How to fix F1?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

When you look at that Mexico track, you have to think, what are the circuit designers actually doing when they "design" a track?

Just horrible all those 90 degree turns with point to point apexes. Hey, you love 90 degree turns at street circuits?! We can do that too at permanent road tracks! When you have the longest wheelbase F1 cars in history, which are also (to my knowledge) the heaviest F1 cars in history, navigating their way around 90 degree turns, it just looks horrific. What happened to corners actually being curved? long apexes? Banked corners? That Mexico track really needs to be dug up and start again.

Digging it up and starting again was the problem. The circuit previously had long flowing corners with long apexes. These short apex corners seem to be what is preferred now. Not sure why!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Still doesn't explain why you need a floor wider than the vehicle bodywork though.

There are three reasons for having a floor wider than the vehicle bodywork and they are aerodynamic.

Firstly, having the floor just wider than the sidepods, means the turbulence from the front wheels can be directed away from the sidepods by the airflow conditioners, mounted round the sidepods. Without that turbulence, the deep undercut of the sidepod can direct the airflow away from the rear tyres, toward the rear of the car and over the diffuser.

Secondly, F1 cars aren't ground effect and therefore low pressure created under the car will try to pull the air flow in underneath the floor, reducing the performance of the diffuser. The vanes or slots, that have appeared on the outer rear edge of the floor, prevent the air from going underneath, sealing that area like a skirt and improving the overall performance of the diffuser.

Thirdly, the rotation of the rear tyres on the track surface, causes the airflow to be displaced round that area of the car. However, the displaced air pulls the airflow across the top of the floor, through the vanes and out around the outside of the tyre contact patch.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But this is how "sport" works nowadays, regardless of what it is. So, the professional tennis player with the most money available will pay the most (yes, a generality) for their coaching team plus other team members, whilst in the UK, we have maybe half a dozen top soccer teams who probably pay as much for just one player as the lesser teams pay for their entire squads.


Sport now means big business!

indeed...if every team could spend 400+mil a year then im fine with that.

my issue is more the size of the divide and think solutions should be aimed at reducing this gap. if its about big business, then FOM has an obligation that the participants are all of sufficient size to compete as a big team.

maybe that means a fairer distribution of prize money or budget/resource allocation caps but without this mechanism im of the belief any other changes (to design etc) will not have the indented results of closer competition.

granted F1 has many more moving parts (so comparisons o other sports often prove ineffective) but other sports (mainly N.American sports) seem to recognize the necessity of financially equalized playing fields as a starting point.

Europe, or soccer in this case, went the other way and created a league for the stupidly rich teams.

matter of preference (or bias i guess) but i like a n.american approach more.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

When you look at that Mexico track, you have to think, what are the circuit designers actually doing when they "design" a track?

Just horrible all those 90 degree turns with point to point apexes. Hey, you love 90 degree turns at street circuits?! We can do that too at permanent road tracks! When you have the longest wheelbase F1 cars in history, which are also (to my knowledge) the heaviest F1 cars in history, navigating their way around 90 degree turns, it just looks horrific. What happened to corners actually being curved? long apexes? Banked corners? That Mexico track really needs to be dug up and start again.

while watching, i thought it was more about camera positions failing to capture the speed/change of direction but, yes indeed...the cars did look mighty slow going around in Mexico.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There are three reasons for having a floor wider than the vehicle bodywork and they are aerodynamic.

Firstly, having the floor just wider than the sidepods, means the turbulence from the front wheels can be directed away from the sidepods by the airflow conditioners, mounted round the sidepods. Without that turbulence, the deep undercut of the sidepod can direct the airflow away from the rear tyres, toward the rear of the car and over the diffuser.

Secondly, F1 cars aren't ground effect and therefore low pressure created under the car will try to pull the air flow in underneath the floor, reducing the performance of the diffuser. The vanes or slots, that have appeared on the outer rear edge of the floor, prevent the air from going underneath, sealing that area like a skirt and improving the overall performance of the diffuser.

Thirdly, the rotation of the rear tyres on the track surface, causes the airflow to be displaced round that area of the car. However, the displaced air pulls the airflow across the top of the floor, through the vanes and out around the outside of the tyre contact patch.

That was my point.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

No I mean it's illogical to have a floor when the floor doesn't have anything sitting on it. Ergo, it isn't a floor but an aero device. Or to put it another way, it's bullshit.

That doesn't really follow, an F1 car has aero devices yes. So?

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

When you look at that Mexico track, you have to think, what are the circuit designers actually doing when they "design" a track?

Just horrible all those 90 degree turns with point to point apexes. Hey, you love 90 degree turns at street circuits?! We can do that too at permanent road tracks! When you have the longest wheelbase F1 cars in history, which are also (to my knowledge) the heaviest F1 cars in history, navigating their way around 90 degree turns, it just looks horrific. What happened to corners actually being curved? long apexes? Banked corners? That Mexico track really needs to be dug up and start again.

"Safety" and "promoting overtaking". That's what I've heard about why bends have turned into corners.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

That was my point.

If they went for ground effect, they wouldn't need to do all that and they'd save a lot of money.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

That is the only reason I can see for extending the floor, low pressure area under the floor times no of square feet equals downforce generated, the bigger the floor area the more downforce.

The real question being when and why were they allowed to extend the floor area so much? This year?

Exactly right & they made the floor wider in 2017 as they (technical working group) were trying to make the cars faster.

Having the teams set their own rules is really a very poor idea...They always try to protect the status quo and their accumulated advantages (e.g., keeping the ratio of front and rear tyre width the same in 2017, keeping the relative width of front wing to front wheels the same in 2017 too), instead of starting afresh with a well considered set of all-new regulations for all-new concept cars.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Digging it up and starting again was the problem. The circuit previously had long flowing corners with long apexes.

I thought the Mexico track was fine. You can't overtake in long fast corners, for the most part. Tight corners are better for sharp, decisive moves under brakes.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I recall that back in the day bodywork was mandated to extend to the width of the wheel track and from just behind the front wheels to just in front of the rear wheels. This was a safety measure to stop wheels interlocking.

When was that?

It seemed that cars like the Lotus 88 were entirely the opposite of that.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I thought the Mexico track was fine. You can't overtake in long fast corners, for the most part. Tight corners are better for sharp, decisive moves under brakes.

But none of the esses section provides any sort of run at another car, or a decent braking zone. So sharpening off that section of the track did nothing but ruin the flow and make every corner the same.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

When was that?

It seemed that cars like the Lotus 88 were entirely the opposite of that.

Actually yes. I'm probably thinkng that the bodywork needed to extend the length rather than the width. Nonetheless if a floor has nothing on it, it becomes a flat plane aerodynamic surface.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

On the one hand, it's good to allow technical innovations -- else we wouldn't have seen F-duct, FRIC suspension, mass-damper, flexy wings, active suspension, semi-automatic gearbox, carbon monocoque, aerodynamic wings, aluminium monocoque, mid-rear engine, independent suspension etc.

On the other hand, this stuff seems rather out of hand and relentless... Ferrari have plonked more $$$ on this stuff at the latest grand prix bringing all those new fins and slots:





Previously FIA have acted to ban such things as these (below), so regulating to clean up aerodynamic surfacing is not without precedent...

Flat aerodynamic surface is kind of a stretch when you look at these images posted by V8Fireworks.

If they were not allowed to extend the floor beyond the bodywork, and if you were further not allowed to use conditioning strakes and vortex generators on said floor, then you could not spend money (how much must this thing have cost!) on generating downforce there.

[Peter Mallett]

Agreed.

[wnut]

This was an interesting article too, and shows just how far aero development has gone, Mercedes' answer to blown axles, blown wheels, different set for every track.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/o...-crucial-wheel

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

Flat aerodynamic surface is kind of a stretch when you look at these images

It's flat underneath, which meets the letter of the rules.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

But none of the esses section provides any sort of run at another car, or a decent braking zone. So sharpening off that section of the track did nothing but ruin the flow and make every corner the same.

staying OT briefly, there are part of the infield of Hermanos Rodriguez that could surely be used for adding to/altering the layout.

Alternatively I read the other day that the Mexican president (elect?) has taken a dim view of a major new airport being built just outside the city and has cancelled the construction preferring upgrades to the existing airport and a smaller one south of the city.

However foundations for the new site had been laid at some huge cost already and the site will need to be turned into something else, so perhaps this could form the basis of a new circuit/sports/entertainments complex.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

It's flat underneath, which meets the letter of the rules.

Not disputing the legality, just the unecessary complication and bad drafting of the rules to allow this type of aero extravagance.
How badly must this be affected when the airflow goes from linear to turbulent?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

When was that?

It seemed that cars like the Lotus 88 were entirely the opposite of that.

The Lotus 88 was a ground effect car. It had two chassis, with the cockpit in the inner chassis and independently sprung from the outer one, which was one ground effect system. I remember it causing a lot of controversy at the time and it got banned.

[greentrumpet]

Truly innovative "outside the box" well, actually, more outside one box, inside another. Real genius, exactly what F1 should be about. If it's within the rules, don't immediately change them. How else could "garagistes" stand an earthly?

[Akrapovic]

I feel like we're going in circles here (which is what motorsport is, in a nutshell!)

The rules are too restrictive. We want fewer rules. We want innovation. The way the teams use the floor is very silly. That should be regulated. So..more restrictions?

The cars are thinner than the floor width, not because the regulations dictate they have to be thin, but rather than is the optimal solution. The cars smaller and creating a smaller hole in the air. So do you want the teams finding innovative solutions, or more rules and restrictions?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by wnut

Not disputing the legality, just the unecessary complication and bad drafting of the rules to allow this type of aero extravagance.
How badly must this be affected when the airflow goes from linear to turbulent?

Ergo it becomes a wing, not a floor.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The Lotus 88 was a ground effect car. It had two chassis, with the cockpit in the inner chassis and independently sprung from the outer one, which was one ground effect system. I remember it causing a lot of controversy at the time and it got banned.

Indeed but the Williams FW07 was more in my mind although again the pods don't extend to the extremity of the wheels.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I feel like we're going in circles here (which is what motorsport is, in a nutshell!)

The rules are too restrictive. We want fewer rules. We want innovation. The way the teams use the floor is very silly. That should be regulated. So..more restrictions?

The cars are thinner than the floor width, not because the regulations dictate they have to be thin, but rather than is the optimal solution. The cars smaller and creating a smaller hole in the air. So do you want the teams finding innovative solutions, or more rules and restrictions?

It's either a floor or its a wing, it can't be both.

[Akrapovic]

Why not?

[Peter Mallett]

Physics and the Oxford English Dictionary.