Have overtaking initiatives improved F1 ?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In my view the root cause is that Formula 1 still does not know where it should be heading to.

That's because you have different teams with different ideas of what it should be doing. You have teams like Red Bull, who couldn't give a monkeys' what engine powers its cars, so long as it's competitive. Then you have Ferrari, who insist that its engines should reflect the technology that's applied only to "Grand Turismo" cars. Then you have Renault, who wish to take the more road relevant approach of downsizing and turbo-charging. Mercedes are somewhere in between, and their only real requirement is that it all stays affordable enough to make sense.

Then you have the teams themselves, who have spent many millions on wind tunnel technology. This technology is what really makes F1 cars faster than any other open wheel series, regardless of engine horsepower. It's why a Red Bull car is faster than a Team Lotus car, and why a Team Lotus car is faster than a GP2 car, and why a GP2 car is faster than a Superleague car, etc. Current F1 cars aren't slower than the old V10 950 bhp cars because they have less horse power, they are slower because of the recent changes in the aero regulations.

If you want F1 cars to stay ahead of the pack, then you cannot significantly reduce down force, even if you try to make up for that loss with significantly more horse power.

Fortunately the 2014 regulations limit fuel load (current F1 regulations do not), which means that you will no longer be able to carry around excessive amounts of fuel in order to push your down force and drag laden F1 car through the air. This single measure, in itself, should aid overtaking. Whether or not we have uproar in the forums because the cars are any slower, remains to be seen.

Happy New Year.

[luke g28]

But you could increase the proportion of down force generated beneath the cars rather than relying on clean air.

The teams rejected this as the overall down force level was proposed to remain the same hence little justification for the expensive redesign.

You could also free up the mechanical grip percentage via active suspension / wider tyres or similar this would keep the cars as fast but would allow them to drive closer together without impacting one another.

I agree with the poster above, F1 does not know where it is going. What will an F1 car look like in 10 years?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

But you could increase the proportion of down force generated beneath the cars rather than relying on clean air.

The teams rejected this as the overall down force level was proposed to remain the same hence little justification for the expensive redesign.

Not only an expensive redesign, but also difficult to know exactly what the regulations need to say in order to avoid massive amounts of ground effects being created.

FOTA have proposed the following instead of the FIAs proposal of ground effects.

The changes agreed will include:

* a front wing of reduced width, down from from 1800mm to 1650mm

* a much shallower rear wing, similar to those used at the high-speed Monza track

* significantly lower noses on the cars to improve safety, although the exact maximum height has still to be determined

* the retention of the moveable rear wing - or drag-reduction system (DRS) - that was introduced this season to make overtaking a little easier

* a restriction on all the extra pieces of bodywork that have sprouted in front of the sidepods of the cars

* a restriction on the design of front-wing endplates, to limit the intricate designs seen today

* a plan to increase wheel diameter from 13 inches to 18 inches has been delayed until at least 2014

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/13412925.stm

Currently, F1 cars have a drag coefficient of 0.9Cd, which is 3 times that of a normal road car. Hardly good for fuel economy!

Originally Posted by luke g28

You could also free up the mechanical grip percentage via active suspension / wider tyres or similar this would keep the cars as fast but would allow them to drive closer together without impacting one another.

No amount of tyre grip will make up for significant losses in down force. But the FOTA proposal reduces down force too.

Originally Posted by luke g28

I agree with the poster above, F1 does not know where it is going. What will an F1 car look like in 10 years?

Probably much the same as they do now. F1 has evolution, but not revolution.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

That's because you have different teams with different ideas of what it should be doing. You have teams like Red Bull, who couldn't give a monkeys' what engine powers its cars, so long as it's competitive. Then you have Ferrari, who insist that its engines should reflect the technology that's applied only to "Grand Turismo" cars. Then you have Renault, who wish to take the more road relevant approach of downsizing and turbo-charging. Mercedes are somewhere in between, and their only real requirement is that it all stays affordable enough to make sense.

This is one of the main reasons why regulations with constantly changing geometric restrictions are not viable for the future. Not only does it force teams to waste their resources, it may also force them to waste their resources on something they have no interest in.

If you want F1 cars to stay ahead of the pack, then you cannot significantly reduce down force, even if you try to make up for that loss with significantly more horse power.

This raises the question why ground effect undertrays and turbochargers were banned then.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Not only does it force teams to waste their resources, it may also force them to waste their resources on something they have no interest in.

Red Bull produce soft drinks. Can you think of anything about those products that might be relevant to the production of an F1 car, or indeed, any car? Are they wasting money on something that they have no interest in? Did Benetton? Did Williams? Did McLaren? Or were they only interested in winning?

Try not to forget that the majority of the teams are now 'independent' teams that have no interest in what powers their cars or in what keeps them on the track.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

This raises the question why ground effect undertrays and turbochargers were banned then.

By 'downforce', I also meant anything that does not 'mechanically' hold the car onto the track. Turbocharged F1 engines of yesteryear only produced 1500 bhp when they were only required to use enough fuel to qualify. No way could they produce 1500 bhp throughout a race distance without having to carry vast amounts of fuel, which would have obviously been a safety issue. Even when they did occasionally produce much more bhp than current F1 cars do during race conditions, they were still significantly slower than current F1 cars are on lap time. They didn't always beat the Cosworth engined cars, either! Imagine how many F1 cars would have been on those grids of the 80's had it not been for the use of cheap and readily available Cosworth engines.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Not only an expensive redesign, but also difficult to know exactly what the regulations need to say in order to avoid massive amounts of ground effects being created.

"If you were going to go down that route and have a very different set of drag and lift coefficients that you couldn't achieve with the current rules, fine, that's different.

But the teams saw it as a massive amount of investment and work for something we don't really understand."

From your article and exactly as I said, the teams rejected it because it was an expensive redesign without any permitted benefits, the FIA targets are achievable cheaply with the current layout so why change it? As above, if the targets were significantly different then the redesign would occur.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Marbot

That's because you have different teams with different ideas of what it should be doing. You have teams like Red Bull, who couldn't give a monkeys' what engine powers its cars, so long as it's competitive. Then you have Ferrari, who insist that its engines should reflect the technology that's applied only to "Grand Turismo" cars. Then you have Renault, who wish to take the more road relevant approach of downsizing and turbo-charging. Mercedes are somewhere in between, and their only real requirement is that it all stays affordable enough to make sense.

Then you have the teams themselves, who have spent many millions on wind tunnel technology. This technology is what really makes F1 cars faster than any other open wheel series, regardless of engine horsepower. It's why a Red Bull car is faster than a Team Lotus car, and why a Team Lotus car is faster than a GP2 car, and why a GP2 car is faster than a Superleague car, etc. Current F1 cars aren't slower than the old V10 950 bhp cars because they have less horse power, they are slower because of the recent changes in the aero regulations.

If you want F1 cars to stay ahead of the pack, then you cannot significantly reduce down force, even if you try to make up for that loss with significantly more horse power.

Fortunately the 2014 regulations limit fuel load (current F1 regulations do not), which means that you will no longer be able to carry around excessive amounts of fuel in order to push your down force and drag laden F1 car through the air. This single measure, in itself, should aid overtaking. Whether or not we have uproar in the forums because the cars are any slower, remains to be seen.

Happy New Year.

I don't disagree with most of your factual stuff here Marbot, but I don't really care if the lap times aren't any faster than the early 90's......

I want some motor racing, not some orchestrated entertainment.

But that may just be me. Indy cars were faster at one point as were F5000 at the height of their development around some circuits. Can Am cars were too on some circuits. It doesn't matter to me.

Nor does it matter to the casual spectator because its the driver battle they want to see, the glaiatorial contest , not the technical one.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I don't disagree with most of your factual stuff here Marbot, but I don't really care if the lap times aren't any faster than the early 90's......

I want some motor racing, not some orchestrated entertainment.

But that may just be me. Indy cars were faster at one point as were F5000 at the height of their development around some circuits. Can Am cars were too on some circuits. It doesn't matter to me.

Nor does it matter to the casual spectator because its the driver battle they want to see, the glaiatorial contest , not the technical one.

All good points, I would add one more and that is even the most technically proficient minds among the fans still want real racing at the end of the day..

Heavy limits on the aerodynamic trickery and let them race...

