Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Why doesn't F1 solve the dirty air conundrum


  • Please log in to reply
191 replies to this topic

#1 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:00

It seems to me that most people involved in F1 agree the biggest problem preventing close racing is the cars' reliance on aero, which means they have a significant disadvantage to the car in front as soon as they get within a second or two.

It also seems to me that there are some simple solutions involving increasing the level of mechanical grip v aero and/or focussing on ground effect.

 

So my question is what is stopping the regs being changed to solve the problem?

 

Who gains from having such a reliance on aero and who is preventing the sport moving away from it?

 

Is it purists who view maximum speed and engine noise as more important than close racing? Designers like Newey?

 

I'm struggling to understand why such a long running problem has not been dealt with whilst they have overtaking strategy groups coming up with 'plaster over the cracks' solutions like DRS that ignore the fundamental problem.

What am I missing?

 

Disclaimer - Yes I am a Lewis fan who was frustrated at the weekend but that merely focussed my attention on the issue, I would hope that we can look beyond team/driver allegiances although I am happy to hear viewpoints from those who don't think it's a problem.

 

 



Advertisement

#2 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:10

Because they can't.

 

Engineers will always try to squeze everything possible out to improve the aero.

 

Unless you are making spec cars or heavily restrict the teams on this area it will remain an issue. Thats why they are also changing all the time the regulations.



#3 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:10

Fear of losing prime advertising space

Fear of being too "slow" without wings

Fear of giving up 40 years of incremental knowledge. 



#4 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:18

Because they can't.

 

Engineers will always try to squeze everything possible out to improve the aero.

 

Unless you are making spec cars or heavily restrict the teams on this area it will remain an issue. Thats why they are also changing all the time the regulations.

 

My understanding is that the regulation changes have not focussed on trying to relieve the reliance on aero and also that it wouldn't be hard to do so...admittedly this understanding is quite heavily reliant on a couple of Gary Anderson autosport articles!



#5 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 656 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:19

It seems to me that most people involved in F1 agree the biggest problem preventing close racing is the cars' reliance on aero, which means they have a significant disadvantage to the car in front as soon as they get within a second or two.

It also seems to me that there are some simple solutions involving increasing the level of mechanical grip v aero and/or focussing on ground effect.

 

So my question is what is stopping the regs being changed to solve the problem?

 

Who gains from having such a reliance on aero and who is preventing the sport moving away from it?

 

Is it purists who view maximum speed and engine noise as more important than close racing? Designers like Newey?

 

I'm struggling to understand why such a long running problem has not been dealt with whilst they have overtaking strategy groups coming up with 'plaster over the cracks' solutions like DRS that ignore the fundamental problem.

What am I missing?

 

Disclaimer - Yes I am a Lewis fan who was frustrated at the weekend but that merely focussed my attention on the issue, I would hope that we can look beyond team/driver allegiances although I am happy to hear viewpoints from those who don't think it's a problem.

 

There was plenty of overtaking in Brazil It was a far from interesting race, largely because the overtaking was too easy and undramatic. Lewis' claims it was impossible to overtake there clearly disproved by plenty of other drivers.



#6 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:21

Fear of losing prime advertising space

 

I'm pretty sure there would still be some sort of wing for advertising....

 

Fear of being too "slow" without wings

 

They slowed down a lot with full tanks and tyre preservation anyway so not sure this can be the case. Plus I believe cars wouldn't necessarily be slower if loss of aero was met by increased mechanical grip

 

Fear of giving up 40 years of incremental knowledge. 

 

But surely anyone who isn't Merc (or perhaps RB given their aero is still up there) would relish the opportunity to move up the grid?



#7 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:22

There was plenty of overtaking in Brazil It was a far from interesting race, largely because the overtaking was too easy and undramatic. Lewis' claims it was impossible to overtake there clearly disproved by plenty of other drivers.

 

I suspect a lot of the overtaking was down to cars having significant advantages over the one in front, Max gave an interview to that effect.

 

But let's put Brazil to one side, do you not think not being able to follow is an issue generally? Surely there would be no DRS if it wasn't?



#8 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:25

Weak leadership and self interest.

#9 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,294 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:26

They had the overtaking working group to come up with ideas on this. I seem to recall a rear wing with the middle missing being proposed at some stage. Ultimately, iirc, the double diffuser ban was the proposed solution. Which then wasn't a ban. And ultimately hasn't made much difference.

Then McLaren 's F-duct inspired DRS and since then the powers that be seem to have thought 'problem solved'.

#10 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:31

Because they can't.

Pretty much.

It is an inherent issue of cars with such high downforce. Any car that relies on aerodynamics for a huge portion of their cornering ability is going to be significantly affected by a car in front of them because they are receiving less air and what air they are getting is hitting it the wrong way. There is no 'fix' for this. Even ground effect aerodynamics suffer from this as they still need quantity and quality of airflow to work at their best.

I think the best they can do is make small little improvements, but the only true way to make any big improvement is to take away a big chunk of downforce from the cars, making them less reliant on aero. The problem would still exist, but it'd be reduced and they would be able to race a bit closer through corners. They'd also be significantly slower.

This is why I think DRS is actually a pretty good solution. It is not designed to be an 'overtake button' sort of thing, it was specifically brought in to address the dirty air problem and try and balance out the disadvantage of following a car through a corner by making it back up on the straight. And it works quite well overall. People see some drive-by passes and conclude it's terrible and there are legitimate times it makes certain overtakes easy, but the vast majority of uses of DRS do not result in overtakes. It is largely about creating the *opportunity* to pass. To stop the dirty air problem from limiting the ability for these guys to go out and there and actually RACE each other.

Edited by Seanspeed, 17 November 2015 - 14:32.


#11 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:31

My understanding is that the regulation changes have not focussed on trying to relieve the reliance on aero and also that it wouldn't be hard to do so...admittedly this understanding is quite heavily reliant on a couple of Gary Anderson autosport articles!

Yes, I know. Just if you are changing all the time the regulations (eg front wing) than you are putting the engineers out of their conformed zone, they have to modify an solution which was perfect to make it perfect again. This needs time. Thats the main reason why it is this year more difficult than last year.

 

 

There was plenty of overtaking in Brazil It was a far from interesting race, largely because the overtaking was too easy and undramatic. Lewis' claims it was impossible to overtake there clearly disproved by plenty of other drivers.

And you missed the point. Its known now for several years that unless a certain circumstance is given (eg big pace advantage, circuit, weak aero) overtaking is indeed on the edge of being impossible and following close will cause (depending on the circumstancen) that your tyres will drop off, which in my opinion shouldnt be.

 

Its a big difference to follow a car as a Lotus/Sauber than to follow  a car as  Mercedes/Ferrari. Thats why Hamiltons claim was not necessarly wrong and on the same time we saw overtakes in the midfield.


Edited by Marklar, 17 November 2015 - 14:33.


#12 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:33

It seems to me that most people involved in F1 agree the biggest problem preventing close racing is the cars' reliance on aero, which means they have a significant disadvantage to the car in front as soon as they get within a second or two.

It also seems to me that there are some simple solutions involving increasing the level of mechanical grip v aero and/or focussing on ground effect.

 

So my question is what is stopping the regs being changed to solve the problem?

 

 

I think Seb summed it up quite well in the press conference:

 

I think in general what we need to follow another car closer in medium speed, high speed, slow speed corners is more mechanic l grip. So shift the percentage between aero –mechanical more towards more mechanical. How to do that? I think we need better tyres that allow us to go quicker. Drivers want to be quicker. So, I think the solution is very simple. Unfortunately the sport is very political with different interests from different people. Yeah. I think it’s fair enough to give whoever tyre manufacturer, in this case Pirelli, the chance to improve their tyres – but we need to run. But since the responsible people, the teams, whoever, can’t agree on something, it will be difficult to make progress. Unfortunately the people who literally are paying for that are sitting on the grandstands.


Edited by Exb, 17 November 2015 - 14:34.


#13 GSiebert

GSiebert
  • Member

  • 2,206 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:38

Well if you completly get rid of aero, wings etc ... and still wants F1 to stay the the fastest cars in the world, then you basically need to change ALL others categories rules. Without wings or diffuser, that kind of cars would be slower than a GT car, a car you could find in the streets.



#14 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:40

The most easiest solution IMO is in the end to fix these damn Pirelli tyres.

 

It may not necessarly be a solution for the overtaking problem, but at least it wouldnt be a impediment anymore to drive close behind your oponnent which would give us at least battles. We also didnt had 10 years ago many overtakes, but we had great fights over the whole race and thats a bit missing now because either you are overtaking someone very fast or you are saving your tyres to start at some point later in the race an attack.



#15 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:41

Because if they banned front wings it would be easier for the smaller teams to compete with the rich ones.  The rich ones don't like that.  Less sponsor money for them if they keep getting beaten by some garage outfit on a shoestring.  See how McLaren have lost Tag Heuer to Red Bull.



#16 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:45

I get that the current reliance on aero and also that if it cannot be replaced the cars will be too slow etc.

 

However, the aforementioned Gary Anderson seems to think the aero could simply be replaced as follows;

 

Increase front and rear tyre size - by 10 per cent at the front and 25 per cent at the rear -to replace the lost aerodynamic grip. This should largely be done in width, but a small increase in diameter would be acceptable.

 

http://plus.autospor...6051.1446822600

 

My impression (right or wrong) is that it is possible to keep the cornering speeds etc similar with less aero.



#17 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:48

Pretty much.

It is an inherent issue of cars with such high downforce. Any car that relies on aerodynamics for a huge portion of their cornering ability is going to be significantly affected by a car in front of them because they are receiving less air and what air they are getting is hitting it the wrong way. There is no 'fix' for this. Even ground effect aerodynamics suffer from this as they still need quantity and quality of airflow to work at their best.

I think the best they can do is make small little improvements, but the only true way to make any big improvement is to take away a big chunk of downforce from the cars, making them less reliant on aero. The problem would still exist, but it'd be reduced and they would be able to race a bit closer through corners. They'd also be significantly slower.

This is why I think DRS is actually a pretty good solution. It is not designed to be an 'overtake button' sort of thing, it was specifically brought in to address the dirty air problem and try and balance out the disadvantage of following a car through a corner by making it back up on the straight. And it works quite well overall. People see some drive-by passes and conclude it's terrible and there are legitimate times it makes certain overtakes easy, but the vast majority of uses of DRS do not result in overtakes. It is largely about creating the *opportunity* to pass. To stop the dirty air problem from limiting the ability for these guys to go out and there and actually RACE each other.

 

See my post above in respect of whether it's possible or not and the implications of taking away lots of aero. Obviously if replacing most of the performance lost from less aero isn't possible it's a bit of a non starter to reduce it.

 

I agree on DRS, it;s not about giving the car behind an advantage but really to take away their disadvantage. But it's very difficult to get that right all of the time. However, it's still a sticking plaster solution as it wouldn't be necessary if we could get rid of the issue of following being a huge disadvantage.


Edited by robefc, 17 November 2015 - 14:48.


#18 MasterOfCoin

MasterOfCoin
  • Member

  • 4,967 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:49

I suspect if F1 had ground effects the FIA would find it harder to police it, and one team will claim that a competitor is cheating.



#19 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:50

Because if they banned front wings it would be easier for the smaller teams to compete with the rich ones.  The rich ones don't like that.  Less sponsor money for them if they keep getting beaten by some garage outfit on a shoestring.  See how McLaren have lost Tag Heuer to Red Bull.

 

You could well be right, I wish F1 was run like an american sport.

Although you'd think if Bernie wanted to swing it in a certain direction he could.



Advertisement

#20 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:55

I get that the current reliance on aero and also that if it cannot be replaced the cars will be too slow etc.

 

However, the aforementioned Gary Anderson seems to think the aero could simply be replaced as follows;

 

Increase front and rear tyre size - by 10 per cent at the front and 25 per cent at the rear -to replace the lost aerodynamic grip. This should largely be done in width, but a small increase in diameter would be acceptable.

 

http://plus.autospor...6051.1446822600

 

My impression (right or wrong) is that it is possible to keep the cornering speeds etc similar with less aero.

Wider tyres would help, but again, just temporary. They will stil try to use as much aero as possible and after a certain time we are again back to normal....unless you are restricting that of course, but here you have conflict of interests....


Edited by Marklar, 17 November 2015 - 14:56.


#21 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 1,796 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 17 November 2015 - 14:55

Weak leadership and self interest.

