Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Unregulated and unrestricted aerodynamics


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#51 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 14 December 2013 - 11:43

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.

Found it, was a two-part interview over at AMuS. Couldn't find an official translation so Google Translate might have to be your friend this time:

 

http://www.auto-moto...ld-7436558.html

http://www.auto-moto...en-7436562.html

 

The relevant part:

 

AMuS: With your people and your budget, where would this Marussia have been in 2003, 1993 and 1983?

Symonds: We would've won everything. Even 2003. Of course, in 2003, there were much more powerful engines than today and different tyres. We'd have to account for that. But i know the differences in the downforce levels. Our Marussia has much more downforce than the 2003 Renault, even though the regulations have changed to the disadvantage of aerodynamics. Concerning downforce, the top cars today are far ahead of the 2008 cars. Back then, aero regulations were much more open. In 2009 alone, regulation changes cost us 50 points of downforce. In 1983, you would've been said to have magic powers if you had built a Marussia.



Advertisement

#52 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,925 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 14 December 2013 - 14:32

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

 

No but with unrestricted rules maybe they could be allowed machine guns as well.



#53 Otaku

Otaku
  • Member

  • 475 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 15 December 2013 - 05:25

No its rather looke something like this:

2q9hulh.jpg

 

 

 

That's one of the most beautiful/perfect shaped/harmonized profile of all times. 



#54 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,925 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 15 December 2013 - 19:00

Wouldn't want to be that driver's ankles though



#55 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,517 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 15 December 2013 - 20:35

That's one of the most beautiful/perfect shaped/harmonized profile of all times. 

I find the short, blunted noses of those years just plain ugly.



#56 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 13,235 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 15 December 2013 - 23:16

I'm with scheivlak, they were fugly.

 

Neil



#57 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,541 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 15 December 2013 - 23:26

I remember F1 Racing did an article on such a concept in the mid 2000's ish.

 

They got Sam Michael (then at Williams) to dictate a car given no restrictions. It had 6 wheels (two sets of two at the back....... very much a Williams connection), full ground effect, and subsequently no wings to speak of (just some "trimming wings" if I remember correctly).

 

Basically, SM hypothesised that the car would pull so much G, that the drivers would pass out. Would be cool to see that article again.......... 


Edited by maverick69, 16 December 2013 - 00:25.


#58 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,662 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 16 December 2013 - 01:05

Found it, was a two-part interview over at AMuS. Couldn't find an official translation so Google Translate might have to be your friend this time:

 

http://www.auto-moto...ld-7436558.html

http://www.auto-moto...en-7436562.html

 

The relevant part:

 

AMuS: With your people and your budget, where would this Marussia have been in 2003, 1993 and 1983?

Symonds: We would've won everything. Even 2003. Of course, in 2003, there were much more powerful engines than today and different tyres. We'd have to account for that. But i know the differences in the downforce levels. Our Marussia has much more downforce than the 2003 Renault, even though the regulations have changed to the disadvantage of aerodynamics. Concerning downforce, the top cars today are far ahead of the 2008 cars. Back then, aero regulations were much more open. In 2009 alone, regulation changes cost us 50 points of downforce. In 1983, you would've been said to have magic powers if you had built a Marussia.

 

This demonstrates how much aero technology has moved on. 

The knowledge and methodologies of aerodynamic design are light years ahead of what people were doing even 5, 6, 7 years ago.

We need to be careful with making comparisons.


Edited by Timstr11, 16 December 2013 - 01:08.


#59 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 December 2013 - 04:36

Freedome should be in the engines, not the aerodynamics.

 

Nobody buys AUDI because the winglets and downforce on the R8C. Its turbo diesel, on the other hand...

 

If it were up to me, it'd be 75l of fuel, bring whatever you want. Cars with NA engines have the added benefit of 30kg less on their minimum weight.



Advertisement

#60 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 16 December 2013 - 06:35

This demonstrates how much aero technology has moved on. 

The knowledge and methodologies of aerodynamic design are light years ahead of what people were doing even 5, 6, 7 years ago.

We need to be careful with making comparisons.

