Is F1 getting boring?

[Just_a_fan]

As far as I can see the only solution to the lack of racing is.

Short term

Change the tyres
Make them long life
Make them very short life span but very grippy

Remove parc ferme rules

Long term

Reduce the dependency on diffusers
Remove the rev limit and keep the engine life
Give the teams a set energy input into the cars e.g. 256000mj of energy, meaning that the teams can use whatever fuel and fuel recovery systems but they are limited to that energy input into the car per race.
Prevent Tilke from designing more circuits to get some variety back

That's my 10 pence worth!

Why reduce diffusers? It's wings that are the problem. Wings (particularly the front one) need much cleaner air than the underfloor does. As the front wing gets in to the turbulent air of the car in front (and that air will always be turbulent and upflowing because of the rear wing and rear tyres) the front wing loses d/f quicker than the rear wing and the car understeers heavily. That's why they can't run close together in corners.

Reduce the front wing, allow the underside to do more and you can keep the thrill of high downforce cars (which is why they are so quick in the first place) and also get some overtaking because the following car can get close to the lead car in the corner before the straight.

The reason we have such boring tracks these days is because the designer is trying to manufacture overtaking by using the circuit - a slow corner in to a long straight in to a slow corner is about the only way current F1 cars can hope to overtake.

[tok-tokkie]

If you can't point at what things to change precisely, objectively (i.e: the things are really a problem in the context) then ask yourself if it is not you the source of your boredom.

Not being able to name a problem with precision does not mean there is no problem. One might have a faulty vocabulary.

However, I will take up your challenge. One problem is the aero devices used to generate massive downforce and the effect they have on following cars. I'll even posit a precise solution: flat bottoms, no diffusers, "spec" front and rear wings.

Another precise, objective problem? Stopping distances are too short, contributing to a lack of passing. That problem can be alleviated by reducing downforce, going back to non-carbon braking components, and possibly by working with the tire manufacturer.

It seems to me that the aero has become so good that the cars can't catch the one in front even if it is basically faster. Did we not see this in the last race?

The aero is technically very challenging to get right and TERRIBLY expensive to develop. I agree with much of the above. A flat underside to the car from under the drivers knees to under the crash thing with lights at the back. No diffuser. Wings are free. Brakes must be usable in wet or dry conditions (like a road car) so ceramic is probably allowed but carbon is not - wanting to increase the braking distance.

Colin Chapman (& Jim Hall?) led us into under body downforce. It has been enthralling but I feel it is leading us to a dead end as far as interesting racing.

[Ogami musashi]

Not being able to name a problem with precision does not mean there is no problem. One might have a faulty vocabulary.

That's right but doesn't contradicts what i said: You can't be sure the problem is not on your side until you assessed precisely where the real problems are.

However, I will take up your challenge. One problem is the aero devices used to generate massive downforce and the effect they have on following cars. I'll even posit a precise solution: flat bottoms, no diffusers, "spec" front and rear wings.

No doubt the aerodynamics pose a challenge yes. Some of your proposal may work too BUT we have one problem: The cars would be dead slow.

Yeah i know, maybe you don't care;

But my important point is that, downforce levels shouldn't be regarded as a problem; they're not. All upgrades of series, new concepts are all with more downforce; See Indycar concepts, New formula nippon even 2010 super prosche cup!

Downforce brings some good things mainly being able to drive at higher speed making driving more on the limit.

So a compromise is necessary. The actual solution in F1 is not good but i don't think because of one particular technical solution; The reason it doesn't work is that it is not a spec series; Wakes are very different from one to another and the following car which experiences a wake signature different from his will suffer big.

Another precise, objective problem? Stopping distances are too short, contributing to a lack of passing. That problem can be alleviated by reducing downforce, going back to non-carbon braking components, and possibly by working with the tire manufacturer.

I've been an advocate of the opposite, and precisely without re-entering into the theory, i haven't seen any problem with braking overtakings for years in F1.
In fact, like in many other series (that also had the braking power go up) most of the overtakings actually happen on braking.

Next thing is that steel brake won't change anything; they have sufficient friction power to lock a wheel like a carbon one; Braking is tyre limited and of course since downforce adds to the tyre grip downforce is a thing.

But again, look at future, no new series will pick up longer braking distances; i think that's an urban myth for it to be compensated by longer slipstream.

[kilcoo316]

Why reduce diffusers? It's wings that are the problem.

Negative, the diffuser is the problem...


The ramp angle is far too aggressive. A GP2 kind of diffuser works better - it is more like old style ground effect aerodynamics, but not the F1 design.

[captainmorgan]

but my important point is that, downforce levels shouldn't be regarded as a problem; they're not. All upgrades of series, new concepts are all with more downforce; See Indycar concepts, New formula nippon even 2010 super prosche cup!

This flies in the face of every statement that has been made on this board for years in addition to the OWG. Do any of the other series have the downforce levels of F1? Isn't indycar a single-chassis series? The new chassis were expressly designed to have less downforce and more flat underbodies to aid drafting.


I agree with most of what the rest of the board has said, as well as Ross Brawn:

(basics, listed only to highlight the bare minimum regs)
open formula, restricting only safety boxes
new-technology-safety regs e.g. electric shock accidents during KERS testing

otherwise, any of the following could be taken independently:
-limits on total energy input at race start (e.g. 180kg fuel allotted for each car, batteries or flywheels must start at zero-energy)
-NO TILKE. I think he considers it a horrible mistake if he creates a great turn or allows elevation changes. All he is good at is providing new track for as little construction cost as possible
-eliminate rear wings and/or diffusers completely. Make aerodynamicist's jobs hell to pay for the past 10 years. Power and mechanical grip only.


I don't get why people hated KERS so much. The rules limited KERS total energy and usage from the moment it was allowed! Of course it's going to be useless if it only gives 5% more power for 5 milliseconds per lap. It was pretty much the only good idea in the past 3 years, and it was killed in utero.

The ONLY other development in recent years that actually made racing interesting was Brawn being more clever than the big teams at finding loopholes. Think about that.

[jddh1]

Bring Juan Pablo Montoya and Takuma Sato back to F1. Problem solved.

[hecti]

Without Kimi, F1 is boring..

i agree
lol

[Ogami musashi]

This flies in the face of every statement that has been made on this board for years in addition to the OWG.

Actually, not at all. I've had access to OWG data results and if one thing, the level of downforce showed to be completely irrelevant to the loss.
What was the major finding by OWG was that the coupling of diffuser and rear wing produced a preservation zone for the wake hence why they advise on switching the downforce from diffuser to rear wing.

The reduction in downforce was a pure safety measure, just like the ban on DD next year.

Similarly, the slicks return wasn't to re-balance the aero to mechanical grip, but simply to prevent F1 cars being slower than GP2 cars.

Do any of the other series have the downforce levels of F1? Isn't indycar a single-chassis series? The new chassis were expressly designed to have less downforce and more flat underbodies to aid drafting.

F1 DF levels, i think you are a bit underestimating the others. DP01 champcar produced 2500kg at 300km/h while contemporary F1 cars were at about 2700kg.

The thing was that DP01 weighted about 780Kg without driver, while F1 was 605kg with driver thus a big difference.

Similarly current indycars produce about 2500kg of DF at 320km/h


The new FN09 saw a massive 50% downforce increase and they don't have any problem to overtake.

Literally all series increase their downforce (F2 this year too)..if Levels of downforce were a problem you would see a deterioration of overtaking.

The second consequence would be that difficulty of following would be inversely proportional to racing series's level i.e F1 would be the hardest then GP2, then F2, then F3 etc.. Which is not the case at all.

Wake patterns are complicated and result of flow fields properties upstream; and those properties are most geometry dependent.

[Just_a_fan]

Why reduce diffusers? It's wings that are the problem.

Negative, the diffuser is the problem...


The ramp angle is far too aggressive. A GP2 kind of diffuser works better - it is more like old style ground effect aerodynamics, but not the F1 design.

Why can't drivers overtake? Because they can't get close enough in the corners to allow a chance on the following straight.

Why can't they get close enough? Because the front wing loses effectiveness in the wake of the car in front.

How do you have decent levels of downforce without big front and rear wings? Use the underside of the car.

Do we need downforce? Yes! F1 without downforce is called Formula Ford.

Downforce is what makes an F1 car so spectacular. Standing next to the circuit and watching an F1 car go throw the turn at silly speed is awe inspiring. You need downforce for that.

[kilcoo316]

Why can't they get close enough? Because the front wing loses effectiveness in the wake of the car in front.

Q: What component of the car in front does the vertical velocity component in the wake near (the ground plane) come from?

A: The diffuser.


Q: What typically happens to an F1 car trying to follow another through a corner?

A: It experiences understeer.



(1) Ban the diffuser, impose a flat bottom, specify an open area between and ahead of the two rear wheels that must be adhered to... and much of the problem will be fixed.


(2) Additionally, make the rear wing endplates much, much smaller so the upper wake extends back further, helping the drafting effect of a following car.


(3) Furthermore, it may be worth while reversing the current front wing focus from toward the wingtips to toward the centreline of the car. Then, the rear tyres can be made larger and the rear track widened at the same time to further enhance the drag pocket while minimising both homogeneous turbulence and averaged vertical velocities to allow the front wing to operate with greater insensitivity to the car ahead.


(4) Another aspect worthy of investigation is the chord length of the front wing elements, increasing their chord length obviously reduces the size of the typical turbulent eddy length scale relative to the wing, and thus makes the wing more insensitive to homogeneous turbulence. Moving the wing closer to the ground also helps due to near wall damping.



The current approach has been somewhat half assed, and has been crippled by the idiotic decision to make the double deck diffuser legal last year. That was used by Mosley as a wedge to try and break FOCA - so we have Mosley to thank for this current situation.

[kilcoo316]

Actually, not at all. I've had access to OWG data results and if one thing, the level of downforce showed to be completely irrelevant to the loss.
What was the major finding by OWG was that the coupling of diffuser and rear wing produced a preservation zone for the wake hence why they advise on switching the downforce from diffuser to rear wing.

The diffuser/wing coupling greatly increases downforce, so to say downforce is irrelevant is somewhat erroneous.

[Just_a_fan]

Why can't they get close enough? Because the front wing loses effectiveness in the wake of the car in front.

Q: What component of the car in front does the vertical velocity component in the wake near (the ground plane) come from?

A: The diffuser.


Q: What typically happens to an F1 car trying to follow another through a corner?

A: It experiences understeer.



(1) Ban the diffuser, impose a flat bottom, specify an open area between and ahead of the two rear wheels that must be adhered to... and much of the problem will be fixed.


(2) Additionally, make the rear wing endplates much, much smaller so the upper wake extends back further, helping the drafting effect of a following car.


(3) Furthermore, it may be worth while reversing the current front wing focus from toward the wingtips to toward the centreline of the car. Then, the rear tyres can be made larger and the rear track widened at the same time to further enhance the drag pocket while minimising both homogeneous turbulence and averaged vertical velocities to allow the front wing to operate with greater insensitivity to the car ahead.


(4) Another aspect worthy of investigation is the chord length of the front wing elements, increasing their chord length obviously reduces the size of the typical turbulent eddy length scale relative to the wing, and thus makes the wing more insensitive to homogeneous turbulence. Moving the wing closer to the ground also helps due to near wall damping.



The current approach has been somewhat half assed, and has been crippled by the idiotic decision to make the double deck diffuser legal last year. That was used by Mosley as a wedge to try and break FOCA - so we have Mosley to thank for this current situation.

I guess it comes down to whether you want F1 with front wings or F1 without front wings. Perhaps if you want front wings you also need to lift them from the floor a good deal. As they currently strongly work in ground effect they are even more sensitive (at least any loss of downforce has a feedback effect resulting in even less downforce and so understeer increases markedly).

Personally I'd like to see more underbody ground effect and less wings i.e. I suppose an open wheeled version of prototypes. They certainly have less problem following each other.

[G-Rock]

This is the stupidest post I've ever read. I can't believe it's gone to 5 pages even.
Maybe it's the fans that are boring. Fans like the cracker who started this post.
We've just come from two of the most exciting seasons in over a decade, and had one boring 2010 race so now F1 boring?? Come on, get a grip of yourselves!!

[Sebp]

This is the stupidest post I've ever read. I can't believe it's gone to 5 pages even.
Maybe it's the fans that are boring. Fans like the cracker who started this post.
We've just come from two of the most exciting seasons in over a decade, and had one boring 2010 race so now F1 boring?? Come on, get a grip of yourselves!!

Maybe my memory is bad. Could you please name a race from the last couple os seasons that had more than two lead changes that had nothing to do with KERS, pit stops, rain or mechanical gremlins. And in which an overtaken driver fought back to retake the lead.

[machin]

Here's a simple fix to make F1 more interesting, without changing the current cars at all (ok, maybe a little bit of extra code in the standard ECU):-

VIRTUAL SLIPSTREAMING

Basically, when a car gets within 1 second of the car infront the rev limit is raised by, say, 1000rpm... giving the chase car extra power until he is alongside the other car at which point the rev limit is brought back to normal.... the result is exciting racing that still promotes good design (if you can pull out more of a gap than 1 second then you "break" the virtual slipstream and can pull away....

With the new engine rules that we anticipate the virtual slipstreaming effect could be through an increase in turbo boost (assuming the small capcity, turbocharged engines is what we get)....

OK, its a bit "false", but with winged-cars there is no escape from the fact that a following car simply is at a disadvantage compared to the leading car. If we want better/closer racing we need to re-dress the balance... and this is a simple way of doing it....