Real world F1 regulation changes?

[Tris]

Hi all!

As a technical newbie I would like to open a discussion about workable, real world changes to the F1 regulation that would encourage some overtaking.. (Will we ever see a full ground effect car again?) I know this has probibllt been done to death but what the hey!

Most, if not all of you will know of the problems caused by contemporary F1 aerodynamic packages. The cars "rip" through the air. The “wake turbulence” causes massive problems for following cars, destroying its downforce to a point that overtaking becomes extremely difficult, especially on bends. It is a fact that 1999 cars developed approximately 1500 kg of downforce at the front of the chassis and 3000 Kg on the rear. 50% of this downforce was developed by the 'ground effect' elements such as venturi and the diffuser.

The current 'stepped bottom' regulations are responsible for an increase in chassis pitch sensitivity; the result, stiffer suspensions. One way to reduce this is to increase the distance between the lowest part of the venturi and the chassis. By further specifying a maximum tunnel exit height and width, the ground effect is reduced, as is the wake turbulence, as is the pitch sensitivity, and hey presto, softer suspensions and reduced oversteer.

Can we go further? It would make sense to introduce some limitations on wing height and composition. This could serve to eliminate the current bi-plane and tri-plane configurations that we currently have. Getting shot of curved front wing endplates would go some way to reducing the amount of air extracted from under the chassis and thus also reduce downforce.

From a spectators stand point, I would love the levels of downforce at least halved over the next few seasons. This would shift the emphasis back on the suspension and the skill of the driver to get the car around a bend.

[angst]

Out of interest, how is FF regulated regarding aerodynamics? Surely something alomg these lines could be used to regulate F1.

[chunder]

Hate to put a downer on your topic but I actually think that the overtaking has been more frequent this year in F1.
I think of quite a few moves, MH on MS at Spa, DC on MS at Magny Cours (twice) and many others, Barrichello overtook loads at Hock.
The rules have been stabilised for a couple of years now and I think that teams have reached the last few percent of a limit as to how fast the cars can go. Therefore it is only a matter of time that they find ways of making a car run better in turbulence.
Circuit designers are not churning out such ridiculous circuits anymore and the narrowness of the cars means straightline speeds are higher.
This years Arrows is a good example of a car that is very good in low downforce trim. Remember how many cars Verstappen overtook at I think Montreal.
It can be done, it just takes a very special feeling from the car and that feeling needs to be more accessible.

[Tris]

Hi chunder.

The examples that you used to illustrate your point were all overtaking manoeuvres made possible due to tyre degradation of the car being overtaken. (with the exception of Jos Verstappen.) When tyre degradation has not been an issue there has been no overtaking.

You just can not get a car to run as well in turbulence. The same opportunities for laminar air flow of the bodywork are not there. You could devise ways of smoothing airflow over the cars more but if you get cars to run better in turbulent air they will run even faster in clean air. I can not advocate an increase in aerodynamic complexity. What the sport needs is a sift in emphasis back on to mechanical grip.

I think the tyre war will spice things up as 75% of the cars performance comes from tyres.

[Liz]

Although you hear a lot of complaining in Champ Cars about the difficulty of overtaking and the difficulty of even getting close to another car without him "stealing the air", they seem to have a very great degree of overtaking and at significantly higher speeds than the F1 cars do.

Why the big difference betwen the two kinds of cars?

[KC]

The biggest difference comes from the fact that the CART cars use their wings to tune the car's handling. The chassis bottom itself creates the lion's share of the downforce. In F1 it is reversed. The wings generate the majority of the downforce, thus when it is reduced by following too closely, they lose too much of their traction.

[Dino IV]

The whole rear end aerodynamics of F1 cars are designed to make slipstreaming advantages as slim as possible. Although I am a strong supporter for F1's high tech engineering, I really advocate standarized wings, undertrays and diffusers. It wouldn't make a difference to the fans or how the cars look, but will prevent aerodynamics being misused from what they're intended to do: providing downforce.
In that manner FIA can easily adjust security issues and overtaking possibilities as well.