How to fix F1?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Here is a great analysis of the 2019 front wing regulations: https://www.f1technical.net/news/21879

Interesting article.

Rule changes designed to torpedo RBR Honda and Adrian Newey?

Should just get rid of front wing entirely, or at least specify a single plane aerofoil and its profile.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

They did simplify it in 2009. And then will simplify the front wing in 2019 too (as above).

The complexity has only appeared in the areas of the car where there are no restrictions on the surfacing used (i.e., the unrestricted boxes where they can put whatever they want, which in 2018 are primarily front wing, under the nose, bargeboards and no restrictions on slots in the floor provided there is no bodywork above).

On the other hand, the minimum radius rule remains very effective at keeping the sidepods clear of winglets. All that is needed is a brave FIA to overrule the self-interested teams and extend that minimum radius rule over the whole car.

Indeed they did but since then, F1 is more or less back to where it was in 2008, hopefully the new rules simplifying the front wing, will make a difference.

Maybe they can't use winglets as such but there's an awful lot going on round the side pods, as this photo of this year's Mercedes shows.

[chunder]

I find a hell of a lot of motorsport dull these days, for some reason it just doesn't float my boat as much as it did.

I think perhaps coz a few of the series I like have been raped or utterly destroyed, including F1.

But more coz everything is about money now, about tv rights, exclusive this, timing apps, pay for this, pay for that.

It should be a sport giving to people, the cars are plastered with advertising, why are we being ask to pay for so much of it.

it is a greedy, selfish, xenophobic and very insular sport I am afraid, hence why it's popularity is falling all the time.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Maybe they can't use winglets as such but there's an awful lot going on round the side pods, as this photo of this year's Mercedes shows.

That's the bargeboard area not the sidepods. The sidepods are clean. Everything rearwards of that side strake on the far outside is where the minimum radius rule applies. I've annotated it for you:



That's why I think they should extend the rule forwards to get rid of all those fins that are in the "free" zone.

However the floor underneath it the sidepod is not subhect mind you, they are allowed to put lots of slots in it, which they probably shouldn't be allowed.

Franz Tost is bang on the money

"For example if I would write a regulation, and it would be totally easy, to get rid of all these bargeboard things and all these additional wings.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...-boss/3195843/


He says the bargeboards are worth a few tenths, I think he is perfectly aware they are actually worth many seconds per lap as it's all crucial to the flow under the floor.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

Should just get rid of front wing entirely, or at least specify a single plane aerofoil and its profile.

Perhaps! Frank Dernie's Williams FW7 (1979) through FW10 (1986) used a single-plane front wing to great effect.





However, the FW11 onwards used two-elements in the front wing... Hmm, I think two-elements would be a better compromise though, as one element doesn't give any scope to adjust front downforce (or is that the kind of pandering to F1 teams that has got us in this regulation mess in the first place!?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That's the bargeboard area not the sidepods. The sidepods are clean. Everything rearwards of that side strake on the far outside is where the minimum radius rule applies. I've annotated it for you:



That's why I think they should extend the rule forwards to get rid of all those fins that are in the "free" zone.

However the floor underneath it the sidepod is not subhect mind you, they are allowed to put lots of slots in it, which they probably shouldn't be allowed.

Franz Tost is bang on the money

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...-boss/3195843/


He says the bargeboards are worth a few tenths, I think he is perfectly aware they are actually worth many seconds per lap as it's all crucial to the flow under the floor.

I thought the part that's circled was the bargeboard?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought the part that's circled was the bargeboard?

There are a lot more bits than that these days, I would say it is all of this stuff (below), plus there are also the vertical strakes on the outside, plus the stuff under the nose.




The point is, these areas of free, that's why they are full of fins & slots and the way to get rid of all the stuff in them is to apply a minimum radius rule, like the one which applies to the engine cover, behind the red line.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

There are a lot more bits than that these days, I would say it is all of this stuff (below), plus there are also the vertical strakes on the outside, plus the stuff under the nose.




The point is, these areas of free, that's why they are full of fins & slots and the way to get rid of all the stuff in them is to apply a minimum radius rule, like the one which applies to the engine cover, behind the red line.

The photo I posted was last year's Renault.

I was reading this article from Racecar-Engineering and there's a section on sidepod design and the aerodynamic element above the sidepod which comes around and down the side, like on that photo of this year's Mercedes and Ferrari.





I agree, apply a minimum radius rule.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Here is a great analysis of the 2019 front wing regulations: https://www.f1technical.net/news/21879

Nice article. Clearly they are "trying" to do much of what we talk about here. On a site note, that site is great place to dive into the technical details if that is your thing.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That's the bargeboard area not the sidepods. The sidepods are clean. Everything rearwards of that side strake on the far outside is where the minimum radius rule applies. I've annotated it for you:

It made me laugh, because your point is that exactly at the boundary of all of the crazy barge board stuff is also the outer boundary of the free zone.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That's why I think they should extend the rule forwards to get rid of all those fins that are in the "free" zone.

However the floor underneath it the sidepod is not subhect mind you, they are allowed to put lots of slots in it, which they probably shouldn't be allowed.

Franz Tost is bang on the money

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...-boss/3195843/


He says the bargeboards are worth a few tenths, I think he is perfectly aware they are actually worth many seconds per lap as it's all crucial to the flow under the floor.

Agree with all of this. The downside is the inevitable slow march toward a "single" optimized solution as the physical/conceptual boxes (creativity zones) get smaller and smaller. Or in other words... spec design. The price to pay to narrow the performance gaps and (cross fingers and pray) create a more enjoyable fan experience (aka closer racing).

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Here is a great analysis of the 2019 front wing regulations: https://www.f1technical.net/news/21879

I just read that article in a bit more depth and found their conclusions (quandary of fixing things at odds with a stated purpose of the sport) at the end interesting and one in which I fully agree with...

While these rules do not specify standardized bodywork, they do severely hamper the creativity and individuality of teams, especially in the front wing endplate region. In a series where the USP is that teams must design and build their own cars, championship money is awarded based on the constructors result after all, this quasi-standardization is contrary to the raison d’ȇtre of the sport. If the result is that they produce more exciting racing, or help close the gap between the front three teams and the rest of the grid, perhaps that is an acceptable compromise; however, it does raise the question of how far is too far when it comes to restricting freedom of design.

(Note: I assume USP = Unique Selling Point)

Richard

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

The price to pay to narrow the performance gaps and (cross fingers and pray) create a more enjoyable fan experience (aka closer racing).

And that won't happen.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

And that won't happen.

Which one? Narrow the performance gap? Better racing? Both?

Someone else can crunch the numbers (I might be wrong), I think the overall gap (front to rear) might be smaller, but there is still gaps between front and middle. And even then... narrowing the gap does not guarantee anything really. Which is why I say cross fingers and pray it helps the racing. Entire field could end up being nose to tail and unable to pass each other. That would be interesting to watch!

Richard

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Both. This sort of thing benefits Mercedes and Ferrari who have the strongest engines and punishes teams like Red Bull who try to make up the difference with aero and chassis design. Furthermore when it's so restrictive that it's almost spec, the teams with the deepest pockets can spend the most money looking for loopholes and the perfect configuration. And any money saved can also be spent on areas that are more free. For the other teams it won't make a lick of difference.

And it's well known that decreasing front downforce makes it harder to follow cars through corners. It's the main reason IndyCar's new spec aerokit failed so badly, especially at ovals.

