Future Aero Regulations: ideas

[Tim.Wright]

I'm clearly not suggesting that the cars produce no overall downforce, simply that all the downforce is generated by the unsprung part of the car. The teams must ensure that the sprung part of the car provides no downforce. At what point did I say I wanted the cars to be slow?

Downforce applied to the unsprung masses wont be detected with your idea of measuring forces in the pushrods. Think about it

Tim

[sh^rkbo0ts]

Downforce applied to the unsprung masses wont be detected with your idea of measuring forces in the pushrods. Think about it

That's exactly why the unsprung wings are standardised parts!

Wings and uprights would be supplied to the teams as complete units and raced as is.

[christopher.mahlon]

There are no open wheel series without wings that I know. Of course, if you like stock cars... suit yourself. I find bizarre the concept of emasculating wings or requiring zero downforce cars. It would be like a Tour de France on tricycles.

It seems to me many people wants a series we could call "NASCAR/Europe", instead of "Formula 1".

Freedom of regulations = Championship for the richest

I'm not a big fan of stock cars, no, but I do like sports car racing quite a lot.

Just because there are no major series running without wings isn't necessarily a reason not to do it; the difficulty of a task is not a good argument against it. I think that it is fairly obvious how difficult reliance on wings, particularly at the front of the car, makes passing and following other cars closely. I also said I'd favor cutting them down to Monza size, as well. It is perfectly possible for the engineers and aerodynamicists in Formula 1 to come up with designs that are quick and not reliant on wing generated downforce, and I think it is time an open wheel series somewhere tried it to see if it could improve the show. ANYTHING other than gimmicks like shortcuts and sprinklers spraying the track at random. When you rely on things like that, I think it shows that the series has clearly lost the plot.

[manchild]

1. Lowered nose

2. Banned wings

3. FIA defined size and shape sidepods for ground effect

4. No stepped floor, no plank

5. Unlimited diffuser

[WhiteBlue]

F1 cars need wings for advertising. They also need a certain amount of downforce to be competitive or superior to other open wheel formulae.

Downforce needs to be cut back to something like one metric ton or 10,000 kN in order to limit the aerodynamic influence. This cutback must be achieved by measures that will not allow the designers to claw back downforce. One could use standard components or legally limit downforce. That is not really important.

Mirrors need to be fixed to the body of the safety cell and must be vibration protected. The nose design must allow the driver to see the whole front end of the car. Nowadays drivers simply cannot see the front wings which is silly and not safe.

Mechanical grip should be further increased by wider rear tyres like those in the eighties and early 90ties with a width of 450-500 mm. Tracks should also be increased back to 2000 mm from 1800 mm now. The cars looked like proper racing cars then.



The main thing is discouraging sterile aero engineering and go back to finding competitive advantages from efficiency improvements in the drive train, better suspensions and electric technologies. This will not only help the show but also get more manufacturers involved.

[sh^rkbo0ts]

...

Excellent, I'm 100% in agreement with everything you have written.

I do think you could maintain a fairly high level of downforce if you have an active wing system to reclaim downforce lost in dirty air. The governing body could tune it for similar levels of overall grip (compared to now) at low to medium speeds, but with downforce petering out (relatively) at higher speeds. No more Eau Rouge taken flat. Longer braking distances. Higher top speed. Overall lap times similar to today's. Maybe some overtaking

[manchild]

F1 cars need wings for advertising.

I thought wings were for downforce. The last thing F1 needs is to continue to have technical regulations tailored by Bernie's TV logic. Where were wings during 50s and 60s when F1 gained it's mythical status among fans?

If as I've suggested, if they'd have FIA defined ground effect sidepods, than the endplates would give much more space and more readable space for advertising. It would be much safer and cheaper too, since collision wouldn't mean CF bits scattered all over the track, as well as big parts of wings that can be lethal.

They also need a certain amount of downforce to be competitive or superior to other open wheel formulae.

Sure, and that can be achieved with ground effect sidepods and diffuser without any wings.

Imagine modern F1 car with similar huge sidpod endplates/panels, and without rear wing too.

[WhiteBlue]

Since when are F1 rules dictated by rationality? Just have a look at the tracks and the selection of venues. They all bow to FOM/FOA's objective. In the case of the wings the teams preferences even coincide with Bernie's. So effectively there is zero chance that wings will go away.

On top wings are a lot less prone to have cars getting airborne as a total reliance on diffusors will do.

Further diffusors will bias downforce to the rear and will not help with understeer.

Having the wings mandatorily visible by the driver will greatly reduce the danger of front wings being taken off in collisions. They should also look at making front wings narrower by regulation.

[Ogami musashi]

...

Excellent, I'm 100% in agreement with everything you have written.

I do think you could maintain a fairly high level of downforce if you have an active wing system to reclaim downforce lost in dirty air. The governing body could tune it for similar levels of overall grip (compared to now) at low to medium speeds, but with downforce petering out (relatively) at higher speeds. No more Eau Rouge taken flat. Longer braking distances. Higher top speed. Overall lap times similar to today's. Maybe some overtaking

For once: There's no correlation between level of downforce and wake!
It is a design question. Your active wing idea is good imho but that doesn't change a correct design of the wake structure from the car leading is to be done.

Cut downforce as much as you like it will change nothing if the design is not adapted and past a certain loss, you can have the uberest tyres on the earth you'll be too far away to overtake.

[manchild]

Airbone chances can only be reduced, not completely prevented. Even with wings.

[sh^rkbo0ts]

OK, just found this clip having Googled active wings. Very cheesy context, and not applied the way I would propose for F1, but quite interesting all the same.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7l70Q6P-vU[/youtube]

This one seems to respond to steering and braking inputs, but imagine something similar set to respond to downforce level instead? I.e. increase flap angle when in turbulent air or at low speed, decrease flap angle at high speed.

[WhiteBlue]

Airbone chances can only be reduced, not completely prevented. Even with wings.

You are showing Ralf's Williams airborne after a collision. That is a special risk of open wheelers you cannot completely reduce! I was referring to a tendency sports cars without front wings to get airborne. This has been a problem for more than 10 years starting with Webber and Dumbreck in the Mercs and continuing in the 2008 season with a series fly offs in yaw induced accidents. I think that a stepped bottom is a pretty sucessfull feature in F1 which probably has limited airborn accidents considerably in the last 17 years.

[manchild]

My point with Ralf was that car with damaged or missing wing can airborne more easily than ground effect car would in similar incident. Ground effect sidepods can't fall off, while front wings can, easily.

Ralf just jumped another car due to impact, the reason he got airborne was the missing front wing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHbq845gXwM[/youtube]

[wesley123]

They also need a certain amount of downforce to be competitive or superior to other open wheel formulae.

Sure, and that can be achieved with ground effect sidepods and diffuser without any wings.

Imagine modern F1 car with similar huge sidpod endplates/panels, and without rear wing too.

Would ove to see it back again, but it isnt completely safe, if some instability gets created with these skirts all downfoirce will be gone, that is simpky an dangerous situation, also those cars will go airborne very easily, certainly without wings.

If something can be found to this instability then i would love to see it come back again.

[Giblet]

Wings or no wings, wheel to wheel contact is what makes a car airborne. This is one of the design mandates for the IRL tender, fairings or fences to stop wheel to wheel contact, tread on tread. No ground effects or anything will stop an accident like that, as the cars were in the braking zone and not all that quick for the aero to be doing much anyways.