eric

[Autumnpuma 0]

Good Lord! A lot of posts here I'd love to respond to, but I don't have the next three years to type it all...so here's a smattering of replies.

Also I see no one has been able to answer my question about how movable aero devices will ease overtaking, despite you all pretending that technical innovation is the main reason you watch F1..

With current regs, the rear wing creates a big 'hole' in the air right behind the leading car that causes a drop in the downforce levels of the trailing car's front wing. The flexible rear wing would eliminate most of this 'hole' in the air, allowing the trailing car to then have more front-end grip. It sounds good in a boardroom, but in reality it wouldn't help much. The crucial part of overtaking is right at corner entry, where speeds, and downforce, are low. In that situation, you need mechanical grip...and the proposed changes wouldn't allow for that. All flexible wings really do is to increase straight-line speeds.

Exit oversteer for example.

There's already a great way to deal with this...it's called the 'right foot'.

Yes of course. F1 has a long tradition of producing meaningless WDC's. No one other than me (who hates it) and you (who seem to accept it) understand that. One day everyone else will wake up.

I hope you're being sarcastic....

All WDC's have battled for their crowns. Some, like Phil Hill, battled to stay close in points to his teammate..and thereby gained the title after Wolfgang died. A 'lucky' title? I don't see it that way. Every competition is a matter of playing the variables to your best advantage. Phil did it better than everybody else that year, including Wofgang. Phil fought to stay within reach of Von Tripps and he got the reward for that hard work. All WDC's are worth a great deal. Look at Jacques Villeneuve. He had a dominant car for sure but his WDC was riddled with battles. Perhaps not any real battles with other teams, but certainly with his teammate and even his team (Patrick Head in particular).

Just looking at the performance of the cars relative to each other is a very simple way of judging this sport. There are hidden battles that we don't realize are going on that would crush a lesser man. Going back to JV...who of the current crop of F1 driver would have the sheer balls to defy Patrick Head? JV wanted a particular bit on his car but Head wanted him to change the part for a newer one. Head was at that time throwing all his support behind Frentzen. JV changed the serial numbers on his preferred bit to match Head's requested bit and JV won the race..by battling Head for it. These are the types of things that make a Champion. The drive to constantly be the best in the sport and doing everything you can to be that 'best'.

Of course Mike hates the proposals, for reasons that aren't at all clear to me.

I'll list my reasons...perhaps tonight.

GP racing was born as a competition for manufacturers/teams.

True, but when you talk of Grand Prix racing, you need to differentiate that from the Formula 1 World Championship. Whist one was created as a manufacturer driven open competition on a race-by-race basis, the other was born of engine and chassis rules from the very start. Regulation has been the legacy of Formula 1 since it's inception in the 50's.

Do you know what Scuderia means ?!

Squad, I believe. Going by the context of Murray's post, you are trying to make a correlation to the prancing horse and horse chariot racing, no? If I read your intent correctly (and I may not) then you perhaps meant to ask "Do you know what Cavallino means?" Cavallino means horse or cavalry and is the reason for the horse logo on the Ferrari emblem.

[Max Mosley 2]

With current regs, the rear wing creates a big 'hole' in the air right behind the leading car that causes a drop in the downforce levels of the trailing car's front wing. The flexible rear wing would eliminate most of this 'hole' in the air, allowing the trailing car to then have more front-end grip. It sounds good in a boardroom, but in reality it wouldn't help much. The crucial part of overtaking is right at corner entry, where speeds, and downforce, are low. In that situation, you need mechanical grip...and the proposed changes wouldn't allow for that. All flexible wings really do is to increase straight-line speeds.

Cheers Mike, but it's still not clear to me. Are you saying that the car in front will trim its rear wings (so it produces less downforce, and a smaller hole in the air) in the corners, or at least at corner entry? I've probably misunderstood you, because that doesn't sound very likely to me, unless the FIA forces them to do it via a mandated, standardised device, but this is penalising a car for having another car behind, which seems ridiculous. The only way I can make sense of the idea is if the car behind is allowed to adjust its wings so as to have more downforce in the corners, whereas the car in front is not allowed. Presumably the FIA would do this with some kind of standardised system.

