[Tech Issue] The lack of proper aerodynamic changes/F-Duct [HUGE MERGE]

[Born Racer]

I think most of the suggestions here are terrible suggestions, maybe you guys that talk about "banning aero" should watch some other sport instead of trying to ruin it for those that likes F1. I think touring cars might be good, there's overtakings, reckless drivers and brick-like aero!

Personally I don't like the British touring car series, because it's turned into a Demolition Derby. I don't want reckless driving in F1.

My posting style can be blunt sometimes. Sorry in advance!

Blunt sometimes, yes. Missing the point sometimes, yes.

[Purist]

Yes, I saw the Sao Paulo Indy Car race. Of course, the suspensions on Indy Cars actually move; watch the close-up, super-slow-mo replays of the cars going through chicanes or other complexes, and the suspensions on the F1 cars do NOT move in any discernible fashion. The F1 cars, as they are, are much more rigid and aerodynamically sensitive than Indy Cars. So, on a bumpy surface, F1 cars just try to snap away, like what happened to Nico Hulkenberg at Bahrain.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

the rules no longer allow for innovation. if it isn't specifically written into the rules, it's either on the banned list, or you have to run it by the technical committe for approval. So, like i said, there is no longer room for real innovation in F1 anymore.

That's precisely what the problem is and as a result the FIA have effectively turned F1 into a spec series. Coupled with that there are now a number of homogenised tracks bulit by Tilke. So you now have spec cars racing on spec tracks, how boring is that.

[jab]

Some things need to be standardised, though. You'll never get good racing without at least some standardised aero

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Purist

Yes, I saw the Sao Paulo Indy Car race. Of course, the suspensions on Indy Cars actually move; watch the close-up, super-slow-mo replays of the cars going through chicanes or other complexes, and the suspensions on the F1 cars do NOT move in any discernible fashion. The F1 cars, as they are, are much more rigid and aerodynamically sensitive than Indy Cars. So, on a bumpy surface, F1 cars just try to snap away, like what happened to Nico Hulkenberg at Bahrain.

Absolutely spot on, they are designed for billiard table smooth tracks, if most of the tracks had some proper bumps in them F1 cars would be different beasts becuase the designers would have to design them to work over the bumps. They'd have higher ride heights, more compliance in the suspension, be less pitch sensitive, have more mechanical grip and that could be achieved without changing the cars at all just chuck out all the boring Tilke dromes and bring in some proper race tracks to replace them. The designers would recognise they had a new challenge and would design a different car. No it couldn't be done overnight, but it could be done over the course of a few seasons.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jab

Some things need to be standardised, though. You'll never get good racing without at least some standardised aero

I thought current F1 cars were fairley standarised and that this was one of the problems with F1, no innovation everyone restricted by the FIA spec.

[jab]

The engines and tyres, maybe. But the aero isn't standardised enough. If you open up the aero rules, you're only going to make it more difficult to overtake, not easier

[bjohnsonsmith]

That's an interesting argument, so how would you standardise the aeros and how would that promote overtaking?

[jab]

Standard front and rear wing designs and a standard rear end designed with the air coming off it in mind (i.e. no diffusers, standard suspension design etc). Plus total outlawing of any winglets, sharkgills, bargeboards etc so that there is absolutely no way around the rules as the teams have found since 2009

[Purist]

Anybody know why a number of the 1982 F1 cars did NOT have front wings at all?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jab

Standard front and rear wing designs and a standard rear end designed with the air coming off it in mind (i.e. no diffusers, standard suspension design etc). Plus total outlawing of any winglets, sharkgills, bargeboards etc so that there is absolutely no way around the rules as the teams have found since 2009

What you describe doesn't seem too far removed from the Dallara used in IICS and it proved to be pretty good at Sao Paulo. It was well able to deal with the bumpy circuit; not that I'm a fan of the Dallara at all and it's high time it was got rid of as it's about 7 years old.

[Tathrim]

Originally Posted by Purist

Anybody know why a number of the 1982 F1 cars did NOT have front wings at all?

Ground effect was the vast majority of the downforce back then, so that's an easy question.

Will post what I think should happen soon.

[Purist]

Well, it wasn't the start of ground effect in F1, and the 1981 and 1983 F1 cars had front wings. I'm just wondering then what particularly was happening in 1982 that caused the cars to be different for just that one season.

[broadrun96]

I would at least like to see the FIA study the airflow off the back of the cars. Or if anyone has a tunnel big enough to run tests on a car following another. Not estimates based on one car creates this much turbulence and the car behind reacts to it, but actual numbers even if they have to get a couple of teams or ex-F1 aero guys to look at it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

Anybody know why a number of the 1982 F1 cars did NOT have front wings at all?

1982 was the last season of the ground effect era and a lot of teams throughout this period experimented with and without front wings, maybe more so in 1982 as the cars ran fixed skirts rather than sliding skirts.

Sliding skirts were banned after the 1980 season and the ride height increased. To get round the ban, fixed skirts and an hydraulic system were used to lower the car's ride height more than was allowed. The skirts could then operate at this lower height, once the car had left the pits and was out on the track. The cars were also very stiffly sprung so the skirts could maintain contact with the track. With fixed skirts there was less flexibility and some desingers felt that the front wings interfered with the airflow under the car, so they were got rid of.

However, teams would run both. Look at footage of Villeneuve and Pironi at Imola '82; Pironi ran the front wing Villeneuve didn't.

Hope that helps.

[Purist]

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it might shed light on some aspects of our discussions here.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it might shed light on some aspects of our discussions here.

Hope it was useful. What's your take on F1 and the "inability" to overtake?

[Purist]

I think there is a level of downforce that can be run, and a significant level at that, without causing too much problem with overtaking. The critical issue is to make the downforce-inducing elements less sensitive so that they are less impacted by wake turbulence.

More flexibility with engine configurations, providing differing power levels, torque curves, etc., would definitely be a plus to the racing as well.

The drivers also need to be more willing to take risks on-track, or any car design changes may have a minimal impact on the racing.

Finally, we NEED LESS homogeneity between the tracks F1 runs on, and it wouldn't hurt to let the tracks we do keep on the schedule develop some bumps in the asphalt surface.

[jab]

I agree with most of that, Purist. However, would you agree that some restrictions in some areas are inevitable? Would you, for instance, agree with my suggestion of opening it up to whatever format engine you like as long as it's a road car-based (that cannot be significantly altered) engine that's no larger than 2 litres, thus being both more and less restrictive at the same time?

Originally Posted by Purist

The drivers also need to be more willing to take risks on-track, or any car design changes may have a minimal impact on the racing.

Absolutely, which means getting rid of things like engine and gearbox penalties and tyres that overheat in the draft that prevent drivers from going for it because they have to conserve

Surely, if you, bjohnsonsmith and I can figure out some sort of rule package that would theoretically work, then so should the great minds and senior figures of the sport?

[bjohnsonsmith]

That's interesting. One of the reasons I always preferred Indycar racing over F1, particularly in the CART period, was the the diversity of chassis, engines, tracks and yet it produced much closer racing. Maybe I've got this wrong or my memory isn't serving me as well as it used to but aren't the races longer than GPs?

[jab]

Some were, some weren't. F1 GPs are set at 305 km to the nearest lap (or 2 hours maximum). I think there was a 2 hour limit in the later years but some of the races went beyond 305 km - the Indy 500 for a start

I think whilst there was a "diversity" of chassis in the IndyCar/CART period, a lot of them were still running the same chassis (I know in the late 90s, most teams were running Reynards, and if they weren't, they usually weren't winning), plus they were all so restricted they weren't far off the same anyway - it's not like F1 now

I think we all accept that engine diversity is the way to go (although a bit of dispute over the form it should take - cost is an issue here), and the same for tyres. It is clear that the aero is a sticking point for some as we all have our own interpretations on that, but as far as I'm concerned, you can't have good racing without a serious amount of aero standardisation. Some do not agree but I think as long as there is that elephant in the room, it's going to prevent overtaking at a reasonable enough level at every circuit - the FIA and its working groups have, until now, skirted around the problem by papering over the cracks with minor changes to specific targeted areas, one at a time instead of all in one go, and that is why we don't have good racing now

I think we all agree that to have good racing, we need

1) a new set of aero rules

2) changes to the engine rules to encourage more diversity whilst maintaing cost-effectiveness

3) a tyre war of some kind and new rules built around that

4) long-term stability

[Purist]

The CART road races were longer than GPs are now. The CART street circuit races were all longer than Monaco is. The standard GP distance currently is defined as the fewest laps of the given circuit needed to exceed a distance of 305km (189.527 miles). Monaco is presently run to a distance of 78 laps of that 2.074-mile street circuit (161.772miles/~260km). The various CART road course races, plus Cleveland, were run to 200-250 miles. The CART street circuit races were roughly in the range of 170-190 miles; I think Vancouver was a bit under that (168.6 miles, IIRC), and I think Long Beach at least was sometimes over that (98 laps at 1.968 miles per lap, or something like that). Sao Paulo was, well, perhaps cut a bit short by the clock. It was set for 75 laps, or 195 miles.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Thanks for those two answers. Why then did CART tend produce closer racing?

[jab]

A lot of cautions, similar cars, less downforce, lower standard of drivers, no stupid artificial rules like saying you cannot use more than x number of engines in a season...

[herowassenna]

I'm uncomfortable with these "cost-cutting" measures.
We are talking about the richest sport in the world. Manufacturers coming in and spending millions on engines etc isn't a crime. These are huge corporations that understand business. Honda, Toyota and BMW pulled out, so what, they'll return when the economic climate suits them.
It's not like football, where clubs need billionaire sugar daddies adopting them as play things. How can a footballer be worth £80,000,000 and yet car manufacturers are forced to cost cut? How many clubs are debt free?
Manufacturers will come and go. Easiest way of letting the have-nots into play with the big boys, is make the Grandees supply engines.
Much as Mercedes has, Renault and Ferrari. But instead of charging for the engines, they have to supply a certain percentage of teams, or be able to. They can spend what they want, but this would help the smaller funded teams.
As I read elsewhere, Mercedes were scared of Red Bull being better than them, so they refused to supply their engine to them. But they're still supplying Mclaren and Force India.
As for engine and gearbox limits per season, this is ridiculous. Penalise the manufacturer points. Don't penalise the driver.
I seriously think they should go back to manual gearbox. Let's see the true art of the driver.