 

This. F1 is make rules first, think about them later world.



#22 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:00

Could they not specify a maximum coefficient of drag?



#23 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,479 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:05

It's true it's inherent issue of high downforce cars but they could do what can be done first:

- introduce ground effect

- make front wing elements simpler

 

In 2009-10 when current reg started, cars could follow very close each other. The major difference was that early front wings were much much simpler. They still couldnt overtake because cars back then were extremely close (10+ cars within 1 sec in Quali was norm), V8 was rev-limited and there was no DRS.

So we already know what happens with simpler front wing alone. Why not do it first, as well as other things that can be done eg ground effect, before giving up easy and declaring "cuz they can't"?


Edited by muramasa, 17 November 2015 - 15:09.


#24 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:15

Technically this can be solved. It only takes a casual glance over at Indycar to understand that they have it solved, where their cars are able to run close together and put on a spectacular show.

 

It's the leadership, or lack thereof, or whatever it is at the moment. Formula One is currently beset with poor management, too many different entities have a say and those in power, despite their sincere beliefs, are old men entrenched in their ways and unwilling to move unless someone lights off a stick of dynamite under their butts.

 

And image and ego, by the bucket load.

 

Formula One advertises itself as the premier motor racing series, it would be a complete disaster if another type of car in a different series went faster. Advertisers would flee to that other series, fans would become confused, and old men would get limp dicks. So they MUST go fast, and to do so requires a lot of aerodynamics. But then ego kicks in, we're not going to be seen as copying anyone else, we are the ones with great ideas. So what happens is that Formula One will attempt other solutions before they realize that to copy a good idea may be the solution. Indycar ran the two tire rule long before Formula One copied it. Indycar has found the balance between wings and ground effects. It ain't perfect, but it sure is a heck of a lot better than Formula One.

 

OK, enough with the hearsay, many fans like to embrace the belief that Formula One drivers are the best in the world, that anything but a Formula One tire must be inferior, most power, and of course, best racing. Of course reality destroys those myths, but let's not make people unhappy.

 

aOrOr0E.jpg

 

But it ain't gonna happen, because the numbers support the belief that there is enough passing. The quality of racing and passing may be debated, but the sheer volume speaks for itself.

 

The current situation with DRS and the two tire rule does allow drivers to pass the car ahead, he just has to have the co-operation of his team, be smart, and drive well.



#25 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:17

Open wheel racing comes with a huge drag and turbulence penalty induced by the 4 wheels.

 

Engineers have to work around this to achieve a bit of speed with aerodynamics (example the fwep). There's no way around it.

 

Also, wider tyres means more drag and as with everything there's a trade-off.

 

You can't defy the laws of physics.



#26 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:21

Technically this can be solved. It only takes a casual glance over at Indycar to understand that they have it solved, where their cars are able to run close together and put on a spectacular show.

 

F1 cars can run fairly closely together. If only the tyres held up....



#27 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:28

See my post above in respect of whether it's possible or not and the implications of taking away lots of aero. Obviously if replacing most of the performance lost from less aero isn't possible it's a bit of a non starter to reduce it.

Depends on what you mean by 'less aero'. You could probably reduce it a bit, but I doubt any significant reduction in aero(say, to around 2005-era GP2 levels) could be made up for in mechanical grip. And even at that level of aero, the problem is only improved, it wont even come close to 'fixing' it. There will still be tons of situations where overtaking is just not do-able for a driver.

I dont think there is any silver bullet.

In 2009-10 when current reg started, cars could follow very close each other.

I clearly remember there being lots of talk at the time about how the new aero regulations were a failure because the improvements made in being able to follow closer were quite minor. They certainly couldn't race 'very close' to each other. It was better than before, but not much.

#28 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:30

Technically this can be solved. It only takes a casual glance over at Indycar to understand that they have it solved, where their cars are able to run close together and put on a spectacular show.

F1 cars could probably run fairly close to each other at the types of tracks IndyCars race on, too.

#29 TheRacingElf

TheRacingElf
  • Member

  • 2,267 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:35

quite simple, teams decide on the rules and the leading teams don't want to give away their competitive advantage :rolleyes:

They could make the cars a lot less sensetive to dirty air but they just don't want to..



#30 Ickx

Ickx
  • Member

  • 907 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:37

Back in the day, like a decade ago, I used to argue that the front wing should be restricted to n-number of elements and that the elements would only be allowed to be curved around one plane. I still believe that would be a good rule. No spec but at the same time not as ridiculous as the wings we have today.

#31 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,479 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:47

Open wheel racing comes with a huge drag and turbulence penalty induced by the 4 wheels.

 

Engineers have to work around this to achieve a bit of speed with aerodynamics (example the fwep). There's no way around it.

 

Also, wider tyres means more drag and as with everything there's a trade-off.

 

You can't defy the laws of physics.

yeah so why not disallow complex front wing first. We have evidence that it would work to some degree at least from 2009 season.

even with the same crap tyres GP2 races are a lot better.

 

F1 cars can run fairly closely together. If only the tyres held up....

we had that good tyre that is longed for now up until 2010 but fans kicked them out rather vehemently. The consequence is now.

If 2009-10 car had DRS, or if current cars had bridgestone or michelin like tyres, the racing would be a lot better while it still could be better of course.

Super Formula always had some sort of ground effect - more underbody aero reliance and simpler front wing as well as much lighter chassis and they have had no such crap as "cannot keep following other cars due to tyres or aero".

 

 


I clearly remember there being lots of talk at the time about how the new aero regulations were a failure because the improvements made in being able to follow closer were quite minor. They certainly couldn't race 'very close' to each other. It was better than before, but not much.

as I said, the cars back then were extremly close. 10 or 15 cars within 1sec in Quali was norm. Also engines were rev-limited. And yes they were racing very close to each other in 2009. The difference between now and 2008 is obvious.

Also the context is simply too difference. The context here is what can be possibly done to make it possible to follow each other more closely. One of them is to make front wing simpler, the other being better tyres, ground effect, lighter chassis etc. We have evidence that the cars were following very closely with simpler front wing. So that's what simpler front wing alone can do. So why dont do it first?

 

I would say the 2009 reg is failure in a completely different context. It was failure in a sense it didnt bring more overtaking. It was a failure in a sense that it still stuck to this 30 years old config of front/rear wings and flat bottom with diffuser attached to it so it's not fundamental solution/change. But here, that is not the context.



#32 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,497 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:50

The only Solve you get in F1 is absolvent. I don't see them adress this with the current rulemaking process at work.



#33 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 16:13

So far seems about 50:50 between we can't do much about it and self interest of teams/too many people involved with governing F1 is stopping anybody wanting to.

 

I suppose self-interest doesn't just mean whether a team is winning or near the top but also you might get a lot of redundancies if aero was less important etc...



#34 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2015 - 16:14

yeah so why not disallow complex front wing first. We have evidence that it would work to some degree at least from 2009 season.

even with the same crap tyres GP2 races are a lot better.

 

we had that good tyre that is longed for now up until 2010 but fans kicked them out rather vehemently. The consequence is now.

If 2009-10 car had DRS, or if current cars had bridgestone or michelin like tyres, the racing would be a lot better while it still could be better of course.

Super Formula always had some sort of ground effect - more underbody aero reliance and simpler front wing as well as much lighter chassis and they have had no such crap as "cannot keep following other cars due to tyres or aero".

 

 

GP2 cars are single spec. so they will be close together.

If we had a grid with only Mercedes W05 cars, the picture would not be much different.

I also doubt that the aero/mechanical grip GP2 cars are producing is of the same proportion as the aero/mecahnical grip in F1.

Simply put, GP2 cars may not be working the tyres as hard as F1 cars => tyre life is better in GP2.

 

At the end of the the day, drivers want a higher and better sustained mechanical grip, one way or the other. That's the end result we're looking for. At the same time, Bernie and some others in the Paddock are insisting on fragile tyres to improve the show.

These two things are in contradiction.


Edited by Timstr11, 17 November 2015 - 16:36.


#35 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 16:15

On the drag thing - Gary seems to think reduced aero plus bigger tyres will keep the drag levels simliar.



#36 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 9,223 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 17 November 2015 - 16:34

F1 as a whole are too invested in wings to look at alternative solutions.

 

This isn't an unsolvable problem. The cars could run closer than they currently do, even under the current technical regs. I know for a fact that multiple teams have aero devices that increase the wake turbulence with the sole aim of making it harder for cars to follow them. The problem is that you have teams with vested interests who are smarter than the rulemakers, who mostly don't have the scientific background to know what the hell is going on anyway.

 

The technical working groups aren't trying to find a solution, they're trying to adapt the current regulations because it means that they can continue with technology that they are familiar with. Something radical isn't in their interests so there is no one who is going to push it. This is why we ended up with DRS, or the "sticky plaster on a broken leg" as I like to think of it. The governing body lap it up because it allows cars to go past other cars. The teams love it because they can keep technologies they know and love. It isn't fixing the underlying problem. But it's not going to change - Charlie Whiting said something along the lines of, "Well we can increase the effectiveness of DRS if we need to".

 

To fix this problem, attitudes have to change.



#37 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2015 - 16:39

On the drag thing - Gary seems to think reduced aero plus bigger tyres will keep the drag levels simliar.

 

Explain "reduced aero". Is that less downforce? Making wings less complex => increased drag.

 

For sure, wider tyres => increased drag.



#38 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 17 November 2015 - 16:59

- ban Gurney flaps

- only two elements at the front and rear wing

- no change of the wing profile across the complete width

- limit the maximum angle of attack of each element

- simplify wing endplates

- simplify the floor, no cuts or holes

- get rid of all flow conditioners, turning vanes, vortex generators below the nose and at the sidepods

 

- reduce wheel drag by adding small covers behind

 

- reduce the minimum weight of the car to 600kg, so that less downforce is needed for the same corner speed(mv²/r)

 

- wider and bigger tyres, more durable(if you need to keep two or more pit stops, just introduce two mandatory stops or reduce the pit stop time loss :p )

 

- new tracks have to feature at least one straight with a minimum length of 1500m



#39 Retrofly

Retrofly
  • Member

  • 4,608 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:00

Like many have said, the problem is one single aspect, but a collection of problems.

Can anyone tell me which part loses the most downforce from a increase in dirty air?

 

I'm going to assume Front wing first, floor, rear wing, then sidepods/nose?

 

If front wing then look at that first, force a simplified wing, maybe consisting of a limited amount of components, so you have space for advertising etc.

 

If could couple this with ground effect, bigger more durable tires, (FRICs Suspension also?) and DRS you could offset the areo lost. Even if you still lose some time in dirty air this should be compensated by DRS.

The more durable tires would allow drivers to attack for longer. Sure you may get less pit stops, but that didn't exactly help in Brazil and I rather see 1 pass on track that 5 passes in pit lane.

 

I don't see how slight changes to the "many areas" could equal a better solution to what we have now while keeping the cars fast. It may not be perfect, but at least it can be "better".



Advertisement

#40 Alexis*27

Alexis*27
  • Member

  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:05

Because Jean Todt does sweet FA.



#41 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:18

F1 cars could probably run fairly close to each other at the types of tracks IndyCars race on, too.

 

What? 

 

IndyCar runs on tracks that on the "F1 spectrum" run from Monaco to Hungaroring at best (with the exception of Indianapolis road course, and Road America next year). I sure would love to see what kind of an overtaking fest F1 could put on Toronto, or Sonoma or Houston or Detroit...all tracks where the DW12's have managed to put on a great show generally. 

 

I'm no engineer but I still refuse to believe that it would be a problem to cut down on aero, and equally add on power - what they are planning to do anyway - and mechanical grip (implementing ground effects, having wider cars) resulting in similar laptimes as currently produced. Shame that those in charge don't care enough, or want that to happen. 

 

--

 

Have a look at Formula E. They race on absolutely hostile locations when it comes to putting on a show - yet the reason for its relatively popularity is exactly the closeness of racing. They produce pretty much no dirty air - so they can battle close as go-karts, front bumper to rear bumper, on the verge of performance. There's actually probably just as much passing in Formula 1 - but Formula E is still way more fun to watch than F1 cars with their air bumpers preventing anyone without a significant performance advantage from even considering getting closer than 1.5 seconds...



#42 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 10,251 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:35

I suspect the dirty air conundrum in Brazil was rather exaggerated by a certain Mr L. Hamilton who wasn't quite quick enough to overtake his teammate. There was no shortage of passing among the rest of the field.



