Ground Effect - Bring It Back

[Pierce89]

I thought maybe I should quote myself from the regulations thread. The newest issue of Racecar Engineering has an article from an ex-f1 aero guy explaining why "ground effect" wouldn't fix things.

[/quote="Pierce89"]Every real study into the problem, has shown that "GE" based solutions are not any more benign or robust in aerodynamically than "wing" based solutions. Unfortunately the only way to fix the problem is greatly reduce reliance on downforce. Anyone who thinks conversion over to shaped venturi tunnel floors will fix the current problem hasn't really done any real reading of all the available studies.

Remember the OWG that designed the 2009 regs actually tried their best to neuter the diffuser, because their WT studies showed that GE was no magic bullet to fix the overtaking/traffic/turbulence problem f1 has.[/quote]

[Andres125sx]

Fix the problem is too ambiguous, obviously those cars would suffer reduced downforce when in a slipstream, F1 will never be like WTCC or FE, sure, but if only they could keep the balance that´d be a step forward compared to currently when they lose a lot more downforce in front so balance is lost.

This is not a black/white scope, the problem will always exist, difference will be if pace difference needed to overtake is 1-1.5seconds per lap or 2-2,5 seconds. Any reduction will be great for the show and GE can reduce it . Probably less than most people think, I got conviced myself in this thread, but any improvement, even if small, will improve the show

[Blackout]

I thought maybe I should quote myself from the regulations thread. The newest issue of Racecar Engineering has an article from an ex-f1 aero guy explaining why "ground effect" wouldn't fix things.

[/quote="Pierce89"]Every real study into the problem, has shown that "GE" based solutions are not any more benign or robust in aerodynamically than "wing" based solutions. Unfortunately the only way to fix the problem is greatly reduce reliance on downforce. Anyone who thinks conversion over to shaped venturi tunnel floors will fix the current problem hasn't really done any real reading of all the available studies.

Remember the OWG that designed the 2009 regs actually tried their best to neuter the diffuser, because their WT studies showed that GE was no magic bullet to fix the overtaking/traffic/turbulence problem f1 has.

[/quote]


So Patrick Head and Rory Byrne who did real stdies on the subject for the FIA are wong?

[flmkane]

The reason the OWG reduced diffuser size was because the old diffusers created lots of dirty aair behind it.


However most of what the owg achieved was yo make the cars ugly

[Blackout]

Whiting doubts the change will result in an increase in overtaking, but sees no reason for changes on that front anyway.
“We’ve struck a fairly decent balance,” he suggested.
“Most of the technical guys (lol) feel the work done by the Overtaking Working Group back in 2008, in preparation for 2009, was very small by comparison to the two major factors now which are tyre degradation and DRS.
“Those two things will probably outweigh anything the OWG did, so we’ll still have those things.
“If, as some people think, it may be a little more difficult to follow a car closely then we can increase the authority of the DRS. I don’t see a big issue there.”

[Andres125sx]

That´s worrying sincerely if he really think overtakings due to DRS are comparable to any other....

[Pierce89]

I thought maybe I should quote myself from the regulations thread. The newest issue of Racecar Engineering has an article from an ex-f1 aero guy explaining why "ground effect" wouldn't fix things.

[/quote="Pierce89"]Every real study into the problem, has shown that "GE" based solutions are not any more benign or robust in aerodynamically than "wing" based solutions. Unfortunately the only way to fix the problem is greatly reduce reliance on downforce. Anyone who thinks conversion over to shaped venturi tunnel floors will fix the current problem hasn't really done any real reading of all the available studies.

Remember the OWG that designed the 2009 regs actually tried their best to neuter the diffuser, because their WT studies showed that GE was no magic bullet to fix the overtaking/traffic/turbulence problem f1 has.

Rory Byrne is part of the group I mentioned. Show me where he said ge is the solution.

So Patrick Head and Rory Byrne who did real stdies on the subject for the FIA are wong?[/quote]

[NL_Fer]

I don't they need to make overtaking easier. They need to remove the other alternatives, so overtaking is the only way.

Back then it was easier to stay behind, save fuel and take a shorter refueling stop and overtake in the pits.

Now you stay within 2 sec, do some hammertime for the stop and undercut your opponent.

Both are better solutions from a driver side of view, than straigh battle and overtake on track.

[toraabe]

It depends on the angle of it.

Regarding big rear diffusors .. http://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Porsc ... -BH_05.jpg

The reason the OWG reduced diffuser size was because the old diffusers created lots of dirty aair behind it.


However most of what the owg achieved was yo make the cars ugly

[bhall II]

It depends on the angle of it.

It's actually more about the aerodynamic elements around the diffuser, because underbody flow is pulled up by the low-pressure wake they leave behind. You can see below how last year's removal of the beam wing/adoption of a smaller rear wing significantly reduced upwash.



Once returned to the freestream, flow structures lose energy pretty quickly, regardless of the AoA of the element(s) that created them...

[PlatinumZealot]

Questionable whether removing the beam wing has aided the cars following much closer.
I think Vettel hit the nail on the head... the easiest way to help this is to increase the contribution of mechanical grip from the tyres. This way the downforce component of grip will not be so critical to getting close in the corners. The important bit for me is that Vettel said the easiest way - not the best way, to improve following. I agree with him 100% because by focusing firstly on improving tyres grip before going down other avenues there is less faffing about with aero studies and expensive regulation changes. Just give the tyres twice more mechanical grip for a few races and see how it goes. Easiest thing to do.

[miqi23]

Questionable whether removing the beam wing has aided the cars following much closer.
I think Vettel hit the nail on the head... the easiest way to help this is to increase the contribution of mechanical grip from the tyres. This way the downforce component of grip will not be so critical to getting close in the corners. The important bit for me is that Vettel said the easiest way - not the best way, to improve following. I agree with him 100% because by focusing firstly on improving tyres grip before going down other avenues there is less faffing about with aero studies and expensive regulation changes. Just give the tyres twice more mechanical grip for a few races and see how it goes. Easiest thing to do.

For 2017 they are proposing wider front and rear tyres, that should improve things don't you think?

I could not find the exact numbers but one source is suggesting the rear tyre would be 400mm wide while another is suggesting 450mm. For the front, it is a similar story, source one says 300mm wide fronts while another says it would remain the same

Has any one got the correct numbers?

[Bonker T]

I thought only the rear tires would increase in width.

[SectorOne]

Questionable whether removing the beam wing has aided the cars following much closer.
I think Vettel hit the nail on the head... the easiest way to help this is to increase the contribution of mechanical grip from the tyres. This way the downforce component of grip will not be so critical to getting close in the corners. The important bit for me is that Vettel said the easiest way - not the best way, to improve following. I agree with him 100% because by focusing firstly on improving tyres grip before going down other avenues there is less faffing about with aero studies and expensive regulation changes. Just give the tyres twice more mechanical grip for a few races and see how it goes. Easiest thing to do.

Assuming more mechanical grip but same aero package as a current car, you´d expect to see higher cornering speeds, causing even more aerodynamic chaos?

Does wider tyres compensate for that or simply make it a plus minus zero affair?

[Phillyred]

I would think with the current aero packages with the addition of side skirts or some way to increase ground effects cars should be able to follow closer leading to more passing.