|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 May 2022, 19:11 (Ref:4108818) | #3951 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,847
|
Quote:
But as I called out in an earlier post, there are many factors in front wing height selection. Reduce impact on the flow into the underbody tunnels (higher is better), and reducing risk of front wing damage from curbs and off track excursions (higher is better) vs. improved aero efficiency for the front wing (lower is probably better is most cases). And can we say how much better/worse it would be if the front wing was moved up/down a bit? I don't think anyone here is qualified to say without having done the analysis (beyond thought experiments) Quote:
This is why wind turbines are as tall as they can get away with. The higher up they are, the faster the wind. But in the end, the argument doesn't work for F1. You are trying to compare relatively static wind (in which surface friction slows the air close to the ground) against the highly dynamic flow from a moving body. As I have argued above, I would say that how "clean", "non-turbulent" or "laminar" the air is behind an F1 car is predominantly driven by the aerodynamics of the leading car than any consideration of static wind gradients. If those even factor in at all. For sure there is surface friction for air which is why rolling roads are used in tunnels. Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
4 May 2022, 08:21 (Ref:4108853) | #3952 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,165
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 May 2022, 08:48 (Ref:4108857) | #3953 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
I'll summarize:
To not learn from the past is foolish. To dwell on the past is (mostly) useless nostalgia. To present nostalgia as learning from the past is silly. To present a reasonable argument to learn from the past as nostalgia is disingenuous. |
|
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
4 May 2022, 09:44 (Ref:4108862) | #3954 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,083
|
I agree with the point about learning, but over the years we've had:
* should just run DFV * take the wings off altogether * have tyres like the 1960s * get rid of [insert newish thing here] because it's new and therefore artificial etc, etc, etc. Rose-tinted nostalgia and harking back to it is _not_ learning from the past, it's misty-eyed leanings back to the days where F1 was at its' most attractive to people. I've said it many times in this forum that we all have an era (or two, but rarely more) where we think that F1 was absolutely perfect and many then hark back to those days as an example of how things should be now. The thing is that at the time, the people who'd been F1 enthusiasts for a number of years were looking at the new cars and hankering back 15+ years to the days of BRM or whichever era they held up as "the best". It's incredibly hard to look at today's F1 without the legacy of history - hell, I've been watching it for 40 years now and I've seen that cycle happen over and over and over again. In ten years, a reasonable number of people will be harking back to the hybrid PU days. Learn by all means. Many of the comments here do not demonstrate that, they're simply nostalgic. |
|
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
4 May 2022, 09:53 (Ref:4108865) | #3955 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,340
|
When I looked back at what was being proposed by the forum 20+ years ago, I was interested to see if either:
F1 had adopted the solutions proposed, but we are still looking for more. F1 had chosen a different approach. The conclusion I reached was that F1 has adopted a lot of what was being asked for 20+ years ago, and many still think things are not right. Can we learn from our own mistakes in the past? The solution (if it even exists) is not something that is easily identifiable and implemented. The solution(s) may be something that has never been seen in F1 (or other motorsport) before. |
||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
4 May 2022, 14:21 (Ref:4108892) | #3956 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,938
|
Quote:
It sounds like they are considering active aero with continuously variable wing angles (my thought: probably with partially faired or enclosed wheels too). It sounds like you will get what you want regarding narrower cars too! Hopefully they only drop to 1900mm width like GP2 and not all the way back down to 1800mm. We can all agree that shorter cars are a good idea though. Your idea of 16" wheels has merit for weight reduction. Hopefully they only reduce front tyre width (back to the traditional/GP2 size of 245mm) and not rear tyre width, I think narrow rear tyres look silly. BUT if they do go to a 1.0L V4 engine to save weight and reduce power then a GP2/1998-2016 size 325mm rear tyre perhaps would be sufficient and the (IMO lovely) 405mm wide rear tyres would perhaps be rendered unnecessary anyway. |
||
|
4 May 2022, 15:19 (Ref:4108898) | #3957 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,165
|
I don't think narrower cars is a good thing. Narrower cars = less drag, more weight transfer, again did they learn nothing from the universally unpopular 1998 regs?
