[andrepd]

>If it made any difference whatsoever, the Drivers would complain and whine about it relentlessly

While that's a pretty accurate characterisation of pretty much every single pilot that has ever driven in F1, I wonder if they have clauses in the contract saying that they cannot publicly criticise the FIA/F1 organisers about stuff like that.

[Swizec]

Maybe it’s part of the sport and averages out? I bet they don’t get ti complain about the weight of cameras on board either.

Organizers get to make the rules. If heliwash means more spectators, then so be it as long as it doesn’t impede safety.

[Infernal]

Actually, they do get to complain about the weight of cameras on board. Back in the 90’s, before there was a camera on every car, they put dummy cameras of the same size and weight on every car that didn’t have a real camera on it, so there was no weight or aero advantage either way.

[Swizec]

I did not know that. That’s neat.

Guess the point I was trying to make is that as long as everyone experiences the same disadvantage on average, then it’s okay because this is a spectator sport not a “Lets make the fastest lap times” kind of thing.

Cameras are pretty light now but I’m sure you could make a case that cars would be faster/better without them.

[jdietrich]

The weight of the cameras doesn't really make a difference, because everyone has to carry them and so nobody is put at a disadvantage. What does matter is the aerodynamics of the camera pods - the rules give manufacturers some degree of latitude with regards to the design and placement of the outboard camera pods, so they can be manipulated to provide a tiny aerodynamic advantage.