48 replies to this topic

[Analog]

 

 

“Because the front wing gets loaded in different ways, we cannot predict it easily in the regulations,” he said. “As no two wings have exactly the same loading pattern, it is very difficult to come with a proper test.

https://www.autospor...in-f1/10672798/

Similar to team orders, I think the rules about flexible bodywork has become unsustainable and I see no reason to keep them. It would be much cheaper for teams to just go with their ideas without having to disguise them at the same time. 

I also think that allowing the teams to really explore this area would one of the few things that could benefit other industries, like road car development*.

What would be the dangers of letting them go for it? Can there be a flex to far?

EDIT: *...and the space industry!

Edited by Analog, 14 November 2024 - 14:03.

[gp2username]

I guess the risk is that teams take the piddle and we end up with wings failing mid corner and crashing the car out, or flying backwards and hitting another driver.

 

I agree though, the rule at this point doesn't seem to be adding much value to proceedings.

[Stephane]

Not sure aeroflexibility is a thing in the space industry

[Analog]

Not sure aeroflexibility is a thing in the space industry

Believe me - it is

[PayasYouRace]

Not sure aeroflexibility is a thing in the space industry

Only for launch and recovery vehicles, of which there are a few.

[Stephane]

It's more burnable than flexible, on reentry 

[Analog]

Only for launch and recovery vehicles, of which there are a few.

For basically everything. If you want to optimize weight, rigidity and absolute strength, you need to be able to control and predict the flex during all phases of the adventure. And while there's no aerodynamic forces in space, there's still inertia. Another important factor for rockets both on track and in space is oscillation.

[PayasYouRace]

For basically everything. If you want to optimize weight, rigidity and absolute strength, you need to be able to control and predict the flex during all phases of the adventure. And while there's no aerodynamic forces in space, there's still inertia. Another important factor for rockets both on track and in space is oscillation.

It’s not aeroelasticity when there’s no air.

Given that aerodynamic forces on a structure are exactly what we’re talking about, you’ve gone too far. What you’re talking about is structural dynamics, and that applies to all racing car structures too.

[PayasYouRace]

It's more burnable than flexible, on reentry

You’re talking about ablative shielding, which is only a part of the reentry process.

[PayasYouRace]

I guess the risk is that teams take the piddle and we end up with wings failing mid corner and crashing the car out, or flying backwards and hitting another driver.

I agree though, the rule at this point doesn't seem to be adding much value to proceedings.

That’s why you keep structural tests with suitable loads. You just don’t worry about the flexibility.

[Analog]

It’s not aeroelasticity when there’s no air.

Given that aerodynamic forces on a structure are exactly what we’re talking about, you’ve gone too far. What you’re talking about is structural dynamics, and that applies to all racing car structures too.

First of all, aerodynamic forces on a structure are not exactly what we’re talking about, given that tests for aeroelasticity in F1 are free from aerodynamic forces. That aside, wouldn't you agree that the times a space-traveling object is subjected to aerodynamic forces are the most critical? So while the objectives might differ a great deal between a F1 team and Rockets Inc, they both wrestle with the same problem: How will this object behave when exposed to aerodynamic forces, how will its behavior affect other  objects and, at the end, how do we figure out the sum of it all. Remember that controlled flex can be used as stabilizer also in the air.

Disclaimer: I'm not a rocket scientist, but my son is, so I've some insight in what their struggles are. 

Anyway, we are drifting away from the center of this topic: Should FIA open up that part of the regulations?

[PayasYouRace]

First of all, aerodynamic forces on a structure are not exactly what we’re talking about, given that tests for aeroelasticity in F1 are free from aerodynamic forces. That aside, wouldn't you agree that the times a space-traveling object is subjected to aerodynamic forces are the most critical? So while the objectives might differ a great deal between a F1 team and Rockets Inc, they both wrestle with the same problem: How will this object behave when exposed to aerodynamic forces, how will its behavior affect other objects and, at the end, how do we figure out the sum of it all. Remember that controlled flex can be used as stabilizer also in the air.

Disclaimer: I'm not a rocket scientist, but my son is, so I've some insight in what their struggles are.

Anyway, we are drifting away from the center of this topic: Should FIA open up that part of the regulations?

We are specifically talking about aerodynamically induced forces. The test loads are applied mechanically for simplicity as bringing a full scale wind tunnel round the word for scruitineering is impractical. This is exactly what the autosport article and Tombazis specifically is getting at. To test the way the wings load up under aerodynamic loads the FIA s forced to come up with mechanical tests that do their best to simulate the aerodynamic loads.

From a safety perspective this isn’t a problem, because you can mechanically apply loads that very much exceed what the wing is capable of generating itself, and that can test for failure. The difficulty is chasing the various competitive advantages that the flexible wing rules attempt to nullify. Allowing wing flex within the budget cap would benefit the sport, I think.

To wrap up the spacecraft related tangent. Not all spacecraft experience aerodynamic forces. Some do during launch and recovery. Some are launched within an aerodynamic fairing and spend their entire lives in the vacuum of space, having never experienced airflow over their surfaces. Hope that clears up that little misunderstanding between you and Stephane.

PS. I am specifically an aerospace engineer with a specialisation in aerodynamics and propulsion. I currently work in the helicopter industry.

[pdac]

Just impose a standard design

[lio007]

Just impose a standard design

Which would be another step towards a spec series.

[PayasYouRace]

Just impose a standard design

A standard design or a standard part?

[Dutchrudder]

Yes, keep the cost cap in place and allow more innovation within it.

[TomNokoe]

I've never really thought of this but I like the idea. A lot of F1 nowadays is the teams having to conform to restrictions instead of running how they wish and paying the consequences if they get it wrong. Tyre pressures a good example.

I understand the safety argument, but again must ask what is the point of having the safest cars in the history of the sport (to the detriment of racing in many ways) if they aren't expected to crash.

[PayasYouRace]

That’s some weird safety logic there, Tom.

[pdac]

Which would be another step towards a spec series.

 

If you want close racing with the drivers making the difference, then spec is the only way to achieve that.

[pdac]

A standard design or a standard part?

 

It depends on whether you want full spec or you want to give some level of freedom for the designers.

[PrinceBira]

If you want close racing with the drivers making the difference, then spec is the only way to achieve that.

History has shown that spec series provide less interest.

The intrigue of F1 partly is the combination of driver+car.

[Sterzo]

History has shown that spec series provide less interest.

The intrigue of F1 partly is the combination of driver+car.

By definition they provide less technical interest. But my observation would be that spec series generally provide more in the way of exciting battles. It all depends on which you prefer to emphasise. My own view is that racing lost most of its relevance to road car design decades ago. It's a game for people to play.

[PrinceBira]

By definition they provide less technical interest. But my observation would be that spec series generally provide more in the way of exciting battles. It all depends on which you prefer to emphasise. My own view is that racing lost most of its relevance to road car design decades ago. It's a game for people to play.

Which spec series has the same viewer numbers as F1?

F1 is a commercial product, so they won’t work towards creating better racing for a select group of fans. They aim to provide the most interesting product for the widest audience.

I just don’t see any spec series with that same level of appeal (which is more than just close racing).

[Clatter]

By definition they provide less technical interest. But my observation would be that spec series generally provide more in the way of exciting battles. It all depends on which you prefer to emphasise. My own view is that racing lost most of its relevance to road car design decades ago. It's a game for people to play.

Maybe in the early days of racing there was some road relevance, but I don't think formula series have ever had any real road relevance.

[Analog]

History has shown that spec series provide less interest.

The intrigue of F1 partly is the combination of driver+car.

I think that if F1 and Indycar swapped drivers for a season, the focus of interest would move to Indycar. I believe it is the series that have the best drivers that sucks us in. 

[RedRabbit]

I think that if F1 and Indycar swapped drivers for a season, the focus of interest would move to Indycar. I believe it is the series that have the best drivers that sucks us in.

Nope. The appeal of F1 is very much both car and driver. I might watch more IndyCar if my favourite F1 driver moved there, but a spec series really holds less interest for me.

As for the topic, I don't see it as a danger anymore, and they should allow it. Keep the load tests and ignore flex after that. If the part passes the test, it should be structurally sound enough to race.

Question about how wings would be affected by dirty air.

[PrinceBira]

I think that if F1 and Indycar swapped drivers for a season, the focus of interest would move to Indycar. I believe it is the series that have the best drivers that sucks us in.

What was so epic about the current F1 season is how the competitive order changed in the course of the season and Verstappen suddenly was in the defensive.

And then the added drama about water in tires, flexi wings, bib adjustment tools. F1 even delivers when it is not on TV!

[pdac]

Which spec series has the same viewer numbers as F1?

F1 is a commercial product, so they won’t work towards creating better racing for a select group of fans. They aim to provide the most interesting product for the widest audience.

I just don’t see any spec series with that same level of appeal (which is more than just close racing).

 

Can I re-ask a modified version of your question ...

 

Which series has the same viewer numbers as F1? Does any motorsport series come even close?

 

And another question ...

 

What changes to F1 would turn viewers off en masse?

Edited by pdac, 15 November 2024 - 18:01.

[FNG]

I say open it up. Flex all you want. If a wing fails for any reason under it's own load then back of the grid for the next race. Done

[MikeTekRacing]

I understand the safety argument, but again must ask what is the point of having the safest cars in the history of the sport (to the detriment of racing in many ways) if they aren't expected to crash.

what is the point we're putting airbags if you are not allowed to fully enjoy road frontal crashes?

[pdac]

I say open it up. Flex all you want. If a wing fails for any reason under it's own load then back of the grid for the next race. Done

 

I say open up all of the tech regs. The only restrictions should now be based solely on safety and practicality. All of those things that were introduced to kerb spiralling spending are no longer needed now that the budget cap has been introduced.

Edited by pdac, 15 November 2024 - 19:37.

[PrinceBira]

Can I re-ask a modified version of your question ...

Which series has the same viewer numbers as F1? Does any motorsport series come even close?

And another question ...

What changes to F1 would turn viewers off en masse?

Well the question then is what makes F1 unique, or what makes it stand out compared to all other series?

In my view it largely is because it’s constructors+drivers. But then again, one could argue about WEC, (or even DTM when it still was a thing). So it’s more than the bare fact that it’s constructors+drivers. But what do you think?

[pdac]

Well the question then is what makes F1 unique, or what makes it stand out compared to all other series?

In my view it largely is because it’s constructors+drivers. But then again, one could argue about WEC, (or even DTM when it still was a thing). So it’s more than the bare fact that it’s constructors+drivers. But what do you think?

 

Successful marketing.

[pup]

Keep the specific regs but eliminate the general ‘no flexing’ and ffs stop trying to change the regs whenever some fanboy gets all melodramatic about some video of a competitor with a flexy wing.

Pass the test and you’re good. Keeps the teams from going hog wild but allows them an outlet for creativity and engineering prowess. It’s what the sport is about.

Edited by pup, 16 November 2024 - 03:24.

[Clrnc]

Keep the reg but stop trying to change it whenever some fanboy gets all melodramatic about some video of a competitor with a flexy wing.

Pass the test and you’re good. Keeps the teams from going hog wild but allows them an outlet for creativity and engineering prowess. It’s what the sport is about.

Exactly this.

[katmen]

we have no safe technology to have relevant  safe testing methodology, there is also correlation problem between test environment and reality, which could lead to  pass the test but in reality it could lead for example to delamination of structure and crash

 

in virtual reality it could be safe and great but introduction to real world is the problem

in 26 regs we have movable aero lets gather data from this real world test to invent and maybe have safe methodolgy for testing

Edited by katmen, 16 November 2024 - 10:13.

[Sterzo]

Well the question then is what makes F1 unique, or what makes it stand out compared to all other series?

In my view it largely is because it’s constructors+drivers. But then again, one could argue about WEC, (or even DTM when it still was a thing). So it’s more than the bare fact that it’s constructors+drivers. But what do you think?

You ask (in this post and others) a number of valid questions, to which the only honest answer is 'don't know' - and even those who have a clear view will differ from each other. However, I'm pretty sure the appeal to most enthusiasts is not in the fine technical detail which we never hear about anyway, until it's declared illegal. I'm probably dragging us off topic, but a spiral of ever-improving technology with little interest to outsiders, causing increased speed, which costs a ludicrous amount of money, and indirectly results in the ruin of exciting circuits, is not a good direction to continue for what is essentially an enjoyable game.

[Analog]

 

 

in virtual reality it could be safe and great but introduction to real world is the problem

in 26 regs we have movable aero lets gather data from this real world test to invent and maybe have safe methodolgy for testing

The irony is that the anti-flex regulation exists because of the earlier decision to ban movable aero. Now, instead of simply allowing flex, which they cannot police anyway, they introduce movable aero which will open a serious amount of cans of worms. And the movable aero will also flex... 

 

[RekF1]

By definition they provide less technical interest. But my observation would be that spec series generally provide more in the way of exciting battles. It all depends on which you prefer to emphasise. My own view is that racing lost most of its relevance to road car design decades ago. It's a game for people to play.

I don't think the driver/constructor partnership is the main draw to watching F1. In the same way that stream train enthusiasts don't care who's driving the train.

Let's be honest, we're all a bit autistic in that respect and I think @SophieB summed up the paradox of expecting excitement from a predictable event quite succinctly a few years ago.

