F1 considering wheel arches for wet conditions

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

This is probably more in the realm of sci fi, but not as far fetched as it used to be, but if the primary issue is one of visibility then I would like to see the technology being one more focused on the helmet visor, some sort of HUD display, thermal imaging built in. Rather make it easier for them to see or identify the car in front of them.

I say less far fetched as we are already seeing wearables like glasses having built in thermal imaging capabilities at the consumer level. How effective that is in the rain and no doubt would be a steep learning curve for the drivers but also a more attainable solution then making significant and/or costly changes to the cars?

Interesting idea. One one hand I can imagine people shouting "no" as it is just another "driver aid", but on the other hand, I think it is just part of the future and where we should go. Imagine if they are able to know exact car locations (i.e. track boundary enforcement) then augmented reality assists in rain conditions could be done. It should be able to display in real time car locations in a driver HUD. Now it wouldn't stop other things like car debris (such as a wing, wheel, etc.) from just appearing out of the mist as those would not be geolocalized in real time, but it should be able to do quite a bit.

Richard

[broadrun96]

Every team must bring a 60s cigar chassis for each driver to every round in the event of rain. Rain falls and we switch to old school mechanical grip and DFV-based engined cars, no wings no aids just show for the rain braving fans

Ok so lap times will not be spectacular but it's all about the show right?

They could even bring bike wheel arches for sray

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

This is probably more in the realm of sci fi/I say less far fetched as we are already seeing wearables like glasses having built in thermal imaging capabilities at the consumer level.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/marke...display/TopMax / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay6g66FbkmQ

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard C

As to bits flying off. That really is no different than any other part of the bodywork that can be impacted by another car such as the front wing, etc.

A front wing will mostly contact the bottom of the tyre where it's is less dangerous. Any ways I would prefer to leave this part of the argument for what it is.

This goes back to the original issue of risk vs. reward. The problems this calls out, while frustrating to fans, is relatively rare. So the more invasive and disruptive the solution, the less it makes sense.

Perhaps I did not make clear enough that these devices (bargeboards) to direct the spray of the tyres away from the underfloor would only be mounted during races with a very high chance of high intensity rain. So if the problem would be rare, as you reckon, the drawbacks of the suggested solution are rare as well since they only occur when the problem is there in the first place. So the risk vs. reward argument does not hold ground in my view.

And when I say invasive, I mean that any type of significant aero changes (particularly at the front of the car) that tries to redirect spray away from the underbody, or elsewhere is going to significantly disrupt the existing aero optimization of the car. And that doesn't just mean the cars would be slower, they might be unsafe to drive at race speeds.

I don't see that unsafe to drive risk materializing for three reasons:

1 These devices would be designed in collaborations with the teams so their disturbance is minimized, known and designed to maintain aero balance of the car throughout it's speed range.
2 An unbalanced car is not competitive so team will dedicate a small percentage of their CFD/windtunnel time to optimize their package with these devices.
3 Say the car with these devices installed will loose 25% downforce, corner speeds would drop massively. Id the drive were to loose control the speed at which that happens will be a lot lower and so the consequences will not be as severe.

In fact, the low of downforce could even provide the best racing we've seen for ages...

As to the point of parts flying off. Trying to trap or redirect spray from the tires (such as the water squeezed out of the track/tire intersection toward the underbody) means spray shielding VERY low to the track surface. Can those be low enough to be both effective AND also not be regularly torn off by curbs, etc.

Yes, equal to the underbody edge to ground sealing being lowing enough to sufficiently seal the floor to create the low pressure zone underneath the car, without hitting the curbs al the times. Is is just a matter of having the right air flow regimes.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

A front wing will mostly contact the bottom of the tyre where it's is less dangerous. Any ways I would prefer to leave this part of the argument for what it is.

I think my point is twofold. If you are trying to intercept the squirt that comes out of the side/front of the tire, then you have to be right at that tire/track interface. And tires still have some compliance. So it will be a challenge to get the shield low enough to work and also not impact the track due to tire compliance. Riding inside of curbs may typically involve some contact further up the sidewall which again would be in the same area as a shield.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Perhaps I did not make clear enough that these devices (bargeboards) to direct the spray of the tyres away from the underfloor would only be mounted during races with a very high chance of high intensity rain. So if the problem would be rare, as you reckon, the drawbacks of the suggested solution are rare as well since they only occur when the problem is there in the first place. So the risk vs. reward argument does not hold ground in my view.

I don't get the logic here. I mean yes, the potential additional risk is only in those rare cases in which it rains so much that they declare fitment. But then in 100% of those cases you have increased the risk. If that logic is OK, then you can say it's OK to place an obstacle on a track for just one lap. One lap is a small percentage of the total number of laps. Overall risk may be low, but the risk for that one lap might be very high.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I don't see that unsafe to drive risk materializing for three reasons:

1 These devices would be designed in collaborations with the teams so their disturbance is minimized, known and designed to maintain aero balance of the car throughout it's speed range.
2 An unbalanced car is not competitive so team will dedicate a small percentage of their CFD/windtunnel time to optimize their package with these devices.
3 Say the car with these devices installed will loose 25% downforce, corner speeds would drop massively. Id the drive were to loose control the speed at which that happens will be a lot lower and so the consequences will not be as severe.

Technically doable, but a complete budget breaker. So not only do you have to develop and test your car to perform with a dry aero setup, you have to do the same for a bolt on wet package that is highly likely to not be small tweaks, but rather significant impacts to how the air flow (by definition given the level of deflection we are talking about). As actual on track testing is becoming more and more limited (we have two multi-day sessions pre-season). Is the idea that we would devote a day in each test for wet testing in which the track or portion of track is sprayed down for the entire field to test their potentially rarely used wet aero kit?

Even if you have the budget for it, even today teams still struggle with just one base setup. Mid season aero tweaks can sometimes be disruptive. I believe Mercedes was seeing a return of proposing at Spa. You could go nearly all season before you ask teams to fit the wet setup and then find out that some might have significant performance problems that bored upon driver safety concerns.

Richard

[chillibowl]

First off, love the back and forth guys. Everything a good debate should be. Pleasure to read!

Question…all things being equal, is more or less downforce better for racing in the rain?

I assume more is better but if this rain design leads to less downforce plus less aero downforce being generated as a function of the cars being slower in the rain, wouldn’t this solution of wheel arches make it more difficult to drive in the rain? Rather does improved visibility come with the trade off of less drivability in the wet?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

First off, love the back and forth guys. Everything a good debate should be. Pleasure to read!

Thanks. However I expect Taxi645 wants to stab me with a fork. Seriously, I hope people view this as back and forth discussion.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Question…all things being equal, is more or less downforce better for racing in the rain?

I assume more is better but if this rain design leads to less downforce plus less aero downforce being generated as a function of the cars being slower in the rain, wouldn’t this solution of wheel arches make it more difficult to drive in the rain? Rather does improved visibility come with the trade off of less drivability in the wet?

I think there are two topics...

1. Safe racing so that extreme rain events allow the race to proceed.
2. What is fastest

I think mostly we have been focusing on #1. For #2, I expect more downforce (or efficient downforce) is what you want either rain or dry.

I can imagine that with increased speeds (better performance) that the level of spray will be higher.

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Every team must bring a 60s cigar chassis for each driver to every round in the event of rain. Rain falls and we switch to old school mechanical grip and DFV-based engined cars, no wings no aids just show for the rain braving fans

Ok so lap times will not be spectacular but it's all about the show right?

They could even bring bike wheel arches for sray

I would watch it!

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I think my point is twofold. If you are trying to intercept the squirt that comes out of the side/front of the tire, then you have to be right at that tire/track interface.

Not necessarily. What is required is that the inwards part of the spray is not intermixed with the very turbulent low pressure air underneath the car. Doing it at the tire itself would not be practical for the reason you mention and because it could lead to water built up at the tire.


