NO DOWNFORCE

[Eric Mc]

Ross Brawn says it should go as it's ruining F1. I would jump up and down with joy as I believe this too - but I didn't notice Brawn complaining about downforce when Ferrari had more of it than anyone else.

[telecat]

The issue is that the current rules make the aero ineffective when behind another car. The changes must make sure that aero is integrated into the design apart from front and rear wings. The "bolt on" bits that are so afdfected by the aero of the leading car need to be dispensed with and a return to a limited underbody area used. The grip and stability would then be there through high speed corners allowing cars to close and attempt overtakes when mechanical grip is into play in the slower corners or off a fas corner into a straight.

[kickstart]

F1 without downforce would be an amazing spectacle - imagine FF1600 with 700bhp, tons of slip streaming, overtaking and oversteer.
Yes please

[FourWheelDrift]

Or standardised front and rear wings that do give some grip but also little in the way of disrupted air which is the problem.

I saw the recent F3 race at Monza and they showed how it works, proper slipstreaming and overtaking as well.

[Eric Mc]

If they removed downforce, they'd have to seriously reduce engine power. A current F1 car with no downforce could be good for 300 mph in a straight line.

[racefan_uk]

Eric Mc said:

If they removed downforce, they'd have to seriously reduce engine power. A current F1 car with no downforce could be good for 300 mph in a straight line.

And your problem with that is...???

[HarryW]

Eric Mc said:

If they removed downforce, they'd have to seriously reduce engine power. A current F1 car with no downforce could be good for 300 mph in a straight line.

Isn't one of the F1 teams off to the US salt lakes to see what can be acheived in terms of max speed soon ..

H

[Eric Mc]

The problem is that there is no track in the world that can contain a car that loses it at that speed. Also, at 300 mph, a car will want to fly at the slightest encouragement. Finally, there are no tyres in the world that could cope with the rotational stresses at the speed for more than a few minutes.

Yes, BAR seem to be interested in having a go at Bonneville.

[daydreamer]

The mock up in Autosport is interesting (sorry - no link to picure, but I'm sure one will be along soon). The car actually looks quite good. Brawn's point was that the underbody downforce is infact quite clean, it is the dependance on flip ups, barge boards and other aborations that both cause, and are sensitive to the problem.

The mock up had a fair amount of underbody ground effect, and a standard rear wing for a bit of drag. I have dismissed the changes pretty much out of hand until I saw the picture, but am now starting to be convinced.

This solves both of the problems. Lets say that they cut downforce by 50%. This is fine, but not really the problem - the cars still have to be the fastest around the track. However, if they can reduce the dependance on bolt ons, then we may get the racing back, the massive aero departments will stil get to do some work and everybody is happy!

[forever_driving]

I for one would love for a no downforce F1 championship, but I can't see the teams agreeing to it if they lose of all that great advertising space.

[Caduceus]

Eric Mc said:

The problem is that there is no track in the world that can contain a car that loses it at that speed. Also, at 300 mph, a car will want to fly at the slightest encouragement.

And your problem with that is....?

[MarkBarton]

I missed the F1 to watch the MotoGP (something which is starting to become a habit!). As I've just posted in the other thread, there's no downforce on the bikes, and everybody loves watching it, even despite Rossi's domination.

F1 without downforce would be awesome. Yes, you'd probably have to cut the power a bit, and yes it would be more dangerous, but I tend to agree with Sterling Moss's often-stated opinion that a little more danger would lead to rather less reckless driving. Bring it on!

[Vee-X]

Is there no way of controlling the amount of disruption caused at say... 2 metres from behind the cars?

teams allowed to do what ever they want within magic box, so long as set distance behind car air is pretty much undisturbed.

dont know if this could happen but would allow following car to get close again.

[jaker]

my 2p worth:

limit engine revs to 10,000 (to make the sound better and maybe cut power a bit)

get rid of traction control and the other electronic devices that remove the need for driver input.

and try and encourage the cars to get their tails out now and again...

[Andrew Noakes]

MarkBarton said:

MotoGP...everybody loves watching it

All generalisations are dangerous. I can't get excited about MotoGP, though I can see why others can.

Vee-X said:

Is there no way of controlling the amount of disruption caused at say... 2 metres from behind the cars? teams allowed to do what ever they want within magic box, so long as set distance behind car air is pretty much undisturbed.

You'd be talking about a car with almost no drag, which is almost impossible. Anyway, you wouldn't get any slipstreaming, and that we do want.

Low downforce is a great idea. Why not ban wing endplates as a start? They could do that tomorrow if they all agreed. Instantly the wings would be half as effective, a lot of the aerodynamics of the top surface of the body would be less effective, and it would not have to cost much.

[anniesdad]

No downforce? Hmmmmm.

[MarkBarton]

Andrew Noakes said:

All generalisations are dangerous.

Tell me the irony in that statement was intentional!

Fair point though.

>> Edited by MarkBarton on Tuesday 2nd August 16:53

[MarkBarton]

anniesdad said:

No downforce? Hmmmmm.

That wouldn't have happened without downforce. This is well worth a read: www.mulsannescorner.com/techarticle1.htm

[V8 Archie]

I propose that next year's cars should be constrained to fit the following profile exactly.

[MarkBarton]

OK, so that would probably be a retrograde step. Would still be great though