There's a story on Autosport about the adjustable rear wing that comes into force next season and I just don't understand how the thing works. I guess that's probably down to the fact that it works in a similar way to the F-duct, which I didn't understand either. What's the point of replacing one thing with another if they both do a similar job?

My real moment of confusion comes with this statement

Does that infer that there will be some in-board monitoring to make sure that the driver in front doesn't use his rear wing and what would it do if he did. Perhaps it's through my own confusion about this but it seems a bit mickey mouse. I thought we wanted to get back to the situation where we had less aero involvement and less influence of the wings, not more?

Wow your english is a whole lot better than many native speakers, I'd doubt many of us could converse fluently in another language. Where are you from?

Thanks!

I'm from Serbia.

The whole concept of the adjustable rear wing for low drag seems totally flawed to me.

The reasoning for its introduction is that it is (allegedly) difficult for a following car to stay close in the corners due to loss of downforce, which unfairly handicaps the follower. Thus to make up for one disadvantage they give the follower an advantage elsewhere.

But the correct fix should be to make it fair, by allowing a following car to maintain downforce by adjusting the wings the opposite way to that proposed, for more downforce. Then they can stay close in the corners, and they have a chance to overtake provided they and their car are fast enough.

The football analogy would be that one team has less players so they are given a 3 goal head start, when they should simply make sure they have the same number of players, so there is no disadvantage.

I can see the situation at some circuits where drivers' tactics are to not be in the lead on the last lap, so they can use the unfair advantage on the last straight of the race.

I think your last statement kind of answers your own questions Rick: they want the overtaking advantage to be on the straights, not the corners; hence, giving them a "less downforce" option rather than a "more downforce" option. When you combine this with the KERS system, I think what you will see is that if a car is fast enough to catch up to someone while using neither advantage, they will be able to easily get by them as soon as they reach the longest straight on the track. Which, in the end, won't create a lot of "exciting" overtakes, but I think it will do as they intend and allow a "faster" car to get around a "slower" one.

I see that the winning name selected for Silverstone's new pit complex is after this very piece of gadgetry (well it can't because of the building because it looks nothing like a wing.)

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present... The Silverstone Wing
http://www.silverstone.co.uk/news/lates ... or-Racing/

(No, it's not a hospital before you ask)

_________________
Yossarian Lives

Very catchy (not!)

Oooohhh-errr... am joining this one a little late



That's a tactic sometimes used on the Super Speedway's in the US to catch those ahead.

_________________
The F1 and Motorsports Archive
http://theformulaoneandmotorsportsarchive.wordpress.com

Also, I believe I read last week that Charlie Whiting is to nominate straights upon which the stalled wing can be used.
Not a fan of this rule at all - it just seems like they're once again the FIA are avoiding the issue of poor circuits and difficult cars.

_________________
The F1 and Motorsports Archive
http://theformulaoneandmotorsportsarchive.wordpress.com

I think the FIA would be quick to act to clamp down on that - they may even be prepared to cite the disrepute article anyway

_________________
Yossarian Lives

I heard that and couldn't really figure out the reasoning for it (because surely they'll pick the favoured place to use it anyway)

_________________
Yossarian Lives

I think it they can actually pull out some advantage doing that, it should be allowed. At least we would see something new in F1.