113 replies to this topic

[Jason]

Shoot! I'm unable to edit the title, but it should read: Why doesn't the FIA simply reduce the amount of aerodynamic downforce allowed?

With all the crazy ideas being introduced in the name of cutting cost and trying to increase overtaking, why doesn't the FIA simply reduce the amount of aerodynamic downforce area allowed?
1) Less downforce means big team would benefit less from pouring huge amounts of money into this one area.
2) Less downforce would also make overtaking more feasible and thereby making driver skill more of a factor in the outcome of a race.
3) Less downforce would reduce race speeds (which always seems to be a big concern for the FIA) and reduce tire wear (which has recently become an issue with the introduction of the one tire rule).
I see plenty of benefits, and no real downside. So, why hasn't this been considered?

[ensign14]

4) Less highly visible surface area on which to plaster a fag packet.

[angst]

Originally posted by ensign14
4) Less highly visible surface area on which to plaster a fag packet.

I always thought this would be a great way of reducing costs - something Max was all for doing not too long ago. Reduce the potential amount of revenues and the bigger teams would be proportionally hit harder anyway. Combined with a fairer distribution of revenues and the playing field would become alot 'flatter', and all those independent teams that Max keeps going on about F1 needing would be capable of competing with the 'manufacturer' teams.

[kNt]

If they could reduce the total amount of aerodynmaic downforce, they could as well simply reduce speeds or cornering acceleration.
I don't think you caan practically measure aerodynamic downforce.. especially not on a track.

[KWSN - DSM]

Becasue the FIA can not do that. According to the Concorde agreement F1 needs unanimous agreement between the teams, and that hjave sofar proven impossible.

It is easy to blame the FIA for all ills of F1, but all the teams share alot of the blame, this being one of them.

[F1Champion]

I've always thought that the teams should use completlely flat rear wings, so that the sponsors still get their exposure but the teams don't get any real downforce. Possibly the same could be done for the front wings as well.

[MichaelJP]

It's an obvious thing to do, but they have not managed to find a way of doing it yet.

The FIA usually tries to reduce downforce by changes to the technical regulations which deal mainly with the dimensions and position of pieces of the car.

As we all know, the teams are so efficient that they can claw back nearly all the lost downforce in the development of next season's car.

I think they have to turn this round and instead specify an actual downforce figure e.g. 500kg at 300kph. Then teams would have to submit cars for approval at the start of the season when they would be measured and signed off in a wind tunnel. Occasionally cars would be held back for testing during the season to check for cheating, but most inspection would be visual comparison with the certified car by expert scrutineers.

If a team wanted to update a car they would have to pay for a mid-season test and certification.

There could also be specifications for how long and turbulent the "wake" from a car was. This would enable cars to follow one another closely, one of the main reasons why F1 racing is so processional these days. This could be measured by a wing setup to measure downforce some distance from the test car.

OK, it's not simple but the current method just does not work.

Some might say it reduces the importance of the team's aerodynamics specialists, but they still have to obtain minimum drag and optimise the performance.

[Chubby_Deuce]

The means for testing that would be complicated, logistically impossible. It would be an FIA wind tunnel (full scale) running each iteration of each car, as well as making it to every race. Every wing adjustment throughout a weekend would have to have a go. You'd never be able to govern downforce.

[Ninja2b]

Chubby_Deuce is exactly correct. It would be logistically impossible and prohibitively time consuming and expensive to perform those kind of tests for every iteration of every car. And this kind of thing is so much more complicated than that as well. What ride height (front and rear) would you measure it at? Does that mean that teams aren't allowed to touch wing settings or ride heights the entire race weekend? And say the team has an overheating problem and modifies the bodywork to exhaust more hot air from the engine bay, or to let more air into the radiators... do they need a new test? Because that will affect downforce...

Basically they don't regulate for less downforce because its almost impossible to write regulations which limit it without going to extreme measures like testing every car in a wind tunnel....

[CaptnMark]

Originally posted by F1Champion
I've always thought that the teams should use completlely flat rear wings, so that the sponsors still get their exposure but the teams don't get any real downforce. Possibly the same could be done for the front wings as well.

Single plane, flat wings, no fancy stuff on the sides. Diffuser should also be flat.


| /#o_
O#####O

[ensign14]

How about making them more aerodynamic? Allow the teams to enclose the wheels? Would that help? In that it would create a bigger slipstreaming hole...or would wings &c still create havoc?

[Al.]

Originally posted by Jason
Shoot! I'm unable to edit the title, but it should read: Why doesn't the FIA simply reduce the amount of aerodynamic downforce allowed?

With all the crazy ideas being introduced in the name of cutting cost and trying to increase overtaking, why doesn't the FIA simply reduce the amount of aerodynamic downforce area allowed?

I'm all for that but there are draw backs, partly balancing the corner speed with the straightline speed, I think you need to indroduce some sort of drag inducing device in tadem.

1) Less downforce means big team would benefit less from pouring huge amounts of money into this one area.

Not really if they have some aero (assuming the overall is reduced not eliminated) then teams well spend a fortune trying to claw it back.

2) Less downforce would also make overtaking more feasible and thereby making driver skill more of a factor in the outcome of a race.

Quite possibly

3) Less downforce would reduce race speeds (which always seems to be a big concern for the FIA) and reduce tire wear (which has recently become an issue with the introduction of the one tire rule).

It would reduce corner speeds, although unless something else was done at the same time, straightline speed would problably rise. Thus the issue of cars arriving faster into braking areas would need to be addressed from a safety point of view. Also the tre wear would go up as there would be more of a reliance on mechanical grip, and there is less aero. One of the things Michelin has seen this year is that a harder tyre is more likely to wheelspin and slid which could lead it to wear out quicker than a softer compound.

I see plenty of benefits, and no real downside. So, why hasn't this been considered.

It has been considered many times, (downforce was cut again this year) however not to the levels some would like to see. One thing I would say if downforce levels were cut by 90% (as championed by one or two designers) then that wwould represent such a big change that the big teams with the bugets would react much better, and you would see the grid spread out in the short term.

F1 is also about public perseption. After Senna's accident in 1994 alot of ili-informed media pointed the finger at the banning of lots of driver aids at the start of that year and speculated as to whether Senna might not have crashed in a car with the gismo's from 1993. Likewise alot of media immediately pointed the fingure at the tyre regs after Kimi's last lap exit at Europe, yet in there scramble to point out how bad it could have been had Kimi hit Button, they forgot that Button's tyre failed at Spa under last years regs, resulting in him wiping out a Minardi.

The point of that is to say that any drastic change in downforce, I believe the FIA will want to counter with a significant change in straightline speed as well. It is all about balance. Also the smaller (less financed) teams will resist such a big change as they simply can't react as quickly as the top teams.

[Ninja2b]

Originally posted by CaptnMark


no fancy stuff on the sides

Regulation 5.3.2 in Appendix J of the International Sporting code:

The sides of Formula 1 cars shall be free from all fancy stuff.



Seriously though, how do you actually make a rule that stops them sculpting the sidepods of the cars without mandating boxy FIA spec pods?

[Ben]

Originally posted by Jason

1) Less downforce means big team would benefit less from pouring huge amounts of money into this one area.
2) Less downforce would also make overtaking more feasible and thereby making driver skill more of a factor in the outcome of a race.
3) Less downforce would reduce race speeds (which always seems to be a big concern for the FIA) and reduce tire wear (which has recently become an issue with the introduction of the one tire rule).

Answers:

1 - They will just pour the money elsewhere - Minardi will still be at the back.
2 - Why will less downforce increase overtaking? Downforce that is less afected by following another car might increase overtaking but that isn't the same as saying less downforce.
3 - Less downforce would reduce cornering speeds but would increase straightline speeds - less induced drag, look at Le Mans this year - so if the brakes failed at top speed you could argue things would be more dangerous.

In short you are trying to find a simple answer to a complex engineering problem. Just saying reduce downforce is not simple mearly simplistic.

Ben

[Ross Stonefeld]

How about more rigid regs on diffusers? They're so adamant about slowing the cars down, why dont they just square off the back of the cars under the rear wings?

[Williams]

Here's an idea for limiting downforce on F1 cars. I think it might be possible, and maybe even practical. After the races, qualifying, etc., you apply a huge static weight to randomly selected cars, centered on the roll hoop, and perhaps some other hardpoints built into the car. If the bottom of the car does not touch the track, it's illegal. The weight would have to be pretty large, probably a specially shaped weight suspended from a crane.

Ross, the problem with getting rid of the diffuser, with no other changes, is that the car becomes even more aero-sensitive and makes close racing into corners more difficult, which is a major beef with aero ATM.

[Ceejay]

The floor of a F1 car generates a significant amount of downforce and this could easily be reduced, or even eliminated, by simply increasing the minimum dimension between the track surface and the car floor. This would have the desired effect and would also save a hell of a lot of time and money for the teams in the wind tunnel. Perhaps a minimum of 70mm for starters would be interesting.

[MichaelJP]

Originally posted by Ceejay
The floor of a F1 car generates a significant amount of downforce and this could easily be reduced, or even eliminated, by simply increasing the minimum dimension between the track surface and the car floor. This would have the desired effect and would also save a hell of a lot of time and money for the teams in the wind tunnel. Perhaps a minimum of 70mm for starters would be interesting.

If you combined this with Williams' suggestion above about the static weight testing, you could have an interesting solution, though we should never underestimate the teams ability to engineer round the problems - after all, the top engineers are probably brighter than the top rulemakers!

[Orin]

Originally posted by Jason

I see plenty of benefits, and no real downside. So, why hasn't this been considered?

It has been: they reduced downforces already this year and Mosley has suggested moving to 10% of 2004 levels in the near future (2008?).

[Spunout]

"Shoot! I'm unable to edit the title, but it should read: Why doesn't the FIA simply reduce the amount of aerodynamic downforce allowed?"

Simple: Max has suggested it but FIA doesn´t reduce the amount of downforce because...

(drum roll, please)

The top teams won´t accept it!





Oops, I meant fire Max. Max sucks.

[KWSN - DSM]

But reduction under clak of safety. This is the only way that the FIA can regulate aero-grip.

A big change in aero-grip MUST!! come through the unanimous agreement of all teams. This we will not see, so until the end of the current Concorde, there will be no change.

My suggestion continue to be:

1) Only front wings and rear wings allowed, totalt square area of front- and rearwing set at "x" square centimeters.
2) Ban bargeboards.
3) Ban diffuser, or make it smaller by mandating where it can start compared to rear axle.
4) Ban all types of winglets - These can be defined as an aerofoil, and the words to control this can be written up by a technical savy person.

This way aero-grip can be reduced to which ever level is wanted. Make it less, makes for longer braking distances.

Ban Carbon brakes, whcih have zero impact in our everyday life. This will increase braking distance as well.

Ban semi-automatic gearshifts, this will increase braking distances as well, since the driver needs to be more "busy".

Ban traction control, and make the the penalty for having one your cars under any circumstances DRACONIA. If a team is found during, test, practise, straightline tests, qualifying or racing to have any form of TC on their cars, will mean for the team and drivers to be banned from F1 for a period of 2 years from the sport.

No traction control is what makes GP2 interesting, and what allow the better drivers to fight through for the back of the grid. The drivers talent at holduing the car, without overstepping adhesion, and without overstepping on power is what wins you races. This will also alow for more overtaking.

[Hellas]

isn't the diffuser a good thing when following another car?

[Rob Silver Speed]

1. Lower Front Wing
2. Raise Rear Wing
3. Get Rid of McLaren silly horns - oops i mean winglets and pokey outta aero bits.
4. Slick Tyres

Have fun!

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ben


Answers:

1 - They will just pour the money elsewhere - Minardi will still be at the back.
2 - Why will less downforce increase overtaking? Downforce that is less afected by following another car might increase overtaking but that isn't the same as saying less downforce.
3 - Less downforce would reduce cornering speeds but would increase straightline speeds - less induced drag, look at Le Mans this year - so if the brakes failed at top speed you could argue things would be more dangerous.

In short you are trying to find a simple answer to a complex engineering problem. Just saying reduce downforce is not simple mearly simplistic.

