Ditch the winglets...

[sdw2003]

Martin Brundle made a very valid comment during the race commentary on Sunday. These teams spend millions $$$$ each year in wind tunnels with their half scale, or full scale models getting a perfect flow of air over them. They them continue to develop new winglets that seem to pop up all over the bodies to optimise the perfect level of downforce.

All well and good in clean air. Now stick those cars behind another car in a race and the distupted air flow coming off the leading car from all the bloody winglets mean that the air flow over the following car is screwed and all that time in the wind tunnel spending those $$$$$$ is wasted!!!

Now that traction control is being banned for 2008, is it not about time to ban all winglets from the cars also?

I'm no expert when it comes to fluid dynamics and aero design, but why not try the following:

Front and rear wings that are only allowed 1 element with freedom to design what ever shape they like, so lond as the end plates are flat, vertical and with no extra winglets attached to the external or internal edges of the plates. All other winglets and barge boards to be banned. The teams are then given some freedom in terms of how they sculpture the bodywork so we do not end up with 22 identical cars on the grid.

[FourWheelDrift]

sdw2003 said:

Front and rear wings that are only allowed 1 element with freedom to design what ever shape they like, so lond as the end plates are flat, vertical and with no extra winglets attached to the external or internal edges of the plates. All other winglets and barge boards to be banned. The teams are then given some freedom in terms of how they sculpture the bodywork so we do not end up with 22 identical cars on the grid.

If you limit the wing design then all the cars will look identical. There's very little they can do to the bodywork, it's shrink fitted around the engine, radiators, systems and fuel tank. Since all cars are running a standard sized V8 then radiator sizes will be similar, so to will fuel tank and ancillary systems.

To have different looking cars on the grid they need freedom of design in all areas. Although if they needed to make changes to make the racing closer along with standard wing type you mention they could limit the bits you can't see, standard ECU's, larger fuel tanks for non-refuelling races. Softer tyres not harder with smaller brakes (longer braking distances with better grip to make the move work). Also running the soft tyres if you conserved the tyres you might make it without stopping but does gives the drivers the opportunity to go flat out and pit for new tyres later in the race.

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Tuesday 10th April 16:15

[spectatorsam]

beggs the question realy, why dont they run a test programme in the wind tunnel with 1 car in front of the other, that way they could use the winglets etc to clean up the air flowing past the first car in to the path of the second, and gain an advantage that way!!???

[flemke]

spectatorsam said:

beggs the question realy, why dont they run a test programme in the wind tunnel with 1 car in front of the other, that way they could use the winglets etc to clean up the air flowing past the first car in to the path of the second, and gain an advantage that way!!???

It is to the advantage of any individual team to ensure that the air behind its own car is as dirty as possible.
The only way to clean up the air flow to make it more congenial for a following car is for the FIA (Ferrari Interests Agent) to mandate something, which they already tried to do with their risible Centreline Downwash Generating atrocity.

Part of the problem with these efforts to make the cars simpler and more beautiful and more conducive to interesting racing is the belief that, in order for them to compose Formula One, they have to be perceptibly quicker and more sophisticated than any other sort of racing cars.
How do you do that whilst constraining spending, making races more competitive, and ensuring that the organiser rakes in hundreds of millions a year and that Maxie-boy can remain the Little Dictator?

[sleep envy]

flemke said:

FIA (Ferrari Interests Agent)

:cheapshot:

[mat205125]

Do they not wind tunnel test a car with another car in front of it then?

[flemke]

sleep envy said:

flemke said:

FIA (Ferrari Interests Agent)

:cheapshot:

Yes, I must admit that stating the obvious can be hurtful. I thoughtlessly descended into juvenile nastiness.

Please tell Max how terribly sorry I am.

[SamHH]

mat205125 said:

Do they not wind tunnel test a car with another car in front of it then?

I don't know but I suspect that the requirements for aerodynamics that work well when close behind another car conflict with the requirements for aerodynamics that are efficient when the car is on its own.

Obviously the teams place greater value on the cars being fast on their own than they do on the cars being able to follow each other closely.

[iforb]

Fourwheeldrift,
Before the days of downforce, the cars looked totally different and whilst the engineers end up with similar solutions in the end, I think the better racing would make up for any of that.

The aero "packages" in use today are what's killing the sport. Just look at the first couple of laps in most races. When most car's aren't up to speed because of the traffic. Lot's of overtaking. After that, virtually none.

This is crazy, racing drivers should be allowed to race, not drive around in a procession as they can't overtake unless there is a massive performance difference. It's artificial and very annoying when you see a car catching at 2 seconds a lap until they catch up, then they just sit there. It's not down to the drivers, but it's simply too risky to throw a a dodgy overtake in. So they just sit there unable to do anything. Boring........

All the mucking about with standard ECU's, Engine limitations, grooved tyres etc.etc. is just a waste until something is done about the aerodynamics. That is what is killing the racing and enjoyment in my eyes.

[Eric Mc]

Although if you read contemporary GP reports from 1964/65 there were lots of comments that the cars looked a bit "samey" back then.

However, they were quite enjoyable to watch.

[ewenm]

To the casual GP watcher nowadays all the cars look the same anyway (apart from paintjob obviously). It's only really enthusiasts like us that notice the little differences in designs.

[flemke]

SamHH said:

mat205125 said:

Do they not wind tunnel test a car with another car in front of it then?

I don't know but I suspect that the requirements for aerodynamics that work well when close behind another car conflict with the requirements for aerodynamics that are efficient when the car is on its own.

Obviously the teams place greater value on the cars being fast on their own than they do on the cars being able to follow each other closely.

Indeed.
If your car isn't quick enough to catch up anyone who's ahead of you, then whether it's good at overtaking is an irrelevancy.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

SamHH said:

mat205125 said:

Do they not wind tunnel test a car with another car in front of it then?

I don't know but I suspect that the requirements for aerodynamics that work well when close behind another car conflict with the requirements for aerodynamics that are efficient when the car is on its own.

Obviously the teams place greater value on the cars being fast on their own than they do on the cars being able to follow each other closely.

Indeed.
If your car isn't quick enough to catch up anyone who's ahead of you, then whether it's good at overtaking is an irrelevancy.

True, but that's really no different to the current situation - if your car is unable to get close enough to overtake, the speed at which you catch the dirty air zone of the car in front is irrelevant.