Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ground Effects and Side Skirts - Time for come back?


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#1 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 19 May 2018 - 14:45

We all know that following 94, the FIA moved to raise ride heights and add wooden planks for safety and F1 never really went back to maximising underbody downforce compared with upperbody downforce etc.

 

F1 isn't in great shape with regards to following and passing and not all fans like DRS. We've spoken about bringing back underfloor downforce before in the past and GP2 showed that it could provide great racing, yet F1 doesn't seem to fully follow this.

 

Technology has moved on leaps and bounds in the last 20 years or so - so is it time to fully exploit underbody downforce and revisit the safety concerns - surely we can prevent situations like Imola happening again? Add fail safes, sensors, active suspension to artificially raise the floor to prevent accidents?

 

Isn't it worth a try at least? Would you like to see it back and if so, how do you address the safety concerns?



Advertisement

#2 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 19 May 2018 - 15:27

I think it’s on the cards for 2021. They were gonna do it a few years ago, but bottled it.

You only have to look at the current IndyCar to see how effective it is.

#3 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 2,405 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 May 2018 - 15:33

It has been my idea to fix the aerodynamics related overtaking problems without making the cars slow for years. Much more proper ground effects (not dependent on complex vortex structures), less complex wings.



#4 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,717 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 19 May 2018 - 15:35

F1 needs to adopt side skirts and a large diffuser ASAP, but they’ll screw it up, as usual.

#5 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 19 May 2018 - 16:08

maverick69, on 19 May 2018 - 15:27, said:

I think it’s on the cards for 2021. They were gonna do it a few years ago, but bottled it.

You only have to look at the current IndyCar to see how effective it is.

Indycar merely moved to same wings to floor downforce ratio that F1 already had, which is about 60%.

 

They also got rid of all aero development competition, which made it easy for Dallara to build a "racing" friendly car.



#6 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 2,405 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 May 2018 - 16:32

The major difference may be that as a spec series with more relaxed rules they can make a car that produces that GE downforce in a simpler way, so it is much easier to retain it in dirty air. When you rely on complex vortex structures (starting from the front wing) to guide the air to the floor area and to seal the floor and to extract the air more efficiently from the diffuser you will loose much more in dirty air because all these winglets etc. cease to work properly.



#7 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 53,538 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 May 2018 - 16:42

To address the OP, there are two different concepts described there.

The underbody tunnels and side skirts were dangerous because the skirts could stick, causing a sudden loss of downforce. It could happen over kerbs.

What happened at Imola was a problem with the complete opposite design, a fully flat floor. The danger there is a sudden loss of downforce when bottoming out. The plank is of course part of the solution, the other being the 50mm step in the chassis, to ensure some underbody aero works at all times.

Using underbody tunnels without skirts would be perfectly adequate.

#8 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 35,240 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 May 2018 - 17:39

I’ve been saying for nearly 20 years on here to implement tunnels with a forward centre of downforce, thereby eleminating the need for complex front wings or front wings at all at certain circuits.

#9 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 19 May 2018 - 18:31

PayasYouRace, on 19 May 2018 - 16:42, said:

Using underbody tunnels without skirts would be perfectly adequate.

 

Works for Indycars.



#10 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,717 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 19 May 2018 - 18:44

PayasYouRace, on 19 May 2018 - 16:42, said:

To address the OP, there are two different concepts described there.

The underbody tunnels and side skirts were dangerous because the skirts could stick, causing a sudden loss of downforce. It could happen over kerbs.

What happened at Imola was a problem with the complete opposite design, a fully flat floor. The danger there is a sudden loss of downforce when bottoming out. The plank is of course part of the solution, the other being the 50mm step in the chassis, to ensure some underbody aero works at all times.

Using underbody tunnels without skirts would be perfectly adequate.

 

The side skirts are necessary to keep the aero balance towards the middle of the car, and not towards the extreme rear as it would be with a massive diffuser. With 30+ years of aerodynamic research since their banning, the teams will be able to design skirts which are safe.



