How to fix F1?

[S griffin]

And what’s more the front wing didn’t seem to make that much difference to Pironi’s straightline speed

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

A lot of cars ran without front wings during the ground effect era, as the bulk of the car's downforce was generated by the underwing. The front wing was used for trimming the airflow, rather than generating downforce. However, not all cars ran without the front wing, as can be seen in this photo from the infamous San Marino GP of '82. Didier Pironi is running with front wing and Gilles Vileneuve without.

Many thought the front wing was more trouble than it was worth as it created turbulence that went into the ground effect tunnels.

The point being that the modern cars should have the front wings taken away would generate less overall downforce, and the aero would be less sensitive to wake turbulence, they would also not look old fashioned or like bewhiskered catfish.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if lowering the speeds is the answer, then how best to implement this?

That's not the answer. If it was then the way to lower speed is obvious: less power, smaller tyres (or tyres with grooves that give aero drag without giving grip ), smaller wings, less aero surfaces. Particularly the latter two would cause bulk lap time increase.

But that would very readily make the cars slower than F2, which are 10 seconds per lap slower than F1, which would be excessive. The 2022 regulations target 4-5 seconds per lap slower which should be more than sufficient, particularly with the rules creating a much cleaner aero wake.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

The point being that the modern cars should have the front wings taken away would generate less overall downforce, and the aero would be less sensitive to wake turbulence, they would also not look old fashioned or like bewhiskered catfish.

Recall the 1982 cars had a very different weight distribution, with a much, much shorter front overhang on the cars. So the centre-of-pressure calculations from the 1982 car are simply not applicable to the current cars, and the current front crash structure regulations. The centre-of-pressure contribution from the underbody of the 1982 car is much further forward compared to the wheelbase of the car, compared to the 2020 car.



The 2022 rules will already go back to a more rearward weight distribution, thanks to narrower front tyres, which will reduce the need for load on the front wing, but as you can see from the above, the COP of the floor is such that a front wing is still necessary .

The rear wing IS necessary to lift the wake from the floor as high as possible (i.e, and out of the way of the following car) to improve following in the 2022 regulations, therefore a front wing is needed to balance that out.


https://www.f1technical.net/features/22288

You are just not going to get that uplift without a rear wing, as there is too much stuff (crash structure, exhaust, suspension) in the way which prevents the rear tunnel exits being made taller. Therefore a front wing is necessary.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That's not the answer. If it was then the way to lower speed is obvious: less power, smaller tyres (or tyres with grooves that give aero drag without giving grip ), smaller wings, less aero surfaces. Particularly the latter two would cause bulk lap time increase.

But that would very readily make the cars slower than F2, which are 10 seconds per lap slower than F1, which would be excessive. The 2022 regulations target 4-5 seconds per lap slower which should be more than sufficient, particularly with the rules creating a much cleaner aero wake.

So time compression has no effect on racing? You can't change reality and physics.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

So time compression has no effect on racing? You can't change reality and physics.

There are plenty of processional touring car races, and touring cars are really slow compared to Formula cars... I'm not sure what you mean by "time compression" as the drivers are still going to gain or lose of the order of tenths from each other in each corner based on the relative speed carried (perhaps more critical in low power classes as a loss of cornering speed cannot be regained easily on corner exit), and this can always produce field spread and a procession regardless of the category.

Formula Ford and Formula Vee always produce great racing, but I'd say that is because of low power and high benefit of slipstreaming rather than because of slow laptimes (actually Formula Ford laptimes are very similar to touring car laptimes).

I'm not sure there would be the appetite from the teams to have Formula One racing with no downforce at all (the Formula Ford rules specifically prohibit the use of any wings or aerofoils whatsoever, and also prohibit any bodywork shaped in such a way it might produce downforce), though it could be relatively interesting from an engineering point of view.... but they would lap 20+ seconds per lap slower for sure.

