Unregulated and unrestricted aerodynamics

An open letter to the FIA (which will never be read anyway). 

Remove all limits and regulations on aerodynamics restricting car designers in F1. Let them have a go at building cars that are meant to be aggressive racing vehicles, which actually look like they belong to the pinnacle of motorsport. 

It stirs up the competition - more creative ideas, innovative designs and concepts. Limitations on engines and other non-aero features can still be present. Imagine the cars, the competition and the racing we'd have in Formula 1 if engineers were given complete freedom in the aero department. 

This imaginary world would probably look something like this:

Imagine all the variations and the different design ideas. A world that promotes innovation and creativity the way F1 is supposed to promote technology. Of course, such a world is an extreme fairytale since safety measures limit awesome aero designs. 

Still, I believe giving complete freedom to aerodynamicists is what Formula 1 needs to re-establish its reputation. 

It'd be interesting to see the Red Bull in winter testing(but you can see that in Gran Turismo) but after that the entire show would collapse.

So unless you want to pay for it all...

I suspect "complete freedom to aerodynamists" would mean never seeing a car passing another again; or at least close to it. 

I'd prefer the complete opposite, take away ALL aerodynamic devices; in other words, no wings at all.

Neil

cars so aerodynimical on the limit there would be no chance to overtake, no way to stay close in a corner. no racing, just complaining fans...................... no thanks really.

This imaginary world would probably look something like this:

It would look anything but his.

No open wheels or cockpit, no mirrors, no roll bar, etc.

Drivers would black out in the corners from the g, and probably fatalities when they go off because of cornering speeds.

You'll have cars that could never pass each other, are covered in aerodynamic monstrosities, and worst of all outright dangerous from the extreme corner speeds.

Why on earth do you think that would be better?

Remove all limits and regulations on aerodynamics restricting car designers in F1.

Sorry that would result in aeroplanes on wheels that would be far too fast, the drivers would require G-suits and certainly would not look like the early 1990s F1 and CART cars that your (admittedly cool looking) suggested concepts look like.

You'd obviously have active aero, with variable geometry wings (think DRS turned up to 11), air brakes and rudders. Oh and you'd have turbulence generating flaps that you could switch on when another car got close behind you to ruin his aero performance.

Obviously engineers would be sensible with the idea since they are not idiots. They know there are human beings in those cars, they will not design rocketships on 4 wheels that cause g forces to the point that they'd lead to black outs. 

I'm talking about disposing of all the aero rules that lead to the recent ugly design of the cars, say, post-2006. 

Edited by Cyanide, 12 December 2013 - 22:55.

What about the ugly cars of pre-2006?

Well obviously you're not talking about completely unrestricted aero. But actually, F1 need heavily restricted aero for the cars to maintain some ability to race against each other. The current rules are actually a step in the right direction.

Wouldn't the cars would use ground effect. Wings + ground effect = huge downforce, but would the drag from the wings be worth it if the ground effect is unlimited? As Cyanide mentions, there's only so much cornering force a driver can cope with. Perhaps the wings would be for tweaking the balance. And even sensible tyres can only cope with so much downforce.

The rear wing would surely be higher up than we see in the image. They would want it in clean air, not air that's been disturbed by the rest of the car.

Yes the cars would use ground effects and wings, but they'd only need to produce a certain amount of downforce for cornering. You'd trim the car out on the straights (this is totally unrestricted aero remember) and then you'd use the aero to help steer the car meaning the cornering limit wouldn't be restricted to what the tyres could take.

I'd forgotten about movable devices. Imagine what air brakes would look like. The driver brakes, and these huge flaps rise up out of the sidepods, then they drop down just before the corner. As the driver turns, the wings become steeper. It'd be a bugger for turbulent air but it would be quite a spectacle.

How about unilmited aero, but engine size limited to 100cc

Doesn't matter.  The air moves over each car the same way.  Over a few years the cars will start to look the same and probably kind of weird as the teams figure out the tiny bumps and winglets that maximize load or reduce drag for the spec....   The die was set for race car appearance once Jim Hall put wings and ground effects on the Chapparal in 65 / 66.   

Doesn't matter.  The air moves over each car the same way.  Over a few years the cars will start to look the same and probably kind of weird as the teams figure out the tiny bumps and winglets that maximize load or reduce drag for the spec....   The die was set for race car appearance once Jim Hall put wings and ground effects on the Chapparal in 65 / 66.   

+1

The cars have quite a lot of downforce as it is. I would like to see how a current car with proper tires, a 2004 engine and no KERS (=lighter, the KERS is not even worth its weight in lap time) would compare to a 2004 car.

An open letter to the FIA (which will never be read anyway). 

 

Remove all limits and regulations on aerodynamics restricting car designers in F1. Let them have a go at building cars that are meant to be aggressive racing vehicles, which actually look like they belong to the pinnacle of motorsport. 

I think Adrian has already had a go at that:

Hum.... nah.

Obviously engineers would be sensible with the idea since they are not idiots. They know there are human beings in those cars, they will not design rocketships on 4 wheels that cause g forces to the point that they'd lead to black outs. 

 

I'm talking about disposing of all the aero rules that lead to the recent ugly design of the cars, say, post-2006. 

F1 being what it is they would always be pushing the limits of what the human can take and we'd have a situation where drivers were being chosen on their ability to handle g rather than driving ability.

Even if you ignore that, the cornering speeds would be so high as to be prohibitively dangerous.

I think the fact is that regulating the sport has become exceedingly difficult and a slightly weird nose is a very small price to pay to maintain safety and good racing.

 

I think Adrian has already had a go at that:

 

 

More suitable to Le Mans. 

 

I think Adrian has already had a go at that:

 

 

I wish F1 cars could look like that.

I wish F1 cars could look like that.

Like LMP1 cars? 

There would be no overtaking in F1, ever again.

Like LMP1 cars? 

I've never seen an LMP car look like that. They have full floors and (supposedly) two seats.

Unrestricted aero?

No please not!
The application of aero is the one thing that has damaged F1 in the past 15 or so years.

in 2004 there was less aero with 900+ Hp V10s, this year with restricted aero and some 750 hp or so, yet the cars were potentially almost as fast. Imagine them with some of the 2004 aero that was still permitted then.

That is how much potential Aero has.

About the only thing that should make unrstricte aero possible is that the power is reduced dramatically to such low leverls that hi drag aero equipment to generate high cornerspeeds is so draggy that straightline speeds are so slow that a compromise is needed.

Can you envision the outcry of most out here if power is reduced to some 400 or less hp to compensate for Aero advances??

So...


Henri

2004 F1 cars are a number of SECONDS faster than a 2013 car. Downforce levels were huge in 2004 despite the 'simpler' cars - they had powerful diffusers and much larger rear wings. And since they had over 900BHP they could run much more wing angle to produce the downforce.

A 2004 F1 car on 2006 tyres would probably be the fastest ever.

2004 F1 cars are a number of SECONDS faster than a 2013 car. Downforce levels were huge in 2004 despite the 'simpler' cars - they had powerful diffusers and much larger rear wings. And since they had over 900BHP they could run much more wing angle to produce the downforce.
 
A 2004 F1 car on 2006 tyres would probably be the fastest ever.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 13 December 2013 - 09:31.

F1 wouldn't look like those cars... they are fantasy cars. Not cars created by designers with no limits.

The Ferrari is stunning though,

There were some theoretical times suggested when that Newey Red Bull concept was out. Way way too fast basically. Drivers passing out in long corners stuff.

Just what the sport needs...even MORE emphasis on aerodynamic grip!  Bloody hell I hope the FIA don't stumble upon this thread, it's an idea so far out of what's required they would probably introduce it! 

I'd advocate for even less, more restricted aero, but more freedom in mechanical, powertrain and electronics.

I've been repeating same thing, but If they use more venturi under the car for overall downforce and less wing, that would in theory improve racing, and the car may look closer to the 1st pic.

Overall amount of downforce isnt an issue. it's aero being too sensitive and too perfect. Still next year it might be better cos (practically) identical engine, which is one big contributing factor, will finaly be gone.

No its rather looke something like this:

Edited by Fulcrum, 13 December 2013 - 10:56.

2004 F1 cars are a number of SECONDS faster than a 2013 car. Downforce levels were huge in 2004 despite the 'simpler' cars - they had powerful diffusers and much larger rear wings. And since they had over 900BHP they could run much more wing angle to produce the downforce.

 

A 2004 F1 car on 2006 tyres would probably be the fastest ever.

I remember an interview where Pat Symonds said that the 2012/13 cars have much more downforce than those in 2003. And he was talking about the Marussia. Don't know where that was, maybe i'll find it.

@Topic: Hahahaha. Sorry.

It would be better to put a limit in the performance number, and from there, free for all. For example, have at most an X amount of downforce at 300km/h, under every possible aero configuration that the car can get into (active aero can be foreseen with open rules). Same with the engine output.

In other words, make it an exercise of efficency, not of maximum performance. The latter can be tweeked to adjust the speed / safety ratio. Things like downforce and engine output are not easy to measure, but they are smart boys, they can come up with something.

Group C had the right idea... here's your fuel allowance go and build the fastest car you can that can make it to the end of the race without running out.  Great stuff, Turbo 4's, 6's V8's, V12 and Rotaries, plenty of variation and competition until the FIA decided it was becoming a bit too popular and had attracted all the desired manufacturers they wanted in F1.

But with engines all spec and design in the box cars it doesn't work as well for F1...

Actually there should be far less aero and more mechanical grip, this would give drivers something to work with and for us easier to judge better drivers. In aero world it is more rewarding to get best designers than drivers not the way it should be...

It would be interesting to see truly unrestricted aero, but unless we want a return to the killing fields of the 50s it would have to be with "drone" cars driven remotely from a safe distance, on tracks without marshalls or spectators anywhere near... They'd be cornering at such tremendous speeds that the driver would probably black out if he was actually in the car...

I for one would like to see a series where teams try to get around the track as fast as is techically possible. Fingers crossed Formula E will deliver. Funny how popular an open regulation series is when compared to the spec regulations of F1.

Actually there should be far less aero and more mechanical grip, this would give drivers something to work with and for us easier to judge better drivers. In aero world it is more rewarding to get best designers than drivers not the way it should be...

This is a misconception, GP/F1 has always been a technical exercise, the drivers are secondary. 

 

I'm talking about disposing of all the aero rules that lead to the recent ugly design of the cars, say, post-2006. 

Apart from the fact your proposal is daft on multiple levels, I don't even think that your fantasy car looks any better than what we have now.  Sorry, at least I've been clear!

I wish F1 cars could look like that.

There have already been threads decrying the possible introduction of windscreens or canopies, would be more getting upset at the wheel covers, the lights on the RB are unnecessary and overall they would end up looking the same anyway, I reckon.

I am attracted a LOT by the idea of freeing up technical regulations, but over body aero is not the place for that, IMO.  That part will always be governed as much by pretty as practical and even if it works brilliantly, fans and even rule makers will become concerned by how things look.  Underbody would be fine, so nobody complains about flips and flaps and creases.  Mechanical would be good, so we can get cars dancing on their suspension, and engine packages too, so they have to work with a fixed amount of energy in whichever form they can or want to get it.  Give the engineers their freedom back.

There have already been threads decrying the possible introduction of windscreens or canopies, would be more getting upset at the wheel covers, the lights on the RB are unnecessary and overall they would end up looking the same anyway, I reckon.

I hadn't noticed it had lights until you mentioned it there. No, my dream F1 car wouldn't have them. I'd have the canopy and wheel covers.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 13 December 2013 - 14:36.

No. We need less aero not more.

Edited by pizzalover, 13 December 2013 - 14:49.

I don't think blacking-out would be an issue or G-Suits a necessity since the high Gs are mostly lateral and not sustained as you would experience in tactical jet aircraft.

Unrestricted aero probably wouldn't happen because of the need to protect the driver. The issue isn’t as much the ability of a human to drive an aero unrestricted vehicle; the issue is what happens when something goes wrong; as they inevitably do.

BTW, Love the Ferrari.

Obviously engineers would be sensible with the idea since they are not idiots. They know there are human beings in those cars, they will not design rocketships on 4 wheels that cause g forces to the point that they'd lead to black outs. 

 

I'm talking about disposing of all the aero rules that lead to the recent ugly design of the cars, say, post-2006. 

If you look into racing history you will find the opposite. Fuel-filled aluminium steel frames? Wings on stilts?

It's a death spiral: There is always an engineer willing to go one step further and always a driver willing to strap himself into any given contraption.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 13 December 2013 - 22:39.

Yes the cars would use ground effects and wings, but they'd only need to produce a certain amount of downforce for cornering. You'd trim the car out on the straights (this is totally unrestricted aero remember) and then you'd use the aero to help steer the car meaning the cornering limit wouldn't be restricted to what the tyres could take.

Cars wouldn't be able to get any closer then 50 meters behind the car in front.

I suspect "complete freedom to aerodynamists" would mean never seeing a car passing another again; or at least close to it. 

 

I'd prefer the complete opposite, take away ALL aerodynamic devices; in other words, no wings at all.

 

Neil

I think the cars would fly and there would be no need for tyres.

Has the OP thought about why we have regulations, particularly aero regulations?