#11 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 53,538 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 May 2018 - 19:04

ArrowsLivery, on 19 May 2018 - 18:44, said:

The side skirts are necessary to keep the aero balance towards the middle of the car, and not towards the extreme rear as it would be with a massive diffuser. With 30+ years of aerodynamic research since their banning, the teams will be able to design skirts which are safe.


The profile of the tunnels determines the centre of pressure. The skirts only seal the sides for efficiency. Sliding skirts that won’t stick are not beyond the abilities of F1 engineers but aren’t really necessary. They’d still have problems with running over kerbs, as that could cause damage to the skirts. Better to just have full length tunnels and a minimum ride height.

#12 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 35,240 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 May 2018 - 19:48

PayasYouRace, on 19 May 2018 - 19:04, said:

The profile of the tunnels determines the centre of pressure. The skirts only seal the sides for efficiency. Sliding skirts that won’t stick are not beyond the abilities of F1 engineers but aren’t really necessary. They’d still have problems with running over kerbs, as that could cause damage to the skirts. Better to just have full length tunnels and a minimum ride height.


I’d suggest have much longer sidepods stretching from close to the front axels in order to have the centre of downforce from the tunnels far enough forwards to remove front wings.

Give em a barn door rear wing and very small front wings if required for balancing.

#13 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,612 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 19 May 2018 - 19:49

Venturi tunnels should allow the cars to generate sufficient levels of downforce without having to resort to current methods, such as excessive use of vortex generators and the complex interactions between aero surfaces and their flow structures, which are perhaps more prone to break down in adverse conditions.  Tunnels should also allow for better car balance under these extreme conditions.



#14 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 6,395 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 19 May 2018 - 21:10

There's no need to allow teams to maximise underbody downforce, with full length tunnels and sliding skirts. Restricting aerodynamics to enable close following could take place without. If we did allow the late seventies concepts to be applied with modern knowledge and facilities such as CFD, the result would be a massive increase in cornering speeds. Cars would probably corner on rails at speeds which demanded wider run offs, spectators moved back, more chicanes and all the stuff we don't want.



#15 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 19 May 2018 - 21:43

You can have full length tunnels and regulate their width.

 

Lotus solution to ride height control with tunnels would still work. No need for skirts.



#16 l2k2

l2k2
  • Member

  • 976 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 19 May 2018 - 23:02

Kalmake, on 19 May 2018 - 21:43, said:

You can have full length tunnels and regulate their width.

Lotus solution to ride height control with tunnels would still work. No need for skirts.


Or, for an even simpler ride-height control: keep the plank, but allow tunnels on both sides of it. Teams would just have to live with relatively leaky underside aero. No sealing in for ultra-high downforce, but still much more ground effect than with present regulations... At least I suppose so.

#17 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 19 May 2018 - 23:08

Im not so sure itll happen. Its easy to say teams wont require all their vortex structures with easy DF, but they dont simply unlearn. You would have to massively restrict their ability to produce those vortices with mundane bodywork restrictions.

Without cutting back on downforce generated in other areas, youre going to also see another large increase in downforce and cornering speeds, something that will be detrimental to the racing. If you did cut back on the upper body aero, then theres going to be a large increase in speeds, which is unfavourable by the FIA as well. It would also contradict one of the strongest pieces of research that has occured into the matter, as opposed to nostalgic guesswork: that a powerful rear wing is essential to reenergising the turbulent wake.

I can only see it getting anyway if they decide to cut engine power back down again.

#18 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 20 May 2018 - 00:33

The more downforce a car has, the more it requires optimal quality and quantity of air to work at its best.  If you take away or disturb that air, the car is going to suffer no matter how or where that downforce is being produced.  And the more downforce it *can* or is *built* to produce, the more it is proportionately affected. 

 

Making F1 cars race closely again is no problem.  You just need to massively reduce the downforce.  They'll be slow as hell, but they'll be able to race closely again. 

 

There's no getting around this.  You cant have it both ways.  


Edited by Seanspeed, 20 May 2018 - 00:44.


#19 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 May 2018 - 01:00

PayasYouRace, on 19 May 2018 - 19:04, said:

 Better to just have full length tunnels and a minimum ride height.

 

Remember the hydraulic suspensions?



Advertisement

#20 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 May 2018 - 01:11

Seanspeed, on 20 May 2018 - 00:33, said:

 

 

Making F1 cars race closely again is no problem.  You just need to massively reduce the downforce.  They'll be slow as hell, but they'll be able to race closely again. 

 

 

 

It's not so much that we need to reduce overall downforce, it's the type of downforce we need to look at. The upper body generated downforce creates much more turbulence than the under body does.

 

Indycar simplified it's bodykits and reduced a lot of the downforce coming off the top of the car. They replaced some of that with bigger tunnels and the cars now race together much better. They corner slower, but they are so much faster on the straights from the reduced drag that lap times are similar, but the cars can race much closer without being affected as much by turbulence. 

 

So, Indycar has already proven that less wing area and more downforce from under the car works better than the other way around.



#21 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 20 May 2018 - 02:40

The devices creating turbulence arent the only problem, you also need to consider what is sensitive to turbulence. The FIA found for 2009 that the underbody was more sensitive in that regard than the top surfaces. Attacking the areas of sensitivity seems to also be the focus of the 2019 changes.

#22 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 20 May 2018 - 02:54

Skirts always had a number of safety issues, and not just with them sticking. For example I remember Mario once commenting that his mechanics had changed the skirts for a race (can't remember where) from the slightly worn ones he used in qualifying and it ruined the balance of the car. 

 

I would be happy to see more down-force generated under the car than currently but don't think going back to skirts is the way to go.



#23 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 2,897 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 20 May 2018 - 02:57

Ali_G, on 19 May 2018 - 17:39, said:

I’ve been saying for nearly 20 years on here to implement tunnels with a forward centre of downforce, thereby eleminating the need for complex front wings or front wings at all at certain circuits.

 

 

...like Indycar.



#24 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 6,775 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 20 May 2018 - 03:58

Seanspeed, on 20 May 2018 - 00:33, said:

The more downforce a car has, the more it requires optimal quality and quantity of air to work at its best.  If you take away or disturb that air, the car is going to suffer no matter how or where that downforce is being produced.  And the more downforce it *can* or is *built* to produce, the more it is proportionately affected. 

 

Making F1 cars race closely again is no problem.  You just need to massively reduce the downforce.  They'll be slow as hell, but they'll be able to race closely again. 

 

There's no getting around this.  You cant have it both ways.  

I was scrolling through the posts with my contribution ready to be tapped out when I noticed Seanspeed's comment. And he's pretty much spelled out my position. 

 

The opening post, and most of the subsequent posts, describe a strategy for reducing downforce and as we've observed over the years designers, aerodynamicists and code writers have been highly successful at finding their ways around every strategy the regulators have come up with.

 

The objective has long been to reduce downforce and its hand maiden, a large wake of disturbed air. Because if you can successfully achieve that, you gain several useful benefits. Among them are:

 

• Cars can follow more closely, facilitating overtaking.

• Braking distances will be longer - the cars no longer mashed into the track - again facilitating more overtaking.

• We can say goodbye to that absurd artifice, the DRS.

• Cornering speeds will be lower, thereby reducing the need for some of the gigantic runoff areas we have been seeing in recent years.

• Straightline speeds will probably be higher, again placing a premium on skilful braking.

• The cars will visibly squirm, wriggle and move around. They will not look as though they are on rails. And this, I contend, is what produces the "Wow!" factor with spectators and viewers.

• The whole equation of driver input vs engineering input will swing significantly towards the driver. And despite what those of us fascinated by the cleverness of the designers think, I believe it is the case that most followers of motor racing, particularly most casual watchers, primarily follow or support a driver rather than a team.

 

You do this, by the way, by mandating a maximum downforce acting on the car by way of data collected at each hub, and transmitted to race control in real time. This is technically feasible, I believe. The detailed implementation can be debated but I imagine race control would be alerted automatically in the event of a car exceeding the (downforce) limit with, say, a maximum of three alerts in a race before you cop some sort of penalty. The downforce limit, like Seanspeed suggests, should be way lower that it is at present. Sufficiently low that however you go about meeting the requirement, your car will not have an area of disturbed, low pressure air several car lengths behind it.

