Have the 2009 regulations worked?

[woody2goody]

Partly provoked by this statement from Stefano Domenicali:

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=46579

I just want to open up a debate as to whether or not you think the new technical regulations have worked in 2009.

Personally, I think there has been a slight increase in overtaking, but only on the tracks where you usually see a lot of passing anyway. It didn't make a huge difference at most tracks however.

I would say overall they have worked, but maybe not to the extent that a lot of people either expected or were hoping for.

[gloomyDAY]

No, not really. Some teams decided to build their cars beyond the "spirit of the rules" and the rest have to follow in order to stay competitive. The diffuser issue threw the entire idea of the new rules into the bin! Maybe if the FIA understood that making rules required enforcement, then Stefano would probably think that the rules were a success as a result of on-track passing.

[Sonic]

Statistically a hard one to prove either way. We have had several rain interupted weekends and KERS to muddy the waters, but of the dry weekends I believe (however I have not sat down and worked out the stats) that there has been and improvement in regards to how close cars can follow one another and that has in-turn increased the number of attempted passes. However with the mind bogglingly short braking distances it has to be said at least half of the attempted passes have ended in tears. Yes Rubens I'm talking to you!

Personally lap on lap overtaking is not the be all and end all from my POV. I much prefer a tense battle for lap after lap e.g. imola '05 or monaco '92 over a "battle" where a driver who drives it like he stole it up the inside and piddles away into the middle distance never to be seen again - that's ok for a quick buzz but the memorable battles are the ones that go on for corner after corner, lap after lap.

[ioan]

No, not really. Some teams decided to build their cars beyond the "spirit of the rules" and the rest have to follow in order to stay competitive. The diffuser issue threw the entire idea of the new rules into the bin! Maybe if the FIA understood that making rules required enforcement, then Stefano would probably think that the rules were a success as a result of on-track passing.

Pretty much agree.
KERS cars have compromised balanced going through corners and are less stable under braking.
Non KERS cars are better under braking and through a corner but can't get close enough on the straights.
The FIA allowing the DD diffuser loophole is however the biggest enemy of the rule changes as it brought everything back to square zero.

[ClarkFan]

The problem is that the 2009 changes are still fiddling around at the edges. They don't address the core problems:
* Transition zones on tracks are still too short, especially braking zones. These are the main areas where cars can pass each other for position. When these zones are too short, they do not really allow one car to establish position in front of another.
* Diffusers still leave disturbed wakes, making following difficult. This is a problem because
* Cars are too reliant on downforce generated at the front end of the car (wings and underbody splitters) for front end grip. Any sort of airflow disturbance upsets the balance of the car, making slipstreaming difficult or impossible.

A real solution needs to address these issues. That would take substantially reduced downforce, elimination of tunnel exits at the back of cars, and substantial modification to the front ends of the cars. Until new regulation address these issues, problems with overtaking will continue. And these problems are not unique to F1 - Indycars and sports prototypes face the same issues for much the same reason.

ClarkFan

[Sonic]

I agree with everything you are saying clark fan but there is one further problem to add to your list.

If we slash downforce the is no way an F1 car could be as fast per lap as now, therefore GP2 would need to slowed down, and so on and so forth all the way through the motorsport ladder.

[ClarkFan]

I agree with everything you are saying clark fan but there is one further problem to add to your list.

If we slash downforce the is no way an F1 car could be as fast per lap as now, therefore GP2 would need to slowed down, and so on and so forth all the way through the motorsport ladder.
Then make it so. :champion:

The truth is that even if the FIA undertakes the sort of changes I envision, they would take a few years to implement. To do it right, the changes need to be substantial and that should not be sprung on teams/designers in August 2009 as a new regimen for the 2010 season. To do it right with proper modeling and consideration of the implications of the changes (should the engine formula be changed too?), it would probably be 2012 at the earliest.

That should be enough time to consider and establish a new developmental ladder. Besides, if the characteristics of the top rung change the training cars need to change, too. The time could perhaps allow rationalization of some of the ladder designs with the IRL (if it lasts long enough - hope for luck) to make production more attractive for the suppliers. An internationally uniform group of feeder series would also make it easier for talented drivers to progress to whichever level their talents support.

