'09 aero may not improve show

[wedge]

According to Tony Purnell

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44594

“Unfortunately there is a degree of evidence that suggests aerodynamics is probably the worst thing you can have when it comes to close racing.”

Yes, that's right, pick on the aerodynamicists!








*He's probably got a point though.

[Azumanga Davo]

Hmmm, this may be one of those rare occasions where Tony has got it wrong. A1GP showed us how aero packages on their first car worked for close racing.

[Miatanut]

“Unfortunately there is a degree of evidence that suggests aerodynamics is probably the worst thing you can have when it comes to close racing.”


I mostly agree with that, but there is a major difference between downforce from wings and downforce from the undertray.

Dump the rear wings!

[ShiftingGears]

Maybe the introduction of the radical new (old?) aerodynamics package along with KERS will see the field more spread out due to the unfamiliar regulations. Which may end up resulting in less overtaking in 2009, despite the cars theoretically being better equipped to do so.

[Mark]

I wasn't aware that KERS was optional, that teams could tactically choose to use it or not use it.

[Big Ben]

people, you're just to deep for me! How about a more superficial approach? is that narrower and taller rear wing hidious or what? :laugh:

[Mark]

people, you're just to deep for me! How about a more superficial approach? is that narrower and taller rear wing hidious or what? :laugh:

Ooh yesh.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maybe the introduction of the radical new (old?) aerodynamics package along with KERS will see the field more spread out due to the unfamiliar regulations. Which may end up resulting in less overtaking in 2009, despite the cars theoretically being better equipped to do so.

Well if the faster cars were at the back it would be much easier for them to come through the field.

[ShiftingGears]

Well if the faster cars were at the back it would be much easier for them to come through the field.

True.

[ioan]

I wasn't aware that KERS was optional, that teams could tactically choose to use it or not use it.

Yeah it is optional, and teams have to do their calculations to see if a more balanced KERSless chassis would give better or worse times that one with KERS added and most importantly 100% functional.

So I believe that at the start of the season most teams will not use any form of KERS unless they have a very good unit who's performance gain will offset the loses at chassis performance level.

[ioan]

Well if the faster cars were at the back it would be much easier for them to come through the field.

No way.

If the fastest cars are at the back of the grid they will have to fight their way through the field and they will always have first of all to pass cars that are close in terms of performance before getting to those that are in poorer shape.
This means that the fastest cars will rarely manage to position themselves better than 3rd at the end (and this if everything goes along their most ambitious plans).

Just take a look where the top cars finished this season after starting in the middle of the pack, not even at the very back of it!

[ShiftingGears]

No way.

If the fastest cars are at the back of the grid they will have to fight their way through the field and they will always have first of all to pass cars that are close in terms of performance before getting to those that are in poorer shape.
This means that the fastest cars will rarely manage to position themselves better than 3rd at the end (and this if everything goes along their most ambitious plans).

Just take a look where the top cars finished this season after starting in the middle of the pack, not even at the very back of it!

Easier for them to come through the field relative to this year. I think you misunderstood.

[Sleeper]

That might be the case. The wider front wing and higher rear means that both will be producing more downforce than before and the smaller diffuser means that the cars will be relying on the wings more than before. I'm rather worried that the cars will be worse at following in the wake of another than they already are.

[wedge]

The rear diffuser is smaller but slightly longer

[Sleeper]

The rear diffuser is smaller but slightly longer
No its not, it starts at the rear wheel centre line now.

[MrJan]

It's not passing that's the problem, it's getting close to each other after the first 10 laps. Very rarely do we see drivers running together for long periods and we almost never see a driver get overtaken but then retake the place and hold it for any substantial time.

Battles for positions have long been dead in F1 IMO.

[PolePosition_1]

Well if the faster cars were at the back it would be much easier for them to come through the field.


I've long time believed a reverse grid is the way forward.

People complain about lack of racing and overtaking. But at end of the day, having in place a system where the fastest car starts first, and slowest last. Its common sense that we're not going to get much overtaking.

If I had my way, I'd scrap qualifying all together, and the grid would be in reverse to current championship standings.

[wedge]

No its not, it starts at the rear wheel centre line now.

Really?!

I'm sure I've read before they've wanted to free up the undertray somewhat to compensate bodywork aero so they could get closer whilst following the wake of a car infront.

[Andrewmcm]

That might be the case. The wider front wing and higher rear means that both will be producing more downforce than before and the smaller diffuser means that the cars will be relying on the wings more than before. I'm rather worried that the cars will be worse at following in the wake of another than they already are.

