28 replies to this topic

[ronsingapore]

Hi there, 

 

I am very new to this forum. i have been following F1 for quite some time and also been reading up on the science and technology for some time, although I don't quite understand everything, as i am not engineering oriented or technically minded.

 

i saw this article on the blog F1 fanatic  http://www.f1fanatic...ground-effects/ and it seems that while ground effect allows high cornering speeds and allowed for shorter lap times, driver fatalities and incidents made it dangerous and resulted in its banning.

 

Just to check, as my own knowledge is lacking and there isn't a encyclopedia britannica version of F1, but a lot of knowledge being thrown around on the internet:

 

1) Are there any open-wheel racing series that use ground effect? I know that the US-based Champ Car (CART) used it, based on Firestone Firehawk 600 in 2001, where drivers felt dizzy from hitting more than 230 miles/hr.

 

 

2) Hypothetically speaking, if ground effect was allowed back, how should it be limited (in a theoretical sense) to ensure that excessive speeds do not come into play? I mean, sure fans would like to see F1 cars go fast but not at the unnecessary risk of drivers' life, but ensure that cornering speeds can be increased, and how much can F1 drivers absorb the G-force from high cornering speeds without losing consciousness? 

[Wuzak]

Indycars still use ground effects.

 

Also the Formula Renault 3.5. 

 

These control the aero by being single chassis series.

Edited by Wuzak, 12 November 2014 - 08:22.

[Henri Greuter]

Hi there, 

 

I am very new to this forum. i have been following F1 for quite some time and also been reading up on the science and technology for some time, although I don't quite understand everything, as i am not engineering oriented or technically minded.

 

i saw this article on the blog F1 fanatic  http://www.f1fanatic...ground-effects/ and it seems that while ground effect allows high cornering speeds and allowed for shorter lap times, driver fatalities and incidents made it dangerous and resulted in its banning.

 

Just to check, as my own knowledge is lacking and there isn't a encyclopedia britannica version of F1, but a lot of knowledge being thrown around on the internet:

 

1) Are there any open-wheel racing series that use ground effect? I know that the US-based Champ Car (CART) used it, based on Firestone Firehawk 600 in 2001, where drivers felt dizzy from hitting more than 230 miles/hr.

 

 

2) Hypothetically speaking, if ground effect was allowed back, how should it be limited (in a theoretical sense) to ensure that excessive speeds do not come into play? I mean, sure fans would like to see F1 cars go fast but not at the unnecessary risk of drivers' life, but ensure that cornering speeds can be increased, and how much can F1 drivers absorb the G-force from high cornering speeds without losing consciousness? 

 

 

The current Indycars still use ground effects to some extend

 

As for fans not wanting the unnessary risks of driver's live......

 

There are still a number of people reataed with Indy and Indycar (and ` fans` ) who insist that in 2016, with the 100th race, specator numbers in qualifying would increase if the track records of 1996 would be broken at last: whcih means speeds of over 238 officialy and 239.5 unofficially. I even saw "fans" proclaiming to dream about the 250 barrier being broken.

 

Such could be achieved when ground effects are optimalized and even more power added to gain enough straightaway speed....

 

But I wonder if anyone who wants to see 250 has taken a good enough look on the accidents of Danny Ongais, Gordon Smiley and the more recent ones at Fontana of Michael Aleshin and of course the Vegas manslaughter of Dan Wheldon. And also read what really happened at Fontana with Aleshin and the fencing over there and what all damage was.

And if that is not enough yet: try to unearth what happened in 2003 with Tony Renna.

 

About the worst Indy nightmare I can envision is a combination of what happened at Fontana at Indy, being;

 

Practice on Fast Friday with a number of cars given the extra boost they are also permitted to use in (next day's) qualifying, thus enabling them to go over 240.and then hae a mishap happen between two or more cars at 240 and more. Should the aftermath of such a crash come close to anything like what is rumoured to have happened when Tony Renna crashed and such being caught on camera in the same quality and kind of registration as happened with Danny Ongais and Gordon Smiley......

if it would be on live television too, like with Wheldon....

I don't wanna think about what the outcry will be then.

 

 

I doubt if ground effect ever can be applied in a decent manner again, it appears like a visual circle because of its tendency to work better the faster you go.

 

As for F1.

if you see how fast F1 cars go trough high speed corners right now with the current levels of grip, what will they be capable of when having more ground effect as well? Cornerspeeds wit G-forces of levels above jet fighter values?

 

 

Edit:

 

What I can envision is it would be applied on F1 cars:

Because of the increased downforce, that enables the teams to reduse the amount of components on the snowplough at front and the bookshrank between te rear wheels and sacrifice some of the grip they generate. In return, that reduces also frontal area and resustance and as a result the top speeds increase to even more insane values as the are right now: meaning higher corner entry speeds possible and likely higher corner speeds too because the ground effect working better with higher speeds.....

 

 

It would turn races in high speed processions and more like watching a slot car event.

 

And if something goes wrong then, then better pray it happens on one of those much critized Tilke tracks with enough run-off area and grandstand far away from the track.

