Brawn calls for aero clampdown

[4rephill]

From: http:[uhrl]//www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=4...

Ross Brawn is convinced further radical rule changes are necessary to increase overtaking and improve the spectacle in Formula 1.

Brawn is quoted as saying: “We really want a lot of tyre and mechanical grip and we want to diminish dramatically the aerodynamic grip, and then I think you’ll get cars that can race with each other more effectively....."

How about banning the diffusers completely for a start?

[EDLT]

Your link is broken.

Its here: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=47125

[Project 644]

Ross would seem like the ideal person do write the regs with no loopholes.

He has been around the block enough to know what he is doing. I think most people would agree that he is one of the most qualified people to be doing this.

Sounds like a plan.

[aeropilot]

It was Brawn who noted the possible loophole with the diffusers during the working committee meeting a year ago, but IIRC all the teams had to be in agreement about rewording to get this done, but BMW veto'd it, so it was left as was.

Thus the Brawns appeared at the 1st GP of 2009 with a such a diffuser.

Hopefully the working committee this year will all agree and adopt such ideas and the FiA will agree.

[paulrockliffe]

I said on another thread a while ago that I would like them to develop a KERS system thats sole purpose is to overcome wind turbulence. You could use a wind-shear laser (I saw one at Hong Kong airport on the tv last night) to detect the turbulence and KERS (or even an engine map) that allows the car to negate the extra drag caused by the turbulence.

That way the teams could continue with the aero development and the sport wouldn't have to be dumbed down.

[mchammer89]

paulrockliffe said:

I said on another thread a while ago that I would like them to develop a KERS system thats sole purpose is to overcome wind turbulence. You could use a wind-shear laser (I saw one at Hong Kong airport on the tv last night) to detect the turbulence and KERS (or even an engine map) that allows the car to negate the extra drag caused by the turbulence.

That way the teams could continue with the aero development and the sport wouldn't have to be dumbed down.

That sounds like a great idea!

[Project 644]

mchammer89 said:

paulrockliffe said:

I said on another thread a while ago that I would like them to develop a KERS system thats sole purpose is to overcome wind turbulence. You could use a wind-shear laser (I saw one at Hong Kong airport on the tv last night) to detect the turbulence and KERS (or even an engine map) that allows the car to negate the extra drag caused by the turbulence.

That way the teams could continue with the aero development and the sport wouldn't have to be dumbed down.

That sounds like a great idea!

Except that they don't lose power being in the wake of another car. Unless KERS can give the cars the downforce that they lose in the turbulent wake, it won't do anything. The cars gain a "tow" being behind another car, the turbulence causes the following car to lose front downforce.
KERS will not overcome this.

I see what you are getting at with the concept but it is the wrong solution to the problem. There are simpler ways of getting closer racing.

[mchammer89]

Project 644 said:

mchammer89 said:

paulrockliffe said:

I said on another thread a while ago that I would like them to develop a KERS system thats sole purpose is to overcome wind turbulence. You could use a wind-shear laser (I saw one at Hong Kong airport on the tv last night) to detect the turbulence and KERS (or even an engine map) that allows the car to negate the extra drag caused by the turbulence.

That way the teams could continue with the aero development and the sport wouldn't have to be dumbed down.

That sounds like a great idea!

Except that they don't lose power being in the wake of another car. Unless KERS can give the cars the downforce that they lose in the turbulent wake, it won't do anything. The cars gain a "tow" being behind another car, the turbulence causes the following car to lose front downforce.
KERS will not overcome this.

I see what you are getting at with the concept but it is the wrong solution to the problem. There are simpler ways of getting closer racing.

Yes but with this you can lessen the effect of the car in front exiting corners with much higher speeds by having the car behind being able to accelerate quicker once out of the corner. I personally can't see an easier solution as engineers will always get around the guidelines restricing aero devices, and if not, then people will complain that the cars are too similar in pace to GP2 cars. Personally I think we should just give them wider tyres and bump up the power by a few 100bhp.

[zac510]

Project 644 said:

Ross would seem like the ideal person do write the regs with no loopholes.

He has been around the block enough to know what he is doing. I think most people would agree that he is one of the most qualified people to be doing this.

Sounds like a plan.

I think it's sort of a 'conflict of interest'. Not in the illegal way, but one that would actually disadvantage Brawn if he were to do this.
Take this year for example, the three teams that actually wrote the rules did a terrible job of interpreting them, as if they were bound by the theoretical goal of the rule change, not the word of the rule. And as we know they started warming up their lawyers before their engines because they'd doubly shot themselves in the feet by banning testing.

On the other hand if Brawn were the team to get an advantage, or take a loophole, they would be seen to have gained an unfair advantage from their work. (Or at least the teams would say this to peg them back again.)