Ben

Sure, there may not be any simple solutions to complicated problems, but they should at least try something more logical than adding grooves to the tires, and changing the engine regulations. Anyhow, it's my belief (I could be wrong), but teams spending more money in other areas wouldn't yield nearly as much of an advantage compared to what we are seeing now. The cost of using a wind tunnel is pretty astronomical, just on it's own. Processing that data is an whole another issue. A brake failure in any form (racing/or just driving on the road) is disastrous. One could say the having a wing failure (ie. a few years ago when some teams were toying with the idea of using flexable wings) would produce equally disastrous results. If it becomes constant problem then they need to find of a way of addressing that issue when it comes up. As it is now, F1 cars have more in common with airplanes than the automobiles some of these car manufacturers are tying to sell. Just from a practical stance, I'm sure their road cars would benefit a lot more if the focus wasn't primarily on aerodynamics.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
How about more rigid regs on diffusers? They're so adamant about slowing the cars down, why dont they just square off the back of the cars under the rear wings?

I agree. Diffusers contribute a lot to the overall downforce and produce a lot of "dirty" air, which hinders passing.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Hellas
isn't the diffuser a good thing when following another car?

How so? Those diffusers produce a lot of turbulence. It would be much like a plane flying though another plane's wake turbulence (ie. has a very destabilizing effect on anyone too close behind).

[Ninja2b]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


4) Ban all types of winglets - These can be defined as an aerofoil, and the words to control this can be written up by a technical savy person.

.....

Ban Carbon brakes, whcih have zero impact in our everyday life. This will increase braking distance as well.

Banning airfoil sections from the sidepods wouldnt eliminate the plethora of flipups and all other appendages sticking out of the sidepods.

The FIA got Williams to test non-carbon (cant remember exactly what they were... iron or something) a few years back when Zanardi drove for them. There was no significant difference to performance.

When will people realise that creating overtaking oppoirtunities is more complicated than changing brakes and banning a few aero appendages????

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by Ninja2b


Banning airfoil sections from the sidepods wouldnt eliminate the plethora of flipups and all other appendages sticking out of the sidepods.

The FIA got Williams to test non-carbon (cant remember exactly what they were... iron or something) a few years back when Zanardi drove for them. There was no significant difference to performance.

When will people realise that creating overtaking oppoirtunities is more complicated than changing brakes and banning a few aero appendages????

When I write banning ALL winglets, aerofoils, horns and suggest that a technical savy person write the rules up, then I mena anything that can be defined as an aerofoil is banned. This will reduce overall aero-grip.

AND!!! increase braking distance.

I am fully aware that Williams calim to have found no difference between Varbopn and Steel, but since they have for all these year continued to use carbon brakes I refuse to belive this.

A steel brakign system will make for longer brakign distance, maybe not on the one flying lap, but if you intend to keep your brakes all race long, you need to brake "less hard".

AND!!! increase braking distance.

I think that most here understand that creating more overtaking is more than "just" replacing a few parts, but if you want to argue my points you have to either argue all of them, or none at all. Taking parts a full suggestion and then only part of them makes for a pretty strange debating technique.

[Al.]

Originally posted by Jason

How so? Those diffusers produce a lot of turbulence. It would be much like a plane flying though another plane's wake turbulence (ie. has a very destabilizing effect on anyone too close behind).

The car in front is one big tubulence generating device, diffuser or no diffuser.
The problem is the air flowing over the car behind. Generally the car behind's aero balance shifts towards the back in the order of 30%. This is due to the front wing being more affected by the turbulence it encounters, than the rest of the aero generating components of a car.
Diffusers are generally less affected by turbulent air than wings, especially front wings.

That's why I've suggested before scrap front wings. To balance the car they will have to reduce the effect of the rear wing and with the diffuser (or perhaps even full blown tunnels) the effect of following another car shouldn't be too detrimental.

[Al.]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
..........AND!!! increase braking distance.

I am fully aware that Williams calim to have found no difference between Varbopn and Steel, but since they have for all these year continued to use carbon brakes I refuse to belive this...........

It will be the difference between sprung and unsprung weight, The fact that Williams went as far as testing four lumps of steel on each corner replacing the carbon discs makes me think that the diffrence in performance in actual braking is going to be at best negligable.
If it was me I would want to see a significant improvement in Braking performance before I put something on the car that increased the unsprung mass.

[wegmann]

Originally posted by F1Champion
I've always thought that the teams should use completlely flat rear wings, so that the sponsors still get their exposure but the teams don't get any real downforce. Possibly the same could be done for the front wings as well.

Couldn't agree more.

[SeanValen]

FIA are about changes, as is life, not all change has been for the better, and teams all need to agree, so the equation becomes:

GOOD F1= FIA+TEAM AGREEMENT LESS SILLY IDEAS.

Maybe in 2008, there'll be big changes, but the future is now, and we've been giving scraps, the bones, the gravy of a F1, no MEAT. Get all the drivers back in some 80s f1 cars, and let the team bosses control the current ones by remote control, they are not cars for a drivers championship, but we still watch watch as 49.56% f1 is still better then alot of other sports, so were stuck, no way out.

[wegmann]

Originally posted by Ninja2b
When will people realise that creating overtaking oppoirtunities is more complicated than changing brakes and banning a few aero appendages????

Well if it's not the god of technical knowledge himself! If by "few aero appendages" you mean "wings", it would actually create a lot of overtaking opportunities. But that's not going to happen so we are trying to come up with solutions (as always) because the teams and the FIA *seem* incapable of doing so.

I agree that steel or ceramic or plastic brakes aren't going to affect it one way or the other. It's the aero devices creating downforce that also incidentally create drag that make braking so damn efficient.

[Ninja2b]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


When I write banning ALL winglets, aerofoils, horns and suggest that a technical savy person write the rules up, then I mena anything that can be defined as an aerofoil is banned. This will reduce overall aero-grip.

I am fully aware that Williams calim to have found no difference between Varbopn and Steel, but since they have for all these year continued to use carbon brakes I refuse to belive this.[b]

[b]A steel brakign system will make for longer brakign distance[b], maybe not on the one flying lap, but if you intend to keep your brakes all race long, you need to brake "less hard".


I think that most here understand that creating more overtaking is more than "just" replacing a few parts, but if you want to argue my points you have to either argue all of them, or none at all. Taking parts a full suggestion and then only part of them makes for a pretty strange debating technique.

Horns and flipups cannot be defined as an aerofoil, and therein lies one of the difficulties in writing up the regs to ban such things.

And arrogant as it may sound, reality doesnt care if you believe it or not. Williams noted no significant difference in braking distances. The reason they are still using carbon discs, as wegman points out, is due to unsprung mass.

And no, I don;t have to argue against all your points. You are proposing a number of technical changes, and I see no reason why individual changes cannot be argued against. Its not a simple matter of black and white.

Originally posted by wegmann
[b]

Well if it's not the god of technical knowledge himself! If by "few aero appendages" you mean "wings", it would actually create a lot of overtaking opportunities. But that's not going to happen so we are trying to come up with solutions (as always) because the teams and the FIA *seem* incapable of doing so.

I never have nor never will claim to be the god of technical knowledge. And no, by few aero appendages I did not mean wings, I was referring to the talk of banning flipups, horns and winglets on the sidepods. But I have seen many posts here over the years asking questions about aero regs and the simple fact is that they are virtually impossible to regulate without getting stupidly specific and specifying surface geometries and so on. Its easy to say "reduce downforce", but short of removing wings it is very difficult to actually write it into the regs, other than the ways the FIA have already done.

[HBoss]

Nah, just make it simple and mandate front and rear wings to be 10cm more narrow than they are now.

[bluetentacle]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
I am fully aware that Williams calim to have found no difference between Varbopn and Steel, but since they have for all these year continued to use carbon brakes I refuse to belive this.

The reason for preferring carbon brakes over the steel variety is not necessarily superior performance, but superior unsprung weight.

[wegmann]

Originally posted by Ninja2b
But I have seen many posts here over the years asking questions about aero regs and the simple fact is that they are virtually impossible to regulate without getting stupidly specific and specifying surface geometries and so on. Its easy to say "reduce downforce", but short of removing wings it is very difficult to actually write it into the regs, other than the ways the FIA have already done.

Well I agree it's difficult, but they've already got so many stupidly specific dimensions ("no bodywork between blah and blah ahead of the blah blah blah") already I don't see exactly what the problem is.

On another note, I actually like the McLaren horns, but I doubt they reduce laptimes by more than a few hundredths.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by Williams
Here's an idea for limiting downforce on F1 cars. I think it might be possible, and maybe even practical. After the races, qualifying, etc., you apply a huge static weight to randomly selected cars, centered on the roll hoop, and perhaps some other hardpoints built into the car. If the bottom of the car does not touch the track, it's illegal. The weight would have to be pretty large, probably a specially shaped weight suspended from a crane.

