F1 considering wheel arches for wet conditions

[Sodemo]

Several decades back there was a similar discussion regarding spray and there was a test done on a new track surface that was meant to reduce spray. I guess that came to nothing as they still have this problem today.

Would increased drainage not help? I know that might cause seperate issues, but if they ran small channels in the tarmac on the straights to divert the water?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Would increased drainage not help? I know that might cause seperate issues, but if they ran small channels in the tarmac on the straights to divert the water?

They have some diagonal cuts on the grid at Spa. I don’t know if that is a solution specific to the topology and geology of that section of track, or whether it’s a practical full circuit, at every circuit solution.

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Several decades back there was a similar discussion regarding spray and there was a test done on a new track surface that was meant to reduce spray.

We have this on some sections of our toll highways. Not only it reduces spray but also almost all solar reverberation. Not driving a race car on slicks can't say if the grip is altered. Noise increase is an issue but again only for road cars.

[TrapezeArtist]

What is "solar reverberation"?

[Adam43]

I guess sunlight reflecting of the road surface?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

What is "solar reverberation"?

Glare

[Gerard C]

Thanks Adam and Malcolm. Yes that. Sorry if was unclear.

[Gerard C]

Could "porous asphalt" be good in English? Works fine, really.

[Aysedasi]

‘Solar reverberation’……. I like that!

[Taxi645]

Some further explanation of the FIA's current thinking on the spray issue:

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f...-or-abandoned/

“What we still have a doubt about is what proportion of the problem is due to the overall diffuser and sucking water from the track, which is something clearly this thing won't fix, and how much is because of the wheels,” Tombazis explained.

So it seems they now are realizing that is not just the spray of the wheels on it's own that is solely responsible for the visibility problem, but that the underside plays a certain yet unknown role as well. can imagine this is extremely hard for the FIA to tackle because:

1 Very little scientific research will likely have been done on this specific subject (water interactions in turbulent low pressure air flows under cars). I can't really think of another engineering purpose for it with sufficient economic meaning to warrant extensive research into it.
2 It will be extremely hard to simulate, because reliably recreating the formation of millions of droplets per second with some many variable variables will be close to impossible.

In the article the possibility of a second car for wet races is mentioned (an idea that is directly discounted because of logistics and cost reasons).

Perhaps a second car for wet racing could be a good idea in a softer version:

1 Narrower tyres to reduce the spray directly from the wheels
2 Much larger diameter wet weather tyre to lift the underside of the car so much from the track surface the interaction with the track water is close to not existent and also it's low air pressure effect get's strongly reduced.
3 A classic front and rear downforce set of wings for wet weather. So the aerodynamic load responsibility shifts to old fashion wings which would provide predictable and stable downforce during the wet part of the race.

When the track dries up, the cars come into the pits and get their normal diameter tyres mounted along with the normal set of front and rear wings for dry weather running.


Might work, not sure.

[Sodemo]

I think the force of the water exiting the tyre area will be so strong it will mean industrial size / strength supports are needed.