F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

[mzso]

If they were to use above arrangement, fornt mounted centre of wheel, with wrap around to have fixing quick detach to front and rear of existing brake duct, then mount the assembly with the wheels already inside (wet tyres only) to give complete coverage.
Testing something like this, complete coverage with rear lower drip separation, would define just WHAT is possible with complete cover. This could show the potential to then consider the reality of doing anything such as this or indicating if there's still too much spray even without bulk of wheel's water contribution.

In other words, what's the maximum possible scenario with complete cover, define that first and then understand suitability.

Use of pure test mule initially to study, they could even run it between FP at live events like this. May even have decent appearance with black carbon covers looking like tyres too.

Your point is not obvious to me. If you mean they should test whether eliminating the wheel spray is enough, I think that's a waste of time. I'm not sure whether the underside on its own can pick up water from the ground. Even if it does it wont be an aerosol like the tires produce, but big drops of water that won't stay in the air.

[Farnborough]

"Can’t it be part of the rim without rolling around of course?"

Have a look back at the type used around 2009......wheel covers similar in size to the current running......but fully fixed to the centre via attachment there...stationary but with the wheel revolving around them.

I know this is not possible with current wheel and hub design, certainly done before by all of teams in that era.

[Farnborough]

If they were to use above arrangement, fornt mounted centre of wheel, with wrap around to have fixing quick detach to front and rear of existing brake duct, then mount the assembly with the wheels already inside (wet tyres only) to give complete coverage.
Testing something like this, complete coverage with rear lower drip separation, would define just WHAT is possible with complete cover. This could show the potential to then consider the reality of doing anything such as this or indicating if there's still too much spray even without bulk of wheel's water contribution.

In other words, what's the maximum possible scenario with complete cover, define that first and then understand suitability.

Use of pure test mule initially to study, they could even run it between FP at live events like this. May even have decent appearance with black carbon covers looking like tyres too.

Your point is not obvious to me. If you mean they should test whether eliminating the wheel spray is enough, I think that's a waste of time. I'm not sure whether the underside on its own can pick up water from the ground. Even if it does it wont be an aerosol like the tires produce, but big drops of water that won't stay in the air.

That's the point of a test, does it or doesn't it do anything that is desirable ?

This is exactly what "proof of concept" means. We don't know, so test if for observations, then we will.

[mzso]

A guard that is only fitted when the wets are fitted would need to be part of the wet tyre/wheel construction so that it could be easily added and removed with the conditions. If the teams have to fuss around fitting/removing it, they'll just avoid running the tyre in the first place and we'll be back to being unable to run in wet conditions because a suitable tyre "isn't available / isn't fast enough".

I fail to se how that can be a problem. If you loose 10 seconds per lap there's no such thing as too slow.
Not that I imagine it would take more than couple seconds to get the thing to slide into position.

"Avoid using" and not "racing in the wet" is not a scenario that has a basis in reality. You don't use wet tires, you retire from the race. The others who do will score the points. The FIA won't refuse running a race because a few team's don't feel like changing tires...

If there was a effective full wheel cover for wet tyre running, then tyre type could be mandated (as now when starting behind SC) until race control switched the decision to allow from then on a intermediate choice in continuing the race.

Precisely. I don't know what he was thinking with that remark.

Can’t it be part of the rim without rolling around of course?

So that when they fit the wet tires the guard fits together with the rim without having to anything extra on the car during the pit stop…

Not the rim as such. Since that's one part of the wheel, which inherently rotates. But a non rotating part can go through the hub.
They solved the very same thing for the old wheel covers. Even if it's not obvious how they mounted them and the wheel nuts at the same time.

[mzso]

That's the point of a test, does it or doesn't it do anything that is desirable ?

This is exactly what "proof of concept" means. We don't know, so test if for observations, then we will.

But they could that right now with a camera, looking at what, if anything the diffuser picks up.

I know this is not possible with current wheel and hub design, certainly done before by all of teams in that era.

As I recall those appeared during the year after someone started doing it. So it's not a huge difficulty to create a solution. Especially if the FIA decides on a standard fender for wet tires, in the off season.

[Just_a_fan]

A guard that is only fitted when the wets are fitted would need to be part of the wet tyre/wheel construction so that it could be easily added and removed with the conditions. If the teams have to fuss around fitting/removing it, they'll just avoid running the tyre in the first place and we'll be back to being unable to run in wet conditions because a suitable tyre "isn't available / isn't fast enough".

I fail to se how that can be a problem. If you loose 10 seconds per lap there's no such thing as too slow.
Not that I imagine it would take more than couple seconds to get the thing to slide into position.

"Avoid using" and not "racing in the wet" is not a scenario that has a basis in reality. You don't use wet tires, you retire from the race. The others who do will score the points. The FIA won't refuse running a race because a few team's don't feel like changing tires...

If there was a effective full wheel cover for wet tyre running, then tyre type could be mandated (as now when starting behind SC) until race control switched the decision to allow from then on a intermediate choice in continuing the race.

Precisely. I don't know what he was thinking with that remark.

Can’t it be part of the rim without rolling around of course?

So that when they fit the wet tires the guard fits together with the rim without having to anything extra on the car during the pit stop…

Not the rim as such. Since that's one part of the wheel, which inherently rotates. But a non rotating part can go through the hub.
They solved the very same thing for the old wheel covers. Even if it's not obvious how they mounted them and the wheel nuts at the same time.

The FIA already don't run races because the teams say "the wets are useless". If the teams don't like the guards, then they'll force the issue.

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not against rain guards, I'm just wondering how to make them work.

[Farnborough]

The teams didn't like the "Halo" the FIA forced the issue.........

[mzso]

The FIA already don't run races because the teams say "the wets are useless". If the teams don't like the guards, then they'll force the issue.

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not against rain guards, I'm just wondering how to make them work.

They don't run races, because it's unsafe* due to visibility. And when the visibility gets good enough the extreme wets become useless.

*Which ignores the fact that particularly wet races always had similarly poor visibility, yet they raced anyway.

[Just_a_fan]

The FIA already don't run races because the teams say "the wets are useless". If the teams don't like the guards, then they'll force the issue.

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not against rain guards, I'm just wondering how to make them work.

They don't run races, because it's unsafe* due to visibility. And when the visibility gets good enough the extreme wets become useless.

*Which ignores the fact that particularly wet races always had similarly poor visibility, yet they raced anyway.

Yes, but it's the teams driving the issue. Remember- if the teams don't leave the garages then there is no race.

People who consider themselves to be powerful always forget that it's the people that do the thing that have the ultimate power.

[mzso]

Yes, but it's the teams driving the issue. Remember- if the teams don't leave the garages then there is no race.

People who consider themselves to be powerful always forget that it's the people that do the thing that have the ultimate power.

I don't know what gives you that impression. I have yet to see a single team deciding not to race when the FIA allowed the race to go on. This is all part of FIA's security theater, they patted themselves on the back so much for their noxious changes (that even was a cause of the death of on F2 driver) in the name of security that they can't allow themselves to run proper wet races anymore.

[mwillems]

Yes, but it's the teams driving the issue. Remember- if the teams don't leave the garages then there is no race.

People who consider themselves to be powerful always forget that it's the people that do the thing that have the ultimate power.

I don't know what gives you that impression. I have yet to see a single team deciding not to race when the FIA allowed the race to go on. This is all part of FIA's security theater, they patted themselves on the back so much for their noxious changes (that even was a cause of the death of on F2 driver) in the name of security that they can't allow themselves to run proper wet races anymore.

The 2005 USA GP is an example of when that has happened, I'm sure there will be others in history but it is in the the face of extreme danger, of which this is not.

Regarding Safety, these cars go much faster than cars of old and generate more DF than ever and so they need treating differently with cars of the previous generation which as you go back in time relied more and more on mechanical grip. These cars also spray a lot more from the diffuser than older cars, by the very nature of their design and this is on top of the spray from the wheels, so the issue has become worse.

To add, the cost cap will be a big driver and making these wet races safer, as the cost of the crashes at these races must scare the teams a lot. It may not be pretty but it makes sense and we will see more racing, and if the drivers can see we might see more drama, assuming they can make it all work well.

[mzso]

The 2005 USA GP is an example of when that has happened, I'm sure there will be others in history but it is in the the face of extreme danger, of which this is not.

Regarding Safety, these cars go much faster than cars of old and generate more DF than ever and so they need treating differently with cars of the previous generation which as you go back in time relied more and more on mechanical grip. These cars also spray a lot more from the diffuser than older cars, by the very nature of their design and this is on top of the spray from the wheels, so the issue has become worse.

To add, the cost cap will be a big driver and making these wet races safer, as the cost of the crashes at these races must scare the teams a lot. It may not be pretty but it makes sense and we will see more racing, and if the drivers can see we might see more drama, assuming they can make it all work well.

That's more than a little different. There was no issue with weather, but they didn't have tires to race with.
And Whiting in his "brilliance" gave them options like, brake before the banked turn, or change tires every five laps. So make a comedy of it and get others to ram your cars, or keep changing to tires you don't have.

The "spray from diffuser" issue is so far nothing more than an assumption.

But now that you brought it up. I do remember one occasion when Ferrari skipped a championship race, the 1956 Pescara GP...

[mwillems]

The 2005 USA GP is an example of when that has happened, I'm sure there will be others in history but it is in the the face of extreme danger, of which this is not.

Regarding Safety, these cars go much faster than cars of old and generate more DF than ever and so they need treating differently with cars of the previous generation which as you go back in time relied more and more on mechanical grip. These cars also spray a lot more from the diffuser than older cars, by the very nature of their design and this is on top of the spray from the wheels, so the issue has become worse.

To add, the cost cap will be a big driver and making these wet races safer, as the cost of the crashes at these races must scare the teams a lot. It may not be pretty but it makes sense and we will see more racing, and if the drivers can see we might see more drama, assuming they can make it all work well.

That's more than a little different. There was no issue with weather, but they didn't have tires to race with.
And Whiting in his "brilliance" gave them options like, brake before the banked turn, or change tires every five laps. So make a comedy of it and get others to ram your cars, or keep changing to tires you don't have.

The "spray from diffuser" issue is so far nothing more than an assumption.

But now that you brought it up. I do remember one occasion when Ferrari skipped a championship race, the 1956 Pescara GP...

Yes I agreed, that was quite different, there was a real danger in 2005, here there would not be. But the statement was that no teams have done it and it wasn't totally correct.

With regards to the diffuser, I'd be highly surprised if they weren't picking up water from the surface and spitting it out. It is certainly part of the programme to asses how much it is spraying, in fact the whole testing is around what is possible as it is very hard to model water droplets in CFD. Hence they are trying the physical tests in lieu of any design that can be tested properly in CFD. The tests at Silverstone were innefective so now they have another go and they will measure the diffuser spray then. it is quite possible that the diffuser spray renders any work on the wheels pointless. Time will tell.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... /10498489/

[Zynerji]

The 2005 USA GP is an example of when that has happened, I'm sure there will be others in history but it is in the the face of extreme danger, of which this is not.

Regarding Safety, these cars go much faster than cars of old and generate more DF than ever and so they need treating differently with cars of the previous generation which as you go back in time relied more and more on mechanical grip. These cars also spray a lot more from the diffuser than older cars, by the very nature of their design and this is on top of the spray from the wheels, so the issue has become worse.

To add, the cost cap will be a big driver and making these wet races safer, as the cost of the crashes at these races must scare the teams a lot. It may not be pretty but it makes sense and we will see more racing, and if the drivers can see we might see more drama, assuming they can make it all work well.

That's more than a little different. There was no issue with weather, but they didn't have tires to race with.
And Whiting in his "brilliance" gave them options like, brake before the banked turn, or change tires every five laps. So make a comedy of it and get others to ram your cars, or keep changing to tires you don't have.

The "spray from diffuser" issue is so far nothing more than an assumption.

But now that you brought it up. I do remember one occasion when Ferrari skipped a championship race, the 1956 Pescara GP...

Yes I agreed, that was quite different, there was a real danger in 2005, here there would not be. But the statement was that no teams have done it and it wasn't totally correct.

With regards to the diffuser, I'd be highly surprised if they weren't picking up water from the surface and spitting it out. It is certainly part of the programme to asses how much it is spraying, in fact the whole testing is around what is possible as it is very hard to model water droplets in CFD. Hence they are trying the physical tests in lieu of any design that can be tested properly in CFD. The tests at Silverstone were innefective so now they have another go and they will measure the diffuser spray then. it is quite possible that the diffuser spray renders any work on the wheels pointless. Time will tell.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... /10498489/

One would think that taking a modern car to a skid pad, putting a post in the middle, and hanging a 50 foot boom off of it, and running the car in a wide arc like a carnival ride could get them some aero/water data pretty quickly.

[mwillems]

That's more than a little different. There was no issue with weather, but they didn't have tires to race with.
And Whiting in his "brilliance" gave them options like, brake before the banked turn, or change tires every five laps. So make a comedy of it and get others to ram your cars, or keep changing to tires you don't have.

The "spray from diffuser" issue is so far nothing more than an assumption.

But now that you brought it up. I do remember one occasion when Ferrari skipped a championship race, the 1956 Pescara GP...

Yes I agreed, that was quite different, there was a real danger in 2005, here there would not be. But the statement was that no teams have done it and it wasn't totally correct.

With regards to the diffuser, I'd be highly surprised if they weren't picking up water from the surface and spitting it out. It is certainly part of the programme to asses how much it is spraying, in fact the whole testing is around what is possible as it is very hard to model water droplets in CFD. Hence they are trying the physical tests in lieu of any design that can be tested properly in CFD. The tests at Silverstone were innefective so now they have another go and they will measure the diffuser spray then. it is quite possible that the diffuser spray renders any work on the wheels pointless. Time will tell.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... /10498489/

One would think that taking a modern car to a skid pad, putting a post in the middle, and hanging a 50 foot boom off of it, and running the car in a wide arc like a carnival ride could get them some aero/water data pretty quickly.

No idea, I'm just highlighting quotes from the mouths of those doing the work!