Active aero

[turbof1]

You can't get rid of the issue. Only when you abolish any aerodynamic device you'll get rid of the issue of dirty air (you'll still have dirty air, only it will no longer affect the trailling car).

What you can try is shift the focus to mechanical grip, although as Bhall pointed out this failed at the last attempt in 2009.

I was wondering if it is possible to pile up enough downforce that even while driving in dirty air, you'd still be able to go full throttle through most medium to high speed corners? This is where active aero could come in handy.

[mertol]

That would either be unsafe and very physical or would require big reduction in horse power.

[Andres125sx]

Think about how much the sport has changed aerodynamically over the last ten years for the sake of solving this thing. Now think about how (in)effective those solutions have proven to be. Why keep doing it?

Because I disagree with the solutions FIA has been introducing

To me the problem is easy to adress:

1- F1 cars cornering speed is fully dependant on DF
2- DF is fully dependant on air conditions
3- Air behind a car is always turbulent
4- Equal cars will never produce equal downforce when one of them is behind the other
5- The only way to solve this is they shouldn´t be equal cars -> active aero

The other solution would be getting rid of aero, but if this is a serious debate we should assume that will never happen. Nobody want F1 cars doing 20 seconds slower laptimes so that is not an option

FIA has been trying different solutions, and the only one wich was remotedly effective was DRS, wich is a similar solution, they´re not equal cars anymore. Problem is it does not adress the problem, it only provoke a different unbalance. One car will keep going faster through the corners, and the other one will be faster on the straights. You cause an unbalance to compensate another unbalance. But then you have two differente unbalances wich causes it sometimes is not effective and sometimes it´s too effective, depending on the cars involved

IMO trying to minimize that unbalance (active aero) would be much much better than causing another one (DRS) as it would improve the capacity of drivers to fight with similar cars, and that´s what most people want to see when watching a race instead of artificial overtakes due to DRS where drivers can do nothing to stop his rival and have no responsability

In other words, artificial racing vs real racing

[bhall II]

To me the problem is easy to adress:

I know.

I was wondering if it is possible to pile up enough downforce that even while driving in dirty air, you'd still be able to go full throttle through most medium to high speed corners? This is where active aero could come in handy.

Highly doubtful. Aerodynamic elements on a Formula 1 car are typically set up to create maximum downforce - or to at least be within the vicinity thereof - which means they're constantly on the verge of stalling, even in clear air. Add a touch of low-pressure wake to the recipe, along with a dash of upwash for good measure, and it's game over.



(Incidentally, this is beginning to feel a lot like the aerodynamic cousin of "torque vs power." )

[turbof1]

I'm not talking from the standpoint of any current format of F1; I'm really talking from a "free-for-all" standpoint. Back in the ground effect days for instance teams would often leave out the front wing.

I do know what you are saying. Competition will eventually push any excess of downforce out and the most efficient parts will be pushed again close to the stalling point. However, this is where active aero could play a role.

The problem of course you are facing in current F1 is the one you described, as well as all sorts of flow structures being broken up by dirty air.

Perhaps we can also look at mechanical ways to induce downforce. I'd imagine a fan sucking the car down on the ground would be a lot less under influence from dirty air coming from the car in front, since the airflow is largely determined and powered by the fan. EBD (pre 2012) was another such form where downforce became a bit less dependent on airflow pressure and speed.

Finally, you could rework the concept of DRS into downforce augmenting systems (DAS?). When you follow the car in front within a second through corners, you could perhaps use retractable skirts on the sides of the floor and diffuser. I'd imagine that would increase downforce even if running behind a car, who of course will not be able to deploy it.

[toraabe]

Groundeffect and less wings. Groundeffect has the benefit as is creates wery little drag with huge ammount of downforce.
Together with 1200 hp cars we could see pole time at some tracks 10 seconds quicker than today...

[bhall II]

I'm not talking from the standpoint of any current format of F1; I'm really talking from a "free-for-all" standpoint. Back in the ground effect days for instance teams would often leave out the front wing.

[...]

You can do whatever you want, but any effects will be short-lived due to the sport's unremitting tendency to converge upon the optimum solution. It's like natural selection, only it doesn't take nearly as long.

I'm being quite literal every time I say that the only solution is set-in-stone standardization. Development in any form adds complexity by default, and complexity is the problem. Even DRS can't change that...



I don't agree with everything said below, but it's an interesting perspective nonetheless.

[...]

