Could lap times be maintained with half the downforce?

[Flavio Galtieri]

I don't know why I keep checking this thread....

The answer to the question is NO.

Anybody who can prove otherwise shouldn't waste time here but hawk their design around a few teams. They'll make a bucket load of dosh.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

I don't know why I keep checking this thread....

The answer to the question is NO.

Anybody who can prove otherwise shouldn't waste time here but hawk their design around a few teams. They'll make a bucket load of dosh.

Of course the answer is NO however it has still been a really interesting discussion and a worthwhile thread to have started IMHO. And with a bit of luck it'll go on for a bit yet.

[Adam43]

The answer is probably yes, but requires a change of rules not just a radical design.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The answer is probably yes, but requires a change of rules not just a radical design.

Agreed. You would definitely need most of the things (ABS, traction control, Stability control, etc) that take control of the car away from the driver.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The answer is probably yes, but requires a change of rules not just a radical design.

Agreed.

If the only limit in formula 1 was a max downforce limit, anything else goes, I do not doubt that they would lap just as fast as they do now

Would love to see a top level series where teams push the limits of technology for the best possible lap times.

We will see I guess, I do wonder what f1 cars will look like in 15-20 years time.

Open wheels? Open cockpits?

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The answer is probably yes, but requires a change of rules not just a radical design.

Ground effects? Apparently teams turned down the idea of going that route (on a more sane level than 1979-1982) a few years ago because it would be a drastic change.

[Adam43]

'Ground effects' would increase downforce so it may not be allowed by the tread title. It might be a more efficient way of generating half the downforce so could help achieve the aim of the thread title.

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

'Ground effects' would increase downforce so it may not be allowed by the tread title. It might be a more efficient way of generating half the downforce so could help achieve the aim of the thread title.

Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of the dependency of wing and winglet-generated downforce of today's cars.

[Adam43]

Certainly a more visually pleasing way of generating downforce than those winglets and add ons.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by IndyDonut

Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of the dependency of wing and winglet-generated downforce of today's cars.

Interestingly, one of the reasons that the regulations for 2014 avoided going down the road of 'ground effect' was because the aero boffins said that much the same efficiencies could be achieved using the current regulations. It was found that things like barge boards actually produce lots of downforce with very little drag. It was also found that the 'lower rear beam' on the rear wing was very draggy and so is not included in the 2014 regulations.

Good article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20640255

[Smurfer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

'Ground effects' would increase downforce so it may not be allowed by the tread title. It might be a more efficient way of generating half the downforce so could help achieve the aim of the thread title.

I probably could have been a bit clearer re title. I guess the governing thought was whether it would be possible to reduce the amount of dirty air in the interests of improving overtaking while maintaining lap times or at least keeping them in the vacinity whereby they are lower than other racing series by a reasonable margin.

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Interestingly, one of the reasons that the regulations for 2014 avoided going down the road of 'ground effect' was because the aero boffins said that much the same efficiencies could be achieved using the current regulations. It was found that things like barge boards actually produce lots of downforce with very little drag. It was also found that the 'lower rear beam' on the rear wing was very draggy and so is not included in the 2014 regulations.

Good article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20640255

Great point. So keep the barge boards, then (as awful as they look).

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Interestingly, one of the reasons that the regulations for 2014 avoided going down the road of 'ground effect' was because the aero boffins said that much the same efficiencies could be achieved using the current regulations. It was found that things like barge boards actually produce lots of downforce with very little drag. It was also found that the 'lower rear beam' on the rear wing was very draggy and so is not included in the 2014 regulations.

Good article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20640255

If ground effect is no better then allow it in the regs. Will be up to the teams to make it work, or choose not to use it.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

If ground effect is no better then allow it in the regs. Will be up to the teams to make it work, or choose not to use it.

It was thought that keeping the current chassis regulations would also keep costs down. And the other problem with allowing different chassis regs is that they'll always be those who think that the other chassis type has an unfair advantage.

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It was thought that keeping the current chassis regulations would also keep costs down. And the other problem with allowing different chassis regs is that they'll always be those who think that the other chassis type has an unfair advantage.

True. (See: Lotus 88, McLaren 3rd-pedal brakes.) *sigh*

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It was thought that keeping the current chassis regulations would also keep costs down. And the other problem with allowing different chassis regs is that they'll always be those who think that the other chassis type has an unfair advantage.

Parity in the regulations between the types?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Parity in the regulations between the types?

It's the part where the FIA says that the other chassis doesn't have an advantage and everyone, who can afford to, goes away and spends another small fortune on building the better chassis so that they all end up with the same chassis. And that, in a nutshell, is how F1 regulations came to be as they are.