Downforce solution?

[davecooper]

It strikes me that a lot of downforce can be generated below the car alone without the use of wings. What would be the impact of having a rule that stated that all downforce had to be generated in an area between the front and rear axles and not external to the bodywork. Downforce could be maintained as of course would the subsequent disturbance to the air behind the car. However, this would become less of a problem to cars without front wings, thus the problem posed to following cars would be less.
Is this a valid argument.

[mx_tifoso]

i agree with this, as seen on the Ferrari Enzo,as well as many other sports cars, it uses no external wings or flaps, all the necessary wings and flaps that are needed to create downforce are located underneath the car, and i can say that the amount of downforce it produces at high speeds is impressive, its a good idea to say the least

[PNSD]

a better idea is ground effects that are carefully monitored and regulated so that the cars are not too fast.

then huge slicks and you will have racing.

this overtaking nonsence came about majorly when grooves were introduced, before this it was an issue, but for sure nowhere near as big and we had real racing.

[AeroGT3]

a better idea is ground effects that are carefully monitored and regulated so that the cars are not too fast.

then huge slicks and you will have racing.

this overtaking nonsence came about majorly when grooves were introduced, before this it was an issue, but for sure nowhere near as big and we had real racing.

Exactly. If the FIA wants passing, they'll bring back proper tires!!

Ground effects are great and quite capable of making great levels of downfroce, but they still produce significant upwash which decreases following cars' performance.

[DaveKillens]

Generally, the more downforce you generate, the more disturbance will happen behind the car. And these days, ground effects involves a diffuser behind the rear axle.
The idea has good merit, and it would definitely be interesting to see how the engineers could generate downforce without a rear diffuser.

[Ciro Pabón]

All is well but, then, what do you make of this graph? I made the graph based on the patient work of Brian Lawrence.

[img::]http://www.geocities.com/ciroalbertopab ... erYear.jpg[/img]

Then you have this other graph, based on the same source, also made by me:

[img::]http://www.geocities.com/ciroalbertopab ... rTrack.jpg[/img]

So, my final question: if F1 is about overtaking (same as saying that soccer is about goals, if you ask me) then what? Aerodynamics or track? You tell me.

I am so sorry, but I can't provide you with a graph of "Overtaking per balls (aka "cojones quotient")" . What I can provide is a table that proves that, on wet tracks overtakings double. Perhaps harder tires could help you in your quest. I am happy with things as they are. After all, it's Christmas.

[dumrick]

These graphs are not new - thanks to Ciro. It goes to show how perceptions are out-of-phase with reality... and why when a lie is told enough times - critical mass - it is perceived as reality.

Concerning the rules suggestion, how would you legislate that? You are starting to sound like Mr. Mosley - and that's not a compliment. Every bodywork surface that's not parallel to the airstream generates lift or downforce. So, to say "You cannot generate downforce" is plain stupid. Take a look at ACO rules for Le Mans to see a wise try to legislate on "non-paralel adjacent body surfaces" instead.

[G-Rock]

It strikes me that a lot of downforce can be generated below the car alone without the use of wings. What would be the impact of having a rule that stated that all downforce had to be generated in an area between the front and rear axles and not external to the bodywork. Downforce could be maintained as of course would the subsequent disturbance to the air behind the car. However, this would become less of a problem to cars without front wings, thus the problem posed to following cars would be less.
Is this a valid argument.

Nope, because the wings are the "billboards" of the F1 car. Some of the most valuable sponsors are displayed on the wings. Just look at how FIA mandated the rear engine cover to be of a minimum size. This was because of the smaller engines, better packaging allowing the engineers to shrink wrap the cars so much that instead of seeing "Marlboro" for example, they could only squeeze "arlbor" on to it.

On second thought, maybe that would be a good way to reduce costs across the board; by reducing the space available for advertising. Could it be that simple?

[AeroGT3]

it would definitely be interesting to see how the engineers could generate downforce without a rear diffuser.

They couldn't. The flow through the underbody is entirely governed by the pressure at the diffuser outlet. No diffuser means a huge stall regoin in which stagnation pressure is lost in a non-isentropic pressure.

In short, a diffuser is what allows the undertray to make downforce.

[zac510]

Nice posts by dumrick, AeroGT3 and thanks for the graphs Ciro!

The underbody, tunnels and skirts of the GP2 cars are proving to be a good example of a chassis producing much of its downforce from the underbody especially when following another car. As the FIA is quite close to this series they must be paying attention to how effective it is and perhaps even considering allowing tunnels into F1.

AeroGT3, when you mean 'real' tyres, are you expecting a tyre that handles significantly different just because the outside is changed? I think the manufacturers would still persist with the low slip angle:high peak grip specification of current tyres and thus the tyre behaviour would not change.
If the FIA could mandate a weak tyre sidewall then perhaps the manufacturers might be forced to develop a tyre that produces consistent and reliable grip from low to high slip angles. I don't know how they would do this though.

[Reca]

I already expressed many times here my aversion toward the general opinion that aerodynamics is the main cause for lack of overtakes, and it looks like Ciro’s graphs point to the same conclusion.
Even more if, as addition to Ciro’s first graph, we consider each year the rules changes we can try to see if there’s a relation with the change in number of overtakes compared with the previous year.

In 1997 there were two tyres suppliers, although best teams were all on Goodyear, cars were 2 meters wide, with slick tyres.

1998 car’s width reduction to 1.8 m, introduction of grooved tyres, two tyre suppliers, each one supplying a title contender, McLaren (Bridgestone) and Ferrari (Goodyear). There weren’t direct modifications on aero rules although it’s evident that the other rules changed quite a lot car characteristics forcing to adapt the aero design. Drastic reduction of overtakes.

1999 single tyre supplier although with addition of a further groove at front, no modification on aero. Increment of overtakes.

2000 same rules on tyres as previous year, still single tyre supplier, no modification on aero. Increment of overtakes, almost up to 1997 level.

2001 two tyre suppliers (amongst top teams, McLaren and Ferrari with BS, Williams with M), modifications on aero (mainly raised front wing and reduction of number of rear wing elements). Drastic reduction of overtakes.

2002 two tyre suppliers (only Ferrari with BS while McLaren and Williams with M, Ferrari dominating), no change of rules on tyres, no change of rules on aero. Increment of overtakes.

2003 two tyre suppliers with often large variation of relative performance depending by track and weather, no change of rules on aero, change of qualifying (with fuel for the first stint) leading to small variations of the grid compared with real cars’ performances, change of point system. Increment of overtakes.

2004 two tyre suppliers although with basically domination of 1 team, limited change of rule on aero (mainly the elimination of 1 rear wing element), introduction of on grid penalization for engine change, limited reduction of overtakes.

2005 two tyre suppliers with clear domination of 1 of them that was supplying majority of the grid and top teams, tyres having to last the whole race, drastic modification of aero rules. Drastic reduction of overtakes, from a good year to the lowest level of the last 10 years.

2006 two tyre suppliers with basically equivalent performances, a title contender per supplier. Back to possibility to change tyres during the race. No modifications on aero rules, significant reduction of engine power. Drastic increment of number of overtakes, from the lowest level of last 10 years to one of the highest.

Obviously there would be many other factors to consider (like for example number of wet races per year, the fact that some tracks were changed or new ones introduced or other things I can’t think of at the moment) and I used only the main rules changes going by memory, so this analysis could be improved with more data at disposal.
Still it’s interesting to notice that, at first sight, every time there was a modification of aero rules (being it the only factor or coupled with something else) meant to reduce downforce there was a significant reduction of number of overtakes (even more evident if coupled with changes on tyre rules or start of tyre war), and every time the aero rules were unchanged there was an increment.
Just a coincidence ?
Is it possible that all the other factors were influencing so much reality to make it go for 10 consecutive years directly against the “truth” universally accepted by vast majority of fans that to improve racing it’s absolutely necessary to introduce rules to drastically reduce downforce ?
Or, maybe, more simply, that “truth” isn’t exactly true ?

[Carlos]

I think the reference to "real tyres" means the very wide slicks from years ago. I like this idea, along with widening the track of F1 cars, more liberal udertray aero and less body and wing aero. Just as electrostatic shock absorbers have fluid that changes viscosity with electric current and active elctronics, polymer cording inn the side walls of tyres could do the same, which would alter the slip/scrub angles in cornering and on uneven road surfaces. With very stiff suspension, many suggest that the tyre and its sidewall flexure is actually part of the "supension package." The evolution of F1 rules over the next 6 o years will be very interesting.

[Ciro Pabón]

These graphs are not new - thanks to Ciro.

Dumrick, I swear I made them a couple of weeks ago (again, credits on data by Brian Lawrence at GLIBS database). Did I post them here already? I know I posted them at gp.com a week ago, but I don't remember posting them here at f1technical... Sorry, must be the Alzheimer...

Anyway, about downforce: the best recommendations I've heard are limiting fuel (or fuel rate) and using harder tires. I add the wingless car to the list anyway, thanks davecooper.

Another thing I would like to see is an oval race (just one in the season, would that be too much?) to see what the teams could do about it. Perhaps we would see some alternatives to downforce implemented on an oval and we would have as many overtakings as any fan could wish. I also wonder why F1 does not use F3 as a testbed for radical ideas, like the one davecooper proposes, before spending a couple of billions.

Thanks to Reca for the analysis. I would like to point out that the race with most overtakings in the last 9 years was Bahrain 2006.

We all saw it and there were some comments on how the grass strips around the curves penalized little mistakes (without taking you out of the race, by using paved run-off areas). However, I did not see anybody noticing how many overtakes we had or jumping in joy because of that. Here is the data (again, I don't think I've posted it here, but I did post it at gp.com a week ago):

Code: Select all

Top 10 Races for Overtaking (1997-2006)
=======================================

     #  Year   GP          Wet       SC
===========================================
 1. 51  1997 - Belgium     Wet       SC (1)
    51  2000 - USA         Wet
    51  2006 - China       Wet
 4. 49  2003 - Britain               SC (2)
 5. 48  2003 - Brazil      Wet       SC (4)  Race stopped
 6. 47  1999 - Australia             SC (2)
    47  2001 - Malaysia    Wet       SC (1)
    47  2002 - Britain     Showers
 9. 44  1998 - Britain     Wet       SC (1)
10. 43  1999 - France      Wet       SC (1)

Dry Races (Not wet & no Safety Car)
===================================

 1. 39  2006 - Bahrain
 2. 38  2004 - Italy
 3. 36  1997 - Spain
 4. 32  1997 - Brazil
 5. 30  1999 - Austria
    30  2002 - Brazil
    30  2005 - Turkey
 8. 29  2004 - Germany
 9. 28  1997 - Hungary
    28  1998 - Italy
    28  2005 - Belgium

I hardly can wait for your comments. Please, no more "sprinklers on the track to improve overtaking" suggestions...

Finally, about Carlos's idea, I saw this year the Goodyear ResponsEdge tires, with carbon fiber sidewalls (blue) and kevlar threads (blue-gray).

[img::]http://img.timeinc.net/popsci/flat/bown ... uct_22.jpg[/img]

[img::]http://www.goodyear.com/media/photos/th ... utaway.jpg[/img]

[AeroGT3]

I think the reference to "real tyres" means the very wide slicks from years ago. I like this idea, along with widening the track of F1 cars, more liberal udertray aero and less body and wing aero. Just as electrostatic shock absorbers have fluid that changes viscosity with electric current and active elctronics, polymer cording inn the side walls of tyres could do the same, which would alter the slip/scrub angles in cornering and on uneven road surfaces. With very stiff suspension, many suggest that the tyre and its sidewall flexure is actually part of the "supension package." The evolution of F1 rules over the next 6 o years will be very interesting.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Wider tires, and looser Aero rules.

Right now, teams are running hige rear wings and lots of body work that totally screws up the wake for following cars. This is their only option under the current ruleset.

If the FIA loosened up the Aero rules, teams could run better undertrays, which, since they're incredibly efficient, would eliminate the need for all the body work and for the agressive rear wings.

The FIA's aero regulations simply push the Aero to be MORE disruptive. The FIA has no idea how to get what it wants done. They changed engines to V8's hoping to lower speed and reduce cost. What happened? Teams pent MORE money redesigning new engines, and the cars are virtually the same speed.

The FIA did the two race engine thing to reduce costs. What happened? Less engines had to be built, saving money, but then more money had to be spent testing more engines to improve reliability. Teams also had to pour a LOT more engineering into the engine so they'd last. Result? Cost was HIGHER, exactly what they didn't want to do.

The FIA should shut its mouth and solicit ideas from engineers (retired or active) on how to introduce regulations. As it stands, they're a bunch of business wankers who want to be praised at cocktail parties for having "changed the sport forever" when they in fact are ruining it.

This more towards no Aero is the wrong direction. Aero is NEEDED for breaking and stability. No power will be put down without Aero. All the runoffs wil need to be extended as removing aero will drastically increase stopping distances.

Lastly, there's the FIA's eco-bullshit. All this want for green cars running on bio diesel hybrids. Its goddamn F1, we've no desire to watch a flock of Prius' run around track.

If the goal is redducing C02, then lets have no racing at all, which is just a waste of energy to begin with. I am sure teams could make greater strides towards reducing C02 if they withdrew from F1 and spend 100% of the money on fuel saving technologies . . .

I absolutely desise the FIA. It's a worthless organization.

[Ciro Pabón]

Robert: may I ask you to calm down without angering you even more?

I will try to argue for the counterpart, following the english rethorical school. So:

Wider tires: allright, they are nice. Until you drive the car and find that the reason why they are limited is because G-forces are inhuman.

True may be that Patrick Depailler's death happened (according to rumours) because of fainting at a high speed curve. The official story says it was a suspension failure. He said:

“I like circuits where the driver still has a big part to play, even in a poor car. But unfortunately those are the ones that have become very dangerous in this ground effect time. Everything about the ground effect cars is wrong! I think I am courageous, but I am not mad.“

I believe the main limit to the grip you can provide through the combination of tires and wings is not only what a human being can take, but what a human being can enjoy.

About the downforce regulations: well, it is a thorny issue. All I can say is that a wind tunnel is not cheap and perhaps the people working there know a little about aerodynamics. As it is not my favorite subject about racing, all I can say is: "May your words be sweet, in case you have to swallow them" .

On the "green" subject: you may take the "extremist" view and forbid all cars starting tomorrow. Actually, this is an idea I actively support and I am "extremely" proud about it. In my home town we have had the "Day without cars" for a decade and now it seems is taking roots in Europe. I understand that in Italy there is one Sunday every month where private cars are forbidden. I hope you'll enjoy that, if your town adopt the idea (I am not being sarcastic, believe me, take that bike and shake that *ss).

[img::]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1435000/i ... rro300.jpg[/img]

Anyway, if you want to read a little and don't trust FIA, maybe you wish to hear what MIA have to say and find out what they think about it. Google for EEMS. I refuse to believe you despise what Lotus, Brabham and the rest of their members have to say on the subject.