Former grand prix driver John Watson agrees. With a Formula One career spanning 12 seasons between 1973 and 1985, the Ulsterman is perfectly placed to make eyes moist with tales of derring do from a time when the sport was an altogether different proposition for those taking part. He also knows a thing or two about overtaking: two of his five grand prix victories came at Detroit in 1982 and Long Beach the following year, where he took the chequered flag having started respectively 17th and 21st on the grid. Then there's the undeniable truth that, besides being one of its more notable exponents, 'Wattie' - a self-confessed motor racing "anorak" - is passionate about the subject matter.

"In many ways I'm from a generation of grand prix drivers where we had overtaking. Or maybe my memory tricks me into thinking we had," he told skysports.com before saying: "I think that there was (more overtaking) partly because there was a bigger disparity between the front and the back of the grid - at different points. At some points it was close but Formula One right now is exceptionally close."

Watson's thoughts on Formula One's overtaking problem and its causes are nothing if not perceptive. He marvels at the ability of engineers to exploit the rules ("I think it's wonderful because it's human nature at its most innovative") whilst explaining how they use the power of lateral thought to outfox the rule makers ("the rule makers think in a linear way and the engineers think in a lateral way"). Then there's the notion that the racing has declined as money has been pumped into the sport. "Manufacturer investment has not produced better motor racing," Watson states. "All it's done has produced a fantastic show; I'm talking about the stage of Formula One not the racing."

There's also an argument that contemporary Formula One relies too heavily mandatory fuel stops to shuffle the order, where once drivers relied solely on overtaking. The stops, introduced in 1994 but to be removed next season as a cost-cutting measure, may have satisfied the need of some for more tactical variables and also give more of a chance to see cars are their absolute quickest but others, including Watson, have argued that the sport has suffered as a result.

"Part of the skill and art of being a grand prix driver is not just doing sprints between pit stops," he insists. "Having a car that's full of fuel, which is what they will be next year and having a single set of tyres, which my generation had, and balancing the car from the point of view of running from empty tanks to full tanks and being able to look after the tyre that you've got - without pit stops - now that's what Formula One used to be and that's what generated good motor racing as a consequence. Bear in mind we're still wearing the rose-tinted glasses." Tyre stops are still mandatory next year, so it remains to be seen whether there'll be much of a change.

Radical

Watson suggests a radical solution, albeit one he knows will never happen - the purist within him no doubt heaving a huge sigh of relief. In short, he thinks that Formula One can only guarantee more overtaking by following NASCAR's lead and effectively becoming a one-make formula. Much as NASCAR has used its 'Car Of Tomorrow' to provide a standard shell in which Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge and Toyota house their wares, he thinks the only real solution available is for the FIA to introduce a standard car including drive train, suspension, brakes, aero package and tyres that are "exceptionally hard by the standard of tyres they run today" - leaving teams to decide what engine to run.

He explains: "It's only by making draconian steps that you will get back longer braking zones and a lot less cornering power than we currently have. But that almost goes against what is Formula One. I would hate to see that actually because Formula One to me has always been about the ultimate in terms of whatever element it is: tyres, aerodynamics, chassis design, engines, whichever. But to the detriment it becomes a very...I have to say 'boring' is not correct but it isn't fulfilling the expectation."

[...]

[turbof1]

You can do whatever you want, but any effects will be short-lived due to the sport's unremitting tendency to converge upon the optimum solution

Oh I know. I underlined that myself in my previous post:

I do know what you are saying. Competition will eventually push any excess of downforce out and the most efficient parts will be pushed again close to the stalling point. However, this is where active aero could play a role.

DRS is the wrong solution all together. You'll never get satisfactory results with it due general grip levels vary from moment to moment. So even if you finetuned it that the straightline speed boost equals the loss of running behind someone in dirty air for any given moment for any given circuit, it'll be knocked right of that optimum zone the next moment. The general trend is that DRS under-compensates the wake-loss.

DRS is quite a lazy solution come to think of it. Nobody dared to look for a solution much closer to the actual problem: increasing downforce for the one behind. It's more difficult to implement due safety reasons, but technology nowadays should be more then enough to solve the puzzle.

I know there's a lot of resistance, in general, towards artificial corrections on wake. One has to question however alternatives like turning the series into a spec one, which in my eyes is much more artificial then even DRS.

[bhall II]

Oh I know. I underlined that myself in my previous post:

What I meant is a bit different.

As teams copy one another, avenues available for significant performance differentiation are reduced, leaving designers with little choice but to develop in directions that inherently add complexity. It's the inescapable reality of any competitive environment that features development on any scale.

