2012 Monaco GP - Monte Carlo

[Tommy Cookers]

Uhh.. check your definition of a "good car".

A "good car" around Monaco is one with exceptional mechanical grip and setup with the Pirelli's.

Downforce isn't a great dominator, Monaco is a low DF track.

Wrong. Monaco is a high downforce track. Monza is a low downforce track. And DF is a large part of what the car needs at Monaco. High DF & good mechanical grip.
-

Monaco is a LOW Downforce track, because it is slow

(DF depends on the lift coefficient/wing angle and the SQUARE of the speed, so if the speed is slow the wings are set to the steepest angle/max coefficient to get the most DF available at this slow speed)


Monza is a high downforce track. Although the wings are set to a low coefficient/shallow angle, the speed is so great that the DF is higher than Monaco's. That's why low tyre pressures are a problem. The DF is so high that any more would be a problem.


Please explain this to Martin Brundle BSc, James Allen BSc and others !

When they say high downforce they mean high lift(&drag) coefficient, not high downforce.

[beelsebob]

Monaco is a LOW Downforce track, because it is slow

(DF depends on the lift coefficient/wing angle and the SQUARE of the speed, so if the speed is slow the wings are set to the steepest angle/max coefficient to get the most DF available at this slow speed)


Monza is a high downforce track. Although the wings are set to a low coefficient/shallow angle, the speed is so great that the DF is higher than Monaco's. That's why low tyre pressures are a problem. The DF is so high that any more would be a problem.


Please explain this to Martin Brundle BSc, James Allen BSc and others !

When they say high downforce they mean high lift(&drag) coefficient, not high downforce.

Your definitions of low and high downforce are backwards, even if they do make sense. The normally used ones are than Monaco is a HIGH downforce track because due to the low speeds you put as high-df, high-drag parts as you can on the car. Monza is a low downforce track because you try to put as low-df low-drag parts as you can on the car.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Uhh.. check your definition of a "good car".

A "good car" around Monaco is one with exceptional mechanical grip and setup with the Pirelli's.

Downforce isn't a great dominator, Monaco is a low DF track.

Wrong. Monaco is a high downforce track. Monza is a low downforce track. And DF is a large part of what the car needs at Monaco. High DF & good mechanical grip.
-

Monaco is a LOW Downforce track, because it is slow

(DF depends on the lift coefficient/wing angle and the SQUARE of the speed, so if the speed is slow the wings are set to the steepest angle/max coefficient to get the most DF available at this slow speed)


Monza is a high downforce track. Although the wings are set to a low coefficient/shallow angle, the speed is so great that the DF is higher than Monaco's. That's why low tyre pressures are a problem. The DF is so high that any more would be a problem.


Please explain this to Martin Brundle BSc, James Allen BSc and others !

When they say high downforce they mean high lift(&drag) coefficient, not high downforce.

James Allison, Lotus technical director
“We’ve got a bigger rear wing as you need more downforce at Monaco than you need anywhere else

Link

Here's James Allen site specifically calling Singapore a "high downforce" track.

The most stark illustration of this is the front wing. If you compare their front wing for the low downforce Monza circuit and for the high downforce Singapore circuit

Link

Mark Smith, Caterham technical director

We all use high downforce settings, and we have a specific aero configuration we will use in Monaco and probably Hungary, but the days of cars sprouting all sorts of special wings just for Monaco are behind us. The cars may not look hugely different to how they appeared in Spain, but we do have as much downforce as we can find for the whole weekend in Monte Carlo.

Link

Aerodynamics
Monaco demands the highest downforce levels of the season. Contrary to popular belief, the primary benefit does not come in the corners, as many of them are taken at such low speeds that mechanical grip is of greater importance. Rather, the gains from high downforce come under braking and acceleration, keeping the car stable into the corners and ensuring optimum traction on the exit.

Official F1 Site Monaco Track Guide


I understand what you're saying, but Monaco is a high downforce track. Meaning the cars need high/lots of downforce. Monza is a low downforce track as they use smaller wings etc to make less DF.

The fact is Zyphro said DF isn't a "dominator" in Monaco when it absolutely is. It's much needed.