I always also thought that the slick tyres today should also account for a decent amount of performance. If the 2008 cars or even the 03 cars had the slick tyres then wouldn't they be faster? 


Edited by sheepgobba, 16 December 2013 - 09:14.


#61 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 2,843 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 16 December 2013 - 06:45

Nobody buys AUDI because the winglets and downforce on the R8C. Its turbo diesel, on the other hand...

 

:well:  What does that have to do with F1 cars? Nobody buys F1 cars anyway, at least not on the production level of mainstream vehicles. This is about racing, not about who buys what. 



#62 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 December 2013 - 07:55

Freedome should be in the engines, not the aerodynamics.

 

Nobody buys AUDI because the winglets and downforce on the R8C. Its turbo diesel, on the other hand...

 

If it were up to me, it'd be 75l of fuel, bring whatever you want. Cars with NA engines have the added benefit of 30kg less on their minimum weight.

 

That's sort of true from a production perspective. I wouldn't ignore the benefits in roadholding and efficient cooling (etc.) at high speeds on road going sportscars that have come about by using F1 derived aero research technology. All the money that F1 teams pour into windtunnels and CFD finds it's way onto road cars indirectly.

 

However F1 should also be about building the best racing cars, and you can't completely cut out the dominant factor in racing car performance entirely.



#63 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,662 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 16 December 2013 - 08:54

I would also thought that the slick tyres today should also account for a decent amount of performance. If the 2008 cars or even the 03 cars had the slick tyres then wouldn't they be faster? 

The comparison Symmonds made is not about lap time,which is tyre dependant, but about absolute downforce numbers.



#64 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 December 2013 - 15:07

:well:  What does that have to do with F1 cars? Nobody buys F1 cars anyway, at least not on the production level of mainstream vehicles. This is about racing, not about who buys what. 

 

Durh, marketing. Substitute AUDI for Ferrari.

 

Do people buy them for the winglets, EBD intricacies and the ammounts of flaps on a front wing or because they know it goes fast (virtue to a kick ass engine) and is considered glamourous (how douche like)?

 

F1 should be about engines first and aerodynamics last.



#65 4MEN

4MEN
  • Member

  • 1,556 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 16 December 2013 - 15:10

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. 

That's a nice idea, in a perfect world. Reality is, "only" one design would be the winner, maybe just a couple of tenths of a second, and everybody else would spend a lot of money changing his design and playing catch-up.



#66 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 December 2013 - 15:18

Durh, marketing. Substitute AUDI for Ferrari.

 

Do people buy them for the winglets, EBD intricacies and the ammounts of flaps on a front wing or because they know it goes fast (virtue to a kick ass engine) and is considered glamourous (how douche like)?

 

F1 should be about engines first and aerodynamics last.

 

I'll repeat the relevant part of my post above.

 

I wouldn't ignore the benefits in roadholding and efficient cooling (etc.) at high speeds on road going sportscars that have come about by using F1 derived aero research technology. All the money that F1 teams pour into windtunnels and CFD finds it's way onto road cars indirectly.

 

Modern road cars, especially anything with any kind of "performance" label, will have benefitted from the aerodynamic research done in F1. The aerodynamic research and technology coming out of F1 doesn't just sit in a vacuum. OK modern road cars have no need for any specific flips and flaps, but the technology that is used to create those can be applied to road cars.



#67 totgate

totgate
  • Member

  • 75 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 16 December 2013 - 15:41

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. 

 

:clap:



#68 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,450 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 16 December 2013 - 23:55

'Formula 1' is so called because it has a 'Formula'

 

There is no particular reason for that formula not to include aerodynamic restrictions along with engine, size, weight, tyre and format restrictions. In fact given that Aerodynamics is potentially the most important area in modern racing car design it would seem insane not to consider it in the formula.



#69 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 December 2013 - 00:18

Hell no

the cars look like anything but cars already.

Airplanes that dont fly, like birds that dont fly (chickens)

#70 M2B

M2B
  • New Member

  • 25 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 17 December 2013 - 00:57

That would be the worst thing ever.



#71 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 17 December 2013 - 03:39

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

 

 

 

Looks like a frackin' Champcar:

 

dp01-side.jpg