Zandvoort 2020

Zandvoort 2020

Author
Discussion

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
In regards to indi 2005, I’m pretty sure it was something to do with the way the track was (unusually) diamond cut in that section.

We should however kiv these failures in 2005 were within a practically unlimited tyre testing era.

We’ve already had one 2020 tyre test (not so good), and one more next week, so we will see as to what happens.
It was diamond cut which definitely didn't help and probably was at least as bigger factor as the banking - although the banking had also spoiled R Schumachers day the previous year, before it was cut. It's F1 though, everything is always pushed to the limit including the tyres, any extra stress is normally bad news. The fact it was diamond cut and also banked was two unusual factors at once, and one too many.

Worth baring in mind that these days, the teams can swap tyres mid-race and mitigate the chances of a blow out that way - although for the FP1 they won't know the real limits, so that could be a hard lesson.. I'm sure they'll cope with it and get the job done though. Tbh, I see the biggest issue being the massive stresses imposed upon the suspension, because unlike they tyres, they can't change those components mid-race. That's surely compounded by the desire to run high down-force around a circuit such as this?

I see two likely year one scenarios: 1) It does prove to be too much, all teams struggle and the resultant race is something of a joke - but hopefully quite an entertaining one. 2) It is manageable with the right setup and approach, but some teams will inevitably misjudge that, leading to perhaps a shake-up of the normal order.

I think the second scenario is most likely. Year one some teams are bound to get it wrong as it's a bit of an oddity. But overall they'll all probably get on top of it and make it work year two onward.
The problem is they would just VSC the section to make it safe.

& yes it will be Monaco spec for downforce.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
rdjohn said:
Your figures seem right but Motorsport.com are reporting that it will be 32deg

As part of a revamp needed to bring the venue up to Formula 1 standards, the final turn at the track is being reconstructed and will feature a 32% incline – with more than four metres of height difference between the top of the track and the bottom.

This seem like one heck of a lot.
32%, not 32 degrees!

18 degrees is 32.5 % gradient.
Good work, in terms of how many London buses, or the size of wales etc

32 degrees is a staircase, so pretty steep..

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
The problem is they would just VSC the section to make it safe.

& yes it will be Monaco spec for down force.
I really think the teams will manage to make it safe and prove as much during practice sessions - I see it as more of a setup conundrum/gamble for the teams than an outright safety issue.

How much downforce they run will be one of the decisions. The circuit demands Monaco levels. The banked turn however, well that's a lot of downforce on top of additional forces pushing the car even harder in to the track, combined with a highly inflated tyre that offers no absorption of all that force. The perfect downforce for the rest of the circuit could lead to them having to limit their own speed through the banked corner. The one thing no one will want to risk is suspension failure in that moment.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
The problem is they would just VSC the section to make it safe.

& yes it will be Monaco spec for down force.
I really think the teams will manage to make it safe and prove as much during practice sessions - I see it as more of a setup conundrum/gamble for the teams than an outright safety issue.

How much downforce they run will be one of the decisions. The circuit demands Monaco levels. The banked turn however, well that's a lot of downforce on top of additional forces pushing the car even harder in to the track, combined with a highly inflated tyre that offers no absorption of all that force. The perfect downforce for the rest of the circuit could lead to them having to limit their own speed through the banked corner. The one thing no one will want to risk is suspension failure in that moment.
Well be fine, these things can drive upside down on a ceiling hehe

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
The problem is they would just VSC the section to make it safe.

& yes it will be Monaco spec for down force.
I really think the teams will manage to make it safe and prove as much during practice sessions - I see it as more of a setup conundrum/gamble for the teams than an outright safety issue.

How much downforce they run will be one of the decisions. The circuit demands Monaco levels. The banked turn however, well that's a lot of downforce on top of additional forces pushing the car even harder in to the track, combined with a highly inflated tyre that offers no absorption of all that force. The perfect downforce for the rest of the circuit could lead to them having to limit their own speed through the banked corner. The one thing no one will want to risk is suspension failure in that moment.
Well be fine, these things can drive upside down on a ceiling hehe
ahh you see.. driving upside down would actually reduce the load on the suspension, it's yet another example of why it's a good idea for someone to prove that theory smile

How about, to avoid a repeat of Indi 05, any driver that wishes to be excused from Zandvoort will be excused - but the first one that asks to be excused has to drive an F1 car upside down to make up for it? biggrin

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
For those interested, just found these quotes on PlanetF1 - I hadn't realised there are to be two banked corners, one for side by side racing (sounds.. fun).

PlanetF1 said:
Speaking to Dutch radio station BNR Niewsradio, he said: “That corner will for sure be the most spectacular part of our renewed circuit.

“The corner will be banked 32%. So the difference in height from the bottom of the corner to the top will be around four and a half metres. That’s considerable.

“We are in fact making an American corner on an otherwise European circuit. That is absolutely unique.”

Zandvoort’s signature Hugenholtz corner will also be given a facelift to allow cars to race side-by side.

“The third corner [Hugenholtz] of the track will be banked as well for the F1 race,” said van Overdijk.

“It will be made parabolic, so that two cars can get through the corner next to each other and more importantly at the same speed.

“The banking will vary between 8% and 18% for that purpose.”
Also 18 degree banked corner, 4.5m bottom to top smile

Kev_Mk3

1,361 posts

43 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
coppice said:
They should cancel the Grand Prix and reinstate your track day immediately . But if your house burns down there'll be 5 million Dutch suspects .

It's brilliant - unlike the 23 locals and a stray dog who turn up to Baku and some other daft races it'll be great to see a partisan crowd like Monza /Silverstone / Interlagos
Sadly I did Spa in stead, House is insured so I'd be happy lol

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Also 18 degree banked corner, 4.5m bottom to top smile
Hmmm, are these cars not 2.0m wide. That’s quite tight..

Here’s a track info graphic

https://youtu.be/tcsMznNVgMc

It will be quite a high speed section ( turns 13& 14).


Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
The problem is they would just VSC the section to make it safe.

& yes it will be Monaco spec for down force.
I really think the teams will manage to make it safe and prove as much during practice sessions - I see it as more of a setup conundrum/gamble for the teams than an outright safety issue.

How much downforce they run will be one of the decisions. The circuit demands Monaco levels. The banked turn however, well that's a lot of downforce on top of additional forces pushing the car even harder in to the track, combined with a highly inflated tyre that offers no absorption of all that force. The perfect downforce for the rest of the circuit could lead to them having to limit their own speed through the banked corner. The one thing no one will want to risk is suspension failure in that moment.
Well be fine, these things can drive upside down on a ceiling hehe
ahh you see.. driving upside down would actually reduce the load on the suspension, it's yet another example of why it's a good idea for someone to prove that theory smile
Surely the load would be greater? (For upside down).?

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Surely the load would be greater? (For upside down).?
The right way up the suspension bears the weight of the car plus the downforce it generates. Invert the car and and the 'weight' on the suspension is the downforce minus the weight of the car.

That's why they could drive upside down, downforce exceeds the cars weight - providing they're 100mph+. Even a comparatively low down force configured F1 car easily generates more than its own weight. Maybe not the Williams...

rdjohn

3,863 posts

143 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
rdjohn said:
Your figures seem right but Motorsport.com are reporting that it will be 32deg

As part of a revamp needed to bring the venue up to Formula 1 standards, the final turn at the track is being reconstructed and will feature a 32% incline – with more than four metres of height difference between the top of the track and the bottom.

This seem like one heck of a lot.
32%, not 32 degrees!

18 degrees is 32.5 % gradient.
Dohh!

getmecoat If all else fails read what has actually been written.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Surely the load would be greater? (For upside down).?
The right way up the suspension bears the weight of the car plus the downforce it generates. Invert the car and and the 'weight' on the suspension is the downforce minus the weight of the car.

That's why they could drive upside down, downforce exceeds the cars weight - providing they're 100mph+. Even a comparatively low down force configured F1 car easily generates more than its own weight. Maybe not the Williams...
Understand the inversion, but then would you not need total load + gravity, after all the car would need to grip to maintain contact.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Understand the inversion, but then would you not need total load + gravity, after all the car would need to grip to maintain contact.
No, because the tunnel would be straight. The car needs only enough pressure on the tyres to maintaing traction sufficient to maintain speed. Doesn't need typical F1 levels of grip.

At 130mph the downforce on most F1 cars is in excess of double their weight I think, so really no shortage of force pinning it to the roof and more than enough to keep the tyres biting. You can use a set of softs if you're worried though..

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Understand the inversion, but then would you not need total load + gravity, after all the car would need to grip to maintain contact.
No, because the tunnel would be straight. The car needs only enough pressure on the tyres to maintaing traction sufficient to maintain speed. Doesn't need typical F1 levels of grip.

At 130mph the downforce on most F1 cars is in excess of double their weight I think, so really no shortage of force pinning it to the roof and more than enough to keep the tyres biting. You can use a set of softs if you're worried though..
From my basic understanding, you would need say 4 g for an ‘inversion’. That’s pretty much flat on a straight line under acceleration ( even the right way up) for an f1 car.

Up there with the moon landings IMO.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
From my basic understanding, you would need say 4 g for an ‘inversion’. That’s pretty much flat on a straight line under acceleration ( even the right way up) for an f1 car.

Up there with the moon landings IMO.
You're thinking of roller coaster inversion physics perhaps? Anyway, g force has nothing to with it, it's not pinned to the roof by a force of inertia, but simply downforce (in this case, upforce).

Fit an F1 car with a tri axis g-meter and have it running on a dead straight track at 150mph constant - the g meter wil read zero on all axis yet the car will still be pinned into the track. Run it along the roof of a tunnel and the g meter will also read zero.

If however we were to shoot a car in to a loop the loop, yes it would be pinned by the g force, the relative speed would be too low to rely upon downforce, in addition to smooth airflow being likely not achievable as it travels through its own path as it loops.


Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
From my basic understanding, you would need say 4 g for an ‘inversion’. That’s pretty much flat on a straight line under acceleration ( even the right way up) for an f1 car.

Up there with the moon landings IMO.
You're thinking of roller coaster inversion physics perhaps? Anyway, g force has nothing to with it, it's not pinned to the roof by a force of inertia, but simply downforce (in this case, upforce).

Fit an F1 car with a tri axis g-meter and have it running on a dead straight track at 150mph constant - the g meter wil read zero on all axis yet the car will still be pinned into the track. Run it along the roof of a tunnel and the g meter will also read zero.

If however we were to shoot a car in to a loop the loop, yes it would be pinned by the g force, the relative speed would be too low to rely upon downforce, in addition to smooth airflow being likely not achievable as it travels through its own path as it loops.
Upside down airplane I can understand ie an aero devise clearing though air propelled by propeller or a jet. However having enough downforce /upforce while challenging gravity + traction for the tyres (as in the only point of forward movement), whilst upside down and not accelerating.. i don’t..

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
From my basic understanding, you would need say 4 g for an ‘inversion’. That’s pretty much flat on a straight line under acceleration ( even the right way up) for an f1 car.

Up there with the moon landings IMO.
You're thinking of roller coaster inversion physics perhaps? Anyway, g force has nothing to with it, it's not pinned to the roof by a force of inertia, but simply downforce (in this case, upforce).

Fit an F1 car with a tri axis g-meter and have it running on a dead straight track at 150mph constant - the g meter wil read zero on all axis yet the car will still be pinned into the track. Run it along the roof of a tunnel and the g meter will also read zero.

If however we were to shoot a car in to a loop the loop, yes it would be pinned by the g force, the relative speed would be too low to rely upon downforce, in addition to smooth airflow being likely not achievable as it travels through its own path as it loops.
Upside down airplane I can understand ie an aero devise clearing though air propelled by propeller or a jet. However having enough downforce /upforce while challenging gravity + traction for the tyres (as in the only point of forward movement), whilst upside down and not accelerating.. i don’t..
I'm slightly surprised you're struggling with this, you're aero obsessed in F1!! Maybe it's just the inverted thing..?

This is the best breakdown I can offer:

- Once inverted, the downforce that normally pushes the car in to the track, would instead be pushing it in to the roof of the tunnel. It becomes "upforce"

- That up force simply has to exceed the weight of the car. At as little as 80mph the upforce is equal to the weight of the car. At 100mph the car should become stable as the upforce is now at around 1.5x the weight of the car. By the time the car hits 150, it's at least 2.5x the weight of the car.

- Lets say the car is travelling at 150mph then.. At that point, 2.5x the cars weight is pushing it upwards, so that means 1.5x the cars weight is available to serve no purpose other than to push the tyres in to the tunnel roof to enable positive traction.

- The car would have to have reached the target 150mph ahead of inverting, so all it requires is enough traction to maintain that speed whilst inverted - and 1.5x it's own weight pushing the tyres in to the roof is more than sufficient traction to maintain a constant speed. It would be different if it still had to handle like an F1 car on a circuit, but it doesn't, it literally just has to maintain 150mph in a straight line. It could do that with about 1/3 of it's normal power and traction, easily. Just like my car can maintain such speeds with 1/3 the power of an F1 car and virtually no downforce at all, other than gravity, which at 150mph the inverted F1 car would have already massively offset with the 'upforce' it would be generating.

- If you want to be really technical about this.. technically due to generating so much down/up force, the F1 car does encounter more drag than my car would. But it easily has the power to continue to generate the upforce to pin it to the roof whilst also maintaining the required speed to keep the upforce going.


dunc_sx

1,069 posts

145 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Autosport's explanation of the Michelin tyre issues at Indy

https://youtu.be/fIjw5gI3rKE

Dunc.

carl_w

6,304 posts

206 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
TheDeuce said:
Also 18 degree banked corner, 4.5m bottom to top smile
Hmmm, are these cars not 2.0m wide. That’s quite tight..
Surely 4.5m is the vertical distance, so only an issue if two cars are at 90 degrees about the roll axis to the ground?

With the bank angle 18° and the 4.5m vertical height (opposite) you should be able to calculate the track width using sin (18°)=4.5/(track width) to get a result in metres.

HardtopManual

1,263 posts

114 months

Tuesday 26th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Upside down airplane I can understand ie an aero devise clearing though air propelled by propeller or a jet. However having enough downforce /upforce while challenging gravity + traction for the tyres (as in the only point of forward movement), whilst upside down and not accelerating.. i don’t..
I'm not sure if you're trolling, but anyway...

You have no problem with a F1 car generating twice its weight in downforce at a given speed, correct?

Which means that, when driving upside down, the force pushing the car up into the inverted track is one car weight, as you have two car weights in downforce (actually, lift) and one car weight in... well, weight (mg)

One car weight is the same force that pushes the car into the ground when it is stationary, for example when it is on the grid.

Cars sitting on the grid have enough traction to launch off the line rather quickly.

Geddit?