208 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

Advocating ground effect goes with the assumption that downforce is needed. So far, I do not see a reason to retain huge amount of downforce.

 

I do!  It makes racing cars fast and exciting, well at least F1.  F1 seemed in slow motion for many seasons until the current 2017 downforce increase.

[V8 Fireworks]

I'm still not convinced it would be a good move.  Fittipaldi said GE cars didn't require any finese just "big balls", not sure that's how F1 should go.

 

NASCAR requires, on the other hand, lots of finesse to control the slow, gradually slides with a very long response time of the car to inputs.  Constant adjustments. 

 

So what?  F1 is a different skill than NASCAR.

[V8 Fireworks]

Given that there's so much discussion (in other topics) about the inability to follow or pass on track, this topic might need a bump.

 

 

Also, article from this year (basically inline with a lot of people here were saying: Formula 1's Huge New Downforce Is a Problem, And IndyCar Has the Solution

 

Article is probably nonsense.  Indycar's reduction in corner speeds is probably not the answer to more exciting F1.

 

The finest F1 machines were point and squirt high-downforce beasts with immense braking and immense corner speeds. 

 

[kevinracefan]

late to the thread..

 

when did ground effects go away?

 

never

[cpbell]

Article is probably nonsense.  Indycar's reduction in corner speeds is probably not the answer to more exciting F1.

 

The finest F1 machines were point and squirt high-downforce beasts with immense braking and immense corner speeds. 

 

Those cars were spectacular, but the reason wasn't purely downforce - it was a combination of top-end power from high-revving NA engines which tended to make power delivery somewhat difficult to control without electronics, light weight, manoeuvreable chassis and front wings which were higher from the ground and narrower than they are today.  This meant that those front wings were designed almost entirely to generate front-end downforce rather than directing air around the car to seal off the floor (a necessity with the ludicrous rear rideheights used currently).  In turn, while front-end grip was reduced in dirty air, the rear of the car was still relatively stable due to rear downforce being less dependent on clean airflow over the front wing, so dirty air wasn't as much of a problem in rear-limited/traction-limited corners.  Today, with the front wings acting as much as rear downforce-enablers as front downforce generators, the effect of dirty air is felt along the full length of the cars, resulting in the 'wall of turbulence' being hit much further back from the car in front than was the case in the V10 era.

 

These videos reinforce the role played by contemporary front wings - note the relatively small area that actually directly generates downforce compared to that which generates vortices to seal the floor and assist with rear downforce:

https://www.youtube....-4-GX_AZA3ql3Hf

https://www.youtube....3ql3Hf&index=28

Edited by cpbell, 31 August 2017 - 14:43.

[Clatter]

late to the thread..

 

when did ground effects go away?

 

never

 

it will never go away completely, but the rules have greatly reduced its effectiveness.

[cpbell]

I'm of the opinion that such a comment relates to the large jump in downforce at the time.  A contemporary F1 car with a Monza spec aero package, would require more "finesse" than the same car with a Monaco setup.

GE aerodynamics in those days were dominated by sliding skirts which enabled a huge presure difference between the area under the car and around its perimeter.  This caused problems as, if the skirts' seal against the track surface was disrupted, the downforce levels dropped like a stone.  It also meant that the handling of the cars was 'all or nothing' with drivers having to carry as much speed through turn-in as possible to maintain the flow of air into the front of the GE tunnels in order for the rideheight to be maintained - if the flow dropped-off, the rideheight increased, possibly breaking the seal of the skirts, in turn resulting in a precipitous loss of underbody downforce.  By contrast, the model for a possible future of regulated F1 ground effect underfloors is likely to be closer to the Group C cars of the period, which, with full-length Venturi tunnels but no sliding skirts, had plenty of downforce but weren't as reliant of perfect rideheights or as unsubtle in the required cornering technique as F1 cars.

[Henri Greuter]

I do!  It makes racing cars fast and exciting, well at least F1.  F1 seemed in slow motion for many seasons until the current 2017 downforce increase.

 

 

I don't dare to think about what you opinion would be on watching a race from, say 1971, with cars that have little to no downforce sliding throught the corners as fast as the can on the edge and beyond the edge of adhesion.......

Oh and I forgot, multiple cars doing so within striking distance from another, not bothered by turbulence of the cars ahead....

You probably fall asleep because it is like watching counting sheep.....

 

 

henri

[THEWALL]

Yes.

 

Please.