less downforce being considered for 2011 by FOTA

[UltimateDanGTR]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/04/13/fota-consider-new-2011-downforce-cuts/

So, FOTA have been discussing reducing the amount of downforce the cars produce, which of course should mean overtaking becoming easier due to less dirty air effecting the car. in theory.

but, this is something I've been wanting and i think there are alot of people who think the same. a positive step by FOTA I feel, even if nothing is set in stone just yet.

[Sonic]

My reaction to this was two parts;

Good: At least FOTA are considering us, the fans. Increasing the spectacle is a noble aim.

Bad: Another pointless downforce reduction which would probably be ineffective. If we were talking a 50% slash the designers are so clever it would probably end up being no more than 15%. Its all been done before, and thanks to the thread listing all the overtaking stats from '83, we can see how poor they have been in increasing on track action.

[ArrowsFA1]

My reaction to this was two parts...
Mine too :up: There's no point cutting downforce if, as has happened before, aerodynamicists are able to find a way to get it all back and we end up back at square one.

[UltimateDanGTR]

very true sonic. quite how you would reduce downforce, i don't know (apart from wing adjustments obviously), but im no expert. It may be just another attempt to increase the action etc, but If you've got a situation where 1 driver storms up to the back of another driver and then can't get past due to dirty air and severe downforce loss when behind another car, it almost feels unfair on the following driver.

[V12]

Likewise, I believe while cutting downforce would be a good step, the engineers would soon claw most of it back, and more importantly that's the way it should be, the last thing we want is homologated aero packages and all that rubbish.

I'd rather see some rigid regulations that cut over-body downforce generation to almost nothing (and as mentioned in other threads, this would need to be applied down the ladder to stop GP2 and F3 cars being quicker than F1 cars!)

This would need to be coupled with an opening up of engine regs, a free-for-all KERS regulation and so on, and let the engineers focus on this, and on aero efficiency.

[Wasted Talent]

1m2 vertical board at the rear of each car..............

WT

[UltimateDanGTR]

1m2 vertical board at the rear of each car..............

WT

no. just no.

how about each car has to towe a caravan?

on a serious note, up until about 8/9 years ago the sidepods on F1 cars had more or less vertical outermost bodywork. nowadays, these parts are more more shapely with obviously more aerodynamic efficiency. I wonder if this affects car downforce as well. this could be one area to look at: make the sidepods have vertical outermost parts, if that would help.

[Sonic]

1m2 vertical board at the rear of each car..............

WT

As I've said before, I'm all for something like that - well not quite so extreem - but a similar theory to the hanford wing from days gone by CART. Dirty air isn't a problem so long as a decent tow can be picked up from the distance the dirty air forces you to follow on corner exit.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Monza aero package mandated for every track.

[Saint Devote]

Less aero is the neccessary step to increase the driver factor during a race. however the question is how far will they really be able to go?

The top level of racing cannot reduce it to the point where GP2 is quicker round a track - and we have this season a BRAND NEW GP2 car for the series.

So the reduction will be governed by this. Still too little? Its a possibility at least.

Just look at the recent races - the tyres have made the difference and tyre stops.

So in addition to aerodynamic [we will know when aero has been reduced enough because Adrian Newey will LEAVE F1 :-] it ought to be the end of control tyres and once again allowing tyre wars [Michelin want this].

Further, TYRE STOPS ought to not be mandated or even prevented. Just look how good the racing has been when the drivers have had to conserve those as well.

I say reduce aero, let a tyre war break out and mandate no more tyre stops.

We will once again return to real motor racing and show just how damned ridiculous the intervention of the motor racing equivalent of "command economics" is.

Laissez Faire et laissez passer. LET ME GO AND BE FREE!!! I am Formula One!!

[555-04Q2]

Let the circus begin yet again :down: It's a pity that F1 teams and the FIA know so little about their own indusry and what the fans want :(

[UltimateDanGTR]

i think flat wings would help for a start.

as for aerodynamic deffinciencies, I think large air intakes behind the driver either side of the engine cover could be good. reminds me of the bennetton B188. ofcourse, for aeshetical reasons, id say the actual engine cover would need to be widened so it looked in proportion with the air intakes. and if we are talking about the aesthetics there, id say lengthen the sidepods by making them go further foward than the front of the cockpit, all so the air intakes dont look out of place.

In the old days we always saw the nosecones go straight to the front wing, as opposed to nowadays with the struts in between the nosecone and the wing. maybe changing that could make a difference.

[Robinho]

reducing aero is required, but more important is where they take it from - if they can create a decent amount of downforce, but not create as much turbulent wake alloqwing the cars to run closer thn they will have succeeded. i think losing the double diffusers will go a long way. if the cars do become slower then they can always allow better tyres and more powerful engines to counteract.

[turismo6]

In the old days we always saw the nosecones go straight to the front wing, as opposed to nowadays with the struts in between the nosecone and the wing. maybe changing that could make a difference.

I think ( and I stress "think") that struts with a high nosecone allow more under the car and into the diffuser.

[maximilian]

I seem to remember that sometime ago, I saw a picture mock-up of a "split" rear wing (i.e. two rear wings sitting side by side with a gap in the middle - kind of the opposite of the shark fins) in the context of eliminating turbulence behind that makes passing more difficult. Is this a viable proposal?

The problem isn't F1 cars going fast(est), but the aerodynamic conditions for passing - so it's not so much trying to slow the cars down, but just building them in such a way that the following car can catch a good draft, and pass easily. A good draft used to have the same effect than a "push to pass" button in the past...

Would splitting the rear wing, eliminating diffusers (why not eliminate them completely?) and using a different more low-tech material for brakes make any difference? I am not saying it would, I am asking if...

[Sonic]

I seem to remember that sometime ago, I saw a picture mock-up of a "split" rear wing (i.e. two rear wings sitting side by side with a gap in the middle - kind of the opposite of the shark fins) in the context of eliminating turbulence behind that makes passing more difficult. Is this a viable proposal?

The problem isn't F1 cars going fast(est), but the aerodynamic conditions for passing - so it's not so much trying to slow the cars down, but just building them in such a way that the following car can catch a good draft, and pass easily. A good draft used to have the same effect than a "push to pass" button in the past...

Would splitting the rear wing, eliminating diffusers (why not eliminate them completely?) and using a different more low-tech material for brakes make any difference? I am not saying it would, I am asking if...

I don't recall the spit wing concept, but on the subject of brakes I do remember that Zanardi's ill fated return to F1 in '99 was marked by his inability to run carbon brakes so instead he ran standard metal disks. As I recall the performance was very similar, the main disadvantage being weight. So unless we are going to use wood for brake material it wouldn't make a huge difference to braking distances.

[UltimateDanGTR]

http://newsonf1.net/im/05/n/CDG-1b.jpg

that's the split wing concept, looks awful in my view.

turismo: I hope what you 'think' is true, because that could be changed and I'd imagine that would have an effect.

[UltimateDanGTR]

The problem isn't F1 cars going fast(est), but the aerodynamic conditions for passing - so it's not so much trying to slow the cars down, but just building them in such a way that the following car can catch a good draft, and pass easily. A good draft used to have the same effect than a "push to pass" button in the past...



yes, I agree.

now, here's the thing: Id much rather see cars with less aerodynamic and downforce producing bodies if they have superb V12s or even better turbo's in the back to keep performance similar, than what we currently have: alot of downforce and aerodynamic effiency produced by the body but IMO, too smaller engines (V8s may be reminicent of the cosworth DFVs and everything, but if all teams have the same engines then i'd prefer something more meaty!)

[Big Ben]

http://newsonf1.net/im/05/n/CDG-1b.jpg

that's the split wing concept, looks awful in my view.

turismo: I hope what you 'think' is true, because that could be changed and I'd imagine that would have an effect.

I used to have nightmares with that picture.

[Sonic]

http://newsonf1.net/im/05/n/CDG-1b.jpg

that's the split wing concept, looks awful in my view.

turismo: I hope what you 'think' is true, because that could be changed and I'd imagine that would have an effect.

Oh yeah! How could I forget? Looks a bit of a minger, but if it produces a tow and passing i'd love it like a fat kid loves cake. :)

[maximilian]

Thanks for posting that link! It does look a bit strange on first glance, but if we can get used to the new 2009 wing configs, the shark fins, and the 18 inch wheels, then I think we'd get used to this, as well. From the back it actually looks pretty cool! :D

[jens]

To me that split rear wing looks fine and funny - wouldn't mind if they tried it in the future. :D At least would look better than a snowplough front wing, if we are purely concentrating on aesthetics. :p :

[truefan72]

My reaction to this was two parts;

Good: At least FOTA are considering us, the fans. Increasing the spectacle is a noble aim.

Bad: Another pointless downforce reduction which would probably be ineffective. If we were talking a 50% slash the designers are so clever it would probably end up being no more than 15%. Its all been done before, and thanks to the thread listing all the overtaking stats from '83, we can see how poor they have been in increasing on track action.
:up:

[UltimateDanGTR]

To me that split rear wing looks fine and funny - wouldn't mind if they tried it in the future. :D At least would look better than a snowplough front wing, if we are purely concentrating on aesthetics. :p :

well, this is the pinnacle of motorsport.

aesthetic beauty should be important as well as innovation and engineering and excitement and passion and you get the point.


or is that just me?

[Mark in Oshawa]

well, this is the pinnacle of motorsport.

aesthetic beauty should be important as well as innovation and engineering and excitement and passion and you get the point.


or is that just me?

Show me a truly beautiful F1 car. Seriously....I don't think I have seen a really "beautiful" F1 design since the 80's.

If they can change the regs, ditch any aero aids except the front wing BELOW the centerline of the axles, minimize the wings, make them single elements and mandate flat bottoms and a nose that isn't stuck in the air, then maybe, just maybe they will reduce the aero to the point where passing might come back in.

I am also of the opinion that they have to mandate these sort of changes right down through GP2 and f3 and the junior formulae to make it all make sense.

Aero dependency is killing all forms of racing if not controlled. IT is why NASCAR did what they did with their COT project, to reduce aero interference..and they are the kings of wanting passing, so you know it HAS to be done if you want passing on track.

[Sonic]

Show me a truly beautiful F1 car. Seriously....I don't think I have seen a really "beautiful" F1 design since the 80's.

If they can change the regs, ditch any aero aids except the front wing BELOW the centerline of the axles, minimize the wings, make them single elements and mandate flat bottoms and a nose that isn't stuck in the air, then maybe, just maybe they will reduce the aero to the point where passing might come back in.

I am also of the opinion that they have to mandate these sort of changes right down through GP2 and f3 and the junior formulae to make it all make sense.

Aero dependency is killing all forms of racing if not controlled. IT is why NASCAR did what they did with their COT project, to reduce aero interference..and they are the kings of wanting passing, so you know it HAS to be done if you want passing on track.

Uh oh! This is gonna turn into a debate about beauty now.

For what its worth I think there were some properly pretty '90's cars. The 1990 and 1995 Ferrari were drop dead sexy! The McLaren MP4/9 (1994 I think) was also a fine looking beast. That said I do agree that the cars of the last 15 years or so have had faces only a mother could love in most cases.

[ioan]

Show me a truly beautiful F1 car. Seriously....I don't think I have seen a really "beautiful" F1 design since the 80's.

The 91 Jordan was a real beauty, maybe the most beautiful F1 car ever.

[truefan72]

Uh oh! This is gonna turn into a debate about beauty now.


yep beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[Easy Drifter]

It is unlikely we will see any further huge change in the rear wing. It is too important as an advertising medium!
Personally I would like to see wings banned completely but that will never happen. Well probably never.
Remember any areo changes put forth by FOTA, as opposed to the FIA who do not have the expertice, will not be approved until all the teams have has a chance to study them. Every teams' aero crew will have studied them and probably figured out a way to beat any changes before they agree to them.
Cynical? YES!!
And the aero boys and the teams only care about winning not if it is pretty.
Besides the 250F Maserati was the best looking F1 car. :D :D :D

[markabilly]

Said that banning all wings would be a big improvement many times, only many times to be told NO way, impossible to do....cause where would the ads go....
Type 49 in 1967

[Valve Bounce]

Mine too :up: There's no point cutting downforce if, as has happened before, aerodynamicists are able to find a way to get it all back and we end up back at square one.

Well there is, if Constructors are really serious about it. Not difficult, really:
1. Reduce the angle or rear wing to horizontal,
2. Eliminate the diffusers
3. Eliminate all the winglets
4. Eliminate the end plates of the front wing, making it a single unit horizontal pure wing.

