More downforce or less for more overtaking?

[mzso]

Two parts to this; lets start with drag. All those suggesting small front and rear wings, you're wrong. Compared to the floor of the car, these are less efficient, have higher drag, and can be regulated to be useful (please, please read the summary/result of the OWG). Also, this is the one and only time open wheels can be considered a good thing (because they're a bad thing). Basically, we want high drag cars that shed a lot (above 15%) of drag when following another car.

No. Wings make the big turbulences and the loss of downforce. The old ground effect cars with little wings could follow closely behind. Just watch Villeneuve/Arnaux/Pironi battles on youtube. Not sure about the wheels.
(OWG? Not quite obvious...)

[Blanchimont]

1. Introduce wider tyres with the most grip you can imagine and make them last longer
2. Reduce the aerodynamic downforce, so that the total tyre force ( m*g + rho/2*cl*A*v² ) * coefficient_friction stays at the same level for v=300 km/h
3. Start reducing the aero downforce with the aerodynamic element that creates the most turbolence/upwash
4. Increase the drag by making the cars' track a bit wider
5. The fuel for each race should be proportional to (average race time)*(percentage at full throttle)

[Just_a_fan]

(OWG? Not quite obvious...)

Overtaking Working Group

[Bazza]

Two parts to this; lets start with drag. All those suggesting small front and rear wings, you're wrong. Compared to the floor of the car, these are less efficient, have higher drag, and can be regulated to be useful (please, please read the summary/result of the OWG). Also, this is the one and only time open wheels can be considered a good thing (because they're a bad thing). Basically, we want high drag cars that shed a lot (above 15%) of drag when following another car.

No. Wings make the big turbulences and the loss of downforce. The old ground effect cars with little wings could follow closely behind. Just watch Villeneuve/Arnaux/Pironi battles on youtube. Not sure about the wheels.
(OWG? Not quite obvious...)

Yes.

We want the wings to make massive amount of turbulence because that can be useful! Like I said, read the summary from the OWG - the main reason they mandated bigger, taller, narrower rear wings was for exactly that purpose. The push air up along the centerline, bringing fresh air in from either side of the car to be used by the wider front wings of the following cars! The best bit is that they do produce massive amounts of drag in clean air.

Also, there's a very, very good reason the ground effect cars were banned. While you're right that they can help following cars, the cons have a pretty decent head-start in outweighing the pros, unless you want to see more F1 cars doing a triple frontflip with pike every time Maldonado gets near a racetrack.

Actually, there's a thought. Lets get Maldonado and Grosjean off the track. In theory, that would cause more cars to be on the track and therefore better racing.

[Juzh]

Diffusers, and double diffusers, don't actually seem to hurt the airflow for the following car, provided the angle isn't very high (see OWG).

2010 was the worst in "following another car closely" department precisely because of double deckers (following a toyota in 2009 with its triple decker was said by the drivers to be the worst of them all) and massive turbulence they produced (also barn door rear wings as a result of F-duct). It got much better in 2011 with diffuser height reduction and abolishment of DDDs. Even better in 2012 with a ban on off throttle EBDs and reducing their overall effectiveness. in 2013 teams were clawing back a lot of lost DF since the ban of DDDs so following closely got worse again.

Imo front end downforce should be increased dramatically so drivers don't suffer so much understeer.

[mzso]

Yes.

We want the wings to make massive amount of turbulence because that can be useful! Like I said, read the summary from the OWG - the main reason they mandated bigger, taller, narrower rear wings was for exactly that purpose. The push air up along the centerline, bringing fresh air in from either side of the car to be used by the wider front wings of the following cars! The best bit is that they do produce massive amounts of drag in clean air.

Also, there's a very, very good reason the ground effect cars were banned. While you're right that they can help following cars, the cons have a pretty decent head-start in outweighing the pros, unless you want to see more F1 cars doing a triple frontflip with pike every time Maldonado gets near a racetrack.

Actually, there's a thought. Lets get Maldonado and Grosjean off the track. In theory, that would cause more cars to be on the track and therefore better racing.

And how very spectacularly they failed (or they lied and protected interests). You see that it doesn't bring the desired effect. It's painfully obvious that the increased turbulance resulted in the follower not being able to get close. You can check out that small winged ground effect cars did.
You're just basically living in denial.
"Like I said, read the summary from the OWG" I don't care what you ordered. If you want someone to read something link it. But regardless. The large wings, big turbulence were clearly proven contraintuitive by reality.

They simply banned ground effect because they were stupid. Instead of properly regulating at they banned it. That's what the eighties was about... The only real issue was that the cars might loose downforce if the skirts stopped working. The Byrne-Head proprosal fixed that issue.

[Bazza]

Guys, please read the posts before replying!

Diffusers, and double diffusers, don't actually seem to hurt the airflow for the following car, provided the angle isn't very high (see OWG).

It got much better in 2011 with diffuser height reduction

Come on I just said that!

While there were problems with the diffuser and double diffuser, obviously one of the larger

And how very spectacularly they failed (or they lied and protected interests). You see that it doesn't bring the desired effect. It's painfully obvious that the increased turbulance resulted in the follower not being able to get close. You can check out that small winged ground effect cars did.
You're just basically living in denial.
"Like I said, read the summary from the OWG" I don't care what you ordered. If you want someone to read something link it. But regardless. The large wings, big turbulence were clearly proven contraintuitive by reality.

They simply banned ground effect because they were stupid. Instead of properly regulating at they banned it. That's what the eighties was about... The only real issue was that the cars might loose downforce if the skirts stopped working. The Byrne-Head proprosal fixed that issue.

Firstly, the facts:

Facts (from OWG or Tech Director quotes)
* A wider front wing with more load on its outer tip is less sensitive to wake
* A narrower taller rear wing create a less disruptive wake, create less downforce and still create plenty of drag to reduce straight-line speed.
* Diffusers are less sensitive to running in wake, they create downforce centred between the axles and if set at a low expansion ratio are not contributing to wake.
* The diffuser was set back in the 2009 rules to balance the rear downforce lost when running in wake

* Double diffusers do not contribute significantly to wake, but do add considerable downforce.

Secondly, saying they failed when there was a significant, repeatable, and very, very obvious increase in overtaking over the pre-08 years means they did something right, so I don't know why you'd chose to say that, unless , as you say, you're basically just living in denial (really? grow up!). This was proven effective in reality.

Guys, come on. You've gotta look at the results and the evidence here, read the posts completely and deal with facts.

Btw, mzso, that's a very, very poor attitude you've got!

[monsi]

The downforce can be left at this level, but maybe the cars need 1000hp to force mistakes from drivers...

I agree: leave the downforce as is, but increase the power if the driver wants it.

I'm in favor of doing away with the fuel rate restriction. Someone posted that this would lead to drivers turning up the wick when somebody got close and would create big speed differentials. So what? Whether you spend extra fuel to overtake or to defend would just be a part of race strategy. At some point one of the drivers would just have to stop burning extra fuel and give up the chase/defend.

I think it would actually make for better, not worst, racing. I can see two hotheads/machomen racing with the fuel rate turned up, not wanting to give in, and the pit radios screaming at them "Stop! Stop! You won't make it to the end of the race!!" I'd love it.

You'd also get some of the sound back, since I assume they'd rev the engines higher were it not for the fuel rate requirement.

I can't see fixing it with aero. They won't give up the wings because of advertising and the now "traditional" F1 look.

I'm with you. I wouldn't get rid of the flow limit entirely though, as the manufacturers seem to want it to control the direction of the engine development. However +25% or so with the current overall fuel limits should create some interesting tussles I would have thought, if the ICE hp is proportional to this then it should be at around 875hp if we are at around 700 now.

[bhall]

Yes.

We want the wings to make massive amount of turbulence because that can be useful! Like I said, read the summary from the OWG - the main reason they mandated bigger, taller, narrower rear wings was for exactly that purpose. The push air up along the centerline, bringing fresh air in from either side of the car to be used by the wider front wings of the following cars! The best bit is that they do produce massive amounts of drag in clean air.

[...]

I tend to think DRS and Pirelli-putty tires have had a much more dramatic impact on overtaking than any steps taken to combat "dirty air." Just look at the jump from the Bridgestone years to the Pirellotteri era.



(via Clip the Apex)

Note how in the first year of the OWG's rules, overtaking actually decreased from the year before. It wasn't until the introduction of DRS and ridiculous tires that prolific overtaking was realized.

As marcush said earlier, more than anything else, overtaking is the result of a performance differential. With DRS, for instance, that differential is supplied by one car having less drag than the other. With respect to the tires, it's about the many various levels of wear/degradation. Otherwise, fights between cars of similar performance are typically battles of attrition in which the attacking driver waits for the defending driver to screw up.

Besides...


2010 British Grand Prix

...that's a whole lotta cars in close quarters, driving through what must be absolutely filthy air. Yet, the increase in overtaking from 2009-2010 pales in comparison to what's happened in the years since.

Full disclosure: I think overtaking should be difficult, and I generally don't mind the influence of aero in F1. So, there's my bias.

[autogyro]

Aero is very nearly the only area where innovation still exists in F1.
The rest of the car is designed by the FIA.

[mrluke]

Underbody aero is less influenced by wake than front / rear wings. More reliance on underbody would make the cars both prettier and easier to follow.

Delta wing was designed for indycar to not be affected by the wake of following other cars, hence lots of underbody aero and no wings.

[mzso]

Guys, come on. You've gotta look at the results and the evidence here, read the posts completely and deal with facts.

Btw, mzso, that's a very, very poor attitude you've got!

Reality doesn't agree with you. What little increase we saw in overtakings are the phony ones because of DRS.

And even what you quoted doesn't support adding larger wings. Because no front wings are much less sensitive and small rear wings bring much less turbulance than a higher narrower one.
Diffuser was not claimed to be sensitive to wake. It was claimed to be causing a lot. (Not by me.)

Btw, mzso, that's a very, very poor attitude you've got!

Really? Because I don't agree with your nonsense? You were clearly proven wrong by the facts of the preceding years.

[mzso]

Note how in the first year of the OWG's rules, overtaking actually decreased from the year before. It wasn't until the introduction of DRS and ridiculous tires that prolific overtaking was realized.

As marcush said earlier, more than anything else, overtaking is the result of a performance differential. With DRS, for instance, that differential is supplied by one car having less drag than the other. With respect to the tires, it's about the many various levels of wear/degradation. Otherwise, fights between cars of similar performance are typically battles of attrition in which the attacking driver waits for the defending driver to screw up.

Besides...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgA3doqwP6Y
2010 British Grand Prix

...that's a whole lotta cars in close quarters, driving through what must be absolutely filthy air. Yet, the increase in overtaking from 2009-2010 pales in comparison to what's happened in the years since.

Full disclosure: I think overtaking should be difficult, and I generally don't mind the influence of aero in F1. So, there's my bias.

I guess the OWG is as corrupted as any other authority in F1...

I disagree. Competent drivers can fight huge battles with each other. Especially if the cars are similar and one can't pull away. Provided that the cars are capable of getting close together. (See the Pironi-Villeneuve battle with identical cars)

That link's not valid. In the first corner is taken slowly with all the field being cramped up. See how sad the situation looked in the past years after a lap or two...

[mzso]

Aero is very nearly the only area where innovation still exists in F1.
The rest of the car is designed by the FIA.

That's the big issue. It's uniformula one. There's even little room for Aero, which makes it very expensive to design competetive cars. I think it should be the other way around. Aero has no real life relevance. The current cars are just technologically handicapped aero-toys. (Not as much now that turbos are back)

Underbody aero is less influenced by wake than front / rear wings. More reliance on underbody would make the cars both prettier and easier to follow.

Delta wing was designed for indycar to not be affected by the wake of following other cars, hence lots of underbody aero and no wings.

What is this delta wing?

[mrluke]

What is this delta wing?

Wow. Didnt expect that. See below.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeltaWing