Adjustable rear wing to allow overtaking in 2011.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Just read some really interesting news.

Apparently for 2011 people following a car will be allowed to adjust their rear wing to help overtake the car infront.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 81362.html

Could this be the Revolution F1 needs?

[Timstr]

Very bold (if the FIA OKs it). Like the idea. At least all 12 teams agree.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

From all accounts so far everyone is happy!
It allows a show for the masses and no more "Trulli trains".

The possibility is that once the car has got to within a specified time difference to the one in front, say 1.5 seconds, it will be allowed to use a rear wing adjustment that will lessen drag and increase top speed to the car in front who will not have the same allowance.

A quick fix, but I reckon its gonna work a treat if the FIA are brave enough to go with FOTA.

[autogyro]

So they are considereing allowing the model aeroplane people to completely dominate F1 and turn it into some weird aero nerd club!
What is wrong with reducing Downforce by 50 percent and forcing it by limiting the fuel allowed?
I can just imagine what the leading driver will be thinking and saying when some slower car comes up behind with this FOTA Virtual Reality overtake button.
What a silly stupid and childishly pathetic idea.

[autogyro]

Open up the engine regulations to allow any engine, state the fuel to use and the amount allowed to force a 50 percent reduction in DF, allow open energy recovery systems and reverse the grid order based on a points system designed to work through qualifying.
Why doesnt the FIA have the guts to do it and why are stupid ideas like this variable model aeroplane idea being considered.
Answer because the car manufacturers and the oil companies do not want change or sensible world changing development, that is why.
Aero conveniently covers up all the REAL engineering in need of change.
F1 will soon be in big trouble if it continues to be a lap dog to obsolete and bankrupt car builders and the polluting filth of the oil companies.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

And reducing aero fixes what exactly autogyro?

I read a piece by Frank Durney that instantly changed my views on the problem.
Yes Aero is an issue, but its one of many and certainly not the single biggest factor.
For that you need to look at tyres.

The solution FOTA have forwarded on to FIA is workeable next year. reducing aero by 50% is just a fools errand because it will all be regained by the end of the year.
This will actually create a few new problems for drivers, which is exactly as I want it.
It adds a variable andIm all for it.

[autogyro]

And reducing aero fixes what exactly autogyro?

I read a piece by Frank Durney that instantly changed my views on the problem.
Yes Aero is an issue, but its one of many and certainly not the single biggest factor.
For that you need to look at tyres.

The solution FOTA have forwarded on to FIA is workeable next year. reducing aero by 50% is just a fools errand because it will all be regained by the end of the year.
This will actually create a few new problems for drivers, which is exactly as I want it.
It adds a variable andIm all for it.

In 1990 (I think it was, it was the year Mansel lost a wheel) in the paddock at Estoril Frank Durney asked ME what I thought the number of cylinders should be the following year for F1 engines because HE did not know!
Frank Durney is simply wrong on this issue.
FOTA is simply keeping high DF to reduce the need for energy specific development.
Reducing DF is not a fools errand, it is the ONLY way that F1 can again become F1 and not this weird model aeroplane benefit it labours under.

There is no chance of aero DF increasing if the amount of fuel allowed is changed to suit ongoing development each year. A simple expedient.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

And reducing aero fixes what exactly autogyro?

I read a piece by Frank Durney that instantly changed my views on the problem.
Yes Aero is an issue, but its one of many and certainly not the single biggest factor.
For that you need to look at tyres.

The solution FOTA have forwarded on to FIA is workeable next year. reducing aero by 50% is just a fools errand because it will all be regained by the end of the year.
This will actually create a few new problems for drivers, which is exactly as I want it.
It adds a variable andIm all for it.

In 1990 (I think it was, it was the year Mansel lost a wheel) in the paddock at Estoril Frank Durney asked ME what I thought the number of cylinders should be the following year for F1 engines because HE did not know!
Frank Durney is simply wrong on this issue.
FOTA is simply keeping high DF to reduce the need for energy specific development.
Reducing DF is not a fools errand, it is the ONLY way that F1 can again become F1 and not this weird model aeroplane benefit it labours under.

There is no chance of aero DF increasing if the amount of fuel allowed is changed to suit ongoing development each year. A simple expedient.

Im not going to get into a dispute. But it stands to reason when you take away a drivers grip through slower and medium corner by giving them ultra hard compound tyres, you will get mistakes and overtaking.
This will not happen...yet. But in time anthing is possible.
And F1 has had aero ever since the early 70's and earlier so it amuses me to see how you can be so sure its solely to blame.

Finally this solution FOTA have put forward is cheap and workeable. What will a 50% aero reduction do? Create another aero controversy like DDD. And be expensive.

Why not wait and see to reserve judgement before writing it off?

[autogyro]

There is no time to wait and see.
It is the delaying tactics of Fota that have already put back Kers by at least three years.
F1 with controlled reduced capacity engines and controlled powertrains will not survive as a purely aero formula, which it has been reduced to over the last few decades. Certainly not with this silly wing idea.
Reducing DF and drag is the ONLY way to ensure F1s survival, it is as crucial as that.
So far the weak attempt at future regulations suggested can have only one result, to emaciate F1 and make it totaly boring. Interest will then cease.
Over the last few years F1 has been run as a benefit for the car manufacturers. Now energy recovery and fuel saving is being forced by world demand, these companies are trying to stay in business by deluding the public and the F1 fans by using FOTA to force regulations that will yet again delay progress.
The writing is well and truely on the wall, unless the alternate energy revolution under your noses is not recognised and used.
Aero domination is for kiddy aeroplanes not the peak of vehicle engineering.

[autogyro]

There is no time to wait and see.
It is the delaying tactics of Fota that have already put back Kers by at least three years.
F1 with controlled reduced capacity engines and controlled powertrains will not survive as a purely aero formula, which it has been reduced to over the last few decades. Certainly not with this silly wing idea.
Reducing DF and drag is the ONLY way to ensure F1s survival, it is as crucial as that.
So far the weak attempt at future regulations suggested can have only one result, to emaciate F1 and make it totaly boring. Interest will then cease.
Over the last few years F1 has been run as a benefit for the car manufacturers. Now energy recovery and fuel saving is being forced by world demand, these companies are trying to stay in business by deluding the public and the F1 fans by using FOTA to force regulations that will yet again delay progress.
The writing is well and truely on the wall, unless the alternate energy revolution under your noses is not recognised and used.
Aero domination is for kiddy aeroplanes not the peak of vehicle engineering.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

There is huge potential for this idea.

At a stroke people can overtake! F1 has needed a ballsy decision like this for years, and all the teams have agreed.
So can we lay down arms, applaud that FOTA are actually doing somthing good for the sport, and look forward to more overtaking?

[WhiteBlue]

The discussion about this is more than three weeks old. The principal issue was triggered at the Bahrain race by Jean Todt demanding to cut aerodynamic forces substantially.

These (current) rules give excessive prominence to aerodynamics and make overtaking too hard. Unless there are difficult weather conditions, then the car in front stays there throughout the race and this is mostly due to the aerodynamics.

Next AMuS reported:

In the aero discussion Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren and Williams are pushing for deeper aero cuts. Smaller front wings, simple end plates, ban of all aero parts except for wings and including the aero devices under the nose are all being proposed. Adrian Newey and Red Bull are opposed to the cut because they obviously have an advantage when the rules stay as close to their current successful design.

Of all the necessary measures it appears that only the DDD ban, the diffusor height reduction and the rear wing proposal might come through. It makes sense IMO but it isn't sufficient to provide a desirable balance between aerodynamic forces and fuel consumption.

All aerodynamic bodywork produces increasing downforce and drag as long as you do not prohibit it by physically limiting it or taking away the energy by limiting fuel. Having a movable rear wing flap will not magically cure this.

So F1 IMO needs to come to a decision which way it wants to go to stop the "excessive prominence of aerodynamics" that Jean Todt talks about. The creativity of F1 engineers should be fully directed towards making racing cars more efficient and not towards optimizing successive geometric aero configurations which have no inherent merit but being different from each other and absorbing endless resources.

[xpensive]

Like an inverted push-to-pass I guess, but shouldn't the leader be able to respond?

[raymondu999]

Yes... the leader would be a sitting duck. Also, wouldn't this be exactly akin to using an f-duct which is only available to the pursuing car anyways?

[xpensive]

Yes... the leader would be a sitting duck. Also, wouldn't this be exactly akin to using an f-duct which is only available to the pursuing car anyways?

That's my point, my guesstimate is that flattening the rear-wing at top-speed would be equal to a 50-60 hp boost, most probably more.