 

Purists will no doubt remind me that F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport and should have as few regulatory constraints as possible. Back when I was first bitten by the F1 bug - the 1960s - the best technology practically available was both affordable and did not threaten to render racing boring. I was all for relatively few regulations to constrain innovative thinking. Today, as we've seen, the best technology is outrageously expensive and unfettered, would bring with it the need for drivers to wear g-suits to deal with the g forces of 7g and above, braking distances would be even shorter, spectator protection, including run-off areas, would need to be even greater. Without doubt, sadly, a (regulatory) line needs to be drawn in the sand. So today, my 1960's zeal for relatively few regulations has given way to a need to more carefully balance the factors of engineering excellence and entertainment.

 

Others will say that you will kill F1 if it becomes slower. I reject that argument. I recall standing shoulder to shoulder with 100,000 others at Silverstone and Brands Hatch watching Formula One races with cars very considerably slower that today's brilliant showcases of engineering genius. 

 

Sepang is one circuit that has hosted both F1 and Moto GP on the same layout. Pole position at the 2017 F1 Malaysian Grand Prix was  1'30.076". At the 2017 Moto GP Malaysian Grand Prix it was, 1'59.212". Half a minute slower. I don't notice Moto GP fans around the world lamenting how slow their sport is.

 

A design challenge?, others may ask. My response is that even though they are being asked to work with significantly reduced downforce, the challenge is still there to optimise its mechanical grip, its speed vs downforce compromise, its braking, its balance and of course, its entire powertrain. Plenty of challenge there.

 

 




#25 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 8,756 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 20 May 2018 - 13:55

An idea that was floated around a couple of years ago was: bring back active suspension... but allow the FIA to monitor - and prescribe - the ride-heights of the cars. IMHO  that would solve a lot of problems. Rain-races would also be less of a technical hassle, because the FIA could then mandate a ride-height that is compatible with driving the current F1-floors on a flooded track.



#26 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 May 2018 - 15:46

I don't know why people are ignoring the fact that Indycar just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt the answer is less upper body downforce and more underbody downforce. The cars have raced much better everywhere they have gone this year, and were setting records for overtaking at the very first venue.

 

Why make it complicated with FIA monitored ride height telemetry or otherwise give them an excuse to screw up the race? Keep things fast and simple. No one can deny it's working like a miracle for Indycar.



#27 Loosenut

Loosenut
  • Member

  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined: September 17

Posted 20 May 2018 - 16:13

And they still have refuelling in Indy, they really have got it all right this season.

#28 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,717 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 20 May 2018 - 16:34

Nemo1965, on 20 May 2018 - 13:55, said:

An idea that was floated around a couple of years ago was: bring back active suspension... but allow the FIA to monitor - and prescribe - the ride-heights of the cars. IMHO  that would solve a lot of problems. Rain-races would also be less of a technical hassle, because the FIA could then mandate a ride-height that is compatible with driving the current F1-floors on a flooded track.

 

The thing is that active suspension is the ultimate driver aid. It will get rid of any remaining amount of driving skill required to drive these cars. It's just completely unnecessary. Side skirts like the Porsche 919 and a shaped underbody are all that's needed to fix these cars. 



#29 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 20 May 2018 - 16:36

Gary Davies, on 20 May 2018 - 03:58, said:

 

Others will say that you will kill F1 if it becomes slower. I reject that argument. I recall standing shoulder to shoulder with 100,000 others at Silverstone and Brands Hatch watching Formula One races with cars very considerably slower that today's brilliant showcases of engineering genius. 

 

Sepang is one circuit that has hosted both F1 and Moto GP on the same layout. Pole position at the 2017 F1 Malaysian Grand Prix was  1'30.076". At the 2017 Moto GP Malaysian Grand Prix it was, 1'59.212". Half a minute slower. I don't notice Moto GP fans around the world lamenting how slow their sport is.

MotoGP is the pinnacle of bike racing in terms of laptime, though. 

 

F1 cannot afford to be half a minute slower and still be respected as the pinnacle of car circuit racing.  

