'Zero' downforce Formula 1 cars

[Pingguest]

Yesterday I spoke with a friend about how the lack of close racing and overtaking in Formula 1 could be resolved. We mainly focused on the aerodynamics. We both came to the conclusion that re-introducing ground effects would make close racing easier as it is a relatively clean proces to create downforce.

But we disagreed about the possibility to ban downforce (or at least reducing it to the absolute minimum). I had the opinion that wings and diffusers should be banned, but my friend said that would be unsafe. Without downforce, he said, Formula 1-cars could airborne at high speeds. Even with reduction of the engine power that leads to the current top speeds (without the current downforce and hence drag).

Could anyone help me out with this one?

PS: regarding this topic, I posted two articles about Ross Brawn advocating 'zero' downforce Formula 1 cars:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....4&postcount=49
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....5&postcount=50

[Ogami musashi]

That's interesting.

Ross Brawn's comment are indeed interesting but i think he messes arguments.

I do understand and even i'm in favour , despite being and aerodynamics enthusiast, of more mechanical grip (either from tires, suspensions or whatever you want) as long as F1 cars still are the fastest around a lap.

BUT, while he's surely right aeros are too important now(and i'm not quite sure this is quite right), the overtaking problem is not due to this, it is due to regulations that forced engineers to find aggressive aerodynamic solutions laregely based on vortex generators.

So first, it is needed not to mess things.

Second, okay i'm all for a more mechancial grip, but, it is possible now to have the same speed and increasing with 10% of that?

The 2009 aero rules finally came and apart from the max downforce rule that may or may not be there anymore , the regulations are nothing in the way of decreasing aeros.
The just changed the way it is produced so as far as overtaking is concerned it is okay.

Now mechanical grip is another subject.


I'm not also quite sure the aeros prevent from mechanical grip, creating downforce is a thing but you have to translate it to the tires..

Well anyway interesting.

[duke_toaster]

I agree with Mike Gayscoyne that a car with no aerodynamically-generated grip will be dangerous (if it has anything more than current power levels). A 60's type car with a current generation engine would be undrivable, even with wide slicks.

IMO the wings and similar should be replaced to with control wings (to 35% of current levels), no winglets BUT control undertray. I don't want to see F1 becoming an all-control series, but those would cut costs and at the same time improve racing.

No-one can take issue with that, surely

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I agree with Mike Gayscoyne that a car with no aerodynamically-generated grip will be dangerous (if it has anything more than current power levels). A 60's type car with a current generation engine would be undrivable, even with wide slicks.

Well, my question wasn't necessarily about 'zero' downforce Formula 1-cars with the current engine power levels, but with the current straight line speeds. Without the current downforce levels (and hence drag levels) and with the current engines, straight line speeds will be increased enormously.

But what about 'zero' downforce Formula 1 cars with less powerful engines, so that the straight line speeds will stay the same? Will there be any danger that the cars could airborne?

Apart from that, even without wings and diffusers it would be possible to create downforce 'setup-wise': with the nose part of the stepped-flat bottom closer to the ground than the tail, a small amount of downforce is created. Wouldn't that amount of downforce be enough to keep the car on the ground?

[spanner]

Reducing downforce may make them faster in a straight line, but tracks stay the same length so they will need to brake earlier for corners and carry less speed through.

TO me GP2 shows how you can have downforce AND exciting close racing and overtaking. They probably dont generate half as much as F1 but i'm sure they could.

There seems to be too much airflow management due to the tight regs, winglets, flip ups barge boards, which are useless when you start trying to race other cars.

[Ogami musashi]

Well, First we need to see what you want.
What's the purpose of zero formula? is it to bring better racing? or just an exercise of style to see if its possible?
Do you want to retain same lap times?
Do you wanna cornering speed be the same as now? if not (and supposing you want them to be reduced), by how much? in all kind of corners?


Because there's no definite answers. i'm not qualified in tire grip, i don't know if it's possible to have the same kind of grip that with downforce.

The previous comment about braking zones, is relevant if you consider the drag produced by the the wings as they are now (I.E with aggressive profiles). By banning wings you won't have the drag anymore, so here "mechanical" braking will have to be enhanced too.
The same kind of remark is valid for downforce that make them going faster. It only works because of the way we produce downforce now.
If you put ground effects, then cars will go very fast and the downforce produced will enable them not to lift so they will go faster and faster.


But let's suppose it is possible to have the same levels, what is the point?
So from an aero dominant car we would go to a mechanical dominant car?
I know this was not what you suggested (that we should do that) but imho i think a cool F1 car with plenty of evolution possible lies with the two being present.

Damn i need to study tires..that quite a complex topic!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Ogami musashi

Well, First we need to see what you want.
What's the purpose of zero formula? is it to bring better racing? or just an exercise of style to see if its possible?
Do you want to retain same lap times?
Do you wanna cornering speed be the same as now? if not (and supposing you want them to be reduced), by how much? in all kind of corners?

The discussion I had with my friend was more about the safety aspect of banning wings and diffusers. My friend said that, even if the current straigth line speeds are kept due a reduction of engine power, Formula 1 cars may airborne (lift off) due the lack of downforce.

[Ogami musashi]

Okay, that's totally true, because there's a cockpit for the pilot and because it is obvious that to arrange space in the car you have far more space towards the sky than the ground, a car will always look like a wing so will always have a little lift.

The problem may not be especially apparent on a flat line, but if some elevation comes into play then it is really dangerous.

BUT of course, the real question is "how much of lift?" if this lift is inferior to the mechanical grip then no problem at all...but imho that make a lot of "IF"

Remember the mercedes at Le mans 1999 edition? three times they went airborne, still thoses car produce quite a lot of downforce (about the same than a formula one car) but they go so fast in straight lines that if not designed correctly the car can suddenly lift a lot.

don't forget also that may a car be totally streamlined like a missile, because it has suspension , it has far more chances to pitch up (due to reaction from the ground) and then taking an angle of attack that will make it lift anyway (for the air it will still be an obstacle to flow along).

Now i'm talking about the 2009 reg on autosport forums too so i mess the topics, i don't if i said it here, but i think if we want to be safe, competitive yet having fun rather than making one field big, let's make a compromise.

In my humble opinion a 600KG F1 car with about 800Kg of downforce produced laminar(or with small turbulence) and new set of slicks+dynamic chassis should be hell fast everywhere, would be safe, provide spectacle and also keep engineers busy because ones would have to make every variable work for the others.

Well that already the case in fact but i think already from 2009 we'll have better racing and cool engineering (with the KERS).

[Locost47]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that so much of the downforce generated nowadays comes from tricky little vortex generation and management. The rules are such that this becomes the only option for big gains now - you have to construct and manipulate incredibly complex systems of vortices which tend to be so finely tuned that all manner of things can push them outside their operating window and suddenly you're goosed. It's easy to lose up to 50% of your downforce by following another car closely but it's also easy to lose ~20% even from a fair distance, never mind things like gusty cross winds and steer effects.

The teams do make every effort to reduce these sensitivities but they are a fundamental side-effect of the physics you're forced to exploit. The 2009 rules should go a long way to making closer racing easier as they dramatically reduce the options for such complex and sensitive aerodynamic systems.

I do believe that F1 cars should always have downforce, not just so i get to keep my job (!) but also because they should have the strongest outright performance of any circuit-racing car. We just need the FIA to forget tradition for a minute and start thinking with an open mind with regard to the aero regulations. In itself, aerodynamics isn't responsible for the pi## poor state of racing in F1, it's the narrow alleyway the rules have forced the aerodynamicists down. There is no reason why it *has* to be done this way.

Maybe when Max gets done going all 'Howard Hughes' on us then we'll get someone in charge who looks at the situation in a different way.

[Ogami musashi]

kudos to you! this is exactly what i think.

I think the 2009 rules are a first step by re-establish some simpler way to have downforce.

[Lukus]

So why not give them a minimum weight, and a maximum lift specification? (Equal to the cars maximum weight with fuel and driver) Let them have the lowest drag reading they can get, but have a limit on the level of downforce they can produce. Specify one set of bodywork for the season (which would reduce costs drastically considering they are running 24/7 to push ahead. Would also give them more time to concentrate on the next car). Give them slicks but limit the ultimate grip of them. Give them more mechanical grip but not through aerodynamic means.

Less time in the wind tunnel developing better L/D ratio's, time better spent on mechanical components and optimizing grip from the tyres they are given.

If they produce the same amount of negative lift as the vehicle weights, assuming it's produced using a flat bottom, it should be safe? They need to look at GP2. It's producing great racing and really showing up the "superior" series!

[Ogami musashi]

Unfortunately, Lift can be considerable over the vehicule weight so it may not suffice.

And talking about that, someone on the autosport forums just said to me tires coef of adherence is limited to 1.5 so that we can't go over, and that downforce is the only mean to corner at high speed.

I don't think this is quite correct but hey, is there any tire specialists here?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Ogami musashi

Okay, that's totally true, because there's a cockpit for the pilot and because it is obvious that to arrange space in the car you have far more space towards the sky than the ground, a car will always look like a wing so will always have a little lift.

The problem may not be especially apparent on a flat line, but if some elevation comes into play then it is really dangerous.

BUT of course, the real question is "how much of lift?" if this lift is inferior to the mechanical grip then no problem at all...but imho that make a lot of "IF"

Some people I spoke about this topic had different opinions. Some said that without wings and diffusers Formula 1 would keep about 10% to 20% of the current downforce levels and that it would be enough to prevent the cars from airborning. Others disagreed and had the opinion that with the some elevations cars could lose contact with the ground.

But fact is though that the pre-1968 didn't airborne (although on some tracks, like the Nordschleife, cars could lift off a bit), despite reaching top speeds around 190mph/305kmh.

[Speedy1]

What do you call F1 with no down force?
MotoGP!
if you want to see passing that's the place to look

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Speedy1

What do you call F1 with no down force?
MotoGP!
if you want to see passing that's the place to look

Nice to mention it, MotoGP. These bikes don't have downforce and despite top speeds of about 340 kmh, they don't airborne. Hmm...

[zac510]

Hi pingguest, didn't you ask this same question on Autosport forums in April? Did you not like their response?

[TRuss]

Cars didn't start becoming airborne and flipping until the advent of wings and downforce. It was common for the sports racers of the late 50's and early '60s to become floaty at speeds, but they didn't get airborne. They soon figured that minimizing the airflow under the car with airdams made them more stable. Car's don't become airborne because of a lack of downforce but because of an inbalance of aerodynamics. The cars that have flipped have done so because they lost down force on the front. The rear downforce forces the front upward enough so that the air gets under the car and flips it. A car with no downforce can still flip if its center of aerodynamic pressure is too far forward. Essentialy making the car a backwards arrow. It will without enough downforce try and straighten itself. The rear will come around and as the car gets completey sideways it turns into a bit of a wing and will be lifted upward enough to sometimes cause a flip. Still the root problem is aero-inbalance not a lack of downforce.

[Taxi645]

In light of yesterdays Bahrain race I think it is appropriate to reactivate this thread. What would be the goals of this rethink in F1 car (aero) design:

- Being better able to follow an other car, by reducing downforce contribution to overall grip and reducing the sensitivity of the downforce.
- Maintaining enough downward force on the tires to keep it safe
- Keeping strait line speeds safe.
- Keeping the looks of the cars as clean as possible
- Possibly further reducing long term cost.


Possible methods:

- Limiting downforce to about 25-35% of current levels either directly (certain amount) or through technical aero related rule changes.
- Limiting the amount of aerodynamic configurations per seasons.
- banning any sort of lift inducing surface except for front and rear wing and underside.
- More ground effect?
- As much mechanical grip as possible.
- Reducing power to keep topspeed in check, but lowering weight by the same amount to maintain acceleration.

Other suggestions?

[Purist]

First off, MotoGP bikes, or any bikes for that matter, do NOT have a large, flat underbody that can catch air.

A 1900lb LM sportscar can, theoretically, lift off at as little as 120mph (when going sideways or backward), though realistically, it's more like 140-150mph. A 3400lb NASCAR Sprint Cup car can lift off at 180mph. If heavy contact is responsible for initiating the flip or roll, these speeds can be even lower; a Sprint Cup car that is hit, and thus pitched into a roll, can do so at a track as small as Bristol (maximum speed of 130-135mph on the straights).

There is no fail-safe way to legislate downforce and lift. Both are dependent upon the speed the car is traveling. Also, a component of a car can be downforce-inducing, or even aero-neutral, under normal racing conditions; however, under adverse yaw or pitch conditions, these devices can produce lift. All that has to happen to initiate liftoff is for the car to make more lift than its own weight; tires can't really provide any grip if they aren't bearing any of the car's weight.

Someone mentioned the 1999 Mercedes Le Mans car. The CLR fell victim to some poor design issues, but also to a poorly conceived rule set. The old GT1 cars had flat bottoms. They had diffusers at the back, but the venturi could not start until behind the centerline of the rear wheels. If the car pitched up much at all, the flat undertray caught the air like a sail, and the rear diffuser and wing, being behind the rear axle, levered the nose of the car up.

Old Porsche 911s would lift the front at high speed. We were lucky that none of the Ford GT40s or porsche 917s went for the sky since they also made lift on the front. Even a much more aerodynamically-conscious car like the Ferrari 312PB would get a bit of air at the Flugplatz. And no, the wingless F1 cars would get as much as a couple of feet off the ground at ~160-170mph going over the Flugplatz. Even the early winged F1 cars would get several inches above the tarmac at the location; they did likewise at the Brunschen and Pflangtzgarten as well.

As i said elsewhere, get rid of the small, extra, ultra-sensitive appendages, and let the engineers work on the main wings and undertray, which can produce downforce while being much less sensitive to wake turbulence. Perhaps you have a reduction in overall downforce, and certainly a reduction in drag, but make up for the lower downforce with added horsepower; bring back 3.0-litre engines (without a cylinder limit). This would make some of the fast corners not nearly so "easy flat" anymore.

[wnut]

Good post Purist. The bigger displacement engine would greatly encourage racing with reduced aero as you could no longer out all the power down.
From m way of thinking and the James Allen outwash article I am absolutely convinced that removing fromt wings entirely would enable close racing once more. Easy to restrict the areas in front of the front axle and absolutely clear and unequivocal. Mechanical grip would then be the major factor and not so subject to wake turbulence.

Regards

wnut