129 replies to this topic

[cheapracer]

The total amount of downforce in F1 is not the problem. The real problem is the current high cost of aero development, and the inability of cars to race close to each other due to their extreme sensitivity to wake turbulence or chassis pitch/roll changes.

Yes and that's the FIA's fault, they won't make cost cutting and more competitive rules - they have the right but they just won't.

Tony, I respectfully disagree a bit with you- circuit bike racing is very close to what one can buy in a dealership... And I think it's a big selling point for them.

It's the other way around, what you buy on the showroom floor is mimicking what is raced and they are impractical as true road bikes as generally a race car is.

[cheapracer]

Faster, louder/more exciting sound, more colourful, best drivers (with personality), better looking (cars, but hopefully drivers too!) - sorted.

That may help but the FIA still hold the key regardless - they hold the ability to offer the historically recognised World Championship titles and if they say run Formula Fords then the winners at the end are still the "F1 World Champions", your list just adds to the prestige of it and probably necessary that they do (they are not the fastest, loudest or most colourful though but often have the better drivers because of the historic title).

[Wolf]

Cheapracer, that would be funny, to say the least: last time they've done it it was, I seem to recall, WDC (World Drivers' Championship), so running the races to F2 rules didn't create a misnomer... But then again, we're talking about two different championships (old F1 c'ship was, if I'm not mistaken, killed in Rio '81, and new c'ship established afterwards).

[Tony Matthews]

That may help but the FIA still hold the key regardless

Of course, the teams build cars to rules set by the FIA, you can't blame them for what results. All I know is my interest in F1 diminishes slightly with each season.

[cheapracer]

Cheapracer, that would be funny, to say the least: last time they've done it it was, I seem to recall, WDC (World Drivers' Championship), so running the races to F2 rules didn't create a misnomer... But then again, we're talking about two different championships (old F1 c'ship was, if I'm not mistaken, killed in Rio '81, and new c'ship established afterwards).

The 1981 through 1984 Australian Grand Prixs (non-World Championship events) had names like Prost, Lauda, Jones, Laffite, Rosberg, de Cesaris, Moreno to name a few all in Ralt RT4's and it clearly proved to me that people go to see mostly the names and the level of prestige the title holds regardless of what they drive (to a point of course) and that included being at a 1 mile track with lap times of 40 seconds!

Mind you that 1 mile track, Calder Park, had better passing chances than almost any track ever seen - and they destroyed it to build a "real" (International) track and not a car has passed ever since ...

[MatsNorway]

as a matter of fact, last year's 24hr nurburgring, hybrid porsche almost won, had it not been for a very late problem with it's IC engine..

Was it under the same rules as the competition?

[Wolf]

Kikiturbo- you're right... It seems my memory played a trick on me.

Mats- I believe so.

[phoenix101]

We need a British President back at the helm at the FIA,

Aero is killing F1 it is just a pity those with vested interest continue the process.

The people with a vested interest in maintaining the current aero rules are British. The best aerodynamicists are British. The private teams, who rely on complicated aerodynamics to create a competitive advantage, are British. F1 is British motorsport--heavily-specified, frozen, equalized, homologated engines; available to all aerodynamics boutiques and chassis builders. The latest 2.4L V8 engine is basically a DFV with 4 different brand names. Unsurprisingly, the new engine rules were designed to reintroduce Cosworth.

If you don't like aerodynamics, the FIA needs not to elect a British president.

[phoenix101]

I don't hanker after the past, I look to the future, but it all looks grim.

It looks grim b/c the racing industry is progressing through the stages of grief at a snail's pace. They are prolonging the inevitable acceptance of their own incompetence, and they are angrily bargaining to avoid succumbing to the NASCAR entertainment model and BoP/spec sanctioning. Unfortunately, they are not completely through the denial phase either so new ideas are often killed with more furor than the reality-TV model.

At least a half-dozen different sanctioning ideas have come to light in the last decade, from budget caps (Mosley) to open-sourcing (Bowlby), and some of us have our own sanctioning models as well. Death, decay, and stagnation all breed opportunity. Mosley's budget caps and Bowlby's open-sourcing almost became a reality in F1 and IndyCar respectively.

Sanctioning is governance. If the racing industry wants sanctioning to work, they need to hire lawyers, economists, and media/advertising. Right now, racing is so restricted that you can't even fight your way in with an army, but when racing looks outside for talent, improvement will happen. NASCAR sold itself to media/advertising, the results have been predictable. With a bit of luck, the reality-TV model will lose some of its luster, and sanctioning bodies will look to other fields for talent. Not that there is anything wrong with engineers, mind you, but in the words of Mosley (a lawyer/barrister) "the inmates can't run the asylum". He would know b/c lawyers can't regulate their own industry, either

[gruntguru]

Stupidity in their brilliance, had they pointed the fan draft upwards, they would have gained even more downforce and not thrown stones at the following car, one of the complaints about the system.

What? - and have the stones falling 3 cars back? Or on the spectatos perhaps? Sounds like speedway - good idea.

[gruntguru]

Slider's talking sense here in my opinion. The rules should be simple, unambiguously written, concise and designed to remain essentially the same over the course of multiple seasons.