[chillibowl]

not an aero expert by any means, but would that loss of down force solely be created by simplifying the front wing or more of a function of braking in general?

no doubt a combination of both but surely that just means any simplification of the aero/front wing/ barge boards etc would require a corresponding increase in mechanical downforce to offset the aero loss.

i think i have read recently that the lifting of the active suspension ban is being considered and does have some support from the teams.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Both. This sort of thing benefits Mercedes and Ferrari who have the strongest engines and punishes teams like Red Bull who try to make up the difference with aero and chassis design. Furthermore when it's so restrictive that it's almost spec, the teams with the deepest pockets can spend the most money looking for loopholes and the perfect configuration. And any money saved can also be spent on areas that are more free. For the other teams it won't make a lick of difference.

So, I may talk about specific topics (such as aero) as if it is a discussion in a vacuum, but I feel there is no single silver bullet with respect to this problem. So it all has to be part of a multi-pronged attack. Regulations, Budget, Organizational Structure, etc. A lot of change (that might be too much change). Related to you comments above, part of it has to address budget and the ability for well funded teams to dump large amounts of cash into small details in a number of areas... all to do as you say. When the cash is effectively unlimited, the clever solutions will be found by brute force.

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

And it's well known that decreasing front downforce makes it harder to follow cars through corners. It's the main reason IndyCar's new spec aerokit failed so badly, especially at ovals.

I am curious as to your thoughts around moving from a front/rear wing focus to potentially bringing back an under-body approach? Maybe even something that has significant controls around what how it is done. Not saying ditch front/rear wings, but to allow for the under-body to generate a large percentage of the downforce. Front and rear then would maybe be more about trimming aero balance. Will that help address issues with close running and following through corners?

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i think i have read recently that the lifting of the active suspension ban is being considered and does have some support from the teams.

I hope that is true. See my posts earlier in this thread (actually been a proponent of this for years), but with the requirement of using a combination of a spec ECU for active suspension, limited numbers of sensors/channels and actuators and potentially even spec actuators and/or sensors. With those specific changes to move the development war away from "mechanical" to "virtual" (software). With the thought that it should be cheaper to do this via computer simulation and software than to create crafty mechanical solutions which are more expensive to create and test (especially iterative testing of multiple solutions via deep pockets). Ultimately "again...cross fingers and pray" more parity between teams... even underfunded ones (see comments above about no single silver bullet).

Richard

[S griffin]

I agree with Tost, bargeboards should go, as should all the other winglets on the car

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I agree with Tost, bargeboards should go, as should all the other winglets on the car

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...

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Those things were banned for safety reasons, not performance or 'cleaning up'.

[wnut]

They were banned mainly for aesthetic reasons.

I agree with Frans Tost too.

Mansell's Ferrari - beautiful!

[Greem]

If I'm honest, the engineer in me thinks this is quite beautiful. It's taking Ron's (and subsequently Dave Brailsford in cycling) old philosophy of "marginal gains" to an almost infinitesimal level. Every single cut line, curve and slot there has a purpose which is modelled to within a nanometre of perfection. In theory

That said, it's also an illustration of the dilemma we (enthusiasts), the regulators and the teams face: does spending a million dollars on a 2mm by 4mm slot make the end product better across the board, or does it simply allow one design to go 0.01s faster in a straight line (which nobody can see)?

However, I also think the generation of car that wnut posted was a beautiful thing, too.

Pass the cake, I'd like a slice...

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

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:

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Those things were banned for safety reasons, not performance or 'cleaning up'.

Not that there wasn't an argument on the safety side, I think that "safety" is the easy catch all way to make things go away if any type of argument can be made. Movable aero is another.

Originally Posted by wnut

They were banned mainly for aesthetic reasons.

I would agree that was the real reason.

Richard

[S griffin]

Certainly the x-wings and Arrows nose wing were banned for safety reasons, but the dumbo wings, were part of the big cleaning up of cars for better racing in 09

[bjohnsonsmith]

Sauber F1.08



Sauber F1.09



The F1.08 takes the biscuit for appendages. I don't think another car came close.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Which of those two cars was more capable of overtaking on track do you think?

[S griffin]

The 2009 cars reduced the wake, but unfortunately didn’t go far enough