2017 F1 car- first impressions
Discussion
Dr Z said:
I don't think you can dissociate tyre related mechanical grip from aero, can you? A car that has less downforce surely will have less 'mechanical' grip, in that it will work the tyres less.
You can. Stick a set of space savers onto an F1 can and see how much less mechanical grip they have. Similarly, fit a set of massively wide, sticky slicks to a current car with current aero and watch how much faster they'd go.IMHO, the engineers are trying to find an engineer's solution to a problem that's been created by poor rules that were created by engineers. Don't get me wrong, I'm massively respectful of their intelligence and understanding of CFD, but they're hearing hoofs and thinking "ZEBRAS", when the simple answer is horses...
HarryFlatters said:
You can. Stick a set of space savers onto an F1 can and see how much less mechanical grip they have. Similarly, fit a set of massively wide, sticky slicks to a current car with current aero and watch how much faster they'd go.
Actually the current aero wouldn't work, you'd need a new aero package as the tyre profile is such a huge element of the whole aero package - the flow is managed over the whole car. It would not necessarily be faster.Vaud said:
HarryFlatters said:
You can. Stick a set of space savers onto an F1 can and see how much less mechanical grip they have. Similarly, fit a set of massively wide, sticky slicks to a current car with current aero and watch how much faster they'd go.
Actually the current aero wouldn't work, you'd need a new aero package as the tyre profile is such a huge element of the whole aero package - the flow is managed over the whole car. It would not necessarily be faster.However, the supersoft tyre is still faster over 1 lap than the hard tyre, so mechanical grip does affect the performance.
jsf said:
But it doesn't help you overtake or race wheel to wheel with a car on the same tyres. That's the problem that needs fixing.
I refer you to my post from yesterday.I said said:
It would be simpler for the FIA to specify that the lap time improvements come from mechanical, rather than aero grip.
Even if some of the time improvements came from under-body aero, this would be much less effected by turbulence and so would allow for closer racing.
Take aero from off the top of the car, put it underneath the car, allow grippier tyres.Even if some of the time improvements came from under-body aero, this would be much less effected by turbulence and so would allow for closer racing.
Lap times decrease, overtaking should increase.
HarryFlatters said:
Dr Z said:
I don't think you can dissociate tyre related mechanical grip from aero, can you? A car that has less downforce surely will have less 'mechanical' grip, in that it will work the tyres less.
You can. Stick a set of space savers onto an F1 can and see how much less mechanical grip they have. Similarly, fit a set of massively wide, sticky slicks to a current car with current aero and watch how much faster they'd go.Improving lap times does not necessarily improve overtakes. Overtakes require a speed difference. A memorable example: Abu Dhabi 2010. Alonso stuck behind Petrov, with his movable FW and high nose. He also had those indestructible Bridgestones. He was able to follow closely, but was he able to overtake? Hell no, and it wasn't because of lack of trying. The Renault had great traction but I don't think anybody would argue against the fact that Ferrari was the faster car that day. If one was being cynical, one might say that DRS was a direct result of Ferrari losing the WDC in 2010. I'll be also willing to bet if DRS was available in 2010, Alonso would be a 3-time WDC now.
I love it when someone says how amazing the racing is in Moto GP, when it is also laughably slower than an F1 car. If we then try to slow the cars down and create a speed difference via tyres/DRS to improve the racing, the same camp also get up in arms about how much faster it was 'in their day' or that F1 is not the 'pinnacle' anymore. It seems the fans don't really understand the consequences of their wishes being granted. May be the sport needs to communicate better to its fans.
Edited by Dr Z on Friday 1st April 12:08
Vaud said:
HarryFlatters said:
Take aero from off the top of the car, put it underneath the car, allow grippier tyres.
Lap times decrease, overtaking should increase.
There was a Motorsport podcast about this, I'll try to find it, discussing the impact of ground effect on turbulence.Lap times decrease, overtaking should increase.
Indycar's run a lot of ground effect and can run very close together, look at oval racing, that is because of the ground effect.
Regarding mechanical grip and dow nforce, you can produce all the down force in the world, but if you can't put that down force into the track surface when subjected to lateral G, it is not going to help you.