[Tommy Cookers]

The DF at Monza is greater than that at Monaco. Look at the load readings.

I expect people to continue mis-describe it; I shall not lose any sleep over this.
Martin Brundle (who I admire) always described dry-weather tyres as slicks (even when they were treaded), does that make him right ?

We all know how the DF comes to be mis-described.

I wouldn't bother, except that the correct poster was told that he was incorrect.

The cars always make as much DF as they can use.
At Monaco it is limited by the rules on wing area etc, they can't get enough.
At Monza they can get all the DF they can use with a smaller wing because of the high speed, a Monaco wing at Monza would be 30 mph slower on the straights.
For any given wing&angle the DF at 200 mph will be 4 times the DF at 100 mph.

[amouzouris]

The DF at Monza is greater than that at Monaco. Look at the load readings.

I expect people to continue mis-describe it; I shall not lose any sleep over this.
Martin Brundle (who I admire) always described dry-weather tyres as slicks (even when they were treaded), does that make him right ?

We all know how the DF comes to be mis-described.

I wouldn't bother, except that the correct poster was told that he was incorrect.

i think that you are misunderstanding the meaning of a high downforce and low downforce track....when saying high and low downforce we mean the downforce requirements of the track...not the maximum downforce a car can produce in a track... the wings are cranked up to the maximum angle of attack in Monaco because as you said it is low speed...so you need a lot more downforce....i hope this clears things out....

[PlatinumZealot]

A smart guy eh?

Monaco has the highest Downforce to speed ratio of any track. You run a setup that gives you the highest down-force speed for speed.

When people say high down-force they mean the setup of the car is targeted to producing as Much down-force as legally possible. At Monza this is not the case.

I know you know this, but why do you think otherwise?

[amouzouris]

Trying to be a smart guy?

Monaco has the highest Downforce to speed ratio of any track. You run a setup that gives you the highest down-force speed for speed.

When people say high down-force they mean the setup of the car is targeted to producing as Much down-force as legally possible. At Monza this is not the case.

+1 much better explained!

[Tommy Cookers]

For any given wing and wing angle the DF at 200 mph will be 4 times that at 100 mph !

[beelsebob]

For any given wing and wing angle the DF at 200 mph will be 4 times that at 100 mph !

Urgh, you're really trying not to understand this, aren't you?

[Tommy Cookers]

There is a limit on wing area, there is no limit (in the rules) on DF.
There is load cell data that would show the actual values reached.

[amouzouris]

There is a limit on wing area, there is no limit (in the rules) on DF.
There is load cell data that would show the actual values reached.

then YOU should go have a look at them...

[Tommy Cookers]

I think that I was supporting the poster who was told that he was wrong.

[Gerhard Berger]

Ross Brawn on the subject in 1997:

"This [Monaco] is a very high downforce circuit, where absoulute aerodynamic efficiency isn't too important but the amount of downforce you can generate is. If you compare Monza to here [Monaco], we're probably generating another 40-50% downforce here than we are at Monza. "

But i'm sure Tommy Cookers knows more about this subject than one of the greatest technical directors in F1 history.

[Nando]

Trying to be a smart guy?

Monaco has the highest Downforce to speed ratio of any track. You run a setup that gives you the highest down-force speed for speed.

When people say high down-force they mean the setup of the car is targeted to producing as Much down-force as legally possible. At Monza this is not the case.

+1 much better explained!

Yea but i question how much of it was actually registered.

[beelsebob]

Ross Brawn on the subject in 1997:

"This [Monaco] is a very high downforce circuit, where absoulute aerodynamic efficiency isn't too important but the amount of downforce you can generate is. If you compare Monza to here [Monaco], we're probably generating another 40-50% downforce here than we are at Monza. "

But i'm sure Tommy Cookers knows more about this subject than one of the greatest technical directors in F1 history.

To be fair, they're almost certainly both right – Ross will almost certainly mean that at any given speed the Monaco setup generates 40-50% more downforce... But, ultimately, where Tommy is wrong is that in F1 "high downforce" circuits are circuits at which the cars are set up to generate a high amount of downforce at a unit speed, not circuits where the downforce generated at max speed on that circuit is maximised.