Ground effects have never disapeared from Formula One

[Franklin]

The only thing that has fundamentally changed is how the ground effects are generated and where the downforce is distributed.

[yorkie]

Very true. But ground effect has always been if F1 and will always be in F1. It is impossible to have any moving object in close proximity with the ground without ground effect. Even road cars have some ground effect (its the Bernoulli principle don't ya know!).

The Diffuser enhances the natural ground effect at the rear by opening up and creating low pressure under the car. this sucks the car to the garound ang generated 30% plus of the car's total downforce.

[Jared]

The diffuser generates 30% of the car's downforce. It also, from what I have read, disturbs the air behind the car, preventing other cars from getting too close.

What I have been wondering is: instead of attacking the tires and width of the cars, (the current crop of cars are, IMO, some of the worst looking designs) why not cut the diffusers off? You take away 30% percent of the downforce, the cars are going to be slower, and the cars will be able to race closer, thus achieving both of the FIA's objectives for changing the rules for 1998.
Why not?

[Franklin]

Without diffusers, the ground effects of a flat bottom F1 car would be much more pitch sensitive, resulting in the downforce being even more erratic.

One option would be to allow mounting the wings much higher so that they're above the turbulent wake from the tires and body of a car ahead.

[Gerard]

I think this topic is much more appropriate in the Technical Forum.
Moving it there.

[enzo]

Frankie:

I've been following your posts & while you seem to ocassionally come up with a decent idea , you need to rethink most of your reasoning. As a multi-championship car designer I have spent almost 30 years on these subjects & can help you there a bit :

A totally flat bottom will be a lot less pitch sensetive than a diffuser undertray. A flat bottom generates almost no downforce, and will in most cases generate lift, depending on assorted edge shapings, etc. Go study a Formula Ford areo map sometime. A tunnel is less pitch sensetive than a diffuser, which is why CART won't delete theirs.

Rear wings develop turbulance that can be seen 10 ft above the wing - raising the wing will not accomplish any real gain. Watch films of the cars in the rain sometime - you'll see vortices that go straight up for 10 feet. It will also have a greater lever effect from drag, so to maintain an aerodynamic balance the front wing will have to be set at a greater angle to compensate, making it even more sensetive to turbulance. A high rear wing will also need a much more substantial structure to keep it in place, suppress vibrating, etc. More weight up high = more weight transfer = less performance.

[Jared]

Franklin, if the handling becomes erratic, then why not take the diffusers off the cars? Everyone is saying that they want to see the drivers DRIVE the cars, all elbows out and everything. Why not? I would love to see Schumacher really sliding the car with Hakkinen and Coulthard, et. al. all over his tail.

Enzo, if the flat bottoms generate lift, then the FIA could take off some of the restrictions on wing size, etc. (I'm no engineer, but this seems like the logical solution, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm sure the rear wings develop some turbulence, but don't the diffusers make a tremendous amount of turbulence?

[enzo]

Jared :
Depending on the design, a diffuser undertray can actually reduce overall drag compared to the same car with no undertray. This is not to say that current designs don't produce a lot of turbulence - they can and do. But they are less turbulent ( and more efficient) than wings.

What gets done with wings depends entirely on what the rules makers whant to see happen. If I were to propose legislation with the idea that we want cars that are more "spectacular" to watch, I'd probably go for a variation of CART's formula - very small tunnels ( even smaller than theirs) and large wings and tires. While this is a step backwards technologically, and would be boring to the engineers, it would certainly enliven the on-track spectacle. How many current new fans even know what a 4-wheel drift is ?