Has modern aero caught or overtaken the old ground effect?
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
Until the fact that almost zero drag is generated via GE is put back in to the equation... In the corners, it's clear to see to all of us that the modern cars are sublime. I don't know how anyone could question it tbh.
GE doesn't provide zero drag, who told you that nonsense?TheDeuce said:
Ok, fair enough. Produces far less than air deflection to create down force though. I appreciate that channeling the air to create GE in the first place must create some drag.
Nope, doesn't do that either.A typical 80's GE car produces 1400 Newtons of drag at 100MPH, a typical previous generation 1977 F1 car produces pretty much the same drag figures, slightly less in fact.
The difference is in the amount of downforce they produce for the same drag.
The 80's GE car will produce about 4000 Newtons of downforce at 100MPH, the 1977 F1 car will produce about 1400 Newtons at 100MPH.
They both hit the limit of power/drag at pretty much the same speed, the earlier car can actually go faster when you trim it out at a circuit like Monza. Silverstone for example, the GE car would be geared for 165MPH top speed, the 1977 car would be geared for 168MPH.
jsf said:
Nope, doesn't do that either.
A typical 80's GE car produces 1400 Newtons of drag at 100MPH, a typical previous generation 1977 F1 car produces pretty much the same drag figures, slightly less in fact.
The difference is in the amount of downforce they produce for the same drag.
The 80's GE car will produce about 4000 Newtons of downforce at 100MPH, the 1977 F1 car will produce about 1400 Newtons at 100MPH.
They both hit the limit of power/drag at pretty much the same speed, the earlier car can actually go faster when you trim it out at a circuit like Monza. Silverstone for example, the GE car would be geared for 165MPH top speed, the 1977 car would be geared for 168MPH.
For the sake of completing the comparison - what is the drag to down-force ratio of a current era F1 car?A typical 80's GE car produces 1400 Newtons of drag at 100MPH, a typical previous generation 1977 F1 car produces pretty much the same drag figures, slightly less in fact.
The difference is in the amount of downforce they produce for the same drag.
The 80's GE car will produce about 4000 Newtons of downforce at 100MPH, the 1977 F1 car will produce about 1400 Newtons at 100MPH.
They both hit the limit of power/drag at pretty much the same speed, the earlier car can actually go faster when you trim it out at a circuit like Monza. Silverstone for example, the GE car would be geared for 165MPH top speed, the 1977 car would be geared for 168MPH.
My point is, that I would think that the GE cars achieved substantially more down force via GE vs drag created than the modern aero cars.
TheDeuce said:
kiseca said:
I was actually wondering if the flat floor rule could be bypassed by making a ground effect tunnel that increased it's area by opening up to the side rather than to the top, e.g. if you imagine the old GE tunnels being three straight surfaces (one of which is the road) and one curved surface that increases the cross sectional area towards the rear, the curved surface was always the top surface of the tunnel.
Since the objective is to increase area and thus decrease volume, it seems to me that any, or all, of the four surfaces could be curved to achieve the pressure needed for downforce.
Now obviously you can't curve the road surface, so that leaves the top one - banned by flat floor - and the two sides. Could a side surface be curved without breaking the flat floor rule, and generate downforce?
I can't find enough info about the flat floor regulations to work out if it would be legal or not.
I'm not sure how far the plank extends, but whatever is left is already used for other aero purposes, some of which in some car designs is already designed with GE in mind. I'd guess as this is an are already exploited by teams, that it's regulation friendly. Putting the oncave curve in it however... I can imagine they can do more of overall benefit along the sides in other ways. Thinking of cooling, aero down force and flowing the air neatly around the rear wheels. Since the objective is to increase area and thus decrease volume, it seems to me that any, or all, of the four surfaces could be curved to achieve the pressure needed for downforce.
Now obviously you can't curve the road surface, so that leaves the top one - banned by flat floor - and the two sides. Could a side surface be curved without breaking the flat floor rule, and generate downforce?
I can't find enough info about the flat floor regulations to work out if it would be legal or not.
With the original GE cars the tunnels ran underneath the sidepods and they were massive! Which is why the cars of that era were broad; coke bottle became vogue afterwards so as to enhance the diffuser - along with exhaust blowning - to regain the levels from GE.
Indycars don't run full length tunnels anymore as over the years they've reduced the effectiveness of the floor, nor were/are GP2/F2's though they do have massive ramps; can't remember if LMP tunnels are full length. Interestingly the 2021 F1 cars are going to place the tunnels down the sides again will be narrower than the original GE cars.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff