Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[WhiteBlue]

Ground effect (with skirts) gives more downforce for a same drag than current wings/undertray combo. It creates less wake. If the regulations are made in such way so teams would not rely on complex vortex structure to create downforce it should also be less sensitive to wake.

Movable skirts IMO would not have any chance. The ground effect implementation that they would go for needs to be safer and more practical than the early solutions. I believe there are several elements to the thinking of relying more on ground effect than they do now. Have a look at a classical ground effect car.



The Lotus 79 Mk IV shows how the side pots start early behind the front wheels.



This is how the side pots would work as venturi tunnels creating wing profiles underneath. A very slim I-4 engine would naturally help with this design. Turbos with exhaust and inlet piping, inter cooling, AWKERS and HERS will need a lot of additional space which would be helped by the huge side pots.

The front wing could be a very small standardized element or go completely as in the Parmalat BMW Brabham. The front downforce could come from the floor.

[timbo]

Movable skirts IMO would not have any chance. The ground effect implementation that they would go for needs to be safer and more practical than the early solutions.

I have no idea what makes you think skirts were not practical, as by 1982 everybody used them just fine. Also, as far as safety goes, if regulations would be effective at reducing max possible DF, skirts would be not any more dangerous than any other solution IMO.

[WhiteBlue]

When movable skirts disconnect due to going over a curb or any other disruption you get a sudden loss of downforce. I would anticipate that they will demand a flat bottom with the exception of some tunnels in designated locations. That would be a safe method of getting floor downforce with more front bias than we get from the diffusors of today.

[xpensive]

When movable skirts disconnect due to going over a curb or any other disruption you get a sudden loss of downforce. I would anticipate that they will demand a flat bottom with the exception of some tunnels in designated locations. That would be a safe method of getting floor downforce with more front bias than we get from the diffusors of today.

I don't know how often that happened from 1978 to 1980, perhaps just as often as someone clipped his right front in a barrier somewhere, I think drivers going around chickens instead of thru them would be great to see actually.

I say either full-blown venturis without hypocrisy, or a flat-bottom rule as long as there's a car to measure,
a front-wing ban and wooden tyres just the same.

[WhiteBlue]

Anything we write at this time speculative. So lets wait and see.

[marcush.]

I don´t think a tunnel car needs skirts .
Champcars and old Group c cars were tunnel cars without skirts and they had both good downforce.
times have moved on there as can be seen with endplate design wich is all about having more efficient wingspanwidth

[timbo]

When movable skirts disconnect due to going over a curb or any other disruption you get a sudden loss of downforce.

There were guys able to cope with it just fine.

[WhiteBlue]

That Ferrari 312 still got a front wing to stabilize it.

Otherwise a fine display in the art of driving sideways worthy of the great Bernd Rosemeyer.



Which underpins the fact that you can have great racing without downforce.

[timbo]

That Ferrari 312 still got a front wing to stabilize it.

It is 126C1.

Actually, from footage of 1979-1982 I have the impression that cars were not so bad at yaw and had overall wider stability window. I suspect that having skirts would dis-encourage designers from using complex vortex structures to "seal" the air. This might give much better performance in wake than we have now.
Anyway, underbody venturis and less wing should promote closer racing as can be seen in GP2.

[WhiteBlue]

Ferrari called it 126 CK I believe.

That is what Ultimatecarpage.com quotes

[timbo]

Ferrari called it 126 CK I believe.

Yeah... My memory is sketchy. Later models were called 126C2-126C4, and the first one 126CK. But nowhere near 312

[wesley123]

When movable skirts disconnect due to going over a curb or any other disruption you get a sudden loss of downforce.

There were guys able to cope with it just fine.

there is alot of difference with going into the corner and going striaght, which you was supposed to do at that moment.

[xpensive]

I read somewhere that one contributing reason why JM Balestre and the FIA decided to ban sliding skirts, beside the fact that Renault and Ferrari were not very good at it, was that the garagistes had begun working on four-skirt cars, with the two venturis individually sealed off.

Close your eyes and imagine Nelson Piquet Sr in such a contraption with 1300 BMW Hp around the old Österreichring?

[timbo]

I read somewhere that one contributing reason why JM Balestre and the FIA decided to ban sliding skirts, beside the fact that Renault and Ferrari were not very good at it, was that the garagistes had begun working on four-skirt cars, with the two venturis individually sealed off.

Still the general reason was that the cars were too quick.

[autogyro]

Ahhh well I suppose it was inevitable that the thread on regulations would yet again revert to model aeroplanes.
All it needs is a blanket restriction of downforce by around 50 percent.
Limit fuel to a set amount and let them get on with it.
Just think of all the extra work those aero guys will get trying to reduce drag and trying to get something from nothing. They might even start justifying their existance.