If I were Ferrari, McLaren or Renault, after this year's experience I wouldn't want to be involved in any rule making. I'd want to be able to take the most extreme interpretation I could when the rule comes out and then not have to answer to the public, teams or FIA when the wording of my rule is exploited!

Edited by zac510 on Monday 12th October 20:01

Edited by zac510 on Monday 12th October 20:02

[Project 644]

mchammer89 said:

Project 644 said:

mchammer89 said:

paulrockliffe said:

I said on another thread a while ago that I would like them to develop a KERS system thats sole purpose is to overcome wind turbulence. You could use a wind-shear laser (I saw one at Hong Kong airport on the tv last night) to detect the turbulence and KERS (or even an engine map) that allows the car to negate the extra drag caused by the turbulence.

That way the teams could continue with the aero development and the sport wouldn't have to be dumbed down.

That sounds like a great idea!

Except that they don't lose power being in the wake of another car. Unless KERS can give the cars the downforce that they lose in the turbulent wake, it won't do anything. The cars gain a "tow" being behind another car, the turbulence causes the following car to lose front downforce.
KERS will not overcome this.

I see what you are getting at with the concept but it is the wrong solution to the problem. There are simpler ways of getting closer racing.

Yes but with this you can lessen the effect of the car in front exiting corners with much higher speeds by having the car behind being able to accelerate quicker once out of the corner. I personally can't see an easier solution as engineers will always get around the guidelines restricing aero devices, and if not, then people will complain that the cars are too similar in pace to GP2 cars. Personally I think we should just give them wider tyres and bump up the power by a few 100bhp.

For that to work, the following car would have to be close behind the car on front throughout the corner. Something that is still not easy to do. The way to combat this and still have decent amounts of downforce would be to utilise underbody downforce (ie ground effect) as this creates far less turbulence for the following cars allowing them to follow closer.

I agree on wider tyres and more power though. Make the cars brutal to drive again. I want to see knackered drivers on the podium, not fresh faced happy people.

[mchammer89]

Project 644 said:

mchammer89 said:

Project 644 said:

mchammer89 said:

paulrockliffe said:

I said on another thread a while ago that I would like them to develop a KERS system thats sole purpose is to overcome wind turbulence. You could use a wind-shear laser (I saw one at Hong Kong airport on the tv last night) to detect the turbulence and KERS (or even an engine map) that allows the car to negate the extra drag caused by the turbulence.

That way the teams could continue with the aero development and the sport wouldn't have to be dumbed down.

That sounds like a great idea!

Except that they don't lose power being in the wake of another car. Unless KERS can give the cars the downforce that they lose in the turbulent wake, it won't do anything. The cars gain a "tow" being behind another car, the turbulence causes the following car to lose front downforce.
KERS will not overcome this.

I see what you are getting at with the concept but it is the wrong solution to the problem. There are simpler ways of getting closer racing.

Yes but with this you can lessen the effect of the car in front exiting corners with much higher speeds by having the car behind being able to accelerate quicker once out of the corner. I personally can't see an easier solution as engineers will always get around the guidelines restricing aero devices, and if not, then people will complain that the cars are too similar in pace to GP2 cars. Personally I think we should just give them wider tyres and bump up the power by a few 100bhp.

For that to work, the following car would have to be close behind the car on front throughout the corner. Something that is still not easy to do. The way to combat this and still have decent amounts of downforce would be to utilise underbody downforce (ie ground effect) as this creates far less turbulence for the following cars allowing them to follow closer.

I agree on wider tyres and more power though. Make the cars brutal to drive again. I want to see knackered drivers on the podium, not fresh faced happy people.

That is true, but diffusers make a heck of a lot of turbulance too, just look at the cars when they're in the wet.

[Project 644]

mchammer89 said:

Project 644 said:

mchammer89 said:

Project 644 said:

mchammer89 said:

paulrockliffe said:

I said on another thread a while ago that I would like them to develop a KERS system thats sole purpose is to overcome wind turbulence. You could use a wind-shear laser (I saw one at Hong Kong airport on the tv last night) to detect the turbulence and KERS (or even an engine map) that allows the car to negate the extra drag caused by the turbulence.

That way the teams could continue with the aero development and the sport wouldn't have to be dumbed down.

That sounds like a great idea!

Except that they don't lose power being in the wake of another car. Unless KERS can give the cars the downforce that they lose in the turbulent wake, it won't do anything. The cars gain a "tow" being behind another car, the turbulence causes the following car to lose front downforce.
KERS will not overcome this.

I see what you are getting at with the concept but it is the wrong solution to the problem. There are simpler ways of getting closer racing.

Yes but with this you can lessen the effect of the car in front exiting corners with much higher speeds by having the car behind being able to accelerate quicker once out of the corner. I personally can't see an easier solution as engineers will always get around the guidelines restricing aero devices, and if not, then people will complain that the cars are too similar in pace to GP2 cars. Personally I think we should just give them wider tyres and bump up the power by a few 100bhp.

For that to work, the following car would have to be close behind the car on front throughout the corner. Something that is still not easy to do. The way to combat this and still have decent amounts of downforce would be to utilise underbody downforce (ie ground effect) as this creates far less turbulence for the following cars allowing them to follow closer.

I agree on wider tyres and more power though. Make the cars brutal to drive again. I want to see knackered drivers on the podium, not fresh faced happy people.

That is true, but diffusers make a heck of a lot of turbulance too, just look at the cars when they're in the wet.

agreed. If the cars ran ground effect venturi, they would not need diffusers.

[mchammer89]

Project 644 said:

agreed. If the cars ran ground effect venturi, they would not need diffusers.

Oh of course, sorry I misunderstood your post, but with that there is an increased likelyhood of more Senna-esque accidents is there not?

[mattikake]

Hurrah! Someone in the sport finally makes the right points!

They need to reduce the overall wing surface areas, as wella s incrase the grip from the tyres or even the size of the contact patches themsevles. Look at the late 80's cars. They still had big wings and overtaking, but they had single plane wings - flat and no winglets ontop of wings. (Banning winglets from the car body seems to have just moved them onto the front and rear wings instead).

[entropy]

mattikake said:

Hurrah! Someone in the sport finally makes the right points!

They need to reduce the overall wing surface areas, as wella s incrase the grip from the tyres or even the size of the contact patches themsevles. Look at the late 80's cars. They still had big wings and overtaking, but they had single plane wings - flat and no winglets ontop of wings. (Banning winglets from the car body seems to have just moved them onto the front and rear wings instead).

Everyone knows the problem but it's a far more complex problem

Got round to watching some races I taped from the BBC red button.

Cars from 1984 had massive and complex rear wings and skinny front wings (eg. Toleman) yet today there's a school of thought that you need lots of front downforce.

[PhillipM]

Aero isn't as intuitive as most of you seem to think, if you dropped all the wings, winglets and diffusers, you'd pretty much end up with a teardrop-alike shape.

Just like a streamliner in a bike race.
And as anyone who designs/rides those will tell you, as soon as you get close enough behind one to overtake - they fly off forward like you've kicked them up the arse.

Why? Because the presence of the vehicle behind actually drops the leading vehicles air resistance by about 70%....


Leave the aero regs, widen the tyres by 40-50%, give 'em another 400bhp, sorted.

Edited by PhillipM on Tuesday 13th October 00:27

[anonymous-user]

entropy said:

mattikake said:

Hurrah! Someone in the sport finally makes the right points!

They need to reduce the overall wing surface areas, as wella s incrase the grip from the tyres or even the size of the contact patches themsevles. Look at the late 80's cars. They still had big wings and overtaking, but they had single plane wings - flat and no winglets ontop of wings. (Banning winglets from the car body seems to have just moved them onto the front and rear wings instead).

Everyone knows the problem but it's a far more complex problem

Got round to watching some races I taped from the BBC red button.

Cars from 1984 had massive and complex rear wings and skinny front wings (eg. Toleman) yet today there's a school of thought that you need lots of front downforce.

They had big rear wings because the aero efficiency feeding them was apauling, you only needed small front wings to balance out the small downforce the rear produced, the underside of the car produced more of the overall downforce relative to the wings back then.

Turbulence has always been a problem with the cars, even back then, it's just now we are dealing with cars that are so closely matched a tenth or two change in performance is a massive issue.

Better mechanical grip has been needed for a very long time, the cars don't have enough power either, too many corners are just flat out, where is the fun/skill in that.

[Evangelion]

I think they should just remove all engine restrictions - size, configuration, number of clylinders etc and type of engine should be up to the designer, petrol, diesel, steam, electric, gas turbine, as long as it drives the wheels. Then designers would be able to choose between a large, heavy powerful engine and a small, light less powerful one.

Also all downforce should be outlawed completely. Remove the wings and enforce (no pun intended) a ground clearance rule. I'm getting a bit fed up with saying that ... but I'm going to keep on saying it.

ETA - make the entire bottom of the car flat as well.

Edited by Evangelion on Tuesday 13th October 00:37

[entropy]

johnfelstead said:

They had big rear wings because the aero efficiency feeding them was apauling, you only needed small front wings to balance out the small downforce the rear produced, the underside of the car produced more of the overall downforce relative to the wings back then.

How so? Ground effects was banned after 1982.

[zac510]

Why do these threads always degenerate into everybody sprouting off their magical 'solutions' to F1?