I know - dream on, but our road cars are likely to be more similar in the coming years, so why not the racing cars....

ClarkFan

[WSRfan82]

personaly im getting sick of ruls being changed. why not stick to one set of rules .
new rules for 2009 now there passably changing it all again for 2010..come on!!

im starting to drift away from f1 again

[yodasarmpit]

We have had the overtaking issue for years and 2009 doesn't appear, at least, to be any better.

I honestly believe the area that could provide the greatest improvement in overtaking is track design.
The basic layout of tracks, including the newer designs, taking into account width and braking zones do not lead to enough overtaking opportunities.
Most tracks, due to their nature, result in a single car width usable area.
I don't have the answers to the perfect design, but I truly believe this is the area that would lead most to better overtaking chances.

[Rollo]

No, not really. Some teams decided to build their cars beyond the "spirit of the rules" and the rest have to follow in order to stay competitive.

I'd like to hear what your take on the "spirit of the rules" actually is. Hasn't technical innovation through what the rules haven't specified been there since... at least 1967?

[gloomyDAY]

I'd like to hear what your take on the "spirit of the rules" actually is. Hasn't technical innovation through what the rules haven't specified been there since... at least 1967?By "spirit of the rules" I meant the goals that the OWG were trying to attain.

[N. Jones]

We now have four different winners in 2009 after the early season Brawn-A-Thon.

Leads are shrinking and if McLaren can comeback then so can Ferrari.

I think this season has been quite exciting with these rules (then again, so was last season, which had different rules).

[ArrowsFA1]

I just want to open up a debate as to whether or not you think the new technical regulations have worked in 2009.
I think not. The changes themselves have made very little difference to overtaking, which is what they were targeting.

Rule changes generally can shuffle up the pack, which goes some way to explain why we have seen Red Bull and Brawn, rather than Ferrari and McLaren, heading the field, but they're not winning because they're overtaking more cars than anyone else. They're winning because they produced better cars than anyone else.

IMHO there needs to be a shift from the reliance on aero efficiency to a point where the cars have more power than grip. How that is achieved I don't know :crazy: but as ClarkFan says the changes need to be substantial and they cannot be knee-jerk quick fixes.

[ioan]

I think not. The changes themselves have made very little difference to overtaking, which is what they were targeting.

Rule changes generally can shuffle up the pack, which goes some way to explain why we have seen Red Bull and Brawn, rather than Ferrari and McLaren, heading the field, but they're not winning because they're overtaking more cars than anyone else. They're winning because they produced better cars than anyone else.

IMHO there needs to be a shift from the reliance on aero efficiency to a point where the cars have more power than grip. How that is achieved I don't know :crazy: but as ClarkFan says the changes need to be substantial and they cannot be knee-jerk quick fixes.

It's easy to achieve that, the problem is that none of those involved really wants it to happen.

[Garry Walker]

I do wonder if the people who masturbate on so much about overtaking realize that there is not that much overtaking in F1 simply because usually faster cars are in front and slower cars are behind.

[ArrowsFA1]

...there is not that much overtaking in F1 simply because usually faster cars are in front and slower cars are behind.
True, and unless we want the gimic of (for example) reversed grids to 'spice things up' then that should always be the case. F1 is about being the fastest and winning.

You only need to look at wet races to see that overtaking is possible. Why is that? Because 1) there is more power than grip available in the wet, and 2) the conditions mean that drivers are prone to making more errors.

In the dry grip and aero rule. Pitstops are the best opportunity for overtaking so invariably we see a procession from one pitstop to the next.

[Garry Walker]

True, and unless we want the gimic of (for example) reversed grids to 'spice things up' then that should always be the case. F1 is about being the fastest and winning.

You only need to look at wet races to see that overtaking is possible. Why is that? Because 1) there is more power than grip available in the wet, and 2) the conditions mean that drivers are prone to making more errors.

Also, in wet sometimes the cars that work in dry, dont work that well when it is wet.

[ioan]

True, and unless we want the gimic of (for example) reversed grids to 'spice things up' then that should always be the case.

Well, we already have gimmicks, the qualifying with race fuel and the mandated use of 2 different tire compounds.

[Knock-on]

Well, we already have gimmicks, the qualifying with race fuel and the mandated use of 2 different tire compounds.

I like the idea of qualifying with race fuel because it adds another level of strategy into the mix but 2 compounds doesn't seem to work and is a gimmick.

I say bring 2 or 3 compounds of tyre that performs consistently over a race with no need to change if you manage them.

[Sonic]

Then make it so. :champion:

The truth is that even if the FIA undertakes the sort of changes I envision, they would take a few years to implement. To do it right, the changes need to be substantial and that should not be sprung on teams/designers in August 2009 as a new regimen for the 2010 season. To do it right with proper modeling and consideration of the implications of the changes (should the engine formula be changed too?), it would probably be 2012 at the earliest.

That should be enough time to consider and establish a new developmental ladder. Besides, if the characteristics of the top rung change the training cars need to change, too. The time could perhaps allow rationalization of some of the ladder designs with the IRL (if it lasts long enough - hope for luck) to make production more attractive for the suppliers. An internationally uniform group of feeder series would also make it easier for talented drivers to progress to whichever level their talents support.

I know - dream on, but our road cars are likely to be more similar in the coming years, so why not the racing cars....

ClarkFan

Perhaps then thats the way to go about it. Start at the bottom of the ladder and work up. For example slow a Formula Ford by 5% by mandating the use of all weather rubber rain or shine and straight away there's more power than grip. Then just move all the way up the ladder in a similar fashion reducing grip or downforce or power or any combination to achieve the desired pace.

Simples?

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

I think not. The changes themselves have made very little difference to overtaking, which is what they were targeting.

Rule changes generally can shuffle up the pack, which goes some way to explain why we have seen Red Bull and Brawn, rather than Ferrari and McLaren, heading the field, but they're not winning because they're overtaking more cars than anyone else. They're winning because they produced better cars than anyone else.

Precisely what I was thinking, rule changes are a fact in F1. Keeping the rules the same would result in 1 team figuring everything out more quickly than the rest and staying ahead...these tweaks and innovations shuffle the pack as Arrows says, and are therefore a part of F1 I am happy to accept.

On the subject of KERS I was a big supporter of this initially as it would give the driver more control of his destiny...but they should have made it mandatory, as the KERS cars just became frustrating on the track this season IMO. If every car had had it then they would all have been able to boost at different times, we would have seen more overtaking IMO.

In general the Overtaking Forum did a good job as the cars have run more effectively closer to each other, but you can't make a slower car overtake a faster car no matter what you do. Hence we need rule changes.

[Dzeidzei]

I just want to open up a debate as to whether or not you think the new technical regulations have worked in 2009.


Needs to be defined what was really targeted. Overtaking is certainly one aspect, but cutting costs was the other one?

On part of overtaking the new rules´ success has been questionable. On cutting costs they have failed miserably. On adding exitement to the races and wdc... I dont think we needed that after last 2 years.

So FIA gets an F for this effort. Better luck next time.

[ClarkFan]

I do wonder if the people who masturbate on so much about overtaking realize that there is not that much overtaking in F1 simply because usually faster cars are in front and slower cars are behind.

That certainly happens and is part of much of the history of Grand Prix racing. Race accounts from the 1.5 liter formula usually start with Clark streaking away from the field, and if the Lotus didn't break that was it for overtaking for the race win. I certainly don't want to see NASCAR-style gimmicks where the fast runners are slowed down to see if the rest of the field can take another crack at them.

The problem in aero-driven open-wheel racing is that a faster car can't overtake (Indy cars have this problem on road tracks, too). Look at the "Trulli trains" when Trulli has gotten in a good qualifying time and ends up leading a collection of cars in the race when his racing speed can't match his 1-lap qualifying speed. That isn't exciting, but if each of those cars in turn took a crack at him it would be far more interesting. Another example was when Schumacher caught Alonso at Imola in 2005. Alonso's pacing was crafty, sure, but there is no way he should have been able to hold off a car/driver combo that was 2 seconds a lap faster. And it is not like MS was a driver who was ever shy about passing another car, but he never even had a decent crack at Alonso.