Fuel/energy limits obviate the need for engine design constraints- bsfcs don't change appreciably from year to year, essentially all engine tweaking is just tricks to force more fuel/air through the pump faster and aero would be pretty straightforward without the restrictive, endlessly changing and arcane rules. If you want less DF, just specify less plan areas where negative pressures can be acted on, simple robust stuff like that. Fat rulebooks are prima facie evidence of a fundamentally failed regulatory process allowed to run amok.

[bigleagueslider]

......... Fat rulebooks are prima facie evidence of a fundamentally failed regulatory process allowed to run amok......

desmo,

Excellent point. To quote Tacitus, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

F1 needs better rulemakers, and not more rules.

slider

[24gerrard]

I think a lot of it is the FIA fighting to reduce downforce for safety reasons in the face of the teams who refuse to look at major strait forward and sensible reductions.
It is now a balancing act every year and just luck as to what the cars end up looking like.
A sad state of affairs in my mind.
There is no development that makes sense any longer.
There was a potentialy strong enough FIA President but they allowed criminals to reduce his effect.
One day we will all have the truth behind that to discuss.
Now keeping your job is the only incentive in F1.

[Bloggsworth]

No, not an Indy Car. Unless you think F1 should race on ovals.....

Indy Cars use manual shifting, steel suspensions and metal brakes. But of course, it might also be possible that they make more peak downforce than current F1 cars.

2012 season only has 4 races on ovals... Catch up.

[MatsNorway]

Personally i would love to se one Oval race in F1.

[saudoso]

You have seen what happened when it had one oval turn.

[MatsNorway]

yeye..french tires...

Edited by MatsNorway, 14 February 2012 - 15:35.

[24gerrard]

yeye..french tires...

I thought the thread was about slowing F1 cars not stopping it completely.
I predict that the continued French connection will destroy F1 however.

[BS1]

Is not the entire premise of this thread, and many like it, just begging the question?

[cheapracer]

Is not the entire premise of this thread, and many like it, just begging the question?

Your first post is confusing, irrelevant, offensive and off topic - hey, welcome to the Tech Forum!

[phoenix101]

Your first post is confusing, irrelevant, offensive and off topic - hey, welcome to the Tech Forum!

9,800 posts of whinging and climbing

[puxanando]

W-duct explained

Very good video for understanding!

Don't know if this is the right thread to bring it in. If not, SORRY and change.....

[Tony Matthews]

Fascinating! I had no idea that was going on inside the nose and front wing. Thanks.

[desmo]

I'm having trouble imagining even if all the passive ducting magic worked as intended that there would be enough massflow through the little pipes to make any appreciable aero differences at the FW.

Maybe the intake in the nose is just to cool the electronics mounted to the front bulkhead or driver's feet.

[Bloggsworth]

I'm having trouble imagining even if all the passive ducting magic worked as intended that there would be enough massflow through the little pipes to make any appreciable aero differences at the FW.

Maybe the intake in the nose is just to cool the electronics mounted to the front bulkhead or driver's feet.

It wouldn't take much bleed to reattach airflow after allowing the wind to stall, after all, it's either stalled or it isn't, it's not as if the angle of attack is able to change.

[GreenMachine]

... it's not as if the angle of attack is able to change.

Of course not.

Leaving aside the potential for drag reduction in a straight line, what we are seeing here is an additional antiroll 'bar', whose effects are proportional to air (car) speed. Unlike a mechanical bar, which only reacts to lateral force. Is this right?

If so, the RB's relative speed advantage in high speed corners may be a thing of the past ... if this works in real life.

Would be possible to adopt this (again, if it works) without a redesign of the car's structure - ie could a 2012 chassis be adapted for this, or will anyone wanting to get on board this technology have to wait until 2013?

[gruntguru]

If blown diffusers were not banned, similar technology (fluidic switching) could be used to direct large volumes of high energy exhaust gas to one side of the wing (front or rear) or the other (depending on turn direction). Staggering to think where things might have gone.

[gruntguru]

Leaving aside the potential for drag reduction in a straight line, what we are seeing here is an additional antiroll 'bar', whose effects are proportional to air (car) speed. Unlike a mechanical bar, which only reacts to lateral force. Is this right?

Better than that. An ARB resists roll by increasing roll stiffness. This technology actually increases weght on the inside tyres - a major benefit to cornering power.

[GreenMachine]

Better than that. An ARB resists roll by increasing roll stiffness. This technology actually increases weght on the inside tyres - a major benefit to cornering power.

That is right GG. However that effect would be (partially?) offset by unloading the outside tyre - it is working through the chassis, not directly on the upright, and the forces involved have to work through the springs/ARB.

The more I think about this, the more my head hurts the more I think that it is not a game-changer (cue fools rush in where angels fear to tread ).

[gruntguru]

That is right GG. However that effect would be (partially?) offset by unloading the outside tyre - it is working through the chassis, not directly on the upright, and the forces involved have to work through the springs/ARB.

The more I think about this, the more my head hurts the more I think that it is not a game-changer (cue fools rush in where angels fear to tread ).

Forget the suspension. Draw a free body diagram of the entire car and consider aero forces being reacted by tyre contact-patch forces.