"Practice for 2 days, fastest car starts first, yet we still expect the unexpected and complain if it doesn't manifest"

Something to that effect. Let them flop if you ask me.

[pdac]

They cling on to the outdated idea that you can have teams design and build racing cars using the latest technologies and those cars will produce interesting racing. Although they have accepted this basic principle, they still feel that by writing technical regulations to severely restrict the freedom of the designs they can accomplish the goal. But it's impossible.

[Clatter]

They cling on to the outdated idea that you can have teams design and build racing cars using the latest technologies and those cars will produce interesting racing. Although they have accepted this basic principle, they still feel that by writing technical regulations to severely restrict the freedom of the designs they can accomplish the goal. But it's impossible.

Not forgetting that when they do, by some chance, concoct a set of regulations that does actually meet the goals, they then go and f*** it up by changing the regs after half a dozen races.

[Analog]

While we can see the flex going on on the surface, we, and FIA, can only imagine what is flexing underneath, like the floor. Rules that cannot be enforced should be scrapped.

[pdac]

While we can see the flex going on on the surface, we, and FIA, can only imagine what is flexing underneath, like the floor. Rules that cannot be enforced should be scrapped.

 

Generally, in law, you have to prove that someone has committed a transgression. However, there are some laws where the onus is on the defense to prove innocence rather than the other way around. Maybe F1 could adopt that principle - if there is a complaint, then it's up to the team being accused to show that they are within the regs. Guilty until proven innocent. 

[Analog]

Generally, in law, you have to prove that someone has committed a transgression. However, there are some laws where the onus is on the defense to prove innocence rather than the other way around. Maybe F1 could adopt that principle - if there is a complaint, then it's up to the team being accused to show that they are within the regs. Guilty until proven innocent. 

Take the last front wing flex situation, we could all see that there was a heck of a lot of flex and, just as Ferrari, I was certain FIA would do something. But they didn't. Now all teams have the "go" for flexing, but still none of them knows how far they can go and eventually one or more team will get the "that's too much" verdict. Controlled flex is expensive, very expensive, but also very important. Getting a component on which you have spent a lot of your valuable CFD and wind tunnel time on, developed manufacturing tools and processing on, banned can have serious influence not only on the current season, but also the following. Proving innocence will still be just as much of a gamble as hoping that FIA would not prove guilt. 

To be the best, the teams must go to the limit and that is very difficult when the limit cannot be defined and is instead enforced by someone's personal judgement.

 

[Sterzo]

Nothing useful to add, just popped in to say the thread title always gives me a smile.

Edited by Sterzo, 18 November 2024 - 16:30.

[RedRabbit]

Well the question then is what makes F1 unique, or what makes it stand out compared to all other series?

In my view it largely is because it’s constructors+drivers. But then again, one could argue about WEC, (or even DTM when it still was a thing). So it’s more than the bare fact that it’s constructors+drivers. But what do you think?

What makes F1 better than other series is that they are always the fastest circuit race cars on the planet, delivered in a race that lasts about the same length of time as a football game.

Seeing an F1 race live really drives home how much faster they are compared to something like the Porsche Super Cup, which are track versions of an already fast production car.

Once you have seen that, series like DTM etc, lose some shine.

WEC is great, but a 6 hour minimum for a race is only appealing to serious fans with little other interests. Also, sharing a car with 3 drivers makes it hard to create stars out of them. Your favourite driver has to rely on 2 others to help drive the car during every race. Takes some shine off the series.

[Sterzo]

What makes F1 better than other series is that they are always the fastest circuit race cars on the planet,

Disagree, and it wasn't always thus. 52-3 and 61-65 were great periods of GP racing.

 

 

[Analog]

Seeing an F1 race live really drives home how much faster they are compared to something like the Porsche Super Cup, which are track versions of an already fast production car.
es.

I don't see that at all. Camera angles, huge tracks, huge runoffs and the lack och relevant sound connected to the images gives me no sense of speed whatsoever. A Porsche Cup car on track that F1 has outgrown might look just as fast. I was watching Goodwood and some of those steam-engined cars from before the invention of combustion looked seriously fast to me!

EDIT: Live! I did not see the 'live' you put in there and of course, in that context you're right, but in many ways it is of lesser importance since the wast majority does not have that privilege.

Edited by Analog, 18 November 2024 - 21:46.

[Collombin]

Your favourite driver has to rely on 2 others to help drive the car during every race. Takes some shine off the series.

I don't think following a favourite driver is really a big deal for WEC fans, that's reason enough to prefer it to F1.