And because of this, the most exciting moments of a race happen when a car is stopped or moving out of the pit lane...... :\

ClarkFan

[christophulus]

I don't agree with "equalising" the cars to make the racing closer, but often a faster car will get caught behind a slower car and that's their race over. If we see fast cars qualifying badly next year they'll need to make their way up the grid without pitstops.

Is it really beyond the capabilities of F1 designers to make a car that can follow in another car's wake? Or at least make the air coming off your car less turbulent. That seems to be the major problem to me. I'm no aero expert but surely the teams could come up with a solution, if they really want to "improve the show!"

Having said that, I've got used to the new look of the cars, they don't look as strange as they originally did with the tiny rear wing and the huge front end. Much sleeker too so it's a start at least.

[Saint Devote]

There is no guarantee that Ferrari "will be back". Following 1979 for example they did not "return" for over 15 years.

And Mclaren went 6 years without winning the drivers title and its been 10 years since its last constructors championship win.

The rules worked because they required ingenuity, Brawn and Newey.

Perhaps next year Williams will get it right.

The danger right now is that f1 is becoming boxed in to the point that people such as Newey will not want to be involved and that would be the end of f1 - it would become just another series.

[Saint Devote]

I have never been in favor of KERS because it is a gimmick. It cannot be applied to any road car and hasno function other than to produce some sort of phoney show. It is also expensive.

Also, the worst innovation was aerodynamics. Reaching the point where today, while the cars no longer resemble the ugliest aero devices totally, they still have those noses which are amongst the most hideous devices ever attached to a racing car.

And the back of the cars with the fin is just wrong.

Why not destroy the aero influence and go back to engines and tyres and mechanical grip dominating and aero at a definite minimal.

Make cars beautiful!

[Mark]

I'm quite surprised that they didn't ban DD diffusers for the 2010 season.

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

Perhaps next year Williams will get it right.

Who says they didn't this year? :O

I mean Nico has been one of the most consistent performers after the Red Bull's...it isn't a coincidence that he's 5th in the Championship and the best non-Red Bull/Brawn runner. The fact is that Williams wont come into their own unless budgets are equalised...the gap is just too big unless we have another radical set of rule changes IMO.

@Saint Devote - I'd prefer to see ugly cars racing each other with some overtaking than just a procession of beautiful cars...if you want that then go to Goodwood or something!

[ioan]

And Mclaren went 6 years without winning the drivers title

Make that 9! :D

[ioan]

I'm quite surprised that they didn't ban DD diffusers for the 2010 season.

Not yet! :D

[wedge]

Top 10 single lap qualy

Re-work the undertray

Single plane rear wing

[ioan]

Re-work the undertray

Just make it flat, it will certainly be easier to police if there are no slots, holes, gaps etc allowed.

And no side skirts will be allowed.

Ban all aero devices but one plane adjustable front and rear wing.

Free up engine rules and specify a limited amount of fuel for the race.

Than we can all enjoy some MOTORsport.

[Sleeper]

I'd say that overall, no, the rules havnt worked as well as the OWG would have liked, and I'm not overly surprised either as despite the DDD the wings and upper bodywork still provide the majority of downforce, meaning the cars will always be overly susceptable to turbulance. Having said that, the cars can follow closer than last year at least, so a small improvement.

[wedge]

Just make it flat, it will certainly be easier to police if there are no slots, holes, gaps etc allowed.


What needs experimenting is whether grounds effect DF works better in a wake since its less succeptable to turbulent air which causes more problems going over the car than underneath

[Sonic]

Flat bottoms? There's a can of worms.

Limited downforce and therefore drag = massive top speeds and the chance of a nice backflip.

Perhaps we can award points for artistic style! :D

[ioan]

Flat bottoms? There's a can of worms.

