282 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

On a simple level, you can’t produce downforce without producing some sort of upwards deflection of the air. That’s Newton III in action. That wake will carry the water up into the air. I won’t expect the ground effect undersides to make a huge difference in terms of how much spray gets kicked up.

The wake at track level is what matters for the following car, so you want to kick the turbulent air away, and upwards is a good way to do that.

[ExFlagMan]

On a simple level, you can’t produce downforce without producing some sort of upwards deflection of the air. That’s Newton III in action. That wake will carry the water up into the air. I won’t expect the ground effect undersides to make a huge difference in terms of how much spray gets kicked up.

The wake at track level is what matters for the following car, so you want to kick the turbulent air away, and upwards is a good way to do that.

 

And then Newton III comes back into play and the spray/mist comes back down again, increasing the deleterious effect on visibility.

 

Problem gets exacerbated if there is no wind to help take the mist away and stop it from falling back on the track.  This is the main problem at Spa, particularly along the Kemmel Straight with the trees either side. 

[Rediscoveryx]

On a simple level, you can’t produce downforce without producing some sort of upwards deflection of the air. That’s Newton III in action. That wake will carry the water up into the air. I won’t expect the ground effect undersides to make a huge difference in terms of how much spray gets kicked up.

The wake at track level is what matters for the following car, so you want to kick the turbulent air away, and upwards is a good way to do that.

 

But if we disregard the spray element for a moment and concentrate on just the aerodynamics (assuming a car that's running on it's own but in conditions like those on Sunday). To what extent (if any) are ground effects affected by running over standing water etc. How affected will they be if/when ride heights are increased to reduce the risk for aquaplaning? Could we have a situation where increasing ride heights would theoretically mitigate the aquaplaning-effects but at the same time have a significant (in some sense offsetting) negative impact on aerodynamics?

 

I genuinely have no idea of the answers to these questions myself, so I realize that they may seem quite silly to those who are more knowledgeable, but still - curiosity...

Edited by Rediscoveryx, 31 August 2021 - 08:26.

[PayasYouRace]

But if we disregard the spray element for a moment and concentrate on just the aerodynamics (assuming a car that's running on it's own but in conditions like those on Sunday). To what extent (if any) are ground effects affected by running over standing water etc. How affected will they be if/when ride heights are increased to reduce the risk for aquaplaning? Could we have a situation where increasing ride heights would theoretically mitigate the aquaplaning-effects but at the same time have a significant (in some sense offsetting) negative impact on aerodynamics?

I genuinely have no idea of the answers to these questions myself, so I realize that they may seem quite silly to those who are more knowledgeable, but still - curiosity...

I don’t think it makes much difference, ground effect or flat floor with diffuser. In both cases you’re creating low pressure under the car by increasing the speed of the airflow. That’s going to pull the water up from the surface, much like unsecured drain covers get lifted up.

I can’t quantify if it will make a lot of difference. It’s a very specialised thing and I suspect not a lot of work has even been done to look into it.

[Burai]

You have to take everything the drivers say in these situations with a pinch of salt.  They are pretty self-serving comments most of the time.

 

That might carry weight if it weren't for Giovinazzi and Schumacher, down in 13th and 16th respectively, out of the points and potentially plenty to gain from getting the race started, saying they couldn't see anything and it was unsafe to race.

[Bleu]

I think that was Fuji 07.

 

The information was on some kind of board and Ferrari somehow missed info. From then on sporting regulations have said that whenever race is started behind safety car, full wet tyres must be used.

[statman]

They ran the races because F1 was not run by a bunch of lightweights who are worried about getting sued at every turn. Had Bernie still been in charge, he would it made it very clear in one syllable terms that the drivers had to race. Nobody would have dared not to. 

 

 

 

Bernie just did an interview:

 

Bernie Ecclestone says 'cowardly' F1 bosses should not have called off Belgian Grand Prix

 

He basically says: I will delay for 1 hour until 4 o'clock, he gives them 1 hour to think it through, and then at 4 the race starts. Those who want to race can and will, others who don't are out/retired from the race.

 

A bit like Lauda @ Fuji '76. A personal decision.

[flatoutflatbroke]

Bernie just did an interview:

 

Bernie Ecclestone says 'cowardly' F1 bosses should not have called off Belgian Grand Prix

 

He basically says: I will delay for 1 hour until 4 o'clock, he gives them 1 hour to think it through, and then at 4 the race starts. Those who want to race can and will, others who don't are out/retired from the race.

 

A bit like Lauda @ Fuji '76. A personal decision.

 

Different level of corporate, social responsibility and liability these days, this is 2021, not 1971...

Edited by flatoutflatbroke, 31 August 2021 - 09:08.

[Blackjack1967]

[...]If you make an 'even better tyre' = more spray = More visibility issues.

Well pointed.

I revisited yesterday some races: Spa 85, Spa 89, Spa 97 and Spa 98.

I the case of 89 and 98 (the more wetter) i have to recognise that i expected to see more spray than this last infamous Sunday.

But there was the same, or even a bit less. I think that the modern full wet tyres create the extreme lack of visibility.

[PlatenGlass]

They ran the races because F1 was not run by a bunch of lightweights who are worried about getting sued at every turn. Had Bernie still been in charge, he would it made it very clear in one syllable terms that the drivers had to race. Nobody would have dared not to. 

 

 

I think he tried to do that at Indy 2005 but failed. These aren't schoolchildren afraid of some scary teacher. They'd be quite capable of standing up to the old git.

[Clatter]

I think he tried to do that at Indy 2005 but failed. These aren't schoolchildren afraid of some scary teacher. They'd be quite capable of standing up to the old git.

I'd say he succeded in 2005. All teams took to the grid and only pulled off during the formation lap. That meant bernie had fulfilled the required number of cars for the race clause, and anything after that he didn't really care about.

[sgtkate]

I remember Wimbledon had a lot of problems with rain affecting their event. What did they do to solve it, perhaps there's something to learn from it!

They built 2 roofs...not sure that's such a practical suggestion here.

[ExFlagMan]

Well pointed.

I revisited yesterday some races: Spa 85, Spa 89, Spa 97 and Spa 98.

I the case of 89 and 98 (the more wetter) i have to recognise that i expected to see more spray than this last infamous Sunday.

But there was the same, or even a bit less. I think that the modern full wet tyres create the extreme lack of visibility.

 

There may have been less spray, but in 98 two cars still managed to run into the back of the car in front of them.

 

Looking at the tyres they were running, they look more like modern day intermediates than the current full wets.

[JimmyClark]

Yes, the Dutch roads use ZOAB, translates to "very open asphalt concrete".

 

Left ZOAB, right normal asphalt in the rain:

 

Doubt it can withstand the forces of F1 cars though, it's open character will easily break when high wringing forces are applied.

 

They did actually test anti spray asphalt back in the 1990s, but I think it reached the same conclusion as you - the forces exerted by F1 cars probably means its impossible. There must be research going on into it though. 

 

http://www.atlasf1.c...s/1999/1193.htm

 

Ferrari drivers Eddie Irvine and Luca Badoer were the guinea pigs at a test earlier this week at Monza when they tried a special track surface designed to cut spray in wet conditions called porous draining asphalt. Both drivers found that the surface, which has been in existence for several years, cut spray dramatically, although Eddie Irvine pointed out that it would have to be tested in race conditions before it could be adopted universally.

The demonstration, using contemporary Formula One cars, was held on the same day that the FIA, motor racing?s governing body, was talking to road engineers from all over Europe plus a delegate from New Zealand on the subject of porous draining asphalt and its suitability to motor racing circuits. Members of the Circuit Safety Commission discussed the various options open to circuit owners, but afterwards the FIA stressed that it was a very long way from even recommending specific surfaces to them.

Monza has had a strip of some 600 meters of porous draining asphalt laid for some time on what is sometimes known as the speed bowl, around the old banking. Water drains through the surface rather than across it; the surface is an open weave asphalt with some 20 per cent void, while underneath is a second layer which allows the water to drain to the side of the track. Motorways in France, Germany, Britain and Austria have been laid with this tarmac, specifically designed to cut down spray in wet conditions.

The problem is that the FIA has never found one that can stand up to the acceleration, braking and lateral forces to be found in motor racing. The open weave tends to make it less stable than a denser tarmac. Indeed, it was a porous draining asphalt which was laid at Spa in the mid-1980s when the track broke up in hot conditions causing the postponement of that year?s Belgian Grand Prix. It is the stresses in corners which tend to create a problem.

The FIA has been actively investigating what can be done in this area since 1995, and notes that the arrival of new products continue to make the adoption of such a surface more viable. The FIA is looking to decrease the incidence of spray and the chance of aquaplaning and increase driver visibility which, at Grand Prix racing speeds, is crucial in wet weather.

During the day, Irvine and Badoer did three runs on the Monza surface which is provided by Eni, a branch of Italian petroleum company AGIP. The surface has previously been used in a special stage rally, with a chicane specially laid out to subject the surface to lateral forces. The Ferraris had a 200 meter start before hitting the 600 meter of new surface, which was followed by 150 meters in which to slow down. Reaching speeds of 260 kph, observers noted that the spray decreased dramatically on the porous surface.

The course was specially dampened for the test. "Visibility and grip were amazing," said Irvine afterwards, but added a note of caution. "Of course, we have to see what it?s like on a hot day under race conditions. It looks very good under these conditions but we would have to wait and see. However, in the interim, in terms of spray dispersal and grip it works well."

The FIA is very far from making any decisions regarding such surfaces. They are encouraging and supporting further on-going research into such surfaces, but while appreciating such practical demonstrations, they are also looking into more scientific tests to find out what a Formula One tyre - or even a sports car tyre - would do to such surfaces. Certainly, they say, they are a long way from demanding that circuits commit themselves to the expensive change of surface - whatever the apparent benefits. Honda reintroducing a V12 engine, because it delivers more power, but on the other hand is less driveable and uses more fuel.

[P123]

Bernie just did an interview:

 

Bernie Ecclestone says 'cowardly' F1 bosses should not have called off Belgian Grand Prix

 

He basically says: I will delay for 1 hour until 4 o'clock, he gives them 1 hour to think it through, and then at 4 the race starts. Those who want to race can and will, others who don't are out/retired from the race.

 

A bit like Lauda @ Fuji '76. A personal decision.

 

F1 didn't operate like that when it was still under Bernie's wing, so not sure what he is on about there.  It would have been exactly the same with him still in the hot seat.

 

I do agree with Max though.  Bring the times of the races forwards.  The mid-afternoon starts are nonsense anyway, and they really do paint themselves into a corner with little room for manoeuvre with weather delays.  Can't imagine viewing figures are that much greater at 3pm than at 2pm or even better, 1pm.

[Pete_f1]

I think that if its wet, the teams should be able to make a set of changes to the cars such as softening the springs, raised ride height etc.
Also, some kind of enforced power reduction to make the cars less snappy on the power.
I'm also not averse to a 'mud guard' that directs the water sideways.

[hogstar]

F1 didn't operate like that when it was still under Bernie's wing, so not sure what he is on about there.  It would have been exactly the same with him still in the hot seat.

 

I do agree with Max though.  Bring the times of the races forwards.  The mid-afternoon starts are nonsense anyway, and they really do paint themselves into a corner with little room for manoeuvre with weather delays.  Can't imagine viewing figures are that much greater at 3pm than at 2pm or even better, 1pm.

 

 

You would have got some sort of race yesterday with Bernie still around. These drivers are supposed to be the best in the world - the cars are safer than ever, the tracks are safer than ever and the medical side is safer than ever. Let them race, and if they don't want to, then that's something they'll have to deal with. 

 

However, I have always agreed that the start time is too rigid. The problem with that is I'm not sure the commercial side has the will to be flexible, but that's something F1 and the FIA will have to sort out, but yesterday showed how leaderless they really are.  

[KnucklesAgain]

Bernie just did an interview:

Bernie Ecclestone says 'cowardly' F1 bosses should not have called off Belgian Grand Prix

He basically says: I will delay for 1 hour until 4 o'clock, he gives them 1 hour to think it through, and then at 4 the race starts. Those who want to race can and will, others who don't are out/retired from the race.

