[Tech Issue] The lack of proper aerodynamic changes/F-Duct [HUGE MERGE]

[jab]

I will define them

"Good racing" - the possibility of overtaking and wheel-to-wheel racing, as on a par with GP2

"Reasonable cost" - if a top driver can run his own team, as in NASCAR, it's reasonable enough

"Good aesthetics" - a car that most fans would agree looks, both standing still and on the move. It's quite subjective, though, as far as the cars themselves go -as I've already said, I suggest it should look like the rough dimensions of the GP3 car as that's quite simple and in proportion - whilst on the move a bit of sideways action and some sparks would be nice. Sound is important too but not a major factor. As my suggestion is for the cars to use road car-based engines, it's restricted

[Purist]

Big powerful cars with minimal aero sounds like Can-Am, but those cars were dangerously pitch sensitive. Just ask the drivers about going over those brows at Road Atlanta, Mosport, and Mt. Tremblant, and sometimes going nose over tail.

I know that the cars, even trimmed out, can still make a few thousand pounds of downforce at 200-210mph. However, the issue is that they're making only, say, 3,000lb of downforce, instead of 5,000lb, while going at that same speed.

BTW, does anyone have a rough L/D figure for relatively current F1 cars?

[Purist]

Turn 1 at Hockenheim (pre-2002) was at the end of the 180-mph pit straight, and was taken at 110-120mph, and that's NOT a "real" corner? BULL! And the turn that led into the old stadium complex was at the end of a 200-205mph straight, and was taken at 120-130mph; that qualifies as a "real" corner as well, period. So, you have TWO critical, high-speed corners that did NOT screw up racing for F1 at that circuit.

I think one thing that may hurt Monza over the old Hockenheim is that the first two chicanes at Monza are more abrupt than the chicanes at Hockenheim were. This broke up the flow that little bit more, but also significantly amplified the accordion affect compared to what you had with Hockenheim. The first and third chicanes at Hockenheim were about 70-mph, and the second was about 60-mph. The first chicane at Monza is around 45-mph, and the second is about 55-mph (those curbs keep the drivers a little more in line now). Of course, if the time interval is roughly the same, the percentage change in distance between cars at those lower speeds is greater. If you guys will remember, when F1 was at Indy, they would come out of the slow Turn 11, and the guy in front would look like he just sprang away from the guy following. The slipstream might draw the guy behind back up on the leader's tail a bit going down the front stretch, but then, when they braked for Turn 1, it looked like the guy behind was positively charging on the guy in front, even though the time interval remained little changed.

Interlagos has several, critical, high-speed corners, and they do NOT ruin the racing at that circuit. In particular, you have Curva do Sol, the double-left at Descida do Lago, the double-right at Ferradura, and the tricky, downhill left at Mergulho. Spa is the same. Aside from Rivage, Bus Stop (not really the Bus Stop anymore is it), and La Source, you don't drop below 100-mph at Spa on a dry lap.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Purist

The trouble is, what is "good racing", or "reasonable cost", or "good aesthetics"?

I'll have a go at defining them.

Good racing - a car that is faster than another car should be able to overtake it, and there should be some wheel to wheel racing. The sport should be exciting, unpredictable and credible.
Reasonable cost - Thirteen teams should be able to continue racing at reasonable levels without resorting to pay drivers.
Good aesthetics - An appearance that looks like a racing car in the eyes of the public in the general style that we've seen since the late 80s. Things that would make the cars look better, in my opinion, would be wider track (190cm, not 200cm like some propose), wider bodywork, two inch larger rear wheel rims and a ban on aero devices other than the front and rear wings and the diffuser/undertray.

[wnut]

The real point is F1 has done aero to death.
Wake turbulence kills racing!
Lets drop aero like active suspension, exotic materials, aero the first time in 1968, movable and deformable wings, hub mounted wings, air brakes, fan cars, double chassis cars, six wheeled cars, turbos, electronic driver aids, forward seating, refeuling, exotic engine configurations etc.

We have a precedent for banning technology and it is time to move on! racing is about innovation and it is time to let go of aero! It is also undoubtedly the single most expensive aspect of F1 racing!

This thread is nearly indistiguishable from the what's wrong with the Bahrain GP thread!

regards

wnut

Nothing screams like a vested interest and nothing resists change like a vested interest. I think Adrian has the best wind tunnel in F1 and the results are plain to see.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Matt

Strip off all the wings and make them hilariously over-powered Formula Ford's. You wanna see the best drivers in the world, you got it right there.

Perfect Lotus 49 on slicks! We had them and they were awesome!

With better safety standards better material and other innovations they would indeed be awesome again.

Racing would again be the order of the day and the driver would be at least as important as the wind tunnel!

Regards

wnut

[Dutton]

The only real solution to the aero-problem is standard bodywork/wings/diffusers.

I really like how the teams can do their own approaches, and would rather this was more open to different designs; I would also rather like the cars to be able follow/race a lot better.

This is the unsolvable dichotomy that majority of us face, I believe. We want both things to be able to exist together: different looking cars which can also race really well. In the modern world that means we want greater aerodynamic design freedom, but at the same time have reduced negative aero by-products.

It just cannot be achieved.

If you want the aero problem addressed properly, the only option is standardised aero; if you want freedoms, then you accept that the aero related negative things are not going to go anywhere.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It's perfectly possible to have good racing without getting rid of downforce. Cars always generate a lift, 'positive' or 'negative'. Without diffusers and wings cars could well generate a positive lift (just as the pre-1967 Formula 1 cars did), causing cars to get more grip in a slipstream and hence making overtaking very easy. That would be wrong in my opinion, because in the ultimate drivers' championship overtaking should require driving skills.

How does parading around in a car that has more horsepower or efficient aerodynamics than the others i.e. he who has the most downforce is guaranteed to win equate to driver skill.

If Red Bull had the Mercedes engine the chmpionship would be over!

I believe the teams know enough about aero to prevent the cars generating lift without a wing.

However I still fail to see how the present parade system is driver skill and the early 60s were not! That was racing remember the next lap the advantages to you as the overtaking driver are now suddenly conferred on the driver you have just overtaken.

Maintaining a 3 sec gap because of wake turbulence is not driver skill!

Regards

wnut

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Dutton

The only real solution to the aero-problem is standard bodywork/wings/diffusers.

I really like how the teams can do their own approachs, and would rather this was more open to different designs; I would also rather like the cars to be able follow/race a lot better.

This is the unsolvable dichotomy that majority of us face, I believe. We want both things to be able to exist together: different looking cars which can also race really well. In the modern world that means we want greater aerodynamic design freedom, but at the same time have reduced negative aero by-products.

It just cannot be achieved.

If you want the aero problem addressed properly, the only option is standardised aero; if you want freedoms, then you accept that the aero related negative things are not going to go anywhere.

Standard aero still results in wake turbulence and the cars can't follow closely so there is still no overtaking!!

Standardisation is also against what F1 is about.

The only answer is to dump the aero, or run a standard wing that is so inefficient that it can not be allowed to generate any downforce due to the drag penalty hence you run it neutral ( no wake turbulence) as as a sponsor billboard and nothing else.

Racing will be better off with no aero!


Rgds

wnut

[Dutton]

Well, aerodynamics is always going to exist in F1.

Aerodynamics is an inherent and unavoidable characteristic of objects moving in a non-vacuum environment. You cannot "dump aero": it is quite literally impossible, unless you intend to race in outer-space (OK, that is technically not a pure vacuum...as close as we can get, however). Well, maybe we could cover the race venues in an air-tight dome, then apply huge vacuum pump things to suck as much air out of the dome as possible, in order to give us the best vacuum environment we could achieve: the best we could every get would be about 1/10th the vacuum of outer-space, but that is really very vaccuum like in the grand scheme.

The only way to not have the highly refined aero forms we currently have in F1 is to be very specific in the way the bodies of the cars/wings/diffusers are to be designed.

I believe the above paragraph is what you mean by "dumping aero". This is the standardised aero I was meaning. We mean the same thing.

[Purist]

Indy Cars have proved for several years now that those who watch "top-level", open wheel racing will NOT be turned on by standardized/spec cars, period.

There has been racing, and some darn good racing, with significant aero, for multiple decades. And after reviewing some items from the 1994 CART season, if Nigel Mansell is any indication, the drivers themselves are playing at least as large a role as anything else as to why the racing is so poor. The culture of F1 drivers is NOT to push as hard outright on track during the races as in many other forms of motorsport, and we are seeing the results of that.

When Mansell dove in too deep in Turn 1 at New Hampshire, slid wide, and took Mario Andretti out of the race, he subsequently blamed Mario entirely for the incident and cut off his personal ties with the 1978 World Champion. When Mansell made an ill-advised dive into the last real corner at Vancouver, on the final lap, he ended his and Emerson Fittipaldi's races within sight of the finish. Mansell wanted to get into fisticuffs with Emmo, even though it was a stupid, over-zealous move that he tried to make on the 1972 and '74 World Champion.

And a further note on the driver culture is that, it's only been within the last 10 years that all this talk about it being "hard to overtake' has come about. I don't think that's a coincidence. The F1 drivers aren't taking the risks they used to, and they seem to get unjustifiably ticked off when any real risks they do take backfire on them.

Wnut, the rules no longer allow for innovation. if it isn't specifically written into the rules, it's either on the banned list, or you have to run it by the technical committe for approval. So, like i said, there is no longer room for real innovation in F1 anymore.

I will agree that I don't want traction/launch control, anti-lock brakes, automatic gearboxes, pit-to-car telemetry adjustments, or electronic stability control.

However, I don't want all the engines to sound alike, so I would VERY much enjoy turbos and other cylinder arrangements being allowed again. I see nothing wrong with permitting six-wheelers again either. And i think movable wings and full undertray tunnels would be cool to have brought back; I think sucker cars and side skirts are a touch too far though.

Well, I think that carbon fiber, kevlar, titanium, aluminum honeycomb, etc are all exotic materials; we should just make the cars out of iron and/or steel from now on (sarcasm alert!).

Magnesium is probably best left to other applications though.

If rougher tracks improve the racing, we'll NEED active suspensions again to keep the cars aerodynamically stable; a wide, low, flat-bottomed, formula car produces a small ground effect even without wings, diffusers, or anything else aiding downforce. As Dutton said, you CANNOT get away from aerodynamics unless you literally race in a vacuum, period.

[Dutton]

Um, you are proving your point of F1 drivers not taking risks by the examples of a former F1 champion taking crazy risks?

Is it me?

[Purist]

The examples were to illustrate the attitude that is present. Besides, to the driver, they aren't crazy risks if he doesn't think they are at the time, or Mansell just figured the other guys should have just gotten out of his way.

I suppose you could say that what we have now is an evolution of that attitude in how it is now manifested. The drivers used to get P.O.'d when they took risks and it backfired, and have now learned to expect that response within themselves. So, now they have learned to simply not take the risks in the first place, and thus avoid those negative consequences altogether.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Purist

Indy Cars have proved for several years now that those who watch "top-level", open wheel racing will NOT be turned on by standardized/spec cars, period.

There has been racing, and some darn good racing, with significant aero, for multiple decades. And after reviewing some items from the 1994 CART season, if Nigel Mansell is any indication, the drivers themselves are playing at least as large a role as anything else as to why the racing is so poor. The culture of F1 drivers is NOT to push as hard outright on track during the races as in many other forms of motorsport, and we are seeing the results of that.

When Mansell dove in too deep in Turn 1 at New Hampshire, slid wide, and took Mario Andretti out of the race, he subsequently blamed Mario entirely for the incident and cut off his personal ties with the 1978 World Champion. When Mansell made an ill-advised dive into the last real corner at Vancouver, on the final lap, he ended his and Emerson Fittipaldi's races within sight of the finish. Mansell wanted to get into fisticuffs with Emmo, even though it was a stupid, over-zealous move that he tried to make on the 1972 and '74 World Champion.

And a further note on the driver culture is that, it's only been within the last 10 years that all this talk about it being "hard to overtake' has come about. I don't think that's a coincidence. The F1 drivers aren't taking the risks they used to, and they seem to get unjustifiably ticked off when any real risks they do take backfire on them.

Wnut, the rules no longer allow for innovation. if it isn't specifically written into the rules, it's either on the banned list, or you have to run it by the technical committe for approval. So, like i said, there is no longer room for real innovation in F1 anymore.

I will agree that I don't want traction/launch control, anti-lock brakes, automatic gearboxes, pit-to-car telemetry adjustments, or electronic stability control.

However, I don't want all the engines to sound alike, so I would VERY much enjoy turbos and other cylinder arrangements being allowed again. I see nothing wrong with permitting six-wheelers again either. And i think movable wings and full undertray tunnels would be cool to have brought back; I think sucker cars and side skirts are a touch too far though.

Well, I think that carbon fiber, kevlar, titanium, aluminum honeycomb, etc are all exotic materials; we should just make the cars out of iron and/or steel from now on (sarcasm alert!).

Magnesium is probably best left to other applications though.

If rougher tracks improve the racing, we'll NEED active suspensions again to keep the cars aerodynamically stable; a wide, low, flat-bottomed, formula car produces a small ground effect even without wings, diffusers, or anything else aiding downforce. As Dutton said, you CANNOT get away from aerodynamics unless you literally race in a vacuum, period.

I don't know if you caught the Indycar race from Sao Paulo, but that track was bumpy as HELL, and put on a FANTASTIC race, and none of the cars had active suspension.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Dutton

The only real solution to the aero-problem is standard bodywork/wings/diffusers.

I really like how the teams can do their own approaches, and would rather this was more open to different designs; I would also rather like the cars to be able follow/race a lot better.

This is the unsolvable dichotomy that majority of us face, I believe. We want both things to be able to exist together: different looking cars which can also race really well. In the modern world that means we want greater aerodynamic design freedom, but at the same time have reduced negative aero by-products.

It just cannot be achieved.

If you want the aero problem addressed properly, the only option is standardised aero; if you want freedoms, then you accept that the aero related negative things are not going to go anywhere.

Exactly. And I think (a lot) more people are interested in racing than aero

[Wims]

I think most of the suggestions here are terrible suggestions, maybe you guys that talk about "banning aero" should watch some other sport instead of trying to ruin it for those that likes F1. I think touring cars might be good, there's overtakings, reckless drivers and brick-like aero!

[Marbot]

Tony Purnell (Ex-FIA,Jaguar).

“The root cause is that the cars are not good racing cars,” opined former Jaguar Racing team principal and FIA technical consultant Tony Purnell, who before leaving his post earlier this year, was one of the lynchpins of ex-FIA President Max Mosley's failed bid to impose a £40 million budget cap upon all teams in the top flight.

“The formula is badly-designed, [and] the will to please the public really isn't there. The sad thing is that there are solutions, but no-one is really brave enough or forceful enough or probably convinced enough that they will do anything about it. When they look at the politics of change they all just groan and say, 'Well, I don't want to fight that battle'.”

He's probably right.

F1 is like an expensive £100,000 watch. It attracts attention and gets all the 'wow' factor, but if it isn't doing the job as well as a £2 Cassio.............

[jab]

He is right

But he's an ally of Mosley so he must be wrong

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Marbot

F1 is like an expensive £100,000 watch. It attracts attention and gets all the 'wow' factor, but if it isn't doing the job as well as a £2 Cassio.............

Selby

[Alex Hodgkinson]

I'm going to throw a new idea out here now; I propose that the tyres may be providing so much grip that they're stifling the racing. Let me explain:

Consider each of the factors that make a racing car do it's thing; namely power, aero grip and mechanical grip.

We can discount the power aspect as something that effects racing 'quality.' Cars in the past have raced with 50bhp up to 1500bhp, as long as all the cars on track are in the same sort of area the average bhp per car is not something which effects on track action as a whole.

In the past racing series have existed quite happily with far more downforce, and they all provided the drivers with the posibility to closely follow the car infront. Some examples are - F1 circa early 90's, CART mid 90's, IMSA GT (1991-1993) and the World Sportscar Championship (1990-1992.) These series in the timeframes mentioned all ran grids of cars producing more downforce than the current crop of F1 cars. Fact. So, for this argument I'm going to discount aero as a factor.

Mechanical grip, however is something which has seen constant rapid development throughout the history of motorsport. Take the last ten years of F1 for example, tyres were/are the single biggest contributer to the lap records being broken on a regular basis. What this says to me is that the only thing that has *really* been improved in F1 over the last 20 years is the mechanical grip of the cars, through the tyres grip coefficients. At the same time, over these last 20 years we've seen the racing become increasingly dull.. is that just a coincidence? I think not. A tyre with more grip will provide the driver with more room for error and not spit them off at the first sign of a mistake. Also consider that at low speeds - where most overtaking has always happened - is when tyre grip is doing all the work and aero is adding little to the vehicle. So these better tyres are making the cars far too manageable at low speeds, reducing out wheelspin, lockups and low speed four wheel drifts, all of those things if they were happening would provide a chance for a following car to have at least a go at overtaking.

So, I propose that the only bit that's constantly improving in F1 - the only thing that's been overlooked - the tyres - are the root of the problem.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Purist

And a further note on the driver culture is that, it's only been within the last 10 years that all this talk about it being "hard to overtake' has come about. I don't think that's a coincidence. The F1 drivers aren't taking the risks they used to, and they seem to get unjustifiably ticked off when any real risks they do take backfire on them.

i would like to add that in the last ten years we have also seen a major increase in strength levels, conditioning training, and diet for the drivers. its almost basic knowledge for any athlete now that a proper diet alone will phenomenally improve performance. the simple fact is that these guys make a lot fewer mistakes.

that combined with relatively greater reliability means that the vast majority of reasons people got overtaken in the past just dont occur any more.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Well how about this:

Rather than discussing (OWG) the topic, why not start putting some theories in to action??

Surely there must be a fleet of 00's F1 cars, say even just 4 or so, that they could modify and try all sorts on. For example:

*Build them up to the current aero regs, all bar the double diffuser
*Try different tyres on them
*Try stripping them down to the basic aero, ie no winglets, no mirrors being used for aero purposes, no ducts
*Try without wings
*Try with manual gearboxes

There must be some group that could get this together? Try 5 different extremes with these cars, and let them try a full length (or close enough) race distance encouraging overtaking moves along the way, and let's see what works the best. Use a couple of experienced drivers (this will be important as they would have sampled technology from different eras and could provide some valuable feedback/suggestions) and I think we'd have some answers to put these theories to rest...

To me it just seems everyone's passing the buck, and with all the discussions and technologies in the world, we still can't get to the bottom of it. Considering F1 is the "pinnacle of technology", it seems pretty pathetic that the fellas involved in it can't even work out the basic foundations as to why these cars cannot follow eachother.

Selby

[jab]

Well perhaps they do know what to do but doing that would put them out of their own jobs or would not be in their interests - that's what this thread was started to suggest

[broadrun96]

Think he may have a point though. Seems like a modern F1 car can lap any track at a crazy pace, does anything else get even close? The problem is that it seems to only be able to do that by itself in qualifying, and is set up to run as fast as possible in clean air. Not sure how to change that without mandating either "simple" parts or start giving out wings like NASCAR did with the spoiler this week. I'm not sure how either one fits in with the aim of F1 to be the top tier in racing. I'm beginning to think the days of wide-open rules may be over, the return just doesn't seem to be there for sponsors and unless we want just a few teams to remain something may have to give. Just hoping it's not the series as a whole.

[ECW Dan Selby]

haha Yeah I was going to put that at the end, i'm just merely suggesting from a non-conspiracy perspective, this is what they could do, and probably should do. Get hands-on without making knee jerk reactions in the current championship.

Selby