Jump to content


Photo

Simplifying Aerodynamics


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 25 February 2012 - 20:34

I'm sure I'm not the only one this has occurred to, but it seems to me that F1 is an aerodynamic enterprise rather than a mechanical one. This is shame because all the useful potential spin offs from engines, suspension, diffs etc are banned to keep costs down. This is surely not want we want from car racing? Aeroplane racing yes, but cars no.

So, I wonder what simple rule changes people can think of so that it no longer profits teams to spend so much money and effort on aero?


Here's mine. Theoretically, the car body should be one continuous surface. i.e if it were placed inside a sphere, that sphere should be able to shrink around it to form the body of the car (the body of the car includes everything except wishbones and wheels) . There should also only be one upper surface and one lower surface. The same with the sides. i.e the shape should theoretically be able to the cast from a two piece mould.

The split of the mould could be either down the horizontal axis or vertical axis giving designers the choice of either incorporating wings or venturi's into their designs, but for obvious reasons it would be impossible to choose both.(I think).

Only the inlets and outlets for radiators, exhausts and air intakes are permitted intrusions allowed to break the surface. Oh and the cockpit of course.

The only other add on's allowed are wing mirrors and aerials.


I think the above would greatly simply the aerodynamic permeations, hopefully allowing resources to be spent on more interesting avenues of performance enhancement.

Do you like it folks?

Edited by pizzalover, 26 February 2012 - 17:25.


Advertisement

#2 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 February 2012 - 02:08

I can see where you are coming from. I for one am sick of the perpetual addition of aero appendages to the point where the cars look like the latest Intergalactic Battleship rendered in Meccano.

#3 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:46

I can see where you are coming from. I for one am sick of the perpetual addition of aero appendages to the point where the cars look like the latest Intergalactic Battleship rendered in Meccano.


Yup, bigger double plane (chord? don't know what you call it) wings front and rear is all they should have - also parellel and laterally flat all the way across...

Hmm while I was looking for a sample picture I also read that apparently and courtesy of Patrick Head and Rory Byrne's pens strokes, F1 will return to exactly this in 2013, great news if true..

Posted Image


#4 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 February 2012 - 14:52

Posted Image


My first poor atempt at a convex hull idea back in 2009.

Edited by saudoso, 26 February 2012 - 14:52.


#5 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 26 February 2012 - 17:21

Posted Image


My first poor atempt at a convex hull idea back in 2009.



This wouldn't be allowed under my formula. Assuming the floor to be flat and there being no diffusers, you would have to get rid of the end plates and the rear wing could only be supported by a single upright post placed, obviously, on the central axis. Other than that fine :)

Edited by pizzalover, 26 February 2012 - 18:15.


#6 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 February 2012 - 17:37

The reason I want to get rid of diffusers is because of their efficiency. If we revert back to high drag wings only (which should be dual plane for practicality) then we would see old school choices again between fast cornering or fast down the straights.

#7 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 256 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 26 February 2012 - 20:12

I'm sure I'm not the only one this has occurred to, but it seems to me that F1 is an aerodynamic enterprise rather than a mechanical one. This is shame because all the useful potential spin offs from engines, suspension, diffs etc are banned to keep costs down. This is surely not want we want from car racing? Aeroplane racing yes, but cars no.

So, I wonder what simple rule changes people can think of so that it no longer profits teams to spend so much money and effort on aero?

Do you like it folks?


Your idea is interesting, but I'm not sure it is worthwhile to curb aero spending. Aero is actually becoming important again in the automobile industry, and companies are particularly interested in CFD.

If I could, I would turn F1 on its ear, and completely liberalize the sport using new sanctioning methods to control the performance of the vehicles. Regarding aero, I'd like to see F1 do an advanced version of what the rest of the racing world does, put specific limitations on downforce. Downforce at 200km will not exceed "x" kg. Downforce at 300km will not exceed "y" kg.

Then liberalize the boxes, elements, plane surfaces, etc so teams can make unique vehicles. The trick would be creating a car that has highest downforce properties, while still remaining just under the allowable limit. The cat and mouse game would unbelievable. Teams intentionally making dirty air, but not too much or they will wreck the fuel economy. Other teams creating creating aero setups to fight dirty air, and increase fuel economy. Maybe ground effects could return as well. The designers would have a lot more freedom, and the cars would be unique. If the parity gets out of hand, the regulations can become more specific. Instead of two-speed regs, they could check downforce at 5 speeds or 10 speeds. Whatever is necessary to allow design freedom and keep the sport at least somewhat entertaining.

The drawbacks are pretty obvious. To regulate downforce, the FIA would have to spec ride height front and back, and the flexi-wing regulations would probably get even more complicated. Furthermore, if F1 cars became significantly more slippery through the use of ground effects and clever wing layouts, top speeds in excess of 350kph would be commonplace. Sounds cool for fans, but it would be a nightmare for circuit homologation and safety homologation.

Edited by phoenix101, 26 February 2012 - 20:13.


#8 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 February 2012 - 23:39

The reason I want to get rid of diffusers is because of their efficiency. If we revert back to high drag wings only (which should be dual plane for practicality) then we would see old school choices again between fast cornering or fast down the straights.


:up:

I am assuming this includes a flat bottom. My definition would revolve around the 'shadow', where this would be specified as a single plane (+/- a tolerance).

#9 Racegamer

Racegamer
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:41

Greetings All...

Personally, I would LOVE to see the FIA revise the rules for aerodynamics so that cars looked a lot like this:

Posted Image


Also, with today's modern materials, they might be able to come up with cars that look like this and are SAFE. (I am NOT a fan of jet fighters with wheels :well: )


Bill W.

#10 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 17 March 2012 - 12:50

You guys should pressure the FIA for the return of Max Mosley in charge of F1.

#11 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 405 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 17 March 2012 - 14:47

Your idea is interesting, but I'm not sure it is worthwhile to curb aero spending. Aero is actually becoming important again in the automobile industry, and companies are particularly interested in CFD.

If I could, I would turn F1 on its ear, and completely liberalize the sport using new sanctioning methods to control the performance of the vehicles. Regarding aero, I'd like to see F1 do an advanced version of what the rest of the racing world does, put specific limitations on downforce. Downforce at 200km will not exceed "x" kg. Downforce at 300km will not exceed "y" kg.

Then liberalize the boxes, elements, plane surfaces, etc so teams can make unique vehicles. The trick would be creating a car that has highest downforce properties, while still remaining just under the allowable limit. The cat and mouse game would unbelievable. Teams intentionally making dirty air, but not too much or they will wreck the fuel economy. Other teams creating creating aero setups to fight dirty air, and increase fuel economy. Maybe ground effects could return as well. The designers would have a lot more freedom, and the cars would be unique. If the parity gets out of hand, the regulations can become more specific. Instead of two-speed regs, they could check downforce at 5 speeds or 10 speeds. Whatever is necessary to allow design freedom and keep the sport at least somewhat entertaining.

The drawbacks are pretty obvious. To regulate downforce, the FIA would have to spec ride height front and back, and the flexi-wing regulations would probably get even more complicated. Furthermore, if F1 cars became significantly more slippery through the use of ground effects and clever wing layouts, top speeds in excess of 350kph would be commonplace. Sounds cool for fans, but it would be a nightmare for circuit homologation and safety homologation.


After some calibration sensors could be used to enforce such a downforce limit. Teams have been using those kind of sensors for years. There would be no need for any standardization or homologation. For practical reasons the FIA could opt for just one, predetermined amount of downforce allowed at any speed. Whether it is at 100km/h or at 350km/h.
However, if aerodynamics are solely or mainly restricted by performance parameters, it would imply the (re-)legalisation of actively and passively aerodynamics. In my opinion that includes active suspension. And thus this will open the door for driver aids. It is not totally unjustly to qualify as a driver aid, especially because the more complex systems have an overlap with electronic stability control. To keep Formula 1 as the ultimate drivers' test, more than a few performance parameters are required.

Regarding the top speeds, I would to point out that power is nothing without control. If the amount of adhesion is massively reduced and the ban on mid-race refuelling is retained, it is not very likely teams will focus on top-speed. Instead, the focus will be on drivability and fuel economy. Top speed will not be the main performance differentiator. Hence, a relatively low downforce limit and/or new tyre regulations - a very radical solution making Formula 1 more relevant would be introduction of non-standardized all-weather tyres with tyres changes being banned - should be adequate. If not, directly limiting the engine power could be another solution.

#12 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,306 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 17 March 2012 - 14:59

Yup, bigger double plane (chord? don't know what you call it) wings front and rear is all they should have - also parellel and laterally flat all the way across...

Hmm while I was looking for a sample picture I also read that apparently and courtesy of Patrick Head and Rory Byrne's pens strokes, F1 will return to exactly this in 2013, great news if true..

Posted Image


2014 no ?
Cars looking like an MP4/5 or an MP4/6 would be nice though.

#13 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,306 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 17 March 2012 - 15:02

The reason I want to get rid of diffusers is because of their efficiency. If we revert back to high drag wings only (which should be dual plane for practicality) then we would see old school choices again between fast cornering or fast down the straights.


The problem is that diffusers only produce rear downforce.

Following in a draft, you have a large fall off of downforce at the front, but the rear is much less affected due to having the diffuser making a lot of rear downfoce.

