Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Unregulated and unrestricted aerodynamics


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,301 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 12 December 2013 - 21:29

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:

 

fant11.jpg

 

ferrari-f1-exp.jpg

 

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. 



Advertisement

#2 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,875 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 12 December 2013 - 21:34

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...



#3 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 13,478 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 December 2013 - 21:36

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



#4 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,750 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 December 2013 - 21:38

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.



#5 jee

jee
  • Member

  • 735 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 December 2013 - 21:43

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.



#6 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,689 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 12 December 2013 - 21:51

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



#7 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,482 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 December 2013 - 21:57

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?



#8 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 December 2013 - 22:44

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

 

:rotfl:

 

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.



#9 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,301 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 12 December 2013 - 22:54

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.


#10 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 December 2013 - 23:05

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.



#11 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 12 December 2013 - 23:13

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.



#12 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 December 2013 - 23:18

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.



#13 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 12 December 2013 - 23:37

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.



#14 clown

clown
  • Member

  • 168 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2013 - 23:49

I think the aesthetic problem with the current cars is due to the regulations being made by separate committees over time.
One declares an airbox size, one declares a rear wing size, one declares a nose size, one declares a sidepods size etc.

Bolt it all together, and you end up with a car that looks like it was made from bits of other cars.

#15 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,225 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 December 2013 - 23:56

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



#16 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 13 December 2013 - 00:06

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.   



#17 Lennat

Lennat
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 13 December 2013 - 00:31

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. :cool:



#18 Redback

Redback
  • Member

  • 771 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:50

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:

 

4lhm.jpg


#19 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,077 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 December 2013 - 04:40

Hum.... nah.



Advertisement

#20 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,689 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 07:13

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.



#21 Reinmuster

Reinmuster
  • Member

  • 668 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 07:39

 

I think Adrian has already had a go at that:

 

4lhm.jpg

 

 

More suitable to Le Mans.  :clap:



#22 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 07:46

 

I think Adrian has already had a go at that:

 

4lhm.jpg

 

 

I wish F1 cars could look like that.



#23 Boing Ball

Boing Ball
  • Member

  • 118 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 13 December 2013 - 08:09

I wish F1 cars could look like that.

 

Like LMP1 cars? 



#24 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 13 December 2013 - 08:19

There would be no overtaking in F1, ever again.



#25 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 08:27

Like LMP1 cars? 

 

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



#26 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 December 2013 - 08:35

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

#27 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,722 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:22

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.



#28 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:31

 

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.


Are you looking into race speeds or outright qualifying speed on low fuel?
I was under the impression that in outright qualifying speeds thus over short periods of time the difference wasn't that big anymore.
If not then I stand corrected and thanks for that.

Henri

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


#29 RedBaron

RedBaron
  • Member

  • 2,841 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:50

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

 

The Ferrari is stunning though,



#30 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,403 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:58

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.



#31 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:36

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! 



#32 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,956 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:42

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



#33 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,270 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:53

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.



#34 Fulcrum

Fulcrum
  • Member

  • 208 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:55

This imaginary world would probably look something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

No its rather looke something like this:

2q9hulh.jpg


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


#35 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:39

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.



#36 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,219 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 13 December 2013 - 13:04

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.



#37 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 December 2013 - 13:12

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...



#38 tghik

tghik
  • Member

  • 472 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 13:17

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...



#39 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 3,016 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 December 2013 - 13:19

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...



Advertisement

#40 Mrluke

Mrluke
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 13 December 2013 - 13:56

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.



#41 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,689 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 14:08

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. 



#42 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 13 December 2013 - 14:13

 

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!



#43 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 13 December 2013 - 14:27

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.



#44 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 14:36

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.


#45 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 December 2013 - 14:41

No. We need less aero not more.



#46 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 December 2013 - 14:48

You can have un-restricted, but not un-regulated.

One very simple rule change can achieve this. I call it the two piece mould rule.

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 be 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.


Of course, many teams who have invested millions of pounds in wind tunnels, CFD and star aerodynamicists would have a fit. However, in the long term I believe many more interesting and fruitful avenues of engineering would appear. 

 

I think radically simplifying the aerodynamics would certainly help. This would significantly reduce costs, allowing less stringent regulation of other areas more relevant to car manufacturers. 

 

  •  

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


#47 Fox1

Fox1
  • Member

  • 649 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 13 December 2013 - 15:02

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.



#48 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,143 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 20:10

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.


#49 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 13,345 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 14 December 2013 - 00:04

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.



#50 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 14 December 2013 - 09:18

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?