|
||
|
4 May 2022, 16:34 (Ref:4108900) | #3958 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Quote:
According to this April 27th article on the 2026 proposals, Gary Anderson states that wheels and tires account for roughly 45% of the drag. Even this is perhaps a bit on the high side it does help to explain quite well one reason why these prototype sized tires are less suitable for open wheels type cars: https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-...ation-changes/ I think Super Formula's size and proportions of both tires and cars is pretty well chosen. - Quite a bit shorter wheelbase than F1 (3.115mm vs. 3.600mm) - 1900mm wide vs. 2000mm F1 (F1: 1800mm earlier) - Tires: F: 270/620R13 / R: 360/620R13 vs F: 305/720R18 / R: 405/720R18 (either a 645mm diameter tire on 15'' wheels or 660mm on 16'' would be fine). I reckon for F1 this would be a suitable size to help reduce weight, drag and turbulence for the following car: F: 270/645/R15 / R: 370/645/R15 or 270/670/R16 / R: 370/670/R16 To come back to the wording to reduce or contain the weight. I think F1 is mindful of leaving their options open on the drivetrain side long term and provide a "soft landing" towards battery power cars in the further future. If they define too strong ambitions on the weight reduction front, they are limiting their manoeuvrability in regards to the transition to battery power. |
||
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
6 May 2022, 20:16 (Ref:4109088) | #3959 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,938
|
Quote:
1900mm would indeed hopefully keep everyone happy. That F3000/GP2/Super Formula car width is a nice middle ground without looking as squashed as 1800mm. Quote:
I'm a little worried that a lot of fans love the era of 1800mm wide cars with 245mm front tyres and 325mm rear tyres (i.e., 1998-2016) and would prefer that to 1900mm cars with wider 270/370mm tyres. If reducing drag is really the overriding goal then going back to really narrow cars and really narrow tyres would certainly be more effective than taking a compromise of Super Formula size cars and tyres, unfortunately. But hopefully the engineers win the debate and can keep a little bit wider cars with a little bit wider tyres in Grand Prix racing than the alternative. |
|||
|
7 May 2022, 11:17 (Ref:4109131) | #3960 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
||
|
7 May 2022, 13:32 (Ref:4109145) | #3961 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,550
|
Quote:
I do believe that a good part of the "extra" length (as well as width) is to create the safety cell for the driver with deformable structures around that cell for added protection for the driver. The shorter cars of the past required the drivers' feet to go beyond the front axle leading to many broken bones that no longer happens in similar crash circumstances. |
|||
|
7 May 2022, 14:14 (Ref:4109148) | #3962 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,194
|
Quote:
This photo shows how big the Mercedes PU and drive train is. Last edited by bjohnsonsmith; 7 May 2022 at 14:29. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
7 May 2022, 14:17 (Ref:4109149) | #3963 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,194
|
Double post.
Last edited by bjohnsonsmith; 7 May 2022 at 14:30. Reason: Double post |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
7 May 2022, 16:59 (Ref:4109158) | #3964 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Also most teams stays above the minimum wheelbase length because generally the aero benefits of going longer outweight the weight penalty.
Thank you for sharing that top view shot from the cars. Quite shocking when you see it like that. |
|
|
7 May 2022, 18:45 (Ref:4109166) | #3965 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,165
|
I think engineers prefer longer cars as Taxi has suggested because of the enormous aero benefits. It also makes packaging the rear so much easier. If they restricted this I personally think it would be a good thing. The rear of the cars now are basically just a floor with a tube in the middle housing the gearbox. If they restricted the wheelbase it might make teams have to package the rear more conventionally and actually have bodywork at the rear.
|
||
|
8 May 2022, 05:56 (Ref:4109196) | #3966 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
The further the front wing is in front of the front axle line the greater the load on the front wheels is going to be. To balance this out the rear wing needs to back as far as it can go to keep the balance between the two. This means the cars look like they are on rails and don't move about as older cars did and also makes them look as boring as hell to watch.
|
|
|
8 May 2022, 08:20 (Ref:4109205) | #3967 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
I used a image manipulation program to illustrate what a Super Formula car (1.900mm wide) would like with the following tires specs: F: 270/645/R15 / R: 370/645/R15
To me the look like properly sized tires (diameter and width) for this size of car. Yet, the front area of these tyres is about 20% less than what we have now and only 9.5% larger than the narrow tires we had before 2017. Weight wise they would be quite close to the 2016 tire/wheel combo and a whole lot lighter than what we have now, (again all rotational unsprung weight, the worst you can have). So to me, with a smaller car you could have a lot smaller wheels that make a lot more technical sense and still look pretty bad ass. Saving a lot of weight and drag which will aid the nimble handling of the cars, the fuel use and aid sustainability goals and allow smaller (electric drivetrains and batteries in the future). |
|
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
8 May 2022, 09:05 (Ref:4109206) | #3968 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,442
|
We’re at 265 pages of discussion yet in all that time no-one mentioned jewellery.
|
||
__________________
I like taking pictures of cars going round tracks, through forests and up hills. |
8 May 2022, 09:16 (Ref:4109207) | #3969 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
||
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
8 May 2022, 12:57 (Ref:4109222) | #3970 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,737
|
Don’t worry. Pretty soon we will have robot drivers or better still…no drivers at all.
Then people can fret over how safe the esport kid’s mom’s basement is. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
14 Jun 2022, 06:24 (Ref:4115481) | #3971 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Should F1 use accelerometers to limit porpoising?
Minimal height is nice, but will have different effectiveness on different cars and will punish teams that did a better job on controlling the issue. What if they would use accelerometers to control the issue? So the determine the average amount of oscillating G-force of the current porpoising of the worst effected cars. Then for now (until medically is determined what is the maximum a driver can safely endure for longterm health) half that current porpoising G-force. So set up the following a car may not over the coarse of a lap: 1 Show oscillations in the currently determined porpoising frequency bandwidth for more than say 3 second straight with a predetermined maximum G-force (as said for now for instance half of the current average). Would that not go straight to the health and safety concern off the drivers without penalising teams who did a better job at controlling it. Sounds like something would not take ages to implement. |
|
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
14 Jun 2022, 06:35 (Ref:4115483) | #3972 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,651
|
Quote:
I think it is in the nature of racing drivers to endure discomfort in the pursuit of a good lap time and disregard the potential problems, so some sort of legislation would prevent teams from 'forcing' their drivers into such uncomfortable/dangerous situations. The only potential drawback I can see in this is the possibility of teams not wanting their sensitive data to be common knowledge throughout the grid. (I know that up and down oscillation data won't give away too many secrets, but teams like to keep all of their data to themselves). |
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
14 Jun 2022, 07:29 (Ref:4115491) | #3973 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,340
|
It would be very quick to implement. They just need to use the existing accelerometers and cameras in place for impacts, and define the parameters.
|
||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
14 Jun 2022, 08:52 (Ref:4115507) | #3974 | |
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 481
|
Why bring in fancy rules to counteract the porpoising? It's 100% within the teams control to stop it. Yes the car would be slower but that's the penalty you pay for not designing a car as well as others. Teams and drivers are all acting like it's something that is impossible to control so the FIA must slow everyone down. I wonder why.....
|
|
|
14 Jun 2022, 12:29 (Ref:4115542) | #3975 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,847
|
Quote:
https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...153954&page=38 You are not talking about some type of active control system, but rather a feedback loop that focuses on drivers health. In the discussion linked above, the idea was to use existing accelerometers that area already in place in the drivers earbuds. The FIA would probably set both a maximum threshold and also some type of measure of sustained impacts (accumulative over time) in which if a driver experiences this, there will be a penalty. The point here is that drivers should not be in the position of telling their employers "raise the ride height to preserve my health". If given the option, the drivers will do as they are doing today. Trade health for speed. Given this will be car, track and setup dependent, teams should see via the data from free practice if they are going to run afoul of this regulation and adjust ride height. Will they be slower? Yes, but the alternative should be more painful (grid and/or finishing position reductions and if a team is a pervasive repeat offender, then potential point removal, etc.) The current regulations have examples of doing this already. For example the crash tests for the survival cells have specific deceleration targets that can't be exceeded. The challenge is to create regulations to protect drivers against aggregate acceleration (or more likely "jerk" which is the rate of change of acceleration) is that they would need to base the limits upon sound science and not be arbitrary values. For example they probably should not look at the measurements of what Hamilton or Russell is experiencing (when at it's worst) and saying "that is too much". That may very well be correct, but it needs to be backed up by some literature somewhere. But that data probably does exist somewhere. Someone has probably already researched this. Public military research would be a good place to look for this. Even if the data is incomplete, FIA could use it for guidance. I frankly think the comments from some drivers (including recent ones by Russell) is actually asking for this type of regulation in a round about way. They are basically saying what I am saying above. Which is... If you leave it up to me, I am not going to say "no" to my team. But at the same time they say "it is a problem". So it is left up to everyone to put two and two together. That "someone" needs to address this. And I don't think this is about asking for more money to break the caps. If this might not be fully enacted this year, it could be done this year as a voluntary experiment. Setup some prototype thresholds and review the data to see when it would have raised red flags. Provide this data to the teams during the year (after each time the car has a session, such as practice, qualifying, race). Then let the teams decide what to do. And... publish a public report at the end of the year. Maybe some teams may choose to dial it back if an end of the year report shows they are putting their drivers health at risk. The other alternative is an active control system. Which is what I think some might think this proposal is. Which is effectively some version of active suspension. Which I have posted about before and there is no need to go into it here. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |