60 replies to this topic

[goldenboy]

Seems the majority of people here believe the best thing to do to improve F1 is to reduce the aero affect on the car behind. Also a lot of people in F1 believe this. So why is it so difficult to bring this about? If it's quite possible to do I don't understand why not instead of bringing in kers and the rear wing video game manouevre.

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

Edited by goldenboy, 24 November 2010 - 07:02.

[V8 Fireworks]

Yep.

For starters, why not demand simplified aerodynamics that reduce wakes ? Still retaining open formula freedoms, but demanding reduced complexity.

Prohibit dividers in the diffuser, prohibit the remaining bargeboards, demand flat plates for the front wing end fences, etc. All these things generate lots of wakes I think. Reduce rear wing size and allow simple venturis, that don't generate so much wake.


Of course the wheels are a major source of turbulence too, but they are required for an "open-wheeler", and don't seem to cause too many issues with the merry slipstreaming in Formula Ford !

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 23 November 2010 - 22:21.

[Dunder]

The last major change to the aero regs was at the start of the 2009 season and the intention was to reduce the impact of the aero wake. To cut a long story short, it didn't work.

The next major change will not be until 2013. Current plans allow for the reintroduction of (limited) ground effects to produce downforce. This reduces the reliance on wings which produce and are badly affected by turbulent air.

[Chubby_Deuce]

What does ppl stand for?

[goldenboy]

What does ppl stand for?

people

[Youichi]

The last major change to the aero regs was at the start of the 2009 season and the intention was to reduce the impact of the aero wake. To cut a long story short, it didn't work.Because Max stuck his oar in, and allowed Double-diffusers.

Fixed it for you

The jury is still out over whether the aero-changes would have helped without DDs.

[Timstr11]

The last major change to the aero regs was at the start of the 2009 season and the intention was to reduce the impact of the aero wake. To cut a long story short, it didn't work.Because Max stuck his oar in, and allowed Double-diffusers.

Fixed it for you

The jury is still out over whether the aero-changes would have helped without DDs.

So you reckon next year the problem will be gone?

Edited by Timstr11, 24 November 2010 - 10:31.

[mtknot]

I reckon the switch to single stage diffusers will significantly increase overtaking. Its also good that they're reducing the height of the diffusers in the revised regulations...

Interestingly I reckon Red Bull would have taken the 2009 Constructors championship fairly easily if double deck diffusers were outlawed.

[sosidge]

Seems the majority of people here believe the best thing to do to improve F1 is to reduce the aero affect on the car behind. Also a lot of people in F1 believe this. So why is it so difficult to bring this about? If it's quite possible to do I don't understand why not instead of bringing in kers and the rear wing video game manouevre.

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

Totally agree. Moveable aero and push-to-pass KERS are two of the absolute worst ideas to improve the F1 show EVER. KERS spoiled so much of the 2009 season, and the F-duct would have ruined so much of this years racing if the other teams hadn't worked it out so quickly.

The rulemakers need to go extreme on the restricted areas and controlled surfaces for the aero. They made a valiant attempt for 2009 but ruined it by letting the double diffusers through. And they made the front wing far too complicated.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again (not that the FIA listens to me, more fool them). Look at the silhoutte of a mid-80s F1 car. Single plane front wing, single plane rear wing, simple floor, simple body surfaces.

That is a recognisable F1 car, but not one that is so dependent on aero. Aero grip gets used up by the car in front, surface grip stays constant. They should look at mid-80s braking power as well.

[Atreiu]

What's wrong with the F-Duct? It's nothing but a more effective aerodynamic solution.
It's no different than any other wing, piece of bodywork or winglet which makes a car go faster around a track.

[sosidge]

What's wrong with the F-Duct? It's nothing but a more effective aerodynamic solution.
It's no different than any other wing, piece of bodywork or winglet which makes a car go faster around a track.

The difference is that it is driver operated.

But anyway, we have had the F-duct debate, the FIA let it go this year, but banned it next year.

[Atreiu]

What's wrong with driver operated? They also operate a dozen or more functions and commands on the steering wheel. That they also have to operate the F-Duct is fascinating, IMO.

Anyhow, it's gone for 2011, unless they find a way to get around the rules. A certain Newey is good at that.

[Gridfire]

KERS spoiled so much of the 2009 season, and the F-duct would have ruined so much of this years racing if the other teams hadn't worked it out so quickly.

KERS didn't bother me in the least in 2009 - it was quite interesting watching the battery graphic on the onboard video feeds. The only time KERS really pissed me off was when Raikonnen used it overtake Fisi's Force India at Spa in his awful POS Ferrari, and then defend first place for the entire rest of the race with it. It just felt so unfair for Fisichella and FI when it was totally obvious that the FI was the better car at that track.

As for the F-Duct - RBR's car was so far ahead of the rest of the field that they should have walked both championships but for the reliability and mistakes. Based on the cars technical ability there should have been no contest. If the rest of the field had not managed to work out the F-Duct, the McLaren may have provided the only possible competition to the RBR, and then only at the high-speed tracks. As it was with all RBR's mistakes we had a close season, but it could so easily have been pure, boring, dominance and that F-Duct, in this case could have been the only thing giving us entertainment.

[Scotracer]

What's wrong with the F-Duct? It's nothing but a more effective aerodynamic solution.
It's no different than any other wing, piece of bodywork or winglet which makes a car go faster around a track.

It's not exactly a sophisticated solution - stalling a wing brings very little drag reduction.

[ManiaMuse]

As for the F-Duct - RBR's car was so far ahead of the rest of the field that they should have walked both championships but for the reliability and mistakes. Based on the cars technical ability there should have been no contest. If the rest of the field had not managed to work out the F-Duct, the McLaren may have provided the only possible competition to the RBR, and then only at the high-speed tracks. As it was with all RBR's mistakes we had a close season, but it could so easily have been pure, boring, dominance and that F-Duct, in this case could have been the only thing giving us entertainment.

F-duct operation was ugly. It's like how some drivers used to lean their heads to the side at Monza to let more air into the airbox but worse.

Yes let the clever loophole finders have their fun for a year but once every team has it working it's kind of redundant.

I'd rather see driver skill rather than how quickly a driver can fist a hole after each corner. Even one-handing Eau Rouge wasn't that impressive in my books.

[pingu666]

pushing the wheels back out to 2metres, or 1.90 would help, areo is partly so complex because of wheel wake, and managing it. and cars would punch a bigger hole aswell

the 2009 rules nearly were on target (target was too low mind) at the start

[CSquared]

The rulemakers need to go extreme on the restricted areas and controlled surfaces for the aero. They made a valiant attempt for 2009 but ruined it by letting the double diffusers through. And they made the front wing far too complicated.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again (not that the FIA listens to me, more fool them). Look at the silhoutte of a mid-80s F1 car. Single plane front wing, single plane rear wing, simple floor, simple body surfaces.

That is a recognisable F1 car, but not one that is so dependent on aero. Aero grip gets used up by the car in front, surface grip stays constant. They should look at mid-80s braking power as well.

Totally agree. If I was making the rules, I'd take the wings off a 1989 McLaren, make copies of them, and give them to the teams. "These are your wings. You just saved $50 million."

Any benefit that came from the 2009 aero changes, in my opinion, was outweighed by how stupid it made the cars look.

[Bloggsworth]

REMOVE THE FRONT WINGS

[senna da silva]

REMOVE THE FRONT WINGS

No, if you want to reduce wake and turbulance, and allow a following car to get close, remove the rear wing, but that won't happen because it's a billboard.

[CSquared]

No, if you want to reduce wake and turbulance, and allow a following car to get close, remove the rear wing, but that won't happen because it's a billboard.

You can reduce wake and turbulence and/or you can reduce a car's sensitivity to wake and turbulence. Removing front wings does the latter. Then you don't lose anything by having less air over the front of the car.

[senna da silva]

You can reduce wake and turbulence and/or you can reduce a car's sensitivity to wake and turbulence. Removing front wings does the latter. Then you don't lose anything by having less air over the front of the car.

And all you have left is mechanical grip at the front. Can you say understeer.

[CSquared]

And all you have left is mechanical grip at the front. Can you say understeer.

The point is it's the same level of grip you had before you got close to the car in front. I'm not saying anything about balancing a car that had a rear wing but no front wing. That would be balanced beforehand, and when you get close to another car, that balance, and your level of grip, doesn't change. What you describe above is what currently happens when your front-wing-dependent car gets behind another one!

[senna da silva]

The point is it's the same level of grip you had before you got close to the car in front. I'm not saying anything about balancing a car that had a rear wing but no front wing. That would be balanced beforehand, and when you get close to another car, that balance, and your level of grip, doesn't change. What you describe above is what currently happens when your front-wing-dependent car gets behind another one!

Although we are discussing the problem/solution from either end of the car I suspect the solution would be similar, remove a wing and you're forced to balance the handling of the car, which in turn would mean less grip all around and less wake, less turbulance and less aero sensitivity. I think the net effect would be similar.

[Scotracer]

REMOVE THE FRONT WINGS

WHY?

SHOUTY SHOUTY

[CSquared]

Although we are discussing the problem/solution from either end of the car I suspect the solution would be similar, remove a wing and you're forced to balance the handling of the car, which in turn would mean less grip all around and less wake, less turbulance and less aero sensitivity. I think the net effect would be similar.

I didn't realize we were discussing removing rear wing vs. removing front wing, I was only trying to explain the logic in the proposal to remove the front.

But yes, I think you are exactly right. In fact, the route that I would personally prefer would be to reduce the effectiveness of both wings, by, say, using wings from 1989. :-) I don't know if that would do much for the wake and turbulence, but it would reduce the sensitivity (and it would greatly reduce costs, and other benefits as well).

[arknor]

What's wrong with the F-Duct? It's nothing but a more effective aerodynamic solution.
It's no different than any other wing, piece of bodywork or winglet which makes a car go faster around a track.

f-duct is pointless once everyone has it and its just more expense f1 doesnt need

[OO7]

Yep.

For starters, why not demand simplified aerodynamics that reduce wakes ? Still retaining open formula freedoms, but demanding reduced complexity.

Prohibit dividers in the diffuser, prohibit the remaining bargeboards, demand flat plates for the front wing end fences, etc. All these things generate lots of wakes I think. Reduce rear wing size and allow simple venturis, that don't generate so much wake.


Of course the wheels are a major source of turbulence too, but they are required for an "open-wheeler", and don't seem to cause too many issues with the merry slipstreaming in Formula Ford !

The formula 3000 cars were pretty simple aero wise compared to todays F1 cars, yet apparently many of the races were follow the leader snooze fests.

Edited by Obi Offiah, 24 November 2010 - 22:30.

[pingu666]

the first gp2 cars where really good. i think its partly just luck when a series gets a good set rules/cars for racing

[prty]

If you remove the front wing you will end up with cars that are slower than GP2...

The key is to reduce the grip of the tyres I think.

Edited by prty, 24 November 2010 - 23:01.

[syph0nJZ05]

Reducing tyre grip is the key I think.

And if you remove the front wing you will end up with cars that are slower than GP2...

No increasing tyre grip is what you want. We should have increased mechanical grip and reduced aero dependence.

[prty]

No increasing tyre grip is what you want. We should have increased mechanical grip and reduced aero dependence.

I think that is a big misconception, aerodynamics just multiply the grip the tyres offer. And they are using the same downforce in the rain but...

[senna da silva]

I think that is a big misconception, aerodynamics just multiply the grip the tyres offer. And they are using the same downforce in the rain but...

Max already tried to take us down that path with grooved tyres. And the downforce isn't the same in the rain because they're not going as fast, if anything the tyres play a much larger role when it's wet.

Edited by senna da silva, 24 November 2010 - 23:38.

[CSquared]

I think that is a big misconception, aerodynamics just multiply the grip the tyres offer. And they are using the same downforce in the rain but...

I don't think it's a misconception at all. Tires supply grip and the aerodynamics then increase (or multiply, as you say) that grip. The more they increase that grip, the more problems you have when your airflow is disturbed by another car because it's a greater percentage of your total grip that you're losing.

[Dunder]

If you remove the front wing you will end up with cars that are slower than GP2...

The key is to reduce the grip of the tyres I think.

Wings will only be modified substantially if/when ground effects become legal again.
Downforce produced from lower pressure underbody air is far more efficient than wings anyway. Rest assured that if the teams were given total freedom with ground effects and wings were banned (not that this will happen), the cars would be a lot faster.

In terms of tyres, the ideal would be a construction that maximised lateral grip for cornering but was deficient longitudinally in order to lengthen braking distances

Edited by Dunder, 25 November 2010 - 03:26.

[goldenboy]

f-duct is pointless once everyone has it and its just more expense f1 doesnt need

but sure as hell not pointless at the beginning of the season...

I still think it's important (although less important than having good overtaking) to have technological developments like the f duct, even if they are banned after one year. Yes it costs money but costs HAVE been reduced and I think F1 will become even more efficient but come on it's not and shouldnt ever be close to a spec series.

But the new rear wing deal next year is not an example of one teams surprise technical ingenuity over another. And for me, KERS just doesn't work. It can be used for overtaking but also defending. Equals itself out and just leaves itself open to ruining races because of reliabilty etc. It's had it's run now onto the next! Add to that the small disadvantage it gives to the heavier drivers and I say throw it away.

I'll admit when it comes to the technical side of F1 I am way behind most of you, but from what I gather from the above posts I would personally think the best option would be to allow new technology provided it meets a criteria/test where it does not create an affect on the car behind through turbulent air etc, although how or if you could reasonably test this I don't know.

I'm sure somewhere there has to be a way to allow technical ingenuity, reduced dirty air turbulent effect/overtaking, and cost savings.

(and don't even get me started on green F1 influencing regulations! What a crock of ****...)

Edited by goldenboy, 25 November 2010 - 07:42.

[prty]

Max already tried to take us down that path with grooved tyres. And the downforce isn't the same in the rain because they're not going as fast, if anything the tyres play a much larger role when it's wet.

Sure but at the same time he narrowed the car, so you can't make that comparison. On the other hand, in 2006 with super sticky tyres, overtaking wasn't any easier.

I don't think it's a misconception at all. Tires supply grip and the aerodynamics then increase (or multiply, as you say) that grip. The more they increase that grip, the more problems you have when your airflow is disturbed by another car because it's a greater percentage of your total grip that you're losing.

But the less grip there is to multply, also the less they will be affected.

Edited by prty, 25 November 2010 - 08:58.

[CSquared]

Sure but at the same time he narrowed the car, so you can't make that comparison. On the other hand, in 2006 with super sticky tyres, overtaking wasn't any easier.

But the less grip there is to multply, also the less they will be affected.

No. If you have aerodynamics that double your tire grip, when your aerodynamics are disturbed, your grip is halved. It doesn't matter what the initial amount was. It's about the multiplier your aerodynamics give you.

[prty]

No. If you have aerodynamics that double your tire grip, when your aerodynamics are disturbed, your grip is halved. It doesn't matter what the initial amount was. It's about the multiplier your aerodynamics give you.

If your aero double your tyre grip (let's call tyre grip X), then without disturbance you have 2X grip, and if a disturbance cuts your downforce so the grip multiplication is halved, you will get X amount of grip in turbulent air.

Now if you have a tyre twice as sticky, let's say double, you get 2X grip from it. With the same aero, you will get 4X grip. Again, if you run in turbulent air and the aero is disturbed by as much, you get the 2X grip.

So, with the original tyre, you lost X grip. With the sticky tyre you lost 2X grip, which is translated into more meters mid corner: even though the grip loss proportions stays the same, the global difference in grip is bigger. So you exit the corner closer, and as aerodynamics are the same, the toe you get is not reduced, allowing you to arrive closer to the braking zone (and by the way the brake distance will be increased with less tyre grip).

Of course these things probably are not linear but you get the idea.

Edited by prty, 26 November 2010 - 09:58.

[David1976]

Wings will only be modified substantially if/when ground effects become legal again.
Downforce produced from lower pressure underbody air is far more efficient than wings anyway. Rest assured that if the teams were given total freedom with ground effects and wings were banned (not that this will happen), the cars would be a lot faster.

In terms of tyres, the ideal would be a construction that maximised lateral grip for cornering but was deficient longitudinally in order to lengthen braking distances

Ideal maybe, but this would not add any transferable knowledge for road car applications.

Modifications to the Aerodynamics is the way to go if you ask me. Smaller wings (maybe single plain) with limited ground effects and more efficient mechanical grip.

Edited by David1976, 26 November 2010 - 10:47.

[slideways]

To me the fundamental issue is the messy wakes coming from the cars, and the teams aren't really that interested in solving it. They also happen to be in control of the technical regulations.

[Dunder]

Ideal maybe, but this would not add any transferable knowledge for road car applications.

Modifications to the Aerodynamics is the way to go if you ask me. Smaller wings (maybe single plain) with limited ground effects and more efficient mechanical grip.

An F1 tyre is so different to a road tyre that this 'problem' is always going to exist.
Pirelli did not tender to be the F1 supplier as an R&D exercise to gain data for road car tyres, it is a marketing tool.

I full agree that it is regulations relating to aerodynamics that have to be amended. Cars that can generate 5g lateral loads look very impressive but don't do much in terms of producing good racing.

TBH, I am a bit fed up with people calling for F1 to have road relevance. The BMWs, Hondas and VWs of this world will come and go as they please regardless.

[CSquared]

If your aero double your tyre grip (let's call tyre grip X), then without disturbance you have 2X grip, and if a disturbance cuts your downforce so the grip multiplication is halved, you will get X amount of grip in turbulent air.

Now if you have a tyre twice as sticky, let's say double, you get 2X grip from it. With the same aero, you will get 4X grip. Again, if you run in turbulent air and the aero is disturbed by as much, you get the 2X grip.

So, with the original tyre, you lost X grip. With the sticky tyre you lost 2X grip, which is translated into more meters mid corner: even though the grip loss proportions stays the same, the global difference in grip is bigger. So you exit the corner closer, and as aerodynamics are the same, the toe you get is not reduced, allowing you to arrive closer to the braking zone (and by the way the brake distance will be increased with less tyre grip).

Of course these things probably are not linear but you get the idea.

I think I am starting to get the idea, yes. This makes sense, but I still haven't totally grokked it. I'm going to have to think about it more.

As for people who want ground effects back: you know there are reasons why they banned them in the first place. They were dangerous, the drivers hated them, and the aerodynamics dominated car design and performance even more than they do now.

[Dunder]

I think I am starting to get the idea, yes. This makes sense, but I still haven't totally grokked it. I'm going to have to think about it more.

As for people who want ground effects back: you know there are reasons why they banned them in the first place. They were dangerous, the drivers hated them, and the aerodynamics dominated car design and performance even more than they do now.

In those days the cars depended on skirts to maintain low pressure under the car and, yes it was danagerous because it was quite easy for the skirt to be moved and a huge amount of downforce to be lost. . The technology has moved on massively since then.

Limited use of Venturis combined with heavily restricted wings would be ideal, IMHO.

[prty]

Symonds about it (around minute 23):

http://www.motorspor...th-pat-symonds/

"If I can gerneralize, I would say one of the things we found out of that work, is that downforce that came of the wings was good downforce in terms of overtaking, and downforce that came of the body was bad downforce in terms of overtaking. I think that this idea that it was easy to overtake with ground effects cars is one of those wonderful pit lane myths. About this thing about 'reduce aerodynamics and increase grip will give better overtaking', that's demonstrably rubbish."

[BillBald]

I don't believe that it is mainly an aero problem.

In the last season, we saw a number of occasions when a car was able to exit a corner very close to another car, get a good tow and still not be able to overtake.

The problem is the rev limiter. You might get the best tow possible, but if you hit the rev limiter, you can't go any faster. The same thing will happen with the adjustable wing.

If the gearing is changed to allow the car to go faster when drag is reduced, you will have the wrong gearing when you have a normal level of drag, so you will have a slower car.

I can't see anything giving you more overtaking, unless the driver is allowed to over-rev when he needs to.

Edited by BillBald, 04 December 2010 - 20:53.

[mistareno]

Give me a Hi Tech, Carbon Fibre, Slick shod, 2L turbo version of this -



No wings - period. But the rest can be an engineering free for all.

They can be layed out which ever way the designer wants.

Think Formula Ford on steroids but with more mechanical grip from wide sticky slicks.

Think low drag as opposed to maximum downforce (low drag automatically produces less wake and is more in tune with the direction the automotive world is heading.

Minimum weight (500kg).

Refueling as required or not required.

[Timstr11]

Give me a Hi Tech, Carbon Fibre, Slick shod, 2L turbo version of this -



No wings - period.

...and it will be INCREDIBLY slow.

Speed comes from aerodynamics:
-It gives the cars stability under braking.
-It enables high cornering speeds.
-It helps to reduce the enormous drag produced by the four tyres sticking out in th air.

Bigger tyres? Much more drag >> slower
Bigger engine? >> Traction limitation. Car cannot use available power to accelerate out of corners.

It's not a simple equation.

Edited by Timstr11, 05 December 2010 - 10:08.

[Ogami musashi]

Not to mention aero is not the only factor that can (and does) limit overtaking...Tyres with narrow slip angle window (like modern one) automatically put the overtaking problem onto tracks as it is not possible to pass someone in a corner via sliding (those tyres lose their grip all of a sudden as opposed to ply tyres that used to have more progressive grip curves) and thus you have to have a corner where multiple lines are possible.

As for free engineering; as of now aero is the cheapest way to gain advantage.. engines rules were almost speced because engine power competition is the most expensive way to have an advantage and suspension, tyre and chassis wars are not cheaper.

Last, i think F1 drivers level is linked with speed (at least if you take it relative to all motor series in the world) because faster cars are always more difficult to compete with (that's physics) and slowing down F1 now would mean that drivers wouldn't drive a car as fast as their preparations allow them to do.

Or else turn F1 into a car control ("keep the car on track") series but i don't see any fun in it.

[mistareno]

...and it will be INCREDIBLY slow.

Speed comes from aerodynamics:

Well, cornering speed comes from aero (as we currently know it)

-It gives the cars stability under braking.

I don't see this as a negative. Braking feel and judgement should be down to the driver, not the car and allows an avenue for overtaking on it's own.

-It enables high cornering speeds.

Yep, cornering speeds will drop massively.

-It helps to reduce the enormous drag produced by the four tyres sticking out in th air.
Bigger tyres? Much more drag >> slower

I perhaps should've clarified - I meant bigger tyres than those pictured on the picture of the car I posted. Not bigger than current F1.

A modern F1 car has a horrific drag co-efficient because of the downforce enducing wings. Exposed wheels are one part of the drag picture, but a slipery wind tunnel designed tub without wings will be far more slipery than a current car.

Top speed will be higher, but will be far more unstable - requiring more driver skill.

Bigger engine? >> Traction limitation. Car cannot use available power to accelerate out of corners.

And the problem is? I though throttle control was an important skill for a driver.

Edited by mistareno, 05 December 2010 - 14:04.

[korzeniow]

@mistareno, the problem is that F1 is meant to be the quickest racing serie, not the slowest as it would be after your changes