 

It's an absolutely impossible balance for F1 to achieve.  As you rightfully pointed out - F1 reached a point a while ago that determined it couldn't get any faster.  At least not drastically.  

 

I dont have an answer myself.  I wish I did.  But it *is* why I support DRS.  Because without it, things would be so much worse.  It does an ok job of providing a re-balance to the dirty air problem. 

 

 

Dr. Austin, on 20 May 2018 - 15:46, said:

I don't know why people are ignoring the fact that Indycar just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt the answer is less upper body downforce and more underbody downforce. The cars have raced much better everywhere they have gone this year, and were setting records for overtaking at the very first venue.

 

Why make it complicated with FIA monitored ride height telemetry or otherwise give them an excuse to screw up the race? Keep things fast and simple. No one can deny it's working like a miracle for Indycar.

People rightfully ignore IndyCar because it's not racing on F1-type tracks.  IndyCar races are also heavily reliant on regular caution periods which turn most races into strategy lotteries.  

 

If you put IndyCar onto the F1 track calendar, the racing would be massively different.  Possibly still quite good, but also way slower in terms of laptime.  That slower laptime is key.  Lower downforce = better racing.  But lower downforce also = slower laptimes.  



#30 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,717 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 20 May 2018 - 16:42

Seanspeed, on 20 May 2018 - 16:36, said:

MotoGP is the pinnacle of bike racing in terms of laptime, though. 

 

F1 cannot afford to be half a minute slower and still be respected as the pinnacle of car circuit racing.  

 

It's an absolutely impossible balance for F1 to achieve.  As you rightfully pointed out - F1 reached a point a while ago that determined it couldn't get any faster.  At least not drastically.  

 

I dont have an answer myself.  I wish I did.  But it *is* why I support DRS.  Because without it, things would be so much worse.  It does an ok job of providing a re-balance to the dirty air problem. 

 

 

People rightfully ignore IndyCar because it's not racing on F1-type tracks.  IndyCar races are also heavily reliant on regular caution periods which turn most races into strategy lotteries.  

 

If you put IndyCar onto the F1 track calendar, the racing would be massively different.  Possibly still quite good, but also way slower in terms of laptime.  That slower laptime is key.  Lower downforce = better racing.  But lower downforce also = slower laptimes.  

 

Would you really stop watching F1 if they were suddenly made ~3-5 seconds slower than they are today? 



#31 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 20 May 2018 - 16:56

ArrowsLivery, on 20 May 2018 - 16:42, said:

Would you really stop watching F1 if they were suddenly made ~3-5 seconds slower than they are today? 

Me?  No.  

 

I'd welcome it.  I think it's imperative, in fact. 

 

I've never been one of those 'F1 cars look too slow' complainers.  But I do think F1 needs to maintain *some* level of superiority in terms of capabilities.  Otherwise it'll lose its prestigious status, rightfully.  

 

I kinda think we already had it quite right back in 2013 or so.  I agree we needed changes since we needed something to ruin the Red Bull domination, but in terms of lap time vs racing ability and all that, I think we were near the sweetspot. 


Edited by Seanspeed, 20 May 2018 - 18:19.


#32 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 May 2018 - 17:00

Loosenut, on 20 May 2018 - 16:13, said:

And they still have refuelling in Indy, they really have got it all right this season.

 

They will always have refuelling as long as they have 500 mile races, tiny fuel tanks, and burn inefficient fuel (methanol).

 

I hate pitstops in general but when you are using and explosive fuel like gasoline the risks are just unacceptable. F1 was right to get rid of refuelling because it added an unnecessary deadly danger that did nothing to improve the racing or the spectacle. We still have pit stops for tires, so for those who can't live without the there is that. Still, pit stops do nothing but reduce the race to nothing more than over and under cutting strategy when we would all rather see them overtaking on the track.

 

I'de be ok with giving them a tire that would deliver performance for the whole race with a little care and kill off pitstops all together.



#33 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 20 May 2018 - 17:05

Dr. Austin, on 20 May 2018 - 17:00, said:

I'de be ok with giving them a tire that would deliver performance for the whole race with a little care and kill off pitstops all together.

This is one of those 'on paper' arguments that sounds great, but in reality would be total garbage and you'd hate it more than anything.  

 

F1 is already suffering the problem of having 1-stop races.  The whole point this year of making the tires one compound softer is that it'd make one-stoppers less common.  Because they suck.  And the only thing worse than a one-stop race is a no-stop race.  It makes the outcome obvious within the first few laps.  



#34 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 20 May 2018 - 17:16

Dr. Austin, on 20 May 2018 - 15:46, said:

I don't know why people are ignoring the fact that Indycar just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt the answer is less upper body downforce and more underbody downforce. The cars have raced much better everywhere they have gone this year, and were setting records for overtaking at the very first venue.

 

Why make it complicated with FIA monitored ride height telemetry or otherwise give them an excuse to screw up the race? Keep things fast and simple. No one can deny it's working like a miracle for Indycar.

 

Kalmake, on 19 May 2018 - 16:08, said:

Indycar merely moved to same wings to floor downforce ratio that F1 already had, which is about 60%.

 

They also got rid of all aero development competition, which made it easy for Dallara to build a "racing" friendly car.

 

F1 will keep aero as a significant development area, which makes things much more complicated.



#35 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 35,240 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 20 May 2018 - 17:52

Dr. Austin, on 20 May 2018 - 15:46, said:

I don't know why people are ignoring the fact that Indycar just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt the answer is less upper body downforce and more underbody downforce. The cars have raced much better everywhere they have gone this year, and were setting records for overtaking at the very first venue.

Why make it complicated with FIA monitored ride height telemetry or otherwise give them an excuse to screw up the race? Keep things fast and simple. No one can deny it's working like a miracle for Indycar.

Let’s ignore the evidence from Indy and keep going with minor adjustments to upper body aero.

It boggles the mind.

Tunnels are dangerous don’t you know......

Edited by Ali_G, 20 May 2018 - 17:52.


#36 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 8,756 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 20 May 2018 - 17:53

ArrowsLivery, on 20 May 2018 - 16:34, said:

The thing is that active suspension is the ultimate driver aid. It will get rid of any remaining amount of driving skill required to drive these cars. It's just completely unnecessary. Side skirts like the Porsche 919 and a shaped underbody are all that's needed to fix these cars. 

I don't think so. The engineers are able to calculate (and measure exactly) at which height the car generates the maximum ground-effect or diffusor-effect, which almost always means that if the car changes pitch, (because of undulations of the ground or another car disturbing the airflow by driving in front of the car) that ideal maximum is disturbed. With a regulated or controlled ride-height a good middle-ground could be found, in which there is considerable underbody-downforce but not one that is very sensitive to air-wakes in front of the car (caused buy other cars). In F1, that middle-ground was never sought by engineers because most would rather have a bastard of a car that was fast than a genteel car that was slower.

 

On top of that: you have to remember that non-controlled ground-effect cars with skirts without active suspension are very, very susceptible to changes to ride-height and minor damages to, for example, the skirts.

 

So my idea would be full wing-cars, without flexible skirts but with a digitally controlled ride-height. Perhaps one does not even need active suspension then, come to think of it... :well:



#37 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,998 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 May 2018 - 20:07

PayasYouRace, on 19 May 2018 - 16:42, said:

To address the OP, there are two different concepts described there.

The underbody tunnels and side skirts were dangerous because the skirts could stick, causing a sudden loss of downforce. It could happen over kerbs.

What happened at Imola was a problem with the complete opposite design, a fully flat floor. The danger there is a sudden loss of downforce when bottoming out. The plank is of course part of the solution, the other being the 50mm step in the chassis, to ensure some underbody aero works at all times.

Using underbody tunnels without skirts would be perfectly adequate.

Indeed - I was going to reply to the OP, but your post is pretty much what I was intending to say anyway.



#38 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 21 May 2018 - 02:15

Dr. Austin, on 20 May 2018 - 15:46, said:

I don't know why people are ignoring the fact that Indycar just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt the answer is less upper body downforce and more underbody downforce. The cars have raced much better everywhere they have gone this year, and were setting records for overtaking at the very first venue.


