Is F1 getting boring?

[kilcoo316]

Oh and I have plenty of aero experience at a high level with things that actualy fly in the air

No. You obviously don't.

Anyone with even a 1st year uni grasp of aerodynamics would never have stated:

Reducing down force also reduces drag, which in turn reduces wake turbulance.
This is a fact and no counter argument from those with jobs in aerodynamics is at all possible.

The fact you claim to work on aircraft aerodynamics makes it all the more startling, since anyone in the field would be acutely aware of the effects of both wing fences and winglets.



No point trying to claim you know about aerodynamics now. You've already shown a fundamental lack of basic knowledge, so you've got zero credibility on the subject from that point forward.

[andrew]

Correct me if I am wrong but surely it is the shape of the car punching a 'hole' in the air that creates drag rather than the amount of downforce.

I am not an aerodynamicist so may be worng.

[autogyro]

I will make definitive statements about anything I please thank you very much.

OK. Go ahead. Make yourself look stupid if you want.

I would advise readers to completely ignore the statements, as he is not at all clued up on even the basic fundamentals of aerodynamics.

But without reducing DF levels nothing else is possible.

Ignoring the rest of the rubbish you've posted.


You have no idea what your talking about. F1 cars could easily be designed to generate far more downforce and run much closer together than they can today without overly adverse effects for the second car.

However, to do so involves revoking the flat floor rule, and that is something the FIA are loath to do, simply because if the engineers spot loopholes, you'll quickly have F1 cars cornering at 6g+.



I'm of the opinion they should do it, even if it means mandating a common underfloor.

I am fully aware that a huge increase in DF can be achieved without an increase in wake turbulance. You are also right that designers will continue to find loopholes but all this can only be true so long as a set level of lower DF is not stipulated in the regulations. As soon as such a level is in the regs it becomes possible to construct a sensible range of other regulations not dominated by high downforce, which as it is restricts mechanical handling development, tyres and everything else.

[autogyro]

Oh and I have plenty of aero experience at a high level with things that actualy fly in the air

No. You obviously don't.

Anyone with even a 1st year uni grasp of aerodynamics would never have stated:

Reducing down force also reduces drag, which in turn reduces wake turbulance.
This is a fact and no counter argument from those with jobs in aerodynamics is at all possible.

The fact you claim to work on aircraft aerodynamics makes it all the more startling, since anyone in the field would be acutely aware of the effects of both wing fences and winglets.



No point trying to claim you know about aerodynamics now. You've already shown a fundamental lack of basic knowledge, so you've got zero credibility on the subject from that point forward.

I have already offered the opertunity to disprove this statement.
So please state that : Reducing downforce does not reduce drag.
In an aircraft the same statement would be :Reducing lift does not reduce drag.

Your turn

[mx_tifoso]

You just said that hopefully you can attack Vettel early on. Do you think that answers the criticism of Bahrain as having been a very boring race?

FA: No. We need to be calm and need to wait some races to really see if the new rules have some impact on the show. My guess is no. Last year of the first seven races Jenson (Button) won six. Was that boring? Maybe yes, maybe no. Michael Schumacher won five consecutive championships. Was that boring? Maybe yes, maybe no. This is Formula One. This is about technology, how precise everything works together from driver, engineer, down to mechanics. This is Formula One and not Cirque du Soleil. If people want to see extra show interludes they probably should reconsider if they want to watch Formula One.

F1.com - Fernando Alonso Q&A

+ Eleventybillion

[machin]

OK, so can we just agree that the current cars don't exhibit good wake patterns and that whilst this could be improved this would probably only come about if "spec" parts are used (or very prescriptive rules) because teams won't get there are their own (Their aim being to get the best Lift:drag ratio possible for a chosen downforce level, and not care about wake pattern)?

Taking that as a given and assuming that something IS done which means that a following car isn't affected too much by the car infront, does that same "good wake" pattern also provide the necessary slipstreaming capability? -If it doesn't then there simply won't be the necessary performance differential between the two cars (in favour of the chasing car) to allow overtaking... so something else would need to be done to ensure that this performance differential is achieved... that could be brought about with a technical solution (e.g. a temporary power boost for the chasing car only)... or a sporting solution (e.g. starting grids enforcing that the faster cars start at the back)...

So the question is... does a "good wake field" that doesn't reduce the downforce of a following car also produce the necessary slipstreaming conditions to promote overtaking or do we need to look at other means of producing this differential?

[Just_a_fan]

However, to do so involves revoking the flat floor rule, and that is something the FIA are loath to do, simply because if the engineers spot loopholes, you'll quickly have F1 cars cornering at 6g+.



I'm of the opinion they should do it, even if it means mandating a common underfloor.

Hear hear. Me too. Dead easy to mandate a common floor and then allow the engineers scope elsewhere e.g. KERS, diesel engines, small turboed engines etc.

[kilcoo316]

I have already offered the opertunity to disprove this statement.
So please state that : Reducing downforce does not reduce drag.
In an aircraft the same statement would be :Reducing lift does not reduce drag.

Your turn

I have already clearly stated on the previous page how the two can be independant. Inverse even.

If I removed the rear wing endplates, and replaced them with a central strut, I would dramatically decrease the car's downforce, and at the same time increase its drag, and also the turbulent kinetic energy levels in the wake.

Hence why I referred to you being oblivious to the impact of wing fences, winglets and, as the cases is here, endplates.



I have also mentioned the downforce coming from the floor (note - not diffuser as it currently exists) at various points through this thread. With the quite obvious implication of the lower wake and drag effects inherent to a low expansion rate floor.


A car could quite easily be designed with twice the downforce and half the drag of a current formula 1 car. It just would not fit inside the current regulations.

[kilcoo316]

So the question is... does a "good wake field" that doesn't reduce the downforce of a following car also produce the necessary slipstreaming conditions to promote overtaking or do we need to look at other means of producing this differential?

It can do.

If the downforce producing bodywork are in areas not affected by the turbulence and lower velocity differential between air and car.



Or if the downforce producing bodywork operates in areas of turbulence anyway, and thus is relatively insensitive to small turbulent eddies. However, some impact from the lowered velocity differential would be expected.

[Ogami musashi]

Ah yes but you are still not confirming that reducing DF does not reduce drag.

The correct sentence would be "I didn't understand your message".

It does reduce drag and keeping the high DF levels in F1 just to suit the aero lobby prevents any other work to rectify the other factors effecting wake turbulance that you are explaining.

No it doesn't necessarily decrease drag.
If i vary the design (3rd time) with aspect ratio (which involves end plates, surface), spanwise load (3D profiles),chordwise pressure integration (2D profile) Localisation relative to freestream (x,y,z coordinates),camber, cascades (vortex generators) i can have both extremes.
How?

If you: decrease aspect ratio(small wings, no end plates),have an outer span load shape (no endplates, no 3D profile), long chord (deep wings), low profile (flat wings), no GE front wing (heightened wing) you'll have low downforce, high drag.

If you: increase aspect ratio (large wings with V or C shaped endplates), have an elliptic span load shape (end plates, twisted wing tips),short chord, high profile (2D profile with circulation optimization), GE front wing, progressive venturi channels, you'll have high downforce, low drag.

All you are doing by countering arguments to reduce DF levels is keeping the extreem and not needed expense of countless aero people being paid to quote the very figures you are quoting, to baffle everyone else and by doing so you are killing any future for F1.

Lol, stop with you paranoia. You probably don't realize that Aeros is the cheapest way to be competitive; If they were not there, gaining advantage by tyres/chassis/engine would cost 3 times more!

[autogyro]

It is not my paranoia, it is just a way to prise out some technical jargon in a way that is understandable by all readers of the thread and to show just how much the aero side of F1 is dominating the sport.
Reducing DF by a major amount is the starting point if F1 is to survive.

[Miguel]

Actually, Ogami, I believe you don't even need to change the design. If you increase the angle of attack of a wing over the stall AoA (although it may vary a bit with speed), wouldn't you get more drag with less lift?

You are certainly getting less lift, but I'm not sure about the drag.

[autogyro]

Actually, Ogami, I believe you don't even need to change the design. If you increase the angle of attack of a wing over the stall AoA (although it may vary a bit with speed), wouldn't you get more drag with less lift?

You are certainly getting less lift, but I'm not sure about the drag.

You would get less drag (all else being equal) if it is a rear F1 wing you are talking about and it is the DF from the wing you are describing. You are describing the basic principle of the Macca blown wing. The difference is that you cannot change the AofA because the REAR wing is fixed and it is against the regulations to change the angle when the car is moving. Which is precisely why they 'blow' it and guess what, they reduce the DF and the DRAG.

Altering the AofA of an aircraft wing also alters the pitch angle of the whole aircraft, so it is of little use comparing it to a fixed wing on wheels.

[autogyro]

Lol, stop with you paranoia. You probably don't realize that Aeros is the cheapest way to be competitive; If they were not there, gaining advantage by tyres/chassis/engine would cost 3 times more!

That is not how I remember it when I was discusing the ground effects car ideas with Tony Rudd at Lotus in the 1980,s.
I know for an absolute fact that their first aero car developments trebled the budget, so please do not talk rubbish.

Were you born then?

[Ogami musashi]

That is not how I remember it when I was discusing the ground effects car ideas with Tony Rudd at Lotus in the 1980,s.
I know for an absolute fact that their first aero car developments trebled the budget, so please do not talk rubbish.

Were you born then?

Are you talking about a discussion 30 years ago to talk about the current state of F1?

go check what was the budgets share in 2006 (last year of engine development) you'll be surprised to see the engine taking 50% of the budget.

Actually, Ogami, I believe you don't even need to change the design. If you increase the angle of attack of a wing over the stall AoA (although it may vary a bit with speed), wouldn't you get more drag with less lift?

You are certainly getting less lift, but I'm not sure about the drag.

You would get less drag (all else being equal) if it is a rear F1 wing you are talking about and it is the DF from the wing you are describing. You are describing the basic principle of the Macca blown wing. The difference is that you cannot change the AofA because the REAR wing is fixed and it is against the regulations to change the angle when the car is moving. Which is precisely why they 'blow' it and guess what, they reduce the DF and the DRAG.

Hum you didn't understood miguel question; he was talking about post stall conditions where at an AOA higher than Clmax one the wing upside (down if it is a racing car) has stalled flows conditions; in those condition the profile drag raises while the lift is decreased.

when the effective AOA is decreased the drag decreases yes. Nothing new, i said it 3 post above. This is logical fallacy to conclude DF decrease=Drag decrease.

It is not my paranoia, it is just a way to prise out some technical jargon in a way that is understandable by all readers of the thread and to show just how much the aero side of F1 is dominating the sport.
Reducing DF by a major amount is the starting point if F1 is to survive.

Sums up the worthiness of your interventions, bringing your opinion as a proof of your opinion...Quite a classic on forums and the reason why you have 2 "F1 is dead" threads going on each month with the exact same things said over and over and no step made at the end.

You are boring for sure..