IMO, have two venturis produce a sizeable amount of downforce with the centre of downforce placed more forward in the car. Have the cars setup so that they have to run a minimal level of front downforce on most tracks. Hopefully this would result in less of a fall off, of frontal downforce in a draft and hence, cars not understeering as much in a draft.

#14 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 19 March 2012 - 07:18

Have the cars setup so that they have to run a minimal level of front downforce on most tracks.


"Have the cars set up ..."?

Who is going to do this, and why? They won't do it voluntarily, that is for sure! :lol:

Venturi cars (FW07, Lotus 79 et al) would only encourage the Neweys to get stuck into how they work, how they can be integrated and the cars optimised around them - shifting the tech focus away from diffusers, F ducts etc, and actually achieving not very much in the process.

If we are going to mandate a resurrection of an obsolete racing car, lets make it one from a decade or so prior to 1980 ... basic wings, smooth cars, and performance largely derived from engines and mechanical grip.

#15 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,306 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 March 2012 - 22:17

I have no idea what you're on about. How is running a car with venturis "obselete ?

When I said "setup", I actually meant have the rules written in such a away that the venturi's provide downforce with the centre of downforce pushed far enough forward so that the cars would run minimal levels of front wing at most tracks. This could easily be achieved through mandating the volume of the venturis, and where the narrowest point in each tunnel must be located with respect to both axles.

Make the rules on the venturis and the underside of the car so tight, that there would be little wriggle room to do much with them. In addition, then let the cars also have basic front and rear wings.

Edited by Ali_G, 19 March 2012 - 22:19.


#16 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 March 2012 - 01:46

I have no idea what you're on about. How is running a car with venturis "obselete ?


Its what we are trying to do here, simplify aero - take the racing back to where it was sometime in the past, when aero was a relatively minor part of designing/setting up a racing car.

When I said "setup", I actually meant have the rules written in such a away that the venturi's provide downforce with the centre of downforce pushed far enough forward so that the cars would run minimal levels of front wing at most tracks. This could easily be achieved through mandating the volume of the venturis, and where the narrowest point in each tunnel must be located with respect to both axles.

Make the rules on the venturis and the underside of the car so tight, that there would be little wriggle room to do much with them. In addition, then let the cars also have basic front and rear wings.


It is self-evident (to me anyway ;) ) that writing rules the way you suggest will only redirect designers' energies and budgets into those areas. Just look at what has happened with EBD and the exhaust outlet rules. To have any impact, you would need to specify the tunnels(venturis) as spec parts; While we seem to be heading that way, specifying a spec part would be a big step towards a spec car.

I understand your reasoning, I just do not think that it will be an effective solution.

I am unclear whether less FW would make a big contribution, running less RW certainly would, and I fear your solution would only lead to teams trying to run more RW to balance the high levels of forward DF ... :confused:

#17 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,306 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 20 March 2012 - 09:50

I am unclear whether less FW would make a big contribution, running less RW certainly would, and I fear your solution would only lead to teams trying to run more RW to balance the high levels of forward DF ... :confused:


It would. But when in dirty air, there is a far greater loss of front wing downforce than rear wing downforce.

#18 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,983 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 20 March 2012 - 16:24

That seems intuitive as well as the often heard claim that underflow aero DF is less sensitive to wake turbulence but are there any empirical data or quotes from acknowledged aero experts to substantiate our intuition?

#19 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,306 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 20 March 2012 - 16:28

That seems intuitive as well as the often heard claim that underflow aero DF is less sensitive to wake turbulence but are there any empirical data or quotes from acknowledged aero experts to substantiate our intuition?


On my first claim. Drivers claim that the cars develope understeer when in turbulence. This to me points to a loss of front wing downforce.

I'm sure Sam Michaels was banging on last year about under car developed downforce being less sensitive than wings.

Advertisement

#20 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 March 2012 - 16:45

That seems intuitive as well as the often heard claim that underflow aero DF is less sensitive to wake turbulence but are there any empirical data or quotes from acknowledged aero experts to substantiate our intuition?


I won't bother to search for it, but AFAIK the OWG conclusion was exactly that. Hence their first attempt with the moveable front wing - trying to keep the balance.

On the empiric side, you can take thousands of laps ran recently with the US open wheel cars and figure it out...

#21 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 March 2012 - 17:13

I only saw half of the Melbourne F1 race but was pretty happy about what I saw, if due to tyres or the EBD changes or both the sliding and car control was fantastic to see again especially throttle control on exit.

And some of the passes were genuine driving skill passing based on longer braking distances and feel for grip, hope it doesn't change too quickly.

#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 March 2012 - 05:56

Still too much passing attributable to the artificial "DRS available to the following car only" rule.