Limiting downforce?

[Falcon]

To my knowledge the downforce will be policed by applying that amount of pressure to the car via a hydraulic press during scrutineering and mandating that the car touch the ground with this pressure applied.

Subsequently the teams will have to ride between the plank wear limit and the downforce limit.

Development will switch to efficiency.

I don't agree with the strict engine freeze though. A downforce limit and single tyre supplier will slow the cars enough.

I suggest that development would instead switch to shock development. The first thing I learned in car set up school was that adjustable shocks can be "misadjusted" to make the chassis jack up or pump down, using the track undulations as the energy source. Thus any static test in scrutineering is going to give false readings of the chassis true ability to hold the plank off the ground,
It would be relatively easy to design a shock that only developed jacking forces as the plank started approaching the ground at the end of the straight.

[joseff]

To my knowledge the downforce will be policed by applying that amount of pressure to the car via a hydraulic press during scrutineering and mandating that the car touch the ground with this pressure applied.

Now we'll have people bottoming out and skidding off the end of really fast straights. Bingo! Extra excitement. Max would just love that.

[zac510]

joseff, that is why they have a plank there.

Falcon, interesting point you raise. Would that cause undesirable pitch insensitivities too?

In anycase you'd want it to jack in the corners, not the straights.

Sure it ain't a perfect solution but I've seen all the others and still think this is the best of a bad breed

[joseff]

I'm just concerned that the max load rule would make suspensions so soft that they bottom out in the middle of really fast or banked corners (indy, hockenheim) or even at the end of long straights like sepang. Having the plank touch the ground could cause disruption to airflow into the diffuser. IMHO not a good idea.

A less elegant but safer option would be for the FIA to install their own load sensors into every car. Not that difficult, since they already have their stock ECU.

[Falcon]

zac510
Talent


Falcon, interesting point you raise. Would that cause undesirable pitch insensitivities too?

In anycase you'd want it to jack in the corners, not the straights.

Sure it ain't a perfect solution but I've seen all the others and still think this is the best of a bad breed Smile


“undesirable pitch insensitivities”?? Presumably you mean undesirable pitch sensitivities. No reason why it should. 3rd spring systems at each end of the car play essentially the same support role and teams seem to have no problem tuning them to achieve the desired pitch control.



In any case you'd want it to jack in the corners, not the straights.

Definitely don’t want to jack the chassis up in the corners. That raises CG, increases roll, reduces inside tire grip AND loses downforce all in one fell swoop. Have no idea why you’d want to do that. Besides, the designer really has no choice. Max downforce only occurs at the end of the fastest straight. That’s the point at which the chassis needs maximum support.


Sure it ain't a perfect solution but I've seen all the others and still think this is the best of a bad breed Smile

Seems like what you’re really pushing for is mandated performance limits rather than physical vehicle limits. Physical vehicle limits allow every team to work within them to achieve the best performance they can. I thought that was what racing was all about. Changing the physical limits can also reduce downforce.

Some seem to think mandated performance limits are the way to go. OK, If a little bit is good, more is better, so why limit only max downforce? Let’s also limit top speed and maximum deceleration. After the race we can download the FIA’s black boxes and find out who really won. Of course. anyone who’s turned off the TV would only find out what happened in the newspapers the next day. . . . if they’re still interested.
[/i]

[RH1300S]

I really don't see how they can limit the downforce to a measured amount, it leaves too much open to argument and accusation (a bit like when traction control was banned). They can't measure wing deflection properly on a static car - working out how much downforce is being applied will surely be very tricky. In principle measurement must be possible, but what about accuracy? If you mandate 12500N - what if you think someone gets a reading of 12501N (or 12500.01)? How do you re-measure again in a controlled test after a race? It's a very dynamic thing to measure. Static deflection tests (zac510) would not work properly. How would you set a car up for a corner like Eau-Rouge where there is a compression and stiffer springs may be required? You have to let the chassis boys set the mechanical side of the car up to do the best job they can otherwise the cars may become even more aero dependant than now.

Why not consider turning back the clock quite some way. AFIK venturi cars left a fairly clean wake.

What about allow shaped under-bodies again; have the side skirts fixed at a height (say 50mm) above a reference point on the chassis bottom (that way you limit the seal to the ground dramatically). Massively reduce the wing size allowed - and allow only a single element front wing. Outlaw any devices on the car body that break-up the line - such as barge boards, flip-ups etc. (hard to word this one ). I'd still allow a single element mid wing are (like the McLaren horns), just because.........

I'd re-introduce big slicks while we are at it. Reduce the size of the front tyre to limit the front end grip. Big slicks look good, let the driver "drive" and are pretty draggy, which must help cut speeds.

You should get cars that still produce high cornering speeds, but will be more able to follow each other at close quarters.

[Ciro Pabón]

... Seems like what you’re really pushing for is mandated performance limits rather than physical vehicle limits... After the race we can download the FIA’s black boxes and find out who really won.

Downforce is now mandated through "performance", as you baptize it (hey, I like that distinction, well named, thanks).

For the first time in history, I think, FIA gives you a number: 12500 N. It does not specify body width, diffuser height, materials, wing flexing or whatever, as you point out. It effectively takes out of competition the development of MORE downforce and focuses teams on drag improvement.

You make me think that under present day "methodical approach of scientific thinking" to racing, it has been impossible to limit all things through dimensions and weights: people find a way around that. Champcar pop-off valves are a good example: you effectively limit the intake pressure to a number, instead of specifying physically the turbocharger.

Also, your distinction makes me ponder if this "performance limitation" happens when "rule developers" have been circumvented many times. They finally react by limiting "the darn thing" to a fixed value, instead of having an endless fight with developers.

Let's hear to Max Mosley(I know some don't like the guy, but, please, hear):

"One manufacturer is spending a sum greater than half its total annual dividend. This is unsustainable and sooner or later the shareholders will notice." Sorry, that's not the quote... but I couldn't resist. The quote is this:

"- Changes to the bodywork regulations to reduce downforce while maintaining drag levels so as to avoid an increase in cornering speeds over 2006 levels (Article 3).

Reason: Safety"

For example: all started by reduction of engines (it have been done before numerous times). What happened? Well, low speed downforce. Now we have tyres developed for that. Final result: "super speed" in curves. Without active suspension, we never have seen such friction factors on curves!

Some day somebody is going to "black out" in one: some people say that was what they thought back in the 80's about Patrick Depailler's death at Hockenheim.

Let me quote Mansell, at the beginning of the aerodynamic debacle we have lived now for many years: "A lot of people thought the recent San Marino Grand Prix was a sure contender for the most boring race in the history of the sport." He went on to say: "because aerodynamics are too heavily favoured. The sport has become a victim of its own rules.". This was said a loooooong time ago.

More important for the fan: I'd say the car are starting to get ugly. Look at the development blog: EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE is about fins, ears, chimneys, platelets, wings, winglets, air boxes... Pure barroque. We have a barroque aerodynamic, clearly.

Last commentary, Falcon: can't load cells or ride height sensors transmit data to pits in real time? There is no need to wait for the end of the race, you can black flag anyone after one lap, but suit yourself: any method is good for me, pick one you like.

... If you mandate 12500N - what if you think someone gets a reading of 12501N (or 12500.01)? ... How would you set a car up for a corner like Eau-Rouge where there is a compression and stiffer springs may be required?...

I understand RH1300 states he thinks you cannot use ride-height through Eau Rouge as a measure of downforce. RH1300, that is the reason I said you need "ride height, position and speed of the car, and profile of the track". The last three items allow you to say what happens on vertical curves. And, as an engineer, I'd say 12500.0001 N is over the limit, sorry. Surely marshalls can give you a penalty appropriate to the offense, talk to them, but engineers knows what 12500 N are and how you measure your probable error. They've done it before.

[Apex]

Logging only the Downforce while the car traveling at 330km/h over an unknown surface is just not feasible.

To do this is theory is extremely complex, near impossible unless you make a few assumptions and where does that leave us? How could you impose a penalty by a system which is flawed?

Superimposing aerodynamic and suspension forces is just not on the cards..

[RH1300S]

What I said was that a static deflection test as suggested by zac would not be a good test because the teams might want to add more spring for reasons other than downforce imposing forces on a car.

Although, in theory track speed position, gradient etc. could let you deduce downforce. My argument is that it is not precisely repeatable as a system. What do you do, take a car out of race - or let it run under threat of penalty? Then how do you verify your results under appeal? What if some slight changed happened in the track at the fastest point (like a bump developed or a squirrel died and the car ran over it ).

Start doing this and you may as well say max bhp = 600 or max top speed is...........whatever, then it wouldn't be F1 the pinnacle of motorsport anymore.

Nope, you have to frame rules that cover your objectives - e.g. contain speed, contain costs etc. Then, I'm afraid, you have to sit back and watch the best engineers and drivers do their best to maximise those rules.

[zac510]

Falcon, yeah that is what I want, but only because it would allow us to decrease the physical limits!
Racing isn't always about physical limits. What about endurance racing with fuel volume restricions and so forth.
I did mean sensitivities too!

How would you set a car up for a corner like Eau-Rouge where there is a compression and stiffer springs may be required?

That's it, you can't put stiffer springs in there because that would make the car illegal. So the driver still has to hustle the car through there as quick as he can and if he can't do it flat then so be it. It is slowing the cars down without draconian bodywork laws.

[RH1300S]

That's it, you can't put stiffer springs in there because that would make the car illegal. So the driver still has to hustle the car through there as quick as he can and if he can't do it flat then so be it. It is slowing the cars down without draconian bodywork laws.

I understand, and sort of agree......it's a bit like having restricted tyre sizes now...that's all you are going to get, so use it. I just think that it's the wrong way to deal with it. How do you legislate for bump rubbers, variable rate springs - or possibly even dampers with incredibly slow low speed bump damping?

[DaveKillens]

After reading many good arguments, I personally like the concept of just placing a limit on downforce, and testing it just by pushing down, and measuring distance from the bottom of the chassis to the road surface. It could be that simple, just like weighing the car. In fact, the FIA could conduct tests in the same time and place like weight. Testing after the race, random checks during testing and qualifying. And the penalty could be the same, disqualification.
And what would be the outcome? Many of the rules on aero could be thrown out, allowing the return of ground effects. After the inital few years, the need for so much wind tunnel work should diminish, leading to reduced research and development costs. Presntly, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent in pursuit of incrimental improvements in aerodynamic improvements, huge amounts of money to find improvements of fractions of percentage point improvements that lead nowhere past the implimentation on the track. It's money poured down the toilet, only good at that moment, and only good for that specific car, on that day.
The cars would most likely lose a lot of the extra tabs and crap that take away from the cleaner aesthetic appearance many of us wish for. They would look a lot prettier, and be a lot cheaper for model makers to manufacture.
Personally, at this time I like the idea of placing such a simple limit on downforce. I think it's a step in the right direction.

[Crabbia]

I donno, i don't think the whole 12500N and it must touch the ground is such a safe idea. imagine if a team gets carried away as indeed they do and pushes the limits and the car bottoms out at max speed on a long radius corner. Rmemember bottoming out is what killed senna and i for one don't wanna see that happen to any1 in this generation.

I donno that kind of enforcement is like saying we've tested your car it doesn't bottom out but if you hit a head wind at the end of a long straight its your ass. Sure it's clever cause if a team does push the limits and where down their plank they get disqualified but i'm still concerned oer the afety issue.

This law will also increase the research and use of the illegal stalling aero devices since it only makes sense to use as much of that 12500 newtons at the slowest speed possible and then have the aero package progressively stall as it gets to higher and top speeds.

[zac510]

The car underbodies are completely different to the car in which Senna died.

They bottom out in eau rouge every time. It isn't a problem - the wood plank can absorb it.

[Crabbia]

Obviously, but even with the wood absorbing the shock of bottoming out, in brazil they were leaving half of the wooden board at the beginging of the start and finish straight, but what if a driver decides to change the handling carracteristics with the mannettini on the wheel, softens his suspension mid ride, or he comes in for tyres and wants less pressure in the next set. there's losts of this that can influence the ride hight from the begining to the end of the race and the wood plank could even wear away.