12 replies to this topic

[bartez1000]

Hi. I was wondering about the quality of aerodynamic solutions employed on the bodywork of spec-series racing cars. 

Modern aerodynamics can be very complex, with bodyworks containing many small winglets and subtle shapes that influence the way air interacts with the car.

Even a small change or a mistake during the design process can greatly reduce the achieved efficiency.

Most complex aero can be seen on F1 cars, one of the last open development racing formulas. 

Yet, when one looks at the feeder-series cars, nearly all of which are Dallaras, there are some big similarities with the shape of F1 machines.

For example, F2 2018 Dallara has curved front winge endplates, domed footplate, serrated rear wing endplates, curving floor edges, and other details that would indicate that some flow control ideas were influencing the designers. However, while F1 cars must be designed to be as fast as possible in the scope of regulations, creators of spec series cars are not bound by these priorities. 

Are there even technical regulations for F2 and F3? Do the complex elements on the F2 car have some function or is it purely to make the car similar to F1? Every next generation of an F2 car is made to look similar to the current F1, even if the way F1 cars look is suboptimal aerodynamically and forced by regulations.

Are the feeder series cars even tested in an aerodynamic tunnel to improve performance, and not assure some aerodynamic stability for safety?

Finally, when the cars race only with identical clones, can one say that the car is good in terms of performance? Are there any feeder-series cars known for being great or terrible performance-wise, ignoring other important qualities like cost, ease of setup, ease of repair, etc. ?

[juicy sushi]

The spec cars can have a very large degree of difference in preparation that will have a large aerodynamic effect, even if the parts are identical.  As McLaren found out to their cost in 2019 at the Indy 500 when they were hopelessly slow despite using the exact same car as everyone else.

[bartez1000]

Right, but this is not the issue I am pursuing. I am interested in quantifying how much the spec part of spec car is good. That is, can we tell if Dallara DW12 has efficient aerodynamics? How much work was put into making this car quick?

[Widefoot2]

Perhaps there's less of an emphasis on "quick", as rather stable.  Especially with younger or less experienced drivers, you wouldn't want them in a car that suddenly lost front grip when you got a little to close to the car ahead, or was prone to losing rear grip when braking hard.

 

With F1, the drivers are presumed to be skilled enough to be better able to deal with grip loss, and given how devious the aero guys can be, I would expect that some aspects of rear aero are purposely done to make it difficult for a following car to overtake.  One reason for the push to more ground effects as part of the next generation F1 spec.

[MattPete]

Right, but this is not the issue I am pursuing. I am interested in quantifying how much the spec part of spec car is good. That is, can we tell if Dallara DW12 has efficient aerodynamics? How much work was put into making this car quick?

 

The DW12, unlike current F1 cars, which have flat bottoms (and that diffuser behind the front axle), use venturri tunnels.  Because of that, the DW12 hypothetically could have 'better' (whatever that means...drag:downforce ratio?) aerodynamics than the average F1 car.

[GreenMachine]

Right, but this is not the issue I am pursuing. I am interested in quantifying how much the spec part of spec car is good. That is, can we tell if Dallara DW12 has efficient aerodynamics? How much work was put into making this car quick?

 

I think you fail to give sufficient weight to what lies beneath a 'spec' car.  It is, by definition limited in its technical design, which is over-ridden by external drivers, such as capital and/or operating cost, parity, 'good racing', etc.  The car therefore needs to be judged by its achievement of those objectives.

 

Whether a widget on the car is 'good' or could work better, is not really relevant, at least not for the current car.  When the next homologation rolls around, that widget might be revised, perhaps but not necessarily to make it 'better', to improve its contribution to the car's objectives.  Conceivably, it could be made 'worse' if that makes the racing better, reduces costs, or whatever the objective is.

 

In my observation, most spec series focus on cost control, and/or driver differentiation - that is there no need for a 'state-of-the-art' car, and it would add substantially to the cost.  Similarly, if the objective is to sort out the drivers, car development and tuning is counterproductive, this is normally limited to basic things like suspension settings and wing angles. 

 

In the case of the Dallara indycar, I think the best we can say is that the aero is good enough, because it was good enough to be adopted for the series.  A bit circular, but that is the nature of spec series.

[boomn]

I think you fail to give sufficient weight to what lies beneath a 'spec' car.  It is, by definition limited in its technical design, which is over-ridden by external drivers, such as capital and/or operating cost, parity, 'good racing', etc.  The car therefore needs to be judged by its achievement of those objectives.

 

Whether a widget on the car is 'good' or could work better, is not really relevant, at least not for the current car.  When the next homologation rolls around, that widget might be revised, perhaps but not necessarily to make it 'better', to improve its contribution to the car's objectives.  Conceivably, it could be made 'worse' if that makes the racing better, reduces costs, or whatever the objective is.

 

In my observation, most spec series focus on cost control, and/or driver differentiation - that is there no need for a 'state-of-the-art' car, and it would add substantially to the cost.  Similarly, if the objective is to sort out the drivers, car development and tuning is counterproductive, this is normally limited to basic things like suspension settings and wing angles. 

 

In the case of the Dallara indycar, I think the best we can say is that the aero is good enough, because it was good enough to be adopted for the series.  A bit circular, but that is the nature of spec series.

Thanks GreenMachine, those are very good points. 

 

F2, F3, etc appear to be most focused on a performance delta relative to F1 and to each other so they can be appropriate steps on the ladder.  I don't hear a lot about focus on the quality of racing, besides trickling DRS down to the lower series  .  "Good" aero for those series seems to be judged based on hitting those appropriate laptime targets

 

IndyCar has become very focused on how aero affects the quality of racing.  Two years ago they took the big step to remove about 20% of the downforce.  By some criteria that would be "bad", but by their goal of being able to race closer and create more overtaking opportunities for skilled drivers it worked great

[kumo7]

I have this gut feeling that the differences in Indy Oval is much larger than that of F2, or F3, due its top speed.

Tiny bits of aero differences can make the huge differences. Even if the shape of the body work might be the same foe about 99.2% (say what) its ride hights, its suspension set ups and so on would make a car behave entirely differently in a dynamic motion, and then that on the oval. 

[juicy sushi]

I have this gut feeling that the differences in Indy Oval is much larger than that of F2, or F3, due its top speed.
Tiny bits of aero differences can make the huge differences. Even if the shape of the body work might be the same foe about 99.2% (say what) its ride hights, its suspension set ups and so on would make a car behave entirely differently in a dynamic motion, and then that on the oval.

And panel gaps. Everyone on pitlane at Indy saw the panel gaps on the McLaren cars and knew they were too draggy to make it.

[juicy sushi]

Right, but this is not the issue I am pursuing. I am interested in quantifying how much the spec part of spec car is good. That is, can we tell if Dallara DW12 has efficient aerodynamics? How much work was put into making this car quick?

You’re asking a question with no objective answer. That’s not how a “spec” car is designed.

[balage06]

I remember that a few years back, Dallara was really proud how they improved their design and build workflows thanks to their Haas partnership. Even before that, they stated that the facility is capable of developing an F1 car, only a partner with proper funding is needed. So I think yes, the knowledge and tools are definitely there, but in reality, costs and safety take priority in feeder categories, not ultimate performance (it won't even make sense to be honest).

Edited by balage06, 04 November 2020 - 12:02.

[Imperial]

This may seem a simplistic response, but race cars never used to have wings and things, and then when they were introduced they were laughable in comparison to what you'd find on a current F2 car. So, in the context of comparing a current F2 to a current F1, no the wings and things don't have anywhere near as many parameters for adjustment and so you could technically consider the F2 weak in terms of its aerodynamic potential being developed. But then you could say that about many F1 cars over the years, where the team didn't have the money to fund development.

 

If you compare the current F2 car to a wingless Grand Prix car (either to the F1 or F2 formulas of old) then the F2 car would win hands-down in an aerodynamic battle. Engines may be another matter of course.

 

I would say it is logical and reasonable though to assume that true aerodynamic design, efficiency, and exploration of potential, decreases with every step down the ladder that you take, all the way down to Formula Ford/F4 (Whatever you prefer to call it) which until recently never had wings, and which probably do very little except persuade more parents to part ways with their money to buy the dream of making it to F1.

 

The thing is, all these spec series are quick within their context. F2 isn't massively behind F1, and so on with F3 and F4, and the speeds match the experience and ability of the drivers racing them. IndyCar speeds likewise match the level that the drivers are at, those cars are seriously quick and that is without the cars being developed season long, so imagine the speeds they could do if the teams were putting new wing elements on every weekend.

 

 

 

.

Edited by Imperial, 04 November 2020 - 12:33.

[Nathan]

Right, but this is not the issue I am pursuing. I am interested in quantifying how much the spec part of spec car is good. That is, can we tell if Dallara DW12 has efficient aerodynamics? How much work was put into making this car quick?

 

I would imagine each series specifies how much performance they want and the spec builder works with that.  I would also imagine they focus more on creating a consistent aero profile that is less sensitive to other cars. reduces pitch sensitivity,  and changes in car setup.  Further I'd assume aesthetics come in for less sensitive parts, but I doubt the other aspects mentioned are sacrificed for it.

 

This is probably better answered in the technical forum.

Edited by Nathan, 04 November 2020 - 13:00.