Well this is where the Technical Working Group came in and did some studies using both CFD and wind tunnel testing. A fairly full run-down can be found here - http://grandprix.com/ft/ft20831.html.

The upshot is that recent problems with overtaking and aerodynamics have shown up the deficiencies in the testing that is done by the teams (both in the wind tunnel and on computers). Wind tunnels all have lovely uniform onset flow that optimises the car's aerodynamics for when the car is in undisturbed air, hence why they all work wonderfully when on their own. Stick the car behind another car and everything changes - we all know the air is turbulent behind the car and this causes a loss in downforce for the following vehicle, leading to the inability of the car behind to follow closely.

Now that teams have been able to afford big computers they are all turning their attention to CFD. In all honesty the methods they use to simulate the flow around the car are primitive at best and a lot of the detail about the turbulence coming off of the back of the car is lost using the modelling techniques. The CDG is a very good example of this as the computer model predicted almost exactly the opposite of what would happen in reality - a direct consequence of the lack of accuracy in the computer modelling.

I think my point is that what may appear to be a bad idea - a low front wing and a high rear wing - may actually be the best solution to the problem. Turbulence is the last unsolved problem in classical physics and there is a good reason why F1, Aerospace, Industrial and Petroleum companies invest so much in R&D (both commercial and academic) to find solutions to the problems turbulence causes.

I guess we'll find out how good the TWG's research is next year....!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I've long time believed a reverse grid is the way forward.

People complain about lack of racing and overtaking. But at end of the day, having in place a system where the fastest car starts first, and slowest last. Its common sense that we're not going to get much overtaking.

If I had my way, I'd scrap qualifying all together, and the grid would be in reverse to current championship standings.

I don't think race-fuel qualifying helps. With current qualifying you have the lighter cars at the front, so they pull away at the start. This results in more overtaking in the pitlane.

Wouldn't we see more on track overtaking if all the cars could choose their fuel strategy after qualifying? You could end up with a car starting 4th choosing a short first stint which would mean it would be faster than the cars infront at the start, and more likely to be able to pass.

[AndyL]

Turbulence is the last unsolved problem in classical physics and there is a good reason why F1, Aerospace, Industrial and Petroleum companies invest so much in R&D (both commercial and academic) to find solutions to the problems turbulence causes.

Indeed, there was a quote in the New Scientist a couple of weeks ago from some boffin along the lines of "maybe in 10 years we'll be able to model a cup of coffee" :rolleyes:

[Bagwan]

The teams have a bit of a love/hate relationship with turbulence .
The complain if they are behind another car , trying to get by , but they spend a lot of money on making sure nobody gets a sniff of downforce behind their own .

Just another irony in F1 .

I hope it works .
Purnell does state they will have less , just not as much less as is being stated .
At least he agrees there will be some effect .

While it can be argued that the downforce generated by the diffuser is less affected by the low pressure behind a car , less diffuser also means less dirty air exitting from such a low point in the scenario .
Coupled with less rear wing , and you have cleaner air behind .

Enter into the cleaner air with a larger front wing and , presto , happier drivers and fans .
Hell , add slicks and you might be getting onto something .

And , fix the stewarding issues , with permanent stewards who photo-justify actions against drivers



And , if it's a wish list , scrap the medals idea , force the drivers into more interviews , and drop the race fuel qualifying .

That almost does it .
That, I'd watch .

[Sleeper]

Really?!

I'm sure I've read before they've wanted to free up the undertray somewhat to compensate bodywork aero so they could get closer whilst following the wake of a car infront.
I think the diffuser itself may be a bit longer than before, but under the current rules the teams have used suspension wishbones and the lower beam wing of the rear wing assembaly to lengthin it, without actually being part of the diffuser. No that it has to start at the rear wheel centre line thats no longer possible and the over all effect is of a smaller diffuser. And thats assuming that the new diffuser will be longer than the old one, which I'm not certain about. Either way it moves the center of pressure towards the rear wheels which probably wasnt a good idea given that they are allready undersized, and have been for sometime now.

[Sleeper]

Well this is where the Technical Working Group came in and did some studies using both CFD and wind tunnel testing. A fairly full run-down can be found here - http://grandprix.com/ft/ft20831.html.

The upshot is that recent problems with overtaking and aerodynamics have shown up the deficiencies in the testing that is done by the teams (both in the wind tunnel and on computers). Wind tunnels all have lovely uniform onset flow that optimises the car's aerodynamics for when the car is in undisturbed air, hence why they all work wonderfully when on their own. Stick the car behind another car and everything changes - we all know the air is turbulent behind the car and this causes a loss in downforce for the following vehicle, leading to the inability of the car behind to follow closely.

