Aero naughtiness.
Discussion
It is pretty obvious that some F1 cars are easier to follow than others.
In other words the aero package, for the same level of downforce, can be engineered to create more problems for a following car.
This being so the teams must be doing this deliberately. If you could make it more difficult to be overtaken, you would.
Yet another reason to introduce drastically simplified aero rules and ban winglets, barge boards etc.
In other words the aero package, for the same level of downforce, can be engineered to create more problems for a following car.
This being so the teams must be doing this deliberately. If you could make it more difficult to be overtaken, you would.
Yet another reason to introduce drastically simplified aero rules and ban winglets, barge boards etc.
excupra said:
loneranger said:
It is pretty obvious that some F1 cars are easier to follow than others.
Is it?
During the race on Sunday Brundle said that the Ferrari was more difficult to follow.
If you think about it they should be able to engineer the dynamics of the wake votices in a way the nullifies the aerodynamic devices on following cars to a lesser or greater degree. If they can do it they will.
loneranger said:
excupra said:
loneranger said:
It is pretty obvious that some F1 cars are easier to follow than others.
Is it?
jamieboy said:
loneranger said:
Yet another reason to introduce drastically simplified aero rules and ban winglets, barge boards etc.
Rather than dumbing the cars down, would it not be better if the aerodynamicists applied some of their genius to making their cars behave better in dirty air? It is obvious that they are doing so. This is war and they will exploit anything within the rules to give them a competetive advantage. Hence they would be fools not to make their cars work as well as possible in dirty air.
This is why, I think, front wings no longer have a straight leading edge. Airplanes do. The complex curves on a modern F1 front wing look precisely as if they are designed to work better in dirty air.
Nigel Roebuck in Autosport said:
Dear Nigel,
Do you think that there is any chance the new regulations will result in more attractive cars? Whenever I see pictures of the older Grand Prix cars (like the '84 McLaren) I always fawn over their relative elegance and wish there was a way to ban ugly protuberances from F1 cars.
Yet with the proposal of the low turbulence split rear wing (wow, is that ugly!) and the constant addition of little winglets, bargeboards, and other appendages (McLaren's new front wing upper element) the cars are rarely attractive.
I'm all in favor of design freedom, but is there anything on the drawing board in the new car regulations that may bring a little elegance back to F1 cars?
Al Parker
Dear Al,
Oh my goodness, wouldn't it be nice to think so? I remember talking to Juan Pablo Montoya at the Goodwood Festival of Speed one year (when he came to drive a current Williams-BMW), and saw for the first time some Formula One cars of the past. In particular, he was enraptured by the 1990 McLaren-Honda MP4/5B, as raced by his childhood hero, Ayrton Senna.
"Look at it," Juan said. "So beautiful, so elegant, so simple - and so wide! I love the proportions of this car - so much nicer to look at than today's cars. No bargeboards, or any of that rubbish ...
I agreed with every word Montoya said - how could I not? To my eye, the F1 cars of today are - collectively - the ugliest in the sport's history, and I'm not by any means alone in holding that view. A year or so ago I asked Bernie Ecclestone to define his ideal F1 car for the coming years (2008 and beyond), and his response was typically robust.
"First of all, what we need to do is get all aerodynamicists together, and you sit them down, and say, 'We want you to find a way for us to get rid of you'. In other words, find a way for us not to need you any more. Then you have a meeting with the engineers, and you say the same thing to them!
"I'd like to see smaller brakes - or less efficient brakes, so we don't have these ridiculously short braking distances, making it impossible to pass into corners.
"As well as that, let's for God's sake stop them sticking all these horrible-looking bits and pieces on the cars. For one thing, they look bloody ugly; for another, they screw up the air so much that you can't have one car tucked in behind another through a corner.
Look at the GP2 cars: they can race like F1 cars used to - really tuck in behind someone. With the F1 cars, as they've been developed, it's impossible to do that - if you get really close in behind someone, you lose your downforce. So we need to do something about all that."
Fingers crossed, Al. We don't know what the definitive regulations (regarding aerodynamics) will be, but, like you, I hope they will preclude bargeboards and winglets and all the other bits and pieces, which look hideous, and do so much to hamper overtaking. Back in 1982, the late Gilles Villeneuve said, "Spectators don't come to a race to see aerodynamic brilliance - they come to be entertained, to see a spectacle."
Twenty-five years on, it's about time someone in authority took a bit of notice, isn't it? I have the impression Bernie and Max Mosley are only too aware of the need for change - to me, it's an absurdity, from every point of view, that teams have wind-tunnels (and, in some cases, more than one) on the go 24 hours a day, but I somewhat doubt that the things (in which tens of millions have been invested) can be banned.
Personally, I think the GP2 cars pretty good-looking - not unlike F1 cars used to be. And, as Bernie says, they race more entertainingly, too ...
Bernies on the problem and Gp2 is the test bed.
loneranger said:
jamieboy said:
loneranger said:
Yet another reason to introduce drastically simplified aero rules and ban winglets, barge boards etc.
Rather than dumbing the cars down, would it not be better if the aerodynamicists applied some of their genius to making their cars behave better in dirty air? It is obvious that they are doing so. This is war and they will exploit anything within the rules to give them a competetive advantage. Hence they would be fools not to make their cars work as well as possible in dirty air.
This is why, I think, front wings no longer have a straight leading edge. Airplanes do. The complex curves on a modern F1 front wing look precisely as if they are designed to work better in dirty air.
While its most likely that some teams consider the effects of one car following another, I don't think vast resources are spent on it, and it's unlikely to be a primary driver in the aero design of the car. The front wings profiles seen these days are primarily a function of the rules (allowing a deeper section in the centre) along with considerations of what happens to the flow further down the car.
loneranger said:
excupra said:
loneranger said:
It is pretty obvious that some F1 cars are easier to follow than others.
Is it?
During the race on Sunday Brundle said that the Ferrari was more difficult to follow.
If you think about it they should be able to engineer the dynamics of the wake votices in a way the nullifies the aerodynamic devices on following cars to a lesser or greater degree. If they can do it they will.
Erm, no. No, he didn't. he said the Ferrari is not as good AT following. The Ferrari's are very marginal on cooling, whilst the McLarens are less affected by the air flow loss and increased temperature experience in dirty air.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff