Downforce, why not ?
Discussion
You know watching the F1 theres little overtaking some races.
Bernies alluded to turning on sprinklers to making it exciting.
We now got flaps we can open, but no formula as to how this is going to be implemented.
KERS an all. What a joke.
We've got 4 cylinder turbos due, I can't wait....NOT.
However, what I remember about the eighties GP's that the cars used to make a hole in the air, not a dirty hole, like now. A clean hole.
You could get into this hole and slipstream the car in front and catapult past out of its tow.
And I can only put this down to the downforce rules.
If I could make a change to the F1 rules, I'd allow as much downforce as you like. Call me stupid, well go on then, but more downforce slows the cars, so somekind of equilibrium must be reached at some point.
What are the drawback with allowing as much downforce as you'd like, as long as the wings didn't go outside the tyre lines, and a set distance behind the rear tyres?
Tests in wind tunnels could confirm that the suspension still worked at 300KPH.
Why not?
Bernies alluded to turning on sprinklers to making it exciting.
We now got flaps we can open, but no formula as to how this is going to be implemented.
KERS an all. What a joke.
We've got 4 cylinder turbos due, I can't wait....NOT.
However, what I remember about the eighties GP's that the cars used to make a hole in the air, not a dirty hole, like now. A clean hole.
You could get into this hole and slipstream the car in front and catapult past out of its tow.
And I can only put this down to the downforce rules.
If I could make a change to the F1 rules, I'd allow as much downforce as you like. Call me stupid, well go on then, but more downforce slows the cars, so somekind of equilibrium must be reached at some point.
What are the drawback with allowing as much downforce as you'd like, as long as the wings didn't go outside the tyre lines, and a set distance behind the rear tyres?
Tests in wind tunnels could confirm that the suspension still worked at 300KPH.
Why not?
I don't think the cars have ever made a "clean hole" in the air. The air coming off the back of any moving object will be turbulent. The reason it wasn't such an issue in the 80s is that the aerodynamics of the following cars weren't as sophisticated as now so turbulent airflow caused less of a problem.
Nowadays the front wings are so precisely tuned to provide the best performance in clean air but their performance really drops off in turbulent air. To fix this the FIA could specify restrictions on the front wing design, so it performed less well in clean air but better (relatively) in dirty air.
I'd say reduce the reliance on aerodynamic-grip (downforce) and increase the reliance on mechanical-grip (tyres) to reduce the disadvantage of driving in turbulent air. Race series where there is (almost) no aero tend to have very close racing with loads of overtaking (Caterhams for example). However this then runs contrary to F1's "Pinnacle of Motorsport" title.
Nowadays the front wings are so precisely tuned to provide the best performance in clean air but their performance really drops off in turbulent air. To fix this the FIA could specify restrictions on the front wing design, so it performed less well in clean air but better (relatively) in dirty air.
I'd say reduce the reliance on aerodynamic-grip (downforce) and increase the reliance on mechanical-grip (tyres) to reduce the disadvantage of driving in turbulent air. Race series where there is (almost) no aero tend to have very close racing with loads of overtaking (Caterhams for example). However this then runs contrary to F1's "Pinnacle of Motorsport" title.
Would (fully) active aero help?
I assume there is an optimum amount of downforce at any given point on the track.
Being in the slip-stream reduces downforce, but also reduces drag.
Surely the car to the rear could therefore run a steeper wing angle to get back to the downforce and drag levels that it would have if it was not in the slipstream, allowing it to catch and pass the car in front.
No?
I assume there is an optimum amount of downforce at any given point on the track.
Being in the slip-stream reduces downforce, but also reduces drag.
Surely the car to the rear could therefore run a steeper wing angle to get back to the downforce and drag levels that it would have if it was not in the slipstream, allowing it to catch and pass the car in front.
No?
Fully active would be interesting (but would destroy the "cost saving measures" they're trying to promote). You could start to introduce it by allowing teams 2 aero settings - clean air and dirty air - that the driver could flick between.
I think the issue might be that to get the downforce required from dirty air you increase the drag (steeper wing angles?) so slow the car down, but perhaps the slipstream would negate that?
I think the issue might be that to get the downforce required from dirty air you increase the drag (steeper wing angles?) so slow the car down, but perhaps the slipstream would negate that?
ewenm said:
I'd say reduce the reliance on aerodynamic-grip (downforce) and increase the reliance on mechanical-grip (tyres) to reduce the disadvantage of driving in turbulent air. Race series where there is (almost) no aero tend to have very close racing with loads of overtaking (Caterhams for example). However this then runs contrary to F1's "Pinnacle of Motorsport" title.
This ^^^^^^^it's not a question or dirty/clean air, it;s one of aero grip vs. mechanical.
also, the point about ground effect is well made.
Active aero would be great except you can just imagine how big an accident could be at the end of it....
The huge reliance on downforce is the real pain.
Modern F1 cars rely on down force mostly from wings which means clean airflow is required to maintain it.
Having the cars back to early 2000's aerodynamics would probably create better racing.
All out i'd have huge slicks and maybe a bit downforce generated by the chassis, not wings.
The Wings have become such a huge part of the modern cars they look strange without them
Modern F1 cars rely on down force mostly from wings which means clean airflow is required to maintain it.
Having the cars back to early 2000's aerodynamics would probably create better racing.
All out i'd have huge slicks and maybe a bit downforce generated by the chassis, not wings.
The Wings have become such a huge part of the modern cars they look strange without them
Edited by Streps on Wednesday 13th April 17:43
OP Rose tinted spectacles I'm afraid, I can remember from about 1980, I can remember Gordon Murray's fan Brabham in 78 when his flat 12 Alfa engine would not allow the venturis to go in, there was moaning about dirty air then, and ever since. You see the size of the front wing of mansells '92 Williams side by side with Jackie stewarts tyrrell's, absolutely enormous! There's your problem!
Northern Munkee said:
OP Rose tinted spectacles I'm afraid, I can remember from about 1980, I can remember Gordon Murray's fan Brabham in 78 when his flat 12 Alfa engine would not allow the venturis to go in, there was moaning about dirty air then, and ever since. You see the size of the front wing of mansells '92 Williams side by side with Jackie stewarts tyrrell's, absolutely enormous! There's your problem!
to a point, your right, but the levels of downforce and reliance on it back then was nothing like now.even with the current regs (with much reduced wing area's etc), the absolute downforce levels are several times the magnitude of anything done back on the 80's
There is always a balancing exercise here - do you go as fast as you can in clean air to catch up or as fast as you can in dirty air so that you can actually hang on to the back of someone? But then once you pull out, it's back into clean air............
Personally I don't really like a KERS type of "turbo boost" because I prefer to see racing as such like Kobayashi rather than a "as long as you are close enough you can overtake" (in theory at least) type racing.
Personally I don't really like a KERS type of "turbo boost" because I prefer to see racing as such like Kobayashi rather than a "as long as you are close enough you can overtake" (in theory at least) type racing.
EDLT said:
Jasandjules said:
I prefer to see racing as such like Kobayashi rather than a "as long as you are close enough you can overtake" (in theory at least) type racing.
This is something that isn't said enough. If overtaking is so difficult, why can Kobayashi do it?The drivers can overtake but the top cars are so close in performance its hard to get close enought to be able to overtake. Where as kobyashi usually goes off on the first lap and fights is way back through slower cars. One things ive noticed with him you see loads of overtaking from him but it doesn't look like hes actually makes much progress up the grid. Although hes bloody brilliant to watch coming through the field.
stuttgartmetal said:
You know watching the F1 theres little overtaking some races.
Bernies alluded to turning on sprinklers to making it exciting.
We now got flaps we can open, but no formula as to how this is going to be implemented.
KERS an all. What a joke.
We've got 4 cylinder turbos due, I can't wait....NOT.
However, what I remember about the eighties GP's that the cars used to make a hole in the air, not a dirty hole, like now. A clean hole.
You could get into this hole and slipstream the car in front and catapult past out of its tow.
And I can only put this down to the downforce rules.
If I could make a change to the F1 rules, I'd allow as much downforce as you like. Call me stupid, well go on then, but more downforce slows the cars, so somekind of equilibrium must be reached at some point.
What are the drawback with allowing as much downforce as you'd like, as long as the wings didn't go outside the tyre lines, and a set distance behind the rear tyres?
Tests in wind tunnels could confirm that the suspension still worked at 300KPH.
Why not?
Don't become an aerodynamicist. Please.Bernies alluded to turning on sprinklers to making it exciting.
We now got flaps we can open, but no formula as to how this is going to be implemented.
KERS an all. What a joke.
We've got 4 cylinder turbos due, I can't wait....NOT.
However, what I remember about the eighties GP's that the cars used to make a hole in the air, not a dirty hole, like now. A clean hole.
You could get into this hole and slipstream the car in front and catapult past out of its tow.
And I can only put this down to the downforce rules.
If I could make a change to the F1 rules, I'd allow as much downforce as you like. Call me stupid, well go on then, but more downforce slows the cars, so somekind of equilibrium must be reached at some point.
What are the drawback with allowing as much downforce as you'd like, as long as the wings didn't go outside the tyre lines, and a set distance behind the rear tyres?
Tests in wind tunnels could confirm that the suspension still worked at 300KPH.
Why not?
Just because the front end of an 80s F1 was pointed (with a wing) doesn't mean it cut a clean whole through the air.
Downforce is what is ruining F1 cars. Te cars are too steady, too predictable, too capable.
And I take offence to the way you talk about KERS!! The only problem with having KERS in F1 is that the systems are limited so much that there is no point developing a good, efficient system so everyone uses boggo ones.
James Allen's F1 Blog said:
Frank Dernie, one of the leading F1 aerodynamicists for the past 30 years, has sent me this note, arguing that the “overtaking problem in F1″ is not the aero, but the mechanical grip from the tyres and the lack of mistakes made by drivers on gearshifts due to semi automatic gearboxes. He advocates manual gearboxes and rock hard tyres. Hear him out.
“None of the facts in the last 30 years support the theory that grippy tyres and low downforce promote overtaking. If reducing downforce was the answer, then 1983 would have shown it, since we lost 80% of the aero efficiency in the 1983 rules, ” he says. “But there was no more overtaking than in 1982.
“Here’s the proof – if downforce prevented overtaking, historically the races with the fewest overtaking manoeuvres would have been the wet races, where maximum downforce settings are used… Why anybody still thinks a reduction in downforce is the solution when faced with the facts has been a consistent mystery and frustration to me.
“Too much difference in grip between on and off line is a major factor, caused by sticky tyres (lots of mechanical grip)
“Braking distances into slow corners are far too short, caused by sticky tyres (too much mechanical grip).
“The other reason why it is hard to overtake in current F1 is that the fastest cars are at the front with slower ones behind, so there is no reason to expect overtaking unless a driver makes a mistake.
“In this case overtaking will only ever happen following mistakes, which are rare nowadays with super sticky tyres, big runoff areas and semi automatic gearboxes.
“A few things have worked in the past.
– One set of tyre for the race worked, but Michelin’s tyres were much more suited to this than Bridgestone, so it was changed since Bridgestone were to become the only supplier.
– Single lap qualifying. Often fast cars qualified out of pace order, making overtaking likely. It was unpopular since it was “not fair”.
“When there was overtaking in the past it was mainly due to the low grip of the tyres leaving a wide racing line and long braking distances combined with cars much more difficult to drive due to low grip and manual gearboxes, hence more mistakes.
“We will never fix it whilst so many people ignore the facts and fixate on long held views which are completely at variance with the data.
“The problem is that quite a few influential people, like drivers and ex-drivers in the media, do not want the changes which certainly worked in the past. The drivers hate hard tyres, despite them probably being 50% solution, and the engineers love semi-automatic gearboxes, the other 50%…
Most overtakes took place in the past when a driver made a mistake due to poor grip or missed a gear.”
On the subject of double diffusers making it difficult to follow, he said that early last year the Toyota drivers complained that the hardest car to follow was the Renault, which didn’t have a double diffuser.
One of the reasons semi-automactic gearboxes have remained popular is that they prevent engines from over-revving on downshifts, which is even more important in this era of 8 engines per season.
But if F1 engineers can perfect the seamless shift, surely they can invent a system for a manual gearbox which would dip the clutch if the driver tried to select a gear that was too low for the engine speed.
Rock hard tyres and manual boxes and make the drivers work for a living – what do you think?
“None of the facts in the last 30 years support the theory that grippy tyres and low downforce promote overtaking. If reducing downforce was the answer, then 1983 would have shown it, since we lost 80% of the aero efficiency in the 1983 rules, ” he says. “But there was no more overtaking than in 1982.
“Here’s the proof – if downforce prevented overtaking, historically the races with the fewest overtaking manoeuvres would have been the wet races, where maximum downforce settings are used… Why anybody still thinks a reduction in downforce is the solution when faced with the facts has been a consistent mystery and frustration to me.
“Too much difference in grip between on and off line is a major factor, caused by sticky tyres (lots of mechanical grip)
“Braking distances into slow corners are far too short, caused by sticky tyres (too much mechanical grip).
“The other reason why it is hard to overtake in current F1 is that the fastest cars are at the front with slower ones behind, so there is no reason to expect overtaking unless a driver makes a mistake.
“In this case overtaking will only ever happen following mistakes, which are rare nowadays with super sticky tyres, big runoff areas and semi automatic gearboxes.
“A few things have worked in the past.
– One set of tyre for the race worked, but Michelin’s tyres were much more suited to this than Bridgestone, so it was changed since Bridgestone were to become the only supplier.
– Single lap qualifying. Often fast cars qualified out of pace order, making overtaking likely. It was unpopular since it was “not fair”.
“When there was overtaking in the past it was mainly due to the low grip of the tyres leaving a wide racing line and long braking distances combined with cars much more difficult to drive due to low grip and manual gearboxes, hence more mistakes.
“We will never fix it whilst so many people ignore the facts and fixate on long held views which are completely at variance with the data.
“The problem is that quite a few influential people, like drivers and ex-drivers in the media, do not want the changes which certainly worked in the past. The drivers hate hard tyres, despite them probably being 50% solution, and the engineers love semi-automatic gearboxes, the other 50%…
Most overtakes took place in the past when a driver made a mistake due to poor grip or missed a gear.”
On the subject of double diffusers making it difficult to follow, he said that early last year the Toyota drivers complained that the hardest car to follow was the Renault, which didn’t have a double diffuser.
One of the reasons semi-automactic gearboxes have remained popular is that they prevent engines from over-revving on downshifts, which is even more important in this era of 8 engines per season.
But if F1 engineers can perfect the seamless shift, surely they can invent a system for a manual gearbox which would dip the clutch if the driver tried to select a gear that was too low for the engine speed.
Rock hard tyres and manual boxes and make the drivers work for a living – what do you think?
I think lack of overtaking is as much a motivation thing as a technical thing. What is the point in risking an overtake out on the circuit when a slick pit stop can achieve the same result with less risk of damaging the car.
The reliance on pit stops to execute overtaking manoeuvers has been the main reason we have seen less of it on track.
The ban on refuelling helped the return of track overtaking last year. The return of poorer quality tyes may have brough pit styops back to the fore this year - sadly. We shall have to see a few more races to see if pit stops are again ruining track action.
The reliance on pit stops to execute overtaking manoeuvers has been the main reason we have seen less of it on track.
The ban on refuelling helped the return of track overtaking last year. The return of poorer quality tyes may have brough pit styops back to the fore this year - sadly. We shall have to see a few more races to see if pit stops are again ruining track action.
stuttgartmetal said:
What are the drawback with allowing as much downforce as you'd like, as long as the wings didn't go outside the tyre lines, and a set distance behind the rear tyres?
Tests in wind tunnels could confirm that the suspension still worked at 300KPH.
Why not?
If you did allow a free-for-all on the downforce front, you would quite quickly reach the problem whereby the cars could corner with lateral accelerations beyond what the body could withstand. Drivers blacking out mid-corner would be fairly dangerous. Furthermore, a lot more corners on a racing circuit would go from being challenging, to being driven flat with ease. This would likely make the racing even more dull and processional IMO.Tests in wind tunnels could confirm that the suspension still worked at 300KPH.
Why not?
I think the way forward is simple steel disc brakes for longer braking distances, basic underfloor tunnels for downforce with less reliance on clean air (and then very limited front/rear wings for aesthetics) and reasonably grippy but fast-wearing tyres.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff