[Official] Australian Grand Prix 2017 - Round 1 of 20 - Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Has anyone seen what Napoleon has said? He's now saying the lack of overtaking was a price to pay for more spectacular cars. Well we might as well all watch qualifying! Ok the race for the win must have been interesting, but the wallies at the top have ruined what racing drivers are supposed to do, RACE

Must admit that I was thinking that quali was far more interesting than the race, at least they are on the limit in quali and not just touring around saving fuel. Ask Ricciardo!

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Has anyone seen what Napoleon has said? He's now saying the lack of overtaking was a price to pay for more spectacular cars. Well we might as well all watch qualifying! Ok the race for the win must have been interesting, but the wallies at the top have ruined what racing drivers are supposed to do, RACE

I must be out of touch. Who is Napoleon?

It was known from way back when the 2017 rules were first conceived that they would make close following and overtaking more difficult. Melbourne seems to have confirmed that, but we need another race to be absolutely sure. Did I notice the cars were faster? No. Did I think the cars looked better? Well, a bit, but it was no big deal. Did I notice the lack of close racing? YES.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

many aspects of the 'aero' problem are beyond my understanding but what has me a bit more confused this year is the relationship between the new larger front wings/greater wake vs wider and more durable tires.

rather, with more mechanical downforce via wider tires which also happen to be more durable, shouldn't the negative effect of the greater wake be minimized if not neutralized?

i say this because since the DRS era began and with respect to being able to follow, its not so much the wake issue which has been the problem (or the main talking point even) but the overheating and degradation rates of the following car's tires.

I may very well get some of this wrong...

They did two things to speed things up (with speed really being lower lap times). The wider tires provide more mechanical grip and the larger front and rear wings provide more aero downforce. That should speed them up more in the corners. The larger wings and larger tires likely increased the amount/size of turbulence/dirty air behind the car. While they have more mechanical grip, they are still dependent upon a specific amount of aero downforce so when at the limit you can't loose downforce without it causing something like the front to wash out, or... you ask the front tires to work harder. Even if the tires seem to be more durable, I can imagine you may cause balance issues if you push the fronts hard by trying to follow someone close. And if the car in front of you is creating lots of dirty air you just can't follow close.

To your point about tire degradation in previous years. I think the aggravating factor was that it appears more degradation was built into the tire designs in 2016 and earlier than in the 2017 tires. The 2017 tires are likely more rugged due to fear of not fully understanding the impact of wider tires and higher downforce (lack of tire testing). So they played it safe with the 2017 design or... was directed to make them more durable due to fan complaints about durability.

But in the past few years, the physics are no different than today, so when you asked too much of the tires, they go off. Today I "think" the tires are not going off as much or as soon (grip level drops permanently off even if in clean air), but rather that you just don't have the aero grip to follow without having handling problems. And the current tires will still degrade at some point anyhow. Just not as soon as before. So much so that you can run most of a race on super softs!

The cars ARE faster in the corners, are generating lower lap times and do look better in general. Add in that more durable tires creates less "unpredictability", that may create a parade of cars. So I have serious doubts that racing will be better in 2017. It may even be worse that before. The only saving grace might be that the gap between Mercedes and everyone else may not be as large as it was previously.

Time will tell if I am wrong, but I can imagine the two topics of the year may be...

1. Inability to follow closely making it difficult to pass even in DRS situation. Note, if there is a significant speed differential between two cars, passes will happen. I am talking about battles between the top teams and teammates.

2. Fuel conservation/management being a big factor. Lifting and coasting and the inability to race hard for fear of using up too much fuel. Especially on power tracks.

Richard

[GTRMagic]

One thing I noticed about the new cars... they look like the old ones did, when the teev station puts an ad on under the racing, and squishes the racing vision to fit the screen...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I must be out of touch. Who is Napoleon?

It was known from way back when the 2017 rules were first conceived that they would make close following and overtaking more difficult. Melbourne seems to have confirmed that, but we need another race to be absolutely sure. Did I notice the cars were faster? No. Did I think the cars looked better? Well, a bit, but it was no big deal. Did I notice the lack of close racing? YES.

Todt.

[Malfunction Junction]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I must be out of touch. Who is Napoleon?

It was known from way back when the 2017 rules were first conceived that they would make close following and overtaking more difficult. Melbourne seems to have confirmed that, but we need another race to be absolutely sure. Did I notice the cars were faster? No. Did I think the cars looked better? Well, a bit, but it was no big deal. Did I notice the lack of close racing? YES.

Jean Todt. Short and French.

Even though napoleon wasn't actually short for his time.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Must admit that I was thinking that quali was far more interesting than the race, at least they are on the limit in quali and not just touring around saving fuel. Ask Ricciardo!

Qualifying is excellent and far more exciting than the race itself. Especially Q3, when drivers/teams wait until it's almost too late and then the cars leave their garages all at once and charge down Pit Road three wide; well almost.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

many aspects of the 'aero' problem are beyond my understanding but what has me a bit more confused this year is the relationship between the new larger front wings/greater wake vs wider and more durable tires.

rather, with more mechanical downforce via wider tires which also happen to be more durable, shouldn't the negative effect of the greater wake be minimized if not neutralized?

i say this because since the DRS era began and with respect to being able to follow, its not so much the wake issue which has been the problem (or the main talking point even) but the overheating and degradation rates of the following car's tires.

Because the cars are now wider, with a larger front wing plus larger front and rear tyres, they now have a greater surface area. This in turn produces more drag or a greater wake.

The wake from the car in front disrupts the air-flow to the car that's following, which now can't produce the necessary down force required, for the tyres to grip the track properly. As a result the tyres are essentially producing friction, which overheats and degrades them.

[old man]

Yes, interesting that the results of the magnificent complexity built into the front wing and controlls of the flow as the car penetrates the air may be compromised by hitting turbulent air.

Would love to have sat in on the design meetings for these cars

The question must be; do you design a car for clean air or turbulent air? The result must be a compromise but turbulent air will be infinitely variable, clean air is a constant?

[Sodemo]

I literally have no idea why they keep adding upper surface aero to the cars when the widely held belief is that this is massively counter productive to the racing. Again, the general thinking is that underbody aero is the solution, so why hasn't this been explored?

[Ospi]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I literally have no idea why they keep adding upper surface aero to the cars when the widely held belief is that this is massively counter productive to the racing. Again, the general thinking is that underbody aero is the solution, so why hasn't this been explored?

I believe there's ongoing concerns about genuine ground effect cars (which would be the next step for underbody aero) having sudden loss of downforce and being quite dangerous. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the topic to expand on it but it's what I've gathered from various information over the years. At least with upper body aero it's more predictable. Sounds like they wanted the cars to be quicker and that was the solution which gave them fewer headaches but I agree it's detrimental to racing.

[Sodemo]

From my limited knowledge of the technology, IRL cars use underbody aero as do the LMP1 cars and they don't seem to suffer with safety issues.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

From my limited knowledge of the technology, IRL cars use underbody aero as do the LMP1 cars and they don't seem to suffer with safety issues.

Wikipedia's take on the safety aspect:

'Part of the danger of relying on ground effects to corner at high speeds is the possibility of the sudden removal of this force; if the belly of the car contacts the ground, the flow is constricted too much, resulting in almost total loss of any ground effects. If this occurs in a corner where the driver is relying on this force to stay on the track, its sudden removal can cause the car to abruptly lose most of its traction and skid off the track.'

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by old man

Yes, interesting that the results of the magnificent complexity built into the front wing and controlls of the flow as the car penetrates the air may be compromised by hitting turbulent air.

Would love to have sat in on the design meetings for these cars

The question must be; do you design a car for clean air or turbulent air? The result must be a compromise but turbulent air will be infinitely variable, clean air is a constant?

I have long believed this is the problem and of course the answer to your last question is that if you compromise the performance in clean air to allow you to follow more closely the advantage is of academic interest only as this will make you slower than the car in front and you will never catch it.

This is why we have what we have now and why the answer is to only allow a very simple front wing, the cars would be less efficient and slower but less sensitive to following another car.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Ospi

Sounds like they wanted the cars to be quicker and that was the solution which gave them fewer headaches but I agree it's detrimental to racing.

I think this was the reason. It was just easier to do.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Wikipedia's take on the safety aspect:

'Part of the danger of relying on ground effects to corner at high speeds is the possibility of the sudden removal of this force; if the belly of the car contacts the ground, the flow is constricted too much, resulting in almost total loss of any ground effects. If this occurs in a corner where the driver is relying on this force to stay on the track, its sudden removal can cause the car to abruptly lose most of its traction and skid off the track.'

Let me roll my eyes at that argument...



As with most arguments like that it has a nugget of truth and is also somewhat bogus. Plenty of things can go wrong that can lead to a crash. Let me rewrite that in a different way...

'Part of the danger of relying on wings to corner at high speeds is the possibility of the sudden removal of this force; if the wing has been previously damaged by debris, contact with another car, or a design defect, this can result in almost a total loss of downforce. If this occurs in a corner where the driver is relying on this force to stay on the track, its sudden removal can cause the car to abruptly lose most of its traction and skid off the track.'



Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

From my limited knowledge of the technology, IRL cars use underbody aero as do the LMP1 cars and they don't seem to suffer with safety issues.

When the current IndyCar chassis, the DW12 was introduced in 2012, it had a ground effect underbody, with about half the downforce generated by it and the rest generated by the wings. However, since the introduction of aero-kits in 2015, more of the downforce was now generated by the body work, with the consequence that the cars now produced more drag and it was harder to get close to the car in front, though no where near as bad as F1.

Modifications were made to the underbody because of the increased downforce produced by the aero-kits and some believe these contributed to string of spectacular crashes on ovals, when cars hit the wall, went backwards and got airborne, particularly Helio Castroneves at Indy in 2015. Further modifications were made to the underbody and since then no more airborne crashes.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As with most arguments like that it has a nugget of truth and is also somewhat bogus. Plenty of things can go wrong that can lead to a crash. Let me rewrite that in a different way...

'Part of the danger of relying on wings to corner at high speeds is the possibility of the sudden removal of this force; if the wing has been previously damaged by debris, contact with another car, or a design defect, this can result in almost a total loss of downforce. If this occurs in a corner where the driver is relying on this force to stay on the track, its sudden removal can cause the car to abruptly lose most of its traction and skid off the track.'

True, the issue with Ground Effect(s) for F1 however are as a result of a number of crashes in the late 70's and early 80's, which the governing body looked to prevent from reoccurring.
The simple Wikipedia explanation goes some way to answering the question of why IndyCar uses this feature, but it is not employed in F1.

Possibly, as advances in expertise have been made, Ground Effect could be utilised in safe(r) manner in F1. But having mandated flat floors for safety reasons in the past, it would take a lot of persuasion to go back against that decision.

In risk analysis terms, in the case of a wing design defect teams would be forced to alter the design to mitigate the risk.
For Ground Effect, ALARP is to not have the feature altogether.

F1 needs wings to remain the product that it is, but does not require Ground Effect aerodynamics.

[chillibowl]

appreciate both yours and Richard's answers. i know a lot of this is old ground but i do have a follow up question.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

BThe wake from the car in front disrupts the air-flow to the car that's following, which now can't produce the necessary down force required, for the tyres to grip the track properly. As a result the tyres are essentially producing friction, which overheats and degrades them.

so if by virtue of the disrupted air flow/greater wake, the following car is unable to produce as much down force as it would in clean air...does that not also mean that less downward force is being applied to the tires of the following car?

rather, if the following car is experiencing less down force, then where does the extra friction (which leads to overheating and degradation) come from?

i am no doubt ignoring the friction coming from the car moving side to side/sliding around when following...which i would imagine creates a whole new set of variables to consider.

anyways i am still optimistic that we will see far more close racing as they hit different tracks and the teams get to grips with how to best set up their cars under the new regs.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

True, the issue with Ground Effect(s) for F1 however are as a result of a number of crashes in the late 70's and early 80's, which the governing body looked to prevent from reoccurring.
The simple Wikipedia explanation goes some way to answering the question of why IndyCar uses this feature, but it is not employed in F1.

Possibly, as advances in expertise have been made, Ground Effect could be utilised in safe(r) manner in F1. But having mandated flat floors for safety reasons in the past, it would take a lot of persuasion to go back against that decision.

In risk analysis terms, in the case of a wing design defect teams would be forced to alter the design to mitigate the risk.
For Ground Effect, ALARP is to not have the feature altogether.

F1 needs wings to remain the product that it is, but does not require Ground Effect aerodynamics.

Ground effect has come a long way since it was first used in F1 in the late '70s and early '80s. It continued to be used in CART/Champ Car, where the use of side skirts had been completely eliminated. A certain Mr. Adrian Newey was behind a lot of the development in CART, when he worked for March in the '80s. He designed both the March 85C and 86C, which won the Constructors' Cup and Indy 500, in 1985 and '86.

When IndyCar split in 1996, CART continued to use ground effect, while the IRL mandated flat bottomed cars. However, flat bottomed cars and ovals tend not to mix too well, resulting in some very scary airborne crashes.

With the developments in ground effect, I don't see why F1 shouldn't use ground effect again, it would produce much closer racing. However, if F1 isn't going to use ground effect, it needs to reduce the reliance on aero because it doesn't produce close racing, as we have seen for sometime now.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by mikuni

Umm... they are actual Carrera Cup cars in the background. The paddock interviews aren't conducted while the F1 cars are on track because the drivers need to be..... driving them...

No. During the race. During the race, the live broadcast, Carrera Cup cars were used as the background noise where you should hear F1 cars.

[Adam43]

Which bit? All of it?

[Akrapovic]

Any clips of this? That'd be embarrassing.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so if by virtue of the disrupted air flow/greater wake, the following car is unable to produce as much down force as it would in clean air...does that not also mean that less downward force is being applied to the tires of the following car?

Yes. And it may impact one end of the car more than another (such as the front).

Originally Posted by chillibowl

rather, if the following car is experiencing less down force, then where does the extra friction (which leads to overheating and degradation) come from?

I am more than willing to let someone who understands this better than myself jump in to explain or correct...

There are a slew of factors. The construction of the tire, the composition of the rubber, etc. all define the performance envelope of the tire. And the performance is not like in a simple physics class. It's not A amount of force gives B amount of "maximum" grip with a linear relationship. It becomes multiple dimensional with things like temperature, amount of wear, slip angle, vertical load on the tire, lateral load on the tire, etc. factoring in.

For simplicity purposes, let's say it is a simple X, Y plot but with a curve instead of a straight line which you plug in the load on the tire (weight of the car plus any additional downforce) and the output is the "maximum" lateral load (grip level). Note, I say maximum because lets say for a given load the maximum is 2G lateral, but there may be a number of place in which 2G is achievable.
But lets also say that at different points on that curve you experience increased tire wear. So again using my 2G example, you can achieve that level of grip in various ways, but at some loads, the wear is higher or lower than others. Ideally you want a tire that produces high grip and low wear! But in reality there is generally a relationship between grip and wear that results in high grip results in higher wear. But there are sweet spots.

Ignoring fuel levels and tire wear, regular race pace is lower than qualifying pace for a number of reasons. First drivers can't run a full race with that level of risk and mental awareness, but the tires also can't last if pushed the limit all the time. So during a race, they are living within the performance curve that provides some level of durability of the tire. They try to run within a specific window of performance. Get outside of the window and you have problem such as maybe higher wear.

Now take away some downforce, but at the same time ask the tire to provide the same level of lateral grip as before you lost the downforce. You have moved to a different point in the chart and you may even be moving right to the point that defines the maximum grip level. But the key is that moving on the chart also means you are also moving into an area that is going to do things like increase tire temperature, scrub off more rubber (tire wear), etc.

So to your point... I don't think there is any more "friction", but if you are experiencing less downforce, but you want to maintain the same cornering speed, you are asking the tire to work harder to provide the same level of grip as before. Working harder is going to increase wear. It may even create a bad feedback loop in which the tires may overheat and then further move you out of the desired performance window (and give you a smaller maximum grip level). To maintain tire life and/or move it back into the desired performance window, the simple answers are to reduce lateral loads (brake less harder, corner slower) or increase downforce (don't follow so closely so your aero works as designed and gives you back your missing downforce).

I think to a degree this is why you may see someone challenge at the beginning or at the end of a race for a few laps. They are abusing the tires, but only for a short period. They know they have to either make the pass work now... or back off. You can also see people push hard right before they pit (in lap). That is because they know they are about to ditch the tires, so they can abuse them for a short period of time.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i am no doubt ignoring the friction coming from the car moving side to side/sliding around when following...which i would imagine creates a whole new set of variables to consider.

Then if you are over driving the tires and they are breaking loose, that creates similar wear problems (not to mention it's typically not he fast way to get around the track). But if they are working the car hard enough that it moves around like it hasn't before, it shows they are driving at or just beyond the limit of the tires/chassis/driver skill.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

No. During the race. During the race, the live broadcast, Carrera Cup cars were used as the background noise where you should hear F1 cars.

Unfortunately I have already deleted the race from my DVR so I can't go back and check. I watch from the US (world feed with NBC commentators). I don't remember dubbed in sound at all. I clearly remember hearing just the F1 cars in which the sound (downshifts, cars running wide over curbs, etc.) were in sync with the video. Plus the cars sounded like the current turbo cars. I am not going to post links here, but you can find some video on YouTube (including highlights directly from Formula1) in which it is clear that the sound is from the F1 cars.

Richard

[S griffin]

While the cars are now faster in corners and therefore more challenging, surely reducing the downforce would have also made them more challenging and also lower speeds in corners which would increase safety. And it would mean cars would race closer together.