Downforce solution?

[DaveKillens]

You can attack about any sport or recreational activity concerning the environment. Heck, fishing is one of the most popular recreational activities around the world. Yet people usually drive to their favorite fishing spots, and thus it's a huge contributor to pollution. How many liters of hydrocarbons are burned transporting soccer fans? In race events, the actual race cars and the amount of fuel they burn is just a very small fraction of what is actually used when you add up the grand total for the entire event. Fans driving to the track, transporters carrying the cars and equipment, the aircraft transporting fans and drivers, the list goes on and on. For the cars that actually compete on the track, think of them as just technology demonstrators.
Let's cast back to the past and take a gander at the Alfa Romeo 179, the car Patrick Depailler died in. It was a 3 liter V-12 with full ground effects. It had wings, but basically just for balance because the ground effects contributed for most of the downforce. That was over 26 years ago, and drivers had complained that the cars were going through the corners just too fast. Because of so much downforce, the cars were not driven, but aimed through the corners, and there's a reason why such levels of downforce were banned.
If the rules were dropped and the teams allowed, they could easily construct a monster with incredible performance, going like stink. But they would also run at levels that could impair the pilot, maybe even incapacitating him, leading to possible disaster. These days it's not about striving for sheer performance, but instead finding a reasonable balance between entertainment, performance, and safety.
I'm not saying the FIA is perfect, I believe that some times they totally screw up. But somehow despite Mad Max and their errors, we have a pretty decent sport, and most decisions seem to work out OK.

[Carlos]

Dave Killens I wonder if the 1981 "dual chassis" Lotus 88 would be a compromise. The undertray was without defusser but was skirted -- the
small wings and bodywork supplied the downforce, the body was attached to each wheel upright by coil damper units and downforce acted directly upon the suspension -- a hybrid mechanical grip aero solution instead of an outright high down force aero undertray downforce solution -- but your basic premise stands -- how can a racepilot "drive" a corner at ; what 3G's to 5G's -- Wear A "G-Suit" like a fighter pilot? What sort of mathematical precision does it take to calculate & aim for an apex and recalculate for an exit. Can men be paid enough to endure such conditions and danger?

[AeroGT3]

First, I am not saying remove the rules and let the aerodynamicsts kill all the drivers with G forces.

What I am saying is that the FIA is going about reducing speeds and reducing downforce in the totally wrong way. They're going about cost cutting the totally wrong way.

Their engine rules attempted to 1.) slow the cars down, and 2.) reduce costs.

They failed on both accounts, actually increasing cost considerably.

They tried to make racing "cheaper" by going with one set of tires per race. Boy, wasn't that a safe one?

The FIA wants to effectively ban downforce because it inhibits passing. Downforce does not inhibit passing, their rules do. If their rules were more liberal on the undertray side, there wouldn't be the need for the huge wings and turbulence creating body work. A nice, efficient tray, with small wings used for balalnce, would be the resulting aerodynamic configuration. Passing would be easier and the cars could be just as fast (or slower) than they are now if needed. The FIA needs to ban bodywork and open the door to undertrays. Kind of like - you guessed it - exactly what modern road going sports cars use!

How many huge wings do you see on road cars? Zero. Talk about F1's irrelevance to road cars! They're inefficient, ugly, and obstruct view. Which is why all supercars have tons of undertray work and very small wings, if any.

As far as going green goes, I don't want to see it in racing. I am sure hybrid's are great, but nothing about an electric F1 car excites me. F1 engine should be loud and revv high and spew pollution. Bike day? Fine, have at it. Here in America, we can't bike anywhere. The urban environment is totally different here and you'd find yourself needing to bike over 100 miles a day to get to and from work and run all your errands. Good luck with that! I bike to campus in the mornings because its only a mile away, but other than that, very few places are places you could get to without a car. The average commute distance here is 20-60 miles. That's not biking distance!

F1 is not about low CO2 emissions. Its about speed and entertainment. A hybrid motor which weighs more and produces lower power and doesn't sound as cool is not what I want to watch. It's just not as entertaining.

[johny]

we won't have 22 prius racing as said before, what FIA wants is that most invests in R&D could be used to search new ways to move the cars, for example heat recovering systems and braking energy recovering sounds advanced and very interesting.

F1 in future should be something more than go fast and polute. Maybe we really want to see that, mainly because we're a bunch of petrolheads, but think about those who acassionaly watch a race or even those who hate that money spent puluting sport. People are taking care about global warming more and more and why not using those ultra qualified engeneers and all founds avaliable for an F1 team.

I'll use your argument against bike, can you imagine all people that must travel more than 100miles a day all around the world? i won't calculate but sounds a lot for me, why can't researchs in F1 be suitable for every road car?

not to go offtopic: i agree with moving all downforce to the undertray, just leave some primitive wings for sponsorship

[DaveKillens]

[quote="AeroGT3"]What I am saying is that the FIA is going about reducing speeds and reducing downforce in the totally wrong way. They're going about cost cutting the totally wrong way.[quote]

I could not agree more. To say I agree 100% with that statement is an understatement. Mad Max gets a fundamentally, well meaning idea (let's reduce engine costs), then everything past that point is a total mess.

