I have to agree with kilcoo. Despite the increase in appendages, I haven't see any real increase in passing.
The cars are not running closer nose to tail, they are running with the same distances as ten years ago.
C'mon Dave don't start with me too, I need some support here. What BMW did was just the start of this new way of looking at aerodynamics. It doesn't help that they keep banning the stuff while it's being developed.
Most modern tracks have minimal passing areas but if cars could follow eachother through corners, they could maybe make more oppurtunities than now. The only other option to increase passing is to remove the wing/billboards entirely relying on mechanical grip only (but we know the sponsors won't like that)
Well, obviously we're wandering off of the topic a bit, but I'll split it if necessary.
As for the turbulence reduction: there are two very basic things we must keep seperated. First of all, there is turbulence behind the wheels, and I can support anyones idea that the sidepod plates aim to reduce turbulence to have a smoother airflow around the sidepod and onto the rear wing section.
Second is the wake of a preceding car, and while it is important to overtake, I am quite sure it is of less importance. If I am to develop a vane that will gain 0.2s a lap or something that will allow the driver to go 1m closer to the car in front of him, I'd implement the first one since it might gain a place or two in qualifying only.
I very much think F1 teams would make the same decision, even the drivers would.
If you aim to develop an aero device to perform in the wake of another car, it will be optimised for that, and not for driving in clean air. While it would be useful to test a car's behavious in another's wake, a gain in lap time will also allow the driver to pass more quickly the one in front.
That is exactly what it wrong with F1 the last few years. Optimising the car for qualifying and not for passing. JV has been championing that idea'r as well. Have you ever seen a MotoGP race? The leaders constantly battling it out where in F1 the leaders just take off. Well, we all know that and continue to watch but it could be a hell of a lot more exciting if we saw some passing up front. So bring on the wake cheating devices!!! Keep F1 fans from bleeding into Nascar (they may even like it)
I disagree with these comments, I was really pleased with yesterdays race, there was plenty of passing, very good clean stuff too, and for the first time I was really enjoying the revised Hockenheim. The old blast through the forest was good, but there was no overtaking at it was all pretty mundane, bar the odd engine failure.
I'm still off-topic here but I think banning traction control would do a lot for overtaking. When I started watching F1 in 1998 there was overtaking galore and I reakon it was because if you made a mistake or someone got a better run out of a corner there would be a great drag race to the next turn.
If only Max read this forum.
[Edit] Welcome back Tomba. Lucky you, getting to see one of the most exciting races of the season, even if your guys didn't come out on top.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
Im remeber reading in Race Tech about 6 months ago, that Ross Brawn said that even with the CDG wing, there is still going to be turbelent airflow from the rear wing, just not as much as before.
Simon: Nils? You can close in now. Nils?
John McClane: [on the guard's phone] Attention! Attention! Nils is dead! I repeat, Nils is dead, ----head. So's his pal, and those four guys from the East German All-Stars, your boys at the bank? They're gonna be a little late.
Simon: [on the phone] John... in the back of the truck you're driving, there's $13 billon dollars worth in gold bullion. I wonder would a deal be out of the question?
John McClane: [on the phone] Yeah, I got a deal for you. Come out from that rock you're hiding under, and I'll drive this truck up your ass.
m3_lover wrote:Im remeber reading in Race Tech about 6 months ago, that Ross Brawn said that even with the CDG wing, there is still going to be turbelent airflow from the rear wing, just not as much as before.
C'mon m3_lover, this is a tautology. I'm not an specialist, but I wonder if even with a superfluid you can achieve totally laminar flow.
Besides, the main problem here is that everybody wants to push the rules as much as possible to disturb anybody trying to pass, my man.
m3_lover wrote:Im remeber reading in Race Tech about 6 months ago, that Ross Brawn said that even with the CDG wing, there is still going to be turbelent airflow from the rear wing, just not as much as before.
There will probably be more turbulence in the small and medium scale since the 2 rear wings are of shorter span meaning proportionally stronger wingtip vortices. However, the upwash from the diffuser will hopefully be alot less prominent.
He mis-used the term turbulence to keep the explanation simple I think.
G-Rock wrote:That is exactly what it wrong with F1 the last few years. Optimising the car for qualifying and not for passing. JV has been championing that idea'r as well. Have you ever seen a MotoGP race? The leaders constantly battling it out where in F1 the leaders just take off. Well, we all know that and continue to watch but it could be a hell of a lot more exciting if we saw some passing up front. So bring on the wake cheating devices!!! Keep F1 fans from bleeding into Nascar (they may even like it)
Basic physics here...
MotoGP reach their terminal velocity quicker than F1 cars... so slipstreaming is longer and more likley to happen..
An F1 car is set up to reach its top speed at the end of the straight.
Yes PNSD, if F1 cars relied less on downforce (and more on mechanical grip) then they too would reach their terminal velocity earlier, slipstream more and maybe more passing in more places on a track.
Here's my formula for success...wider slicks, smaller wings (with enough room for sponsors of course), higher ride height, total flat bottom without any ground effect tunnels, fuel restrictions with minimal engine restrictions.
going back to ground effect is unlikely to happen, cornering speeds will increase a lot, for the future we'll see the use of slicks again and meassures to decrease the level of downforce.
Ground effects are another variable that increases cost of developement and and inconsistant handling traits while following another car, cross winds etc.
Wide 70's style slicks keep costs down, mechanical grip will go up, top speeds held at bay (due to increased drag from wider tires) and hopefull will increase wheel to wheel racing.
flat bottoms are far too dangerouse, at F1 speeds they will enevitably act as sails, just take a look at the Mercedes in Le Mans a few years ago, that was just a curb they ran over and were instantly launched into the air!
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