#43 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:43

I suspect the dirty air conundrum in Brazil was rather exaggerated by a certain Mr L. Hamilton who wasn't quite quick enough to overtake his teammate. There was no shortage of passing among the rest of the field.

Same car and same tyre strategy.

#44 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:46

F1 as a whole are too invested in wings to look at alternative solutions.

 

This isn't an unsolvable problem. The cars could run closer than they currently do, even under the current technical regs. I know for a fact that multiple teams have aero devices that increase the wake turbulence with the sole aim of making it harder for cars to follow them. The problem is that you have teams with vested interests who are smarter than the rulemakers, who mostly don't have the scientific background to know what the hell is going on anyway.

 

The technical working groups aren't trying to find a solution, they're trying to adapt the current regulations because it means that they can continue with technology that they are familiar with. Something radical isn't in their interests so there is no one who is going to push it. This is why we ended up with DRS, or the "sticky plaster on a broken leg" as I like to think of it. The governing body lap it up because it allows cars to go past other cars. The teams love it because they can keep technologies they know and love. It isn't fixing the underlying problem. But it's not going to change - Charlie Whiting said something along the lines of, "Well we can increase the effectiveness of DRS if we need to".

 

To fix this problem, attitudes have to change.

 

Really well laid out post, thanks...bit bloody depressing though! :D



#45 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:47

Explain "reduced aero". Is that less downforce? Making wings less complex => increased drag.

 

For sure, wider tyres => increased drag.

 

I thought more downforce = more drag so less downforce = less drag? Or am I being a bit simple?


Edited by robefc, 17 November 2015 - 17:47.


#46 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:49

I suspect the dirty air conundrum in Brazil was rather exaggerated by a certain Mr L. Hamilton who wasn't quite quick enough to overtake his teammate. There was no shortage of passing among the rest of the field.

 

I would be grateful if we could keep this aspect out of it. I don't think we have to rely on Lewis to know that F1 has a longstanding problem with cars being able to follow due to reliance on aero.

 

I only mentioned Brazil because I was anticipating lots of people remarking on the coincidence of this thread being started post Brazil by a Lewis fan! :p



#47 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:53

I thought more downforce = more drag so less downforce = less drag? Or am I being a bit simple?

You're being simple. Front running cars will have less drag for the same downforce as lesser cars: Aero efficiency.
The complex front wings are an important means to achieve aero efficiency.

#48 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:54

Because they don't want to. As I've said many times, if they got rid of DRS and blue flags and so cars would have to actually be able to pass a back-marker without any aid, I think you would see designers and engineers compromising a bit on the aero. As it is, there's no real incentive to change.



#49 toxicfusion

toxicfusion
  • Member

  • 553 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 November 2015 - 17:55



It's true it's inherent issue of high downforce cars but they could do what can be done first:

- introduce ground effect

- make front wing elements simpler

 

In 2009-10 when current reg started, cars could follow very close each other. The major difference was that early front wings were much much simpler. They still couldnt overtake because cars back then were extremely close (10+ cars within 1 sec in Quali was norm), V8 was rev-limited and there was no DRS.

So we already know what happens with simpler front wing alone. Why not do it first, as well as other things that can be done eg ground effect, before giving up easy and declaring "cuz they can't"?

 

It was a simpler time, and the drivers could adjust the wing angle too.

 

1gqj9j.jpg



#50 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 33,502 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 17 November 2015 - 18:13

It's the tyres. You can run close (ish) to the car ahead, but you'll lose tyre life and it won't be worth it.


Trim the aero, toughen up the tyres.

I also liked KERS, the way a driver could adjust their deployment was nice to see and could aid them in a straight line if they could keep close elsewhere, but obviously the engines are now too complex for a situation that simple.

I won't mention louder, simpler, cheaper engines with a slightly more advanced version of KERS.

Another idea I've had is developing DRS into a 3 flap solution, and before the weekend, the FIA declares the circuit a high/medium/low DRS circuit, and the flap size increases/decreases as such. High circuits would be Monaco, Australia, Hungary, etc, low would be Monza, Spa...

Edited by TomNokoe, 17 November 2015 - 18:18.