The Lotus 88 was another of Colin Chapman's great ideas, and it's a shame that concept was scrapped.
I have no problem with downforce and wings, it's just that if they are not limited, it could be a recipe for disaster. Personally, I don't like the looks of huge wings. But then again, a Formula car isn't supposed to look like anything you would see on the street. Single, open cockpit, exposed wheeels, all the other cool-loking stuff. Everything's a balance between too much and not enough, and sadly, you can never please everyone.

[BreezyRacer]

I believe that moveable aero devices would increase passing. The leading car trims back wings to increase speed but in doing so reduces wake, helping, to some extent, the following car in the draft.

More driver variables equal more opportunities for passing. Also it would add more strategy to the driving. Kind of makes me reflect on the way the Schu used brake balance settings between corners to fine tune the handling.

It would be one more technical bit that F1 can drive development on .. opps I have to take that back .. lots of street cars these days have moveable wings and adjustable ride height so I guess F1 wouldn't be leading technology in this field, but again, I believe it would increase passing.

I would imagine that rules would regulate it to making a single wing element on front and rear wings adjustable maybe within a max pitch range of 15 degrees. That would probably be enough to start getting the ball rolling.

[Reca]

I believe that moveable aero devices would increase passing. The leading car trims back wings to increase speed but in doing so reduces wake, helping, to some extent, the following car in the draft.

A reduction of drag of the leading car in straight line is possibly the last thing the driver of the following car needs.

[jbenum]

However, if moveable aero was allowed, a car in a wake could increase its downforce, and thus be able to follow the leader closer in turns.

[DaveKillens]

Moveable aero could also lead to dirty tricks. The lead car could decrease or increase downforce and the turbulence behind him, and mess up the following car at inopportune times.
Imagine exiting Parabolica at Monza, and the lead car suddenly cranked in maximum downforce (and thus turbulence) half way out of the corner, while the cars are under maximum acceleration and running close to the outside. It's conceivable the following car could lose downforce, and skate into the grass.

[johny]

IMO it would be the same that today, with maximun downforce levels at turn exit the leading car will create lot of turbulences slowing cars behind and difficulting drafting, that's why nowadays long straights are needed and heavy braking zones to minimize that. As said before it doesn't sound a solution for me

[AeroGT3]

I believe that moveable aero devices would increase passing. The leading car trims back wings to increase speed but in doing so reduces wake, helping, to some extent, the following car in the draft.

A reduction of drag of the leading car in straight line is possibly the last thing the driver of the following car needs.

The biggest negative impact on following cars is upwash, which is 100% a function of induced DRAG. So for the following car, a reducing in drag on the leading car would be the best they could possibly hope for.

[Reca]

The biggest negative impact on following cars is upwash, which is 100% a function of induced DRAG. So for the following car, a reducing in drag on the leading car would be the best they could possibly hope for.

The best the following driver could possibly hope for is a leading car reaching top speed as soon as possible in the straight line so that exploiting slipstreaming (hence still accelerating) he could catch it.
If you allow the leading car to reduce drag in straight line it will continue to accelerate all the way till the braking point to lot higher speed than it could reach with the drag it generates in corners. In that situation the small reduction of drag that the trailing car experiences in the wake will not be enough to allow it to get close in the limited time/space available.

Besides, that “biggest negative impact” is actually also what makes possible the drag reduction for the trailing car in straight line that is the whole point of slipstreaming, so if you reduce it you most likely also reduce the drag loss for the trailing car.

[BreezyRacer]

I would see that any car that hits the track would be pretty optimized for the track for that track, much as it is today. However, by being able to temporarily adjust wing angles a driver could sacrifice drag for downforce when in dirty air, such as the wake of a leading vehicle.

Maybe only the front wing should be adjustable, and maybe there would be a maximum amount of time that a driver could use the adjustment in a race. For example, make the button require constant driver attention such as having to hold a button in to adjust the wing angle, and maybe allow something like 60 to 100 seconds of use in a race. It, of course, could not be used for qualy.

I believe that something like this could cure the dirty air effect, and give F1 designers something new to chew on at the same time. Also the cars wouldn't look stupid, like with the proposed split rear wing design.

[kilcoo316]

Maybe only the front wing should be adjustable, and maybe there would be a maximum amount of time that a driver could use the adjustment in a race.

It has been suggested to Max Mosley, who has indicated it was suggested to the teams - they were interested in the idea - but no decision was made on it.

[BreezyRacer]

It has been suggested to Max Mosley, who has indicated it was suggested to the teams - they were interested in the idea - but no decision was made on it.

Thanks for suggesting it to him Kilcoo!