191 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

In a round about way yes. The airflow has to get around the tyres as clean as possible then either go under the car or stick to the undercut of the sidepod.

 

Yes the front wing complexity is utter bovine excrement.  That's why front wing should be simplified to two elements or simply removed altogether.  

[PoleSitter85]

IMO it's corners like turn 9 and 10 at Istanbul Park that enable good overtaking opportunities on a straight, medium speed that don't need much downforce but require good traction on the exits.

Edited by PoleSitter85, 24 November 2015 - 10:54.

[RekF1]

I don't know about removing front wings, but I've always thought animated/dynamic wings would possibly work.

For example: the front/rear wing angle increases to gain more downforce when when in dirty air. If there was a maximum psi for the wings, then an automated system could increase the angle to meet it. I guess the downside would be less effective overtaking on the straights, but at least you'd be able to follow cars through high speed corners a little easier.

And do away with DRS whilst your at it.

[Nathan]

The movable front wing idea was used I believe in 2010, to no real effect as teams just used it as a tuning devise.  That isn't to say the idea couldn't be refined.

 

Two things determine your ability to pass; out accelerating giving you a "run" down a straight, and out braking.  Make F1 cars less capable of doing those two things.  More mechanical grip, wider tires, more down force, those things are going to create less overtaking IMO.  The cars have to be more difficult to drive.

Edited by Nathan, 24 November 2015 - 19:41.

[PoleSitter85]

The movable front wing idea was used I believe in 2010, to no real effect as teams just used it as a tuning devise. That isn't to say the idea couldn't be refined.

Two things determine your ability to pass; out accelerating giving you a "run" down a straight, and out braking. Make F1 cars less capable of doing those two things. More mechanical grip, wider tires, more down force, those things are going to create less overtaking IMO. The cars have to be more difficult to drive.

By going down that route surely the cars would be even slower and tons of fans will still be moaning.

Edited by PoleSitter85, 24 November 2015 - 20:11.

[Nathan]

So then is F1 more about the cars than drivers?

 

Personally, I think 'the fans' don't know what they want, or maybe there are two groups of fans.  10 years ago we had the fastest F1 cars in it's history, but the racing wasn't good and fans bitched.  Now the racing is better, but the cars are slower, fans bitch.  I think so long as the cars are the fastest circuit based racing cars, isn't that sufficient? Do lap times really matter to the majority of fans, so long as F1 cars are the fastest? 5 good passes per race is going to please the fans much more than 5 second faster lap times, isn't it?  Do people want to see drivers glued to the track and unable to pass the car ahead, or do they want to see cars that are difficult to drive and provide passing? 

 

Why are we watching?

[V8 Fireworks]

Do people want to see drivers glued to the track and unable to pass the car ahead, or do they want to see cars that are difficult to drive and provide passing? 

 

Why are we watching?

 

To see the most exciting extreme, cars.  Very fast and requiring skill and precision to drive.

 

There is already close racing with slipstreaming and multiple passes every lap in Formula Ford or Legend racing cars (motorcycle engines in small fibreglass bodies)... This doesn't bring the fans to the fence.  Hell most of the fans go to get a snack when these little cars venture out on track!!

[FPV GTHO]

I don't know about removing front wings, but I've always thought animated/dynamic wings would possibly work.

For example: the front/rear wing angle increases to gain more downforce when when in dirty air. If there was a maximum psi for the wings, then an automated system could increase the angle to meet it. I guess the downside would be less effective overtaking on the straights, but at least you'd be able to follow cars through high speed corners a little easier.

And do away with DRS whilst your at it.

The difficulty in a moveable front wing is how it affects everything downstream. Teams already have issues with DRS and wing stalling, they could lose downfoexe all over the car with similar issues on the front wing.

[PoleSitter85]

How advanced would Ground Effects have to be in order to lap quicker than the F1 cars of 2004?

[Nathan]

Not much considering how restricted that area is.

[PoleSitter85]

Not much considering how restricted that area is.

So why the hell don't they go down that path along with bigger tyres? Would they allow for much closer racing and more overtaking?

[Nathan]

I think bigger tires would have the opposite effect on overtaking.  I'm not sure how much the ground effect of the following car would be effected by the up wash from the car ahead as it works the same way as a wing, so if the airflow going into it is disrupted...

 

I personally don't think more downforce and grip are going to create more overtaking, or fun to watch skillful driving.

[maverick69]

I think bigger tires would have the opposite effect on overtaking.  I'm not sure how much the ground effect of the following car would be effected by the up wash from the car ahead as it works the same way as a wing, so if the airflow going into it is disrupted...

 

I personally don't think more downforce and grip are going to create more overtaking, or fun to watch skillful driving.

 

Not much, as classic venturi tunnels are pretty much out of any meaningful turbulence - particularly upwash.... unlike the upper surfaces.

[PoleSitter85]

Not much, as classic venturi tunnels are pretty much out of any meaningful turbulence - particularly upwash.... unlike the upper surfaces.

So it would enable closer racing? Still don't understand why they haven't even mentioned considering it.

