"oooh its too windy today..."

[sonic]

When exactly did F1 drivers start complaining about the wind making it hard to drive? I think it started around 3 years ago, now pretty much everyone alludes to it.

I guess the cars are so light and the aero is so accurate now they can really feel every gust that differs from perfect windtunnel conditions.

IIRC its the stealth bomber which is so unpredictable / difficult to fly that it can only do so with the aid of a computer, pilots would be to slow to react.

pretty much where we're headed in f1 right now.

[Sheila M]

Originally Posted by sonic

When exactly did F1 drivers start complaining about the wind making it hard to drive?

Probably when "driver aids" were introduced . The "old boys" (and I'm thinking of Jim Clark, Stirling Moss, John Surtees et al) never complained about anything making it hard to drive. The only "driver aids" they had were three pedals and a steering wheel! Oh, and their brains, which they used a lot.

[The Zuschauer]

Ever since the introduction of the grooved tyres, drivers have been making comments of the significance of the wind - particularly in the lead up to the 1998 season.

IIRC, the tyre manufacturers had to change their tyre construction to deal with the problem.

Then again, I'm sure there were drivers making comments about wind back in the good-old-days of slicks

[Dani Filth]

they started "complaining" about wind ... when the wind started to influence the driving of the car .. in some cases it has quite a influence ..

[Raglanparade]

the wind tunnel is designed for the wind to be blowing directly over the car...

the cars arent designed for cross winds !

[BootsOntheSide]

However poncy it might sound, it is a genuine issue. The direction of the wind can affect the handling quite significantly, especially at an aerodynamics-based circuit like Silverstone. The track's location at an airfield site also makes it more prone to high winds. I dare say Clark, Hill et al would've mentioned it if they fully understood the effect it had.

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by sonic

When exactly did F1 drivers start complaining about the wind making it hard to drive?

Are you sure they are complaining? Could be just making excuses (sorry drivers never do that do they), and at least it helps people understand what it is like to drive the car, especially casual fans who may not realise this type of intricacy.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Perhaps if they get rid of some of those silly winglets. There's that much stuff sticking out the car at daft angles its no wonder they are effected by wind direction.

[Cougar]

Well their complaints/excuses are well grounded IMO.

For example if you take a plane with a stall speed of 60 knots and you are on the ground with a tailwind of 60 knots also.. you will need to go down the runway at 120 knots (groundspeed) to take off with an airspeed of 60 knots.

Now if you turn around you only have to roll forward a knot or two and you would be able to take off, virtually hovering above the ground. (there are even cases where pilots have flown backwards across the ground at air shows as the wind was so strong)

Now F1 cars work on much the same principal. But instead they are being pushed down into the ground instead of up. So even a direct tail wind or head wind is going to effect the performance of the cars (speed, grip etc) Add to that the cornering (change of wind direction) and you are in for a pretty dynamic driving experience.

[Marbot]

Well after that race* a kite flying competition might have gone down really well.

*There's that word again.

[sonic]

Originally Posted by johnh875

Are you sure they are complaining? Could be just making excuses (sorry drivers never do that do they), and at least it helps people understand what it is like to drive the car, especially casual fans who may not realise this type of intricacy.

yeah, despite my thread title, i didn't mean to bellittle the drivers - no doubt it can be a really big problem - i was more suggesting it is a crazy situation to be in, and interested if people had thoughts on when it really became an issue.

the grooved tyres comment pretty much answers the question IMO, although this year the tyres are softer than ever and the wind seems to be an issue more than ever.

[Marbot]

Do they ever take into account crosswinds etc when wind tunnel testing i wonder? Just a thought.It seems that the cars are more easily upset now by crosswinds than ever before.

The cornering speeds are well up aren't they.I think that we might see the FIA introduce a few aero tweaks for next season,unless of course we get some teflon tyres from Bridgestone.

[sonic]

yeah, if the tyres do go more durable (as i suspect they will with a one-make tyre - makes life cheaper and easier for everyone) it will exacerbate this wind problem.

[strider]

Surely it's a consequence of the emphasis switching from mechanical grip to aero?

The drivers of previous generations simply wouldn't have had the same problem.

[Rennen]

I know that in Spain, afternoon Mistrals occur and they do effect lap times after lunch (too much Piaella?)

Also I wonder if the wind tunnels are long enough for 2 cars, if so do they increase the 'dirty' air behind the car on purpose? Now there's a thought!

[Peter Mallett]

You wouldn't need two cars to do that though. Just analyse the effect of the air passing out of the rear of the car.

[sonic]

Originally Posted by Rennen

do they increase the 'dirty' air behind the car on purpose? Now there's a thought!

I'm pretty sure that's been common practice for a while - there hasn't been drafting of any significance in F1 for a number of years.

whereas in most other forms of motorsport this provides half the fun / overtaking opportunities.

In NASCAR bumpdrafting at super speedways is the only way to win a race. Even in Formula Ford you can't set a fast time in qualifying unless you get a good tow.

[johnh875]

Sonic - ok I get where you are coming from, it just sounded like you were writing for a tabloid! I agree there is too much aero influence and I think they should look at cutting downforce by 80% or so. Of course that would make heads explode because the cars would be too "unstable" - absolute BS, on the limit is on the limit, and in fact the would be safer because you would not loose huge amounts of grip if the car slides sideways as happens with a wing.

Re designing wings for dirty air behind the car, this was happening even in touring cars in 1990.

[Locost47]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Do they ever take into account crosswinds etc when wind tunnel testing i wonder? Just a thought.It seems that the cars are more easily upset now by crosswinds than ever before.

Yes they do, they also look at the effects of steering, the car sliding, bumps, kerbs, slipstreaming etc, etc. Unfortunately the aerodynamic mechanisms that give the maximum and/or most efficient downforce are usually very sensitive to disturbances.

Interestingly Renault have focussed as much effort recently on de-sensitising their car as achieving the best downforce & efficiency. Their argument is that it's worth compromising a little on ultimate performance for user-friendliness and the consequent ability for the drivers to attack 100% all the time. Seems to be working

[bauble]

As all circuits are circular in configuration the wind will blow on the car from every angle at sometime during the lap, so you are never going to get perfect aerodynamics. It's just another one from the book of excuses issued to every F1 driver. come to think about it all racing drivers.

[Knowlesy]

Not all tracks are "windy" though. Silverstone, for example, is exposed and very fast, so I imagine the wind is a big problem, particularly in these ridiculously aerodynamic times. Although it still is quite boring to hear drivers complain about it!

[Matski]

If we took away aeros - as is the general desire in this thread (not mine tho) - then the drivers will just complain about lack of grip.

Anybody who doesn't perform will always complain about something.

BTW
I liked the analogy to the stealth bomber... BAe/SEPECAT had a version of the Jaguar Fighter/bomber that was designed to be as unstable as possible - the theory being it was capable of much tighter faster manouveres - but they could only be controlled by the computer on board - the pilots likened flying one to "trying to push a bicyle backwards by the handle bars, whilst sitting on the bonnet of a speeding ferrari".. but it made "flipping out of control in the blink of an eye" into "extreme evasive manouveres in the blink of an eye"..................... personally I'm all for technology in F1 - if you dont like it... watch A1GP !

[jonboyG]

Nearly all modern fighter aircraft are designed with negative stability, and require onboard computers to work with the pilots and fly by wire flight controls to not crash.

Rennen - they get the mistral in Spain? It's a French wind, AFAIK.

[Matski]

Originally Posted by jonboyG

Nearly all modern fighter aircraft are designed with negative stability, and require onboard computers to work with the pilots and fly by wire flight controls to not crash.

Yeah I know (this is going back about 20 years), but I just like the pilots quote. Fly-by-light now isn't it? (fibre-optics - photons are faster than electrons?)

Anyway...

[Matski]

As far as I remember.. the second biggest problem with the FW26A was the slab-like side of the nose was particularly susceptable to cross-winds (although RS complained more about this than JPM)

AFAIK the first biggest problem was the shortness of the nose meant they had to compromise their suspension geometry.... INSICBW