Thats your interpretation. I would say theyve simply shown less downforce in general provides better racing. It was indicated to me last year that the floor is the same 2017 vs 2018, and the increased percentage of under body vs upper body downforce is just a result of all the fussy bodywork being removed. That to me seems to be the same path F1 are trying to take now, by looking to simplify the front wing, and also the direction they took for 2009.

#39 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 6,775 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 21 May 2018 - 02:40

At this point in the debate it might be amusing to recall a remark attributed to Chris Amon when wings first appeared on F1 cars: "Jesus, what can of worms are we opening here?".



Advertisement

#40 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 May 2018 - 02:41

Seanspeed, on 20 May 2018 - 17:05, said:

This is one of those 'on paper' arguments that sounds great, but in reality would be total garbage and you'd hate it more than anything.  

 

I dunno. It worked for decades before. How many stops for tires do you figure Stewart, Clark, Moss, Fangio and Andretti made for tires. Ummmm, like maybe zero.

 

Seanspeed, on 20 May 2018 - 17:05, said:

And the only thing worse than a one-stop race is a no-stop race.  

 

I guess, but only if one is a fan of pit stops instead of wheel to wheel racing. 



#41 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 May 2018 - 02:47

FPV GTHO, on 21 May 2018 - 02:15, said:

Thats your interpretation. I would say theyve simply shown less downforce in general provides better racing. 

 

That's actually what Mike Hull said. Good luck arguing with him.

 

 

FPV GTHO, on 21 May 2018 - 02:15, said:

It was indicated to me last year that the floor is the same 2017 vs 2018, and the increased percentage of under body vs upper body downforce is just a result of all the fussy bodywork being removed. That to me seems to be the same path F1 are trying to take now, by looking to simplify the front wing, and also the direction they took for 2009.

 

It's not the same floor and you can easily see that from the hole that's not there any more. That hole was put there reduce the side of the floor, but now it's gone. Getting rid of the bodywork also killed off a lot of turbulence producing bits.

 

You can read all about the new car in RACER.hat's where I got all my info on it.


Edited by Dr. Austin, 21 May 2018 - 02:48.


#42 Dr. Austin

Dr. Austin
  • Member

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 May 2018 - 04:15

Nemo1965, on 20 May 2018 - 17:53, said:

 

 

So my idea would be full wing-cars, without flexible skirts but with a digitally controlled ride-height. Perhaps one does not even need active suspension then, come to think of it... :well:

 

This is a really good idea, but I would not want the FIA monitoring the data and busting people mid-race for running too low or something. 

We have enough oft with the fuel meters in both F1 and WEC. Give them a set of rules and stop micro managing everything. Say no to big

brother.

 

However why make the cars more complex than the monsters we already have? Something like Indycar has would work and be easy to police. I don't mean spec aero, but the concept of less upper body downforce and large enough tunnels to give good grip.  Don't take my word for it. Watch and Indycar race and you will see how well it works.

 

I'de also love to see them get the noses lower too. The high noses never appealed to me. Visually, anyway Indycars have a slightly rais nose but it's not high enough to look like, well ....... you know.



#43 stewie

stewie
  • Member

  • 3,608 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 21 May 2018 - 05:12

Dr. Austin, on 20 May 2018 - 17:00, said:

They will always have refuelling as long as they have 500 mile races, tiny fuel tanks, and burn inefficient fuel (methanol).

Except it's now a 85% ethanol / 15% gasoline mix.

#44 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 8,756 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 21 May 2018 - 07:20

Dr. Austin, on 21 May 2018 - 04:15, said:

This is a really good idea, but I would not want the FIA monitoring the data and busting people mid-race for running too low or something. 

We have enough oft with the fuel meters in both F1 and WEC. Give them a set of rules and stop micro managing everything. Say no to big

brother.

 

However why make the cars more complex than the monsters we already have? Something like Indycar has would work and be easy to police. I don't mean spec aero, but the concept of less upper body downforce and large enough tunnels to give good grip.  Don't take my word for it. Watch and Indycar race and you will see how well it works.

 

I'de also love to see them get the noses lower too. The high noses never appealed to me. Visually, anyway Indycars have a slightly rais nose but it's not high enough to look like, well ....... you know.

 

I hear you. But 1. Teams are always going to cheat, ehrm, try to circumvent the rules. 2. The digital control of ride-height I am talking about would be programmed in the same mandatory PCU's that now check the fuel-flow (or am I very much mistaken?). Very difficult to cheat on, easy to govern. I can't remember an incident since the new engine-rules where a team was caught cheating with THAT.

 

Having had a thought about it: in my mind, skirts are always flexible and are raised or lowered with the ride-height (passively, they slide up and down). It would of course be possible to have fixed skirts, or even skirts as protrusions on the sides of the cars (like steeped ridges). In that case, it would be no use for teams to lower the cars, because the carbon-fibre would start dragging over the ground.



#45 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 53,538 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:02

Nemo1965, on 21 May 2018 - 07:20, said:

I hear you. But 1. Teams are always going to cheat, ehrm, try to circumvent the rules. 2. The digital control of ride-height I am talking about would be programmed in the same mandatory PCU's that now check the fuel-flow (or am I very much mistaken?). Very difficult to cheat on, easy to govern. I can't remember an incident since the new engine-rules where a team was caught cheating with THAT.

 

Having had a thought about it: in my mind, skirts are always flexible and are raised or lowered with the ride-height (passively, they slide up and down). It would of course be possible to have fixed skirts, or even skirts as protrusions on the sides of the cars (like steeped ridges). In that case, it would be no use for teams to lower the cars, because the carbon-fibre would start dragging over the ground.

 

The problem with fixed skirts is that you end up with a 1981 situation. The cars end up being run with no suspension and just ride along their skirts. Not a problem on a smooth track, but issues with the slightest bump.



#46 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,131 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:12

Question: how much help/hindrance would inflow from the sides of a tunnel be if they were to run venturis but without skirts? I read something about the Porsche 956 which said that they tried side skirts in the wind tunnel, but that actually reduced their underbody downforce levels.



#47 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:13

Active suspension like that would have to be spec. They have outlined that suspension will remain a dev competition area.



#48 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 8,756 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:51

PayasYouRace, on 21 May 2018 - 08:02, said:

The problem with fixed skirts is that you end up with a 1981 situation. The cars end up being run with no suspension and just ride along their skirts. Not a problem on a smooth track, but issues with the slightest bump.

 

Haha, yeah, but the thing was in 1981: there was no way the FIA could control the ride-height of the cars while they were on the track. Then you got the whole charade of teams propping up the cars in the pits with hydraulics and what have you (Brabham had a smarter system) for the mandatory checks and on track anyone could see they were driving as low as possible.

 

(For the youngsters, watch this highly amusing piece of history: Gentlemen, lift your skirts.

 

 

 

If you would program the ride-height in the CPU it would first be impossible to drive lower just because you would have to screw around with the software (which, apparently, F1-teams have not done with the fuel-flow the past years), and on top of that: in these time and age ride-heights of the cars could be monitored in real time by the FIA, hell, it could be televised live!

 

So a repeat of 1981 would not be possible.



#49 ar1

ar1
  • Member

  • 278 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 21 May 2018 - 09:18

PayasYouRace, on 19 May 2018 - 19:04, said:

The profile of the tunnels determines the centre of pressure. The skirts only seal the sides for efficiency. Sliding skirts that won’t stick are not beyond the abilities of F1 engineers but aren’t really necessary. They’d still have problems with running over kerbs, as that could cause damage to the skirts. Better to just have full length tunnels and a minimum ride height.

 

Maybe would have the added bonus that, if kerbs were raised, that it would stop cutting of corners!



#50 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 53,538 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 May 2018 - 10:01

ar1, on 21 May 2018 - 09:18, said:

Maybe would have the added bonus that, if kerbs were raised, that it would stop cutting of corners!

 

I don't think anyone wants a return to launching cars, and raised curbs and skirt sealed ground effects are a perfect recipe for that. Say what you want about current F1 aero, but modern F1 cars are very aerodynamically stable. Cars flipping are very rare compared those days, or for flat floor cars, the early 90s.