Now that teams have been able to afford big computers they are all turning their attention to CFD. In all honesty the methods they use to simulate the flow around the car are primitive at best and a lot of the detail about the turbulence coming off of the back of the car is lost using the modelling techniques. The CDG is a very good example of this as the computer model predicted almost exactly the opposite of what would happen in reality - a direct consequence of the lack of accuracy in the computer modelling.

I think my point is that what may appear to be a bad idea - a low front wing and a high rear wing - may actually be the best solution to the problem. Turbulence is the last unsolved problem in classical physics and there is a good reason why F1, Aerospace, Industrial and Petroleum companies invest so much in R&D (both commercial and academic) to find solutions to the problems turbulence causes.

I guess we'll find out how good the TWG's research is next year....!
I dont like that article, it assumes too much of the reader. I know what upwash is, but I have never heard of inwash before and as this seams to be an integral part of how they changed the rules, it needed explaining.

My problem is that a stated goal was a huge reduction in downforce (in the region of 50% I think was mentioned) yet when Autosports tech expert Gary Anderson looked at the new rules he thought that the result will be a slight increase in downforce. Granted, he hasnt got access to the CFD and wind tunnel data that the OWG had, but thats wildely contrasting views. I also find there stated aim of a 5 second per lap reduction in speed to be ludicrous. I have no problems with the change of wings themselves, after all both times that the front wing was increased in the last 7/8 years the immediete result was for overtaking to become harder. The diffuser rules is where I have problems. Champ Car has shown us, both with the last Lola and the Panoz DP01, that when the cars relly far more on underbody downforce than upper body downforce, the wheel to wheel racing can be fantastic on tracks that are generally much tighter than any F1 uses (not including Monaco). Apparantly the OWG are claiming the opposite, unles I've missed something. For the record the Panoz produced more downforce than the Lola but the racing was better, at least at the front, IMO.

[Allyc85]

Wouldn't we see more on track overtaking if all the cars could choose their fuel strategy after qualifying? You could end up with a car starting 4th choosing a short first stint which would mean it would be faster than the cars infront at the start, and more likely to be able to pass.

It didnt work before we had qualifying on race fuel did it...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It didnt work before we had qualifying on race fuel did it...

Didn't it?

[Andrewmcm]

Sleeper, type the phrase "inwash wake" into google scholar and read some of the articles that it comes up with - that should help you out somewhat.

[wedge]

I don't think race-fuel qualifying helps. With current qualifying you have the lighter cars at the front, so they pull away at the start. This results in more overtaking in the pitlane.

You can run a more variable strategy with race-fuel qualy. Being lighter doesn't necessarily mean you'll run off into the distance. Running light means you'll pit early and have to pass traffic on your second stint to make up the difference.

The problem with the old system was that the best pit strategy is to make the least amount of stops ie. one stop strategy. What that meant was that the fastest cars qualified at the front and more likely to run off into the distance because in most instances one-stop is better than two-stopper.

IMO we should have top 10 qualy which should be single-lap, low-fuel so that we spice up the grid and appease the purists somewhat.

[Allyc85]

Didn't it?

No, we still barely had any overtaking. The occasionally battle but nothing great.

[Big Ben]

I must change my statement. It's not just the rear wing... the whole package looks quite horrible. The nose, the front wing... horror

[ShiftingGears]

Well, noone said the new aero regs would improve the aesthetics :p :


...But seriously, they are really ugly.

[RS]

Well, noone said the new aero regs would improve the aesthetics :p :


...But seriously, they are really ugly.

Yeah, they're beginning to look like the A1Gp cars, except worse. Maybe they will get better looking as the teams hone their aero packages?

[Allyc85]

My eyes!!!!

http://www.f1-live.com/f1/photos/2008/tests117/diapo_157.jpg

[MrJan]

Okay so that doesn't look great but I don't care if it creates good racing. I do like the shiny tyres though :D :D :D

Also I'd like to be able to see cars properly rather than the odd photo before I declare it a travesty to F1.

[ioan]

Now that looks way better than the Christmas trees we saw for the last few seasons (it started sometimes around 2003 IMO).

[gloomyDAY]

The rear wing is atrocious, but other then that it's a sweet package.

Nice clean body, slick tires, and a massive front wing that will eat you & your children.

[DazzlaF1]

The rear wing is atrocious, but other then that it's a sweet package.

Nice clean body, slick tires, and a massive front wing that will eat you & your children.

Agreed, that rear wing (although it'll take some getting used to) is a joke

[gloomyDAY]

Patrick of the Rose doesn't think the changes will make a vast difference in overtaking.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72164

We'll see...

[ShiftingGears]

I'd make the cars wider instead of just the front wing.

[jso1985]

The rear wing looks like it has been borrowed from a F3 :s

except for that, the cars look actually pretty good.

will it improve the show? maybe, anyway overtaking isn't everything in F1

[gloomyDAY]

The rear wing looks like it has been borrowed from a F3 :s

except for that, the cars look actually pretty good.

will it improve the show? maybe, anyway overtaking isn't everything in F1Where does this mentality come from? I don't understand it whatsoever. Disadvantaging a car behind you so it is unable to pass defeats the purpose of racing. I'm tired of watching cars finish the way they started the race. Qualifying should not dictate the winner of the race! The reason this year was eventful and had amazing passing opportunities came down to wet weather.

That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. The skies had to open up in order for us to have a reason to jump out of our seats during a race.

[truefan72]

I think too many folks buy into the myth of the lack of overtaking in F1.
From my view, it seemed like there was plenty of overtaking in 2008. Well at least enough of it.

I am not sure what people are looking for or what series they seem to think emulates the type of racing they would like to see in F1. ALMS and LMS both don't have cars dukeing it out lap for lap. In fact they pretty much have 2or 3 dominant cars in each level that run away with most races.

DTM has it's share of overtaking but as usual most races are won by the top 2-3 teams out there and there were also plenty of races where those teams simply ran away with the races.

GP2 is not an overtaking series either. There are some close races, but in Hamilton's reign. Rosberg's reign and when NPQJr was driving, there were many races simply dominated by those guys. In fact there were more incidents than overtaking present in those series.

A1GP -I'll admit I haven’t watched many races, but from the ones I saw, there was parity but not massive amounts of overtaking. I saw different cars win different races, often more down to the driver and lack of mistakes than a highly entertaining contest.

Nascar - Overtaking in Nascar is meaningless, These cars are all built nearly to spec and are kept artificially identical. If one teams finds and advantage then the series either makes the innovation available to everyone or they neutralize that car/teams advantage. Races are not won due to overtaking but rather due to pit strategy and accident avoidance. Most Nascar races, don't come down to the wire and are processional for most parts of the race.

Indy/cart - If you are not Andretti Green, Target Chip Ganassi, or Penske forget about winning. almost all the races are won by these three teams. The overtaking we see on ovals is really not comparable to street/race courses. And on those street/race courses, overtaking was not at a premium either. As I recall Bourdais dominated the Cart series for years. In many races that I watched, when it came to street courses or race tracks, cars would chase the lead car for ever with no real opportunity to overtake. That could have as much to do with simply equal machinery ( hence, if both cars have the same power and spec, how can the car behind ever get by?) than with turbulence issues.

Therefore, the fallacy of no overtaking in F1 as a detraction to the sport simply doesn’t hold up and sadly has pushed this sport to create such terrible looking things as the 2009 car, which will have little impact on the type of racing we will see. If anything, it has cost teams more money, time and labor, and will probably make the series much worse off.

[gloomyDAY]

Nice post. ^^^

Do you think if F1 continued with the status quo that racing would have been better, worse, or the same in 2009? I think for the most part that the racing would have been better because the teams are figuring out the limitations of the rules. Regardless of that matter I am optimistic about next year's season.

The reason I like next year's rules is that it's a big coin toss. Teams like Williams now have an opportunity to make their way back up the ladder and continue to fight. I want to see more teams surge towards the front of the leader board.

Passing doesn't have to be a lap by lap duel between cars, but it should be possible. I get annoyed when drivers state that it's impossible for them to pass a car ahead of them because there's an invisible wall, which makes me as a spectator a little frustrated.

[wedge]

The racing has been fantastic, but helped by the weather at times. Can't expect every race to be exciting, even MotoGP has a few processional races every year.

As much as I agree with truefan 72, the fundamental problem with F1 isn't overtaking but more so the problem of following the car ahead.

Watch the old races from the Oesterriechring, which has plenty of high speed corners and the racing ie. two cars battling can be extremely close.

Go to somewhere similar like Barcelona and its a processional borefest.

[goodf1fun]

this bmw car is actually 2008 car fitted with the 2009 wings. expect sweeter cars in 2009! not this hybrid! you will see...

