Could lap times be maintained with half the downforce?

[Smurfer]

Hi all,

To improve the overtaking of F1 it's pretty clear that less downforce would assist. This not new to anyone. I believe the overall average speed and therefore lap times would need to be maintained in order to keep F1 at the pinnacle.

If we increased the width of tyres and increased power, could lap times be maintained. Obviously the answer is yes though the question then becomes how much extra power would be required. I have no idea.

No doubt this has been considered by the applicable working groups that came up with KERS and DRS so is not deemed to be the solution.

From a spectacle perspective I think it might assist. The wider tyres always looked cool to me. Extra power would continue to make the cars appear fast and continue the noise that I think appeals to a lot of spectators.

We could even standardise the aero a little to reduce the amount of focus and money spent in that area and instead change the focus to the powertrains by say limiting the amount of fuel. So the challenge will be to produce higher power using less fuel. This seems more relevant to the car market also....

I might submit my resume to the FIA right now

[wnut]

Easy

Lose the stupid KERS system.
Lose the ballast, at least 100 kg could be shaved off the cars weight.
Allow the axle loadings to be determined by the teams. (Currently only a 6kg variance allowed.)
Keep the DRS and allow them to use it throughout the lap.
Job done!

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I'm not skilled in aerodynamics but I believe much of the current laptimes being achieved comes from high corner speeds, and in order to achive the high corner speeds the cars need to be stuck to the track...that means downforce.

At the moment as I understand it F1 runs a not very aerodynamic (high drag) downforce configuration, but with the power of the engine still get to 200+ mph in a straight line.

How would you cut the downforce, by making the cars aero-slick which with current never mind more power and wider tyres - a bigger contact patch for the power to be applied through, would push cars even faster in a straight line?

Sure the wider tyre would give more mechanical gripp in the corner but it would never be enough to replace downforce.

If someone with more aero knowledge than me, is willing to correct my understanding, then please do I'm open to learning.

But I certainly don't think it's as straight forward as cut downforce, add power and make tyres wider.

[Marbot]

1985 Monaco pole position time with 1500 bhp = 1:20.450 Monza 1:25.084

2012 Monaco pole position time with 750 bhp = 1:14.381 Monza 1:24.010

Yes, I know the tracks are slightly different, and the tyres were made of wood back then, but it does give you some indication of just how much aerodynamics are governing the sport right now. An HRT isn't (that's wasn't) slow due to lack of power (perhaps 20 bhp down on others) or its tyres, it's just down to downforce. They have way more than half of the downforce of a Red Bull car, but are a long way off the pace.

[cerdic]

Interesting statistic Marbot!

I think aerodynamic downforce is destroying the spectacle of motorsport in general and F1 in particular. The standardisation of so much on the cars is dull as well. Yes I know it is done to control costs (like that has worked well....) but the days when some cars ran V12s and others flat 12s, V8s etc were far more interesting.

I'm not an engineer so I don't know the answer, but if some way could be found to massively slash downforce and allow more mechanical freedom it would lead to a more interesting formula.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by cerdic

Interesting statistic Marbot!

I think aerodynamic downforce is destroying the spectacle of motorsport in general and F1 in particular. The standardisation of so much on the cars is dull as well. Yes I know it is done to control costs (like that has worked well....) but the days when some cars ran V12s and others flat 12s, V8s etc were far more interesting.

Very interesting, but if your particular choice of engine was useless/withdrawn, you had very little to choose from with regard to other powerplants that would instantly slot into your chassis. This nearly caught Honda/Brawn out in recent times, and I think that perhaps a lesson was learned there. It was fortunate for them that the Mercedes engine wasn't a flat 12 or whatever, and you can't force an engine manufacturer to continue making F1 engines after it has withdrawn from the sport so that you can enjoy another season in F1 without fear of being left in the lurch.

Originally Posted by cerdic

I'm not an engineer so I don't know the answer, but if some way could be found to massively slash downforce and allow more mechanical freedom it would lead to a more interesting formula.

I don't think that it could be done without a budget cap. And even then, it would be difficult. You also will have the problem of F1 cars being slower than GP2 cars, but I guess the chop in downforce could be carried on throughout the FIA series, but not all series. F1 cars being slower than other cars is not really a problem for me, but for others it is the whole raison d'etre of F1.

To get the times back to current F1 lap times, you would need more power, but more power needs more fuel, and more fuel is weight, and weight saps power. You would also need more grip, but grip comes at the expense of tyre life, and aerodynamics, and..... It's a fine balance.

[Flavio Galtieri]

I think the simple answer to the question is "Yes" lap times could be maintained with half the downforce. I'm sure one of the boffins in a team could work it out since it is only a variation on the simulations they already do all the time, albeit an extreme example! It's just a power/weight/downforce/grip equation as others have pointed out.

Apart from the problems mentioned before, much more power needs more fuel, different tyre structures etc what I see as the deal breaker is the terminal speeds required on the straights. They would need to be quite astonishing even at tracks we currently consider "low downforce" and so really the safety aspect just stops the idea in its tracks.

A bit like the Indy situation really where once you get to 230 plus it needs reigning in through rule tweaks or you'll have a car in the stands.

[wolfhound]

To maintain existing lap times with reduced downforce will mean cars will be slower in corners but faster on the straight bits. By reducing downforce you will get a drop in drag as well that will gain some of that time back.
However braking distances will be longer due to higher top speeds, slower cornering speeds and less overall grip. The same will be true of the acceleration phase. The main area where the downforce loss would be seen is in the high speed corners. Somewhere like Monaco depends more on mechanical grip where Silverstone is all about high speed corners and therefore aerodynamic downforce.

[tristancliffe]

In the Red Bull Air Races I believe they are limited (for 'safety reasons') to +-10g. They have sensors that are monitored by the officials during the runs, and any over-g, no matter how slight or how brief, nulls a run.

So, just do the same for F1, but make the limit 3g, with a top speed limit too. The teams will soon revise their designs to minimise laptime under the new regs - encouraging innovation, maintaining a degree of safety, and giving us 10 years of excitement.

I should be FIA President

[Oldtony]

The past two years have really been a demonstration of designers making trade offs of drag v downforce.
Have a look at the sector times and trap times at various circuits for McLaren v Red Bull.
That has been the significant factor in the use of DRS. Perhaps making DRS available whenever useable by the driver would change the way teams designed cars.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

In the Red Bull Air Races I believe they are limited (for 'safety reasons') to +-10g. They have sensors that are monitored by the officials during the runs, and any over-g, no matter how slight or how brief, nulls a run.

So, just do the same for F1, but make the limit 3g, with a top speed limit too. The teams will soon revise their designs to minimise laptime under the new regs - encouraging innovation, maintaining a degree of safety, and giving us 10 years of excitement.

I should be FIA President

HA HA. Actually that's not a bad idea. The only problem I can see is the track, and therefore grip level evolves over the weekend and the grip produces the level of g-force.

With an aeroplane it's more simple since g-force is a factor of bank angle, so easier to regulate? It's not dependant on speed at all as far as I understand?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

The past two years have really been a demonstration of designers making trade offs of drag v downforce.
Have a look at the sector times and trap times at various circuits for McLaren v Red Bull.
That has been the significant factor in the use of DRS. Perhaps making DRS available whenever useable by the driver would change the way teams designed cars.

If you allow teams to use DRS at any time they will run more downforce and drag as they can shed it at any time, both cornering speed and straight line speed on what are now the non-DRS straights would go up and lap times would come down.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

If you allow DRS to be run at anytime and any circumstance, it ceases to become a overtaking tool, as every driver will hit the button at the same time.

We see this already where a back marker is just in front of the leader, This activates the leaders DRS, the second place driver is also in DRS range.
The back marker then get out the way leaving the 1st and second heading down a straight both with DRS open.

The result no overtaking, or even closing the gap. It would be as if DRS didn't exist.

I'm not DRS's biggest fan, but it's here, and has to be managed. The FIA just about have it right at most circuits.

[tristancliffe]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

HA HA. Actually that's not a bad idea. The only problem I can see is the track, and therefore grip level evolves over the weekend and the grip produces the level of g-force.

With an aeroplane it's more simple since g-force is a factor of bank angle, so easier to regulate? It's not dependant on speed at all as far as I understand?

The driver just has to back off a bit then! Another skill set - maximising the performance without going "over-g"

[Purist]

That's about as ridiculous as telling the Michelin runners to have a speed limit through the oval turn on the Indianapolis F1 circuit. It's antithetical to racing itself to just "back off". Drivers who do practice it will get weeded out of the lower formulae anyway. You won't be any good at racing if you're so tentative, and you probably wouldn't choose to become a racing driver in the first place if your temperament is that laid back.

I don't think maintaining current average lap speeds with drastically less downforce is a terribly realistic goal. It may be doable, but I have my doubts as to how reasonable it would be to attain that goal. There is, generally, more time to be gained in the corners than on the straights. Also, the squaring factor, when dealing with force and kinetic energy, is working against you if you're just trying to gain time by adding power to get more straight-line speed. Conversely, that squaring works for you when it comes to getting more downforce as you corner more quickly.

The better solution would seem to be to produce the downforce in a more efficient manner. Basically, go back to more undertray-generated downforce (have venturis, but no side skirts). I do think a boost in power would be a good idea though, to encourage somewhat lower downforce setups overall.

I would also look at having harder tire compounds, and ditching the requirement that you use one of each designated compound in a given race. Instead, have the two compounds, with one able to go the race distance in two stints, and the other able to go the entire race distance.

I would also drop the KERS requirement, and lower minimum weight to, say, 570kg or something.

Another thought I've had is that the Grands Prix should be longer in distance. More fuel weight will help keep race speeds a bit more under control. In addition, the longer duration will put some downward pressure on power output for the sake of reliability.

[Sodemo]

Widen the cars back to 2200mm and make the tyres wider like in the 1980's then you might get somewhere close.

[JeremySmith]

[spyder62]

You have to remember they have been taking aero off the cars for years but Newey and crew have been finding ways to get evenmore back. I'm all for wider tires and cars, adds drag and lowers top speed. Go back to wider and harder tires and make them look like race cars again and put the driver back into it.
A lot of today's speed is in the tires. I was at Lime Rock when David Hobbs broke one minute in a F5000 car with wings and that is now FV times with out aero.
rich

[wnut]

Originally Posted by spyder62

You have to remember they have been taking aero off the cars for years but Newey and crew have been finding ways to get evenmore back. I'm all for wider tires and cars, adds drag and lowers top speed. Go back to wider and harder tires and make them look like race cars again and put the driver back into it.
A lot of today's speed is in the tires. I was at Lime Rock when David Hobbs broke one minute in a F5000 car with wings and that is now FV times with out aero.
rich

The worst single decision ever made in F1 was accepting the OWT's (Overtaking Working Groups) recommendation to widen the front wings and go with moveable flaps on them. Originally the front wing had to be narrower than the inside of the front rims. Which prevented them generating quite a lot of down force and acting as fairings for the front wheels. Big mistake, huge mistake!

[neiltb]

I wouldn't care if they are within 10 seconds without the aero. The front wings are getting ridiculous with all the elements, give them 2 per side and make endplates a plate at the end of the wing, not something to hang small bits off.

reduce the downforce at one end and the other will sort itself out.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Widen the cars back to 2200mm and make the tyres wider like in the 1980's then you might get somewhere close.

How wide would the cars be with the wide tyres? Just asking, since many of todays F1 drivers don't seem to know just how wide the current cars are.

Originally Posted by wnut

The worst single decision ever made in F1 was accepting the OWT's (Overtaking Working Groups) recommendation to widen the front wings and go with moveable flaps on them. Originally the front wing had to be narrower than the inside of the front rims. Which prevented them generating quite a lot of down force and acting as fairings for the front wheels. Big mistake, huge mistake!

Well, not that big. The idea of the wider wings was to have an area in the centre part of the wing that was a neutral area that wouldn't be influenced by the diffuser or the rear wing of the car ahead. Apparently, this does actually work according to wind tunnel tests.

Originally Posted by neiltb

reduce the downforce at one end and the other will sort itself out.

Agreed. A small front wing would mean that the rest of the car would have to be balanced to it.

The 2014 front wings will be slightly narrower, but not by much. But there is still the necessity to save fuel under those regulations, so who knows what a 2014 front wing will look like.

[Dave Brand]

Is it just me or are we missing the point here? If lap times could be maintained with half the downforce currently available wouldn't everybody already be running with less downforce?

Downforce isn't a constant - different settings will be used at different circuits to obtain the best compromise between straight-line speed & grip.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by neiltb

I wouldn't care if they are within 10 seconds without the aero. The front wings are getting ridiculous with all the elements, give them 2 per side and make endplates a plate at the end of the wing, not something to hang small bits off.

reduce the downforce at one end and the other will sort itself out.

Best post in the thread, I wish I had a prize to give! The wide front wings, once thought to be the solution are now the biggest problem because the (so called) end plates are close to the outside of the front tyres which allows all sorts of aerodynamic "tricks".

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Is it just me or are we missing the point here? If lap times could be maintained with half the downforce currently available wouldn't everybody already be running with less downforce?

Yes they would. Which is why lap times couldn't be maintained with half of the downforce, if nothing else was changed.

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Best post in the thread, I wish I had a prize to give! The wide front wings, once thought to be the solution are now the biggest problem because the (so called) end plates are close to the outside of the front tyres which allows all sorts of aerodynamic "tricks".

It would be easy to add rules to ban end plate trickery, but you wouldn't be banning an awful lot with regard to overall downforce levels.

[Purist]

Spyder62, higher top seeds would actually help, by making the braking zones more severe/effective. One of the big problems we've had developing for some time now is that power has been cut at the same time as aero (partiucarly, very "dirty"/draggy aero) has been on a forward march. So, top speeds have dropped, AND cornering speeds have risen. This squeeze makes braking zones markedly less effective for overtaking, and reduces the speed differential between cars in the place where one can pull off the most straight forward pass: on the straight.

Derek Bell was interviewed shortly after the Allan McNish crash at Le Mans last year. His issue was with high cornering speeds, and the fact that they've added so many corners (many of them high-speed) at Le Mans over the years. However, he thought 240-mph, on a straight, wouldn't be such a problem.