|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
27 Aug 2019, 06:19 (Ref:3924295) | #3626 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
Quote:
Obviously since downforce goes with square of speed, the wing size required for a 80 mph Hungaroring sweeper is very different to a 220 mph Indianapolis sweeper... Even so, the downforce levels are very low, far lower than the "Aero kit" era Indycar superspeedway packages. The Indycar regulators themsleves are not sure if this was the right decision, as the cars have lost the ease of slipstreaming which made it so exciting to watch the close racing in the aero kit era Indy 500 races. Pat Symonds says: Quote:
I wrote my first post without referring to the Symonds article, as I was already familiar with the development of the 2019 package and the thinking behind it, and subsequently the 2021 package. All-in-all I hope this has cleared it up for you Wnut. |
|||
|
27 Aug 2019, 09:47 (Ref:3924312) | #3627 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,829
|
Will other countries follow suit?
Or will the FIA have to act? https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...27-p52lbi.html |
||
__________________
"Your biggest auto race may one day become a Camaro playground", Chris Economaki, Bathurst 1979 |
27 Aug 2019, 12:52 (Ref:3924342) | #3628 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,067
|
Non technical answer: "the fans".
Every single time there's been a significant change in the look of the cars since I can recall (which diminishes each day!), "The fans" have gone insane/become incendiary/made noises like a Hewland gearbox stuck in second. It happened with stepped noses. It happened when stepped noses were removed. It happened with high noses, narrow rear wings, high rear wings, low noses, wide front wings, grooved tyres, mixed compound tyres, changes in qualifying, changes back in qualifying, changes in the points system, etc etc etc. "We" are a fickle bunch. "We" prove time and time again that "we" don't really know what "we" want. If F1 produce a rubbish product, eventually it will wither and die. Right now there's too much money invested to allow sight of the actual product, given the hospitality and corporate end of things, but the continued move away from FTA TV will end up killing F1 unless they can get the tech changes absolutely bang on. I'd like to hold my breath, but I'm not going to. |
|
__________________
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. |
27 Aug 2019, 12:54 (Ref:3924343) | #3629 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,215
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 Aug 2019, 13:12 (Ref:3924345) | #3630 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Quote:
As to the question of a larger underbody. When I posted that, I was mostly thinking that they have kept the basic dimensions of the current floor which technically could extend up more toward the front wheels. Full body WEC cars show that more tricks exist if you have more area to play with. However this is not sports prototypes, so there are limits before you can no longer call these "open wheel" cars. But, I think they could increase the size forward (not sure how much extra that might buy). They could also increase the track of the cars. I love the look of the pre-narrow track cars. But... given the narrow track is supposed to improve overtaking (I am dubious), I doubt there would be much support for moving back to a wider track. As I say above, I pretty much agree with much of what you said. The real root of my comment is that I think part of the equation is to not create radical changes to the looks of the cars. That if they wanted, there remains more to be found. With that being said... I am very much trying to not second guessing what they are doing. While I may play devils advocate at time, I very much like what is going on and think that people who know much more than we are doing their best. I would say if anything, my most negative comment would be that we live in a world of compromises. So no doubt those on the technical side have not been given a total free hand. But I don't expect they would have. Its even possible that prior attempts have been hobbled by that type of thinking as well. But this seem to be the most radical rethink of the problem in a very long time. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
27 Aug 2019, 13:20 (Ref:3924348) | #3631 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
27 Aug 2019, 13:30 (Ref:3924352) | #3632 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,234
|
Didn't I read somewhere that a country is banning them? Not sure if they are as benign as people suggest. Remember Skoal Bandit, which was another alternative to smoking?
Yes E cigarettes are banned in Japan. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
27 Aug 2019, 14:26 (Ref:3924359) | #3633 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Personally I can't stand them. I agree they are likely to be proven quite harmful.
I mostly was joking about Philips Morris running a vape brand. Because in the end, it's just them trying to work around the tobacco ban and given those can deliver nicotine, likely wouldn't be allowed IMHO. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
27 Aug 2019, 17:16 (Ref:3924382) | #3634 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
Well they would run their Mission Winnow branding, but pressure forced them to remove. Same with McLaren with A Better Tomorrow
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
27 Aug 2019, 17:48 (Ref:3924388) | #3635 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
Quote:
between the logos and slogans its an assault on the senses! tacky to the extreme...someone needs to do Ferrari (and all of Italy) a favour and take Phillip Morris out of this equation. |
|||
__________________
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 |
27 Aug 2019, 22:12 (Ref:3924428) | #3636 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,471
|
Quote:
As Phillip Morris are probably the biggest partner (i.e. sponsor) that Ferrari have, and have had for decades, I fear there is little chance of that. Unlikely that they will want to deny themselves of the US$25 - 30 million or so that they get every year from Phillip Morris. This is why Ferrari could afford the huge salary demands of Schumacher, Alonso and now Vettel. |
|||
|
28 Aug 2019, 16:37 (Ref:3924521) | #3637 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
i got some time on my hands but not enough time to learn more about aerodynamics.
Quote:
looking at the cars from 2014-2016 era...2016 RB below. just going by memory but thinking about those narrow but high wings (almost at level or higher than the air intake/airbox)....was this idea of kicking the wake up higher tried before or is this new approach significantly different? also (and this my not make any sense), whenever i see a diagram of air flow they show those arrows being disturbed by the car and then at some further distance behind, the arrows settle back into their original position/level/direction and go back to normal. so if the wake gets kicked up higher wont that disturbed air still settle back to it's normal level all be it having traveled a further distance (higher up and then down) and that path will take a bit longer so the disturbed air settles back to normal but now just further behind the lead car? i guess my point is (and i literally have no idea what im talking about here), does this new solution just push the turbulent air problem a couple car lengths further back behind the lead car? rather, the following car still has to pass through it but now they will have to pass through it earlier (ie while they are further back) which may possibly make it even harder to get close enough to enjoy the less disturbed air 'bubble' directly behind the lead car? sorry if that makes no sense...i hate the black arts! Last edited by chillibowl; 28 Aug 2019 at 16:43. |
|||
__________________
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 |
28 Aug 2019, 16:41 (Ref:3924522) | #3638 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
Quote:
ugly is here to stay! |
|||
__________________
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 |
29 Aug 2019, 01:53 (Ref:3924580) | #3639 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
Quote:
No, that's not how it works. [Recall: air is neutrally buoyant unless it is cooled to make it sink .] |
||
|
29 Aug 2019, 14:55 (Ref:3924681) | #3640 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
|||
__________________
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 |
29 Aug 2019, 15:16 (Ref:3924687) | #3641 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,292
|
Quote:
The 2009 'high/narrow' rear wing was introduced in an attempt to separate the flows from the diffuse and the wing. The overall aim at this time was to reduce the amount of down-force being generated. Whilst the rear wing wake may have been higher, the wake from the diffuser remained and was relatively dirty. This proposal has the wing working to draw the wake from the diffuser higher, giving a cleaner air immediately behind the car. I have included a (very crude) illustration of how I interpret this. yellow is the 2009 airflow intent, and green is the new proposal. |
|||
__________________
"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." |
29 Aug 2019, 23:47 (Ref:3924758) | #3642 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Essentially Chilli is right though, the hole punched through the air by the car has gone from a VW combi sized hole to a pantechnicon sized hole. The dirty air boiling off the rear wheels will converge into the lower pressure caused by lifting the air from the diffuser and wing. This will result in a lot of highly energetic turbulent air converging behind the car, air which is not "neutrally buoyant" but very turbulent and moving to fill a partial vacuum that is now bigger than before. The wake of the current cars is significantly affecting a chasing car when it is 5 seconds behind. (400 meters at 300 kmh) To my mind the aero group has failed to take proper advantage of ground effect aero which essentially uses the boundary effect against the track to more efficiently generate downforce, generates less turbulence and is more tolerant of turbulent air itself. Instead the proposal sees the emphasis still placed on the front and rear wings of the cars, and the ground effect low pressure area being reduced by the reducing the area of the underfloor by reducing the wheel base of the cars. I think Richard's original observation that politics and the "look" of the cars has hampered the effectiveness of the changes that have been made. I guess there is no use arguing this out, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating! Roll on 2021. The question remains though: How will the cars be adjusted if the changes fail to improve the racing? Will we have to wait another 10 years before anything is done? |
||
|
30 Aug 2019, 16:12 (Ref:3924854) | #3643 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,032
|
|||
|
30 Aug 2019, 16:15 (Ref:3924855) | #3644 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,144
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
17 Sep 2019, 08:19 (Ref:3928473) | #3645 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Whilst we are all enthusiastically waiting to see the rule change package for 2021, I was reminded on the Christian Sylt article from 2015 regarding "Just how Powerful is Ferrari's F1 Veto?".
https://autoweek.com/article/formula...-f1-veto-power |
|
|
17 Sep 2019, 10:47 (Ref:3928496) | #3646 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Quote:
That however doesn't mean Ferrari doesn't continue to hold vast power with respect to 2021 negotiations. Also...will the veto right survive in the 2021 agreement? That has been a topic of discussion previously. My guess is that in a way, it's a bargaining chip FOM can use against Ferrari. Who knows how often Ferrari uses it, but no doubt they want to keep it. I can imagine FOM extracting concessions from Ferrari to allow Ferrari to keep the veto. I personally think any single team having that power is a really bad idea. I would love to see it go away in 2021. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
17 Sep 2019, 14:40 (Ref:3928537) | #3647 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
I don't think Ferrari are as powerful as they were then. Ferrari might be able to veto a few things. Not sure what they can do now though.
Maybe the teams will need to agree on a few things in 2021. But it won't mean Ferrari will be able to veto anything. Obviously Ferrari will need to make sure they don't start becoming uncompetitive. But they will look for any help they can get. But not have so much rights to a veto. Maybe that will now go away. So it'll be fairer in future |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
19 Sep 2019, 12:10 (Ref:3928866) | #3648 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I don't know how I feel about the new aero changes, Let me explain why.
When the problems of overtaking first raised it's ugly head we were told by the person now heading the changes (Sorry but I can't remember his name) that all that could be done was done and DRS was the definitive answer. Some years later he is put in charge of the aero 2021 changes and says he has now found the answer and can everyone stand up and cheer. maybe I am wearing my tinfoil hat but just maybe he was dancing to someone's tune all those years ago and had no intention of coming up with an answer that actually worked. A very strange situation indeed. |
|
|
19 Sep 2019, 13:49 (Ref:3928895) | #3649 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
DRS was only supposed to be a temporary solution. Sadly it has bern there too long
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
19 Sep 2019, 14:22 (Ref:3928900) | #3650 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Quote:
Each time something new shows up, you ask... why are they just now saying the old product wasn't perfect? I thought they said it was perfect back then? My hope this time around is that they are giving signs that they know it will not be perfect. I don't think this is a lack of confidence, but rather that over promising and under delivering in the past continues to haunt them. It's best to say it's a work in progress. Now the question will be... will that message survive? I expect the closer we get to 2021, the more likely the mantra will be... "This is perfect!" Or potentially... the press may not allow any grey to exist. It will be perfect or the worst thing ever. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |