Drag v/s downforce

[DaveW]

It also depends on the series. The "relationship between drag and downforce" you choose in your regulations (because there IS one relationship chosen by regulators, even taking in account n_smikle, Mystery Steve and horse intelligent comments) defines how boring the series is to watch.

At the risk of being a bore, Ciro, can I suggest that the diagram you posted (I think it comes from somewhere deep within the FIA) is misleading. Put baldly, it is ridiculous to suggest that "Cars naturally separate" when "in the wake of another car". That implies that the wake of a lead car increases the drag of a following car, or a following car reduces the drag of a lead car by more than the drag reduction it experiences. Neither is tenable, I think, except through limit handling corners where just one racing line exists.

Why is it that the two vehicle types depending most on aero for performance are at opposite ends of the spectrum (F1 & NASCAR), or nearly so? Also, why are F3 & GP2 close to the "F1 end" of the spectrum when close following & even overtaking are not uncommon in their races?

The fact is most vehicles/tyres require a sensible suspension set-up to fall back on when the downforce reduces even when they are not limit cornering. F1, as a series, is unusual because they don't revert to a sensible "mechanical" suspension set-up at low levels of downforce (typically, front vertical spring rates used in F1 are several times those used in F3 & even GP2 - both at the wheels). As a result, tyres are quickly destroyed when following another vehicle closely. Another issue appears to be that engines can over-heat when following another vehicle closely.

Both of the above are team decisions. They "optimize" their designs to such an extent that close following is not an option. It might be interesting to speculate what the precise benefits are for this strategy, & what the costs would be of adopting a more "race-able" compromise (bearing in mind, to repeat myself, that F1 & GP2 qualifying times overlap on some circuits).

[PlatinumZealot]

One has to be careful to separate straight line wake Vs wake in a turn.

straight line wake will not separate the cars but bring them together.
In a curve where the speed through of the car is heavily dependent on downforce, any wake will separate the following car.

So it is two different scenarios.

[marcush.]

The fact is most vehicles/tyres require a sensible suspension set-up to fall back on when the downforce reduces even when they are not limit cornering. F1, as a series, is unusual because they don't revert to a sensible "mechanical" suspension set-up at low levels of downforce (typically, front vertical spring rates used in F1 are several times those used in F3 & even GP2 - both at the wheels). As a result, tyres are quickly destroyed when following another vehicle closely. Another issue appears to be that engines can over-heat when following another vehicle closely.

Both of the above are team decisions. They "optimize" their designs to such an extent that close following is not an option. It might be interesting to speculate what the precise benefits are for this strategy, & what the costs would be of adopting a more "race-able" compromise (bearing in mind, to repeat myself, that F1 & GP2 qualifying times overlap on some circuits).

As we have seen already in the past few races ,the teams take a surprisingly long time to adopt to the new situation with the tyres and seem to be stuck to their habits..I could imagine that no or almost nil of their considerations go into scenarios of two or more cars running close to each other or even more outlandish suspension setups to be tailored to keep tyres alive under those conditions of reduced downforce...is it ignorance or are these so clever they can put a number behind this and tick it off as too much restricting out and out performance? Clearly the RBs have shown in recent years a lack of traffic performance (driver or equipment induced)..