[Peat]

I know i am late to the feast, but in answer to the OP:

Have overtaking initiatives improved F1? - No.

but - Have overtaking initiatives improved overtaking in F1? Statistically, yes. But it's kind of like teaching your iphone to say 'i love you'. Utterly hollow.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I don't disagree with most of your factual stuff here Marbot, but I don't really care if the lap times aren't any faster than the early 90's......

I want some motor racing, not some orchestrated entertainment.

But that may just be me. Indy cars were faster at one point as were F5000 at the height of their development around some circuits. Can Am cars were too on some circuits. It doesn't matter to me.

Nor does it matter to the casual spectator because its the driver battle they want to see, the glaiatorial contest , not the technical one.

I agree with all of that, but I'm saying that 'some' will still say that F1 is not F1 unless its cars are faster than other open wheel series cars.

As I've said before, you can remove the wings entirely, for me, and I will still watch it, because it's F1.

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

All good points, I would add one more and that is even the most technically proficient minds among the fans still want real racing at the end of the day..

Heavy limits on the aerodynamic trickery and let them race...

See above. The FIA could always impose aero limits on its own series of open wheel cars in order to keep F1 at the head of that group, but it has no say on limits imposed on other open wheel series.

It's said that the 2014 cars may be up to 5 seconds per lap slower than the current cars are. *waits for head popping*

Originally Posted by Peat

I know i am late to the feast, but in answer to the OP:

Have overtaking initiatives improved F1? - No.

but - Have overtaking initiatives improved overtaking in F1? Statistically, yes. But it's kind of like teaching your iphone to say 'i love you'. Utterly hollow.

Agreed. And it could also be argued that the Pirelli tyres and the use of KERS have also contributed to much of the overtaking that we saw during the last season.

But there can be no doubt that DRS allowed cars to pass other cars that might have been stuck behind a significantly slower car. But even with the use of DRS, it was still often the case that a slower car could hold up a faster car. DRS did not guarantee that overtaking was a foregone conclusion.

[Purist]

I could see and early '60s Indy Car (before the scenes of 1973 brought about various rules changes) being able to outrun F1 cars of that period on road courses. However, I'm not convinced that any car of the CART era could outpace an F1 car from the same year on a road course. And actually, at the end of Group C/GTP, those prototypes were faster than CART machinery on road courses.

About the most direct comparison between CART and F1 (aside from Montreal) is the downtown Detroit street circuit. The F1 record is 1:38.301 (91.556mph) set in 1986, and with the chicane in the pit straight. The CART record is 1:41.442 (88.721mph) set in 1991, and with no chicane in the pit straight.

I think the relative speed is a combination of a few things. Premier status in racing is generally associated with speed, and thus, F1 needs to be the quickest circuit road racing, open-wheel series out there. I wouldn't mind it terribly if LMP1s could outpace an F1 car on some high-speed circuits, but that's about it.

Aside from that general principle, F1 is very much based on image. And a key part of its image is now its relative speed compared to all other categories in its type of racing (circuit road racing, and not just limited to open-wheelers). Therefore, from that perspective, it is unacceptable to allow F1 to become slower than GP2, Superleague, IndyCar, Formula Nippon, Le Mans, GT1, etc.

As to the central question, F1 as a sport has not been improved. On-track overtaking probably has been improved. However, I'm not too keen on a lot of these added features. If you're going to have them though, they should be open in their use. Let the teams build the best system of whatever type, and let the driver make the most effective use of said system.

I'm fine with downforce, so long as it is made in an efficient manner that produces minimal wake turbulence.

And as for horsepower, what it can do is increase the drag penalty. That is, I would like to see power and torque such that it is noticeably harder to justify a higher-downforce setup at a number of the circuits.

And for a final note, I'm not so convinced about limiting fuel allotments during the race. It could just as well lead to processional events, with drivers just trying to eek things out, rather than really go for it. A number of the Group C drivers hated the fuel limits because they couldn't go as quickly as the wanted and have at it as much. This leads me to think that using this method again may not be popular, with the drivers, but also, with the general audience watching, which views F1 as entertainment. Basically, I just want to know that the drivers can still consistently go at it on-track. Otherwise, it just seems stupid. Besides, as the cars already have to carry enough fuel for an entire race, it makes sense to reduce fuel consumption as much as possible anyway, so you don't have to lug the extra weight around for the entire Grand Prix. So, limiting fuel also just seems redundant given the basic physics of the situation.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Purist

I think the relative speed is a combination of a few things. Premier status in racing is generally associated with speed, and thus, F1 needs to be the quickest circuit road racing, open-wheel series out there.