I’m talking about a sort of bargeboard placed further inside catching the air from the front and then turning it down and outside to prevent the spray to get underneath the car or close to the upward air current at the rear. These “bargeboards” would not need to be lower than the underside of the car itself because you can manipulate the air flow to seal of the bottom gap sufficiently. You would have to simulate what this does to visibility when passing. You don’t want people to drive into a wall of water when they pull alongside at 170mph.
I think this would work even better with narrow rain tires because with narrower tires you increase the distance between the floor and the underside so there is less intermixing and less spray is thrown up in the first place.

I don't get the logic here. I mean yes, the potential additional risk is only in those rare cases in which it rains so much that they declare fitment. But then in 100% of those cases you have increased the risk. [IMG]file:///C:/Users/cspro/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]If that logic is OK, then you can say it's OK to place an obstacle on a track for just one lap. One lap is a small percentage of the total number of laps. Overall risk may be low, but the risk for that one lap might be very high.

You’re sticking to it is risky for safety, which I disagreed with. I am saying, there is a risk of the cars then being slower during wet races only. A risk I find completely acceptable if the alternative is as now postponed and cancelled races.
The FIA and F1 seem to agree the issue needs to be addressed. So you may call it rare, but the powers that are, find it important enough to try and fix it.

Technically doable, but a complete budget breaker. So not only do you have to develop and test your car to perform with a dry aero setup, you have to do the same for a bolt on wet package that is highly likely to not be small tweaks, but rather significant impacts to how the air flow (by definition given the level of deflection we are talking about). As actual on track testing is becoming more and more limited (we have two multi-day sessions pre-season). Is the idea that we would devote a day in each test for wet testing in which the track or portion of track is sprayed down for the entire field to test their potentially rarely used wet aero kit?

The FIA normally enlists the help of the (computational power of the) teams for these sort of things. So every team knows about it and the solution is a collaboration paid by the FIA/F1. How they optimize for the chosen solution is up to the teams themselves (see below).

Even if you have the budget for it, even today teams still struggle with just one base setup. Mid season aero tweaks can sometimes be disruptive. I believe Mercedes was seeing a return of proposing at Spa. You could go nearly all season before you ask teams to fit the wet setup and then find out that some might have significant performance problems that bored upon driver safety concerns.

Richard

So what? One team might do worse than others in a wet set up, why should that bother us? They all had the same data going in, they were all were free to allocated a chosen percentage of their budget on the issue. Some will allocate more and others less, some will perform better, some worse. I don’t see the problem. Might spice things up a bit!



The safety part I addressed earlier.

[S griffin]

At least F1 is working on a solution to wet weather spray. We'll see if this is the answer they are looking for.

Personally I think F1 goes a bit far on the safe side in wet weather. I feel they need to let them race more in the wet. Wet tyres are hardly used now for example, when they should be doing their job. F1 will always have wet weather. Too often there has been not enough running in the wet. I just hope a solution is found so we can allow more racing in the wet

Of course F1 in the wet has it's dangers, so it's right to try and minimise the dangers, but we still shouldn't see an end to racing in the wet

Wet races have usually been fun. It can spice things up and make it more exciting and also spring a few surprises. But it hardly happens now. Let's see if we get a few wet races before the end.

[Sodemo]

I think generally speaking, the people that make these technical decisions don’t really know what they are doing, they seem to lurch from one disaster to the next and there is no joined-up thinking. Grooved tyres, then no grooved tyres, make the cars heavier, ok now they are too heavy, ok now make them lighter, increase the downforce, ok now massively reduce it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Not necessarily. What is required is that the inwards part of the spray is not intermixed with the very turbulent low pressure air underneath the car. Doing it at the tire itself would not be practical for the reason you mention and because it could lead to water built up at the tire.


I’m talking about a sort of bargeboard placed further inside catching the air from the front and then turning it down and outside to prevent the spray to get underneath the car or close to the upward air current at the rear. These “bargeboards” would not need to be lower than the underside of the car itself because you can manipulate the air flow to seal of the bottom gap sufficiently. You would have to simulate what this does to visibility when passing. You don’t want people to drive into a wall of water when they pull alongside at 170mph.

I might not be understanding what you are saying, but my suggestion was a mechanical barrier to redirect the spray itself (which I don't think will work well enough due to the issues I already called out). While it sounds like you are suggesting to create an aero device that is not close to the track surface (address the mechanical concerns I mention), but which generates enough aero effect to stop or significantly reduce the water that is evacuated mechanically out of the tire/track interface. That is a BIG ask. I suspect that is not doable without creating other problems. My argument is that it may take quite a bit of "wind" to redirect that spray at the speeds indicated. But lets say it was doable. I suspect to achieve that level of redirection just by aero means alone, it is likely to redirect so much air as to effectively starve the underbody of any real airflow and by extension most of the downforce.

Which brings up my other core point is that if you do such significant aero changes it will impact the overall aero concepts of cars and there is little guarantee this will not create significant handling impacts in what would be argued as the most challenging conditions. I call out the limited testing, impacts on cost caps, etc. which would hinder the creation of such a solution in a way that it would be both effective and safe, and you are doing some hand waving about CFD and the FIA providing solutions.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The FIA and F1 seem to agree the issue needs to be addressed. So you may call it rare, but the powers that are, find it important enough to try and fix it.

"Try" is a key point here. I think they have devoted some time and resources to this. I suspect (zero proof) that people in the know might have a general attitude of "simple solutions are unlikely to solve this, but maybe they will, so lets give it a try".

There is also a level of need to respond to the aggravations that fans have felt. They can either try or do nothing. You have a better story to fans to say "we tried, but it doesn't work" vs. "no need to try". And like I said, there was probably some level of "it might work".

I think it's worth a try to see if some relatively easy to implement and likely low risk (such as to aero balance) solutions are worth trying. But my predictions is... either those simple solutions will work enough to implement (so far they have not, but maybe some tweaks will improve things) and if they don't they will drop this and move on. They will not implement a complex and invasive solution as you propose.

I think there may be no significant solution that doesn't create other undesired side effects that might be worse than the problem they are trying to solve. This is acceptable because there is already a solution for this. Don't race in extreme wet conditions. And because it is rare, it is unfortunate, but acceptable.

Richard

[broadrun96]

Easiest solution, make the rain tyres worse and then they can't race when the spray would be too much or would have to slow and decrease the range of the spray with slower aero speeds.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Easiest solution, make the rain tyres worse and then they can't race when the spray would be too much or would have to slow and decrease the range of the spray with slower aero speeds.

Well there were the recent post Spa comments in that the full wets were useless. But the issue there was less about the tire and more that race control will not allow racing in conditions that require full wet. That they run laps to pump water off the track and then once it is more intermediate conditions let them race.

Richard

[broadrun96]

But then we would have a set of parameters that says this is too much and send out the support equipment to remove the standing water instead of the F1 cars.

Sometimes the best engineered solution is to NOT try to build a better mousetrap but rather admit it's outside of parameters for success

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

But then we would have a set of parameters that says this is too much and send out the support equipment to remove the standing water instead of the F1 cars.

Sometimes the best engineered solution is to NOT try to build a better mousetrap but rather admit it's outside of parameters for success

Or change the parameters.
If the present situation is because the present cars create too much spray, then engineer the regulations that enable the technology we have to build a formula that is not so dependent on aero and the situation would quickly change.
Tyres construction was acceptable in the 70's and 80's with wider tyres than we have now so stop playing around with degradation and build a better tyre.

Simply 'build it better' because we can.
We already have successful models, and the technology is old hat.
It is the entrenched views about what is 'important' that need to change.

[Adam43]

It was also more acceptable in the 70’s to race under conditions where drivers couldn’t see and the cars might aquaplane (which aero helps with). Safety wasn’t so important. There is more to the we used to do it that just the cars and tyres.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

It is the entrenched views about what is 'important' that need to change.

'Important'.? Very subjective. What is 'important' to you may not be 'important' to me or the teams or the FIA.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Or change the parameters.

Agree. The current spec is so aero dependent and the rule written with specific aero objectives in mind that it would be, IMHO, a challenge to implement a solution that is effective without causing other aero problems.

There is a similar discussion on f1technical.net which has some parallels to this discussion.

Richard

[S griffin]

Personally I don't think they need to change too much on the cars, just need to focus more on the tyres and the floors. Anyway must check out that discussion on F1 technical, thanks

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Personally I don't think they need to change too much on the cars, just need to focus more on the tyres and the floors.

Problem is the floor pretty much is the car.

[Wims]

Perhaps they should consider not having a wet tire. It seems like race control will red flag a race when the conditions are poor enough to run wets.

[chillibowl]

in fairness, the race was red flagged because there was an off and had there been a SC or VSC it would have taken several laps to clear the incident and inspect/repair the barriers which would have most likely meant the race would have finished under a a yellow flag.

all in all and given the timing of the rain with the number of laps left, my personal opinion is that they made the call right here.

for sure the delay was annoying tho but for me it didnt ruin the race.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in fairness, the race was red flagged because there was an off and had there been a SC or VSC it would have taken several laps to clear the incident and inspect/repair the barriers which would have most likely meant the race would have finished under a a yellow flag.

all in all and given the timing of the rain with the number of laps left, my personal opinion is that they made the call right here.

for sure the delay was annoying tho but for me it didnt ruin the race.

I understand why they have to throw the red flag when there are full wet conditions. The current generation cars run so low that they are unable to drive in wet conditions due to aquaplaning. This is why I don't understand the need for a wet tire. The cars can't run in those conditions

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

All in all and given the timing of the rain with the number of laps left, my personal opinion is that they made the call right here.

+1. OT: As to cars being unable to run in certain conditions I happily agree but with changing conditions depending on the rain and sometimes part of the track it will be very hard to have another rule for this. That's why I do understand the need of wet tires. IMO. (I remember some endurances held on long tracks, one half of the circuit was perfectly dry while the other was flooding.)

[TrapezeArtist]

This is an interesting discussion that I have only just come to. I've read through every post.

I do believe that something needs to be done to reduce spray, and if F1 came up with something that could filter down to other formulae, so much the better. I've raced in the rain (albeit in much more prosaic vehicles) and it's great fun if you are leading and can see where you are going. If you are in the pack, it's scary and not fun at all. F1 can't afford to wait until someone is killed before it acts.

I don't pretend to have any sort of solution to this problem except to say that it needs to be analysed carefully before a solution is found. How much spray comes out of the back of the tyres? How much comes out of the sides? How much comes directly from the floor? To what extent is droplet size a factor?

If, as a lot of people on here seem to think, much of the problem lies with tyre spray getting unto the ground effect area, then you will only solve it by changing the ground effect. Sliding skirts that isolate the two areas would work but would be subject to all the problems that got them banned 40 years ago. Attempting to achieve the same effect aerodynamically wouldn't work because subtle shapes and slots have such a large effect it would be impossible to legislate.

Going back 20 years or so, mudguards and mudflaps were introduced for lorries that had a "hairy" surface facing the tyres. They were a bit like a plastic door mat. The reduction of spray on motorways was huge and it was very obvious which vehicles had them and which hadn't as you came up to overtake. Perhaps there's a clue to a solution in there.

I doubt there is a solution to the problem that can be achieved by employing "sophisticated" aerodynamics. If there is a solution it will like come from the elimination of sophisticated aerodynamics, but that means winding the clock back 50 years and is hardly likely to be acceptable to organisers, teams or fans. Even then, the fact that spray is bad in 100cc karting means that it is a pretty fundamental problem.