New 2013 F1 aerodynamic formula

[747heavy]

another example for a full GE car with quite massive tunnels (Formula Atlantic)
Maybe Speedsense can tell more about them in greater detail.

[Blackout]

Top view on the Dallara FR 3.5



And the GP2's bottom by Scarbs

[Blackout]

The new GP2:

[Holm86]

On one hand i am very happy with this new aero-concept. Im in no doubt that it will give us better racing. But on the other hand im a bit affraid there wont be enough freedom in the regulations for the designers. I DONT want F1 to become a spec series.

At least if they make the aero regulations to very strict they need to open up on the engine regs so we have som sort of development areas left in F1 ....

[FW17]

And the GP2's bottom by Scarbs

That just looks like a tall diffuser with a shallow angle, noway similar to the F1 type under body tunnels.

The talk was that the body work will be similar to what was seen in 1982, with tunnels starting just behind the front wheel axis.

"They are talking about putting a greater proportion of down force to the diffuser, a ground effect car - like the early 1980's," added Michael. "They have been looking at that, as well as increasing crash protection at the front of the car by moving the sidepods further forwards."

[WhiteBlue]

On one hand i am very happy with this new aero-concept. Im in no doubt that it will give us better racing.
At least if they make the aero regulations to very strict they need to open up on the engine regs so we have som sort of development areas left in F1 ....

Yep, I think the intention is to steer development to more automotive relevant technologies like KERS, TERS, turbo compounding and efficient combustion.

[ringo]

The focus will always be aero. Only a naive team will underestimate it.
The aero is directly tied into the only things touching the ground, the tyres.
It trumps KERS, TERS and engine power.
In fact the engine and the recovery systems are pretty much governed, so i wont expect much difference between the teams in those departments.

I am more excited about the aero than the other stuff.

[Just_a_fan]

I agree with ringo. The one thing that makes F1 cars the beasts they are is the aero-derived grip. Take that away and they are just another open wheel race series.

KERS, turbocharged small capacity engines etc. are just window dressing from those who think that F1 has to be "relevant" to survive. The only way being "relevant" will help is if the teams are allowed to really throw their minds in to advancing these things but I can't see the FIA allowing that because that will require serious amounts of cash to be spent.

F1 won't be "relevant" until the wheels are covered in bodywork, the windscreen is tall, the cars have roofs and seats for 3-4 mechanics to ride along with the driver. Oh yes, that's called touring cars - sorry, forgot about that.

[747heavy]

* Much smaller front and rear wings;

* A far greater proportion of the total downforce of the cars will be created by the underfloor, compared to the wings;

* A major reduction in the amount of total downforce created by the car;

* To achieve this, the underfloor of the cars will be shaped along its length to generate downforce for the first time since the 1982 season - currently cars have bottoms that are flat between the wheels;

* The average proportion of a lap that a driver is able to spend on full throttle to be cut from 70% in 2010 to 50% in 2013;

* Tyres will remain large and chunky to ensure cornering speeds remain high.

just some thoughts about this.
While I do not doubt the competence of the two gentleman mentioned, some things in this report are a little bit strange IMHO

* good, will make the aero more efficient, and the cars will be faster on the straights, there are maybe positive sideeffects for overtaking, lesser wake tec.

* good , see point #1

* why?, downforce per see is not the problem, you cut the downforce, the cars will be slower (for a given tire/engine)

* yes, it´s clear goes with point 1&2 - nothing wrong with that IMHO

* see table below:
I don´t know how creditable these data´s are, just wanted to put them out there. Make up your own mind.
One think is clear, you reduce time at WOT you reduce laptime, the cars will be slower.
The mentioned 5s slower laptimes , it´s quite a bit - IMHO.
Not sure why such a drastic reduction would be needed.
I understand the shift fom wing to underbody downforce, to save fuel on the straights and adress part of the overtaking issue, but why is there a need to make the car´s that much slower?

* this is the funny bit IMHO, tires are not large and chunky now.
If you reduce downforce, you reduce corner speeds (assuming the same tires)and increase straight line speed because of the lesser drag.
I don´t know how many corners are flat at the moment in F1.
But if they want to reduce time at WOT it has to come from the fast corners, as in the slow conrners you will not be at WOT and on the straights you will have WOT in any case, whatever rule you come up with.
Unless you make the cars massively more powerful engine wise. (think > 1500hp)
So, that means you will loose laptime, and be less quick in the fast corners
(fair enough, good for the safety).

But why not cut back on the aero/downforce and double (or increase) the tire size?
This would turn things around a bit - IMHO, because you can gain from a good mechanical set-up.
And thereby have a bit of "road car relevance", which seems important at the moment for one reason or the other.
(not sure a single seater open wheel race car, will ever be "road car relevant" - nor do I think it need to be)

Anyway I would like to see, that they go to at least 15-17" rims and wider slick tires at the same time.
This would slow down the cars on the straights (wider tire), because the tire is the largest contributor to drag in an open wheel car, and any idiot can drive quick in a straight line, so I don´t think it adds much to the show, but will open up more lines and different tactics in corners and under braking.
Because the cars will be more "draggy", slipstreaming and then an attempt to overtake under brakes will be easier.

Just my wishes for F1 in the future - more (wider) tires please!! - it´s Christmas after all

Merry Christmas to everybody at F1technical

[WhiteBlue]

The table provides an average full throttle percentage of 57.3%. Dropping full throttle from 57% to 50% sounds quite a bit different than from 70% to 50%.

AFAIK Michelin and Pirelli were promised to get 18" tyres in 2013 together with the new formula.

[ringo]

747 how about 6 or 8 wheels instead? There is no reason why an F1 car shouldn't have more than 4 wheels.
That is an instant increase in grip by more than 50%.

performance would be more mechanical, and cornering Gs wont be reduced considerably, while being less dependent on aero.

[747heavy]

747 how about 6 or 8 wheels instead? There is no reason why an F1 car shouldn't have more than 4 wheels.
That is an instant increase in grip by more than 50%.

performance would be more mechanical, and cornering Gs wont be reduced considerably, while being less dependent on aero.

I wrote my opinion in your other thread.
I would like the freedom to run a 6wheeler, but I see practical limitaions.
First and foremost I would like to see the minimum weight rule scraped (but keeping or even increasing all crashtests and safety measures), to open up some real competition inbetween concepts. I know, it will be expensive and will blow the budgets out of the water.

Nevertheless, as long as nobody changes the F=m*a rule, I´m struggling with the concept of "let´s increase the weight to make things more efficient".
That just does not add up for me - sorry.

I have nothing against KERS or any other new technology, quite the opposite actually.
I´m in the racing business fo the love of technology, not so much for the racing, the VIP factor, the glamour or some overpaid drivers.
What I´m opposing, are the artifical limitations put in place, to make current KERS technology competetive in overall terms.

Sure at the same weight I would allways go with more power, but if I could choose between lower weight or more power (the old V8 vs. V12 battle), things are maybe not as straight forward as they look, and it opens up the chance for somebody to throw a curveball, and that is it, what I would like to see.
Competetion of different concepts, not iterrations to the N.th degree of the same concept over and over again.

But thats just my private opinion on the matter, seeing more and more (mainly touring car series) are being turned into Porsche Cup, with the race engineering coming down to estimating weather/track conditions for the race, and trying to nail your tire pressures.

[autogyro]

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/10/05/pa ... la-racing/

Strange as it might seem 747 heavy, I completely agree with you.

The current way of running F1 and motor sport in general brings the sport closer and closer to a range of equal technology and same make formula.
It is in danger of boring itself out of existance.

The link above shows where future technology is going, based exactly on my paper put before the FIA AEC last year.
Such a shame it will now be a French incentive and that it looks like France will leed the world in the future.
I cannot say much but it looks like the center of motor sport is unlikely to remain in the UK.

[747heavy]

I think, we could find a lot of common ground in many areas autogyro.

I don´t oppose your ideas as such, just the way you try to put them forward, and that you throw dirt onto other engineers and there field of expertise, that´s all.
There is no need to belittle others to promote your own ideas and ideals - IMHO.
It´s called tolerance, and that´s what´s missing at times in your comments. - IMHO

I also don´t like to read about your gearbox in every thread on this forum and in every context, the same goes for EV racing. There are threads just for this. I created one, to discuss the technical aspect of EV racing with you and others.
Unfortunately, you did not had anything meaningful to say there, from a technical perspective - which I find sad.
That does not mean, that I don´t like your gearbox or EV racing, or that I don´t have respect for your achievements.

Maybe less is more, and a less absolute and dictatorical approach (my way is the only valid) would get you futher, with you gearbox and your ideas about electric racing.
I don´t think, that there is too much wrong with your ideas, but you have a very special talent to "brush off people the wrong way", which hinders you more then it helps you. IMHO
But you are old enough to know all that, and I´m sure you do, so please don´t see it as a lecture, more as a well meaned hint.

Merry Christmas

P.S.: interesting car, I did know about the Trophy Andros cars, and that they needed to split the classes again, as otherwise the IC powered cars did not had a chance. So maybe the sign of things to come.
But a 20min race and a 12 000 miles Paris-Dakar style event are two different things.
That´s all what I want to say.
THere are horses for courses.
I´m sure there is a place for EV´s and HEV´s, but I doubt, that we can replace IC´s within the next 3 years, and I don´t think EV´s are the answer to all problems we face as mankind. Nor do I think that IC´s, aerodynamic/downforce in racing or dry friction F1 clutches are the root of all evil in this world.
And this the the point where we have a different outlook on, I´m sure we can find a lot of common ground in between.

[autogyro]

Happy Christmas 747heavy.
I will try harder next year to be more understanding of others and to be nice.
Your contributions to this forum have been superb and IMO many have learnt a great deal from you.
I hope you will keep it up next year as your contributions are invaluable.
I hope you understand that I have spent most of my life motivating others and that creating a little controversy goes a long way to stir up response.

Since I retired, I have not been able to travel to visit companies and individuals around the globe as I used to promoting certain ideas.
I apologise for using this forum in some ways in an attempt to fill that gap.
It is difficult not to mention some of my ideas, when I feel they could improve the technology in question. Unfortunately I would need to set up my old design office with the specialised staff needed to prove it and of course find a budget.