Aside from that general principle, F1 is very much based on image. And a key part of its image is now its relative speed compared to all other categories in its type of racing (circuit road racing, and not just limited to open-wheelers). Therefore, from that perspective, it is unacceptable to allow F1 to become slower than GP2, Superleague, IndyCar, Formula Nippon, Le Mans, GT1, etc.

So if the 2012 Indy car series proves to be quicker than F1, what should F1 do about that?

It is not beyond the technical ability of any series outside of the FIA umbrella to produce cars that are way faster than current F1 cars.

Originally Posted by Purist

As to the central question, F1 as a sport has not been improved. On-track overtaking probably has been improved. However, I'm not too keen on a lot of these added features. If you're going to have them though, they should be open in their use. Let the teams build the best system of whatever type, and let the driver make the most effective use of said system.

Why bother? Each system will cancel itself out if drivers can use them when they like.

Originally Posted by Purist

I'm fine with downforce, so long as it is made in an efficient manner that produces minimal wake turbulence.

And currently, it isn't doing that. The drag coefficient of an F1 car is about three times that of a typical road car (about 0.9 Cd or about the same as a double decker bus or a large truck!).

Originally Posted by Purist

And as for horsepower, what it can do is increase the drag penalty. That is, I would like to see power and torque such that it is noticeably harder to justify a higher-downforce setup at a number of the circuits.

The 2014 regulations mandates a wing specification that would be no greater than that being currently used at Monza. And if you allow cars to carry any amount of fuel, there will always be those that go for a higher down force set up.

Originally Posted by Purist

And for a final note, I'm not so convinced about limiting fuel allotments during the race. It could just as well lead to processional events, with drivers just trying to eek things out, rather than really go for it. A number of the Group C drivers hated the fuel limits because they couldn't go as quickly as the wanted and have at it as much. This leads me to think that using this method again may not be popular, with the drivers, but also, with the general audience watching, which views F1 as entertainment. Basically, I just want to know that the drivers can still consistently go at it on-track. Otherwise, it just seems stupid. Besides, as the cars already have to carry enough fuel for an entire race, it makes sense to reduce fuel consumption as much as possible anyway, so you don't have to lug the extra weight around for the entire Grand Prix. So, limiting fuel also just seems redundant given the basic physics of the situation.

Current F1 cars can carry as much fuel as they like, and in the last season we saw that it was to anyone's advantage to even use that fuel when the drivers foot was off the go pedal!

For 2012, some teams are concerned that their fuel tanks will be too large because they had factored into the design the ability to continue to use off throttle hot exhaust gas blowing.

The 2014 regulations will dictate that the cars will have to be as efficient as possible in order to complete a race distance on the amount of fuel available. Building an engine that is efficient will be just one part of the equation of making that possible. ERS will also play an important part as will making the cars have enough down force combined with the smallest amount of drag.

Drag will be your enemy in 2014, and down force creates that drag. So less down force should also equal better racing.

Two birds with one stone is the way I see it.

[safc_fan89]

"Why bother? Each system will cancel itself out if drivers can use them when they like."

What I would prefer is systems such as DRS and KERS (maybe not KERS now, as it is not powerful enough to make a difference) to be used a certain number of times per race. That way you can choose to attack, defend or simply do a faster laptime before making a pitstop. That would add a bit more of a strategic element to things, rather than the DRS of the attacking car being opened, and the car inf ront defending by using all of their KERS. I think what was used last season was too artificial.

I'd rather see more overtaking as a result of different tyre strategies and levels of wear than someone being able to get within one second of the car behind. At some tracks, being able to overtake with DRS was still a considerable achievement, but at too many tracks the DRS was either positioned in a place where we already see a lot of overtaking, or the zone was too long. Hopefully that can be adjusted for this next season.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

What I would prefer is systems such as DRS and KERS (maybe not KERS now, as it is not powerful enough to make a difference) to be used a certain number of times per race. That way you can choose to attack, defend or simply do a faster laptime before making a pitstop. That would add a bit more of a strategic element to things, rather than the DRS of the attacking car being opened, and the car inf ront defending by using all of their KERS. I think what was used last season was too artificial.

ERS, in 2014, will have to make up for a much larger drop in bhp, and it will be ten times more powerful than current systems. It could only be used in a strategic manner. And if it doesn't work, then your race is run.

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

I'd rather see more overtaking as a result of different tyre strategies and levels of wear than someone being able to get within one second of the car behind. At some tracks, being able to overtake with DRS was still a considerable achievement, but at too many tracks the DRS was either positioned in a place where we already see a lot of overtaking, or the zone was too long. Hopefully that can be adjusted for this next season.

Pirelli have said that they are going to be more daring with tyres for the coming season after realising that they had gone too conservative during the latter half of last season. The FIA should also have a better idea of what worked and what didn't work or worked too well with regard to DRS.

[safc_fan89]

Hopefully, but I didn't see too much initiative from them regarding DRS last season. The double DRS in Abu Dhabi made no sense, for example. Neither did the zone after Eau Rouge.

Regarding Pirelli, hopefully they will be more aggressive, but they said they were going to be aggressive throughout last season and eventually we kept getting bog-standard 2 stoppers at every race. You also have the problem of the teams getting on top of the tyres, so in any case, keeping the tyre choice interesting throughout the season is quite a challenge.

[Paradise City]

F1 needs to be fast and faster than its feeder series. That's it. Don't worry about how fast any other series is. All that's stuff and nonsense.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Don't worry about how fast any other series is. All that's stuff and nonsense.

Some would not agree with your POV.

You can guarantee that as soon as it's found out that F1 is slower than any other open wheel series, heads will start popping.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

So if the 2012 Indy car series proves to be quicker than F1, what should F1 do about that?

It is not beyond the technical ability of any series outside of the FIA umbrella to produce cars that are way faster than current F1 cars.

Stop artificially limiting the lap times so much perhaps?

Originally Posted by Marbot

Why bother? Each system will cancel itself out if drivers can use them when they like.

So if every car on the grid had a super duper drs system that effectively reduced their wake to 0 it would have no effect at all on the racing? What we would lose is the lame drive by overtakes on the straights, but we would go back to being able to have close racing with cars not struggling to stay within fractions of a second of one another.

Originally Posted by Marbot

And currently, it isn't doing that. The drag coefficient of an F1 car is about three times that of a typical road car (about 0.9 Cd or about the same as a double decker bus or a large truck!).

Im pretty sure that drag is a product of frontal area and drag coefficient, the reason a truck / bus has such high drag is primarily due to their large frontal area. They typically have lower drag coefficients than average cars.

Originally Posted by Marbot

The 2014 regulations mandates a wing specification that would be no greater than that being currently used at Monza. And if you allow cars to carry any amount of fuel, there will always be those that go for a higher down force set up.

This isn't enough, it is not the levels of downforce that is stymieing the racing it is the wake turbulence caused by the manner in which the downforce is generated.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Current F1 cars can carry as much fuel as they like, and in the last season we saw that it was to anyone's advantage to even use that fuel when the drivers foot was off the go pedal!

For 2012, some teams are concerned that their fuel tanks will be too large because they had factored into the design the ability to continue to use off throttle hot exhaust gas blowing.

The 2014 regulations will dictate that the cars will have to be as efficient as possible in order to complete a race distance on the amount of fuel available. Building an engine that is efficient will be just one part of the equation of making that possible. ERS will also play an important part as will making the cars have enough down force combined with the smallest amount of drag.

Drag will be your enemy in 2014, and down force creates that drag. So less down force should also equal better racing.

Two birds with one stone is the way I see it.

See above, you can increase downforce without increasing drag. The two are not intrinsically linked.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by luke g28

See above, you can increase downforce without increasing drag. The two are not intrinsically linked.

That's not strictly true though is it. The generation of lift does come at a cost in drag, often simplisticly called parasitic drag which results directly from generating lift. This is true of aircraft and cars and is the fundamental reason why both the more efficient gliding birds and high performance aircraft have long thin wings, it's the wing tip effects which make most of this parasitic drag and a long narrow wing has less wing tip than a wider shorter one of the same area.

Of course cars can't really have slender wings and instead (like modern airliners) use on clever wing tip designs to reduce parasitic drag, a flat endplate is a very simple way to improve this, stopping the air from the high pressure side leaking round to the low pressure. Cars are also way more complex than aircraft aerodynamically because of the proximity of the ground and the practical restrictions on the shapes you can design (you gotta have wheels, tyres, drive shafts etc).

Bottom line is that whether it's a glider, airliner or car the single defining performance figure is lift drag ratio becuase drag and lift do essentially come as a package in aerodynamics, sure you can generate drag without lift but not lift without drag I'm afraid.

I have designed several aircraft but not alas any cars but they both move through the same atmosphere.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Stop artificially limiting the lap times so much perhaps?

But you can only go so fast, safely.

Originally Posted by luke g28

So if every car on the grid had a super duper drs system that effectively reduced their wake to 0 it would have no effect at all on the racing? What we would lose is the lame drive by overtakes on the straights, but we would go back to being able to have close racing with cars not struggling to stay within fractions of a second of one another.

What you would have is exactly what we had at places like Monza, without the use of DRS.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Im pretty sure that drag is a product of frontal area and drag coefficient, the reason a truck / bus has such high drag is primarily due to their large frontal area. They typically have lower drag coefficients than average cars.

Sorry. F1 cars have a drag coefficient of around 0.9 Cd. Actually, around 0.7 to 1.1 Cd, depending on which circuit they are racing on. It's why an F1 driver is subjected to substantial g-force just by lifting his foot off the throttle at high speed. F1 cars not only have frontal area, but they also have things like wings, tyres, sidepods, air-scoops, and other stuff hanging out in the air all over the car. Add all of that up....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient

Originally Posted by luke g28

This isn't enough, it is not the levels of downforce that is stymieing the racing it is the wake turbulence caused by the manner in which the downforce is generated.

A 'Monza' wing does not create anything like the kind of wake that other rear wing configurations create at other circuits.

Originally Posted by luke g28

See above, you can increase downforce without increasing drag. The two are not intrinsically linked.

Yes, you can maybe increase down force without increasing drag. And every aero technician in F1 does his best to try to do just that. It's currently the 'Holy Grail' of F1.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But you can only go so fast, safely.

The case you stipulated had another series going faster. Now either that other series is taking huge risks to go faster than F1 cars, or the F1 cars are over regulated resulting in a slower lap time. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Marbot

What you would have is exactly what we had at places like Monza, without the use of DRS.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Sorry. F1 cars have a drag coefficient of around 0.9 Cd. Actually, around 0.7 to 1.1 Cd, depending on which circuit they are racing on. It's why an F1 driver is subjected to substantial g-force just by lifting his foot off the throttle at high speed. F1 cars not only have frontal area, but they also have things like wings, tyres, sidepods, air-scoops, and other stuff hanging out in the air all over the car. Add all of that up....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient

It is misleading to say an F1 car creates as much drag as a lorry. Drag per unit of surface area perhaps but the overall drag is far lower for the F1 car due to the difference in frontal area.

Originally Posted by Marbot

A 'Monza' wing does not create anything like the kind of wake that other rear wing configurations create at other circuits.

Still too much for close racing though.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes, you can maybe increase down force without increasing drag. And every aero technician in F1 does his best to try to do just that. It's currently the 'Holy Grail' of F1.

Also in response to fourwheeldrift. I appreciate that there is a relationship between drag and lift but the previous post implied that one increased linearly with the other. Which is not the case.

My point was that it isn't high downforce which kills the racing but the wake turbulence caused by the drag as a result of the regulations determining how the teams are allowed to generate downforce.

One of the more radical indy prototypes proposed a very high downforce setup with little to no wake turbulence. Obviously it wouldn't fit the f1 regs though.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

The case you stipulated had another series going faster. Now either that other series is taking huge risks to go faster than F1 cars, or the F1 cars are over regulated resulting in a slower lap time. Which is it?

Other series are not regulated by the FIA, therefore they can do what they see is fit under their regulations. Indy Car racing is generally seen as a more dangerous sport than F1, anyway.

Originally Posted by luke g28

I disagree.

OK.