The previous example of space savers against massive slicks was heading in the right direction, until it was complicated by the aero implications of the bigger tyres. Instead, take any F1 car, in fact any car with down force, lap a circuit in the dry and now try and lap the same circuit covered in ice.
The down force is exactly the same, but the mechanical grip has disappeared.
Vaud, I agree with you. Faster cars doesn't mean more overtaking.
I think there are two separate issues here; the current cars are not lapping fast enough (hence the new 2017 regs), and it's hard to overtake (has been the case for 20+ years).
Throwing more aero on top of the cars will make them faster, but will also make it harder to follow another car closely, and so it is harder to overtake. This will add nothing to the spectacle.
What I'm purporting, and what Martin Brundle's been suggesting for ages, is to simplify the over body aero and make up that loss of downforce by allowing DF to be generated under the car, while at the same time supplementing this with more mechanical grip by designing grippier tyres and increasing the width of the car.
All things going well, the cars should be faster, so that the 'GP2 is nearly as fast as F1' criticism can be alleviated. If the cars aren't as affected by turbulence, then they can follow, and hopefully overtake.
I'm not saying that this will definitely work, but what is clear is that what's happening at the moment definitely does not work.
I think there are two separate issues here; the current cars are not lapping fast enough (hence the new 2017 regs), and it's hard to overtake (has been the case for 20+ years).
Throwing more aero on top of the cars will make them faster, but will also make it harder to follow another car closely, and so it is harder to overtake. This will add nothing to the spectacle.
What I'm purporting, and what Martin Brundle's been suggesting for ages, is to simplify the over body aero and make up that loss of downforce by allowing DF to be generated under the car, while at the same time supplementing this with more mechanical grip by designing grippier tyres and increasing the width of the car.
All things going well, the cars should be faster, so that the 'GP2 is nearly as fast as F1' criticism can be alleviated. If the cars aren't as affected by turbulence, then they can follow, and hopefully overtake.
I'm not saying that this will definitely work, but what is clear is that what's happening at the moment definitely does not work.
One problem F1 has is it doesn't really know what it is/wants to be.
If it wants to be the fastest then you're really talking high-aero - put an F1 engine in/rubber on a touring car body of a similar weight and your straight line speeds will be about the same. It's the F1 car's aero and so ability to carry that speed through the corners that would see it pull away. This is more or less what we have at the moment.
If it wants to be the most technically advanced they need to sacrifice the driver's input. You average shopping trolley car is more advanced than a current F1 car when it comes to ABS, traction control, stability control, etc - basically what we had in the 90's.
If it wants wheel-to-wheel racing then they need to sacrifice out-and-out speed. Drop the aero and go for harder tyres where a single set will last a whole race weekend. No, you won't have either the mechanical or aero grip to do anything like current lap times but being close behind another car will give you a tow, rather than killing your front wing. And the rubber will still be on those hard tyres, not sprayed like ice over anything but the racing line so when you pull out to overtake the grip off the racing line will be similar to that on it, opening up alternate lines through corners and overtaking oppotunities. Basically what we had in the 60's and 70's.
What you CAN'T have though is the highest cornering speeds - with no negative affect on the car behind, the most high-tech cars - with no driver aids, and wheel-to-wheel racing - with tyres that (are mandated by the rule makers and against the best interests of the tyre makers to) have huge grip but high degridation to for pit stops.
If it wants to be the fastest then you're really talking high-aero - put an F1 engine in/rubber on a touring car body of a similar weight and your straight line speeds will be about the same. It's the F1 car's aero and so ability to carry that speed through the corners that would see it pull away. This is more or less what we have at the moment.
If it wants to be the most technically advanced they need to sacrifice the driver's input. You average shopping trolley car is more advanced than a current F1 car when it comes to ABS, traction control, stability control, etc - basically what we had in the 90's.
If it wants wheel-to-wheel racing then they need to sacrifice out-and-out speed. Drop the aero and go for harder tyres where a single set will last a whole race weekend. No, you won't have either the mechanical or aero grip to do anything like current lap times but being close behind another car will give you a tow, rather than killing your front wing. And the rubber will still be on those hard tyres, not sprayed like ice over anything but the racing line so when you pull out to overtake the grip off the racing line will be similar to that on it, opening up alternate lines through corners and overtaking oppotunities. Basically what we had in the 60's and 70's.
What you CAN'T have though is the highest cornering speeds - with no negative affect on the car behind, the most high-tech cars - with no driver aids, and wheel-to-wheel racing - with tyres that (are mandated by the rule makers and against the best interests of the tyre makers to) have huge grip but high degridation to for pit stops.
MissChief said:
IMO the only thing F1 needs to be is the fastest car round a track. Two seconds at Barcelona is fine to me really. The show needs to come first. That means the racing.
Also, without seeing the clock, you can't spot 5 secs a lap faster. You can spot a car that is more of a handful to drive.Dr Z said:
I don't think they have ruled it out as such. I refer you to an interesting BBC article dated May 2011:
Formula 1 teams agree to abandon 2013 rules revolution
These ideas were on the table for the current regulation cycle (2014-Present), but teams pushed back on FIA citing money issues. It was apparently an 'unknown' for them to go into a 'drastic' change in regulations and I get the feeling that they were scared. The engine regulations were also changing and that was also a big commitment for them, in terms of budget. They could have introduced it for the 2017 regs but again I'm sure we'll get a more watered down, compromised version of the originally proposed changes. I see a pattern here. And it is not good. The GPDA letter in suggesting the sport was lacking direction and decisiveness is spot on.
As mentioned above, the high noses were better in this regard for following closely, but safety in accidents, in addition to aesthetics were cited as reasons for specifying low noses.
Daft considering that this was when teams were spending hefty R&D budget messing with exhaust gasses and double diffusers.Formula 1 teams agree to abandon 2013 rules revolution
These ideas were on the table for the current regulation cycle (2014-Present), but teams pushed back on FIA citing money issues. It was apparently an 'unknown' for them to go into a 'drastic' change in regulations and I get the feeling that they were scared. The engine regulations were also changing and that was also a big commitment for them, in terms of budget. They could have introduced it for the 2017 regs but again I'm sure we'll get a more watered down, compromised version of the originally proposed changes. I see a pattern here. And it is not good. The GPDA letter in suggesting the sport was lacking direction and decisiveness is spot on.
As mentioned above, the high noses were better in this regard for following closely, but safety in accidents, in addition to aesthetics were cited as reasons for specifying low noses.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 31st March 22:40
Megaflow said:
Vaud said:
HarryFlatters said:
Take aero from off the top of the car, put it underneath the car, allow grippier tyres.
Lap times decrease, overtaking should increase.
There was a Motorsport podcast about this, I'll try to find it, discussing the impact of ground effect on turbulence.Lap times decrease, overtaking should increase.
Indycar's run a lot of ground effect and can run very close together, look at oval racing, that is because of the ground effect.
Regarding mechanical grip and dow nforce, you can produce all the down force in the world, but if you can't put that down force into the track surface when subjected to lateral G, it is not going to help you.
The previous example of space savers against massive slicks was heading in the right direction, until it was complicated by the aero implications of the bigger tyres. Instead, take any F1 car, in fact any car with down force, lap a circuit in the dry and now try and lap the same circuit covered in ice.
The down force is exactly the same, but the mechanical grip has disappeared.
Indycar is a bit more complex. Venturis have become smaller over the years; Bodywork aero is treated a bit like barn doors on ovals: more downforce creates pack racing but reduce DF and the cars become more spread out; the aero kits increased DF and bigger wake http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122373...
In the late 90s CART tried dealing with the dirty air with experimenting with the Hanford Device on road circuits (unsuccessfull), superspeedway wings on a short oval (at Nazareth - unsuccessful). It goes to show there needs to be a study on turbulent air - and funnily enough in the same recent Motorsport podcast Pad Symonds said that reverse grids would force teams' R&D down that route of how best to make a car follow in dirty air.
Personally I'd love to DF reduced in F1. Look at NASCAR - the racing is so much better now that they have chopped a chunk off the spoiler; or how about MotoGP - the riders DON'T like being caught up in dirty air from Ducati's wings.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff