59 replies to this topic

[superstring]

For years now some of the (IMO) saner voices in F1 design have been calling for increased mechanical grip rather than increased aerodynamic grip to improve the racing/overtaking.  As I'm sure most of you know, no less than Patrick Head recently said "Anyone who thinks increasing downfore will improve the racing has got rocks in his head".

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why this sage advice has been, for the most part, ignored.  The 2017 cars being a prime example.  Does anyone have ideas why this might be?

 

 

 

 

[F1Lurker]

For years now some of the (IMO) saner voices in F1 design have been calling for increased mechanical grip rather than increased aerodynamic grip to improve the racing/overtaking.  As I'm sure most of you know, no less than Patrick Head recently said "Anyone who thinks increasing downfore will improve the racing has got rocks in his head".

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why this sage advice has been, for the most part, ignored.  The 2017 cars being a prime example.  Does anyone have ideas why this might be?

Performance/Speed. 

 

Without all that downforce, the cars would be much slower and no longer the pinnacle of the motorsports world in cornering ability and lap time. The powers that be don't think the trade-off of cars following one another closely is worth F1's undisputed dominance at the top of the motorsport world. I agree.

 

The holy grail is to maintain downforce while at the same time reducing the impact of wake turbulence on cars following one another closely. Ross is on the case so hopefully he will find a proper solution. 

[Prost1997T]

All those aerodynamic personnel would be unemployed.

 

Seriously, F1 is about glitz\glamour, lap times and [perceived] high technology. There are also people who like gawking at aero detail (ie the anorak-class of fan: http://www.f1fanatic...ew-car-for-2017).

[FPV GTHO]

There's several issues to consider when framing the rules. The smart people always work for the teams, not the FIA as that's where the money is. If you frame the rules without the teams, they always manage to see around them like the double diffuser in 2009. If you make the rules with the teams, there's ulterior motives at play like the 2017 rules.

[minime]

The whole open wheel racing world has gone up a cul de sac and now most probably have no idea how to get out of the dead end. How do you take away performance from F1 without affecting every class that leads up to it. All those feeder classes would have to have aero taken away if F1 decided to do without it and to do that would be a huge ask. Yes, aero is a blind alley that really is an engineering wank fest and that is the best thing that could be said about it. Where would you start with removing excessive amounts aero form all classes and what is excessive, no wings at all just body work? A laudable idea but unlikely to fly, pun intended.

[Craven Morehead]

mechanical grip please if you want wheel to wheel racing.

[Prost1997T]

The whole open wheel racing world has gone up a cul de sac and now most probably have no idea how to get out of the dead end. How do you take away performance from F1 without affecting every class that leads up to it. All those feeder classes would have to have aero taken away if F1 decided to do without it and to do that would be a huge ask. Yes, aero is a blind alley that really is an engineering wank fest and that is the best thing that could be said about it. Where would you start with removing excessive amounts aero form all classes and what is excessive, no wings at all just body work? A laudable idea but unlikely to fly, pun intended.

 

GP2 has about 300 less hp (about 600) than a leading F1 car (the Merc is quoted as peak 900-1000 with ERS). F3 cars have a piddly ~260hp and are likely to be flat out in some "corners" with the 2017 aero upgrade.

 

The F1 rules actually make it more expensive to get the same lap time by having pages of regulation on every inch of the car.

[TheRacingElf]

There is a limit to mechanical grip though, it's very difficult to add more mechanical grip to the cars than they have now with the wider track and wider tyres. You could allow active suspension which might help a little bit but overall there is not much scope for improvement on that side of things so the only other available option to make the cars faster is through adding aerodynamic grip. There are also people who call for a mechanical grip only formula and ban aerodynamic devices like wings altogether but then you end up with Formula 1 cars going around at speeds similar to GT cars, which I don't think people want to see either.

 

Aerodynamic grip in itself isn't really as bad of a thing people make it out to be sometimes, it just depends on the way it's generated. There are ways to produce similar amounts of aerodynamic grip the cars have now but without causing as much turbulence and thus less side-effects. 

[baddog]

For years now some of the (IMO) saner voices in F1 design have been calling for increased mechanical grip rather than increased aerodynamic grip to improve the racing/overtaking.  As I'm sure most of you know, no less than Patrick Head recently said "Anyone who thinks increasing downfore will improve the racing has got rocks in his head".

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why this sage advice has been, for the most part, ignored.  The 2017 cars being a prime example.  Does anyone have ideas why this might be?

 

What are huge wide tyres going to do?

[PayasYouRace]

I think a lot of people think they're separate forms of grip and think you can just substitute one for the other.

A better way to think about it is that mechanical grip is the baseline and aero acts as a multiplier on that. That multiplier increases with speed of course.

It's a lot harder to increase mechanical grip. It basically means bigger tyres and well sorted suspension and the like. But as speeds increase that only gets you so far. Obviously going this route is a good way to limit out of control car development but going too far will result in much slower cars.

[Ali_G]

What are huge wide tyres going to do?

Allows you to run softer rubber due to the contact patch having better cooling characteristics.

I'm not sure this mech grip v aero grip is the answer though. I think a bigger issue is how downforce is generated. Using surfaces to generated down force is a bad idea.

[Gorma]

More aerogrip and wider cars... I think we are going to see a lot of ovetaking this year. 

[Kalmake]

If you are going to say silly words like "aerogrip", you mustn't forget "weightgrip". It's the cheapest way to increase grip. 

[minime]

More aerogrip and wider cars... I think we are going to see a lot of ovetaking this year. 

 

Dream on, it won't happen, probably the direct opposite actually. 

[apexracing1]

More aerogrip and wider cars... I think we are going to see a lot of ovetaking this year. 

 

It seems like a lot of people and of course F1 have gold fish memory. By 1997, the cars had excessive aero and mechanical grip, which resulted in making overtaking almost impossible,  which is why in 1998 they went in the opposite direction with grooved tyres, and narrow track, to slow them down and improve overtaking. It did not help at all. Then in 2009, they tried again by increasing mechanical grip, and greatly reducing aero, which again did nothing to improve overtaking. Now they have gone back to 1997 era, so it will just be even harder, but at least we now have DRS. Overtaking is not a real problem in F1 anyway, the real problem is one dominant team. There was lots of good racing and overtaking between competitive cars, but as usual F1 is blind to the obvious and goes in completely wrong directions.

Edited by apexracing1, 25 February 2017 - 06:07.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Surely more simplified aero is the answer?

Fewer elements to front wings for example...

[PlatenGlass]

What about ground effect?

[F1Lurker]

What about ground effect?

That is still aero. It might be better than the current wings based aero--but perhaps it is not as safe???  Furthermore, I have no idea whether it is very susceptible to wake turbulence.

[PlatenGlass]

That is still aero. It might be better than the current wings based aero--but perhaps it is not as safe???  Furthermore, I have no idea whether it is very susceptible to wake turbulence.

I've heard people say before that it's far less susceptible to being in the wake of the car in front, which would eliminate the problem people have with aero (i.e. not that it's aero per se but that it stops close racing and overtaking).

I'm not sure on the safety side. I don't see any particular reason why it should be less safe though. A sudden failure could happen with a wing or ground effect.

[Lotus53B]

It was most dangerous when the cars had skirts to seal the underbody - if one of those failed the car could be thrown upwards as the underbody "vacuum" suddenly failed.  Venturi tunnels as used in other series are safer, and less susceptible to the turbulence of the car in front, but nothing can really negate this dirty air over the front surfaces.

 

I do find it confusingly fascinating (if you can forgive such a fractured comparison) when in a race one second they say that the following car is getting the benefit of slipstream and drs and catching like a rocket, then they're in the turbulence unable to make a move.  That and the slipstream/turbulence zones seeming to magically expand and contract depending on which commentator is speculating leads me to wonder exactly what is going on.

 

We need Ross to explain it clearly and logically at some point.

Edited by Lotus53B, 25 February 2017 - 17:06.

[PlatenGlass]

I do find it confusingly fascinating (if you can forgive such a fractured comparison) when in a race one second they say that the following car is getting the benefit of slipstream and drs and catching like a rocket, then they're in the turbulence unable to make a move.  That and the slipstream/turbulence zones seeming to magically expand and contract depending on which commentator is speculating leads me to wonder exactly what is going on.

I also find it odd when they talk about the benefit of the slipstream. I don't think the benefit of the slipstream ever outweighs the "dirty air" over a whole lap in F1, which has sometimes been claimed at a place like Monza. Interestingly Alonso was penalised in qualifying in 2006 because of giving Massa this slipstreaming "advantage".

[Sterzo]

The easiest way to increase grip without increasing downforce is through softer compound tyres. This is where the calls for "mechanical" grip are likely to lead us. The problem is that tyres work best by laying a line of rubber on the track, and then bonding to it when the tyre is hot and near melting. Why is that a problem? Because if you move off the rubber line you lose grip and basically you don't have a cat in Hell's chance of overtaking.

 

If you want manic racing with lots of wheel to wheel action, then you need hard low grip tyres, not more "mechanical" grip. A quick glance at history tells us that the best racing was in GP2 in its early years, in Formula Ford, and to a lesser extent in sixties F1. In all cases there were durable low grip tyres.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Normal aero cars will always suffer in the corners when close to another car.

But i have great trust in Ross Brown, i'm sure in three years we will see him as the guy who cleaned up the dirty air problem. He will take some of the F1 money to set up an independent engineering team or pay Dallara to research and find the solution. From CFD to wind tunnel tests with two cars to real world track testing.

The possible solutions change the trailing car's downforce level to make up for the loss in the wake. What should be tested? Wing blowing and/or suction with the help of a standardized mandatory system, variable wing angle of attack for the front and rear wing and maybe even for the diffuser volume. Or wings that can change their width, in the normal position the extended wing is hidden inside the normal wing and when the aero is allowed to change, the wing comes out to the side.

Or a combination of these possibilities and in addition active suspension designs to help.

Ross Brown, thanks for your future work!

[Claudiu]

I don't get this point of separating the two, it's not like you can have one without the other, you can have all the mechanical grip in the world, without a good aero it will be basically useless!

A good aero grip will also more than likely generate also a good mechanical grip since there is more down-force pushing the car and working the tires.

Edited by Claudiu, 25 February 2017 - 18:22.

[FPV GTHO]

That is still aero. It might be better than the current wings based aero--but perhaps it is not as safe???  Furthermore, I have no idea whether it is very susceptible to wake turbulence.

 

I think the OWG concluded that to be the case when they were researching for the 2009 rules. Ground Effect downforce might be better at following a car, but it could also be producing a worse wake behind it when leading. When GE dominated F1, cars were very rear biased with weight and aero, with small or no front wings that probably didnt see that effect occur.

[Okyo]

Mechanical grip is increased basically by creating optimum conditions for tyre contact and the best way out there would be an active suspension. You could play around with a softer suspension overall, but that would just mess with the aero of the car as it moves more up and down. 

Could someone remind me why does the sport look so negatively at these kind of suspensions? I mean i get that it costs a lot, but it's mostly the development, with the smaller teams not being able to spend that kind of money. But can't they just add the same kind of active suspension to all of the cars and not allow the teams to do any development on them? Basically doing the same thing as they did with KERS. It's not a revolutionary technology, the costs can't be that bad to make a standartised solution? 

The gains wouldn't be huge, but they would be noticeable and at least they would extract the maximum mechanical grip from the tire-ground contact. 

[RacingGreen]

The Brabham BT46 (fan car) had the aero of a brick but loads of downforce (for it's era). Just saying.

 

 

I wouldn't have liked to drive behind it though, (that's not entirely true I'd have given my left bollock to have driven a Lotus 79 or a Ferrari 312T3 against it in anger.)

Edited by RacingGreen, 08 March 2017 - 04:02.

[PlayboyRacer]

It seems like a lot of people and of course F1 have gold fish memory. By 1997, the cars had excessive aero and mechanical grip, which resulted in making overtaking almost impossible,  which is why in 1998 they went in the opposite direction with grooved tyres, and narrow track, to slow them down and improve overtaking. It did not help at all. Then in 2009, they tried again by increasing mechanical grip, and greatly reducing aero, which again did nothing to improve overtaking. Now they have gone back to 1997 era, so it will just be even harder, but at least we now have DRS. Overtaking is not a real problem in F1 anyway, the real problem is one dominant team. There was lots of good racing and overtaking between competitive cars, but as usual F1 is blind to the obvious and goes in completely wrong directions.

Not sure what you remember.... but I remember 1997 as one of the last truly great seasons. Multiple teams winning races and many teams achieving podiums, many top drivers both old and young, very fast cars, tyre war, great title battle with two big names and bitter rivals, the last season of the last great era. There was overtaking, yes it wasn't heaps each race assisted by a load of artificial rubbish....but there were passes executed in the right manner. It's not meant to be easy....and the cars are meant to be very difficult to handle on the limit, which those 1997 F1 cars were.

It was still the lingering after effect of Ayrton Sennas accident, the cars had become very quick again and the FIA took drastic action, with dire consequences. Formula 1 has never been the same since.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 07 March 2017 - 00:52.

[V8 Fireworks]

Surely more simplified aero is the answer?

Fewer elements to front wings for example...

 

And ban rake too.

 

And add ground effect. 

[Melbourne Park]

Normal aero cars will always suffer in the corners when close to another car.

But i have great trust in Ross Brown,...

The possible solutions change the trailing car's downforce level to make up for the loss in the wake. What should be tested? Wing blowing and/or suction with the help of a standardized mandatory system, ...
Ross Brown, thanks for your future work!

 

Firstly, I have no faith in Ross Brawn ... (you had a typo by the way). He's clever etc etc but the number of players makes genuine reform tougher and tougher. For instance - Mercedes have got their way, mostly IMO due to Toyota, Honda, BMW etc leaving. The big players always threaten to leave, and they protect what they perceive as their various competitive advantages. For instance, spending is one of those ...

 

But your point on suction ... putting in an electrically driven fan on the front of the car, would re-establish front grip in the corners. Its use would also retract from straight line electrical power, so there would be some "give and take" over its use. And hey - its a "green thing"  . It would solve everything .... OK ... let Ross decide on Race Day the duration of the fan ... maybe it wouldn't work unless a car was close in front ... or another way, if a car started to loose downforce in the front, then it could work ... (no point running it at low speeds anyway because it would waste batteries).

 

I always go back when discussing this issue, to Montoya, who commented: If you want overtaking, simply make all the downforce produced in-between the front and rear wheels. The air from that downforce would be evacuated over the rear tyre, and hence would not effect the rearward car ...

 

I guess, one would extract the air from low in the front and exhaust it in between the front and rear tyre ... and make the downforce occur in between the front and rear tyre. 

Edited by Melbourne Park, 07 March 2017 - 02:53.

[Kalmake]

I think the OWG concluded that to be the case when they were researching for the 2009 rules. Ground Effect downforce might be better at following a car, but it could also be producing a worse wake behind it when leading. When GE dominated F1, cars were very rear biased with weight and aero, with small or no front wings that probably didnt see that effect occur.

The downforce was as forward as they could get away with. The lowest point of the tunnels was near the front of the side pods. Rear wing was much less efficient, but they had to use quite a bit still to get the balance rearwards, closer to the center of mass.

[Craven Morehead]

Performance/Speed. 

 

Without all that downforce, the cars would be much slower and no longer the pinnacle of the motorsports world in cornering ability and lap time. The powers that be don't think the trade-off of cars following one another closely is worth F1's undisputed dominance at the top of the motorsport world. I agree.

 

The holy grail is to maintain downforce while at the same time reducing the impact of wake turbulence on cars following one another closely. Ross is on the case so hopefully he will find a proper solution. 

 

Some nice ground effect cars might be the way back, and forward..

[HoldenRT]

Performance/Speed. 

 

Without all that downforce, the cars would be much slower and no longer the pinnacle of the motorsports world in cornering ability and lap time. The powers that be don't think the trade-off of cars following one another closely is worth F1's undisputed dominance at the top of the motorsport world. I agree.

 

The holy grail is to maintain downforce while at the same time reducing the impact of wake turbulence on cars following one another closely. Ross is on the case so hopefully he will find a proper solution. 

 

I agree with the first part of your post, but the latter part.. that's what the 2009 regs were supposed to be, and they failed.  It was DRS that has helped overtaking the most (in an artificial way).  Changing of the regs back to this way in 2017, has been to me an admission or concession that the earlier regs failed, and that with DRS proving quite effective, that those regs aren't really required.  It's therefore ironic that they start talking about removing DRS and going back the other way again.  Because these cars haven't even been raced yet.

 

It's swinging back and forth in completely polar opposite ways.  What happened to cost cutting?  Because they've just changed the regs, and now are already talking about changing them again.  If they removed DRS and wanted to make the cars easier to follow.. guess what regs they'd be aiming at?  The 2009 ones.  The same ones we just changed from.  What a mess.

 

But I agree with your point.. that in order for F1 to be F1, there needs to be high corner speeds and high downforce.  Otherwise it's Formula Ford.

 

Overtaking will still be possible this year, it'll just be harder.. which is what it should be.  Overtaking or not, the drivers will be physically tired when they get out of the cars this year.  Which is what it should be.

 

People can criticise Stroll for last week, but that's what it should be when a rookie comes in.  It's been too easy for rookies in the last 5 years, the cars have been too slow and the G forces too low.  Let's wait and see after a few months the way the racing actually is.  I don't mind DRS as long as it isn't too powerful.  Some circuits only need a subtle DRS zone, other tracks like Hungary need more.  Some tracks there is a long straight with a headwind and DRS isn't needed at all, other tracks have a shorter straight with a tailwind and DRS needs to be more exaggerated in those situations.  If the car behind is able to get alongside or close to the rear as they head into the braking zone, it is working.  If the car is already ahead before the braking zone.. it's too powerful and is creating fake racing.

[MrRat]

Performance/Speed. 

 

Without all that downforce, the cars would be much slower and no longer the pinnacle of the motorsports world in cornering ability and lap time. The powers that be don't think the trade-off of cars following one another closely is worth F1's undisputed dominance at the top of the motorsport world. I agree.

 

The holy grail is to maintain downforce while at the same time reducing the impact of wake turbulence on cars following one another closely. Ross is on the case so hopefully he will find a proper solution. 

 

That's not really the holy grail. You can easily do that with ground effects. The roborace car revealed few days back produces F1 level of downforce (According to Scarbs) without use of any wings whatsoever.

Also Ross Brawn IIRC, Said rule making is still in the hands of FIA and he can't influence that. I think he said that to 

[HoldenRT]

I don't get this point of separating the two, it's not like you can have one without the other, you can have all the mechanical grip in the world, without a good aero it will be basically useless!

A good aero grip will also more than likely generate also a good mechanical grip since there is more down-force pushing the car and working the tires.

 

Did you read the OP's post or just the title?  The discussion is the reliance on aero vs mechanical grip in the context of overtaking and it's affect on close racing and turbulence.

[Gorma]

Dream on, it won't happen, probably the direct opposite actually.

Naturally I wasn't serious.

[FPV GTHO]

I agree with the first part of your post, but the latter part.. that's what the 2009 regs were supposed to be, and they failed. It was DRS that has helped overtaking the most (in an artificial way). Changing of the regs back to this way in 2017, has been to me an admission or concession that the earlier regs failed, and that with DRS proving quite effective, that those regs aren't really required. It's therefore ironic that they start talking about removing DRS and going back the other way again. Because these cars haven't even been raced yet.

It's swinging back and forth in completely polar opposite ways. What happened to cost cutting? Because they've just changed the regs, and now are already talking about changing them again. If they removed DRS and wanted to make the cars easier to follow.. guess what regs they'd be aiming at? The 2009 ones. The same ones we just changed from. What a mess.

But I agree with your point.. that in order for F1 to be F1, there needs to be high corner speeds and high downforce. Otherwise it's Formula Ford.

Overtaking will still be possible this year, it'll just be harder.. which is what it should be. Overtaking or not, the drivers will be physically tired when they get out of the cars this year. Which is what it should be.

People can criticise Stroll for last week, but that's what it should be when a rookie comes in. It's been too easy for rookies in the last 5 years, the cars have been too slow and the G forces too low. Let's wait and see after a few months the way the racing actually is. I don't mind DRS as long as it isn't too powerful. Some circuits only need a subtle DRS zone, other tracks like Hungary need more. Some tracks there is a long straight with a headwind and DRS isn't needed at all, other tracks have a shorter straight with a tailwind and DRS needs to be more exaggerated in those situations. If the car behind is able to get alongside or close to the rear as they head into the braking zone, it is working. If the car is already ahead before the braking zone.. it's too powerful and is creating fake racing.

Let me remind you before the 2009 regs came in, at classic tracks like the 2005/06 Imola battles some fan's have orgasms over, the required performance step to successfully overtake a car was around +2s a lap. That is farcical IMO.

Personally I don't see how you believe increasing downforce levels is an admission that the 2009 rules failed, as most people paid to comment on the sport see it as a knee jerk reaction to get faster cars. The 2009 era cars would be seen alot differently without the advent of firstly the double diffusers, and then the exhaust blown diffusers. By the time they were both outlawed, lessons couldn't be unlearned and we got solutions like Red Bull's extreme rake to simulate a larger diffuser.

[PLAYLIFE]

What evidence suggests that mechanical grip enhances racing?

 

I see damn good racing in categories that have little mechanical grip (and aero grip for that matter).

 

Should the question possibly be, 'how much grip is required for good racing?' instead.

[ViMaMo]

For years now some of the (IMO) saner voices in F1 design have been calling for increased mechanical grip rather than increased aerodynamic grip to improve the racing/overtaking. As I'm sure most of you know, no less than Patrick Head recently said "Anyone who thinks increasing downfore will improve the racing has got rocks in his head".

For the life of me, I can't understand why this sage advice has been, for the most part, ignored. The 2017 cars being a prime example. Does anyone have ideas why this might be?

Given the requirements that F1 needs to be the fastest around a tarmac circuit, is it possible to achieve this on minimal aero grip and max mechanical grip formula? It'd be interesting if we could find out how fast these cars can do Barcelona sans the extended floor, minimalistic wings. It might be impossible to be the fastest.

[HairyScalextrix]

Given the requirements that F1 needs to be the fastest around a tarmac circuit, is it possible to achieve this on minimal aero grip and max mechanical grip formula? It'd be interesting if we could find out how fast these cars can do Barcelona sans the extended floor, minimalistic wings. It might be impossible to be the fastest.

Is there a requirement to be fastest? If simple changes such as reduced wing elements/nose design etc are the same for the lower formulae F1 would still be quickest so it doesn't matter, sportscars may well be closer on some circuits but that's been the case in the past when F1 was considered better than it is currently.

[Okyo]

What evidence suggests that mechanical grip enhances racing?

 

I see damn good racing in categories that have little mechanical grip (and aero grip for that matter).

 

Should the question possibly be, 'how much grip is required for good racing?' instead.

Well, mechanical grip is the thing that helps the cars in slow corners, corner exits and everywhere else, where it doesn't go beyond 130-150 kph or so. These are all places where the following car can manage to get close for an overtake or do an overtake itself. The grip doesn't go anywhere if you're following someone, so if you are faster than the car ahead, you will be just as much faster, unlike the case is in the fast parts of the track, where you lose aero downforce unlike the driver ahead.

Mechanical grip just allows for a driver to exploit the speed he has over the other drivers without any losses, so it should, dear say without a doubt, help racing.

[PLAYLIFE]

Okya, I'm well aware of the two categories (I'm an aerospace engineer).  My question was asking for evidence rather than theories and opinions - tangible evidence or studies which I don't believe has ever been done so unsure where this thought comes from.

[Kalmake]

Like I tried to say earlier, you can't have this discussion whilst ignoring weight force.

 

The amount of lateral force the tires can apply depends on the load, which is weight + downforce.

 

Increasing "mechanical grip" doesn't help racing when downforce is the bigger load force. Like Okyo says, it helps in slow corners. I would add it hurts in fast corners.

[FPV GTHO]

What evidence suggests that mechanical grip enhances racing?

I see damn good racing in categories that have little mechanical grip (and aero grip for that matter).

Should the question possibly be, 'how much grip is required for good racing?' instead.

You've got to separate the low grip formats from the high grip formats. Anything low grip is likely using little to no aero, so the decreased mechanical grip leads to long braking zones, long acceleration zones, low cornering speeds and high chances of sliding and mistakes.

A high grip formula, like Formula 3.5, GP2/F2, Super Formula, IndyCar or Formula 1, is going to be incredibly reliant on aero grip. That grip degrades with the air quality infront, so you want to maintain as much grip elsewhere as you bleed off aero.

[RacingGreen]

Well, mechanical grip is the thing that helps the cars in slow corners, corner exits and everywhere else, where it doesn't go beyond 130-150 kph or so. These are all places where the following car can manage to get close for an overtake or do an overtake itself. The grip doesn't go anywhere if you're following someone, so if you are faster than the car ahead, you will be just as much faster, unlike the case is in the fast parts of the track, where you lose aero downforce unlike the driver ahead.

Mechanical grip just allows for a driver to exploit the speed he has over the other drivers without any losses, so it should, dear say without a doubt, help racing.

 

I've seen plenty of good racing in the rain with minimal mechanical grip.

[minime]

There is no such thing as "aero grip". 

 

For years now some of the (IMO) saner voices in F1 design have been calling for increased mechanical grip rather than increased aerodynamic grip to improve the racing/overtaking.  As I'm sure most of you know, no less than Patrick Head recently said "Anyone who thinks increasing downfore will improve the racing has got rocks in his head".

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why this sage advice has been, for the most part, ignored.  The 2017 cars being a prime example.  Does anyone have ideas why this might be?

 

It has been ignored because the idea is totally foreign to the way most people think of good racing that used to be seen before aero became a must have. Shorter lap times are absolutely the last thing needed if visually spectacular racing is to be had and that is exactly what everyone is after. if the braking times were at least tripled then DRS would most probably not be needed, if the straights took longer to travel DRS definitely would not be needed. Aero is a problem, time is a worse problem or lack of it to be more precise. I understand that this style of thinking is totally foreign to how anyone who has not raced commonly thinks about the whole thing but racing is all about time and not so much about laptimes. The time I am talking about is time to do stuff like overtake or out brake a competitor or overtake on a straight with only a small difference in speed. I have written on this before but everyone tells me I have got it all wrong but lately it seems some notable people are actually beginning to say the same thing in public.

 

As for the over taking study that was done I saw the podcast of Symonds and I reckon he is full of crap. They never had an open mind on removing aero enhanced DF or removing visible aero off the cars, it simply was not on the agenda. They started from a position of the existing aero and took the position of what can be done without removing it and the answer suited the assembled congregation, nothing. No one in F1 wants a reduction in aero, it would cause a riot if suggested and reduce F1's status within the racing class structure. The fact that better and more visually spectacular racing might result would not be enough to endure the loss of status. No one is willing to admit that aero is a blind alley and they will eventually hit the brick wall. 

 

I don't expect this post to be any better received than the last one I wrote on the subject so bring it on and tell me why reduced lap times will make for better racing and thanks for reading.  

[Kalmake]

Sprint Cars do dirt ovals with pretty big wing and its fine.

[Pierce89]

Okya, I'm well aware of the two categories (I'm an aerospace engineer). My question was asking for evidence rather than theories and opinions - tangible evidence or studies which I don't believe has ever been done so unsure where this thought comes from.

As an aeronautical engineer myself, I can assure you that no studies exist proving GE is less sensitive turbulence than wings. Also the overtaking working group that invented the 2009 regs(small.wind tunnel program) decided that wasnt actually the case.

[djparky]

Ground effect is generated under car rather than by wings, so think there is less impact on cars following. I don't see how rock hard tyres and more aero will make the racing any better. I believe the 2018 Indy Car will have simpler wings- perhaps F1 should look at what they're doing??

[minime]

Sprint Cars do dirt ovals with pretty big wing and its fine.

 

Whoooosh....