 

End edit

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 12 November 2014 - 08:54.

[RogerGraham]

I had the impression that the concern with F1 ground effects wasn't so much that the cars went faster around corners, but what would happen if the ground effects failed mid-corner at that high speed, i.e. catastrophic accidents.

 

Does anyone know if that's at least partially true?

[Henri Greuter]

I had the impression that the concern with F1 ground effects wasn't so much that the cars went faster around corners, but what would happen if the ground effects failed mid-corner at that high speed, i.e. catastrophic accidents.

 

Does anyone know if that's at least partially true?

 

 

I recall something about a major change of thoughts after Jochen Mass'  taking off and crashing off the track at Paul Ricard in 1982 that finally brought the message down to the powers involved. There were no fatalities ivolved then but it was a wild one as well.

 

henri

[Wuzak]

In the early '80s they were using sliding skirts to keep the underbody sealed against the road. Sometimes these would jam, leading to a sudden loss of downforce.

[Wuzak]

1) Are there any open-wheel racing series that use ground effect? I know that the US-based Champ Car (CART) used it, based on Firestone Firehawk 600 in 2001, where drivers felt dizzy from hitting more than 230 miles/hr.

 

The Texas Motor Speedway used for that event was a short oval (medium length track in NASCAR terms) of 1,5 mies with steep banking. The banking and tight turns combined with the Champcars having the power to run the track flat out meant that the drivers were experiencing high G forces for 2/3 of the lap. 

 

Note that the IRL had run 225mph at the track before power wsas reduced.

[munks]

I had the impression that the concern with F1 ground effects wasn't so much that the cars went faster around corners, but what would happen if the ground effects failed mid-corner at that high speed, i.e. catastrophic accidents.

 

Well, besides the downforce differences, it wouldn't be much different if a rear wing fell off. And that's happened a few times (Raikkonen at Hockenheim, for example). Such accidents are just another good argument for limiting downforce in general.

[Lightknight]

There was a ground-swell against Ground Effect mainly because of the nature of all F1 tracks- curbs. The issue being that as soon as the car rides the curb there is often a very quick release of the negative pressure under the car, leading to some spectacular accidents. Most of the issues relating to the sliding skirts were solved, but the other issue was that lots of drivers were getting injured even without being in an accident, as the suspension movement was almost zero leading to many drivers suffering long term back pain because of the jarring.

 

Even today many race cars, including F1 cars, have elements of Ground Effect, albeit without the huge width to house the venturi tunnels under the car, and that is partly the reason that one of the elements of front wing design often focuses on getting the front wing to rotate downwards (within the rules please Adrian - just joking) so that it conditions the flow under the car - the underneath being perfectly flat other than the central plank - that still leaves the sides from which some downforce can be generated. Obviously if one can generate some ground effect this also means the rear diffuser become far more powerful.

 

What is questionable is whether Ground effect will ever be married up with Active Suspension in the future: there is a push top have active suspension brought in on cost grounds although it seems highly dubious. But be that as it may, Ground Effect and Active Suspension would be a marriage made in heaven! But with many new hyper sports cars like the McLaren P1 using active ride AND some Ground Effect (The car sinks to less than 5 cm clearance in Race Mode) the push from the big 5 will be strong - If its on a road car why not F1?

[MatsNorway]

Just force a higher minimum ride height and say something clever about collapsible suspention layouts.

Would F1 run just as stiff suspension as today if they where forced to run higher? i would imagine they would prefer a softer car as it would at least allow more curb riding and perhaps lower CG at high speed.

[Ilmor]

I had the impression that the concern with F1 ground effects wasn't so much that the cars went faster around corners, but what would happen if the ground effects failed mid-corner at that high speed, i.e. catastrophic accidents.

 

Does anyone know if that's at least partially true?

 

Yes, this is the primary concern. The downforce from ground effect (which is still present in F1, just not in the amounts that are actually possible) can switch off very suddenly for a multitude of reasons that we have poor control over. This includes debris, changes to surface characteristics, and even minor pitching induced by suspension. 

[bigleagueslider]

Most road race cars, including F1, Indy, LMP, etc., still make use of ground effects to some degree to produce aero downforce. Of course, the extreme examples of ground effects that used sliding skirts or suction fans are a thing of the past. The current aero regulations are geared towards making the cars less sensitive to changes in downforce due to things like wake turbulence from the car ahead.

[saudoso]

Just force a higher minimum ride height and say something clever about collapsible suspention layouts.

Would F1 run just as stiff suspension as today if they where forced to run higher? i would imagine they would prefer a softer car as it would at least allow more curb riding and perhaps lower CG at high speed.

4 titanium skids, with let's say 40mm, replacing the current wood plank. Would fix the racing in the rain issue too.

[RogerGraham]

Or just set (low-ish) maximum spring rates and a skid plank, and let them do whatever else they like?

[ronsingapore]

Indycars still use ground effects.

 

Also the Formula Renault 3.5. 

 

These control the aero by being single chassis series.

How does Indycar drivers and teams deal with the ground force?

[BRG]

Or just set (low-ish) maximum spring rates and a skid plank, and let them do whatever else they like?

Yes, but then some clever Dick or Adrian comes along with deformable spring cups or flexible wishbones or something that brings the ride height down at speed.  We went through all this in the GE era.  Some clever Colin even came up with a twin chassis car.....

[RogerGraham]

Surely it wouldn't be beyond the wit of rule-makers to sort that out?  It seems that there are so many aero regs to so little effect, which have to be redrawn every couple of years to overcome the march of progress and the $$$ pumped into wind tunnels and CFD.  So much money spent on aero that fans can't really see, and which if anything spoils the racing due to spoiling aero for following cars etc.

*If* it was possible to write rules around max spring rates to avoid the pitfalls you refer to, then increases in (aero-related) cornering speeds would virtually come to a halt, surely?  And a reduction in aero downforce would presumably help with cars following other cars through corners, giving better racing.  Pipe dream?

[Ray Bell]

Wasn't it Texas where Nigel Mansell reckoned he was nearly blacking out?

Alan Jones put forward the damage to his back as a reason for his retirement in 1981.

Peter Hopwood's crash at Amaroo Park, where his car got inverted and attacked the crowd (killing one lady), was a good example of the dangers. But referring to the OP questions, there was a much greater push to eliminate wings back in 1969 than there ever has been to do with ground effects.

[gruntguru]

AFAIK stress on the driver's body was mainly due to ultra high spring rates following the banning of skirts. The twin chassis concept would have solved a lot of GE problems including driver stress and porpoising.

 

Bring back skirts/tunnels/twin chassis with a limit on the skirted plan area.

[BRG]

Surely it wouldn't be beyond the wit of rule-makers to sort that out? 

 

You might think that. and I would be inclined to think that too.  But over the years, the rule-makers have never really managed it for some reason. And even when they did, the designers still managed to outflank them.

[Wuzak]

AFAIK stress on the driver's body was mainly due to ultra high spring rates following the banning of skirts. The twin chassis concept would have solved a lot of GE problems including driver stress and porpoising.

 

Bring back skirts/tunnels/twin chassis with a limit on the skirted plan area.

 

How stiff are the springs in Indycar and WSR cars?

[BRG]

How stiff are the springs in Indycar and WSR cars?

Pretty stiff, except for the ones that are softer.

[Henri Greuter]

Wasn't it Texas where Nigel Mansell reckoned he was nearly blacking out?

Alan Jones put forward the damage to his back as a reason for his retirement in 1981.

Peter Hopwood's crash at Amaroo Park, where his car got inverted and attacked the crowd (killing one lady), was a good example of the dangers. But referring to the OP questions, there was a much greater push to eliminate wings back in 1969 than there ever has been to do with ground effects.

 

I think that the latter had much to do with the fact that ground effects was a British invention, used the most efficiënt by the British Cosworth powered brigade and they considered it as their best eapon against the factory teams, who fielded be it V12 or turbocharged cars. "we master ground effect, ypu have the more powerful engines" ind of trade off thinking.

 

Henri

[Henri Greuter]

AFAIK stress on the driver's body was mainly due to ultra high spring rates following the banning of skirts. The twin chassis concept would have solved a lot of GE problems including driver stress and porpoising.

 

Bring back skirts/tunnels/twin chassis with a limit on the skirted plan area.

 

Hell NO!!!!

corner speeds need to be reduced as quick as possible to get better rcing again.

 

Henri

[desmo]

Um, with plan area limits, the DF can be any value you'd prefer. It'd be just as easy to make them corner slower as faster. Plan area limits combined with a single element or 'no shadowing in plan view' rule could also put a hard limit on conventional airfoil DF as well of course.

[Henri Greuter]

Um, with plan area limits, the DF can be any value you'd prefer. It'd be just as easy to make them corner slower as faster. Plan area limits combined with a single element or 'no shadowing in plan view' rule could also put a hard limit on conventional airfoil DF as well of course.

 

 

The Hell no was priomarily because of skirts. I don't want those back anymore since they make even a moderate wing profile way more efficient.

I am not agains curved undertrays in general but no skirts, please.

 

henri

[gruntguru]

Some folks are in favour of efficiency.

[Henri Greuter]

Some folks are in favour of efficiency.

 

Normally so am I in general that is.

 

But one of the things that makes racing so difficult nowadays is the extreme high corner speeds of the current cars and I like to see that go down for two reasons: better racing as well as for safety.reasons.

What can go wrong with ground effects cars that have skirts sticking and/or breaking, we may not have seen enough af that in the past yet. But it is one of those things that I really don't want to find out about after all because of being implemented again.

 

As for my appreciation for efficiency, For example I like the current PU's and what they achieve in power output a lot better that the V8s they replaced primarily because of their efficiency compared with those bellowing V9s.

 

Henri

[Greg Locock]

I never liked sliding skirts, they are a flat road low mileage solution.