|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
18 May 2018, 04:45 (Ref:3823155) | #1751 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
Great to see some in depth analysis.
Must admit it has changed my opinion that limiting aero was a quick fix to get more overtaking. And it also leads me to thinking that any improvement in braking or useabl power tends to compound that problem rather than fixing it. I think we all have to start to question whether the number of overtakes in a race is what leads to an exciting and memorable race ( or in particular a drive) is the prime factor. |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
19 May 2018, 01:21 (Ref:3823326) | #1752 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13...-50%25-in-2017 Wake turbulence means a following car does none of the advantages of the leading car operating in clean air, so to say aero has no effect is just wrong, it affects acceleration off a corner and braking distances into corners. Braking is also affected as we saw with Ricciardo hitting the back of Verstappen following Max's double move, Ricciardo's car just did not have the aero load necessary to keep braking at the required rate and he was a passenger. You are also assuming, that passing is purely a matter of blowing past on a straight and not taking a position in a corner as we have seen particularly Ricciardo and Verstappen do, once the front wheel is more than half the car length alongside, the lead car is forced to concede the corner. (Once the downforce goes off the front of the car with wake turbulence this is not easy!) Last edited by wnut; 19 May 2018 at 01:27. |
||
|
19 May 2018, 01:53 (Ref:3823327) | #1753 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
|
||
|
19 May 2018, 02:38 (Ref:3823330) | #1754 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
AFAIK they were pretty careful that the passes had to be on track for position, not in the pits or just blowing past out of position cars.
|
|
|
19 May 2018, 02:49 (Ref:3823331) | #1755 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
I won't say that aero has absolutely zero impact, but its influence has been heavily overblown, while the effects of the accordion effect have seemingly been totally overlooked and not even mentioned.
It would be much more useful to have a race-by-race breakdown between 2016 and 2017 to see where the most pronounced drops were. Also, aside from Rosberg coming back through the field, how many overtakes did the 2014 Russian GP have? And actually, there's also this article: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12...taking-records It seems like that total in the 400s, in absolute terms, isn't so out of the ordinary, but instead, those values in the 800s are the abnormal ones, even compared to the level of overtaking that took place during the second stint of Lauda's career (1982-85). (I suspect quite a few overtakes in the 1978-83 range were turbo cars blowing by naturally-aspirated cars on the straights, and then frequently being repassed when they ran their tires off. Alternatively, if the turbo cars pitted, they'd then scythe through the field yet again.) I know there are differences, but given how close the Indy Cars can run on the superspeedways, even this year with the reduced downforce, without snapping out and around in the wake of the car in front, I'm less concerned about the impact the wake is having in F1. After all, I wouldn't expect that the Indy Cars are making any more downforce this year at Indy, at those speeds, than the F1 cars are making at just 150 mph. There is a maximum amount of adhesion you're going to be able to get from the tires, regardless of aero load. Once you go past that, you won't be able to carry any more cornering speed. Therefore, however much more downforce than that value you happen to be making, it's just excess. Thus, you can afford to lose that margin behind another car, and still hold the road. And yes, the article I link to mentions what they do and don't cover as an overtake. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
19 May 2018, 04:08 (Ref:3823334) | #1756 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Another note on the above material is that reliability issues meant overtaking could have been more common in some respects, as theoretically class-leading cars were more likely to have to start back in the pack for any given race. In addition, the teams running those class-leading cars tended to shift more frequently prior to 2000, so there were more cars in a given race, or certainly throughout a given season, that were regarded as front runners.
|
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
19 May 2018, 04:29 (Ref:3823337) | #1757 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Wnut, the subject initially broached was about the difficulties of cars just getting close enough to have a go at an overtake, so that was what I addressed.
Now then, I think I have to point out that passing in the corner itself is very problematic on most of these newer circuits, because a number of the corners have such acute apexes; the usable line just isn't that wide. The remake of Mexico City is perhaps the most egregious example of this, but I've also seen it elsewhere. Even outside of F1, the corners that are meant to be the primary overtaking zones, and are the primary braking zones (Turns 1, 7, and 12), at the Indianapolis roval pose the same difficulty. Basically, the trailing car has to just about get the pass done on the straight. Even if he gets around half the car in front, if he's on the outside, the driver who was leading onto the straight can just hold station, and the guy on the outside will have to yield, or get forced off the track at corner exit. Going up the inside, the trailing car will have to back out if he's still behind by much of any degree, or the leader can just put him over the curbing at the apex. If neither one yields, there will be a collision, and/or someone will end up off the racing surface. By contrast, the opening sequence at Shanghai shows that smooth, flowing corners, even when they get down to not being terribly fast, can provide scope for some excellent racing. And in addition, the Turn 7-8 sequence shows that respectful competitors can also put on a heck of a high-speed show there. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
19 May 2018, 13:28 (Ref:3823376) | #1758 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Indycar have put a lot of work into massively reducing the size and complexity of their wings, streamlining the cars to reduce the wake turbulence with the rear wheel fairings and using ground effect tunnels to produce the downforce. The oval package is particularly short on wings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efbdxk1utSg Quote:
Turns 7 and 8 at would be much better if they were same handed and did not allow the leading car the opportunity to cut the line of the following car twice. |
|||
|
19 May 2018, 16:26 (Ref:3823400) | #1759 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
|
||
|
19 May 2018, 16:43 (Ref:3823402) | #1760 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
Quote:
It's interesting to note that in F1, with the the wings and surface of the car being used to generate most of the downforce, the cars are now using more aero, noteably around the bargeboards and the front of the sidepods, as seen on this year's Ferrari, in order to improve the airflow and get every bit of surface aerodynamic advantage they can. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
19 May 2018, 16:54 (Ref:3823404) | #1761 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
It doesn't increase the drag, it does the opposite. More doewnforce, creates more drag. The racing hasn't suffered massively at all. The only ''bad'' race this year was the IndyCar GP at IMS and since it's inception 5 years ago has never produced a good race but that is entirely another matter.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
19 May 2018, 17:49 (Ref:3823412) | #1762 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
That is not true. Read this: https://racer.com/2018/05/18/insight...uning-options/
Quote:
|
||
|
19 May 2018, 18:33 (Ref:3823414) | #1763 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
I'm not surprised that removing the pods added drag. I'm sure the Lancia-Ferrari D50 would produce more drag with its pontoon tanks removed. However, that doesn't mean that the overall drag went up; I'm sure it went down, as straight-line speeds are up this year. Overall lap times haven't increased much, actually.
The downforce and drag numbers are nice, but there's a key piece missing; how fast are the cars going to attain those figures? If I had to guess, I'd think those numbers were set at a speed of either 150 or maybe 180 mph. At 200, 220, or 230 mph, those stats will be significantly higher. The equation 2,080/645 gives an L/D of 3.22:1; this year's 2,160/680 gives a value of 3.18:1. A former Swift engineer told me that a very good L/D figure for a modern open-wheel racer is about 4.0:1. (For a bit of comparison to anvanced fendered cars, the Group C sports racers on the drawing board/being tested for 1993 were working on getting into the 5.5-6.0:1 L/D range. Now, I will also note that the Group C cars tended to suffer in the L/D department when trimmed out to their Le Mans earo spec.) It's interesting, looking at the cars at Long Beach this year, the mid-straight gap on Shoreline was pretty similar to what it has been in recent runnings. If there's potentially a notable change, it's that, if anything, the cars seemed a little more spaced out at the apex of the hairpin. Maybe the lower downforce makes it less tempting to dive into that corner, and thus, they're actually getting a better corner exit. And if the physical gap is about the same, but they're going somewhat faster on the straight, the slipstream will be at least slightly more powerful. Last edited by Purist; 19 May 2018 at 18:51. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
19 May 2018, 19:10 (Ref:3823416) | #1764 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
As for my comments about passing at Shanghai, realistically, you still just have the one main shot of the leader cutting up the pursuer's line. If they're still there, they'll have the inside for Turn 8, and if they are cut off through T7, they won't be in position to even try through T8 or into T9-10. Your line will be no less cut off by the leader in the T7/8 combination at Sepang, and both those corners are right-handers. (And paved run-off or no, there should be some penalty for running a driver out of road.)
So I like T7/8 at Shanghai; I just wish T9/10 was more of a sweeper, for the flow of the section, and to improve overtaking potential into T11. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
19 May 2018, 19:16 (Ref:3823418) | #1765 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
On the Mercedes, yes, I know it's reported tendency to by more vulnerable to wake turbulence than the other cars; it wasn't really a dissimilar story to what was said about the Red Bull when they were stomping the competition.
The useful information though would be what specifically is the vulnerability, and more importantly, what is the apparent change in the car's behavior. I also just have to say that I don't recall Hamilton's teammates making the same vocal complaints about the car's behavior and its reputed inability to follow, or at the very least, they certainly weren't speaking out nearly as loudly or frequently about it. (And just in general, I liked Lewis better in his 2007-09 phase, when he seemed much more genuinely grateful for the pace and abilities the car did demonstrate. Most crucial of all, back then, he didn't throw his team under the bus over the radio during the races.) And again, this, plus BJS's comments, go back to my thought on the rulesmakers fouling things up to slow the cars down. When you take away the "easy", and most aerodynamically efficient, methods of producing downforce, this kind of thing can happen, especially with the budgets these teams have. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
19 May 2018, 23:01 (Ref:3823464) | #1766 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
Quote:
Otherwise, it's a fundamental aerodynamic principle that more downforce, comes at the expense of more drag because they are proportional. The greater the angle of attack of the wing, the more downforce is created but it produces more drag. As in this picture. The picture is of an airplane wing but the principle is the same but reversed with a car. So another thing to take into consideration, in the case of slower speeds at Indy this year with the DW-12/IR-18, is that now less overall downforce is produced, the cars have a greater straight line speed, similar to an F1 car using DRS (Drag Reduction System). With greater straight line speed, the driver is now having to break earlier. This article on F1 aerodynamics is well worth a read. http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/a...ics_of_f1.html |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
20 May 2018, 06:02 (Ref:3823493) | #1767 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I know all that, I simply was countering your idea that the new IndyCar produced less drag. Why that is is not really the point
|
|
|
20 May 2018, 08:03 (Ref:3823503) | #1768 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Quote:
|
||
|
20 May 2018, 10:44 (Ref:3823525) | #1769 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
My initial comment was about wake turbulence, or the relative lack of it with the IR-15 and the UAK, which has made it easier for the cars to follow each other more closely, making overtaking easier, compared to the last few years. Anyway this is going way off topic, .
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
20 May 2018, 10:57 (Ref:3823528) | #1770 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
Quote:
Leads to the thought that the more passing requirement needs to examine: 1 the nature of the circuits. 2 the drag/downforce ratio of the cars. 3 the wake turbulence left by cars All that said I think the question remains about whether this focus on passing is necessarily the dominant factor in great racing or great drives? |
|||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
20 May 2018, 16:22 (Ref:3823573) | #1771 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 May 2018, 02:06 (Ref:3823677) | #1772 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
Quote:
This piece from Mario Andretti is worth reading. https://www.autosport.com/indycar/ne...indycar-design Anyway, not wanting to go any further off topic, this is the most up to date list regarding future GPs and particularly the 2019 F1 season, with Belgium, Germany and Japan not under contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_F..._planned_races |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
21 May 2018, 08:28 (Ref:3823708) | #1773 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,397
|
I agree. There's always overtaking in Indycars. Some are more exciting than others. They seem to have the right amount of aero to make great racing. Is Mario still offering his opinions?
Anyway, so GPs for next year, I would be surprised if Germany, Belgium and Japan weren't on the calendar |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
22 May 2018, 15:06 (Ref:3823970) | #1774 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
just a couple of questions/thoughts in no particular order...
- track redesign is an expensive prospect particularly by venues which already struggle to host...can they really be expected to pay for track changes? i feel like thats a unreasonable request. - lots of talk about reducing aero but again asking the teams to give up on decades of research and investments in facilities (in the billions i would guess by this point) is an incredibly expensive proposition and one i would think is just as unlikely as getting venues to redesign just for F1. - more of a layman thought, but if increasing down force is required to overcome the wake/turbulence issue then why not more mechanical grip? surely the safety issues surrounding active suspension for example have been mitigated over time. i would add to that why not more movable aero? the cheapest solution i would think is allowing DRS to be a active the entire lap/race. benefits would be two fold. easier to overtake and more drivers would make mistakes. - that itself may be a moot point as the cars converge towards a specific formula. an issue compounded with increasing cooperation/partnerships between the teams. rather, wont two cars of similar design experience the same difficulties when trying to pass each other (irrespective of track design and rules)...similar straight line speed/similar corning abilities. i feel as though much of overtaking comes down to either one car having a massive advantage or one driver making an error. the advantage could be legislated against but then you just get more similarity in the cars. as for drivers making errors...forgive this question but isnt there greater diversity/range in car and driver talent in Indy vs F1. rather the 20 drivers in F1 are (for the most part) more similar in abilities then 30 odd drivers in Indy? please dont take that as a disparaging remark, just more a point about how homogeneous F1 is. in a way the spec Indy car series offers more variety and hence you see more overtaking? - Merc's issues with driving through the field...kind of an F1 front runner issue. this is a car designed to lead. its not really surprising that they dont deal well when following. im not sure this is proof positive about the wake problems as much as it is about Merc's design philosophy. not nearly as knowledgeable as i would like to be on the technical side of things so apologies in advance if these questions are missing the mark of this conversation. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
22 May 2018, 16:40 (Ref:3823988) | #1775 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
There really isn't more overtaking in Indycar though. Just like in F1 the only overtaking is done when the two cars are on different tyre/fuel strategies. The car being overtaken has zero chance of holding the position.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Greatest Grands Prix | krt917 | Motorsport History | 34 | 1 Mar 2006 13:26 |
Grands Prix | Peter Mallett | Trackside | 5 | 21 Jan 2005 13:13 |
F1 Grands Prix Marshalling...Help | AndyP MyCo | Marshals Forum | 33 | 15 Feb 2004 19:09 |