2012 Belgian Grand Prix - Spa

[godlameroso]

I think this could be an interesting race strategy wise. If it's dry I don't see many people except for 1 stoppers going straight to hards. I think the amount of downforce spa requires is about the same as Melbourne, slightly less, this seems to be the sweet spot for tire wear to become more inline with the degradation of the tire. I think the harder compound would survive half the race distance, with the other compound good for 12-14 laps. It'll be interesting to see who does what, we can make predictions on the relative perceived strengths and weaknesses of the cars.

[wesley123]

It is always funny to read that. Yes it 'should increase on track action'. in 2009 Downforce still was cut by a huge amount, had we seen any more on track action? No. As a matter of fact I can remember more on track action happening in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003.

Quite frankly, if you think that, you're mad. 2010 was universally aclaimed as one of the most action packed years we've ever had, 2012 is shaping up to be pretty damn good too!

I am mad? Yes I liked 2010, but I liked 2008 way more, I liked 2007 way more, I liked 2006 way more, I liked 2005 way more. All these had way, way more action than 2010. Dunno about this season, I dont bother watching anymore, if you call this action you are mad. I dont call driving cautious to preserve tires or cruising past someone 'action packed', and neither does a lottery, which is what this season is. The one who can handle the tires the best over the course of the race is the winner, not the driver which was the fastest.

[turbof1]

Decreasing downforce does not work at all, simply b/c the cars are run in a technically competitive sport: teams will always find ways to claw back downforce, and with all the regulations they are working with micro aero: very refined and detailed bodywork which does give a whole leap of DF, but is also VERY sensitive to any air turbulence. We have seen cars loose 1-1.5 seconds in pure, potentional performance due to running in dirty air behind an other car.

Flawed thinking – the teams would still be concentrating on that level of detail even if they were allowed the bigger wings. They're doing it because the technology to produce complex CF parts has moved on and allowed it, not because they're restricted on how much wing area they can use.

That said, I agree with the conclusion that ground effect is the way to go... I disagree with grooves, but only because they're fugly.

Technology certainly did allow to go into details, but I don't believe teams would be working that intensively into that area if they were allowed more freedom. Microing bodywork like that takes ALOT of time, energy and resources to get it right. Teams have to invest, when given the technical freedom, into that what gives the most progression in laptime, in the shortest timespan to develop. I am certain that back in the 2000s they were able to go into such details, but didn't do it b/c they could invest in areas where more laptime was gained. It has no use to invest 3 months to get 1 second out of microing your aero, while you can develop -just giving an example, numbers don't need to be right- the sidepod area which gives 2 seconds and takes 2 months. Teams nowadays don't have that option anymore.

[ajdavison2]

I think this could be an interesting race strategy wise. If it's dry I don't see many people except for 1 stoppers going straight to hards. I think the amount of downforce spa requires is about the same as Melbourne, slightly less, this seems to be the sweet spot for tire wear to become more inline with the degradation of the tire. I think the harder compound would survive half the race distance, with the other compound good for 12-14 laps. It'll be interesting to see who does what, we can make predictions on the relative perceived strengths and weaknesses of the cars.

Spa has got the second lowest downforce requirements of the season I think I heard.

[beelsebob]

Decreasing downforce does not work at all, simply b/c the cars are run in a technically competitive sport: teams will always find ways to claw back downforce, and with all the regulations they are working with micro aero: very refined and detailed bodywork which does give a whole leap of DF, but is also VERY sensitive to any air turbulence. We have seen cars loose 1-1.5 seconds in pure, potentional performance due to running in dirty air behind an other car.

Flawed thinking – the teams would still be concentrating on that level of detail even if they were allowed the bigger wings. They're doing it because the technology to produce complex CF parts has moved on and allowed it, not because they're restricted on how much wing area they can use.

That said, I agree with the conclusion that ground effect is the way to go... I disagree with grooves, but only because they're fugly.

Technology certainly did allow to go into details, but I don't believe teams would be working that intensively into that area if they were allowed more freedom. Microing bodywork like that takes ALOT of time, energy and resources to get it right. Teams have to invest, when given the technical freedom, into that what gives the most progression in laptime, in the shortest timespan to develop. I am certain that back in the 2000s they were able to go into such details, but didn't do it b/c they could invest in areas where more laptime was gained. It has no use to invest 3 months to get 1 second out of microing your aero, while you can develop -just giving an example, numbers don't need to be right- the sidepod area which gives 2 seconds and takes 2 months. Teams nowadays don't have that option anymore.

I think you're overestimating what they were capable of back then. Look at the cars from back then, and see how many surfaces you can see that curve in more than 1 dimension at a time (by a significant amount). The shapes they're able to produce these days are far far more complex, that's what's driving crazy shapes, not any change of focus. If anything, the more restricted aero means that the teams will concentrate more on the areas where they can have significant differences – the mechanical parts of the car!

[beelsebob]

I think this could be an interesting race strategy wise. If it's dry I don't see many people except for 1 stoppers going straight to hards. I think the amount of downforce spa requires is about the same as Melbourne, slightly less, this seems to be the sweet spot for tire wear to become more inline with the degradation of the tire. I think the harder compound would survive half the race distance, with the other compound good for 12-14 laps. It'll be interesting to see who does what, we can make predictions on the relative perceived strengths and weaknesses of the cars.

Spa has got the second lowest downforce requirements of the season I think I heard.

I would be surprised by that – the circuit has a lot of high downforce areas (basically the whole of sector 2, and half of sector 1).

[turbof1]

I think you're overestimating what they were capable of back then. Look at the cars from back then, and see how many surfaces you can see that curve in more than 1 dimension at a time (by a significant amount). The shapes they're able to produce these days are far far more complex, that's what's driving crazy shapes, not any change of focus. If anything, the more restricted aero means that the teams will concentrate more on the areas where they can have significant differences – the mechanical parts of the car!

the mechanical parts of the car... yes and no, depending and what you are looking at. Suspension nowadays has fully matured. There isn't much to be gained out of it anymore. However, concerning internal airflow; which does involve the packaging of the internal mechanical parts, I believe there is much to be gained. Just look at the Lotus, practically the only top car without extensively using the exhaust to create DF.
Concerning complexity, they were able to create this in 2005: http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ ... 7/120.html. IMO, what they are doing now would also be possible back then. It might have taken them more time though. But that's just my opinion; it would certainly had been much more difficult back then to create those brake ducts we see today.

I think this could be an interesting race strategy wise. If it's dry I don't see many people except for 1 stoppers going straight to hards. I think the amount of downforce spa requires is about the same as Melbourne, slightly less, this seems to be the sweet spot for tire wear to become more inline with the degradation of the tire. I think the harder compound would survive half the race distance, with the other compound good for 12-14 laps. It'll be interesting to see who does what, we can make predictions on the relative perceived strengths and weaknesses of the cars.

Spa has got the second lowest downforce requirements of the season I think I heard.

Perhaps 3th; Monza the lowest, Montreal is second.

[ajdavison2]

I think this could be an interesting race strategy wise. If it's dry I don't see many people except for 1 stoppers going straight to hards. I think the amount of downforce spa requires is about the same as Melbourne, slightly less, this seems to be the sweet spot for tire wear to become more inline with the degradation of the tire. I think the harder compound would survive half the race distance, with the other compound good for 12-14 laps. It'll be interesting to see who does what, we can make predictions on the relative perceived strengths and weaknesses of the cars.

Spa has got the second lowest downforce requirements of the season I think I heard.

I would be surprised by that – the circuit has a lot of high downforce areas (basically the whole of sector 2, and half of sector 1).

It's because such a large % is spent at full throttle that they need the top speed, I cant find any definitive evidence for this, but any quick search on google reveals that Spa is certainly Low DF, maybe not second lowest as I quoted but the theory stands.

[beelsebob]

Concerning complexity, they were able to create this in 2005: http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ ... 7/120.html.

All of the surfaces there curve (significantly) in only one axis. They're significantly less complex than anything you see today, compare them for example with the acer ducts on the original ferrari.

IMO, what they are doing now would also be possible back then. It might have taken them more time though.

Well that's the issue isn't it – it would take more time – if it takes too long, you can't do the development on it, and you can't refine it to the detail levels you can today

Spa has got the second lowest downforce requirements of the season I think I heard.

Perhaps 3th; Monza the lowest, Montreal is second.

That sounds more reasonable.

[wesley123]

If anything, the more restricted aero means that the teams will concentrate more on the areas where they can have significant differences – the mechanical parts of the car!

Too bad that pretty much anything mechanical wise is disallowed. Funny thing what you say, and I do believe it is true, however there are still much more gains to make aerodynamic wise. And why is that? Not because aerodynamics arent tight enough, no it is because mechanicals are too tight. Teams are forced to run a 7 speed gearbox, a V8 engine of 2.4l with an cylinder angle of 90 degrees. There is absolutely nothing to gain mechanically. There are a few small gains to make by pickup points, but thats it.

The system lotus patented is a great example, and it is disallowed.

[godlameroso]

I think this could be an interesting race strategy wise. If it's dry I don't see many people except for 1 stoppers going straight to hards. I think the amount of downforce spa requires is about the same as Melbourne, slightly less, this seems to be the sweet spot for tire wear to become more inline with the degradation of the tire. I think the harder compound would survive half the race distance, with the other compound good for 12-14 laps. It'll be interesting to see who does what, we can make predictions on the relative perceived strengths and weaknesses of the cars.

Spa has got the second lowest downforce requirements of the season I think I heard.

I would be surprised by that – the circuit has a lot of high downforce areas (basically the whole of sector 2, and half of sector 1).

Well let's examine these high speed areas.

Eau Rouge: yes it's a fast and dangerous corner but it hardly generates the slip angles that will thrash the tires, and it affords a long run down to Les Combes to cool the tires. This area stresses the fronts because you need a good change of direction for Malmedy, here you put some stress on the rears as the exit is throttle controlled.

Rivage: mostly off camber sweeper which limits the speed and thus the energy on the tires.

Pouhon: this is the big loading turn, possibly the most challenging high speed turn second to copse or degner 1. This turn is the one that will wear the tires the most.

Fagnes chicane: is all mid speed, here is where all the downforce is rewarded.

Blanchimont: again yes high speed but not enough slip angle to damage the tires.

I really think that given a dry race the tires will last a decent amount, with most teams opting for a two stopper.

[godlameroso]

If anything, the more restricted aero means that the teams will concentrate more on the areas where they can have significant differences – the mechanical parts of the car!

Too bad that pretty much anything mechanical wise is disallowed. Funny thing what you say, and I do believe it is true, however there are still much more gains to make aerodynamic wise. And why is that? Not because aerodynamics arent tight enough, no it is because mechanicals are too tight. Teams are forced to run a 7 speed gearbox, a V8 engine of 2.4l with an cylinder angle of 90 degrees. There is absolutely nothing to gain mechanically. There are a few small gains to make by pickup points, but thats it.

The system lotus patented is a great example, and it is disallowed.

How closely specced are things like suspension geometry, teams run pull rod, push rod, and both seem to work, and worth running despite their individual weaknessess.

[wesley123]

That is hardly any different.

And that wasnt the point, the point was that reducing aerodynamic dependence by limitting what allowed will increase mechanical importance, however since the latter is so limited in what is allowed this does not happen. There is hardly any room for real improvement, some thing like the f-duct, something big. The only difference you can make is by improvements in dampers etc. but nothing big

[zyphro]

Yeah, I think Spa is one of the lowest-DF tracks; I remember a certain Force India doing very well at Spa and Monza in 2009.

Didn't RB run a crazy amount of chamber for Vettel to get pole last year? They seemed fine with the tyres during the race though - which was rather odd, based on the amount of controversy there was prior to the race.

[Mafia]

F1 with grooved tyres was a joke

In-before-they-were-intentionally-brought-in-to-suit-Schumacher .

and all other drivers were having tyres made outta wood i believe