How to fix F1?

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

(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!

Seriously, I was doing that as a kid racing 1/24 scale slot cars (inter-hobbyshops) in the '60s (only longitudinally) with a string tied to a light (balsa wood) rolling chassis, in front of a fan, attached to a letter scale to find the least resistant bodies..... (I found a P4 was one of the best sportscar bodies...'pencil shaped F1 bodies the difference was nil....)

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Yes that helped CART racing no end.

Not lightheartedly at all, but, it sure didn't help Gordon Smiley at Indy in 1983.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jimclark

Not lightheartedly at all, but, it sure didn't help Gordon Smiley at Indy in 1983.

'82. The car was very loose and going into Turn 3 and as he corrected the car, it pitched nose first into the wall. I've never read or heard anything that attributed the crash to ground effect. Skirts were banned the following year.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

"Ban all wings." Personally I think that would be a good idea. They are an anachronism.

i never really thought of it this way but i feel like you are very much right here.

strictly from a modern design/aesthetic perspective, all the winglets and such create a very clustered/busy look. the current cars do not look modern, clean, minimalistic in any way. these cars look like throwbacks to a 90 styling trend that hit its height in the mid 2000s (the BMW Saubers in particular) and F1 has been struggling to move away from that ever since....with little success.

from a aerodynamic point of view i imagine they are quite effective in directing the airflow/vortices around the car and im not smart enough to know what the alternative is but when i see renderings of F1 concept/future designs they all seem to focus on a much cleaner look. iknow enough to say that the future they envision is not this.

when i see what Newey, F1's foremost areo specialist, is doing with his other projects, his F1 entries look more and more like something designed to a set of antiquated rules rather than a modern optimal solution.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Yes, let's ban all wings. Let them race on road tires. Dogbox gearboxes. Haybales and no more runoff. Everybody happy!

[chillibowl]

well i dont think it would make you happy!

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

'82. The car was very loose and going into Turn 3 and as he corrected the car, it pitched nose first into the wall. I've never read or heard anything that attributed the crash to ground effect. Skirts were banned the following year.

Oooopppss on the '83.

Regarding the cause....a friend and I were at a bar shooting pool and we asked for a TV to be turned to ESPN (i think it was) for their daily 1/2 hour "Month of May" daily update of activities at Indy. That's when we found out and I caught it immediately.

I explained to my buddy that as Gordon corrected for the rear coming around on him and the car came back to straight ahead, the ground effects kicked back in and grabbed the (now, still) right turned front wheels which turned the car towards the wall. Poor smiley never had a chance to un-correct in time. That was part of the reason the skirts were banned the following year. Without them, the turn to the right wouldn't have been as violent and he mighta been able to lessen the angle of impact to a more glancing, rather than head on, blow.
Sure enuff, right after I was finished, one of the announcers (I don't remember who) explained the same.

[jimclark]

Not to drag this sad occurence along, but even from Wikipedia:

"At 12:15 p.m., Smiley left the pits to start his qualifying run. On his second (of two) warm up laps, he approached turn three. The back-end of the #35 Intermedics March 81C-Cosworth became loose, and Smiley overcorrected. The front wheels suddenly gained traction, the car turned and crashed head-on into the concrete wall at about 200 mph (320 km/h). The impact of the March against the wall was so hard and so violent, that the fuel tank exploded with a large fireflash, the car broke into three large sections, and the rest disintegrated into hundreds of pieces. Most of the shattered car went airborne for at least 50 feet (15 m), littering the track with debris. Smiley's exposed body tumbled with the wreck hundreds of feet through the short-chute connecting turns three and four. Pieces of the car were strewn all over the track."

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jimclark

Oooopppss on the '83.

Regarding the cause....a friend and I were at a bar shooting pool and we asked for a TV to be turned to ESPN (i think it was) for their daily 1/2 hour "Month of May" daily update of activities at Indy. That's when we found out and I caught it immediately.

I explained to my buddy that as Gordon corrected for the rear coming around on him and the car came back to straight ahead, the ground effects kicked back in and grabbed the (now, still) right turned front wheels which turned the car towards the wall. Poor smiley never had a chance to un-correct in time. That was part of the reason the skirts were banned the following year. Without them, the turn to the right wouldn't have been as violent and he mighta been able to lessen the angle of impact to a more glancing, rather than head on, blow.
Sure enuff, right after I was finished, one of the announcers (I don't remember who) explained the same.

That's the first I've heard of that explanation. If the skirts weren't working properly and therefore not enough downforce was being generated, that could explain why the car was so loose.

[Peter Mallett]

There is another explanation. Sometimes slicks take a while to "come in" its happened to me. Fronts on rear drive cars are especially difficult to switch on but they can sometimes just come in when the steering is on a tight lock. That would create an excess of grip unexpectedly. So it may not have been as a result of ground effect but tyre grip.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

There is another explanation. Sometimes slicks take a while to "come in" its happened to me. Fronts on rear drive cars are especially difficult to switch on but they can sometimes just come in when the steering is on a tight lock. That would create an excess of grip unexpectedly. So it may not have been as a result of ground effect but tyre grip.

That's the explanation I've heard. The tyres kicked in as he over compensated. He was also on an a warm up lap.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by jimclark

Not to drag this sad occurence along, but even from Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's the first I've heard of that explanation. If the skirts weren't working properly and therefore not enough downforce was being generated, that could explain why the car was so loose.

We are off topic, but I have a few comments, of which that last one is on-topic...

1. While I love and generally rely upon Wikipedia, there is effectively zero attribution (link to third party source) for the description of the accident on the page (it's the page for Smiley if anyone is curious). Particularly the bit ("suddenly gaining grip") that could be read to imply the underbody wing suddenly worked. Look at the edit history from a 2006 edit. Note that as the description expanded to imply a cause, the editor also included a link to a YouTube video of the accident. Reading between the lines, someone watched the video and then made a personal judgement as to what happened and then updated Wikipedia. So... one person's opinion has now apparently become the definitive answer! For some articles on Wikipedia... that is just how it work.

2. My opinion... It (sadly) looked like a typical Indy situation in which the slide was corrected, but the front wheels were turned right, so it went right. The same thing could happen with a flat bottom car that had wings on the front and rear. I don't follow Indy closely, but I suspect someone could search for and find a number of modern examples in which the car snaps like that and hits the wall (but with less deadly consequences).

3. My 2 cents is that bad things can happen when aero goes wrong. Be it underbody wings or wings attached to the front/rear of the car. We still see it today in F1 with front/rear wing failures. So I think underbody wings are still an option for F1.

Richard

[wnut]

Senna's accident also featured the front of the car suddenly snapping out of the corner once the car was already set.

Separately:

The problem with underbody aero / ground effect is that you have to drive the car as if it is on rails, as soon as the car goes sideways you lose downforce.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by wnut

Senna's accident also featured the front of the car suddenly snapping out of the corner once the car was already set.

Separately:

The problem with underbody aero / ground effect is that you have to drive the car as if it is on rails, as soon as the car goes sideways you lose downforce.

That was what I was just thinking (although I admit, I've not watched the video, so I'm assuming here). As the car had started to slide sideways (hence the opposite lock being applied) surely the ground effect (er?) effect would be significantly reduced (the skirts had apparently lifted allowing any previous 'vacuum' formed to escape), even once they re-sealed there wouldn't be much/anything there to seal?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Senna's accident also featured the front of the car suddenly snapping out of the corner once the car was already set.

Separately:

The problem with underbody aero / ground effect is that you have to drive the car as if it is on rails, as soon as the car goes sideways you lose downforce.

That was the case with ground effect F1 cars, in the late '70s and early '80s because of the skirts but that issue hasn't arisen, with the IR18, which is a ground effect car.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That was the case with ground effect F1 cars, in the late '70s and early '80s because of the skirts but that issue hasn't arisen, with the IR18, which is a ground effect car.

I don't understand how BJ, if you are exploiting a ground effect, as soon as the air is not flowing down the length of the floor and through the tunnels the downforce will vanish.

An aeroplane in a sideslip does not generate much lift.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

I don't understand how BJ, if you are exploiting a ground effect, as soon as the air is not flowing down the length of the floor and through the tunnels the downforce will vanish.

An aeroplane in a sideslip does not generate much lift.

You're quite right and any car that goes sideways looses downforce but I was getting ahead of myself. I had this image of the car cornering, like it's on rails and a skirt or skirts suddenly failing. However, the IR18 doesn't have skirts, so that sort of failure can't happen, that's what I was thinking of.

[S griffin]

They are predicting next season's regulations will cut downforce by two thirds. Which is a good start

[chillibowl]

a good start only once your realize Merc and Ferrari will collectively spend somewhere shy of one billion dollars to find that downforce again.

we have seen this before as well as the failure to correct the underlying financial problem.

dont get me wrong, i like the innovation and creativity that is required to get that downforce back but surely this is a process (for our enjoyment if for no other reason) that should take place over several seasons with a back and forth between teams based on their development cycles and ingenuity.

unfortunately the money these guys have to play with means they will likely find a way to claw it back by mid season.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

That was what I was just thinking (although I admit, I've not watched the video, so I'm assuming here). (A)As the car had started to slide sideways (hence the opposite lock being applied) surely the ground effect (er?) effect would be significantly reduced (B)(the skirts had apparently lifted allowing any previous 'vacuum' formed to escape), (C)even once they re-sealed there wouldn't be much/anything there to seal?

(A) Exactly.

(B) The skirts don't have to lift. When the car is going sideways (rear end loose) the flow through the tunnel(s) is interrupted.

(C) Once the car was passing through the straight ahead phase of the correction, the the flow was back, creating the downforce which caught the right turned fronts. Thus Smiley and his March, into the wall.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

We are off topic, but I have a few comments, of which that last one is on-topic...

1. While I love and generally rely upon Wikipedia, there is effectively zero attribution (link to third party source) for the description of the accident on the page (it's the page for Smiley if anyone is curious). Particularly the bit ("suddenly gaining grip") that could be read to imply the underbody wing suddenly worked. Look at the edit history from a 2006 edit. Note that as the description expanded to imply a cause, the editor also included a link to a YouTube video of the accident. Reading between the lines, someone watched the video and then made a personal judgement as to what happened and then updated Wikipedia. So... one person's opinion has now apparently become the definitive answer! For some articles on Wikipedia... that is just how it work.

2. My opinion... It (sadly) looked like a typical Indy situation in which the slide was corrected, but the front wheels were turned right, so it went right. The same thing could happen with a flat bottom car that had wings on the front and rear. I don't follow Indy closely, but I suspect someone could search for and find a number of modern examples in which the car snaps like that and hits the wall (but with less deadly consequences).

1. I only quoted Wiki as it was the first description of the accident I found. I knew the moment I saw the accident the cause. There was no Wikipedia for me in 1982.

2. The same can happen with a simple winged car, for sure. Only, not as violently as a skirted ground effects car.

edit: Additionally: "The Lotus 78 used inverted wing shapes placed within the sidepods, creating two large venturi tunnels, but it was its use of sliding skirts that was the real coup and radically increased downforce."
That "radically increased downforce" due to the skirts is why they were banned evrywhere.....

(excepted from https://www.motorsport.com/us/f1/new...73918/3014985/)

Additionally, (sorry) again from Wikipedia's Indy 500 of 1983 account: 'The USAC technical committee issued a rule change for 1983, scaling back side skirts and declaring that "all bodywork or aerodynamic devices must be at least one inch above the bottom of the car's tub." '

I promise, no mas on this one.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by jimclark

1. I only quoted Wiki as it was the first description of the accident I found. I knew the moment I saw the accident the cause. There was no Wikipedia for me in 1982.

Not picking on you for the Wikipedia usage. I love Wikipedia, but it occasionally the info can be questionable.

Originally Posted by jimclark

2. The same can happen with a simple winged car, for sure. Only, not as violently as a skirted ground effects car.

I don't disagree (i.e. underbody wing may "come on" faster than than above body). But my question is... would the driver be able to catch it in either situation? I would say that in general not and that in general I doubt ground effects are more dangerous, or if they are, it is marginally so. I think the accident was a given once the slide started to happen. I am not saying that was a freak accident, but there is no guarantee it would always play out as deadly as that example (regardless of wing type). Lastly, lets not pretend that above body wings don't loose downforce/effectiveness when the car yaws in relation to the direction of travel. Especially at Indy speeds.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Not picking on you for the Wikipedia usage. I love Wikipedia, but it occasionally the info can be questionable.

Note... I meant to include a positive emoticon in the bit above. So here it is!


Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by jimclark

(A) Exactly.

(B) The skirts don't have to lift. When the car is going sideways (rear end loose) the flow through the tunnel(s) is interrupted.

(C) Once the car was passing through the straight ahead phase of the correction, the the flow was back, creating the downforce which caught the right turned fronts. Thus Smiley and his March, into the wall.

There is also another aspect that we have all been missing up to this stage, and that is tyre stagger.

I have seen a rookie briefing for an oval race, Indy I think, where the instructor said that if the car got out of shape, do not steer into the drift; as anyone would; as the car would just snap right and go into the wall.

So when you add this pearl of wisdom to the faults / characteristics of ground effects that you have laid out above, an IndyCar of Smiley's era would have been guaranteed to snap into the wall once the ground effect was disrupted.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by S griffin

They are predicting next season's regulations will cut downforce by two thirds. Which is a good start

Loss in translation there I think.

It will cut the deficit in downforce when following in medium speed corners (180 km/hr) by one-third.

It won't cut downforce by two-thirds, they are saying the cars will only be a few tenths per lap slower (if at all by the time they apply their usual wizardry and tricks).

Originally Posted by wnut

There is also another aspect that we have all been missing up to this stage, and that is tyre stagger.

Hmm, the wider rear tyres match the weight distribution and aero distribution which is also rearwards, which is optimal for a rear-wheel-drive racing car. Current F1 have more weight forward by way of the regulation which mandates something like a 45:55 weight distribution (and thus wider front tyres).

Surely car constructors had good reasons to run wheels which were staggered to this level?


To me, it evens look like that by 1982, USAC were running the iconic 15x12 front wheel with 25" tyre and 15x16 rear wheel with 27" tyre combination that Champcar and CART used until 2007? [IRL uses a smaller 15x11" and 15x14" rear, the same widths used by F1 after 1996 (expect 13" diameter obviously).]


The stagger seems mild compared to ground effect F1 cars...