On a different note, it's kinda weird to me that everyone seems to understand the ramifications of a developmental series if the conversation is about why a favorite driver isn't World Champion.

"He's not in the right car."

Yet, when the topic turns to overtaking, expectations shift wildly, even though the conversation is exactly the same.

"He's not in the right car."

[Andres125sx]

I'm being quite literal every time I say that the only solution is set-in-stone standardization.

Sorry but that´s a really bold statement... the only solution? did you test any other to be sure about that?

As Turbo said, a simple fan would solve the problem. It´d cause some others, but this problem would be solved, so looks like you´re missing some other solutions apart from standarization

I´m not saying a fan is the solution, only pointing that you can´t affirm you know what´s the only posible solution, because you don´t

[Andres125sx]

Aerodynamic elements on a Formula 1 car are typically set up to create maximum downforce - or to at least be within the vicinity thereof - which means they're constantly on the verge of stalling, even in clear air.

Exactly, and that´s where active aero could solve the problem, they wouldn´t need one single setup for every condition they´ll find on track, they could use one setup for clean air, and a different setup for dirty air.


BTW, it actually is not true that they always try to set up for maximum downforce. I think wings for Monza are not the same as wings for Monaco, right?

So no, they always consider drag too. The good thing about active aero is exactly that, cars could use Monaco wings for dirty air and Monza wings for clean air, in same race. Well not exactly that but you get what I mean, they could adapt same wing for different conditions, wich is exactly what is needed to minimize dirty air problem.

[bhall II]

Aerodynamic elements on a Formula 1 car are typically set up to create maximum downforce - or to at least be within the vicinity thereof - which means they're constantly on the verge of stalling, even in clear air.

Exactly, and that´s where active aero could solve the problem, they wouldn´t need one single setup for every condition they´ll find on track, they could use one setup for clean air, and a different setup for dirty air.

I'm not sure you understand how this works.

If passive aero packages set up for maximum downforce are already negatively impacted by "dirty air," then how could the matter possibly be improved by a system that does little more than enable the exact same setup?

Temporary or permanent, maximum is maximum.

Also try to understand that my "really bold statement[s]" here are no more bold than any of yours. But I have somewhat buttressed my views with third-party insight/information/whatever.

Once again...

[Former grand prix driver John] Watson suggests a radical solution, albeit one he knows will never happen - the purist within him no doubt heaving a huge sigh of relief. In short, he thinks that Formula One can only guarantee more overtaking by following NASCAR's lead and effectively becoming a one-make formula. Much as NASCAR has used its 'Car Of Tomorrow' to provide a standard shell in which Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge and Toyota house their wares, he thinks the only real solution available is for the FIA to introduce a standard car including drive train, suspension, brakes, aero package and tyres that are "exceptionally hard by the standard of tyres they run today" - leaving teams to decide what engine to run.

He explains: "It's only by making draconian steps that you will get back longer braking zones and a lot less cornering power than we currently have. But that almost goes against what is Formula One. I would hate to see that actually because Formula One to me has always been about the ultimate in terms of whatever element it is: tyres, aerodynamics, chassis design, engines, whichever. But to the detriment it becomes a very...I have to say 'boring' is not correct but it isn't fulfilling the expectation."

[mrluke]

Sorry to take this further OT but watching the Brazilian GP I wondered whether a helpful move would be to have shorter tracks which would lead to a more mixed grid from qualy. When 8 cars are separated by a tenth or two then there is more pressure on getting the best lap, more reward for being a tenth quicker and more punishment for loosing a tenth.

A more mixed grid would help race day when the cars ultimate race pace wins through.

Wont solve the fundamental problems but could help. Maybe. Perhaps.

[bhall II]

Sorry to take this further OT but watching the Brazilian GP I wondered whether a helpful move would be to have shorter tracks which would lead to a more mixed grid from qualy. When 8 cars are separated by a tenth or two then there is more pressure on getting the best lap, more reward for being a tenth quicker and more punishment for loosing a tenth.

Meh, you'll never surpass my penchant for off-topic madness.

It wasn't uncommon for the entire grid to be separated by no more than 1.5s throughout the early '00s, but the running order was generally pretty stable from race to race.

[J.A.W.]

Missiles have utilized quick action active aero sytems for decades.. surely that tech can be transfered & be - not too costly..

& what about electromagnetic down force?
A grid embedded in corners to interact with the passing car.. could be a safety feature for slowing cars going off track, too..