All WDC's have battled for their crowns. Some, like Phil Hill, battled to stay close in points to his teammate..and thereby gained the title after Wolfgang died. A 'lucky' title? I don't see it that way. Every competition is a matter of playing the variables to your best advantage. Phil did it better than everybody else that year, including Wofgang. Phil fought to stay within reach of Von Tripps and he got the reward for that hard work. All WDC's are worth a great deal. Look at Jacques Villeneuve. He had a dominant car for sure but his WDC was riddled with battles. Perhaps not any real battles with other teams, but certainly with his teammate and even his team (Patrick Head in particular).

Just looking at the performance of the cars relative to each other is a very simple way of judging this sport. There are hidden battles that we don't realize are going on that would crush a lesser man. Going back to JV...who of the current crop of F1 driver would have the sheer balls to defy Patrick Head? JV wanted a particular bit on his car but Head wanted him to change the part for a newer one. Head was at that time throwing all his support behind Frentzen. JV changed the serial numbers on his preferred bit to match Head's requested bit and JV won the race..by battling Head for it. These are the types of things that make a Champion. The drive to constantly be the best in the sport and doing everything you can to be that 'best'.

But Jacques Villeneuve wasn't the best! Neither was Damon Hill. It's not clear that Alonso was/is either. Even MS, who at least was the best when he won, won mainly because of his car. I'm not saying JV didn't achieve a lot - of course he did. But he wasn't the best by any means and personally I think the best driver should be crowned champion. Anything else is meaningless, or at least far less meaningful than it should be. Thanks for the story about Villeneuve though, I enjoyed it and didn't know it before.

I'll list my reasons...perhaps tonight.

I look forward to them.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Cheers Mike, but it's still not clear to me. Are you saying that the car in front will trim its rear wings (so it produces less downforce, and a smaller hole in the air) in the corners, or at least at corner entry? I've probably misunderstood you, because that doesn't sound very likely to me, unless the FIA forces them to do it via a mandated, standardised device, but this is penalising a car for having another car behind, which seems ridiculous. The only way I can make sense of the idea is if the car behind is allowed to adjust its wings so as to have more downforce in the corners, whereas the car in front is not allowed. Presumably the FIA would do this with some kind of standardised system.

The new proposed regulations allow for flexible rear wings (which were banned this year) which will flatten out on the straights (if I'm reading the regs correctly) reducing downforce but more importantly allowing air to flow more easily behind a car. This particular regulation will not increase overtaking moves as erroneously advertised by the FIA. The reason this will not increase overtaking is that when the leading car slows down for a slow corner (those that are most often used for overtaking) the flexible rear wing will flex back into it's high downforce position and the trailing car will lose all it's air over it's front wing right when it needs that air the most. Without that air over it's front wings, and with the current grooved tyres, there isn't going to be more mechanical or aero grip than we currently have.

The flexing wings are not a mechanical device as I think I'm understanding your post to say....

But Jacques Villeneuve wasn't the best! Neither was Damon Hill. It's not clear that Alonso was/is either. Even MS, who at least was the best when he won, won mainly because of his car. I'm not saying JV didn't achieve a lot - of course he did. But he wasn't the best by any means and personally I think the best driver should be crowned champion. Anything else is meaningless, or at least far less meaningful than it should be. Thanks for the story about Villeneuve though, I enjoyed it and didn't know it before.

Hmm....I suppose you define 'best' in a more distilled way than I do. I define 'best' as playing all the variables of a competition (team politics, car set-up, qualy strategy, race strategy, actual driving [racecraft]) better than everybody else competing. When you say the best car wins, that is true as far as it goes, but what makes that car the best when the top three teams are separated by tenths of a second? Driver input on the set-up usually makes a difference. Strategy during the race can win or lose you the race, regardless of how 'best' your car is.

Jacques Villeneuve was the best in his championship year as I define 'best' because he landed a seat in the dominant team when the other drivers failed to do that, he bucked his team (who were favoring Frentzen) to ensure his car was set-up how he wanted it, went out and raced with a minimum of mistakes to land in the points enough to win the championship at the end of the season. All of that made him the 'best' in that year. Was he the best driver? Possibly not, but being the best at sawing the wheel has always been only one small part of being a WDC.

Even in a spec series, like GP2 or ChampCar, the best driver doesn't always win. The team or driver that sets up their car more efficiently for any given track has a huge advantage over the competition. I understand what you are wanting for the WDC; you want to know that the person with the best driving ability has won the race. The only way to ensure that is to have the FIA supply each team with identical cars, all set-up identically, and let the drivers race with them. No tyre changes, no pit stops. No team giving advice. Just the get in the pre-prepared car and drive. That would be a fun series to watch, but it wouldn't hold my attention for long. I like the complex, organic nature of Formula 1. I like to know the winner has juggled more variables than just driving the car.

I suppose it's all about effort. I like that the team who puts forth the most effort reaps the biggest rewards. Equalizing the field is a nice concept, but it eliminates a good part of the effort currently required. Instead of lowering the bar for everybody, I prefer to see the rest of the field put forth the effort required to leap that bar at it's current position.

[pumpdoc 2]

I'll put it blunly, bring back ground effects or active suspension. Then we will see passing again.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'll put it blunly, bring back ground effects or active suspension. Then we will see passing again.

Yup. More chassis, not greeblie, generated downforce combined with slicks will do the trick nicely. Increase mechanical grip. Period.

This will probably rile DOF, but it really shouldn't. Innovation is more than just aerodynamics and we need to get back to that point.

[monza gorilla 1]

Yes indeedy.

[Max Mosley 2]

The flexing wings are not a mechanical device as I think I'm understanding your post to say....

Yeah I thought flexi wings are different to what they're talking about in this case. I looked back and Mosley says "active and passive" movable aero devices and I assumed active meant some kind of mechanical system. Maybe I've got it wrong, but I thought DOF was talking along the same lines as me earlier too. There seems to be genuine confusion here, between the FIA, the media and us the fans. (The autosport article talks about "active flexi wings". Does this even make sense?)

Like you say, I wouldn't have thought "passive" flexi wings would help overtaking much.

Jacques Villeneuve was the best in his championship year as I define 'best' because he landed a seat in the dominant team when the other drivers failed to do that, he bucked his team (who were favoring Frentzen) to ensure his car was set-up how he wanted it, went out and raced with a minimum of mistakes to land in the points enough to win the championship at the end of the season. All of that made him the 'best' in that year. Was he the best driver? Possibly not, but being the best at sawing the wheel has always been only one small part of being a WDC.

If you're happy to include this skill in the assessment of your drivers, then F1 is perfect, I agree. But personally I think this is a very unattractive part of F1. It makes F1 into a game of picking winners. It's just glorified betting on horse racing, played by players who are fantastic at racing cars but not at picking winners! And the worst thing is, this skill is really the main skill in modern F1. Mind you, skill perhaps isn't even the right word because there's a lot of luck involved. To take JV again, I'm sure Schumi could have gone to Williams if he'd wanted to. So really he gifted the WDC to JV from the start. Finally what do you say in the other extreme? For example, if JV takes credit for picking Williams, presumably he has to take the blame for getting unceremoniously booted out of F1 (twice).

Also I do see what you mean about "bucking the team" but I don't think we should penalise Schumi for working well with the team. I think Schumi was better behind the scenes than JV any day. He probably didn't have to buck his team because they trusted him completely.

Hmm....I suppose you define 'best' in a more distilled way than I do. I define 'best' as playing all the variables of a competition (team politics, car set-up, qualy strategy, race strategy, actual driving [racecraft]) better than everybody else competing. When you say the best car wins, that is true as far as it goes, but what makes that car the best when the top three teams are separated by tenths of a second? Driver input on the set-up usually makes a difference. Strategy during the race can win or lose you the race, regardless of how 'best' your car is.

Yeah, I thought at the time that this was where we differ. Right now I include things like playing politics in my definition, but I'd rather not, as you have already gathered. You have to be careful though with things like race or qualy strategy because most of this is worked out by boffins in the team, rather than the drivers. What I would like to see is a series where the FIA provide identical cars, like you say. Basic set-up work and strategising would be done by the drivers (or not at all, I don't care too much*). Probably the drivers would actually end up doing far more strategic planning than they do now. Racecraft would be just as important as nowadays hopefully. Honestly nowadays I think any driver contribution is about 10x smaller than the team's contribution. He might make a little difference in set up, development etc but nowhere near as much as the designers do.

*Because all you're looking at in strategy is the work of some anonymous boffin really. As I said earlier I actually know a McLaren boffin, who writes computer programs to plan out the optimal strategy. If you want strategy from boffins, world championship chess would be more up my street!

Even in a spec series, like GP2 or ChampCar, the best driver doesn't always win. The team or driver that sets up their car more efficiently for any given track has a huge advantage over the competition. I understand what you are wanting for the WDC; you want to know that the person with the best driving ability has won the race. The only way to ensure that is to have the FIA supply each team with identical cars, all set-up identically, and let the drivers race with them. No tyre changes, no pit stops. No team giving advice. Just the get in the pre-prepared car and drive. That would be a fun series to watch, but it wouldn't hold my attention for long. I like the complex, organic nature of Formula 1. I like to know the winner has juggled more variables than just driving the car.

Yeah. You explain my proposal better than I do. I think that series would be a great success! For a start the driving would be much harder.

I suppose it's all about effort. I like that the team who puts forth the most effort reaps the biggest rewards. Equalizing the field is a nice concept, but it eliminates a good part of the effort currently required. Instead of lowering the bar for everybody, I prefer to see the rest of the field put forth the effort required to leap that bar at it's current position.

Basically I'm suggesting getting rid of the teams altogether, so it would just be a driver contest. That wouldn't be lowering the bar for everyone. It would be changing who we mean by "everyone" from "team(+driver)" to just "driver". The FIA's proposals would make the teams less important, so in some sense I guess that's lowering the bar. But the best teams will still have an advantage and rise to the top I'm sure (unfortunately for me).

[DOF_power 0]

>

^ Great posts Mike, but ...

you did make some mistakes

Regulations have been the legacy of GP racing since before WWI, yes before WWI. That's when the formulaes were introduced. Then came the championships. Between 1925 and 1927 there was WC for manufacturers, and from '31 the European Driver Championship.

The formulas acted as a catalyst leading to the differentiation between stock/sport car racing an GP racing. It led to the first GP racercars.

AIACR regulated weight, that until the silver arrows reached 646 HP and 380 Km/h on the AVUS track and 400 Km/h+ on the autobahns.

This was in 1937. So AIACR stepped in and reduced/regulated engine displacement to 3.0 SC/4.5 NA litres coupled to weight.

Now a new parallel formula appeared, the voiturettes.

So you had:

- formula 4.5 NA/3.0 SC litre = silver arrows titans class = overall winners

- formula 1.5 ltr. = voiturette class

Pre 38 there was the 750 Kg formulae.

And ofcourse before there was the formula libre and before the formula 2 litre.

After WWII, in 1950 the (Grand Epreuves) EDC became the (F1) WDC

and the formula 1.5 becamed Formula 1 = same cars/regulations, even same drivers in some cases like Farina.

That's because the germans and their 3/4.5 litre cars were banned.

So in effect Formula 1 was (initially the old) the formulae 1.5/voiturette class . And in GP racing regulation appeared long before 1950/F1.

[monza gorilla 1]

Can't help but disagree with you dear chap. There are any number of spec series out there to cater for your wishes. All you have to do is convince the drivers to take part in them.

*edit: I really must use quotes. This post is directed at Murray*

[DOF_power 0]

Using the stats in Germany, and the loss of MS to validate drivers are not important to fans, is flawed

Germany is interested, because

BMW

Mercedes

SAP

RS

NH

Vettel

I can't think of another country other then England that has more input into F1 then Germany.

Drivers matter, and they should matter. I am all behind any move to increase the importance the driver has on the outcome of an F1 race.

These are cars man, not space ships. Cars are built to be driven. The ultimate passion is driving a car on the edge of out of control. With the current technology you might as well send them off on a rail every 10 seconds and see the gap open or close. That's about how much passion there is shown driving these cars now.

When all the position changes happen during pit stops you have a serious problem on your hands. I hope F1 gets it figured out

But in the "golden" old days, driving just 0.0001% over the limit meant a DNF, serious injury or certain death.

Only 6 to 10 cars out of 20/22 would finish the race, and there could be as much as 7 laps between the winning car and the last car to finish.

The only cars capable of trully being streched over the limit, properly, without killing the driver in the process, were the active ride cars.

GP cars differentiated themselves from sport cars/production cars, a long time ago, ~1930.

Since the very first GP, there were such gaps, and they were always to be found in GP/F1.

Here is the fuel MB used in the 1930s GP cars:

86.0 % metyl alcohol

4.4 % nitro benzol

8.8 % acetone

0.8 % ether

This is more like rocket fuel and/or an incendiary bomb then car fuel.

[Max Mosley 2]

Damnit. @Russ: Fair point but I think the drivers come to F1 mainly for other reasons. It's accepted as the pinnacle open wheel series in the world, where all the other top drivers are. I reckon most drivers would love to all have identical cars so they could prove themselves against the best! Isn't that why Senna went to McLaren, for example? But no one's going to go to champ cars or the IRL to do that right now. (Also there's money involved.) As you say, I'd love it if all the top F1 drivers left for CCWS. Maybe that's what I should campaign for from now on!

[DOF_power 0]

Isn't that why Senna went to McLaren, for example?

Nope. Senna went to McLaren because he wanted the best/top car. That's why he left for Williams at the end of 1993. He also refused Ferrari's offer because they didn't had the best car.

[Quiet One 15]

Excuse my ignorance, but what I understood from the new FIA plans was that they would use some kind of computer controlled aero surface (like an airplane's aileron). Not just a flexi wing but a wing whose angle of attack or whatever its technical name is can be changed actively via some electromechanical device.

Does that make any sense?

[DOF_power 0]

Yes, the documents with the proposal talk of exactly that.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah that's what I thought. However it's not surprising that we're confused about it because even autosport are talking about flexi wings, which are different, and also under consideration.

Nope. Senna went to McLaren because he wanted the best/top car. That's why he left for Williams at the end of 1993. He also refused Ferrari's offer because they didn't had the best car.

OK, I think I read that he wanted to beat Prost specifically somewhere. He certainly said after Prost took his sabbatical that much of his motivation came from trying to beat Prost. I think most drivers would welcome having equal machinery. If they don't then they're cowards (Senna agreed because he accused Prost of being a coward when he felt Prost prevented him being Prost's team mate at Williams in 1993.).

Either way it was only an example. Given the way F1 works you have to have the best car to win, so it's not surprising that they behave that way. I don't think it's a positive quality of the sport, and yet it is the main thing you need to do to be WDC.

[Quiet One 15]

Yes, the documents with the proposal talk of exactly that.

Good! Then if these movable aero devices are responsive enough, maybe the car can "navigate" through the front car's turbulence like a plane would do and not lose as much downforce as today. Just an idea.