Is F1 getting boring?

[myurr]

To be fair there wasn't an overtake there, and it all happened in the first two laps when everything is still fairly unpredictable. In Bahrain this year Alonso overtook Massa on the first lap. Didn't mean that there was lots of overtaking throughout the rest of the race.

[Miguel]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Link to AERS. Still common in the Netherlands, and you can find a few in Spain as well, since they have a special place in literature. They're going through a revival as well, and there are two companies near my hometown that basically build huge AERS arrays.

[Ogami musashi]

I initially thought about limiting DF as a way to free up the aero rules so that the cars could look different while maintaining the current cornering speeds and redirect the aero development towards the reduction of drag which is somewhat relevant outside F1. I never suggested it would magically create lots of overtaking, although it may help somewhat.

That is a sensible idea.

The overtaking problem would have to tackled.


As for cars with "not so much downforce", if you push the example to the extreme (zero downforce) yes; if you push it to 50% of downforce then no.
why?
Because from the leading car, the wake turbulence will be a function of speed okay, since less downforce, less speed so that's good, but it is function of speed over finess, and here is the problem, to make low downforce you usually have to put low finess; As strange as it seems the best finess in autocars is achieved at the max downforce settings (for example monaco trim for 2008 produced ratio of 4,5:1 downforce/drag ratio).

Being included in your DF limitation (to encourage drag reduction) it may work, but special attention is to be given to finess.

Schematically thus, the solution is either ban downforce, or make it high finess ratios.

The overtaking problem spreads actually far beyond the cars themselves to the very concept of F1.

The fact that we want the cars to be the fastest or at least super fast around a track posses a big problem to any aerodynamic regulation because today, all racing series have downforce; technically it is impossible to have a tire giving the same grip curve then downforce because tire's grip tends to vanish away with speed while downforce does the exact contrary, so downforce is needed as long as you want the cars to be fast around a lap. A lap being mostly corners, being fast in corners is what is needed, thus downforce.

So yes the problem is huge.

[Pandamasque]

Here's another thing I thought of. The reduction of turbulence behind the car may reduce slipstreaming possibilities, correct?

[autogyro]

I initially thought about limiting DF as a way to free up the aero rules so that the cars could look different while maintaining the current cornering speeds and redirect the aero development towards the reduction of drag which is somewhat relevant outside F1. I never suggested it would magically create lots of overtaking, although it may help somewhat.

That is a sensible idea.

The overtaking problem would have to tackled.


As for cars with "not so much downforce", if you push the example to the extreme (zero downforce) yes; if you push it to 50% of downforce then no.
why?
Because from the leading car, the wake turbulence will be a function of speed okay, since less downforce, less speed so that's good, but it is function of speed over finess, and here is the problem, to make low downforce you usually have to put low finess; As strange as it seems the best finess in autocars is achieved at the max downforce settings (for example monaco trim for 2008 produced ratio of 4,5:1 downforce/drag ratio).

Being included in your DF limitation (to encourage drag reduction) it may work, but special attention is to be given to finess.

Schematically thus, the solution is either ban downforce, or make it high finess ratios.

The overtaking problem spreads actually far beyond the cars themselves to the very concept of F1.

The fact that we want the cars to be the fastest or at least super fast around a track posses a big problem to any aerodynamic regulation because today, all racing series have downforce; technically it is impossible to have a tire giving the same grip curve then downforce because tire's grip tends to vanish away with speed while downforce does the exact contrary, so downforce is needed as long as you want the cars to be fast around a lap. A lap being mostly corners, being fast in corners is what is needed, thus downforce.

So yes the problem is huge.

I totaly disagree. Having raced a wide variety of race cars, I do not believe that the level of DF has to be high to achieve competitive and spectacular racing.
True, other parts of the car would have to be changed to suit very low downforce levels (tyres for a start) but the answer to overtaking and better F1 has got to be a set and far lower DF level.
All the other regulations in F1 have been done to death and the technologies involves are simply internal combustion engine history now, little better than steam. Get rid of FOTA and bring back KERS and other alternative technology. There is a revolution going on and F1 is drifting back to the stone age just so it can pay aerodynamicists wages.

[Ogami musashi]

Here's another thing I thought of. The reduction of turbulence behind the car may reduce slipstreaming possibilities, correct?

If by reduction of turbulence you mean having more laminar flow behind the car then yes, slipstream effect is a good effect coming from the wake.

But actually, the wake structure is very important, that means the way the turbulences flows.

Curently in many racing cars at some locations in the wake you can experience loss of downforce and increase in drag.

At some other locations you can have increase in downforce lower drag etc..

Some of the current patents from indycar new chassis contenders are aerodynamic devices that create a kind of standard wake with low rotation speeds so that you can still have the slipstream effect but that the loss of downforce is not too big.

I totaly disagree. Having raced a wide variety of race cars, I do not believe that the level of DF has to be high to achieve competitive and spectacular racing.

Where did i say the opposite??

True, other parts of the car would have to be changed to suit very low downforce levels (tyres for a start) but the answer to overtaking and better F1 has got to be a set and far lower DF level.

Here we disagree and i think i've explained why enough.

All the other regulations in F1 have been done to death and the technologies involves are simply internal combustion engine history now, little better than steam. Get rid of FOTA and bring back KERS and other alternative technology. There is a revolution going on and F1 is drifting back to the stone age just so it can pay aerodynamicists wages.

The equation is simple: you want speed in corners? You need downforce period.

If you don't then yes we can't speak of less or no aero.

I personally like high cornering forces style of racing hence i like high downforce cars;

[autogyro]

The actual speed in a corner is not that relevent.
What you seem to mean is that you like high 'DF' cornering forces, not just high cornering forces.
Not the same thing at all.
There is probably less 'skill' needed to corner a high DF car than a non DF car, even though the speed through the corner is lower.
The non DF car will also look more spectacular on the limit, the high DF car will be on rails until it suddenly lets go.
If the aero people wish to stretch the envelope let them playwith aeroplanes and stop ruining F1. They cost to much.

[Ogami musashi]

The actual speed in a corner is not that relevent.
What you seem to mean is that you like high 'DF' cornering forces, not just high cornering forces.
Not the same thing at all.
There is probably less 'skill' needed to corner a high DF car than a non DF car, even though the speed through the corner is lower.
The non DF car will also look more spectacular on the limit, the high DF car will be on rails until it suddenly lets go.
If the aero people wish to stretch the envelope let them playwith aeroplanes and stop ruining F1. They cost to much.

That's a very narrow view sorry.

There's no such things as "high DF" cornering neither rails. The grip comes from the tyres and DF or not the tyre is ideally pushed to the limit.

DF simply enable to push the cornering speeds far higher thus i love fast cornering forces..be it without DF (on a shifter kart) or with a modern racing wheeler like an F1.

[autogyro]

Sorry do not understand what you mean by
"no such thing as 'high DF'cornering neither rails".
The main limit is the tyres always but a high DF will alter the cornering forces.

[Pandamasque]

RCE's latest on overtaking issue http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... blame.html

[Ogami musashi]

Sorry do not understand what you mean by
"no such thing as 'high DF'cornering neither rails".
The main limit is the tyres always but a high DF will alter the cornering forces.

There's no difference between cornering with DF or without DF except of course that the speed with DF is far higher.

You're not "on rails", the tyres physics do not change because DF is there.

The only exception are corners with spare grip (i.e: corners where the cornering speed is not limited by grip but by inital built up speed before the corner) that are more numerous with DF because the grip increases with speed.

Hopefully, F1 tracks are designed to prevent that those kind of corners are too numerous.

Other than that, you still slide with DF and if we are to compare the two, because with DF cornering speeds are higher, any grip loss or trajectory error is paid big, you either do the turn or go off.

[autogyro]

There is a high vertical (DF) acting on the whole car and the suspension of the car is totaly compromised for its use.
Of course a high DF car handles differently to a non DF car.
I cannot understand how anyone can ignore this.

[Ogami musashi]

There is a high vertical (DF) acting on the whole car and the suspension of the car is totaly compromised for its use.
Of course a high DF car handles differently to a non DF car.
I cannot understand how anyone can ignore this.

That doesn't change the fact be it a DF car or not when you corner if the lateral force tyres can produce is exceeded the car will slip the same way.
There's no "rail" cornering with a DF car; There's no "less limit cornering" neither, the physics are exactly the same.

What changes is that because you corner faster you can't overshoot tyre's limit as much as with a slower car because if you do you'll end up in the wall.

[WhiteBlue]

Back in 2006 there was a clear agreement between FiA and the teams that beyond other issues the most important was a transfer of grip from downforce to mechanical grip. This was supposed to be done by reducing DF and increasing the contact patch by doing away with the grooves and going back to the wider tracks. The objective was to reduce the speed in fast corners and increase the speed in slow corners.

The teams did not agree with the solution to fix the downforce at 12500 kN. They said they would find other rules which would bring the downforce down to that level without legally limiting downforce. They also dropped the idea to go to wider tyres and wider tracks to increase the mechanical grip.

I believe there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the concept of trading downforce for mechanical grip creating a low DF racing formula. Unfortunately the interests of the rich teams were standing against it. In a downforce dominated formula it takes expensive resources to compete at the highest level. The top teams did have those resources and the minnows didn't. Same goes for the new teams. They don't have the human and financial resources to compete in a high DF formula where the chassis configuration and the DF rules changes every year.

F1 will remain boring until the plan to swap downforce for mechanical grip is finally executed. I agree with autogyro that F1 aerodynamics must be written out of the formula to achieve this. I don't care if they fix the downforce or homologate the aero or how it is done. The point is that aero engineering in F1 must not be the main source of competitive advantage. Better mechanical systems, better suspension, better KERS, better HERS, higher engine efficiency would all be acceptable. I would also agree to outlaw semi automatic gearboxes and require drivers to use a clutch pedal again.

I have no idea how that could go into the rules but if you force drivers to coordinate more movements with hands and feet they would make more mistakes. Having to operate a clutch is still required in most of the road cars operated on this planet.

[autogyro]

+1 WhiteBlue
I would even accept the clutch pedal, although I cannot see much difference there.
Manual, semi auto or auto boxes? Hmm
Developing Kers and other alternate technologies would benefit from an open set of regulations on powertrains and control systems.
In actual fact however, 7 stepped manualy selected gears would still be technicaly workable with any hybrid systems and makes sense so long as limited power band ic engines remain the main power source on the car.
It is essential to keep powertrain development as open as possible.
Standard gearboxes would delay thing even further.
I think later on as ic engines are inevitably fazed out there would be a need to review the control systems and manual operation.

The big/huge/damaging problem that is killing F1 remains aerodynamics and DF at the expense of absolutely everything else, even the spectator base.