Active aero

[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.

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?

Because it wouldn´t be exact same setup. I explained it in the first post of the thread

- If FIA can control max DF created, wings could adopt higher AoA when in a slitpstream (automatically), to compensate the DF drop due to dirty air. It will never be like in clean air, but it will be much better than today with fixed wings so overtaking would be easier
- If not posible, then a higher AoA could be allowed when behind a car.

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.

Sorry but no, I´ve never stated anything. I´m proposing a solution and asking for opinions

but since I´m not an aeronautical engineer I´d love to read opinions from people with real knownledge about the subject

Wich is very different to state "the only solution is what I´m saying", even if a former F1 driver agree with you, there are opinions of F1 driver in every direction you can think about, but they´re only that, drivers, not engineers

[turbof1]

- If FIA can control max DF created, wings could adopt higher AoA when in a slitpstream (automatically), to compensate the DF drop due to dirty air. It will never be like in clean air, but it will be much better than today with fixed wings so overtaking would be easier

That's the issue - if. I sincerely do not believe it to be possible. At which speed do impose which max force? What about circuits like Mexico where air density diminishes the force applied? How about cold and misty days which condenses air and increases force?

I do follow you that a downforce augmenting system should be in place when following close to an other car in the corners. However, making the amount of downforce variable to the difference of the current force applied and a max downforce, which is very dependent on conditions, is going to make the whole thing too complicated. You'd need to rig the car from top to bottom with pressure sensors too, and the mechanisms would need to be very much precision-based.

I'd just go with a standard solution.

[Andres125sx]

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.

So you still think F1 wings are always set up for maximum downforce

Then may you explain me the reason there are different wings for Monza and Monaco?



Anycase that´s irrelevant, as I´ve repeated above max angle of attack should be rule limited at some angle, wich could be increased when in dirty air. Same as DRS, but as Turbo said, instead of Drag Reduction System, it would be a DES, Downforce Enhacement System (he said DAS, but I like this more )

[Andres125sx]

- If FIA can control max DF created, wings could adopt higher AoA when in a slitpstream (automatically), to compensate the DF drop due to dirty air. It will never be like in clean air, but it will be much better than today with fixed wings so overtaking would be easier

That's the issue - if. I sincerely do not believe it to be possible. At which speed do impose which max force? What about circuits like Mexico where air density diminishes the force applied? How about cold and misty days which condenses air and increases force?

I do follow you that a downforce augmenting system should be in place when following close to an other car in the corners. However, making the amount of downforce variable to the difference of the current force applied and a max downforce, which is very dependent on conditions, is going to make the whole thing too complicated. You'd need to rig the car from top to bottom with pressure sensors too, and the mechanisms would need to be very much precision-based.

I'd just go with a standard solution.

Yes I know it´d be difficult, but not impossible. With pressure sensors it could be all automatic, so no matter what are the changing conditions, the system would act itself

But if too complicated, then a simple DAS/DES system similar to DRS could be enough

[bhall II]

The bold statement is that it's somehow possible to counteract the effects of low-pressure wake by increasing a wing's AoA when Bernoulli tells us that combining reduced dynamic pressure with a higher AoA is pretty much guaranteed to stall the wing. That's essentially how F-ducts worked, and it enabled Jenson Button to run more or less full downforce at the Cathedral of Speed.


Monza, 2010: the one with more downforce qualified just over 0.5s quicker, because it pays to maximize downforce at every circuit.

[Andres125sx]

Monza, 2010: the one with more downforce qualified just over 0.5s quicker, because it pays to maximize downforce at every circuit.

.... when you can reduce drag in straights with F-ducts.... or active aero

[hollus]

A possible solution to this issue of when to activate this extra downforce could be to leave that decision to the driver. And it has already been in the car in that format, in the front wing long ago and in the rear wing now in he form of DRS.

If you allow the driver to activate both simultaneously at will but you give him an allocation of, say, 60 seconds for the whole race, it can easily become a "push to follow" button. A driver could choose to use those 60 seconds to optimize a certain corner or braking area lap after lap, or, yes, it could be used to defend. But it also gives a driver that expects to be stuck behind another driver the option of using it to get close in that curvy section before the long straight, so that a normal slipstream can do the rest. 60 seconds would be enough to do this several laps in a row, and it is up to him to decide when. Yes, the driver ahead could in principle mirror, but it would be a hell of a task to notice that the wings of the car behind changed their angle of attack by 5 degrees while you are cornering yourself...
It also gets rid of much of the current DRS gimmickness and gives a further strategic aspect to the races, IMO.

[bhall II]

Monza, 2010: the one with more downforce qualified just over 0.5s quicker, because it pays to maximize downforce at every circuit.

.... when you can reduce drag in straights with F-ducts.... or active aero

Yes. Don't forget that I agree with you with regard to the utility of active aero; it's the nature of such utility that seems to be the point of contention.

As a way to reduce drag, it's the perfect solution. You can virtually eliminate induced drag, because active aero can reduce both the camber and AoA of all aerodynamic devices when they're unneeded.

Active suspensions, which would be all but mandatory, can lift the car to reduce the drag associated with underbody downforce.

You can also add an element of "downforce vectoring" through asymmetrical application.

The use of mass dampers - strangely considered movable aero by Charlie Whiting - can improve traction when cornering.

What it can't do, however, is create more downforce, because current wings are already state-of-the-art in that arena. To do more would require the introduction of self-generated downforce, like fans or otherwise. But, such solutions present a host of issues that make it questionable as to whether or not they're actually viable: weight, complexity, cost, lack of competitive edge due to ubiquity, etc.

One area where fans could potentially be very helpful is when cars transition from one downforce phase to another, because that's when the risk of stalling would be greatest. If a smaller fan or two can be spun-up, or make use of variable-geometry blades, to temporarily add a measure of stability to the car in transient conditions, then I see some value in it. If not, fans wouldn't amount to much more than dead weight.

At the end of the day, active aero would give the sport much quicker cars that can adjust themselves to optimize both performance and efficiency as needed. But, it would not lead to cars that are in any way more immune to the effects of "dirty air."

EDIT: I wonder if a Flybrid-based fan system makes sense. If so, could it also be used as a sort of control moment gyro?


Source

That's my totally unreasonable, pie-in-the-sky idea.

[trinidefender]

I'm all for introducing active computer controlled suspension. Road cars are slowly edging this direction as each generation passes by. We can all see that in the past decade or so teams have invested millions in the development of passive suspension systems with features such as 3 or more different spring elements per corner, mass dampers, FRIC systems, L/R connected suspensions and many other things.

I believe with how cheap computing power is these days that a team can have an active suspension system running for actually cheaper than the current generation of passive systems. The FIA can even homologate the suspension control unit which can control what parts of a suspension a team can play with. Such things as maximum raise of ride height on a straight etc etc.

[J.A.W.]

& aircraft have long used such 'active' fixes as "blown" aero & extensible area "Fowler" flaps to cope with incipient stall..

Check out the F-104 Starfighter from the mid-50s - which depended on an actively "blown" wing of tiny area - to fly slowly..

[bhall II]

I considered flaps, even telescopic bargeboards. But, if the regulatory "boxes" were enlarged to allow for such elements, then every team would just run bigger wings. If the size of those "boxes" was made variable based upon track position, which isn't even allowed under current DRS rules, then that would be just about as artificial as it gets.

Aren't we trying to come up with something more equitable? (Legitimate question. If I missed the point here, it wouldn't be the first time.)

[turbof1]

I'm by no means an expert, but I was thinking about the floor regulations as we have now, but with retractable side skirts. In normal mode these are retracted and the floor dimensions are exactly the same as now, but when running withing 1s at the end of a straight, they would be deployed and close off the sides of the floor.

I can assume that it will add aero performance from the floor, while also adding that performance around the centre of the car, which does not hinder the aerodynamic balance. I also believe it will help the floor staying away from the stalling point.

Probably not ideal, but probably a better solution then looking at the front wing.

[livinglikethathuh]

Considering how integrated aero devices are in F1, the effect movable aero devices create on the rest of the car has to be considered. This itself, IMO, throws the chance of implementing active front wings, bargeboards and flow conditioners out the window. All of these will disturb the air going into the airbox, sidepods, rear wing, brake ducts and so on, and the side effects will outweigh the potential benefits of such a system.
Thus, I believe the only viable places for active aero is the floor and rear wing. There's already an active aero system on the rear wing, DRS, and it does the job well enough. A DAS (downforce augmentation system), reverse of DRS could also work, but as mentioned, throw off the car's balance.
A floor sealing device could also work, but it will also shift the CoP rearward, maybe mess with the rear wing flow by reducing the pressure behind the car, and also be VERY susceptible to sudden losses in downforce with bumps and rough surfaces.
Both of these systems would require something to shift the DF balance back to the center, and the only place I can think of for that is the front wing, but as I mentioned, that would mess up the aerodynamics of the whole car.

Maybe engineers could set up the car to have a forward CoP and have it shift back with the active rear wing and/or floor.

Active suspension, however, would provide the engineers and the driver a good way to trade downforce for drag on the fly. If you don't want the roll/pitch control a la Williams FW14, you can always call it ride height control and ban independent suspension control of each wheel.

[Andres125sx]

I like that idea Turbo

I considered flaps, even telescopic bargeboards. But, if the regulatory "boxes" were enlarged to allow for such elements, then every team would just run bigger wings. If the size of those "boxes" was made variable based upon track position, which isn't even allowed under current DRS rules, then that would be just about as artificial as it gets.

Aren't we trying to come up with something more equitable? (Legitimate question. If I missed the point here, it wouldn't be the first time.)

It will depend on how do you define equitable and artificial.

IMO DRS is artificial because driver in front has a disadvantage he can´t compensate any way. But your idea to me does not look artificial because it´d equal DF levels between cars, so it does not provide any advantage over the car in front, but only compensate a disadvantage wich is completely different

The disadvantage is current situation, when a car/driver who is 1 second faster than car in front suddenly becomes 1 second slower because of dirty air so he can do nothing to pass a car/driver who is a lot slower than himself

So this would actually adress the real problem instead of causing a different one to compensate, and competition would be more equitable I think

I like it too

[Andres125sx]

Considering how integrated aero devices are in F1, the effect movable aero devices create on the rest of the car has to be considered. This itself, IMO, throws the chance of implementing active front wings, bargeboards and flow conditioners out the window. All of these will disturb the air going into the airbox, sidepods, rear wing, brake ducts and so on, and the side effects will outweigh the potential benefits of such a system.

True, but engineers would consider that too so they could minimize or even take advantage of those modified airflows depending on the configuration, couldn´t they?

Anycase active aero is a very open term wich may include a lot of devices. Probably allowing all of them wouldn´t be a good idea, but allowing some specific device wich could solve some problems without messing the rest of aerodynamics too much

BTW, didn´t realice about how active suspensions may act as active aero... what about allowing height changes to put the front wing closer to the ground and improve it´s ground effects? Could that improve front DF enough without disturbing the rest of the car aerodynamics?

There's already an active aero system on the rear wing, DRS, and it does the job well enough.

If you only consider overtaking numbers, then yes, it works flawlessly. But some people like myself think it only make up the numbers, but ruins the real battles because it do not allow closer racing (diry air problem in corners remain the same) and provide an advantage in straights wich means drivers don´t need to be agressive to overtake, just wait to the straight and pass him easily.

Obviously it will always depend on the cars involved, some still need to look for alternatives as for example Ricciardo and Verstappen are proving, but any other car without an engine disadvantage only need to wait for the straight so they don´t need to fight for position. To me that´s the worst part of DRS, it does not improve battles, but exactly the opposite, make them unnecessary