[Robinho]

IMO there will never be much overtaking in a sport like F1 as the quickest cars and drivers will tend to be found near the front. only if there are some very closely matched combinations or a car out of position is there a chance for overtaking.

that to me isn't a problem, but in the event of someone being quicker, overtaking ought to be possible, rather than impossible unless its raining, your 2 seconds a lap quicker or the driver ahead has a problem. if the new rules make it easier to run closer and maintain the advantage of a quicker car/stint, then perhaps we will see a little more overtaking, or maybe if differing strategies aren;t as hobbled by slowwer cars then perhaps we'll see something other tha a boring 2 stopper and a few take risks, knowing that when behind a slower car they may get 2 or 3 overtaking opportuniites in a lap, rather than maybe 1 opportunity on several laps?

[patnicholls]

F1 2009 - for those who thought the 2004 Williams 'walrus' was a seriously sexy bit of kit... :p

[Robinho]

it was never sexy, but at least it was different, and a bit of variety is required on the grid IMO

[truefan72]

The racing has been fantastic, but helped by the weather at times. Can't expect every race to be exciting, even MotoGP has a few processional races every year.

As much as I agree with truefan 72, the fundamental problem with F1 isn't overtaking but more so the problem of following the car ahead.

Watch the old races from the Oesterriechring, which has plenty of high speed corners and the racing ie. two cars battling can be extremely close.

Go to somewhere similar like Barcelona and its a processional borefest.


IMO there will never be much overtaking in a sport like F1 as the quickest cars and drivers will tend to be found near the front. only if there are some very closely matched combinations or a car out of position is there a chance for overtaking.

that to me isn't a problem, but in the event of someone being quicker, overtaking ought to be possible, rather than impossible unless its raining, your 2 seconds a lap quicker or the driver ahead has a problem. if the new rules make it easier to run closer and maintain the advantage of a quicker car/stint, then perhaps we will see a little more overtaking, or maybe if differing strategies aren;t as hobbled by slowwer cars then perhaps we'll see something other tha a boring 2 stopper and a few take risks, knowing that when behind a slower car they may get 2 or 3 overtaking opportuniites in a lap, rather than maybe 1 opportunity on several laps?

fair enough points,

but I still feel that if the driver is aggressive enough, he should and could overtake the car in front of him. one of the real problems is with the stewards and the FIA both of whom have neutered any kind of aggressive driving to the point where it is not really worth it to push to overtake unless you have a clean bit of track and no chance of being hauled into the office for "dangerous driving"

a lot of the action you saw in Austria and other tracks back in the day would be downright illegal in today's F1 world, which is a shame. The type of jousting I grew up with, the great passes, etc are all now viewed as dangerous driving, or being subject to teams/drivers complaining to the stewards.

That to me has had more of an effect/affect than any aero rules they put into effect and that attitude by the stewards/FIA won't change even with a redesigned car. The way I see it, in 2009 more penalties, more question marks, more dubious calls.

[Whyzars]

If I had my way, I'd scrap qualifying all together, and the grid would be in reverse to current championship standings.


There would have to be something to fill in the Saturday though. :)


I've always liked weight based handicapping for F1. One way to implement this could be by specifying "handicap" fuel loads during qualifying based on WDC points scored?

Its weight based handicapping but only for qualifying. The "handicap" fuel would be removed before the race and whatever fuel is left is what that particular car starts with.

:crazy:

Only 127 days to go...

[wedge]

a lot of the action you saw in Austria and other tracks back in the day would be downright illegal in today's F1 world, which is a shame. The type of jousting I grew up with, the great passes, etc are all now viewed as dangerous driving, or being subject to teams/drivers complaining to the stewards.

No, it wasn't wheel to wheel stuff and pushing the limits a la Dijon 1979. A couple of cars were literally running nose to tail in and out of the super quick Bosch Kurve and so forth. God I wish I could remember the exact clip that I saw.....

No, it wasn't wheel to wheel stuff and pushing the limits a la Dijon 1979. A couple of cars were literally running nose to tail in and out of the super quick Bosch Kurve and so forth. God I wish I could remember the exact clip that I saw.....

Maybe it was 1982? De Angelis & Rosberg? One of the closest finishes in history.

That was in the days of 'ground effect'. From an aerodynamic point of view, since 'ground effect' worked the air in a totally different way to todays cars, the wake of a car had a lot less impact on a car behind.

Which made the racing pretty good....when the skirts hadn't split or too much air had got under the car and caused it to flip.

[ArrowsFA1]

That was in the days of 'ground effect'. From an aerodynamic point of view, since 'ground effect' worked the air in a totally different way to todays cars, the wake of a car had a lot less impact on a car behind.
Why do you think the rule makers do not allow a return to "ground effect" now as it seems to be a solution to one of the perceived problems (overtaking) that faces F1?

Why do you think the rule makers do not allow a return to "ground effect" now as it seems to be a solution to one of the perceived problems (overtaking) that faces F1?

One simple reason - Cornering speeds.

Granted, the safety of the cars now are incomparable with the old 'ground-effect' cars, and general safety has improved dramatically, but given the amount of aerodynamic expertise and resources now available to F1 teams a new 'ground effect' F1 car would be exponentially more efficient than those of old.

The run-off areas would have to be made a minimum of 2 miles!

Put that with the fact that 'ground effect' cars do have a nasty tendency to flip when anything allows too much air under them (Indycars still have this problem with very little 'ground-effect' area, the Mercedes at Le Man in the late 90's couldn't stop doing it, etc)) and it would be enough for the FIA to have a cardiac arrest the first time one went wrong.

Which they would...in a big way. It would make Kubica's Canadian crash look like a small prang in Tesco's car-park. The chances of one clearing the fencing and landing in a grandstand is much higher than with a flat-bottomed car.

[ArrowsFA1]

One simple reason - Cornering speeds.
Understood, but given that "a new 'ground effect' F1 car would be exponentially more efficient than those of old" could that added efficiency eliminate those dangers you mention?

Just as an example, stuck or broken skirts were a common cause of failures but wouldn't developments in technology provide a solution to that particular problem?

Still, cornering speeds and the potential danger that brings is reason enough.

[ioan]

Understood, but given that "a new 'ground effect' F1 car would be exponentially more efficient than those of old" could that added efficiency eliminate those dangers you mention?

Not really. The drivers will always push to the limit and once they will go over it it will be a disaster that not efficiency can stop anymore.

Understood, but given that "a new 'ground effect' F1 car would be exponentially more efficient than those of old" could that added efficiency eliminate those dangers you mention?

Just as an example, stuck or broken skirts were a common cause of failures but wouldn't developments in technology provide a solution to that particular problem?

The answer is yes, quite possibly....but with a major 'but'.

It could be done, 'but' it would cost $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

We would be back to the current problem....aero expenditure would have to be huge, plus add in the technological expenditure and you have...

The podium being dominated by the 'haves' with the know-how and no hope of anybody new entering the fray.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Understood, but given that "a new 'ground effect' F1 car would be exponentially more efficient than those of old" could that added efficiency eliminate those dangers you mention?

Just as an example, stuck or broken skirts were a common cause of failures but wouldn't developments in technology provide a solution to that particular problem?

Still, cornering speeds and the potential danger that brings is reason enough.

It's like the first wings and aerofoils that were considered dangerous when they first appeared because they always failed.

Wings are considered safe now but they do occasionally fail and cause large accidents.

[Andrewmcm]

Understood, but given that "a new 'ground effect' F1 car would be exponentially more efficient than those of old" could that added efficiency eliminate those dangers you mention?

Just as an example, stuck or broken skirts were a common cause of failures but wouldn't developments in technology provide a solution to that particular problem?

Still, cornering speeds and the potential danger that brings is reason enough.

Ideally you'd have a set of rules similar to what CART used to have - venturi tunnels that are of a limited size and no skirting. Most of the problem with the old cars was the resonance (or porpoising) caused by pitch sensitivity of the car to the incoming air so I'm sure the wind tunnels and CFD we have today would eradicate those issues.

We'd never get back to the old ways of having fully-skirted cars though - as has been mentioned this would be madness. Some form of underbody downforce generation is a good idea though, as its sensitivity to incoming turbulent flow is not so severe as the compression in the venturi can effectively relaminarise the flow. That should allow the cars to get a bit closer to each other.

I don't necessarily think that underbody wings are overly susceptible to making the car fly when too much air gets underneath it - any car going at over 150mph will struggle to stay on the ground if it passes some critical angle of incidence - the pressure difference across the body of the car when it's in that kind of state will most likely make it lift off much of its own accord. Mark Webber's Mercedes didn't look like it had too much in the way of underbody aero in this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1V2Jqp27XFM. I think the Mercedes problem in that instance was the pitch of the nose, allowing too much air under the car in the first place.

[wedge]

I don't necessarily think that underbody wings are overly susceptible to making the car fly when too much air gets underneath it - any car going at over 150mph will struggle to stay on the ground if it passes some critical angle of incidence - the pressure difference across the body of the car when it's in that kind of state will most likely make it lift off much of its own accord. Mark Webber's Mercedes didn't look like it had too much in the way of underbody aero in this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1V2Jqp27XFM. I think the Mercedes problem in that instance was the pitch of the nose, allowing too much air under the car in the first place.

IRL, CART, GP2, LMP/GTPs no coincidence there's been some scary aeronautics going on. When was the last time an F1 car got airborne with the undertray at visible angle, blowover style?

I remember Patrese and Christian Fittipaldi flipping 360 degrees in the early 90s.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

i remember reading ages ago in Autosport that it was the front wing that killed overtaking. So isn't a wider front wing going to make things worse?

[ArrowsFA1]

I remember Patrese and Christian Fittipaldi flipping 360 degrees in the early 90s.
Both of those incidents were caused by tyre to tyre contact which launched the car. Nothing to do with aerodynamics.

Fittipaldi - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1fqnkmrdI
Patrese - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj7TewU5AVc

[Knock-on]

Both of those incidents were caused by tyre to tyre contact which launched the car. Nothing to do with aerodynamics.

Fittipaldi - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1fqnkmrdI
Patrese - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj7TewU5AVc

All aero on cars is to keep them plastered to the tarmac.

Unfortunatly, when the car is at anything other than it's designed plane, the whole thing works as a great aerofoil and flips.

Doesn't matter if it were a sheet of glass with no protrusions, it would still do the same once it's angle is altered.

[Sleeper]

All aero on cars is to keep them plastered to the tarmac.

Unfortunatly, when the car is at anything other than it's designed plane, the whole thing works as a great aerofoil and flips.

Doesn't matter if it were a sheet of glass with no protrusions, it would still do the same once it's angle is altered.
Yes, but those incidents were caused by tyre-to-tyre contact, the revolution of the wheels was the main factor for cars getting airborne, the flot bottom of the car just helped to flip them but wasnt the deciding factore.

As has been mentioned, full skirt ground effects is a bad way to go becuase of their susceptability to damage making them dangerous when large amounts of air gets underneath them, but Venturi tunnels would be a great way to go as I cant remeber he last time a Champ Car got fliped like the above videos, launched yes, as that happens in every racing series, but not
fliped.

[wedge]

Yes, but those incidents were caused by tyre-to-tyre contact, the revolution of the wheels was the main factor for cars getting airborne, the flot bottom of the car just helped to flip them but wasnt the deciding factore.

As has been mentioned, full skirt ground effects is a bad way to go becuase of their susceptability to damage making them dangerous when large amounts of air gets underneath them, but Venturi tunnels would be a great way to go as I cant remeber he last time a Champ Car got fliped like the above videos, launched yes, as that happens in every racing series, but not
fliped.

Dario Franchitti had a couple of wild rides last year. They use venturis too in IRL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT4HAnbtirY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnslpiaEAVA

[Knock-on]

Yes, but those incidents were caused by tyre-to-tyre contact, the revolution of the wheels was the main factor for cars getting airborne, the flot bottom of the car just helped to flip them but wasnt the deciding factore.

As has been mentioned, full skirt ground effects is a bad way to go becuase of their susceptability to damage making them dangerous when large amounts of air gets underneath them, but Venturi tunnels would be a great way to go as I cant remeber he last time a Champ Car got fliped like the above videos, launched yes, as that happens in every racing series, but not
fliped.

In effect, it shouldn't really have any difference.

With a wing, if a car is launched off plane, it's effect is negated as air flow does not occur in the designed manner.

However, the car itself starts to act as a wing as it's aspect changes.

If you lost a wing, then any down-force effect it offers disappears so the car basically loses all down-force and control.

With a Venturi, a low pressure area "pulls" the car down but the second the car breaks that effect (say by hitting a tyre and launching) it is subject to the above forces. If the nose rises, it is likely to keep rising and flip.

[Andrewmcm]

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/techarticle1.htm - useful read for anyone who is interested.

Back to the point though - I'd like to see some limited form of venturis in F1, that and have the width of the cars reinstated to what it was pre-1998.

[Somebody]

According to Tony Purnell

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44594

Well, he seems to be under the impression the teams will be using "push-to-pass" buttons. Everything I've read suggests all the teams will be using the KERS as a constant smallish boost rather than an occasional largish boost.

[ioan]

Well, he seems to be under the impression the teams will be using "push-to-pass" buttons. Everything I've read suggests all the teams will be using the KERS as a constant smallish boost rather than an occasional largish boost.

I think they can only use it for a limited number of seconds per lap.

