97 replies to this topic

[BalanceUT]

I admit to not being an expert on aerodynamics. I have an engineering degree and took some basic aero course work, but that's it. 

 

Still, I imagine this kind of rule is possible: Do whatever you want aerodynamically with the car within the following restrictions: 1) minimum ground clearance and 2) at 3 meters behind the car, in a standard wind tunnel test, the measured turbulence must be at or below this [value, pattern, distribution of forces, etc.]. 

 

The idea would be to make that turbulence a low enough number that cars are not so much disturbed by the car ahead and it becomes a limiter on what can be done with aerodynamics ahead. In a sense, it requires conditioning of the airstream as it leaves the diffuser, also. 

 

Cornering speeds will probably drop, but races should be more exciting from an overtaking perspective, which is what I sense most people want. 

 

I will not do much in the way of defending this 'spitball idea' because it's just that. Those of you who actually know more about this stuff may tell me that I'm asking for an impossibility (I doubt that) or would do more harm than good by slowing the cars too much compared to overtaking gains (that I can believe). 

 

I seem to recall that there's been some discussion of this by the FIA powers that be. I suspect that teams that are heavily invested in gains from cornering speed (Red Bull) are strongly against such a rule. 

[Risil]

So a crash-test style procedure, but for aerodynamic wake? That would be very interesting.

[Reinmuster]

1 sec rules for overtaking was worked with KERS as power-boost combined with DRS as another aided device. Now KERS was part of PU I think we need to increase the gap from 1 sec to maybe 3-5 sec to aid overtaking?

[TomNokoe]

How about, if you are 1 second behind the car ahead, but you set 3 consecutive faster laps, they have to let you through.

[Kershy]

You couldnt implement something like that without cost control otherwise there would be an even bigger (by some margin) gap from the top 3 teams.

[Peat]

Interesting idea. The teams would kick off about it, but the cynic in me believes that know a fair bit about dirty air and that they work to maximize it wherever possible.

[Kev00]

How about, if you are 1 second behind the car ahead, but you set 3 consecutive faster laps, they have to let you through.

That’s sarcasm right?

[TomNokoe]

That’s sarcasm right?

yes

[BalanceUT]

Interesting idea. The teams would kick off about it, but the cynic in me believes that know a fair bit about dirty air and that they work to maximize it wherever possible.

I also cynically think that teams make choices in their aero to cause more dirty air when the option is available. Why not? Whatever is allowed by rules is fair game. If they could throw caltrops out the back of the car they would. So, if not caltrops, why not 'aero caltrops' to keep the trailing team at bay. 

Edited by BalanceUT, 25 March 2018 - 15:25.

[Risil]

I also cynically think that teams make choices in their aero to cause more dirty air when the option is available. Why not? Whatever is allowed by rules is fair game. If they could throw caltrops out the back of the car they would. So, if not caltrops, why not 'aero caltrops' to keep the trailing team at bay.

 

I remember a racing journo saying that he floated the idea conspiratorially to a senior designer for one of the F1 teams, and the designer looked at him like he was 6 and said something sarcastic to the effect of "What... you think??"

[noikeee]

I've heard this idea around a few times, but never from people in the know - is turbulence actually measurable in a precise, useful way?? I suspect that could be quite tricky to measure.

 

I can also imagine this proving to be a serious problem whenever teams want to bring in aero upgrades. Fly the whole car to the control base for measurements again.......... Just not sure how practical this idea can be, and how can it be done in a way that teams can't cheat (the teams are very very very creative when it comes to cheating any kind of tests). Would the FIA have to homologate every winglet, every tiny aero piece? Or keep all the pieces to themselves after the aero test and hand them over to the teams by the race weekend? 

[Kalmake]

1) Ground clearance is hard to enforce. That's why they invented stepped floor for the same end.

 

2) Expensive test that would have to be done for every update and wing angle and rake angle.

[PayasYouRace]

The short answer is that I don't know.

 

Turbulence can be measured, but would this idea require each team to supply a car for a 1:1 scale windtunnel test to measure it? Turbulence doesn't scale very well so it might not be ideal to use a smaller model. At this point you'd have to homologate the car's bodywork to that test. I suppose that's not a bad idea for cutting costs as it would slow aero development. Or maybe it would just add to the expense?

 

At this point it would probably just be cheaper and more effective to mandate certain spec aerodynamic components, and come up with a rule set that mimics Indycars in their aerodynamic concept (Or F2 or Superformula or something similar that works.)

 

Limit the number of front wing elements (they did that for the rear wing. Not impossible) add in a specified underbody tunnel area and specify a sidepod intake that reduces the need for all the crazy bargeboards and most of the problems will be gone.

[chrcol]

didnt *ERS get adjusted (weaker) this year?

 

Its clear aero needs to be reduced, but teams will fight it as it loses them performance, rights holder may fight it as it looks bad if cars are slower.

 

The only other alternative is adding a big artificial aid.  But that can then make it too easy.

 

I would consider allowing DRS use at any point in the lap at the driver choosing, it increases the element of drivers skill as some drivers will be more confident to use it than others.  Also increase the gap from 1 to 2 seconds.  It used to be like this in quali and vettel had good skill with it so he was rewarded for it, which I was ok with.

 

To assist in this objective been reached, someone (or a group) needs to be employed as a racing director or something, and be given complete authority on what to do on rule changes to improve racing, the teams and rights holder should have absolutely no influence.  The issue I have is the fragility of such an arrangement to corruption.  But I suppose is no perfect solution.  I dont suggest charlie, who should be separate and just manage race situations.

Edited by chrcol, 25 March 2018 - 15:57.

[AustinF1]

How about, if you are 1 second behind the car ahead, but you set 3 consecutive faster laps, they have to let you through.

[Seanspeed]

The more downforce a car needs, the more its hurt when you put it in dirty air. This matters no matter where the car produces its downforce. Quantity matters as much as quantity of air and no car design can mitigate lack of quantity of air.

F1 has to go back to being lower downforce again if we want to see closer racing. These 2017 rules were incredibly predictable in terms of the impact they'd have on the racing. The cars are exciting to watch on their own, but that's not worth the cost of racing.

It's crazy that this is *with* DRS, as well. It would be a total farce without it.

[BalanceUT]

1) Ground clearance is hard to enforce. That's why they invented stepped floor for the same end.

 

2) Expensive test that would have to be done for every update and wing angle and rake angle.

Difficulty and expense should be tossed aside. The first step is to determine if it is possible to do with current technology, damn the cost. Then you determine what can be practically done given costs and humans trying to end-run a system. Trying to head off the first step by saying the second step is impossible is always a useless way to pursue answers to a problem. 

[SenorSjon]

Yes, limit the number of front wing elements to two and make the fw fit between the front wheels. It will have reduced efficiency and will be les important.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

How about, if you are 1 second behind the car ahead, but you set 3 consecutive faster laps, they have to let you through.

I take it that was a joke?

[Atreiu]

I'd go for spec front wings, floors and diffusers.

[noriaki]

The more downforce a car needs, the more its hurt when you put it in dirty air. This matters no matter where the car produces its downforce. Quantity matters as much as quantity of air and no car design can mitigate lack of quantity of air.

F1 has to go back to being lower downforce again if we want to see closer racing. These 2017 rules were incredibly predictable in terms of the impact they'd have on the racing. The cars are exciting to watch on their own, but that's not worth the cost of racing.

I'd be down for reducing the overall downforce levels in any case (as well as making the cars wheelbase smaller and width narrower again), but this statement you keep repeating still remains false. It still matters a lot where the downforce is generated. When it is done by the underbody, the car will produce way less dirty air to start with.

For the umpteenth time - Indycar have gone on about solving the issue (ie. generating a bigger % of downforce from the underbody in relation to the aerokit --> laptimes do not get significantly slower but overtaking gets significantly easier) for a couple of years now and have just proved their philosophy works in practise too.

[Sterzo]

I like the thinking behind this idea, i.e. to do something in the way of meeting a test, rather than specifying dimensions that prove to have unexpected results. Or maybe both could be used, in combination.

 

My suspicion is that a clever aerodynamcist would eventually develop the ability to generate a tornado, which arced round the test zone and sucked the following car from behind. Nevertheless it does look like a direction worth exploring.

[Christbiscuit]

Surely it would be easier to simplify the aero rather than spend more time on money on designing in a specific wake pattern? Just cut the aero dependency, make the cars simpler and put the performance back into the hands of the driver. Performance reliant on complex aero always makes for terrible racing. Remove the front wings altogether.

[THEWALL]

The solutions have been there for a long time, just not the willingness to implement them. That's why, if the main teams don't want to change things, Liberty should seriously think about control-alt-deleting the whole thing. I, for one, would support them.

[Kalmake]

Difficulty and expense should be tossed aside. The first step is to determine if it is possible to do with current technology, damn the cost. Then you determine what can be practically done given costs and humans trying to end-run a system. Trying to head off the first step by saying the second step is impossible is always a useless way to pursue answers to a problem. 

I though it was obvious what you say is technically possible. To save time I went straight to practical.

[djparky]

All F1 has to do is look at the 2018 Indy Car- not only does it look fantastic, but on a similar track at St Pete produced alot more overtaking and yes actual racing than the current generation F1 car can manage at any track

The brain trust went with high aero rules and more durable tyres- who would have known it wouldn't produce good racing?? The answer is everyone except the muppets who came up with the idea.

[w1Y]

what about have a moveable aero part which is activated if within 1 second.

Something to add to the cornering ability and then the Drs for the straight.

[BalanceUT]

Surely it would be easier to simplify the aero rather than spend more time on money on designing in a specific wake pattern? Just cut the aero dependency, make the cars simpler and put the performance back into the hands of the driver. Performance reliant on complex aero always makes for terrible racing. Remove the front wings altogether.

I'm not sure 'easier' is something that is important to teams. 

[Risil]

How about, if you are 1 second behind the car ahead, but you set 3 consecutive faster laps, they have to let you through.

This would make an excellent Autosport article for next Sunday.

[David Lightman]

How about all teams are given the same simple basic front wing design, that has a set number of mounting points on it and only delivers a fraction of the downforce they get now. They then have a set weight limit of how much extra carbon fibre can be added to that wing, using only some or all of those mounting points. They'd still be able to do aero research but more limited than now.

 

Maybe I've eaten too much cheese but this seems sensible to me 

 

Edit: Do the same with the rear wing too of course.

Edited by David Lightman, 25 March 2018 - 22:32.

[Redback]

1. No front wings (None!)
2. Limited rear wings
3. Ground effect floors

 

Problem solved.

[GreenMachine]

Specify that front wing be a single plane tip-to-tip, max/min span and chord length and depth, except for the spec centre section.  End plates to be a single plane perpendicular to the plane of the wing, of specified length and height.  End plate could perhaps allow a 3D box to permit deflecting flow around front wheel (or not, depending on how tight you wanted to limit the FW contribution to aero efficiency).  Allow say three wings per car per season, two homolgated prior to race 1, another mid-season.  Standard deflection testing continued.

 

This would get us back to 1st gen front wings.

 

Next step would be to specify that the exterior surface be a single surface with no additions or shaping to condition the airflow other than the FW and RW.  This would be the difficult one to specify, but perhaps the Tech Director of the series has the power to rule.  Maybe produce a hypothetical model of the surface of a car, and say this is how we expect your car to look, if it doesn't you will be in breach of the rule.

 

My 2c.

[v@sh]

I would say simplify the front wing structure a LOT, the number of elements on the front wing and the intricacies on the front wing is useless to everyone but the teams themselves. Limit the amount of aero updates a season you can bring for certain areas e.g. front wing/rear wing. Limit the elements and crazy amount of wings around the bargeboard area etc.

 

There is a lot they can do with restricting this to improve overtaking in the regulations.

 

Did they not see what happened with MotoGP introduced winglets? These were small aerodynamic changes yet riders were complaining straight away about the effect on following another bike. MotoGP did the smart thing and banned them not long after, F1 still doesn't know how to regulate.

 

Now imagine if we kept the shark fins and all the horrendous appendages from 2008. Every race would be a procession.

[EthanM]

the problem with all the pontificating about banning this and banning that is the entrants are the teams building the chassis. Without aero there is very little scope for chassis to differentiate performance from one team to the next. And you can't run a multibillion global sport with gagagistes on cosworths, nobody will buy the product. And you can't turn F1 over to the engine manufacturers. They unwillingly did that in 2014 and look at the wonderful mess that's created.

[ArrowsLivery]

• No front wings (None!)
• Limited rear wings
• Ground effect floors

Problem solved.

Yes!! Give them movable skirts, the designers will be able to handle them nowadays with the advanced CFD and wind tunnels that they have. It keeps the downforce between the tires instead of on the ends of the car, making it less prone to imbalance.

[RacingGreen]

the problem with all the pontificating about banning this and banning that is the entrants are the teams building the chassis. Without aero there is very little scope for chassis to differentiate performance from one team to the next. And you can't run a multibillion global sport with gagagistes on cosworths, nobody will buy the product. And you can't turn F1 over to the engine manufacturers. They unwillingly did that in 2014 and look at the wonderful mess that's created.

 

It depends on what you are marketing. If you market the drivers as the stars I think you can. After all the NBA / NFL/ EPL teams etc. are multi billion dollar franchises that market themselves by using the players as the stars. 

[Seanspeed]

I'd be down for reducing the overall downforce levels in any case (as well as making the cars wheelbase smaller and width narrower again), but this statement you keep repeating still remains false. It still matters a lot where the downforce is generated. When it is done by the underbody, the car will produce way less dirty air to start with.

For the umpteenth time - Indycar have gone on about solving the issue (ie. generating a bigger % of downforce from the underbody in relation to the aerokit --> laptimes do not get significantly slower but overtaking gets significantly easier) for a couple of years now and have just proved their philosophy works in practise too.

Producing more downforce from the underbody has nothing to do with reducing the quality or quantity of air it receives. It's certainly *preferable* to produce less % of downforce from top-side, but if a super high downforce car is receiving a huge reduction in airflow by following another car through a corner, it does not matter where the downforce comes from, the reduction in airflow is going to kill performance greatly and the more downforce a car is built to run at, the worse this problem gets.

The point is that thinking you can design a super high downforce car that can follow closely to another is a fool's errand. There is nothing you can do about the fact that a downforce-dependent car lacks air when following another car closely. You can mitigate the problem to a small degree, but you cant come remotely close to fixing the problem.

IndyCar is quite low downforce compared to F1. Even without the more powerful engines, F1 cars would demolish IndyCars around any downforce-dependent track. This isn't hurting my point at all. Quite the opposite. But would we accept IndyCar-like performance levels? We were already complaining about 2016 cars 'looking slow' even though they were still well faster than IndyCars.

Edited by Seanspeed, 26 March 2018 - 00:09.

[Tsarwash]

How about, if you are 1 second behind the car ahead, but you set 3 consecutive faster laps, they have to let you through.

That would be the end of racing. Nobody would attempt to overtake, just wait for the other car to let them through.

[Seanspeed]

That would be the end of racing. Nobody would attempt to overtake, just wait for the other car to let them through.

I'm like 99% sure they were being sarcastic.

[Tsarwash]

I'm like 99% sure they were being sarcastic.

Yeah, I didn't get that from the post, but saw after. Silly me. Something needs to be done in my opinion. I watched the C4 highlights and got bored and so just ended up watching the five minute Liberty youtube highlights thing. Next time I might just stick to the five minutes thing. 

[Ricardo F1]

Lest us not forget Albert Park is ****.

[juicy sushi]

Producing more downforce from the underbody has nothing to do with reducing the quality or quantity of air it receives. It's certainly *preferable* to produce less % of downforce from top-side, but if a super high downforce car is receiving a huge reduction in airflow by following another car through a corner, it does not matter where the downforce comes from, the reduction in airflow is going to kill performance greatly and the more downforce a car is built to run at, the worse this problem gets.The point is that thinking you can design a super high downforce car that can follow closely to another is a fool's errand. There is nothing you can do about the fact that a downforce-dependent car lacks air when following another car closely. You can mitigate the problem to a small degree, but you cant come remotely close to fixing the problem.IndyCar is quite low downforce compared to F1. Even without the more powerful engines, F1 cars would demolish IndyCars around any downforce-dependent track. This isn't hurting my point at all. Quite the opposite. But would we accept IndyCar-like performance levels? We were already complaining about 2016 cars 'looking slow' even though they were still well faster than IndyCars.

Do F1 cars produce actually more downforce than Indycars?

In road course trim, an Indycar is still around 5000lbs of downforce. The old kits were ~6500.

What does an F1 car manage now? The level of refinement is high, but the rules package is garbage. So, truffles on a **** sandwich still gives one a **** sandwich.

Indycars and LMP1 cars both develop a lot of downforce, but thanks to the rules on how they do so, they can race a lot better. I think your concern over the downforce level itself is misplaced. The rules are garbage, hence the problems. It's not a recent thing. The previous rules had the same problem, as has been the case since roughly the mid-90s. F1's use of raised noses, the tea tray, a load of flow conditioners and a rear diffuser is overly-wake sensitive. The final years of group C had cars with far more downforce than current F1 or Indycars, and they had less problems than current F1 cars.

Edited by juicy sushi, 26 March 2018 - 00:47.

[Redback]

Producing more downforce from the underbody has nothing to do with reducing the quality or quantity of air it receives. It's certainly *preferable* to produce less % of downforce from top-side, but if a super high downforce car is receiving a huge reduction in airflow by following another car through a corner, it does not matter where the downforce comes from, the reduction in airflow is going to kill performance greatly and the more downforce a car is built to run at, the worse this problem gets.

The point is that thinking you can design a super high downforce car that can follow closely to another is a fool's errand. There is nothing you can do about the fact that a downforce-dependent car lacks air when following another car closely. You can mitigate the problem to a small degree, but you cant come remotely close to fixing the problem.

IndyCar is quite low downforce compared to F1. Even without the more powerful engines, F1 cars would demolish IndyCars around any downforce-dependent track. This isn't hurting my point at all. Quite the opposite. But would we accept IndyCar-like performance levels? We were already complaining about 2016 cars 'looking slow' even though they were still well faster than IndyCars.

 

I hear what you're saying Sean, but it's not just the reduced volume of air that affects the following vehicle though, - it's the condition of that air and dependence the following car has on non-turbulent air-flow for the complex wings to actually work.

 

In the days of ground-effect F1, car were following very closely with relatively little degradation in braking or turn-in performance.

 

The reason for that was that GE cars generate less turbulence, but are also much less affected by turbulence.

 

AJ seems surprisingly unaffected in this video and that was in '81 when they'd already banned sliding skirts.

 

https://youtu.be/Lb4iBFECi4Q

Edited by Redback, 26 March 2018 - 00:54.

[EthanM]

In road course trim, an Indycar is still around 5000lbs of downforce. The old kits were ~6500.

 

 

 

currently? I would guesstimate F1 is around double that. In 2014 the 'semi official' figure was 'around' 3.5-4.0 tonnes of df at 200mph (so around 8500 lbs give or take)

[juicy sushi]

I would be very skeptical of double that. Or even 8000lbs given the restrictions the rules have.

[Tsarwash]

Do F1 cars produce actually more downforce than Indycars?
 

Yes. You only have to look at the two to see that. 

[FPV GTHO]

I hear what you're saying Sean, but it's not just the reduced volume of air that affects the following vehicle though, - it's the condition of that air and dependence the following car has on non-turbulent air-flow for the complex wings to actually work.

In the days of ground-effect F1, car were following very closely with relatively little degradation in braking or turn-in performance.

The reason for that was that GE cars generate less turbulence, but are also much less affected by turbulence.

AJ seems surprisingly unaffected in this video and that was in '81 when they'd already banned sliding skirts.

https://youtu.be/Lb4iBFECi4Q

I dont think you can compare the 80's cars to todays cars. Back then they didnt have much of a front wing, which is the number 1 problem today. I think the current cars would benefit by having smaller diffusers but bigger rear wings, similar to the intention of the 2009 rules.

[Redback]

I dont think you can compare the 80's cars to todays cars. Back then they didnt have much of a front wing, which is the number 1 problem today. I think the current cars would benefit by having smaller diffusers but bigger rear wings, similar to the intention of the 2009 rules.

That's sort of the point.

 

As I said in an earlier post above, ban front wings and reintroduce GE.

[juicy sushi]

Yes. You only have to look at the two to see that.

No, not really. The flow-conditioners and barge board orgy show that an F1 car's aerodynamics are much more refined, but don't mean it generates more in total. That's down to how much the wings and diffuser actually produce. An F1 car could produce more than an Indycar. That's quite possible.

That it produces so much more that it is useless to point out the method used is overly wake-sensitive and ineffective, I highly doubt.

[IamFasterthanU]

For the championship to be contested, it is important that overtaking remains difficult...easy to follow cars + DRS would kill racing. I personally enjoy seeing great defensive driving and game of tactics and for me FIA should just try to minimise Monaco, Abu Dhabi, Melbourne type tracks where overtaking is near impossible.