Very elegant I like it very much!

[-RM-]

Why? Because it would make CART the premier OWR series.

Williams used steel rotors with carbon pads. Also, there were some problems with fading IIRC.

[Lazarus II]

Seems to me the best thing that can happen to F1 is eliminating traction control and driver aids. That would allow passing opportunities.
God forbid the drivers actually controlled the throttle

[zak]

How many threads about this kind of thing now?

Anyway, here's my two bits....

Teams are allowed x square centimeters/inches of areodynamic wing which they can split in any ratio they want between front and rear wings so they can have either big front wings, big rear wings or something in between. Get rid of all the flip ups, horns, etc. Only places allowed for aero elements are the front and rear wings. Wings are allowed to change from race to race. Standardize the diffuser and exhaust outlet areas to minimize their influence. The number of wing elements should also be standard.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Williams
Here's an idea for limiting downforce on F1 cars. I think it might be possible, and maybe even practical. After the races, qualifying, etc., you apply a huge static weight to randomly selected cars, centered on the roll hoop, and perhaps some other hardpoints built into the car. If the bottom of the car does not touch the track, it's illegal. The weight would have to be pretty large, probably a specially shaped weight suspended from a crane.
...

You wouldn't need a weight. Just a frame, with a hydraulic pump, and a load cell in between the pump and the car. The load cell reads the imputed weight. This would be easy to adjust.

However, one could design a car that would behave differently on the track, to how the static weight would perform.

[Williams]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


You wouldn't need a weight. Just a frame, with a hydraulic pump, and a load cell in between the pump and the car. The load cell reads the imputed weight. This would be easy to adjust.

However, one could design a car that would behave differently on the track, to how the static weight would perform.

However you design the car to perform dynamically, the static weight would still be the major influence on how much downforce the car could carry on the track. Even if you could somehow find a way to make a car carry, say, 15% more downforce dynamically than it could statically, the static weight could simply be decreased by that 15%, putting the designers back where they started.

The FIA would ultimately have direct control over the amount of downforce, generally speaking, that the cars could carry, and without even thinking about the number, size or position of wings, or the design of the diffuser.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Jason




I agree. Diffusers contribute a lot to the overall downforce and produce a lot of "dirty" air, which hinders passing.

That is just fundamentally wrong. Diffusers if anything clean up the flow behind the car because they help fill in the low pressure area. That's how they work, the low pressure area actually encourages the air to accelerate through the diffuser creating the downforce.

If you want to increase overtaking by fiddling with aero you should increase the size of the diffusers, allow them to extend forward of the rear wheels so the centre of pressure's in a sensible place and reduce wing sizes. A car that makes proportionally more of its downforce from an underbody diffuser will have a more constant level of downforce when following another car.

People seem to be getting very confused with total downforce levels and how sensitive the downforce is to following another car.

Ben

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ben


That is just fundamentally wrong. Diffusers if anything clean up the flow behind the car because they help fill in the low pressure area. That's how they work, the low pressure area actually encourages the air to accelerate through the diffuser creating the downforce.

If you want to increase overtaking by fiddling with aero you should increase the size of the diffusers, allow them to extend forward of the rear wheels so the centre of pressure's in a sensible place and reduce wing sizes. A car that makes proportionally more of its downforce from an underbody diffuser will have a more constant level of downforce when following another car.

People seem to be getting very confused with total downforce levels and how sensitive the downforce is to following another car.

Ben

Say what? Filling the low pressure area only serves to speed the airflow behind the object, thus making it harder for any car behind to follow. That's the key difference between NASCAR and F1. NASCAR vehicles are like giant bricks pushing air out of the way, while in F1 this airflow is used to generate a lot of downforce. This is why we see NASCAR vehicles get within a few inches of each other without any major instability issues. Answer this, if there's a strong wind blowing would you feel more stable behind a wall or behind an airfoil?

[Jason]

Originally posted by zak
How many threads about this kind of thing now?

Anyway, here's my two bits....

Teams are allowed x square centimeters/inches of areodynamic wing which they can split in any ratio they want between front and rear wings so they can have either big front wings, big rear wings or something in between. Get rid of all the flip ups, horns, etc. Only places allowed for aero elements are the front and rear wings. Wings are allowed to change from race to race. Standardize the diffuser and exhaust outlet areas to minimize their influence. The number of wing elements should also be standard.

Sorry, for being redundant, but I honestly didn't notice any other threads of this nature, otherwise I wouldn't have posted another.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Williams


However you design the car to perform dynamically, the static weight would still be the major influence on how much downforce the car could carry on the track. Even if you could somehow find a way to make a car carry, say, 15% more downforce dynamically than it could statically, the static weight could simply be decreased by that 15%, putting the designers back where they started.

The FIA would ultimately have direct control over the amount of downforce, generally speaking, that the cars could carry, and without even thinking about the number, size or position of wings, or the design of the diffuser.

Hey its a great idea. but nothing would substitute for reading the downforce while racing.

One problem I see with this is the presumption that the springs / shockers / suspension system would resist statically (ie in the test) similarly to how they would resist while racing. By making a suspension that was more resistant while operational, the test might be circumvented.

Still I like the simplicity of your idea, but I'd bet some teams would come up with some ingenious ways of stepping around the intention of the testing device.

[Lukin]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

Hey its a great idea. but nothing would substitute for reading the downforce while racing.

They can and do. They just don't release it to the FIA.

[Ninja2b]

Originally posted by Jason

Say what? Filling the low pressure area only serves to speed the airflow behind the object, thus making it harder for any car behind to follow. That's the key difference between NASCAR and F1. NASCAR vehicles are like giant bricks pushing air out of the way, while in F1 this airflow is used to generate a lot of downforce. This is why we see NASCAR vehicles get within a few inches of each other without any major instability issues. Answer this, if there's a strong wind blowing would you feel more stable behind a wall or behind an airfoil?

I have to disagree and back up what Ben said. I may be mistaken here, but diffusers fill the low pressure wake, increasing the pressure at the rear (and hence reducing drag). If the wakes total pressure is higher (closer to atmospheric) than without diffusers, surely the following car will be able to generate more downforce than compared to one following a car without a diffuser.

And I certainly don't agree that a lack of diffusers is the primary reason for the close racing in NASCAR.

[Williams]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Hey its a great idea. but nothing would substitute for reading the downforce while racing.

One problem I see with this is the presumption that the springs / shockers / suspension system would resist statically (ie in the test) similarly to how they would resist while racing. By making a suspension that was more resistant while operational, the test might be circumvented.

Still I like the simplicity of your idea, but I'd bet some teams would come up with some ingenious ways of stepping around the intention of the testing device.

How would you make a system that significantly changes resistance without going to active suspension ? Even if you could, (a) the dynamic component would be probably be insignificant compared to the static and (b) you can zero out that gain by simply decreasing the static test weight.

The simplicity of the idea would make it quite difficult to circumvent. If placing X weight on the car causes it to squash onto the ground, how are you going to carry significantly more aero downforce when the car is moving, unless you are using active suspension ?

And downforce readings from a datastream supplied by a team would be a lot less trustworthy, IMO.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ninja2b


I have to disagree and back up what Ben said. I may be mistaken here, but diffusers fill the low pressure wake, increasing the pressure at the rear (and hence reducing drag). If the wakes total pressure is higher (closer to atmospheric) than without diffusers, surely the following car will be able to generate more downforce than compared to one following a car without a diffuser.

And I certainly don't agree that a lack of diffusers is the primary reason for the close racing in NASCAR.

Diffusers produce a low pressure region underneath the surface area in which the airflow is being redirected. This has the effect of pull the car down and helps produce downforce. Anything that acts against the natural flow of air creates drag. So, it's incorrect to say a diffuser reduces drag, because it actually increases drag. Removing a diffuser from a car (much like reducing the angle of attack on a wing surface) would yield a higher top speed, which is really all the evidence one would need to show that diffusers actually produce drag rather than reduce drag.

For those who still don't believe reducing downforce would yield better overtaking, read what Willem Toet said in response to the following:

ME:-How would you change the cars to improve overtaking???

WT:- Until last year, I would have said the chap who finished the last race first will start whe quilifing for the next race first in a single one lap session, the second chap from the last race would start second to last and so on.. It would clost the pack up. But now i would not cut the curs downforce by 10% but cut the cars by 90% leaving them with just 10%of the levels they have now.

This is coming from a professional, so his opinion should count for something, shouldn't it?