[Knock-on]

KERS is rather basic in my opinion. The FIA has limited it so much that the potential recovery of energy is minimal.

Even road car recovery systems will be significntly more effective than F1 KERS so don't expect fireworks or push 2 pass.

[Knock-on]

KERS is rather basic in my opinion. The FIA has limited it so much that the potential recovery of energy is minimal.

Even road car recovery systems will be significntly more effective than F1 KERS so don't expect fireworks or push 2 pass.


Willis is of the same opinion.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72302

Hopefully the reduction in rear wing will help a bit.

Willis is of the same opinion.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72302

Hopefully the reduction in rear wing will help a bit.

Not if you read the last bit of his statement....

"Probably one aerodynamic development will be to disturb the air flow of the following car in order to make your own car less prone to be overtaken,"

During the last ten years, as wind-tunnels became more elaborate, it was not unusual for a lot of time to be spent focusing on knackering the airflow for a following car.

[ArrowsFA1]

During the last ten years, as wind-tunnels became more elaborate, it was not unusual for a lot of time to be spent focusing on knackering the airflow for a following car.
Obviously the teams don't want to be overtaken, and the fact that they spend time looking at the design of their car to make it more difficult for the opposition is no surprise, but still... :dozey:

I don't suppose whoever first stuck a wing on an F1 car thought it would slow down the opposition. He just wanted his car to go quicker.

Hey-ho, that's progress for you :p

[Knock-on]

Not if you read the last bit of his statement....

"Probably one aerodynamic development will be to disturb the air flow of the following car in order to make your own car less prone to be overtaken,"

During the last ten years, as wind-tunnels became more elaborate, it was not unusual for a lot of time to be spent focusing on knackering the airflow for a following car.

We both know that you only post things to try and contradict me but it really would help if you read what I posted first :rolleyes:

I was talking about KERS not making much of a difference to overtaking and that's why I quoted my original post in my previous post.

I also added that I hoped the reduction in rear wing would help a bit as Willis also mentioned.

I did not mention about teams purposly trying to disrupt the trailing air as they currently all do this anyway as we all know.

If you would like to read what Willis said....


"I think the teams will soon learn how to use and optimise the KERS, but it won't help overtaking so much," he told Italian magazine Autosprint. "It's a technology developed on road cars that will find a limited application in F1.

"The new aerodynamics regulations will be the biggest factor at changing racing by creating new overtaking opportunities.

"The reduction in size of the rear wing will allow the drivers to race more closely, because the loss of downforce won't be as radical while in the slipstream."

"Probably one aerodynamic development will be to disturb the air flow of the following car in order to make your own car less prone to be overtaken," he added.


It would be easier not to respond to my posts as I have suggested.

We both know that you only post things to try and contradict me but it really would help if you read what I posted first :rolleyes:

I was talking about KERS not making much of a difference to overtaking and that's why I quoted my original post in my previous post.

I also added that I hoped the reduction in rear wing would help a bit as Willis also mentioned.

I did not mention about teams purposly trying to disrupt the trailing air as they currently all do this anyway as we all know.

If you would like to read what Willis said....



It would be easier not to respond to my posts as I have suggested.

Oh I'm so sorry your lordship, I forgot the main forum rule that no-one could ever contradict you. After all, how dare anybody question anything you type or attempt to add to your knowledge.

[Knock-on]

Oh I'm so sorry your lordship, I forgot the main forum rule that no-one could ever contradict you. After all, how dare anybody question anything you type or attempt to add to your knowledge.


Apology accepted :p

It would be easier not to respond to my posts as I have suggested.

It would be even easier if you didn't type them in the first place.

[Somebody]

If you annoy each other so much, there IS an Ignore List function for just such an occasion...

If you annoy each other so much, there IS an Ignore List function for just such an occasion...

I don't believe in ignoring people with opposite views. It is, in my opinion, a piss-poor excuse of a human being who cannot handle opposition and asks somebody not to reply.

[christophulus]

Christian Klien seems to disagree - and I guess he's had some first hand experience http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=44703

[DazzlaF1]

Christian Klien seems to disagree - and I guess he's had some first hand experience http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=44703

And Nakajima hopes hes right, despite the new car's ugly looks

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/news/172329-0/nakajima__if_ugly_=_overtaking,_it%27s_good.html

[speeddurango]

The title is midleading, Purnell didn't mean the aero wouldn't help, but he thinks that "The F1 jungle drums tell me the cars are going to have much more downforce than [the targeted] minus 50 per cent".

I believe this can be quite upsetting solution, but I believe we could forget about engine freezing, what about aero design freezing for instance?