How to get rid of dirty air
Discussion
Ahonen said:
George29 said:
Then expect massive complaints when F1 cars are slower than F3 cars. It was bad enough that GP2 cars had faster corner speeds last year. F1 still needs to be the fastest form of motorsport.
It's interesting, this. MotoGP (and Superbike) lap times are far, far slower than F3, but no one cares. They have no downforce, huge braking distances and slow apex speeds. Does anyone give a toss? No. I can stand at Cadwell for a whole day (well, three days really) during a BSB race weekend and not be bored for a second. You can see the riders working and the bikes move around, which is one of the reasons historic car racing is also so popular.The FIA w
ked themselves into a frenzy over faster lap times because that's what "The Fans" apparently wanted after people squawked that the cars were faster 10 years ago on Twitbookface after every race. We're going to see lap records tumble everywhere this year. It's awesome, isn't it? What do you mean the racing is processional? The lap times are amazing! It's what the fans wanted.
Last year Racecar Engineering magazine did a CFD study through several issues. Basically simpler aero all round lessens the wake.
Having made an effort to watch some of the old races - particularly the 80s and early 90s - F1 has always been a procession to some degree and there's always been good and bad races. But when you see overtaking and a good dogfight it becomes more-ish and therein lies the desire to create more overtaking in F1.
Arguably the gladiators of motorsport isn't F1- its bikes. Is it any wonder Autosport and Motorsport magazine now cover bike racing?
Having made an effort to watch some of the old races - particularly the 80s and early 90s - F1 has always been a procession to some degree and there's always been good and bad races. But when you see overtaking and a good dogfight it becomes more-ish and therein lies the desire to create more overtaking in F1.
Arguably the gladiators of motorsport isn't F1- its bikes. Is it any wonder Autosport and Motorsport magazine now cover bike racing?
The reason I mentioned dirty air is that there is a very correlation between the starting grid and the actual race results. I haven't done the analysis, but my hunch is that in dry races 8 out of the top 10 on the starting grid will finish in the top ten--why spend 2 hours watching the race when the result is largely pre-ordained? Almost makes numbers 11-20 superfluous. If you could get rid of dirty air, the cars could get closer making passing easier to achieve.
Nanook said:
That's an odd thing to say. Those are not races.
Take an F1 car to a hillclimb, and it'll be interesting to watch. I know, I've seen one a few times. (Or at least, a single seater that resembled an F1 car, and used an F1 engine and transmission)
But when you put a bunch of them on the same piece of tarmac at once, you expect to see overtaking. That's the point.
You expect to see some ATTEMPTS at overtaking - now and then. That is a given.Take an F1 car to a hillclimb, and it'll be interesting to watch. I know, I've seen one a few times. (Or at least, a single seater that resembled an F1 car, and used an F1 engine and transmission)
But when you put a bunch of them on the same piece of tarmac at once, you expect to see overtaking. That's the point.
The point I was making was that the way the cars behave on track can be just as much part of the fun of watching motorsport as just overtaking.
In fact, too much overtaking can be almost as boring as none at all.
Getting the balance right is not easy so, in the absence of overtaking, at least make the cars dramatic to watch.
jpf said:
The reason I mentioned dirty air is that there is a very correlation between the starting grid and the actual race results. I haven't done the analysis, but my hunch is that in dry races 8 out of the top 10 on the starting grid will finish in the top ten--why spend 2 hours watching the race when the result is largely pre-ordained? Almost makes numbers 11-20 superfluous. If you could get rid of dirty air, the cars could get closer making passing easier to achieve.
So from your analysis you've found that the cars that are quicker over one lap are also quicker over race distance. Fancy that. You want to eliminate dirty air? Go back to the designs of 1966, apparently.
For those interested, paper from here: Ground Effect Aerodynamics of Race Cars
For those interested, paper from here: Ground Effect Aerodynamics of Race Cars
To me a race is about the spectacle which includes proper overtaking on the track. None of this 'going for the undercut' and coming out in front. 20 cars on track at the same time is about overtaking, not a procession with a couple of place changes due to pit-stops. Hill climbs, time trials etc are about getting the best time, but they are not races.
Two ideas. Firstly, active aero. A huge number of road cars (even humble things) now have some active aero - even if it's just flaps to close the grille at motorway speeds. We should have it in F1.
Secondly, a front wing (let's imagine the FIA have one they keep for this purpose) 50m behind any car must still be able to create 80% (or some other numbers) of the downforce it would create in clear air.
Secondly, a front wing (let's imagine the FIA have one they keep for this purpose) 50m behind any car must still be able to create 80% (or some other numbers) of the downforce it would create in clear air.
George29 said:
Gary C said:
You could set a max downforce generated at a speed so that designers no longer have to chase every kg per drag and can concentrate on making that kg figure as efficiently as possible which in theory should reduce the turbulent air behind the car.
I would like to see totally unlimited energy storage and use plus a removal of the peak fuel flow limit coupled with an appropriate limit on fuel capacity and energy storage weight.
Just like the old turbo era, a driver should be able to significantly increase the power of the engine to overtake at the expense of fuel/energy storage, allowing banzai overtakes followed by conservation.
The energy storage weight could be reduced overtime to encourage battery technology to advance
I would also allow unlimited use of engines (except maybe race and qual should be the same) to allow some teams to really push and others to go conservative as they wish. It really shakes things up.
How exactly would you enforce that max downforce regulation? It's easy to say but impossible to check. Reducing drag doesn't mean that less turbulant air is created - for example the Overtaking Working Group found that no rear wing on the car was worse than a tall, narrow rear wing - hence why the regulations went like that. Same with the front wing with the standardised middle section. I would like to see totally unlimited energy storage and use plus a removal of the peak fuel flow limit coupled with an appropriate limit on fuel capacity and energy storage weight.
Just like the old turbo era, a driver should be able to significantly increase the power of the engine to overtake at the expense of fuel/energy storage, allowing banzai overtakes followed by conservation.
The energy storage weight could be reduced overtime to encourage battery technology to advance
I would also allow unlimited use of engines (except maybe race and qual should be the same) to allow some teams to really push and others to go conservative as they wish. It really shakes things up.
Drivers can significantly turn up their engines. It's just a switch on the steering wheel. Look at Mercedes qualifying mode for example. The only difference is how many engines they're limited to a season, and how many miles each engine can do in each mode. I agree it would be nice to see no penalties over engine changes but you would just see the manufacturer teams having new engines every race and having a huge power advantage over the rest of the field. It has to be regulated to keep the costs down (sort of, even though these new engines are ridiculously expensive).
Max downforce would be harder. You would have to test at a fixed speed rake, ride height etc but if it was possible in theory maximising efficiency should mean less turbulent wake off the surfaces but it would probably be small.
Gary C said:
Peak fuel flow tends to limit peak output from the ice. Get rid and allow much more power at the expense of fuel, then a driver would have to reduce power to conserve, the nature of the current rules means they tend to use the energy store each lap rather than being able to build up over several laps then significantly boost for 1/2 a lap.
Max downforce would be harder. You would have to test at a fixed speed rake, ride height etc but if it was possible in theory maximising efficiency should mean less turbulent wake off the surfaces but it would probably be small.
The FIA don't have a portable wind tunnel to take to circuits and check the cars. The cars evolve so much between races in theory they would have to be rechecked every time. There are also so many variables that it isn't possible to provide fair, accurate readings between the teams. it wouldn't decrease costs at all like was mentioned before. If anything I'd say the opposite was true.Max downforce would be harder. You would have to test at a fixed speed rake, ride height etc but if it was possible in theory maximising efficiency should mean less turbulent wake off the surfaces but it would probably be small.
davepoth said:
Two ideas. Firstly, active aero. A huge number of road cars (even humble things) now have some active aero - even if it's just flaps to close the grille at motorway speeds. We should have it in F1.
Secondly, a front wing (let's imagine the FIA have one they keep for this purpose) 50m behind any car must still be able to create 80% (or some other numbers) of the downforce it would create in clear air.
No active aero as the costs would be enourmous and would just increase the gap to the top, richest teams. Secondly, a front wing (let's imagine the FIA have one they keep for this purpose) 50m behind any car must still be able to create 80% (or some other numbers) of the downforce it would create in clear air.
2nd one would never be able to implement. Define dirty air as you would have to have it replicated for the test conditions. It's going to be different from every single car, alongside many other variables.
Does anyone else agree with me that the problem isn't the aero systems, it's the tyres!
Within a very few laps there is a narrow line of 'clean' track and the remainder, particularly the corners, are covered in 'marbles' from the tyres.
This then makes it very difficult to choose a different line and get into clean air to perform an overtaking manoeuvre.
The racing line effectively becomes one car wide very quickly.
Within a very few laps there is a narrow line of 'clean' track and the remainder, particularly the corners, are covered in 'marbles' from the tyres.
This then makes it very difficult to choose a different line and get into clean air to perform an overtaking manoeuvre.
The racing line effectively becomes one car wide very quickly.
WEC cars have huge amounts of aero but don't seem to have problems with close racing and following another car. F1 cars should be absolute beasts to drive, real men's cars, they are not unfortunately. Yes, they have lots of G forces, but are otherwise too playstation. Agree with the comment ref bikes, that's proper racing, and funnily enough, no aero, just mechanical grip and huuge balls. Imagine in F1 if the lead changed hands several times in the last lap???
Also, the tracks are a big part of the problem. The Tilke tracks are all notoriously hard to pass on, so F1 needs to bin them and get back into some of the traditional tracks, including more gravel traps and less tarmac, so mistakes get punished.
Also, the tracks are a big part of the problem. The Tilke tracks are all notoriously hard to pass on, so F1 needs to bin them and get back into some of the traditional tracks, including more gravel traps and less tarmac, so mistakes get punished.
langtounlad said:
Does anyone else agree with me that the problem isn't the aero systems, it's the tyres!
Within a very few laps there is a narrow line of 'clean' track and the remainder, particularly the corners, are covered in 'marbles' from the tyres.
This then makes it very difficult to choose a different line and get into clean air to perform an overtaking manoeuvre.
The racing line effectively becomes one car wide very quickly.
No, there are, and always have been, marbles. The aero is the single biggest reason for the processional 'race'.Within a very few laps there is a narrow line of 'clean' track and the remainder, particularly the corners, are covered in 'marbles' from the tyres.
This then makes it very difficult to choose a different line and get into clean air to perform an overtaking manoeuvre.
The racing line effectively becomes one car wide very quickly.
Dr Z said:
You want to eliminate dirty air? Go back to the designs of 1966, apparently.
For those interested, paper from here: Ground Effect Aerodynamics of Race Cars
And yet, overtaking was prevalent through the 70's and 80's and until about midway through the 90's.For those interested, paper from here: Ground Effect Aerodynamics of Race Cars
F1 cars have lengthened by over 60cm since the early 1990's when overtaking was last regarded as plentiful. That's an awful lot of space to play around with fancy aero tricks.
Given how small the key components like engines and gearboxes are, I'd be interested to see the overall length restricted by half a meter but maintain the current crash standards and then see what the engineers can come up with. Surely the cars would be less aero efficient, and therefore less aero dependent?
Given how small the key components like engines and gearboxes are, I'd be interested to see the overall length restricted by half a meter but maintain the current crash standards and then see what the engineers can come up with. Surely the cars would be less aero efficient, and therefore less aero dependent?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff