How to fix F1?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Are IndyCars slower than F2 cars and doing lap times comparable to GP3 or F3?

They seem to be, going by the COTA test times and the delta to F1 compared to the delta of F2 and GP3 to F1.

GP3 and F3 cars are surprisingly fast despite "low" power as they are very light (500-600kg).

Interestingly, the less powerful V6 non-turbo Renault/Nissan World Series cars used to be slightly faster than the V8 GP2 cars of that era. Shows what adding lightness and good optimisation can do to a laptime!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

They seem to be, going by the COTA test times and the delta to F1 compared to the delta of F2 and GP3 to F1.

GP3 and F3 cars are surprisingly fast despite "low" power as they are very light (500-600kg).

Interestingly, the less powerful V6 non-turbo Renault/Nissan World Series cars used to be slightly faster than the V8 GP2 cars of that era. Shows what adding lightness and good optimisation can do to a laptime!

The only direct comparison with F1 and AOWR, is Laguna Seca. Sébastien Bourdais set an unofficial lap record on March 10, 2007, with a time of 1'05.880, 122.295 mph (196.814 km/h) during Champ Car Spring Training. The unofficial record was again broken on May 19, 2012 by Marc Gené, who lapped in 1'05.786, 122.46983 mph (197.111 km/h) in a Ferrari F2003-GA during the 2012 Ferrari Racing Days event. The Dallara IR18, with it's UAK is not to dissimilar in performance to Bourdais's DP01. I Very much doubt F2, let alone F3 cars would be capable of those speeds.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

There are lots of aero parts that aren't shaped like a wing but certainly assist in producing downforce. To be honest, the current floors aren't shaped like a wing anyway - they just have all sorts of cuts and bumps and lumps to shape the air. Ain't no traditional wing profiles there. Seems like the current floors meet that criteria?

So define "shaped like a wing". Because we all know that isn't that simple. When it comes to shapes that are inboard on a vehicle, the air it receives is already shaped by the devices in front of it. So you could have a shape there designed to produce downforce that isn't traditionally wing shaped because of the state of the air it's receiving.

These sort of discussions are why F1 is in this tangled rats nest of technical regulations.

Of all the issues though, I'm not sure what this one would solve. Floors have been used as aero devices since the 70s. This is just the latest generation of them. Did we have a discussion before about "it can't be a floor AND an aero tunnel"?

According to Bernoulli's Principle, a wing has to be a certain shape it or won't work, so the shape of a wing defines itself.

The wings obviously produce downforce, 60% of it and wouldn't do so if they weren't that shape. I think you'll find that the aero parts that aren't shaped like a wing, are shaped aerodynamically or they wouldn't work either and though they don't produce downforce, they are there to direct airflow. For example, the airflow conditioners mounted round the sidepods are there to deflect turbulent air generated by the front tyres, away from the sidepods, so the sidepods can do their job of directing the air via the undercut to the rear of the car.

Yes the current floor is flat and that creates it's own problems, particularly with low pressure under the car, which tries to pull the air flow in underneath, which effects the performance of the diffuser. That's why The vanes or slots, that have appeared on the outer rear edge of the floor, to prevent the air from going underneath, sealing that area like the skirt on a ground effect car.

Agreed, it is a tangled rat's nest and all these innovations must cost a lot to implement.

[Akrapovic]

Bernoulli's Principle states that an increase in speed of a fluid happens with a decrease in pressure. You can observe the Bernoulli's principle using a closed system of tubes. There's nothing in it that states a "wing must be a certain shape". There's different shapes you can have, but there's only one optimal shape, and that's what everyone converged in decades ago.

The current floor is most certainly not a wing. Not any more than a vortex generator is. Any device exposed to airflow is an aero device. The engine cover is also an aero device. Any argument that a floor cannot be any more than a floor means operating the car in a vacuum. Or mandating completely square vehicles or something.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Bernoulli's Principle states that an increase in speed of a fluid happens with a decrease in pressure. You can observe the Bernoulli's principle using a closed system of tubes. There's nothing in it that states a "wing must be a certain shape". There's different shapes you can have, but there's only one optimal shape, and that's what everyone converged in decades ago.

The current floor is most certainly not a wing. Not any more than a vortex generator is. Any device exposed to airflow is an aero device. The engine cover is also an aero device. Any argument that a floor cannot be any more than a floor means operating the car in a vacuum. Or mandating completely square vehicles or something.

Bernoulli's principle states, that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy. That's why a wing is that shape. The curved top of a wing creates a longer distance from front to back, than the straight bottom. This causes the air on top to travel farther and faster to the back of the wing, than the air underneath, creating a difference in pressure between the two surfaces.

The floor is not a wing but the air traveling underneath the car is at a lower pressure because it's traveling faster in relation to the rest of the car, due to the diffuser, which accelerates the flow of air under the car, creating an area of low pressure and increasing downforce.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Bernoulli's principle states, that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy. That's why a wing is that shape. The curved top of a wing creates a longer distance from front to back, than the straight bottom. This causes the air on top to travel farther and faster to the back of the wing, than the air underneath, creating a difference in pressure between the two surfaces.

The floor is not a wing but the air traveling underneath the car is at a lower pressure because it's traveling faster in relation to the rest of the car, due to the diffuser, which accelerates the flow of air under the car, creating an area of low pressure and increasing downforce.

That's why a wing is that shape

As I said, the Bernoulli principle simply states what happens in certain circumstances. It doesn't define shapes. The century of engineers working very hard has defined the shapes of wings to the point of them converging on a few select solutions. There are unlimited shapes that will produce that effect.

This is getting a bit daft now, because as we already discussed, we associate downforce production with wings, but that isn't always the case. A wing does not have to be that shape if the air leading to it is not presented in a nice clean way. This is one of the reasons that wings don't work well in dirty air. By the time the air gets to the back of a car, wings are no longer effective (and why the rear wing is stuck as high as possible - to catch clean air). So the blanket "this is a wing shape" really does not apply to inboard aero devices.

If we're going to simplify the very complex area of aerodynamics down to simple "wings make air go faster below, this creating downforce" then it's about to get really silly. The whole point in a race cars rake is to accelerate the air towards the back of the car by having a raised ride height. Red Bull are by far the most aggressive in their use of this. This means the entire car is now being treated "as a wing" because the air flowing over it goes slower. So if we say "the floor cannot be a wing" then turns out the whole car is illegal. And as defined by the Renault mass damper argument, the entire car is classified as an aero device.

So, we're back at the original discussion. Is the floor also a wing? Yeah...if the entire car is a wing. Is it a wing in the traditional sense? No. Is it an aero device? Yeah. Anything that touches air is an aero device. Can things be multi-purpose? Of course they can. Most things in life are. So...define a wing? Kinda hard. Define an aero device? The entire vehicle. You want the bodywork to go right to the edge of the floor? Fine, they'll just make it 1mm tall, paint it the livery colour and curve it directly inwards anyway. Took me, an uninformed internet idiot all of 3 seconds to work that one out.

The cars are these shapes, not just because of restrictive rules, but decades of engineers working on solutions. You're not going to get more varied results by restricting them even more. And we've gone full circle

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

That's why a wing is that shape

As I said, the Bernoulli principle simply states what happens in certain circumstances. It doesn't define shapes. The century of engineers working very hard has defined the shapes of wings to the point of them converging on a few select solutions. There are unlimited shapes that will produce that effect.

This is getting a bit daft now, because as we already discussed, we associate downforce production with wings, but that isn't always the case. A wing does not have to be that shape if the air leading to it is not presented in a nice clean way. This is one of the reasons that wings don't work well in dirty air. By the time the air gets to the back of a car, wings are no longer effective (and why the rear wing is stuck as high as possible - to catch clean air). So the blanket "this is a wing shape" really does not apply to inboard aero devices.

If we're going to simplify the very complex area of aerodynamics down to simple "wings make air go faster below, this creating downforce" then it's about to get really silly. The whole point in a race cars rake is to accelerate the air towards the back of the car by having a raised ride height. Red Bull are by far the most aggressive in their use of this. This means the entire car is now being treated "as a wing" because the air flowing over it goes slower. So if we say "the floor cannot be a wing" then turns out the whole car is illegal. And as defined by the Renault mass damper argument, the entire car is classified as an aero device.

So, we're back at the original discussion. Is the floor also a wing? Yeah...if the entire car is a wing. Is it a wing in the traditional sense? No. Is it an aero device? Yeah. Anything that touches air is an aero device. Can things be multi-purpose? Of course they can. Most things in life are. So...define a wing? Kinda hard. Define an aero device? The entire vehicle. You want the bodywork to go right to the edge of the floor? Fine, they'll just make it 1mm tall, paint it the livery colour and curve it directly inwards anyway. Took me, an uninformed internet idiot all of 3 seconds to work that one out.

The cars are these shapes, not just because of restrictive rules, but decades of engineers working on solutions. You're not going to get more varied results by restricting them even more. And we've gone full circle

If there are unlimited shapes that will produce that effect, why aren't wings on a plane or a car a different shape to the one that they are?

The reason wings don't work well in dirty air, is because the airflow has been disrupted and the air can't flow over and under the wing as it should, in order to create downforce. It's the equivalent of a plane stalling.

The whole car is an aerodynamic device, wings, floor, diffuser, sidepods etc.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If there are unlimited shapes that will produce that effect, why aren't wings on a plane or a car a different shape to the one that they are?

Because not all solutions are equally efficient. As I said in the last few posts, the principle doesn't state the shape - it just states the phenomenon. You can achieve this with lots of different shapes. It's then down to the last 100 years of engineers working very hard to try and work out what the best way of achieving this is. And now, 100 years in, we've converged on a few solutions that work best. You can even see this in small scale in F1, with one team finding a new solution and others copying it. If it was as simple as the principle defined the shape, then we wouldn't have had any of this.

On the scale of a full vehicle, the entire F1 car is obeying this principle. Fast moving air below, slow-moving air above. It certainly meets the definition defined by the principle doesn't it? The entire vehicle is acting as a 'wing'. Interesting profile shape for it, but it works.

If it was as simple as the principle states the shape, then the FIA would just outlaw that shape and be done with it. But it isn't that simple. As long as you can make air flow faster under the vehicle, you'll get that effect.

If you want to look at it another way - the internal combustion engine is about making dead dinosaurs go bang to move a vehicle forward. But you don't have just one solution to this - you've got lots of different once. But they're not all equal, despite all achieving the basic result of burning dead lizards to make a car move forward.

So we're back to the start again. Can the floor be a floor and a wing? Yes. If you say an object can't do two things at once, then how can a car be a downforce producing wing (as defined by the Bernoulli principle), and a motor vehicle? Because the meets both of these criteria perfectly. Objects can do lots of things. And that's why f1 rules are so complicated, and why we end up with 2 hour discussions on the definition of a hole.

Another example:



2010 Ferrari. Regulations stated you were allowed one opening in the engine cover bodywork for the exhaust. How many holes do you see here? I see 4. But because of the slots between them, it's actually just one opening.

So that was obviously not what the rules intended, but it's a very good thinking outside the box solution. Was outlawed. So now the teams are using the upper face of the floor in a way that wasn't intended (although it was opened up by accident, with the tighter packaging allowing it). So is that not a brilliant solution we should celebrate? Or regulate that out as well?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Because not all solutions are equally efficient. As I said in the last few posts, the principle doesn't state the shape - it just states the phenomenon. You can achieve this with lots of different shapes. It's then down to the last 100 years of engineers working very hard to try and work out what the best way of achieving this is. And now, 100 years in, we've converged on a few solutions that work best. You can even see this in small scale in F1, with one team finding a new solution and others copying it. If it was as simple as the principle defined the shape, then we wouldn't have had any of this.

On the scale of a full vehicle, the entire F1 car is obeying this principle. Fast moving air below, slow-moving air above. It certainly meets the definition defined by the principle doesn't it? The entire vehicle is acting as a 'wing'. Interesting profile shape for it, but it works.

If it was as simple as the principle states the shape, then the FIA would just outlaw that shape and be done with it. But it isn't that simple. As long as you can make air flow faster under the vehicle, you'll get that effect.

If you want to look at it another way - the internal combustion engine is about making dead dinosaurs go bang to move a vehicle forward. But you don't have just one solution to this - you've got lots of different once. But they're not all equal, despite all achieving the basic result of burning dead lizards to make a car move forward.

So we're back to the start again. Can the floor be a floor and a wing? Yes. If you say an object can't do two things at once, then how can a car be a downforce producing wing (as defined by the Bernoulli principle), and a motor vehicle? Because the meets both of these criteria perfectly. Objects can do lots of things. And that's why f1 rules are so complicated, and why we end up with 2 hour discussions on the definition of a hole.

Another example:



2010 Ferrari. Regulations stated you were allowed one opening in the engine cover bodywork for the exhaust. How many holes do you see here? I see 4. But because of the slots between them, it's actually just one opening.

So that was obviously not what the rules intended, but it's a very good thinking outside the box solution. Was outlawed. So now the teams are using the upper face of the floor in a way that wasn't intended (although it was opened up by accident, with the tighter packaging allowing it). So is that not a brilliant solution we should celebrate? Or regulate that out as well?

Exactly not all solutions are equally efficient and the most efficient way of achieving this, is to design a plane with a shape, that allows the air to flow faster on one side than the other. That's why wings are the shape they are. It's function defines it's shape.



The F1 car obeys the principle because the air is traveling faster on the flat underside of the car and slower over top of the car, just like a wing.

I don't see why that would mean the FIA would just outlaw that shape and be done with it?

You don't need dead lizards as fuel for an engine, ethanol and methanol can also be used.

[Akrapovic]

I imagine most of the forum is getting bored of us, and I'm obviously not communicating very well as this is going in circles and we're getting no where so I'll call it a day after this as I fear this is getting silly.

The F1 car obeys the principle because the air is traveling faster on the flat underside of the car and slower over top of the car, just like a wing.

And yet the profile of an F1 car is not one of the wing you've posted. Almost like...there can be many different shapes. And the shape varies depending on the scenario the wing is placed. You said yourself, to design "a plane". I'd hardly call the top profile of an F1 car a plane by any stretch of the word.

I don't see why that would mean the FIA would just outlaw that shape and be done with it?

We're talking about how to define a wing and an aero device. If you're claiming only one shape works (which isn't true, but for the sake of discussion let's say it is), and you want to stop an object being used as an aero device, then you'd just outlaw that shape.

That's my point - there's lots of shapes, this is a complex problem, and much more complicated than "a floor can't be a wing!" You can't stop them using floors (or anything else) as an aero device using such simple language.

You don't need dead lizards as fuel for an engine, ethanol and methanol can also be used.

I don't think you got my point. The fuel for the engine wasn't the point, it was just colourful language. The point was the principle of all ICEs is the same. They burn something to make power. However, not all ICEs achieve this in the same way. Inline 4, V6, V8, H16, Wankle. Similar to aerodynamics, there are many ways (shapes...) to achieve this. And similar to aerodynamics, we're converging on only a small number of solutions now.

So, what is an aero device? Does it have to be wing shaped? No, not even close. You don't even need a "wing" shape to generate downforce. You just need to envoke pressure difference, which can be done with non-wing shaped things. Just like how it's hard to compare the Wankle to an H16.

But now we've successfully gone in circles and I'm kinda lost as to what's even being said now.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I imagine most of the forum is getting bored of us, and I'm obviously not communicating very well as this is going in circles and we're getting no where so I'll call it a day after this as I fear this is getting silly.



And yet the profile of an F1 car is not one of the wing you've posted. Almost like...there can be many different shapes. And the shape varies depending on the scenario the wing is placed. You said yourself, to design "a plane". I'd hardly call the top profile of an F1 car a plane by any stretch of the word.



We're talking about how to define a wing and an aero device. If you're claiming only one shape works (which isn't true, but for the sake of discussion let's say it is), and you want to stop an object being used as an aero device, then you'd just outlaw that shape.

That's my point - there's lots of shapes, this is a complex problem, and much more complicated than "a floor can't be a wing!" You can't stop them using floors (or anything else) as an aero device using such simple language.



I don't think you got my point. The fuel for the engine wasn't the point, it was just colourful language. The point was the principle of all ICEs is the same. They burn something to make power. However, not all ICEs achieve this in the same way. Inline 4, V6, V8, H16, Wankle. Similar to aerodynamics, there are many ways (shapes...) to achieve this. And similar to aerodynamics, we're converging on only a small number of solutions now.

So, what is an aero device? Does it have to be wing shaped? No, not even close. You don't even need a "wing" shape to generate downforce. You just need to envoke pressure difference, which can be done with non-wing shaped things. Just like how it's hard to compare the Wankle to an H16.

But now we've successfully gone in circles and I'm kinda lost as to what's even being said now.

If most of the forum is getting bored of us, I'll leave it at that.
Just one thing though, the car has front and rear wings, which are that shape and they generate around 60% of the downforce.

[Skam85]

Not bored. Just way above my pay grade and intelligence level

What this discussion has taught me is that I am far suited to the sporting aspect of F1!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't see why that would mean the FIA would just outlaw that shape and be done with it?

Akra hits the points in the post above, but it is just not that easy. Especially when it comes down to actual language that defines what is excluded.

I can’t remember the details, but my brain is shouting at me that this discussion harkens back an issue that happened with LMP1 prototypes rear wing end plates a few years ago. I can’t remember the details, but the rule writers thought they had prevented creative wing shaped profiles of the end plates, but the designers figured out ways around the rules to effectively create wing profiles that fit within the rules.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If most of the forum is getting bored of us, I'll leave it at that.
Just one thing though, the car has front and rear wings, which are that shape and they generate around 60% of the downforce.

Most interesting thread in my opinion, much better than who snubbed whom!

If you take a long thin piece of paper and blow hard parallel along the top of the length from an end, the paper will lift straight out toward the fast flowing air against gravity. i.e. the fast airflow across the length generates lift on a flat surface due to the pressure drop.

From 1:00 min to 3:18 here: Bernoulli's Principle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cew5JF8q6eY

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The F1 car obeys the principle because the air is traveling faster on the flat underside of the car and slower over top of the car, just like a wing.

I don't see why that would mean the FIA would just outlaw that shape and be done with it?

If you want to reduce underfloor downforce, you can just:
1. Remove the allowance for a diffuser at the rear of the floor.
2. Require the teams to run 0 degrees (+- 0.1 degrees tolerance) static rake.
3. Increase the step height from the current value by another two or three times.

The flat floor won't be that effective at generating downforce with these restrictions on it.



But, of course, in 2017 the regulations they made the floor wider as they wanted underbody downforce to be more effective and to deliberately make the cars to be faster.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I found this article from Racecar Engineering on the role of the diffuser and it's well worth a read.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/t...-aerodynamics/

[S griffin]

Underfloor downforce is good for racing, as that is less affected by the wake of the car in front. Just as long as it isn’t like 80-82 when it got out of control and dangerous

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Underfloor downforce is good for racing, as that is less affected by the wake of the car in front. Just as long as it isn’t like 80-82 when it got out of control and dangerous

Which was when cars ran inverted wings in the side-pods, which were subsequently banned. The problem was not the wings themselves but the use of skirts to provide a seal between the bottom of the side-pod and the ground.

[S griffin]

And they were lethal if they ever got damaged

[bathurst77]

I wish they would bring back full ground effects with side skirts
And lotus JPS livery

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

I wish they would bring back full ground effects with side skirts

With modern design methods and personnel you can achieve a lot, lot more. Back then a team has lucky to have two engineers working on aerodynamics if they were lucky, whereas now they have a hundred.

Adrian Newey's Aston Martin Valkyrie will use a shaped underbody.


Quite similar to this trusty old Porsche 962, eh?


There are a lot of specifics about the ratio of ground clearence to bodywork angle to consider (the downforce tends to ramp up as the body gets closer to the ground but then suddenly disappear when it gets too close to the ground and stalls). If they choose a more conservative design that is not so sensitive to being close to the ground (much like the higher clearance of the Valkyrie), then it won't be prone to dangerous loss of down force when bottoming out like the 80's F1 cars.

And lotus JPS livery

That already happened.

[TrapezeArtist]

"Ban all wings." Personally I think that would be a good idea. They are an anachronism. The biggest objection to it seems to be how to write the rules. Certainly that seems to be the way forumites see it, and I would guess it would be the way the FIA would see it.

Unfortunately the FIA has a long history of writing rules with complex definitions, supposedly to make them watertight. In reality, the more complex a rule, the more loopholes the teams can find. That's why the entire rulebook needs to be torn up and started again.

If it was decided that banning wings was a good idea, I would suggest a rule that says "Wings are not permitted." Then appoint a suitably qualified and respected person (Ross Brawn?) to adjudicate on what is or is not a wing. If a team turns up at a race with a sort-of-wing that they think they can get away with, they should also come equipped to remove it if it is judged illegal in pre-race scrutineering.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

With modern design methods and personnel you can achieve a lot, lot more. Back then a team has lucky to have two engineers working on aerodynamics if they were lucky, whereas now they have a hundred....

(I hope you're not offended by me shortening your post for this reply)
That would be when the teams were driving BMC Mini Vans on the road with rear wins fitted to them that were connected to bathroom scales to measure the downforce! That's what I call real engineering!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

And they were lethal if they ever got damaged

CART successfully ran ground effect cars, after skirts were banned. A certain Mr. Adrian Newey played a pivotal role, when he worked for March Engineering, who were a major chassis supplier. He designed the very successful March 85C and 86C.

[S griffin]

Yes that helped CART racing no end. And GP2’s great racing was mainly down to most of the downforce coming from the underfloor