A bit like Lauda @ Fuji '76. A personal decision.

Making it a "biggest idiot wins" kind of thing. Not interested

[absinthedude]

The very hairy 1989 Australian GP is still strong in my mind....I really don't think that the conditions on Sunday were suitable for F1 racing....and that's all one can say. On that day, at that geographical location and taking into account the track configuration....it was the right decision not to race. 

 

 

F1 cars are actually pretty good at racing in the rain. But when it's very heavy downpour with little chance of a good dry spell and in a track surrounded by forest....there's not a whole lot to be done. And I do NOT think they should alter the track or it's surroundings. However, looking at the rules and what can be done to delay a race another day is an option. While F1 followed the established procedures with the two SC laps, it was rather unsatisfying for everyone. 

[absinthedude]

Culture changed - its now all about "keeping people safe".

 

Fuji is also not surrounded by a dense forest which holds in the moisture. Fuji may well drain better and isn't as fast a track as Spa-Francorchamps. Fuji hadn't experienced a F2/GP2 death the last time they raced there. Go off in the rain at Fuji and you're more likely to be safe and not to be hit by other cars than at Spa. 

 

Calculated risk. And change in culture too. Perceived risk after Hubert's fatal accident in 2019. 

[Izzyeviel]

Fuji is also not surrounded by a dense forest which holds in the moisture. Fuji may well drain better and isn't as fast a track as Spa-Francorchamps. Fuji hadn't experienced a F2/GP2 death the last time they raced there. Go off in the rain at Fuji and you're more likely to be safe and not to be hit by other cars than at Spa. 

 

Calculated risk. And change in culture too. Perceived risk after Hubert's fatal accident in 2019. 

Which is why Spa should be dropped from the F1 calendar. 

[KnucklesAgain]

Which is why Spa should be dropped from the F1 calendar.

I'd prefer keeping one of the best tracks and living with having to cancel a race once on a decade

[Ivanhoe]

I'd prefer keeping one of the best tracks and living with having to cancel a race once on a decade

It's even more like once in 35 years

[KnucklesAgain]

It's even more like once in 35 years

True, but they didn't always go to Spa and they are generally more cautious now than they were in the past.

[solochamp07]

I'd prefer keeping one of the best tracks and living with having to cancel a race once on a decade

This. For me that covers it and solves the crisis. Please stop with the mud flaps already. Just stop.

[Britmax]

You want a roof over Spa?

And the races to take place over a fortnight, with the middle weekend to take up the slack.

[Izzyeviel]

I'd prefer keeping one of the best tracks and living with having to cancel a race once on a decade

im sure the fans who pay a lot of money to stand in the rain for nothing will be thrilled.

[azza200]

Which is why Spa should be dropped from the F1 calendar. 

 

no it shouldn't that is an extreme over reaction so by that logic lets drop the Le Mans 24 hours race, Silverstone, Monza, Zandvoort, Austria all tracks which have had driver deaths on them in their track history. 

[Izzyeviel]

no it shouldn't that is an extreme over reaction so by that logic lets drop the Le Mans 24 hours race, Silverstone, Monza, Zandvoort, Austria all tracks which have had driver deaths on them in their track history. 

yeah but you can race at those tracks when its raining... and its not like those tracks are famous for dodgy weather....

[azza200]

Well the run down from the Mulsaane Straight down to Indianapolis has trees on both sides of it and it holds rain and spray like at Spa. 

[KnucklesAgain]

im sure the fans who pay a lot of money to stand in the rain for nothing will be thrilled.

Solutions could be found for refunds and really everyone visiting Spa should know about the weather there. Not worth gutting the calendar for it. Of course we could run 25 races on car parks in the desert instead

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 02 September 2021 - 09:57.

[mhno1f]

It was so foggy/damp at times at spa you could barely see anything when the cars weren't running. 

Short of F1 cars with mud flaps - can't see what you can do to improve visibility. As others have said, will be curious to see what (if any) the new cars rooster tails will look like

[absinthedude]

Which is why Spa should be dropped from the F1 calendar. 

 

Errr..no.