[RealRacing]

Because F1 is a soup of interests and the stakeholders couldn't care less about the actual racing. Promotors want money, manufacturers want to win (which, in their mind = money). So, in a word, money. 

[TomNokoe]

To think 2011-13 we never knew we had it so good

[senna da silva]

More mechanical grip and less aero grip.

Reduce the number of elements allowed on the wings to two.

Have a tyre war.

Sorted.

[MattPete]

So it would enable closer racing? Still don't understand why they haven't even mentioned considering it.

 

Because they don't want to be seen as copying Indycar/Champcar/CART.

[saudoso]

And GP2.

But Colin Chapman came up with it in the first place.

[chipmcdonald]

I've been saying for years now, reduce down force by 50%, increase frictional grip by 50%.

 

Single element front wing, smaller chord, wider but narrower chord rear wing.   Wider tires.

[AlexS]

I already said years ago in this forum that a car should have a limit in dirty air than can make at back of it.

[Kalmake]

I already said years ago in this forum that a car should have a limit in dirty air than can make at back of it.

How would you define and measure the amount of dirty air?

[PoleSitter85]

So why can't we have the best of both worlds using Ground Effects? Break neck speeds with closer racing, pretty simple really although F1 isn't known for its common sense.

[Nathan]

How does more mechanical grip create closer racing?

A car that is harder to drive on the limits is more entertaining to watch, creates more passing opportunities and helps us see driver skill.  Or is lap time more important?

[robefc]

How does more mechanical grip create closer racing?

A car that is harder to drive on the limits is more entertaining to watch, creates more passing opportunities and helps us see driver skill.  Or is lap time more important?

 

Well I guess the theory is that the less your pace is affected when running closer to another car then the more likely you are to be able to stick close to them and make a pass.

 

I think what you are saying is that there are other factors that affect how easy it is to make a pass so just because you are able to follow better it wouldn't necessary improve the chances of passing.

 

I'm not sure it's even possible to take into account all the implications of less aero and more mechanical grip even before factoring in engineering ingenuity at exploiting loopholes. But I sure would love to see cars being able to follow so that a car that is quick enough to catch another driver doesn't suddenly become pace limited within 2 seconds of their car and then see whether passing is more possible.

[PoleSitter85]

Well I guess the theory is that the less your pace is affected when running closer to another car then the more likely you are to be able to stick close to them and make a pass.

I think what you are saying is that there are other factors that affect how easy it is to make a pass so just because you are able to follow better it wouldn't necessary improve the chances of passing.

I'm not sure it's even possible to take into account all the implications of less aero and more mechanical grip even before factoring in engineering ingenuity at exploiting loopholes. But I sure would love to see cars being able to follow so that a car that is quick enough to catch another driver doesn't suddenly become pace limited within 2 seconds of their car and then see whether passing is more possible.

Good points, if a driver is 0.5 of a second faster a lap I want to see him being able to close at that rate or near that rate until he can attempt a pass. How possible that would be even with Ground Effects I do not know.

[FPV GTHO]

What you see now is a driver behind needs a certain pace advantage to manage a clean overtaking manoeuvre, call it 1 second faster. If that advantage is smaller, they will still close up to the car ahead, but once they start losing aero the pace becomes the same if not worse, so they're either stuck there or have to go high risk. If you're total performance is made up of more mechanical grip, the same loss of aero shouldn't slow you down as much, so you shouldn't need such a large pace advantage to manage an overtaking manoeuvre.

[Ali_G]

Because they don't want to be seen as copying Indycar/Champcar/CART.

And many, many other FIA sanctioned series?

[robefc]

Well Ant and Crofty seem onboard with the reduce aero/increase mechanical grip concept.

 

Frankly after the mid-week report and the discussion in FP1 I really am expecting a nod to this thread as Sky's inspiration at some point!

[robefc]

Lewis too

“From a driver’s point of view we want more grip from our tyres. We want less wake coming from the car in front so therefore we can get closer. Because when you’re racing a guy whoever’s in front has one hundred percent potential of the aerodynamics. And the guy behind, the closer he gets, his potential deteriorates so then the advantage he did have when he was catching you initially disappears as he gets closer which shouldn’t be the case. You should be able to – in go-karting the closer you get, you pass, and you pull away. Or you battle.”

http://www.f1fanatic...-idea-hamilton/

Edited by robefc, 27 November 2015 - 11:15.

[Wes350]

How would you define and measure the amount of dirty air?

 

By measuring the cars drag coefficient in a wind tunnel.

 

It's done all the time for road cars - automobile manufacturers use the measurement all the time (To try and reduce drag) so that they get better gas mileage, and in the case of performance cars a higher top speed that they can advertise.

 

It would be straightforward enough to find a formula series that allows for close racing - and not allow F1 teams to build a car with a higher drag coefficient than what is measured.

 

It would be easily enforceable with a wind tunnel test... (they are all over the world.) Or an observed wind tunnel testing.

 

But I don't think we would have to go that far - we just need a more intelligently thought out complete formula overhaul.