[S griffin]

F1 without wings would probably be 20+ seconds per lap slower, but that would mean it would be MotoGP on four wheels, who have similar laptimes and don't have wings. I'm not seriously though suggesting getting rid of wings on F1 cars, but if we did reduce downforce, although the laptimes would suffer, the spectacle would increase and that would be more important

[Casper]

Time compression is the time taken to drive over a certain distance being gradually shortened but the distance remains the same. Let's say a straight part of a circuit takes 25 seconds to go from end to end and a following car just has enough performance to pass the car in front before the braking zone but over a number of years the performance of the cars increases so the time taken is now five seconds and the following car is no longer able to overtake due to lack of time and the braking time is also similarly shortened so no joy there either. I know the five seconds is ludicrous but it illustrates what has happened over the years because far faster cars are racing on the same tracks they have been for decades and the problem gets worse every year.

I have never seen anyone ever address the problem at all because all the fans want is faster cars every year which is exactly what is destroying good racing. The opportunities to have a head to head protracted battle wheel to wheel, nose to gearbox have been effectively removed. Yes aero has played a huge part as well in this on many fronts, far more than one car following another as well.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

Time compression is the time taken to drive over a certain distance being gradually shortened but the distance remains the same. Let's say a straight part of a circuit takes 25 seconds to go from end to end and a following car just has enough performance to pass the car in front before the braking zone but over a number of years the performance of the cars increases so the time taken is now five seconds and the following car is no longer able to overtake due to lack of time and the braking time is also similarly shortened so no joy there either.

That's a good point, but how does that explain V8 Supercars for example producing boring, processional racing without overtaking even though the braking zones in the touring cars take twice the distance or more of Formula One?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That's a good point, but how does that explain V8 Supercars for example producing boring, processional racing without overtaking even though the braking zones in the touring cars take twice the distance or more of Formula One?

The cars are too heavy is the reason that the V8s struggle to pass, they react comparatively slowly compared to a formula car.

The problem with your treatise above regarding the lifting of the wake with the rear wing is that it results in more lateral turbulence generated by the air replacing the greater volume of air displaced by the higher rear wing. Don't expect the higher wing to solve much.

With lighter cars and lower downforce there would be less wake turbulence and the lap times would still be representative.

[Casper]

It baffles me why the time/distance thing has not been discussed at all by anyone. The easy target is aero and I agree that the aero introduces another layer of complexity for many more reasons than wake turbulence but aero discussion beyond wake turbulence is also one of those things never discussed as well. Has anyone seen discussion on why cars get longer, the prime reason is cantilevered aero loads from the front wing to load the front axle. They then have to make the car longer to get more aero load n the rear to balance the car. This stuff never gets discussed at all or at least I haven't seen it. Huge aero load leads to tyre structural issues and Pirelli then cop it in the neck for crap tyres.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

Has anyone seen discussion on why cars get longer, the prime reason is cantilevered aero loads from the front wing to load the front axle. They then have to make the car longer to get more aero load n the rear to balance the car. This stuff never gets discussed at all or at least I haven't seen it. Huge aero load leads to tyre structural issues and Pirelli then cop it in the neck for crap tyres.

Check out f1technical.net -- all of this stuff is extensively discussed there.
Here's the discussion of the 2022 aero rules: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/vi...hp?f=6&t=28009

AFAIK the reason for the long wheelbase is simply to increase the surface area of the floor to make more downforce, as well allowing the sidepods and gearbox housing to be made slimmer to provide cleaner airflow over the top of the diffuser as well. Not to mention more space for the all-important flow conditioning bargeboards!!

Huge aero loads are desired by the teams as they make the car go fast!! If you made a very literal interpretation of the rules^ you could indeed lap a lot slower (but why would a F1 team want to do that for? the whole point is to exploit the rules and make the fastest car possible!).

^ I.e., designed a car with no rake angle (as rake increases the angle of attack and expansion area of the floor, and all the other wings for that matter given all these legality boxes are defined relative to the reference plane, which is the floor) and with a short wheelbase too (so less floor area).

prime reason is cantilevered aero loads from the front wing to load the front axle

I'm not sure I follow. The distance from the front wings to the front wheels is fixed by the rules, likewise from the rear wings to the rear wheels. The front wing boxes are defined by the location of the front wheels, likewise the rear wing boxes. It's the wheelbase which is free.

I've never heard your explanation before, why did you find that?


Ex-technical director Gary Anderson says:

The rake and wheelbase is similar to last year. It wasn’t the longest, but this is always a compromise of downforce production from the underfloor and a lazy car in slow corners.

If you have managed to get the downforce Ferrari thinks it requires from a shorter wheelbase – and Ferrari is confident it has made a gain in that area – then that will pay dividends in slower corners.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-...nary-2020-car/

"but this is always a compromise of downforce production from the underfloor [i.e., from more floor area] and a lazy car in slow corners.[from a longer wheelbase]"

I.e., it's considered self-evident by Anderson that the reason for the long wheelbases is to provide more downforce-producing floor area on which low pressure can act.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

The problem with your treatise above regarding the lifting of the wake with the rear wing is that it results in more lateral turbulence generated by the air replacing the greater volume of air displaced by the higher rear wing.

Nice CFD eyes you've got there.

"by the air replacing the greater volume of air displaced" What's left over is a high pressure zone though, the low pressure, high energy air worked by the rear wing is being lifted high into the air -- surrounding air won't rush into a high pressure zone.

I think I'll stick with the official simulations from Tombazis that show a significant improvement.

The lateral simulations by F1Technical also show a large reduction in lateral wake width: https://www.f1technical.net/features/22288

[Adam43]

A longer car allows you to do more with the aero. Easy to move the air and avoid sudden stalling.

One thing you want to balance from an aero point of view is matching the center of the aero load to be where the center of gravity is. That keeps things consistent at all speeds.

I am incredulous that no one has ever discussed this before. Thickos.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Adam43

A longer car allows you to do more with the aero. Easy to move the air and avoid sudden stalling.

Yes, more space for the all-important bargeboards and other turning vanes!

Originally Posted by Adam43

One thing you want to balance from an aero point of view is matching the center of the aero load to be where the center of gravity is.

The weight distribution is prescribed by the rules these days. In 2014, it was 45.5%-46.7% front and 53.3-54.4% rear, so you haven't got a whole lot of scope for flexibility there... And of course the aero COP of the car varies with rake angle which varies with ground speed etc so it all gets terribly complicated.

A lot of the instability and random spins seen in late model F1 cars is thought to be due to instability of an aerodynamic nature.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Yes, more space for the all-important bargeboards and other turning vanes!

Which helps the above.

As that quote you supplied says. The disadvantage comes in slower corners and pivoting the car.

The weight distribution is prescribed by the rules these days. In 2014, it was 45.5%-46.7% front and 53.3-54.4% rear, so you haven't got a whole lot of scope for flexibility there (of course whatever you design mechanically, there is still some ballast you can use to adjust the COG, but not nearly as much as the days when the cars could be built well under the minimum).

Most of the extended length these days is done via an unnecessarily long gearbox housing.

yes. Even the engine weight and weight distribution (height of IIRC) is defined in the rules!

Why does no one mentions this stuff?

Some of these constraints are why we actually have such a small difference in lap times from front to back of the grid. Also why things are much more consistent between teams in terms of these gaps.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Some of these constraints are why we actually have such a small difference in lap times from front to back of the grid. Also why things are much more consistent between teams in terms of these gaps.

i can understand the part about the gaps being consistent, but are the gaps between the teams being smaller now im not sure i follow.

anecdotal on my part as i have no numbers to back up my observations (no doubt why i dont follow), but the number of cars lapped in any given race (where a late SC car doesn't collect them all up) seems to be as it always was, if not a bit worse now days in terms of the gap between the top 4-5 cars to the rest of the field.

mind you i do agree that the gap between the midfield teams for sure is smaller.

while the 107% rules rarely if ever seems to come into play now, given the nature of these cars, a lap time set in relatively clean air of quali or practice on low fuel and fresh rubber is not representative of the times we see from cars on heavy fuel loads and in the traffic of the first stint of a race.

i would even argue that in race conditions, we are not even seeing the true pace of the front runners because they dont start the race on fresh tires which may serve to flatter the perception of there being a reduction in the gap?

[Adam43]

Qualifying gaps (everyone on new tyres) are really close relative to historic I would say. As you say we just don’t need the 107% rule (if it is even there).

I would imagine less variation between Q and race than the old days when you would have Q specials to get on the grid.

Number of cars being lapped is, I would say, way lower than most times in history. Except that a lot weren’t shown as lapped because they had retired!

You don’t have to be that much slower to be lapped. Say a race is 60 laps then being 1.7% slower per lap gets you lapped. Add to the fact that you are probably 20-30s (0.25 to 0.375 of a 120s lap) behind at the end of the first lap anyway if you are quite likely to get lapped even if you are only 1s off the pace.

You are right some cars have a tyre advantage further back which helps.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Carrying on from my suggestion of F1 expanding out to a promotion/relegation style series and expand out.

If it occurred, dare I say Ferrari would get all "Silvio Berlusconi" and think they were a team that couldn't get relegated and should always compete in F1.

When you think of all the factors that prevent a more suitable "economy or growth" of F1. The I think it may be best to expand "downwards" like in Motorbike racing.

Scrap F2 & 3 as it is and have "F2 & F3 GP". It's a stepping stone, but it's also its own class. Like the smaller classes in Motorbike GP are. A manufacturer can get the benefit of being in GP without taking away form the established F1 runners and work their way into F1 as they please.

[BTCC frog]

I think the first thing that needs to change is the ridiculous Q2 tyre rule that punishes drivers who only just make it into the top ten, and gives a big advantage to drivers in 11th-14th on the grid. It also gives a big advantage to the top three who can get through to Q3 on mediums. I think a good example of a problem with the rule is the Sakhir GP, as Esteban Ocon would probably not have finished on the podium if he had qualified tenth (admittedly, Stroll was able to manage third place starting on used tyres, but he had to do a lot of tyre-management). I think the version used in 2011, while still not great, was better, because someone like Hamilton could take a risk by qualifying on the mediums and sacrificing pole, but getting to start on the preferred tyre, and this might be quite interesting. I know it was originally scrapped because some drivers wouldn't go out in Q3 so they could start on new tyres, but I don't think it matters if there are eight or nine drivers in Q3 instead of ten, particularly as only the top drivers are ever shown on TV anyway. But, even the rule was scrapped completely, and drivers could start on whatever tyre the liked, that would still be an improvement.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I think the first thing that needs to change is the ridiculous Q2 tyre rule that punishes drivers who only just make it into the top ten, and gives a big advantage to drivers in 11th-14th on the grid.

indeed and given how much closer the mid field is getting to one another, one wonders if this approach is still needed.

i appreciate the need to keep cars on the track throughout the hour and for Pirelli to showcase their various compounds but i agree that this format does need rethinking.

also i think there is an inherent problem in letting your rivals know what tires you will start the race on and to let them know a day in advance so they can feed that info into their race simulation models.

i believe we learned this year with the new tracks etc that a reduction in preparation time does lead to more eventful and unusual races.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I would imagine less variation between Q and race than the old days when you would have Q specials to get on the grid.

in light of that last post, i wonder what effect, if any, those Q specials, special quali trim, or different parc ferme rules had in re ordering the staring grid by allowing slower cars in race trim to qualify ahead of faster cars?

essentially achieving a mixed up grid in a way the current quali sessions and tire rules aim to/tries to?

the assumption here being that an out of order grid facilitates more overtakes during the race.

perhaps i am just suggesting trading one 'gimmick' for another 'gimmick' though i suspect one is more palatable then the other.

[Adam43]

Possibly. But I kind of liked the variation between Q and race. Although it did add cost.

I’m for ditching the starting on the race tyre thing. It’s not a clear cut win, but why not. There is a single supplier so we shouldn’t get to the point of crazy Q tyres.

[S griffin]

I think the ultra soft was the closest we got to the old Q tyres. I see no reason to ditch the Q2 tyre rule. Does it really spice things up that much? I’m not so sure

[bjohnsonsmith]

Why was the Q2 Tyre rule brought in, in the first place?

[S griffin]

No doubt to spice things up. To be fair it’s not the most contrived thing we’ve had in F1, at least drivers can choose which tyre they want. But I haven’t really seen much to say it’s made much difference