Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Would You Welcome Back Ground Effect Aerodynamics? [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#1 BenF12012

BenF12012
  • Member

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 July 2015 - 12:18

An Interesting stuff from ThisisF1 - The British Grand Prix was a timely reminder of what F1 spectacle is all about amidst all the negativity surrounding the sport of late. With some convincing moves taken upon the future when Strategy Group met at Biggin Hills on the Wednesday before the race, there were proposals put forward for teams to come up with effective innovations towards what believed to be a radical shake-up in 2017.

 

That would mean prominent diversity in the aesthetics of the cars from what we are used to seeing in the current generation as they are expected to be more ‘aggressive’ in nature and dimensionally wider with bigger wheels. One of the crucial aspects being assessed are the ways in which downforce can be increased and it would certainly have significant impacts from nose to tail... Read Full

http://www.thisisf1....t-aerodynamics/

 

 



Advertisement

#2 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 12 July 2015 - 12:32

A spec floor that allowed ground effects sounds quite promising to me. Although a quick look through the currently active threads will inform you that some fans don't think there's anything wrong with the series as it stands.



#3 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 July 2015 - 12:38

Some here have been pushing this for a while, me included.


Edited by saudoso, 12 July 2015 - 12:39.


#4 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 15,798 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 July 2015 - 12:46

I understand that the idea is that ground effects aerodynamics is not negatively influenced much when right behind another car? Is that a proven theory? Or will it be like the 2009 aero revamp which did absolutely nothing to minimize aero loss when behind another car? 



#5 chhatra

chhatra
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 July 2015 - 12:49

I understand that the idea is that ground effects aerodynamics is not negatively influenced much when right behind another car? Is that a proven theory? Or will it be like the 2009 aero revamp which did absolutely nothing to minimize aero loss when behind another car?


That was the plan in 2009. Teams found the double diffuser loophole.

This is talking about a spec floor, which I believe will definitely help cars follow one another. They still need to control other areas of the car which create the turbulent air though.

#6 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 July 2015 - 12:53

Definitely. Light use of GE aero definitely works well, as shown in Indycar for decades.

#7 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 1,938 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 12 July 2015 - 12:54

It's a great idea (combined with active suspension). Me (as an engineering student and armchair aerodynamicist) thinks it has several advantages. 

 

The advantages of ground effect cars:

- downforce generated by ground effect (floors) is less prone to aerodynamic turbulences (people told me)

 

- the downforce is generated more effectively: better lift to drag ratio and a possible reduction of drag, leading to higher top speeds which is the easiest way to increase the length of the braking zones (as we learned by doing our driving lincence)

 

-etc. (more to be added)


Edited by nosecone, 12 July 2015 - 12:55.


#8 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 12 July 2015 - 13:09

Yes, with a control floor.  :up:  :up:  :up:



#9 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 15,798 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 July 2015 - 13:13

That was the plan in 2009. Teams found the double diffuser loophole.

This is talking about a spec floor, which I believe will definitely help cars follow one another. They still need to control other areas of the car which create the turbulent air though.

 

The idea behind the 2009 aero revamp was that cars could finally stay close in high speed corners, as the wide front wings and narrower rear wings would ensure less aero loss when following. The double diffuser regained quite a bit of aero (and thus more turbulence, but definitely it was less than pre 2009. 

 

Point was that the so called Technical Working Group studied on a plan that was supposed to improve the ability to stay close behind another car. In practice, it did not work.

 

This time, the idea is a spec floor. How sure are we that it is going to work? Apparently they use it at Indycar, and it works there. But don't they also use it at GP2, where dirty air is also a signifcant problem? I'm just a bit sceptic about these new idea's, as usually they do very little in practice to make the situation better. 



#10 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 12 July 2015 - 13:32

I am 100% confident that a spec floor with increased downforce will allow the cars to run closer together, making the competition closer, allowing us to discard DRS, wonky tires, and other such frivolous rules.

 

We do not see the bottom of the cars, that has no impact on how they look. This change would also reduce costs.



#11 chhatra

chhatra
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 July 2015 - 13:33

The idea behind the 2009 aero revamp was that cars could finally stay close in high speed corners, as the wide front wings and narrower rear wings would ensure less aero loss when following. The double diffuser regained quite a bit of aero (and thus more turbulence, but definitely it was less than pre 2009.

Point was that the so called Technical Working Group studied on a plan that was supposed to improve the ability to stay close behind another car. In practice, it did not work.

This time, the idea is a spec floor. How sure are we that it is going to work? Apparently they use it at Indycar, and it works there. But don't they also use it at GP2, where dirty air is also a signifcant problem? I'm just a bit sceptic about these new idea's, as usually they do very little in practice to make the situation better.


Like I said they need to control other aspects of the car too. No point reducing turbulence when the front wing of the car behind is super sensitive to any said turbulence.

Coulthard was mentioning at the last race. The Mercedes is so efficient in clean air but that has a negative impact when following another car.

Just like everything in F1, it all needs to balance and work as a package.

#12 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 12 July 2015 - 13:46

yes.



#13 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 12 July 2015 - 13:50

Happy to see them back or at least tested to see if it is worthwhile (safety first and all). But its a good way of generating downforce without lots of turbulent air. A spec floor might be the thing that ensures that cars run effectively behind one another. I'm all for longer braking zones but more powerful engines to ensure lap times.


Edited by F1Champion, 12 July 2015 - 13:56.


#14 Retrofly

Retrofly
  • Member

  • 4,608 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 12 July 2015 - 13:50

Yes



#15 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 12 July 2015 - 14:00

Michelin, active suspension, ground effect (spec floor). 2017 here w e come



#16 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 July 2015 - 15:23

It would be a great idea if it's spec. If not, engineers will find loopholes and all will be for little or nothing, as in 2009 with the DDs. However, as some have said, other things will have to be done too, especially regarding wings. I'm not sure about increasing speed and downforce overall; it just seems that it may make overtaking more difficult, even though it may depend on how much of the increased downforce comes from the ground effect.



#17 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 12 July 2015 - 15:28

I understand that the idea is that ground effects aerodynamics is not negatively influenced much when right behind another car? Is that a proven theory? Or will it be like the 2009 aero revamp which did absolutely nothing to minimize aero loss when behind another car? 

 

The 2009 aero revamp worked, somewhat. The time gap of dirty air decreased from 2 sec to about .8-1s. 

 

Michelin, active suspension, ground effect.

 

 

Absolutely NO to active suspension. If there is one thing that completely marginalizes drivers, it's that. 



#18 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 July 2015 - 15:30

Yes.

#19 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 12 July 2015 - 15:46

Yes, but screw spec floors, might as well make it a spec series if they're going to do that. I would much rather see front wings limited so that they're no longer as sensitive to turbulant air, that combined with ground effects would be excellent and allow us to get rid of DRS and change the tyre requirement.

 

And as King Tiger pointed out, the 09 rules did work, but not by quite enough to allow overtaking (though 2009 didn't have that much of a problem with overtaking anyway) and the front wing developments since then have done a lot to negate those changes.



Advertisement

#20 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 July 2015 - 16:19

The 2009 aero revamp worked, somewhat. The time gap of dirty air decreased from 2 sec to about .8-1s. 

 

 

Absolutely NO to active suspension. If there is one thing that completely marginalizes drivers, it's that. 

Yeah, active suspension is a no-no; might as well have computer driven cars in that case.

 

And no spec floors would probably cause them to be banned or limited again soon, like it already happened in the 80s. A spec floor that does the job of reducing turbulence for the following car, coupled with the corresponding reductions of top of the car aero will do the trick and potentially achieve a much better F1 just like that.



#21 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 July 2015 - 17:22

It doesn't have to be spec. They can limit the area of non-flat floor that can be used.



#22 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 1,938 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 12 July 2015 - 19:48

Who else nods looking on the active suspension idea? :p
 1993-williams-f1-active-suspension.gif



#23 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 12 July 2015 - 20:52

The good thing about ground effect venturi tunnels is that they are very insensitive to whatever is happening in front of the car. But with any externally mounted wings, they will always be influenced by what is happening in front of the car. But if you took off the restrictions on the size and shape of the diffuser, the groundforce will increase and teams will spend huge amounts of money going down that road. This is why a spec underbody is desirable, it mandates a very specific level of downforce.

 

Right now the underbody is responsible for 50% of the total downforce, the wings do the rest. Obviously, if the turbulence from a car ahead degrades the wing performance by 20%, the total downforce  for the car is reduced by 10%, the tires start to slide, and they wear out quick. But if the underbody is made to carry 80% of the total downforce, then each wing generates approximately just 10% of the total downforce. Factor in the loss of downforce as a result of turbulence, and the total loss of downforce is not even 5%, a heck of a lot better than 10%. I just pulled those numbers out of a hat, but it illustrates how having an underbody generate a larger share of the downforce allows cars to run closer together, definitely increasing the quality of racing.

 

Wouldn't you like to see a race where it is determined by the drivers, battling to the last lap? This is the kind of stuff that happens in Indycar, as a result of having more of the downforce generated by a larger diffuser.

 



#24 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 July 2015 - 21:06

 

Right now the underbody is responsible for 50% of the total downforce, the wings do the rest. Obviously, if the turbulence from a car ahead degrades the wing performance by 20%, the total downforce  for the car is reduced by 10%, the tires start to slide, and they wear out quick. But if the underbody is made to carry 80% of the total downforce, then each wing generates approximately just 10% of the total downforce. Factor in the loss of downforce as a result of turbulence, and the total loss of downforce is not even 5%, a heck of a lot better than 10%. I just pulled those numbers out of a hat, but it illustrates how having an underbody generate a larger share of the downforce allows cars to run closer together, definitely increasing the quality of racing.

 

 

 

Just a warning about numbers like that. Underbody downforce is still affected by turbulent air, just to a lesser extent.

 

 

Wouldn't you like to see a race where it is determined by the drivers, battling to the last lap? This is the kind of stuff that happens in Indycar, as a result of having more of the downforce generated by a larger diffuser.

 

 

That stuff also happens in Indycar because of frequent use of full-course cautions keeping the field tight. However it's the likelihood of being stuck behind another driver that is reduced in Indycar because the cars can follow each other better.



#25 ElJefe

ElJefe
  • Member

  • 472 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 July 2015 - 21:54

Yes (with spec floor!), but only if the FIA simultaneously restricts the development of front wings to further reduce the effect of turbulent air. It would also allow us finally to get rid of the artificial horror that is DRS, which has nothing to do with proper racing in my opinion. 



#26 chhatra

chhatra
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 July 2015 - 22:02

The good thing about ground effect venturi tunnels is that they are very insensitive to whatever is happening in front of the car. But with any externally mounted wings, they will always be influenced by what is happening in front of the car. But if you took off the restrictions on the size and shape of the diffuser, the groundforce will increase and teams will spend huge amounts of money going down that road. This is why a spec underbody is desirable, it mandates a very specific level of downforce.

Right now the underbody is responsible for 50% of the total downforce, the wings do the rest. Obviously, if the turbulence from a car ahead degrades the wing performance by 20%, the total downforce for the car is reduced by 10%, the tires start to slide, and they wear out quick. But if the underbody is made to carry 80% of the total downforce, then each wing generates approximately just 10% of the total downforce. Factor in the loss of downforce as a result of turbulence, and the total loss of downforce is not even 5%, a heck of a lot better than 10%. I just pulled those numbers out of a hat, but it illustrates how having an underbody generate a larger share of the downforce allows cars to run closer together, definitely increasing the quality of racing.

Wouldn't you like to see a race where it is determined by the drivers, battling to the last lap? This is the kind of stuff that happens in Indycar, as a result of having more of the downforce generated by a larger diffuser.

https://www.youtube....h?v=SVl2PuojmJg


My eyes!!! Won't somebody please think of the children!

Those cars look awful. If they have underbody aero why are the covered in all of those aero devices.

If we want to emphasise underbody aero, it should pretty remove top body aero apart from fairly simple wings.

There should be a maximum of two/three planes of the front wing with a 1 plane rear wing. Remove bargeboards and vertical sidepod fins.

#27 chumma

chumma
  • Member

  • 1,346 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 12 July 2015 - 23:06

Of course. In a perfect world the cars would look like they did in the early 90s and generate most of the downforce under the car, problem is engineers can't unlearn what they already know, so there is always potential for a silver bullet somewhere. I was a big advocate for going back to 2000 regulations, but that may have been nostalgia taking over because I started a few weeks back making a point of watching each race from 2000 (my favourite season) again and it was apparent even then that the aero was already killing the racing, difference back then was the large disparity in engine and engine performance which helped certain cars overtake and of course the large performance gap from Ferrari/McLaren to the rest.

It seems pretty simple, give them ground effect and more powerful diffusers, heavily reduce 'over the body' aero, give them stupidly powerful engines with a lot of torque, big fat rear tyres, skinny fronts, and the racing will increase dramatically. Problem stopping all of this is manufacturers and the word "green'

Formula 1 needs to learn from each era, everybody remembers the awesome 80s for its racing, the one drawback was that a lot of the time it was dominated by a single team who was always so far in front because of such large disparity in engines/technology, everyone remembers the 90s and early 00s for its sounds and 'personal' battles (obviously those can't be replicated because thats people dependant).

The mid to late 00s was all about the eyesores and whacky aero solutions on the cars which lets be honest were getting a bit out of hand. You'd also throw in the tyre war which was huge from 03 to 06.

If they can implement the dynamics/aero/mechanical philosophy of the 80s cars, with the downright angry and aggressive sounds of the 90s cars, coupled with the 'greenery' of the current cars and portion of current regs (no refuelling, get rid of the stupid fuel flow limit and just implement a kg/litre-age of fuel teams must not exceed during a race and let them decide how they use it) and let them have at it.

Is this a pipe dream? Of course it is, sure the current engines are engineering genius in both performance and efficiency and the world has changed, but don't tell me that in this day and age that engine builders couldn't design a very efficient 'green' V10/V12 that could bring back both energy and excitement of the cars that would get butts in the stands and eyes glued to TVs. Couple that with cars that can follow closely whatever the corner, and cars that are stepping out sideways on exit of corners due to the amount of torque under the right foot, that to me is very achievable in this day and age.

Im sure those proposals aren't almighty but they're a damned good start and if F1 is so deadset on electric power then implement it in a way that doesn't detract from the people who keep the sport afloat, THE FANS.

/end.



#28 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 12 July 2015 - 23:20

My eyes!!! Won't somebody please think of the children!

Those cars look awful. If they have underbody aero why are the covered in all of those aero devices.

If we want to emphasise underbody aero, it should pretty remove top body aero apart from fairly simple wings.

There should be a maximum of two/three planes of the front wing with a 1 plane rear wing. Remove bargeboards and vertical sidepod fins.

Look again, the 2012-14 apec DW12 did have pretty simple wings and they weren't covered in aero devices, a lot of that bodywork was to try and prevent interlocking wheels that can launch cars.

 

Even with the far more complex 2015 body kits the cars are still following each other pretty closely. Watch the race from Barber Motorsport Park back in April, it's a fast, flowing circuit with little in the way of long straights (like none at all), yet the race was amazing with close racing and plenty of overtaking.

 

Yeah, active suspension is a no-no; might as well have computer driven cars in that case.

 

And no spec floors would probably cause them to be banned or limited again soon, like it already happened in the 80s. A spec floor that does the job of reducing turbulence for the following car, coupled with the corresponding reductions of top of the car aero will do the trick and potentially achieve a much better F1 just like that.

Not necissarily, they were able to generate huge downforce levels in the early 80's thanks to sliding skirts sealing the underfloor and, on the Brabhams, an early form of active suspension that lowered the car very close to the track.

 

If GE is coming back then skirts and active suspension would hav eto be an absolute no-no to avoid ridiculous downforce levels being generated again, and the current underfloor plank woul already limit ride hights anyway. This is why I said open design on the floor, within certain parameters at least, and severly limiting the front wing. As it stands the front wing is very sensitive to turbulant air and it wouldn't take much for teams like Red Bull and Mercedes to develop them to send a vortex down the side of the car and act as a skirt sealing the underfloor since they already try to do it to a small extent already.

 

Lets face it though, if it happens it's going to get ballsed up since the teams are going to be involved in the regulations. Force India want spec floors for an obvious reason, Red Bull want the front wings enlarged with current comlexity retained for an obvious reason, the infighting will not be helpful. 



#29 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 13 July 2015 - 00:17

My eyes!!! Won't somebody please think of the children!

Those cars look awful. If they have underbody aero why are the covered in all of those aero devices.

If we want to emphasise underbody aero, it should pretty remove top body aero apart from fairly simple wings.

There should be a maximum of two/three planes of the front wing with a 1 plane rear wing. Remove bargeboards and vertical sidepod fins.

 

You want to remove the wings, but then there are others out there that complain that the cars are too slow. 



#30 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 13 July 2015 - 00:33

Just a warning about numbers like that. Underbody downforce is still affected by turbulent air, just to a lesser extent.

 

 The difference is noticeable and profound. The degradation of downforce on a wing as a result of turbulence is substantially much more. And is that not the goal of those who desire cars able to run closer to each other and be affected less by the turbulence?



#31 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 13 July 2015 - 00:38

My eyes!!! Won't somebody please think of the children!

Those cars look awful. If they have underbody aero why are the covered in all of those aero devices.

If we want to emphasise underbody aero, it should pretty remove top body aero apart from fairly simple wings.

There should be a maximum of two/three planes of the front wing with a 1 plane rear wing. Remove bargeboards and vertical sidepod fins.

 

NO NO NO take a step back and please look at the big picture, the basic fact that many cars were able to battle each other. I posted that video not to attempt to prove to anyone how ugly or pretty the DW12 cars are, but rather the effect of having more ground effects. Don't look at the cosmetics, please look at the dynamics, the action.



#32 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 13 July 2015 - 02:57

Indycar is your friend.  Don't deny the feelings.  You know you want it.



#33 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 13 July 2015 - 04:29

Indycar is your friend.  Don't deny the feelings.  You know you want it.

 

Then please explain why I watched just 20 laps of the Milwaukee race.



#34 MastaKink

MastaKink
  • Member

  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 13 July 2015 - 05:27

Yes I'd have them back in a heartbeat. 



#35 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 July 2015 - 07:03

Pointless discussion when all cars are forced to be on the wrong tyre all the time and the series gets dominated by the team which happens to be least impacted by tyre choice.

Let the teams choose a tyre supplier and the compound and then start worrying about aero.

#36 chumma

chumma
  • Member

  • 1,346 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 13 July 2015 - 11:02

Indycar is your friend.  Don't deny the feelings.  You know you want it.

Its rubbish, the cars are rubbish. Lifeless, slow looking eyesores.



#37 stewie

stewie
  • Member

  • 3,554 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 13 July 2015 - 11:09

Its rubbish, the cars are rubbish. Lifeless, slow looking eyesores.

The cars don't look great, but the racing beats F1 hands down.

#38 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 July 2015 - 11:27

I think what they mean by a spec floor is the dimensions and shape of the venturi tunnels. Ergo - the wheelbase issue would be...... erm...... not an issue.

 

Anyways. Defo a yes from me. You can all but get rid of the front wing and put a trimmer on there..... so that's one big bone of contention sorted.

 

As for Active Ride: It depends. If you go mental and make two massive great tunnels - then the cars will most likely start porpoising. Ergo, you'd need active ride.

 

If you toned it down a little and had something akin to the last Formula Nippon cars - then you'd probably be alright on passive suspension.

 

People talking about DDDs: That was for all intents and purposes "ground-effects" - the 2010 McLaren used to suffer quite a bit from porpoising due to the size of its DDD. In-fact, the cars use ground-effects now. It's just the length of the diffuser is very short. 


Edited by maverick69, 13 July 2015 - 11:27.


#39 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 July 2015 - 13:17

The difference is noticeable and profound. The degradation of downforce on a wing as a result of turbulence is substantially much more. And is that not the goal of those who desire cars able to run closer to each other and be affected less by the turbulence?


You don't have to tell me that. I was just putting a little disclaimer on your post because the number where drawn out of thin air.

Advertisement

#40 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,395 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 13 July 2015 - 13:36

I disagree with the idea of a 'spec' tunnel.  Just form regulations that place limits on the maximum dimensions of the tunnels as is currently done with the diffuser, rear wing, front wing etc.



#41 johnnycomelately1

johnnycomelately1
  • Member

  • 120 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 13 July 2015 - 13:37

Are ground effect cars more dangerous?



#42 johnnycomelately1

johnnycomelately1
  • Member

  • 120 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 13 July 2015 - 13:40

 The difference is noticeable and profound. The degradation of downforce on a wing as a result of turbulence is substantially much more. And is that not the goal of those who desire cars able to run closer to each other and be affected less by the turbulence?

they may run closer Blinky but is there a lot of overtaking ergo excitement?



#43 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 13 July 2015 - 13:58

I would much rather see the FIA to introduce a downforce limit and then let the teams free how to generate that amount of downforce. Whether it is by a fan, sculpted undertrays or movable wings, teams should be given room for their creativity. 



#44 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,395 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 13 July 2015 - 14:05

Are ground effect cars more dangerous?

Not by default.  GP2 cars for instance are essentially ground effect cars (they use tunnels) and are not perceived to be any more dangerous than other similarly powered single seater category.  In the past (early 80s) ground effect cars used sliding skirts to prevent the migration of high pressure air into the low pressure tunnel.  If a skirt was stuck in the up position as a driver reached a corner, he would suddenly lose a lot of downforce which could lead to a big accident.  Back then the introduction of tunnels suddenly lead to the cars being able to corner much more rapidly, with a notable reduction in lap time.  This coupled with the design of circuits at the time meant far greater risk and danger.


Edited by OO7, 13 July 2015 - 15:39.


#45 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 13 July 2015 - 14:38

Its rubbish, the cars are rubbish. Lifeless, slow looking eyesores.

 

So it should be an easy transition for F1 fans then?



#46 JForce

JForce
  • Member

  • 13,847 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 13 July 2015 - 14:47

Not if it means a spec floor. I'm against standard parts in F1 as a general rule.

#47 RA2

RA2
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 July 2015 - 16:03

80's F1 had in most cases only GE no wings; compare that to the current GP2 and Indycars they are completely different concept. Even the old Champcars did not relay on the floor as much as F1. The closest to F1 GE were the Sports Cars of Group C

 

F1 needs to get back to max reliance to GE maybe to the scale of 90% and keep the wings restricted to Monza sizes just for signage. 


Edited by RA2, 13 July 2015 - 16:04.


#48 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 July 2015 - 16:05

Groud effects? Definitely. F1 has only seriously suffered from turbulence for the past 20/25 years.


Edited by Atreiu, 13 July 2015 - 18:47.


#49 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 July 2015 - 18:39

Look again, the 2012-14 apec DW12 did have pretty simple wings and they weren't covered in aero devices, a lot of that bodywork was to try and prevent interlocking wheels that can launch cars.

 

Even with the far more complex 2015 body kits the cars are still following each other pretty closely. Watch the race from Barber Motorsport Park back in April, it's a fast, flowing circuit with little in the way of long straights (like none at all), yet the race was amazing with close racing and plenty of overtaking.

 

Not necissarily, they were able to generate huge downforce levels in the early 80's thanks to sliding skirts sealing the underfloor and, on the Brabhams, an early form of active suspension that lowered the car very close to the track.

 

If GE is coming back then skirts and active suspension would hav eto be an absolute no-no to avoid ridiculous downforce levels being generated again, and the current underfloor plank woul already limit ride hights anyway. This is why I said open design on the floor, within certain parameters at least, and severly limiting the front wing. As it stands the front wing is very sensitive to turbulant air and it wouldn't take much for teams like Red Bull and Mercedes to develop them to send a vortex down the side of the car and act as a skirt sealing the underfloor since they already try to do it to a small extent already.

 

Lets face it though, if it happens it's going to get ballsed up since the teams are going to be involved in the regulations. Force India want spec floors for an obvious reason, Red Bull want the front wings enlarged with current comlexity retained for an obvious reason, the infighting will not be helpful. 

That's why a spec floor would be the best, no loopholes to find, no time wasted in banning things that go against what was intended (like the DD in 2009), making sure that at least in that front the rules will contribute to cars being closer to each other. As far as the wings is concerned, the present front wing would not make sense because AFAIU it owns its shape and complexity to trying to compensate for the loss of downforce from being close to another car (correct me if I'm wrong). So with more downforce coming from the GE floor, the front wings would not need to be that complicated which is good anyway as they a) look ugly and b) are too wide and therefore sensitive to any contact.



#50 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 13 July 2015 - 18:47

There is too much aero now really, so ground effect is still only going to make cars faster through bends even more, harder to overtake on straights properly without daft aids and put further risk on corner accident points, leading to more car park tracks and other race series away from F1 being ruined by having to race on F1 safe tracks.

 

While F1 should not be a show, they really should learn from last time, ground effects was one of the unhappiest periods for drivers in the sport. Please learn you dumb cretins and stop clutching at straws, single element front wings. Thats the future, limited angle, low df track, mid df track, high df track.