The Official F1 2021 silly season *contains speculation*

[TheDeuce]

jsf said:

CanAm said:

Brabham weren't the first in F1; they did it in the 1950s.

Refuelling has been part of racing since racing was a thing. The original races were what we would now call rallies, with multiple stops for tyres and fuel.

That wasn't for strategic advantage though was it? I think what was being discussed was the introduction of the practice to be faster overall, in spite of what was initially judged an unrequired pit stop. A little counter thinking..

The ideal solution has to be to create a race environment where winning positions can realistically be gained on track however, and not encourage or mandate fuel or tyre stops. I'd support and vote for that ideal to be attempted in F1 ahead of any other measures designed to increase a changing of the running order. That's why I'm very glad to see they have, since the start of 2019, made positive steps towards on track battles being more frequent and successful. And there is no denying it has worked so far.

If 2022 and beyond really does work out as well as intended then with a little further refinement tyres could become more durable again and DRS could be reduced or even removed. Seems a lot to hope for I admit, but that would be the ultimate purists dream I reckon.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 23 February 22:53

[TheDeuce]

jsf said:

TheDeuce said:

Yes but it's easier to explain it as pushing the car in to the ground as opposed to pulling it in to the ground - to someone that thought all methods of achieving downforce equate to the same level of drag and subsequently the same air wake disruption.

The current cars do generate GE as much as possible but it's still tightly limited by regs. The 22' regs look to loosen up the GE potential quite considerably.

Sorry, but this push pull thing is silly. Isn't it better to educate people properly rather than make stuff up?

Tell that to the motorsport journo's that try and break things down the same way!

I do agree with you of course - in an ideal world...

I'm not sure how well my point could be made on this forum by explaining the basics of venturi principle or coanda effect in detail ahead of simply pointing out what probably matters most to the person reading it - which is what it does and what it means in terms of an F1 car.

In this instance, the poster was chiefly concerned with the idea of limiting ground force to reduce drag and also dirty air. It seemed most appropriate to focus on the fact that there are different means of generating downforce, and that it will soon be permitted to generate more downforce via GE that will remove the present problematic side effects of chiefly aero derived downforce.

You're a fine one to talk. You'll disagree with someone abruptly and not even attempt to offer any sort of explanation until they politely beg you for it

[anonymous-user]

TheDeuce said:

That wasn't for strategic advantage though was it? I think what was being discussed was the introduction of the practice to be faster overall, in spite of what was initially judged an unrequired pit stop. A little counter thinking..

The ideal solution has to be to create a race environment where winning positions can realistically be gained on track however, and not encourage or mandate fuel or tyre stops. I'd support and vote for that ideal to be attempted in F1 ahead of any other measures designed to increase a changing of the running order. That's why I'm very glad to see they have, since the start of 2019, made positive steps towards on track battles being more frequent and successful. And there is no denying it has worked so far.

If 2022 and beyond really does work out as well as intended then with a little further refinement tyres could become more durable again and DRS could be reduced or even removed. Seems a lot to hope for I admit, but that would be the ultimate purists dream I reckon.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 23 February 22:53

They still changed tyres strategically, only fuelling at some stops.

[anonymous-user]

TheDeuce said:

Tell that to the motorsport journo's that try and break things down the same way!

I do agree with you of course - in an ideal world...

I'm not sure how well my point could be made on this forum by explaining the basics of venturi principle or coanda effect in detail ahead of simply pointing out what probably matters most to the person reading it - which is what it does and what it means in terms of an F1 car.

In this instance, the poster was chiefly concerned with the idea of limiting ground force to reduce drag and also dirty air. It seemed most appropriate to focus on the fact that there are different means of generating downforce, and that it will soon be permitted to generate more downforce via GE that will remove the present problematic side effects of chiefly aero derived downforce.

You're a fine one to talk. You'll disagree with someone abruptly and not even attempt to offer any sort of explanation until they politely beg you for it

I'd be here all week if i explained everything in detail to debunk false understandings. That's not my "job".

I think in the case of basics like downforce generation, most could understand pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body and how producing that via different devices have trade offs in efficiency.

[TheDeuce]

jsf said:

TheDeuce said:

That wasn't for strategic advantage though was it? I think what was being discussed was the introduction of the practice to be faster overall, in spite of what was initially judged an unrequired pit stop. A little counter thinking..

The ideal solution has to be to create a race environment where winning positions can realistically be gained on track however, and not encourage or mandate fuel or tyre stops. I'd support and vote for that ideal to be attempted in F1 ahead of any other measures designed to increase a changing of the running order. That's why I'm very glad to see they have, since the start of 2019, made positive steps towards on track battles being more frequent and successful. And there is no denying it has worked so far.

If 2022 and beyond really does work out as well as intended then with a little further refinement tyres could become more durable again and DRS could be reduced or even removed. Seems a lot to hope for I admit, but that would be the ultimate purists dream I reckon.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 23 February 22:53

They still changed tyres strategically, only fuelling at some stops.

I know. They took the same principle and applied it to refuelling. It's a team sport, I have no problem with the team winning a race due to perfect strategy in addition to the drivers efforts. I just don't think it's the spectacle people want to see - at least not to the point at which pit stops should be mandated or re-fuelling re-introduced simply to 'spice things up'. They're already making improvements in what can be achieved via overtaking on track, I support that way of thinking.

[TheDeuce]

jsf said:

I'd be here all week if i explained everything in detail to debunk false understandings. That's not my "job".

I think in the case of basics like downforce generation, most could understand pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body and how producing that via different devices have trade offs in efficiency.

The guy just wanted to know why F1 doesn't limit the level of downforce permitted as he'd heard it created drag and dirty air! Knowing that the incoming specs allow the creation of more downforce in a different manner pretty much answers the question/concern.

I'd be here all week too if I had to explain why it's wrong that most people think an airplane wing is pushed upwards due to its angle and direction air hits it, they don't understand that the leading edge and sectional form accelerates airflow above the wing and creates lower pressure and that unaccelerated air beneath the wing expands to equalise the pressure and pushes the wing up - 'lift'.

Then to try and invert that principle and add in the venturi effect extracting air to create low pressure beneath the car...

[anonymous-user]

TheDeuce said:

The guy just wanted to know why F1 doesn't limit the level of downforce permitted as he'd heard it created drag and dirty air! Knowing that the incoming specs allow the creation of more downforce in a different manner pretty much answers the question/concern.

I'd be here all week too if I had to explain why it's wrong that most people think an airplane wing is pushed upwards due to its angle and direction air hits it, they don't understand that the leading edge and sectional for accelerates airflow above the wing and creates lower pressure and that unaccelerated air beneath the wing expands to equalise the pressure and pushes the wing up - 'lift'.

Then to try and invert that principle and add in the venturi effect extracting air to create low pressure beneath the car...

The 2022 cars will have less downforce than now.

[TheDeuce]

jsf said:

TheDeuce said:

The guy just wanted to know why F1 doesn't limit the level of downforce permitted as he'd heard it created drag and dirty air! Knowing that the incoming specs allow the creation of more downforce in a different manner pretty much answers the question/concern.

I'd be here all week too if I had to explain why it's wrong that most people think an airplane wing is pushed upwards due to its angle and direction air hits it, they don't understand that the leading edge and sectional for accelerates airflow above the wing and creates lower pressure and that unaccelerated air beneath the wing expands to equalise the pressure and pushes the wing up - 'lift'.

Then to try and invert that principle and add in the venturi effect extracting air to create low pressure beneath the car...

The 2022 cars will have less downforce than now.

That has nothing to do with what you quoted.

EDIT: Sorry, in my above post I meant 'more' downforce via GE, not more downforce overall . To be clear I'm not saying the 22' cars will have more total downforce, just that they will generate downforce in a different manner.

I also doubt it to be true. They will have less aero downforce and should have greater GE downforce. By FIA expectations less total downforce overall, but I suspect that since the teams themselves were consulted on how the regs could work practically - at least one team will still deliver the same overall downforce one way or another. Or as near as damn it.

The point remains that F1 cars clearly require magnificent levels of downforce, and that in a bid to reduce the dirty air problem, the FIA have opened up greater levels of GE at the expense of closing off some avenues currently exploited to generate traditional aero down force.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 23 February 23:56

[anonymous-user]

All downforce is Aero downforce.

The fact the teams were involved in the regs doesn't mean some team will make the same downforce as now. I've been involved with helping the FIA via a teams/FIA committee to reduce overall downforce of GE cars that affected everyone. The main forcus was on helping them police it so us clever chaps couldn't do some of the tricks we did that they couldn't measure. That brought the GE and flat bottom cars closer on performance and kept the FIA happy.

[TheDeuce]

jsf said:

All downforce is Aero downforce.

The fact the teams were involved in the regs doesn't mean some team will make the same downforce as now. I've been involved with helping the FIA via a teams/FIA committee to reduce overall downforce of GE cars that affected everyone. The main forcus was on helping them police it so us clever chaps couldn't do some of the tricks we did that they couldn't measure. That brought the GE and flat bottom cars closer on performance and kept the FIA happy.

How would you term downforce that was not ground effect? I've always used aero vs GE but interested to know if you think there is a more widely accepted term?

I would have thought the teams input from all contributors would all be around 90% frank and around 10% self serving in how they present the practical ways the new intents could be achieved. With perhaps some teams having more influence than others and perhaps in the final writing of the regs one or more teams being chuffed that they presented their own input in a way that both shut off a competitors likely direction and at the same time opened up a little crack in the regs they could explore.

Clever gamesmanship aside, it's a major regs change upcoming... There is ALWAYS something in there to exploit that no one even thought about, at least not openly, ahead of the regs change. Just like Merc with their DAS. It wasn't regulated in advance as no one had questioned that area of the regs until Merc did themselves - no doubt supremely confident at that stage that the existing regs definitely didn't disallow such a system.

[anonymous-user]

The case of the double diffuser in 2009 shows that teams do highlight an issue which will produce a deficit. If the FIA then don't write that into the rules then that will be exploited by the team who understood it and highlighted it at the time. That's not the same thing as what you are suggesting.

In the case of the new cars, all the teams want closer racing with overtaking and have helped build regs to reduce downforce significantly. Of course their job now is to maximise those rules.

Aero is just aero, all an old school ground effect car was is the use of the main bodywork of the car as a wing profile. To maximise that wing you want to seal the sides to stop the pressure difference escaping (it does the same job as the lower part of the wing sideplate). The ground effect is a different thing to this, that is the effect found when you choke the entry relative to the exit, so you get an airflow increase above that of a similar shape not so close to the ground. It's still just about generating a speed of air difference and therefor pressure difference and preserving that as far along the body as possible.

What you find with an 80's GE car is you need a higher ride height than a flat bottom car, you get more downforce by making the tunnels bigger, running them too close to the ground loses you airflow through the choke point so you generate less downforce and the car becomes more pitch sensitive. You see a lot of GE cars slammed to the ground like a flat bottom car, it doesn't work. I ran the same car in GE and flat bottom config as it was built and used in 82 and 83, using the 83 spec aero the car ran as low as the regs would allow at 40mm, the 82 car was sat at 75mm.

Look at some period video of the GE cars, they look like they are on stilts.

[TheDeuce]

jsf said:

The case of the double diffuser in 2009 shows that teams do highlight an issue which will produce a deficit. If the FIA then don't write that into the rules then that will be exploited by the team who understood it and highlighted it at the time. That's not the same thing as what you are suggesting.

In the case of the new cars, all the teams want closer racing with overtaking and have helped build regs to reduce downforce significantly. Of course their job now is to maximise those rules.

Aero is just aero, all an old school ground effect car was is the use of the main bodywork of the car as a wing profile. To maximise that wing you want to seal the sides to stop the pressure difference escaping (it does the same job as the lower part of the wing sideplate). The ground effect is a different thing to this, that is the effect found when you choke the entry relative to the exit, so you get an airflow increase above that of a similar shape not so close to the ground. It's still just about generating a speed of air difference and therefor pressure difference and preserving that as far along the body as possible.

What you find with an 80's GE car is you need a higher ride height than a flat bottom car, you get more downforce by making the tunnels bigger, running them too close to the ground loses you airflow through the choke point so you generate less downforce and the car becomes more pitch sensitive. You see a lot of GE cars slammed to the ground like a flat bottom car, it doesn't work. I ran the same car in GE and flat bottom config as it was built and used in 82 and 83, using the 83 spec aero the car ran as low as the regs would allow at 40mm, the 82 car was sat at 75mm.

Look at some period video of the GE cars, they look like they are on stilts.

Nothing to add to the above

I could further refine what I have said vs what you have further refined etc etc.

Tbh, I think the time we spend across 3 hours of forum exchange could easily be compressed in to about 3 minutes of 'pub exchange' if that were possible these days

We haven't disagreed about anything and we're quite off topic and I think we might have killed this already out of date thread

[anonymous-user]

Hopefully things continue to improve and a beer in a pub is possible soon.

[CanAm]

[quote=TheDeuce]

That wasn't for strategic advantage though was it? I think what was being discussed was the introduction of the practice to be faster overall, in spite of what was initially judged an unrequired pit stop. A little counter thinking.[/b]

Fangio, German GP, 1957. Planned Strategic stop.
Plus 1950/51 the s/c 1.5 litre cars would refuel while the n/a 4.5 litre cars would run to the end.

[Teddy Lop]

jsf said:

Hopefully things continue to improve and a beer in a pub is possible soon.

I was thinking its about time you dropped the abrasiveness and asked him out.

[anonymous-user]

Teddy Lop said:

I was thinking its about time you dropped the abrasiveness and asked him out.

[kiseca]

TheDeuce said:

Yes but it's easier to explain it as pushing the car in to the ground as opposed to pulling it in to the ground - to someone that thought all methods of achieving downforce equate to the same level of drag and subsequently the same air wake disruption.

The current cars do generate GE as much as possible but it's still tightly limited by regs. The 22' regs look to loosen up the GE potential quite considerably.

If that someone you're referring to is me, you've completely misunderstood what I was suggesting.

[TwentyFive]

The most simple thing to do to spice up the racing would be to ban the teams using their race simulation equipment.

They would be far less clued up on how the race will play out and we would see a wider range of approaches as a result.

It would make races far less predictable and all without adding any false gimmicks such as DRS.

[anonymous-user]

TwentyFive said:

The most simple thing to do to spice up the racing would be to ban the teams using their race simulation equipment.

They would be far less clued up on how the race will play out and we would see a wider range of approaches as a result.

It would make races far less predictable and all without adding any false gimmicks such as DRS.

If i can manage to do the strategy for a 6 hour race on a piece of paper then manage that as events on track unfold, i am sure the brains in the strategists on the prat perch could manage a simple GP.

[TheDeuce]

Teddy Lop said:

jsf said:

Hopefully things continue to improve and a beer in a pub is possible soon.

I was thinking its about time you dropped the abrasiveness and asked him out.

I'm a happily married man! Although after a year of lockdowns and home working she has suggested it'd be great if I pissed off out the house more often...