There you go! how easy was that?

[call_me_andrew]

There have been some good races this year. Let's not screw up a winning formula.

[markabilly]

Well there is, if Constructors are really serious about it. Not difficult, really:
1. Reduce the angle or rear wing to horizontal,
2. Eliminate the diffusers
3. Eliminate all the winglets
4. Eliminate the end plates of the front wing, making it a single unit horizontal pure wing.

There you go! how easy was that?
No, ALL WINGS MUST GO TO HEAVEN

Big fan of Mister Jim Hall, former F1 pilot, nice guy, great car builder and designer who raced his own creations, but sometimes I wish he had not done what he done....but if not him, then someone else i guess

[maximilian]

Said that banning all wings would be a big improvement many times, only many times to be told NO way, impossible to do....cause where would the ads go....
Type 49 in 1967
It will take voda ......................... fone to the next level! You think it's bad on this year's shark-finned wing, just you wait! :)

[Valve Bounce]

Oh yeah! I almost forgot: bring back wide slicks.

The wings will still work as wings, just not work as deflectors as well.
Let's look at one simple fact: the complicated development of wings, diffusers and countless winglets do not add to the pinnacle of F1 car engineering; it only creates one helluva source of expenditure. AND will this detract from F1 cars? You tell me.

[UltimateDanGTR]

thread bump, but for a reason, as I have had a random idea that could help following a car become easier:

fitting something small that sucks air in, a bit like an aeroplane jet, but not nearly as powerful, large or flight-creating. Ofcourse, it would have to be a standard thing, all identical fitted to the cars possibly in the air intakes on the front of the sidepods (i'd recommend making the air intakes bigger). too much 'suck' and it could be dangerous with cars getting sucked into each other, not enough and it would be pointless. but a small but good amount could aid slipstreaming and help cars follow each other.

[fan-veteran]

Maybe very high speeds on the straights combined with hard tires is the answer? Less downforce leads to less aerodynamic drag and air disturbance on the trailing car. Very high power leads to high fuel consumption which may be combined with modest fuel tank capacity and more need of refueling. Also very high power combined with hard tires and absence of traction control leads to more difficult driving. Also more need to brake (from high top speeds and hard tires and less downforce) combines well with carbon brakes :) .
So what do you think? Who wants top speeds of 400 km/h at Monza? :)

[call_me_andrew]

thread bump, but for a reason, as I have had a random idea that could help following a car become easier:

fitting something small that sucks air in, a bit like an aeroplane jet, but not nearly as powerful, large or flight-creating.

Do you mean a turbocharger, or do you mean moving the air intake away from the roll bar?

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, ALL WINGS MUST GO TO HEAVEN

Big fan of Mister Jim Hall, former F1 pilot, nice guy, great car builder and designer who raced his own creations, but sometimes I wish he had not done what he done....but if not him, then someone else i guess

First wing ( a proper wing ) on a race car was at Indy in 1962. Smokey Yunick put a wing on Jim Rathman's roadster....USAC banned it...but the seed was planted.

I hate the wings really..and all the turbulence off a modern f1 car. It has made passing so hard (in conjunction with carbon fiber brakes) that it has almost made f1 the parade many believe it already is. The only real excitment and unpredictability seems to be when it is raining or just wet...then we see the evident skill.

[Easy Drifter]

As I posted in the Indy car thread hard tires are not the answer!!!!!!
Tire compounding is a tricky business and sometimes companies still get it wrong.
However a hard tire will be as bad or even worse than a too soft tire.
You will get too much sliding resulting in an overheating tire very quickly. Tire stops, flats, and blowouts would be constant. Clag or little rubber balls would be far worse.
Think of the Michelin debacle at Indy. Goodyear also had major problems there with the Taxi Cabs and there have been far too many tire failures this year in Taxi Cab racing.
Tires have to be matched to car performance.

[UltimateDanGTR]

Do you mean a turbocharger, or do you mean moving the air intake away from the roll bar?

well it would be fitted in air intakes on the front of the sidepods, not the roll bar intake. I don't mean a turbo charger, but a device that sucks air in like a vacuum (rather than lets air flow in naturally like currently) so when going along, dirty air from the car behind is sucked in creating more speed and making drafting/slipstreaming easier and meaing a car can follow another car closely much easier. It could be operated like an overtake button, or if it were possible that when following a car the device was more effective than when going along in open air, that could be used.

[call_me_andrew]

As I posted in the Indy car thread hard tires are not the answer!!!!!!
Tire compounding is a tricky business and sometimes companies still get it wrong.
However a hard tire will be as bad or even worse than a too soft tire.
You will get too much sliding resulting in an overheating tire very quickly. Tire stops, flats, and blowouts would be constant. Clag or little rubber balls would be far worse.
Think of the Michelin debacle at Indy. Goodyear also had major problems there with the Taxi Cabs and there have been far too many tire failures this year in Taxi Cab racing.
Tires have to be matched to car performance.

Goodyear hasn't had that many problems this year.

And hard tires don't overheat because they're more resistant to getting hot in the first place.

[Easy Drifter]

Sorry Andrew but you are wrong on hard tires. You start sliding hard tires to any extent and they will overheat quickly.
I spent 30 years as a race driver/mechanic up to and including F1 and Indy cars.
I have spent considerable time discussing tires with race tire engineers from both Goodyear and Hoosier.
Suspension set up which entailed working with the tire companies was my main bag plus aero.
You can slide tires to a point but once that point is exceeded the temp shoots up past the design point.
The tire companies can certainly build a tire with less grip but just going harder is not the way they will do it.
Tire compounding is still a black art despite computers.
The IC cars of today are mostly set up with a little understeer (front end slide) and probably on the road courses with a little terminal oversteer (rear end slide). Initially they will understeer or push. Probably just understeer on the ovals. Neither to a great extent. Only the best drivers will be able to reach the oversteer area on a road course without going too far and spinning. Again the amount of sliding is actually quite low. The majority of the drivers will probably just stay with the understeer.
The 'Princess' for one does not like anything but understeer or push.

[markabilly]

Sorry Andrew but you are wrong on hard tires. You start sliding hard tires to any extent and they will overheat quickly.
I spent 30 years as a race driver/mechanic up to and including F1 and Indy cars.
I have spent considerable time discussing tires with race tire engineers from both Goodyear and Hoosier.
Suspension set up which entailed working with the tire companies was my main bag plus aero.
You can slide tires to a point but once that point is exceeded the temp shoots up past the design point.
The tire companies can certainly build a tire with less grip but just going harder is not the way they will do it.
Tire compounding is still a black art despite computers.
The IC cars of today are mostly set up with a little understeer (front end slide) and probably on the road courses with a little terminal oversteer (rear end slide). Initially they will understeer or push. Probably just understeer on the ovals. Neither to a great extent. Only the best drivers will be able to reach the oversteer area on a road course without going too far and spinning. Again the amount of sliding is actually quite low. The majority of the drivers will probably just stay with the understeer.
The 'Princess' for one does not like anything but understeer or push.


so where oh where did the old four wheel drift go?

Is that a function of simply no downforce added at all? I remeber somewhere stories about Clark going more than one weekend of race and practices on one set of tires...add in downforce and tire eater time?

[markabilly]

First wing ( a proper wing ) on a race car was at Indy in 1962. Smokey Yunick put a wing on Jim Rathman's roadster....USAC banned it...

I.
Smarter people than I thought..... :up: :up: :up:

[Easy Drifter]

Very little downforce on the Clark era cars and basically not a heck of a lot of power compared to today. Big thing was lack of downforce so there wasn't the grip to create the heat.
In the lower classes like FB tires would last several races.
By the time F Atlantic arrrived (mid 70's) the grip levels had increased and at least two sets a weekend were used at that level. More at the F1 level.
There is little question a slightly harder tire could be developed and used but not so hard as to make a real difference.
The current grip and power of the cars would create overheating if they were to really start sliding about constantly.
As mentioned before there is a certain amount of 'sliding' now but just described as understeer.
I cannot remember tha last time I saw a real 4 wheel drift on a modern F1 car or ALMS car.

[markabilly]

I cannot remember tha last time I saw a real 4 wheel drift on a modern F1 car or ALMS car.
http://alpinestarsinc.com/files/news/main/clark_main900x300.jpg

[Mia 01]

http://alpinestarsinc.com/files/news/main/clark_main900x300.jpg

Back to this at once!!!