 

Not the throw pasta at the wall and see what sticks method that has been around for the past decade or so.

[Wes350]

How does more mechanical grip create closer racing?

A car that is harder to drive on the limits is more entertaining to watch, creates more passing opportunities and helps us see driver skill.  Or is lap time more important?

 

 

To many, lap time is everything!

 

 

Personally, I don't see the need to widen the tyres to get more grip.

 

A different vendor (michelin or bridgestone).

 

Going to a lower profile (17" rims) would also help a great deal.

 

And widening the track slightly would help as well (185-190cm).

 

Do what I listed above and the drivers wouldn't know what hit them.

 

 

No reason to widen the tyres and create more dirty air for no reason, when there are other ways to get the additional grip the drivers are asking for.

Edited by Wes350, 27 November 2015 - 20:58.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

How advanced would Ground Effects have to be in order to lap quicker than the F1 cars of 2004?

 

Very easy. The current cars are deliberately designed with a performance ceiling. Being quick is no problem, being quick while still sanely safe is the hard part. For decades Formula One improved and went quicker year by year. But with the turbo/ground effect cars of the 80's, it was all rolled back as far as sheer lap times are concerned. When you consider that technology is still moving forward, the rules makers are still crippling the cars, we have over 30 years of lost performance. If we were allowed to use today's technology unrestricted, the cars would be a heck of a lot quicker.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

I've been saying for years now, reduce down force by 50%, increase frictional grip by 50%.

 

Single element front wing, smaller chord, wider but narrower chord rear wing.   Wider tires.

 

IMO going to narrower tires with less grip and a LOT more power (without driver aids) would turn the game into whatever driver had more skill in handling a beast that would lose traction if he just put the pedal to the metal. That is one problem these days, most of the time all a driver does is nail the gas at a certain point of the corner and just drive off. Make it so that if he does not exercise skilled throttle control, his rear wheels spin and he gets passed.

[OO7]

IMO going to narrower tires with less grip and a LOT more power (without driver aids) would turn the game into whatever driver had more skill in handling a beast that would lose traction if he just put the pedal to the metal. That is one problem these days, most of the time all a driver does is nail the gas at a certain point of the corner and just drive off. Make it so that if he does not exercise skilled throttle control, his rear wheels spin and he gets passed.

That is not the case with these V6Ts as Martin Brundle pointed out, when he drove the both the 2015 Force India car and the Mercedes W06.

[Timstr11]

That is not the case with these V6Ts as Martin Brundle pointed out, when he drove the both the 2015 Force India car and the Mercedes W06.

It's even prohibited by regulation as that sounds like traction control. With the introduction of the V6T, torque has increased massively and drivers have a much bigger job with modulating the throttle to prevent wheelspin. Especially with these low grip tyres.

[V8 Fireworks]

How would you define and measure the amount of dirty air?

Definition is easy:  A maximum profile for turbulence (turbulence is just the level of flow fluctuation divded by the mean flow speed) in three-dimensions downstream of the car.  It would be a two- or three-dimensional mapa of maximum permitted turbulence downstream of the car (perpendicular to the axis of the car), which you would measure and need to conform to the set of limits at certain velocities (and perhaps multiple downstream cross sections at mutliple distances hence "three" dimensions)... In an independent full-scale wind tunnel obviously, for example the Toyota wind tunnel.  The team would need to "pass" to homologate the aero, same as with the crash safety of the tub.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 December 2015 - 07:22.

[V8 Fireworks]

IMO going to narrower tires with less grip and a LOT more power (without driver aids) would turn the game into whatever driver had more skill in handling a beast that would lose traction if he just put the pedal to the metal. That is one problem these days, most of the time all a driver does is nail the gas at a certain point of the corner and just drive off. Make it so that if he does not exercise skilled throttle control, his rear wheels spin and he gets passed.

 

Like a Ford Sierra RS?

 

[V8 Fireworks]

Well Ant and Crofty seem onboard with the reduce aero/increase mechanical grip concept.

 

Chandok clearly prefers increased underbody aero on the other hand.

 

[V8 Fireworks]

More mechanical grip and less aero grip.

 

No you need aero grip, otherwise the cars will be too slow...  It needs to be more efficient aero grip generated from a grounds effect underbody (whose profile is strictly defined in the regulations).   Perhaps with the maximum turbulence level rules too.

[OO7]

It's even prohibited by regulation as that sounds like traction control. With the introduction of the V6T, torque has increased massively and drivers have a much bigger job with modulating the throttle to prevent wheelspin. Especially with these low grip tyres.

Precisely, unlike the traction controlled V10 days.

[OO7]

More mechanical grip and less aero grip.

 

 

No you need aero grip, otherwise the cars will be too slow...  It needs to be more efficient aero grip generated from a grounds effect underbody (whose profile is strictly defined in the regulations).   Perhaps with the maximum turbulence level rules too.

 

Yes, you need aero grip, but not from the complex interacts of airflow from vortex generators, flow conditioners etc