Originally Posted by luke g28

It is misleading to say an F1 car creates as much drag as a lorry. Drag per unit of surface area perhaps but the overall drag is far lower for the F1 car due to the difference in frontal area.

The point is that an F1 car could have more efficient aerodynamics than it currently has. Something that the 2014 regulations should make more obvious, since you will no longer be able to carry the fuel needed to counter the excess drag.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Still too much for close racing though.

Maybe.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Also in response to fourwheeldrift. I appreciate that there is a relationship between drag and lift but the previous post implied that one increased linearly with the other. Which is not the case.

My point was that it isn't high downforce which kills the racing but the wake turbulence caused by the drag as a result of the regulations determining how the teams are allowed to generate downforce.

One of the more radical indy prototypes proposed a very high downforce setup with little to no wake turbulence. Obviously it wouldn't fit the f1 regs though.

I would imagine that any competent F1 car designer would want to minimize drag in order to avoid having to use more fuel in order to overcome that drag. If there was a very high downforce setup with no wake turbulence, then someone designing an F1 car would be using it, and using it at every circuit. But since there is not, drag (and drag coefficient) will vary from circuit to circuit, depending upon downforce levels.

[Purist]

The chief problem at Monza is the accordion effect. With the chicanes in place, and the tightened Lesmos, you have this hyper-exaggeration of the phenomenon because of these quite tight corners in between very long straights. The issue isn't helped either by the acceleration and braking ability of the cars (the main reason F1 cars are faster than other formula cars and LMP1s).

As an example, let's say you have a chicane with an apex speed of 25mph, and a straight following it with a terminal velocity of 225mph. At the apex, the transponders on the cars are two lengths apart. If the time gap remains static, the physical gap between the transponders will be 10 lengths at the point of maximum velocity. And the acceleration of the cars means that there is little you can do to mitigate this growing gap in the early stages of the straight. Therefore, you end up needing a VERY LONG straight to have enough room to claw that physical deficit back with the slipstream, and then still have distance to try and overtake.

Also, the difficulty at Monza is increased with the Variente Seconda and the two Lesmos right there together. If you're right behind a guy going into the second chicane, but cannot make the move, you have to give up ground (time gap) in order not to run into the back of him. If this happens again at both Lesmos, that's three successive times right together where you have to cede advantage in order not to have an accident. The next straight then is fairly long, but it leads into the Variente Ascari (the place on the track where wake turbulence is likely to be most problematic). So, again, if you haven't made your move by then, you have to cede ground, and watch the guy in front pull away again under hard acceleration on the run down to the Parabolica.

Basically, the Lesmos need to be opened back up to reduce the accordion effect in that section, and to effectively make the straight into Variente Ascari a bit longer. I don't see a probelm with this safety-wise, especially since they tightened the second chicane.

And this model can go a long way to describing the general problems of late that we've had with overtaking in F1. The sad/funny thing is, they've basically tried to use the MOnza model of overtaking, but have added in so many more intermediate corners that the cars end up that much more separated, oftentimes, once they do reach the designated overtaking zones. Using rev limiters that have the cars just about hitting a brick wall well before the longest straights run out doesn't help either. It doesn't matter if the slipstream gets you really close when you have no extra push to actually get you by.

Finally, a lot of the tightness of the regulations is precisely what has led to these "creative" methods of downforce production that have resulted in severe wake turbulence problems. I'd be curious to see the results if you had freedom to do a lot more things, in theory, but you had to meet a minimum L/D figure of 4.0:1, or even 4.5:1.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I would imagine that any competent F1 car designer would want to minimize drag in order to avoid having to use more fuel in order to overcome that drag. If there was a very high downforce setup with no wake turbulence, then someone designing an F1 car would be using it, and using it at every circuit. But since there is not, drag (and drag coefficient) will vary from circuit to circuit, depending upon downforce levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAo0mbCFDAw

This is the one I was thinking of, designed to have a very low wake but obviously not something F1 can implement because all of the innovations that make it possible are banned from F1.

Again its the strictly prescribed methods of generating down force that are the problem, not the down force in itself.

Undecided on the deltawing design but interested to see how it goes at lemans.

[JeremySmith]

That is a very ugly looking car though isn't it...

I would like to see the rules allow ground effects again..