Clipped Wings: An F1 Proposal

Inspired by this thread.

Colin Chapman in 1968 introduced wings to F1. The tall, spindly-mounted devices were restricted, but not banned. What if FIA had banned aero aids entirely, instead?
 
IIRC, they were banned in 1969 after a frightening accident in the Spanish (??) GP that year. After that, we started seeing a more "blended" set of aerodynamics.

Just beware of my faulty memory . . .

bobinleipsic
 
IIRC, they were banned in 1969 after a frightening accident in the Spanish (??) GP that year. After that, we started seeing a more "blended" set of aerodynamics.

Just beware of my faulty memory . . .

bobinleipsic
Yeah, the high-mount wings were. I mean, ban wings entire.
 
One of two things:

1) They come back in the 1970s as people realise that you can't go around tight corners with large engines without some sort of aerodynamic aid. And considering most of the tracks in Europe at the time had tight corners (without chicanes), it's going to come up.

2) They don't come back, and F1 evolves into NASCAR-style oval tracks, which are the only way to go fast without wings.

Either way, you're going to end up with even more dead drivers as the teams push wingless cars further than they can safely go.

And, FWIW, what was banned in 1969 was wings mounted to the axe, which provides more downforce, but it more dangerous if it comes off. All aero surfaces since then have to be attached to bodywork, and thus transmit the downforce through the suspension, providing some give in case the wing falls off.
 
simonbp said:
One of two things:

1) They come back in the 1970s as people realise that you can't go around tight corners with large engines without some sort of aerodynamic aid. And considering most of the tracks in Europe at the time had tight corners (without chicanes), it's going to come up.

2) They don't come back, and F1 evolves into NASCAR-style oval tracks, which are the only way to go fast without wings.

Either way, you're going to end up with even more dead drivers as the teams push wingless cars further than they can safely go.
So why do speeds have to continue to go up?:confused: And why can't FIA respond by mandating improved safety systems (not unlike OTL:rolleyes:), narrower rubber, smaller-displacement engines, higher minimum weights, or any of a variety of other measures? And if that is the approach (which is what I'm hoping...;)), what do they do & why?
simonbp said:
what was banned in 1969 was wings mounted to the axe, which provides more downforce, but it more dangerous if it comes off. All aero surfaces since then have to be attached to bodywork, and thus transmit the downforce through the suspension, providing some give in case the wing falls off.
I did know that.:rolleyes: IIRC, they were banned as unsafe because they were suspension-mounted, & the mountings were too flimsy,:eek: & they moved...
 
Because it's F1, and if they're not constantly going faster, the sport will die. You can't just go around calling yourself the "World Championship" if a podunk Indy car can beat around a track.

And "increased safety measures" at the time means, bluntly, not fatally crashing. No wings means more banked corners, which means more disasters like Monza where spectators die. The Monza incident very nearly killed the sport (not F1, all of spectator motorsport was nearly banned), and a second one would have.
 
Top