How to fix F1?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ergo it becomes a wing, not a floor.

Indeed but the Williams FW07 was more in my mind although again the pods don't extend to the extremity of the wheels.

It isn't a wing as it's flat and doesn't produce any lift, or in the case of a race car, downforce. It's the vanes or slots, on the outer rear edge of the floor, that produce the aerodynamic effect, which prevents the air from going underneath the car, not the floor itself.

I'm not too sure what you mean by the pods don't extend to the extremity of the wheels? With the FW07, the sidepods extend from just in front of the rear tyre and to just behind the front tyre, as in this photo. Do you mean they don't extend beyond the outer rim of the wheels?



Because the floor of current F1 cars, like this year's Mercedes, doesn't extend beyond the outer rim of the wheels either.

[Peter Mallett]

Yes, I know I already admitted to memory fade. Nonetheless you can't have a floor if there's nothing for that floor to support. It must therefore be a wing or what is it?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes, I know I already admitted to memory fade. Nonetheless you can't have a floor if there's nothing for that floor to support. It must therefore be a wing or what is it?

Why does the floor have to support anything, in order for it to be a floor? Floors are usually open areas.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes, I know I already admitted to memory fade. Nonetheless you can't have a floor if there's nothing for that floor to support. It must therefore be a wing or what is it?

It's an overhanging section of the floor. (I know the point you're making Peter & do agree with you but think it's another example of clever interpretation of the wording of the rules...)

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes, I know I already admitted to memory fade. Nonetheless you can't have a floor if there's nothing for that floor to support. It must therefore be a wing or what is it?

Having previously cited the Oxford English Dictionary, then it is interesting that no current definition given by the OED is relevant to a vehicle.

So perhaps the Merriam-Webster definition of 'Lower Limit', or maybe the Cambridge definition of 'The bottom surface'.

Each of these works for how a 'floor' is currently used on a Formula One car. The floor is the lowest surface of the vehicle's body, which has an aerodynamic effect akin to a wing.

You are right - it is not a wing. But it also does not have to provide any support to be a floor. It is an aerodynamic part of the car along with front wing, barge board area, side pod area, diffuser, rear wing, brake ducts, nose cone area, engine cover.......

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Having previously cited the Oxford English Dictionary, then it is interesting that no current definition given by the OED is relevant to a vehicle.

So perhaps the Merriam-Webster definition of 'Lower Limit', or maybe the Cambridge definition of 'The bottom surface'.

Each of these works for how a 'floor' is currently used on a Formula One car. The floor is the lowest surface of the vehicle's body, which has an aerodynamic effect akin to a wing.

You are right - it is not a wing. But it also does not have to provide any support to be a floor. It is an aerodynamic part of the car along with front wing, barge board area, side pod area, diffuser, rear wing, brake ducts, nose cone area, engine cover.......

Lol, ok but if its the bottom surface that implies there's a top surface so it could just be a horizontal flat plane of a certain thickness. Yes it is an aerodynamic surface as per the above and is legal. It's still a shyte idea which is impacting the racing capability of the vehicles.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

It's an overhanging section of the floor. (I know the point you're making Peter & do agree with you but think it's another example of clever interpretation of the wording of the rules...)

The overhanging section isn't new, you can see it on the 2012 McLaren. The difference is, F1 designers have since then found a way of exploiting that part of the car's floor.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

You are right - it is not a wing. But it also does not have to provide any support to be a floor. It is an aerodynamic part of the car along with front wing, barge board area, side pod area, diffuser, rear wing, brake ducts, nose cone area, engine cover.......

And now, don't forget the latest addition; Mercedes' wheel spacers!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Lol, ok but if its the bottom surface that implies there's a top surface so it could just be a horizontal flat plane of a certain thickness.

The top surface is the intake cover.

[Peter Mallett]

No it isn't. It extends beyond that. If the floor on your house extends beyond the boundary walls it's a balcony or a terrace or a patio. It is most certainly not the floor.

[Greem]

Now we're getting somewhere that isn't simply one-line rebuttals of previous points, this thread's rather enjoyable once again

However it does rather crystallise the issue: the rules are so proscriptive that the engineers interpreting them are now finding hundreds of minuscule ways to claw back downforce and reduce drag. This means infinitesimal improvements over cars that are pretty well at the limit of their performance under the current rules.

What would be nice, in my view, is some freedom to achieve the giant leaps that we used to see, however that in turn means dominance of a different sort so it gets us more or less nowhere (albeit very quickly) as "the fans" don't like dominance.

For a comparison, the recent Indy tyre test at COTA ran some 13 or 14 seconds slower than Kimi's lap record from a couple of weeks ago. IndyCar is always used as a comparison because they can apparently "race" (this year's oval aero kit notwithstanding) and they slide/move around a lot.

F1 cars are all but perfect in comparison. Fast, stable, incredible brakes, and able to corner at ludicrous speeds, even the slow ones.

I don't have a solution, but I do think F1 is missing a publicity trick with the combination of driver+technology having approached 'perfection'.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Greem

IndyCar is always used as a comparison because they can apparently "race" (this year's oval aero kit notwithstanding) and they slide/move around a lot.

Indeed, Indycars are very, very low downforce compared to F1. They can race, but they will also be really slow compared to F1 (slower than F2 too and doing laptimes comparable to GP3 or F3).

Thankfully Indycar race on compact national circuits like Mid-Ohio (and street circuits) thereby they don't seem that slow, so it's not too bad for fans. Obviously, Indycars are extremely fast at super speedways, averaging 340+ km/hr.

It's a tricky problem to solve. Which solution is best?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Indeed, Indycars are very, very low downforce compared to F1. They can race, but they will also be really slow compared to F1 (slower than F2 too and doing laptimes comparable to GP3 or F3).

Thankfully Indycar race on compact national circuits like Mid-Ohio (and street circuits) thereby they don't seem that slow, so it's not too bad for fans. Obviously, Indycars are extremely fast at super speedways, averaging 340+ km/hr.

It's a tricky problem to solve. Which solution is best?

Are IndyCars slower than F2 cars and doing lap times comparable to GP3 or F3?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

No it isn't. It extends beyond that. If the floor on your house extends beyond the boundary walls it's a balcony or a terrace or a patio. It is most certainly not the floor.

I think you are getting confused between the floor (storey) of a building and the building's floor.

The 12th floor of a tower block refers to that level, not a physical part of the building itself.
The context of a F1 car floor would be like the floor of a tower block being the lowest part of the structure.

In your example of a balcony - the floor of a balcony does not have to support the balcony itself, and the balcony floor can extend beyond anything else that is part of the balcony.

In the image below - the extent of the balcony is defined by the edge of the 'floor'. The useable part of the balcony is limited by the barrier.




In the example of an F1 car, the extent of the body is defined by the edge of the floor. The rest of the body merely sits in a narrower plane.

[chillibowl]

would a veranda or lanai be a better analogy?

i wonder if they have this much fun at TWG meetings!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

would a veranda or lanai be a better analogy?

i wonder if they have this much fun at TWG meetings!

TWG?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

For a comparison, the recent Indy tyre test at COTA ran some 13 or 14 seconds slower than Kimi's lap record from a couple of weeks ago. IndyCar is always used as a comparison because they can apparently "race" (this year's oval aero kit notwithstanding) and they slide/move around a lot.

F1 cars are all but perfect in comparison. Fast, stable, incredible brakes, and able to corner at ludicrous speeds, even the slow ones.

I don't have a solution, but I do think F1 is missing a publicity trick with the combination of driver+technology having approached 'perfection'.

Here is a good in-car video from the COTA IndyCar test.

https://twitter.com/COTA/status/1057298164267520001

So they are slower than F1, but I am OK with that. It should be interesting to watch what the racing looks like at COTA (IndyCar does plan to race there right?)

I think one thing that should be obvious is that to a degree, much of the changes people talk about here (particularly making the cars harder to drive, reduction in downforce, etc.) will make them slower than the current cars. Maybe some of that can be offset with greater straight line speed, but something has to give somewhere (such as cornering speed). I am very much OK with a reduction in overall speed (longer lap time) as the trade off for more competitive races and potentially a healthier series.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

TWG?

technical working group (TWG).

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

technical working group (TWG).

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Physics and the Oxford English Dictionary.

My physics isn't the best, but there was nothing in there that said a floor cannot also be a wing. Or more generally, an object cannot serve two purposes.

There are many multi-purpose tools available. I'm not sure why physics discriminates against the floor of F1 cars in this.

Ironically, this is the sort of nonsense argument F1 teams make all the time. The blown diffusers had a 2 hour debate during one of the team meetings on what a "hole" was. Now we're having the exact same discussion here.

"There's too many regulations! The cars are getting silly! Regulate the silliness with...regulations!"

[Mike Harte]

Maybe the object that is the centre of this discussion should be re-named a non-retractable flap?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

My physics isn't the best, but there was nothing in there that said a floor cannot also be a wing. Or more generally, an object cannot serve two purposes.

There are many multi-purpose tools available. I'm not sure why physics discriminates against the floor of F1 cars in this.

Ironically, this is the sort of nonsense argument F1 teams make all the time. The blown diffusers had a 2 hour debate during one of the team meetings on what a "hole" was. Now we're having the exact same discussion here.

"There's too many regulations! The cars are getting silly! Regulate the silliness with...regulations!"

The floor of a car can act like wing but it needs be shaped like one, or it won't work.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

My physics isn't the best, but there was nothing in there that said a floor cannot also be a wing. Or more generally, an object cannot serve two purposes.

My first thought in relation to aerodynamics was the flaperon. Serves two purposes, from one plane.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The floor of a car can act like wing but it needs be shaped like one, or it won't work.

There are lots of aero parts that aren't shaped like a wing but certainly assist in producing downforce. To be honest, the current floors aren't shaped like a wing anyway - they just have all sorts of cuts and bumps and lumps to shape the air. Ain't no traditional wing profiles there. Seems like the current floors meet that criteria?

So define "shaped like a wing". Because we all know that isn't that simple. When it comes to shapes that are inboard on a vehicle, the air it receives is already shaped by the devices in front of it. So you could have a shape there designed to produce downforce that isn't traditionally wing shaped because of the state of the air it's receiving.

These sort of discussions are why F1 is in this tangled rats nest of technical regulations.

Of all the issues though, I'm not sure what this one would solve. Floors have been used as aero devices since the 70s. This is just the latest generation of them. Did we have a discussion before about "it can't be a floor AND an aero tunnel"?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

My first thought in relation to aerodynamics was the flaperon. Serves two purposes, from one plane.

If you want to be really basic, my flask stops my soup for spilling on the floor. It also keeps it warm. My hat looks good and keeps my head warm. Just need a quick look around a room to spot that almost everything serves multiple purposes. I don't understand that point of view.