If you don't allow side skirts, as I proposed, than the effect is less impressive.


Limited downforce and therefore drag = massive top speeds and the chance of a nice backflip.

They still have the right to use front and rear wings, it will be enough for them to make sure the front wing has the right angle, which means there will be a lot more drag than with today's rules, the speeds will not increase and they will not back flip either.

[555-04Q2]

The problem is that the 2009 changes are still fiddling around at the edges. They don't address the core problems:
* Transition zones on tracks are still too short, especially braking zones. These are the main areas where cars can pass each other for position. When these zones are too short, they do not really allow one car to establish position in front of another.
* Diffusers still leave disturbed wakes, making following difficult. This is a problem because
* Cars are too reliant on downforce generated at the front end of the car (wings and underbody splitters) for front end grip. Any sort of airflow disturbance upsets the balance of the car, making slipstreaming difficult or impossible.

A real solution needs to address these issues. That would take substantially reduced downforce, elimination of tunnel exits at the back of cars, and substantial modification to the front ends of the cars. Until new regulation address these issues, problems with overtaking will continue. And these problems are not unique to F1 - Indycars and sports prototypes face the same issues for much the same reason.

ClarkFan

Easy solution for the brakes issue is give F1 cars cardboard brake pads and the breaking distances will increase 10 fold allowing for more chances of overtaking :)

[Sleeper]

If you don't allow side skirts, as I proposed, than the effect is less impressive.


I dont know, watching Sportscars flip is pretty impressive, and they have flat bottoms with no skirts as well.

[ioan]

I dont know, watching Sportscars flip is pretty impressive, and they have flat bottoms with no skirts as well.

However what sportscars don't have and F1 has is a huge front wing! ;)

[wedge]

However what sportscars don't have and F1 has is a huge front wing! ;)

Single seaters with minimal DF can easily flip at high speed, just ask Dario Franchitti.

[ioan]

Single seaters with minimal DF can easily flip at high speed, just ask Dario Franchitti.

So, a HUGE front wing provides minimal downforce?

[Saint Devote]

Who says they didn't this year? :O
ng
I mean Nico has been one of the most consistent performers after the Red Bull's...it isn't a coincidence that he's 5th in the Championship and the best non-Red Bull/Brawn runner. The fact is that Williams wont come into their own unless budgets are equalised...the gap is just too big unless we have another radical set of rule changes IMO.

@Saint Devote - I'd prefer to see ugly cars racing each other with some overtaking than just a procession of beautiful cars...if you want that then go to Goodwood or something!

I did not intend to undermine the 2009 efforts of Williams, but to get it right they are going to have to return to competing for wins.

The rules are moving in that direction so next year Williams can be more competitive.

I would rather see a procession of pretty cars with less overtaking - because that is always the norm in grand prix racing.

[WSRfan82]

simple no they haven't. it may of mixed the grid around but that's it.

2 rules i dont like and think are a bit daft

the two tyre per race and having to use both sets.

and kers i hate it. if they were trying to make the car able to overtake why introduce something that give them a boost surely the new aero rules would allow that to happen and having to add something cars that weights a tone which surely is making it harder to over take. you use the power from the kers to make up for the weight

[ioan]

and kers i hate it. if they were trying to make the car able to overtake why introduce something that give them a boost surely the new aero rules would allow that to happen and having to add something cars that weights a tone which surely is making it harder to over take. you use the power from the kers to make up for the weight

Err, there is a minimum weight to meet by all cars, it's not like non-KERS cars will be able to be lighter than that, and apparently KERS cars aren't heavier either as they already used plenty of ballast(like up to 90kgs) in the past.

[Sonic]

However what sportscars don't have and F1 has is a huge front wing! ;)

Not been following sports cars this year then? Audi have been at the centre of a big who ha regarding the design of their car which other claim effectively has a big downforce producing front wing.

I do take your point though; in general racing conditions an F1 car even with a flat bottom is unlikely to flip but its the unlikely situations that frighten me. If a car catches some air in a gravel trap or after a collision with another car it will surely be more likely to end up upside down.

[ioan]

Not been following sports cars this year then? Audi have been at the centre of a big who ha regarding the design of their car which other claim effectively has a big downforce producing front wing.

I don't remember the Audi ever making a back flip. ;)

Seriously, the sportscars that were probe to back flip had serious aerodynamic flaws and as I pointed out an F1 style front wing would have certainly stoped them from taking off.

[wedge]

So, a HUGE front wing provides minimal downforce?

Not as effective as last year's front wings. Spec mid-plane underneath the nose, endplates divert air around front wheels rather than adding DF

[wedge]

I don't remember the Audi ever making a back flip. ;)

Seriously, the sportscars that were probe to back flip had serious aerodynamic flaws and as I pointed out an F1 style front wing would have certainly stoped them from taking off.

I'm stupidly hoping for two cars to make wheel to wheel contact to prove what a ridiculous theory it is.

[Sonic]

I don't remember the Audi ever making a back flip. ;)

Groan! :rolleyes:

[ioan]

I'm stupidly hoping ...

Fair enough! :D

[Sleeper]

However what sportscars don't have and F1 has is a huge front wing! ;)
How effective is a front wing when the car is moving sideways, as thats when Sportscars have fliped in recent years?

I'm not too worried about an F1 car flipping in this way since they only have a floor area about half of that of a 908 or R15, but I still think that having some form of ground effect creating the majority of a cars downforce and a much simplified and less effective upper body aero is the way forward to keep the cars fast and improve the racing.

[Sleeper]

I don't remember the Audi ever making a back flip. ;)

Seriously, the sportscars that were probe to back flip had serious aerodynamic flaws and as I pointed out an F1 style front wing would have certainly stoped them from taking off.
Audi R10 and ORECA at Monza, the Peugeot 908 at Le Mans test day, the KSM Lola durin qualifying for Le Mans and the RML Lola in last years race, not to mention the Pescarolo Peugeot at this years race all got airborn when going sideways at high speed, despite the attempt in the rules at shaping the sides of the flat floor (bit of a misnomeaner no to be honest) to provent this sort of thing happoning.

Something to consider when advocating a complete flat floor.

[wedge]

Ioan was referring to the R15.

He seems to think that a car that produces sufficient front DF a car won't go airborne.

[Knock-on]

Ioan was referring to the R15.

He seems to think that a car that produces sufficient front DF a car won't go airborne.

Not at all.

A car that is designed without a lot of Aero grip is likely to be more predictable when it does go airbourne.

However, when the car relies on front downforce, and it suddenly loses it (crash or going airbourne) it has a tendency to be very sudden and violent.

[ClarkFan]

Not at all.

A car that is designed without a lot of Aero grip is likely to be more predictable when it does go airbourne.

However, when the car relies on front downforce, and it suddenly loses it (crash or going airbourne) it has a tendency to be very sudden and violent.
And back in the Dark Ages, when front and rear wings were the only sources of downforce, cars got airborne on a regular basis without flipping:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/1976_Nring_McLaren_Lauda_Airborne.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/Rindt1.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/71regazzoni1.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/196901.jpg

Based on the history, flipping is a greater problem for cars that generate grip from underbody profiles because the source of grip can become unbalanced when the car gets airborn - like what happened to Mario Andretti at Indianapolis in 2003.

ClarkFan

[Knock-on]

And back in the Dark Ages, when front and rear wings were the only sources of downforce, cars got airborne on a regular basis without flipping:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/1976_Nring_McLaren_Lauda_Airborne.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/Rindt1.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/71regazzoni1.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x207/Starcowboy/race%20trib/German/196901.jpg

Based on the history, flipping is a greater problem for cars that generate grip from underbody profiles because the source of grip can become unbalanced when the car gets airborn - like what happened to Mario Andretti at Indianapolis in 2003.

ClarkFan

I don't disagree about underbody profiles but think comparing cars from the 70's with very little grip and the F1 cars of today is rather proving my point.

The cars you posted have little aero grip compared to today which was why they relied on mechanical grip and could get airbourne as you demonstrated.

If a F1 car today lost a front wing as speed, it could quite easily take off as you would have huge downforce on the rear wanting to bring the front up.

[ioan]

Here's a good read for those interested:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/techarticle1.htm

Apparently the backflips are due to the shape of the top of the car and not to the flat bottoms, that aren't that flat after all given that they use front and rear diffusers.

[ClarkFan]

I don't disagree about underbody profiles but think comparing cars from the 70's with very little grip and the F1 cars of today is rather proving my point.

The cars you posted have little aero grip compared to today which was why they relied on mechanical grip and could get airbourne as you demonstrated.

If a F1 car today lost a front wing as speed, it could quite easily take off as you would have huge downforce on the rear wanting to bring the front up.
Agreed, but I believe that is a call for rebalancing aero vs. mechanical grip rather than accepting the current design limts as permanent.

The other issue is the over-reliance on diffusers at the back of the car for downforce. It is interesting that the skirted ground effects cars of 1982 often ran without any front wings at all, and I don't recall any cases of those cars spontaneously taking flight in the manner you describe. (Gilles Villeneuve's car got airborn when it was launched off the tires of another car at high speed, a problem with any open wheel design.)

Much of the undertray profile of those cars was in the sidepods, which was explicitly banned at that time because the FIA feared the effects of sudden loss of adhesion. I think some of the technical support for than ban should be revisited - from a racing point of view much of what we have now is worse, and the safety effect may also be minimal.

ClarkFan

[Saint Devote]

Cars without KERS, no refueling and ideally tires that last a race distance - the current rules are stupid [Alonso was correct] are preferrable to me.

In 2010 2 out of the 3 above is not too bad at all.

[Knock-on]

Agreed, but I believe that is a call for rebalancing aero vs. mechanical grip rather than accepting the current design limts as permanent.

The other issue is the over-reliance on diffusers at the back of the car for downforce. It is interesting that the skirted ground effects cars of 1982 often ran without any front wings at all, and I don't recall any cases of those cars spontaneously taking flight in the manner you describe. (Gilles Villeneuve's car got airborn when it was launched off the tires of another car at high speed, a problem with any open wheel design.)

Much of the undertray profile of those cars was in the sidepods, which was explicitly banned at that time because the FIA feared the effects of sudden loss of adhesion. I think some of the technical support for than ban should be revisited - from a racing point of view much of what we have now is worse, and the safety effect may also be minimal.

ClarkFan

Ultimatly, we're talking about the same thing. Too much downforce rather than mechanical grip. Lose it's effect all of a sudden and you're fooked.

[wedge]

Here's a good read for those interested:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/techarticle1.htm

Apparently the backflips are due to the shape of the top of the car and not to the flat bottoms, that aren't that flat after all given that they use front and rear diffusers.

That article refers to the Mercedes Benz GT1/GTP cars flipping at Le Mans about a decade ago.

That particular car was aerodynamically flawed. M-B added dive planes and Mark Webber still managed to flip during warm up.

About 6 months ago Racecar Engineering magazine did an extensive test on blowovers and found their was a problem with prototypes during pitch and yaw. The huge floorplan of a prototype is like a sail.


It is interesting that the skirted ground effects cars of 1982 often ran without any front wings at all, and I don't recall any cases of those cars spontaneously taking flight in the manner you describe. (Gilles Villeneuve's car got airborn when it was launched off the tires of another car at high speed, a problem with any open wheel design.)

They were still scary to drive. Grounds effect works best on flat circuits, coupled by optimisation from stiff suspension and you've got recipe for disaster. Every time they went over bumps the car suddenly would loose aero grip. Even Gilles, ever the purist, hated the skirted cars.

[schmenke]

...They were still scary to drive. Grounds effect works best on flat circuits, coupled by optimisation from stiff suspension and you've got recipe for disaster. Every time they went over bumps the car suddenly would loose aero grip. Even Gilles, ever the purist, hated the skirted cars.

Then along came active suspension which skirted (pun intended :p : ) this problem ;)