DRIVER ADJUSTABLE FRONT WINGS

[JohnD]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am only interested in the ones that had side by side action and I can't recall any. The drivers and cars rely on good air and without it the car simply does not work and the drivers say they can't overcome that. Why do the cars need aero anyway? I have never seen a satisfactory answer to that question and going faster is not an answer as going faster does not necessarily guarantee a better RACE.

Bikes have no aero, absolutely none at all, and most bike races include side-by-side and overtaking by duelling riders on alternate corners. Is that proof of Casper's point?

John

[Casper]

They really have no idea....
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120277

Is Andrew Green really a technical director? Can he really not understand the issues which have led to this perennial problem? I wouldn't employ him if he can't. What I really think he is saying is they do not want to lose aero to fix the problem and he does not know how it can be fixed within the present design envelope of the cars. Newsflash Mr Green, change the bloody cars!!!

[chillibowl]

i imagine he knows what the issues exactly are in an objective way but you cant really expect the tech director from a midfield team to be the one leading on this issue, particularity when his team have other things more crucial to their survival to discuss (lower costs, engine prices, more prize money etc) when these few and far between strategy group meeting happen.

it is an impossible question though. if you spend 200+mil a year to build a race winning race car i cant image you are allowed to spend time or money discussing how to make things easier for the trailing car to pass you.

there is far too much money at stake for any top team to ever voluntarily give up the advantage gained while front running or running in front of their competitor.

hence why its probably not a good idea to let those very same teams make up the rules if the first place.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

They really have no idea....
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120277

Is Andrew Green really a technical director? Can he really not understand the issues which have led to this perennial problem? I wouldn't employ him if he can't. What I really think he is saying is they do not want to lose aero to fix the problem and he does not know how it can be fixed within the present design envelope of the cars. Newsflash Mr Green, change the bloody cars!!!

Agreed!

Take the front wings off, nothing in front of the front axle, keep the rest of the rules the same, and let's see what happens.

Forget the 5 second business, that is just pure rubbish! As Casper pointed out, lap time has nothing to do with racing!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Forget the 5 second business, that is just pure rubbish! As Casper pointed out, lap time has nothing to do with racing!

Yes and no. Faster or slower lap times does not impact racing. However it does impact the perception of F1 when compared to other similar series. If the entire field is slower than GP2 or WEC it would hurt the series.

However part of me finds the removal of the front wing very intriguing.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Yes and no. Faster or slower lap times does not impact racing. However it does impact the perception of F1 when compared to other similar series. If the entire field is slower than GP2 or WEC it would hurt the series.

However part of me finds the removal of the front wing very intriguing.

Richard

The idea of slowing F1 down is a minefield and they don't want to go there at all costs as it has a knock on effect that is too great to contemplate. As F1 lap times have decreased and the technology has been copied by the lower Formulae they have also decreased their lap times. To slow down F1 would require all the lower Formulae to be slowed down as well and that is a big problem, too big. To not do anything will ensure the category almost commits suicide. Then of course as Richard points out you have competing categories such as WEC and the management sure as hell does not want to be slower than them, I think BE would commit Hari Kari if that occurred.

I think they will come up with another gimmick or even resurrect some old ones like refuelling to add interest. I also suspect they are just about out of feasible ideas and don't really know what to do. On one hand you have the less knowledgeable screaming for faster lap times which clearly is not the answer and those same people telling us it is boring to watch. Faster lap times will equate to more boring racing and less passing, watch this space.

If they were racing around very long circuits then the increase in speed would not have a noticeable effect, something like half a Nurbugring for instance, give them more power and more aero and let's see who is brave enough to use it all. Another factor that has come to the fore lately is how much time managing the electronics is robbing from the driver's themselves and taking away their ability to plan and use the car in a better way to plan some overtaking or similar strategy. The bikes don't have all this stuff to deal with, throttle, brake, clutch and gear lever is just about their lot.

Engineers have driven this mania of electronic control. My son came home a few months ago and told me that the engineer who looked after his car wanted to put a new brake effort meter in the car for him to watch and judge how much effort he was putting into his braking. After I had a huge argument with the guy and pointed out a few facts he backed off and it did not happen. These guys at all levels are always trying to add crap to cars for their sake not the drivers or the spectators, just for the engineers and it is about time the brakes were put on. I will now get off my soapbox.

[wnut]

If you bin the front wings; 800 man hours a piece to manufacture I believe; gave the cars a 1000 bhp, drop the minimum weight to 400 kg excluding the driver, harden up the tyres so that they could take some abuse, and take the chicanes out of the straights.

I think you would find the lap time would drop, and the cars would be slower in the corners, faster down the straights, the higher speed differentials over a lap; between corners and straights; would create racing opportunities, and the cars would be less sensitive to turbulence because their major aerodynamic feature would not be as close to the car in front.

I think you would have a much better racing series.

[wnut]

http://www.pitpass.com/54413/Amalgam...scale-nosecone





Us aero fans can now buy a 12th scale F1 nose!

[wnut]

Mercedes new wing tweaks for those interested:

http://www.f1technical.net/features/...eedf91af57e30f

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Mercedes new wing tweaks for those interested:

http://www.f1technical.net/features/...eedf91af57e30f

I wonder how many million Euros/Dollars/Yen that cost.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think you would find the lap time would drop, and the cars would be slower in the corners, faster down the straights, the higher speed differentials over a lap; between corners and straights; would create racing opportunities, and the cars would be less sensitive to turbulence because their major aerodynamic feature would not be as close to the car in front.

I think you would have a much better racing series.

isn't that also the description of what DRS attempts to do?

whether there is more or less overtaking/better racing opportunities, i think the problem with the current system is that DRS deploys automatically and it mainly encourages pretty straightforward passes (mundane even) only at the end of straights.

going back to the question of the OP, a diver adjustable front wing seems to offer up similar opportunities while putting more control in the drivers hands. add to that the ability to adjust the wing at any point during the lap means you also encourage racing opportunities at every point on the track.

im not saying i prefer an adjustable front wing, rather im not sure how no front wing differs from the logic of DRS.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

isn't that also the description of what DRS attempts to do?

whether there is more or less overtaking/better racing opportunities, i think the problem with the current system is that DRS deploys automatically and it mainly encourages pretty straightforward passes (mundane even) only at the end of straights.

going back to the question of the OP, a diver adjustable front wing seems to offer up similar opportunities while putting more control in the drivers hands. add to that the ability to adjust the wing at any point during the lap means you also encourage racing opportunities at every point on the track.

im not saying i prefer an adjustable front wing, rather im not sure how no front wing differs from the logic of DRS.

The problem with the driver adjustable front wing is that it is in exactly the area that is most susceptible to the wake turbulence from the car in front.
The adjustable wing will let the driver achieve faster lap times, but will still be inefficient in turbulent air, so the closer you are to the car in front the less efficient the wing becomes. so it will not allow closer racing.
Wings are always more efficient in undisturbed air, adjustable front wings will not allow closer racing in corners, as they fail to work right when you need more downforce close to the back of a car in a corner.
Load shedding with DRS does work as it reduces drag when downforce is not needed.

[wolfhound]

Adjustable front wings are likely to increase aero costs for teams as the front wing is what the rest of the car is built around. If you introduce adjustable front wings that will send development down new routes to find the optimum for all wing positions.
At the moment front wings with multiple profiles do not appear to have much adjustabilty (although I have not seen a current front wing up close) as the wing profiles are so close together that if you adjust one it will have an effect on a lot of the other ones surrounding it.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wnut

The problem with the driver adjustable front wing is that it is in exactly the area that is most susceptible to the wake turbulence from the car in front....

thanks for the response

follow up question though, isnt the wake turbulence created from the rear wing/floor of the lead car?

from your explanation, i can see how removing the front wing makes that following car less susceptible to the wake turbulence but the problem of dirty air would still remain no? wing or no wing a trailing car will always under perform in dirty air relative to the car in front traveling through 'cleaner' air.

obviously no one solution will solve every problem...so just trying to wrap my head around this to understand what other changes (if any) need to occur in combination with removing the front wing.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

wing or no wing a trailing car will always under perform in dirty air relative to the car in front traveling through 'cleaner' air.

Not quite really, otherwise you wouldn't have cars able to utilise the slip-streaming (draft) effect to a) gain a few mph without any extra power and b) to reduce fuel consumption if desired. I suppose that it may be argued that by being in that particular "zone" that the following car is not in "dirty" air.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thanks for the response

follow up question though, isnt the wake turbulence created from the rear wing/floor of the lead car?

from your explanation, i can see how removing the front wing makes that following car less susceptible to the wake turbulence but the problem of dirty air would still remain no? wing or no wing a trailing car will always under perform in dirty air relative to the car in front traveling through 'cleaner' air.

obviously no one solution will solve every problem...so just trying to wrap my head around this to understand what other changes (if any) need to occur in combination with removing the front wing.

Basically what Mike said above, plus wake turbulence does not have a huge effect on mechanical grip, so the performance of the lead and challenging car is far closer! Can only help good racing!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JohnD

Bikes have no aero, absolutely none at all, and most bike races include side-by-side and overtaking by duelling riders on alternate corners. Is that proof of Casper's point?

John

It was quite interesting to see how fast Ducati were made to take the winglets off their MotoGP bikes, clearly the governing body has learned a bit from auto racing!

[wnut]

Gordon Murray's take on how to make the racing closer and better

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1...1-regulations/

[Casper]

That's fairly close to my thoughts, he only left one thing out, the telemetry, radios and those stupid steering wheels with buttons, switches and knobs on them. Limit the pit staff, electronics support etc and do not allow data streaming back to the team's base and all this gadgetry will die off as they won't be able to manage it with track side resources.

[Armco Bender]

F1 wings look ridiculous.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

F1 wings look ridiculous.

This is epic!

Seems to have lost the back suspension though!