Discussion
My son and I were havering a discussion yesterday about how the commentators have seemed to fairly recently make a big issue about wind at the tracks each race, blaming it for making a car go off the track be it from a change of direction or whatever.
I just can't see it making that much of a difference so please can someone explain to me how it does? As I see it these cars can go around following each other, in massive turbulence from the car on front (which I know affects performance but doesn't make them slide off the track) but a change in direction of a gentle breeze can all of a sudden, without warning throw a car out. I know race tracks can be notoriously windy but I need to be convinced that it can have such a massive effect on the cars. Please enlighten me
I just can't see it making that much of a difference so please can someone explain to me how it does? As I see it these cars can go around following each other, in massive turbulence from the car on front (which I know affects performance but doesn't make them slide off the track) but a change in direction of a gentle breeze can all of a sudden, without warning throw a car out. I know race tracks can be notoriously windy but I need to be convinced that it can have such a massive effect on the cars. Please enlighten me
One of the factors in F1 cars being able to corner at such speeds is downforce.
A change in wind direction from a head wind to a tailwind will reduce the downforce even with the same car speed over the ground. This can catch drivers out and they don’t leave much room for error (especially in qualifying).
A change in wind direction from a head wind to a tailwind will reduce the downforce even with the same car speed over the ground. This can catch drivers out and they don’t leave much room for error (especially in qualifying).
It's all to do with downforce. The faster the airflow over your front and back wings, the greater the downforce, the greater the grip and the greater the cornering speed.
If a car is driving at 150 mph in still air, the airflow over the winds is 150 mph. If it driving into a 30 mph headwind, the airflow over the wings will be 150 plus 30 mph i.e. 180 mph. So the downforce will be greater and the grip will be greater.
In a tailwind situation, using the same numbers, the airflow over the wings will only be 120 mph (150 less 30 mph). So aerodynamic grip will be reduced.
This doesn't matter that much on a straight but REALLY matters when the car is pitched into a corner. That is where grip is essential.
So, if you have high winds at a circuit, the car will encounter headwinds, tailwinds and all manner of cross winds as it completes a lap - so grip levels will vary massively throughout a single lap. This is made even more complicated in gusty or swirly winds where the windspeeds fluctuate and the wind direction may also fluctuate.
Trying to sort out a car set-up in these types of complicated wind conditions is not easy.
If a car is driving at 150 mph in still air, the airflow over the winds is 150 mph. If it driving into a 30 mph headwind, the airflow over the wings will be 150 plus 30 mph i.e. 180 mph. So the downforce will be greater and the grip will be greater.
In a tailwind situation, using the same numbers, the airflow over the wings will only be 120 mph (150 less 30 mph). So aerodynamic grip will be reduced.
This doesn't matter that much on a straight but REALLY matters when the car is pitched into a corner. That is where grip is essential.
So, if you have high winds at a circuit, the car will encounter headwinds, tailwinds and all manner of cross winds as it completes a lap - so grip levels will vary massively throughout a single lap. This is made even more complicated in gusty or swirly winds where the windspeeds fluctuate and the wind direction may also fluctuate.
Trying to sort out a car set-up in these types of complicated wind conditions is not easy.
WickerBill said:
makes a huge difference. an easy way to think about it, if you have a tail wind of 30kph, the car is effectively being along pushed into the corner...with drivers breaking right at the last second, any change of wind will mess up their braking points
Rather than it being the pushing force of the wind it the difference between a car airspeed and ground speed.Whenever you take a corner you have the physical mass of the car trying to carry straight on. The higher the speed, the greater this centripetal force.
On the mechanical side the only thing you have fighting this is the mechanical grip of the tyres which in a non-aero car just have the mass of the car acting straight down forcing them in to the track. As mass stays the same but centripetal force is the product of mass and velocity the grip force stays the same but the centrietal force increases with speed and eventually the centripetal force wins and you run wide.
If you add aero devices to the car the faster you go, the greater the effective mass of the car, so the more mechanical grip you have to fight the centripetal force - but they don't match each other in alinear fasion, so eventually centipetal forcec will still win out, just at a higher speed.
Now lets say you have a car with aero that can take a partiular corner at a max speed of 100MPH in still air/101MPH you start to understeer.
Take that same corner in to a 30MPH headwind and while your road speed/centripetal force is still the same your effective air speed is suddenly 130MPH, so you still only have the centipital force of travelling at 100MPH but the downforce, so mechanical grip of travelling at 130MPH. As a result you can actually take the corner at say 115MPH, before the centripetal force once more wins out over mechanical grip.
Take that same corner with a 30MPH tailwind though and your road speed/centripetal force is stil the same but your effective airspeed I only 70MPH so you actually understeer at 100MPH and can actually only take the corner at say 85MPH.
All things staying the same the drivers work out what's what during warm-up and know they can take corners A, B, and C a little faster than the day before, but have to take corners X, Y, and Z a little slower. The problem comes when the wind is swirling and changing direction. One lap you hit corner 4 at 100MPH in neutral air and know you've nailed it. The next lap the wind's shifted and you hit it again at 100MPH and know you're just crawling around it like a granny. The next lap you hit it at 100MPH with a tail wind and find yourself taking a trip onto the runoff.
Thanks for all the replies, they made for good reading. I aplreciate what you are all saying but I checked the winds peeps for Sochi yesterday and they came back at 6 knots, thats hardly 30mph so ehy do such small wind speeds affect a car so much where as a car half a second in front of them working the air enough to generate a couple of tons of downforce not pose the same threat?
Stellartois said:
Thanks for all the replies, they made for good reading. I aplreciate what you are all saying but I checked the winds peeps for Sochi yesterday and they came back at 6 knots, thats hardly 30mph so ehy do such small wind speeds affect a car so much where as a car half a second in front of them working the air enough to generate a couple of tons of downforce not pose the same threat?
When you are at the limit of the tyre, a change even in small amounts of grip can mean you lose control, it often depends on how wide the working slip angle of the tyre is as to how severe this loss of control is.When following a car, the drivers have already worked out the level of available grip expected so are driving within the window of grip, what tends to catch the drivers out is an unexpected change in conditions, where they are expecting a certain level of grip and it's gone to a point outside the working slip angle, so you lose control.
You get the same effect when a driver is too aggressive with the throttle, if they take the tyre load outside it's working range the tyre gives up rapidly, the modern radial tyres are far more like this, the old crossply's used to have a much wider working range, but were not able to provide the ultimate grip or carry as much load without going out of shape.
thegreenhell said:
It's the same reason why aeroplanes usually try to take off and land into the wind. It gives maximum air flow over the wings at reduced ground speed, otherwise they'd need much longer runways.
To add to this analogy, it's also why wind socks are used on runways. It reveals the hidden influence of the wind to the pilot.Obviously F1 drivers don't have the same opportunity so it's mightily unnerving if after several laps the wind blows in a different direction and the car behaves differently as a result. Not least if the driver has been gently pushing the grip limits of that corner to the final 1% and then they suddenly lose 5% of their downforce...
Stellartois said:
Thanks for all the replies, they made for good reading. I aplreciate what you are all saying but I checked the winds peeps for Sochi yesterday and they came back at 6 knots, thats hardly 30mph so ehy do such small wind speeds affect a car so much where as a car half a second in front of them working the air enough to generate a couple of tons of downforce not pose the same threat?
Six knots might not seem like a lot of wind, but if it goes around 180° then there’s a 12 knot difference, about 15mph. When the drivers can keep their cornering speeds to within 1mph or two over a long stint, a swing in the wind can and does make a big difference to the handling of the car. Even on a straight, if they go from a headwind to a tailwind they arrive at the next corner faster than they’re expecting to, and have to brake earlier than normal.
They don’t like a crosswind either, but especially not on a fast straight. The wind pushes the car sideways and they have to steer against it to keep the car straight, which scrubs speed.
The drivers are happiest if there’s little wind, or if the wind is steady and they can adjust to it. When it blows at a different speed or from a different direction every lap, it can seriously affect how far they can push the limits as they have to leave a margin.
Random thought...
People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
TheDeuce said:
Random thought...
People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
I still think they should lose the aero and use skinny tyres but keep the power...the spectacle returns.People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
Caddyshack said:
TheDeuce said:
Random thought...
People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
I still think they should lose the aero and use skinny tyres but keep the power...the spectacle returns.People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
TheDeuce said:
Random thought...
People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
I managed to get over to Barcelona for testing in February - first time I'd seen F1 cars on full chat for some time and what was remarkable was just how much they move about in the corners. I wouldn't say 'skittish' but they are certainly far removed from the 'on-rails' cars you see on TV which, despite all the super douper HD has the effecting of tuning out a lot of the on-edge stuff.People complain often about the missing spectacle of F1 these days, noise, wrestling the car and so on... The question asked by this poster demonstrates just how invisible the impressive side of modern F1 cars is. And they are impressive, they're insane really - the reaction speed required to keep them 'looking smooth' is near super human and the sheer grip would shock most people if they were ever to experience it first hand. Yet it's all invisible. There must be a way that the aero force could somehow be made visible and projected to the TV audience.
It would surely be exciting to be able to visualise that it's just air management that makes insane g forces through corners possible. Maybe a spec tell-tale deforming area of bodywork? Or an audible tell tale as air passes over a surface? Must be some way of demonstrating the forces at work.
Wind can make a massive difference to any single seater with aero . The best example I have seen first hand was a Formula Renault race at Croft
(back in the happy days when the UK had a decent single seater scene). A very strong , near gale force tail wind had sprung up between qualifying and race . I knew it wouldn't end well as the pack piled into the first corner, not with a 40mph wind buggering up your aero, and reducing your braking . Result ? Half the field in the gravel.
(back in the happy days when the UK had a decent single seater scene). A very strong , near gale force tail wind had sprung up between qualifying and race . I knew it wouldn't end well as the pack piled into the first corner, not with a 40mph wind buggering up your aero, and reducing your braking . Result ? Half the field in the gravel.
The cars are impressive - and so are the drivers. The problem is visibility. Apart from sheer speed - which is not always that obvious, especially on TV, watching Jim Clark horsing a Lotus 49 around 1967 Spa is way more dramatic than watch Lewis Hamilton nailing a corner at Sochi - even though both drivers are on the limit and both are extracting the maximum from their vehicles.
Airflow and "wind" has been a factor in designing racing cars since at least the 1920s. Basic streamlining techniques and stability add-ons (such as fins) began to appear post World War 1.
Using downward acting airflow to improve grip began to be recognised in the mid 1950s but didn't really "take-off" (in a strange sort of way) until the mid 1960s. In fact, some early tests of inverted wings and underfloor low pressure areas were experimented with in the 1920s and 30s.
It's now one of the key aspects of racing car design and is probably now too dominant.
Airflow and "wind" has been a factor in designing racing cars since at least the 1920s. Basic streamlining techniques and stability add-ons (such as fins) began to appear post World War 1.
Using downward acting airflow to improve grip began to be recognised in the mid 1950s but didn't really "take-off" (in a strange sort of way) until the mid 1960s. In fact, some early tests of inverted wings and underfloor low pressure areas were experimented with in the 1920s and 30s.
It's now one of the key aspects of racing car design and is probably now too dominant.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff