Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

[krisfx]

Isn't it amazing that once you get to a senior level in any occupation people do not question you and you can get away with pretty much any bullshit! F1 is no different and if you know your discipline properly you can tell that these "so called" experts are spinning things one after another. I just do not know what it is but generally it is the bullshitters who make it to the top of the management chain pretty much everywhere and it does not take long before their incompetency shows.

As I always say it, its not what you know its what people think you know. Once you are at a senior level like the above characters rjsa mentioned people just believe you without questioning you.

It's okay, though. Paddy Lowe & the other engineers in the OWG don't have teams of aerodynamicists below them to back up their findings... =D>

[Big Mangalhit]

Bhall, if you think the current inwash and upwash is better but not good then I am sorry to say that you are mistaken.

Do you not know that the loss of downforce and balance is still similar to 2008 cars? How can you call that better when nothing has changed at all? And guess what, the current cars produce a lot less downforce compared to 2008 cars and we still have overtaking issues! How reducing downforce would improve overtaking I dont know because the current cars do have a lot less downforce compared to 2008 cars. I also do not buy this that teams have found a way to match downforce levels similar to 2008 and before because its not true.

High downforce is not the issue here, its how you produce that downforce that is the problem.

I really have trouble following your logic here.

1) loss of downforce and balance is similar to 2008.
2)nowadays cars produce less DF than in 2008.
3) overtake average for 2008 is around 15 per GP while 2014 was 43; 2015 was 31 and this year it was 60 for the first two races and china was probably close to an all time record.

Even if your conclusion ("High downforce is not the issue here, its how you produce that downforce that is the problem") is correct I don't see how you come up with it using the previous comparison, if anything it shows the exact opposite.

The way I see it is exactly like just a fan posted. It all depends if it is favourable to follow another car or if it detrimental. You have to gain more with the loss of drag on the straights than you lose with the DF loss of a corner to have an advantage behind. For that reason high DF low drag F1 will always have trouble following a car, and that is why a system like DRS worked so well in bringing the overtake numbers up (even if it is fake or whatever, not my point).

[bhall II]

The document has a lot of ideas in it that appear to have disappeared in to the fog surrounding F1.

It reads like a dystopian sci-fi nightmare...

The chassis, including all bodywork, cooling ducts, radiators and major suspension parts will be subject to an annual homologation process. The list of parts and details of homologation will be decided in association with the Cost Reduction Working Group.

[...]

The under-tray will be specified by the Overtaking Working Group and designed (a) to produce the aerodynamic characteristics required and (b) to be mechanically stiff so that aero-elasticity issues are avoided. The part is not only to be prescribed, but also supplied by a third party.

[...]

The desire to bring to a halt the pursuit of downforce extends to the whole vehicle. Thus the chassis itself must also comply with the no overlapping surface rule. This effectively bans barge-boards, [?]-wings, chimneys, flip-ups, and the like.

[...]

There are a number of items on the cars which offer little advantage in terms of anything that race fans would appreciate, but are very costly as they are unique to each team and freedom is allowed in development. Some of these have a marked affect on downforce generation. In particular the whole wheel-upright-brake-and brake-duct assembly is a sensitive aerodynamic part. Clearly the prescription of these parts offers a double benefit, firstly as it draws a halt to their non-road-relevant development and secondly because prescription should lower the reproduction costs considerably. Thus the FIA will put to tender the following:

- Wheels, uprights, brakes (and associated system), brake ducts i.e. the complete "corners" of the car

[...]

The introduction of prescribed uprights has the consequence that the outboard suspension pick up points are fixed, constraining the suspension design. It is suggested that the "corner" design is based on the design that wins the 2007 constructors championship.

[...]

A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. When travelling in high turbulence levels such as those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor (within a set range, at a set rate, and with appropriate hysteresis, determined from time to time by the FIA) to compensate for the degradation in performance. In free stream the car is to return to a baseline ride height. The purpose is to allow for full compensation for downforce losses due to being in the wake of another car.

That last bit ought to tickle Andres to pieces. Can't say I ever thought I'd see legitimate proposals for wholesale standardization in Formula One, though. Despite being conjured up ten years ago, when F1 was a very different animal, I'm still surprised by that.

[miqi23]

Bhall, if you think the current inwash and upwash is better but not good then I am sorry to say that you are mistaken.

Do you not know that the loss of downforce and balance is still similar to 2008 cars? How can you call that better when nothing has changed at all? And guess what, the current cars produce a lot less downforce compared to 2008 cars and we still have overtaking issues! How reducing downforce would improve overtaking I dont know because the current cars do have a lot less downforce compared to 2008 cars. I also do not buy this that teams have found a way to match downforce levels similar to 2008 and before because its not true.

High downforce is not the issue here, its how you produce that downforce that is the problem.

I really have trouble following your logic here.

1) loss of downforce and balance is similar to 2008.
2)nowadays cars produce less DF than in 2008.
3) overtake average for 2008 is around 15 per GP while 2014 was 43; 2015 was 31 and this year it was 60 for the first two races and china was probably close to an all time record.

Even if your conclusion ("High downforce is not the issue here, its how you produce that downforce that is the problem") is correct I don't see how you come up with it using the previous comparison, if anything it shows the exact opposite.

The way I see it is exactly like just a fan posted. It all depends if it is favourable to follow another car or if it detrimental. You have to gain more with the loss of drag on the straights than you lose with the DF loss of a corner to have an advantage behind. For that reason high DF low drag F1 will always have trouble following a car, and that is why a system like DRS worked so well in bringing the overtake numbers up (even if it is fake or whatever, not my point).

Don't have trouble understanding my logic here! Its simple!

The number of overtakes that increased in 2014 as described above by you is due to the DRS system. Take DRS out of the equation and let the cars race and see what happens. In that instance the cars will behave similarly to what they did in 2008 and before. What I am trying to get at is that even though current cars have a lot less down-force compared to 2008 cars it still loses down-force and balance similar to 2008 cars making it difficult to follow each other around corners, etc. This shows that just reducing the down-force is not going to work because they have already tried that... its how you produce that down-force that matters!

[turbof1]

Miqi23, there are a few things not making sense:

The number of overtakes that increased in 2014 as described above by you is due to the DRS system.

I hope you mean 2011 since in 2014 overtakes dropped, see the following image:

In that instance the cars will behave similarly to what they did in 2008 and before.

Far from it. Cars in 2008 were front downforce limited, meaning the rear was able to produce more then enough downforce, but limited to front downforce potentional. Nowadays it is the opposite. Concerning turbulent air that makes a whole lot of difference towards flow manipulation.

Don't have trouble understanding my logic here! Its simple!

Actually, it is far from it. The solution is not as simple as let's or let's not reduce downforce or let's look at how downforce is produced. There is merit to both and there is interaction between. I think Bhall is correct, as there is no fingerflick solution other then making the cars completely aero neutral. Other then that, solutions will require a better understanding on the matter first, while keeping in mind in which corners competition pushes. Good solutions can be fragile for the pursuit of development.

[Big Mangalhit]

Of course it is a very complicated problem, and some of the complexity is the characteristics of the wake and the balance of the next car.

But ultimately this problem is (IMO) related to the L/D. If the category of cars have high L/D (like F1) the car behind another will lose more time on the corner than it will gain on the straight. If it is very low L/D (most extreme exemple would be 18wheelers racing) the car behind will gain more time following in the straight than it will lose on the corner. Of course this also depends on the track itself and to a lesser extent to the characteristics mentioned above. And there should be an L/D, track specific, value that a following car will gain the time he loses on a corner, in a straight.

With this I am not trying to advocate absolutely nothing. I personally think the things are ok(ish?) on F1 in terms of dirty air sensitivity. The problem of overtaking most of the times is, as was mentioned by Bhall several times, that the faster cars are already in front of the slower cars. But at least this year I predict we will continue to have a great season with many overtakes and action because of the 3 tyre rules that promotes much more combination of cars with different pace on different parts of the race. The cars are also more close together and they have different characteristics of engine deployment that permits them to be faster for brief moments (OT button and engine maps).

[miqi23]

Miqi23, there are a few things not making sense:

The number of overtakes that increased in 2014 as described above by you is due to the DRS system.

I hope you mean 2011 since in 2014 overtakes dropped, see the following image:

http://i.imgur.com/9PzGhs4.jpg

In that instance the cars will behave similarly to what they did in 2008 and before.

Far from it. Cars in 2008 were front downforce limited, meaning the rear was able to produce more then enough downforce, but limited to front downforce potentional. Nowadays it is the opposite. Concerning turbulent air that makes a whole lot of difference towards flow manipulation.

Don't have trouble understanding my logic here! Its simple!

Actually, it is far from it. The solution is not as simple as let's or let's not reduce downforce or let's look at how downforce is produced. There is merit to both and there is interaction between. I think Bhall is correct, as there is no fingerflick solution other then making the cars completely aero neutral. Other then that, solutions will require a better understanding on the matter first, while keeping in mind in which corners competition pushes. Good solutions can be fragile for the pursuit of development.

There has been a lot more overtakes ever since DRS has been introduced. This is compared to what things were like in 2008. Is it that hard to understand? Would it still be the same if DRS is taken away? I think not.

If the down-force loss behind another car in 2008 was, say, 50% and balance shift to the rear was around 10%, currently, the down-force loss and balance shift to the rear is similar to 2008 cars in percentage terms at same car lengths. It does not matter what distribution they ran in 2008 and what they run now in 2016, a balance shift of 10% to the rear and a down-force loss of 50% is pretty bad.

Does it make sense?

[turbof1]

There has been a lot more overtakes ever since DRS has been introduced. This is compared to what things were like in 2008. Is it that hard to understand? Would it still be the same if DRS is taken away? I think not.

Drs has nothing to do with turbulent airflow. It's a solution to one of its consequences, overtaking, but has zero correlation with turbulent airflow.

Does it make sense?

Not in the least (sorry, but it really does not). Simply because drs is not used in cornering, your reasoning is not logical.

Think this a bit more through .

For the record: I personally do not care in the least about the amount of overtakes. Close racing, that's what I and most fans of the sport want.

[mrluke]

Reading through some of the posts here..

Would it be fair to say that one of the primary reasons for reduced overtaking from 1980s to 2010, is the reduction in drag of the cars?

In which case, I can't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

[miqi23]

Drs has nothing to do with turbulent airflow. It's a solution to one of its consequences, overtaking, but has zero correlation with turbulent airflow

Where did I say that DRS has to do anything with turbulent airflow or has any correlation with turbulent airflow?

Does it make sense?

Not in the least (sorry, but it really does not). Simply because drs is not used in cornering, your reasoning is not logical.

Think this a bit more through .

For the record: I personally do not care in the least about the amount of overtakes. Close racing, that's what I and most fans of the sport want.

Your asking me to think it through when you are not doing it yourself. You talk out of context, read the whole chain again and look at my responses to your comments. Are you intentionally ignoring them? If your struggling I will have to hold your hands and take you through it one by one. Just wondering, how old are you?

[Just_a_fan]

What I am trying to get at is that even though current cars have a lot less down-force compared to 2008 cars

The teams say otherwise and they, after all, have the numbers from each season so they know whereof they speak.

[bhall II]

I will have to hold your hands...

To be fair, you're saying, "the Overtaking Working Group's solutions have been ineffective," in just about the most complicated way possible.

[turbof1]

You talk out of context

I don't, you are. What does the title say? "Dirty air sensitivity and regulations". It does not say DRS. Before you want to try to make insults about age or any mockery, please read the topic title and please stay on point. Your original comment was about numbers of overtaking being biased through DRS, which I did not contest. I did contest however this:

In that instance the cars will behave similarly to what they did in 2008 and before.

And this was my reply to it:

Far from it. Cars in 2008 were front downforce limited, meaning the rear was able to produce more then enough downforce, but limited to front downforce potentional. Nowadays it is the opposite. Concerning turbulent air that makes a whole lot of difference towards flow manipulation.

To which you included DRS, completely out of context:

There has been a lot more overtakes ever since DRS has been introduced. This is compared to what things were like in 2008. Is it that hard to understand? Would it still be the same if DRS is taken away? I think not.

You are first of all being factually making a wrong statement ("There has been a lot more overtakes ever since DRS has been introduced. This is compared to what things were like in 2008."), one just has to look at the table that overtaking in 2008 was much lower then it it is now with DRS. Second, you are that eager to throw in DRS. Except for correcting overtake numbers, this has no relevance.

I'll let the insulting slide this time. I made the comment that you need to think this through because you really are not fit for this discussion. That's not to rattle your cages, but because I mean exactly that. I did not warrant any backlash on this. Again, I'll ignore it this time, but next time your post is removed and you get a warning.

What I am trying to get at is that even though current cars have a lot less down-force compared to 2008 cars

The teams say otherwise and they, after all, have the numbers from each season so they know whereof they speak.

It's less. To quantify the difference is subjective, but neither would I say "a lot less". They were at their peak in 2010, 2011 and 2013. They are near that level. I remember one aero chief claiming 2010 downforce levels were higher then 2008.

To be fair, you're saying, "the Overtaking Working Group's solutions have been ineffective," in just about the most complicated way possible.

To be fair, it would have effective if not for double diffusers. Aside DRS (I really hate how this masked this), in 2011 cars suddenly were able to follow much closer to one another in corners at the start of that season. Development ultimately undid this gain, but the solutions presented in 2009 were actually beneficial towards the goal if not for certain developments and oversights in the regulations.

[Just_a_fan]

It's less. To quantify the difference is subjective, but neither would I say "a lot less". They were at their peak in 2010, 2011 and 2013. They are near that level.

Phrases such as "near record levels of downforce" suggest it's not much less at all. And quantifying the difference is not subjective for the team - they know exactly what they have and how it compares to other years.

One of the reasons we're discussing the whole subject is because the teams have been clever and pulled huge downforce out of the cars even with the current regs. But that downforce has been achieved by being clever and thus is likely to be increasingly sensitive with each season. Hence the whole "can't follow" problem in the first place!

[turbof1]

It's less. To quantify the difference is subjective, but neither would I say "a lot less". They were at their peak in 2010, 2011 and 2013. They are near that level.

Phrases such as "near record levels of downforce" suggest it's not much less at all. And quantifying the difference is not subjective for the team - they know exactly what they have and how it compares to other years.

One of the reasons we're discussing the whole subject is because the teams have been clever and pulled huge downforce out of the cars even with the current regs. But that downforce has been achieved by being clever and thus is likely to be increasingly sensitive with each season. Hence the whole "can't follow" problem in the first place!

Well they know, we don't . It's why I am careful with statements. But I agree with you: it's not much less.

I think we are rather ok on the sensitive front. It will have its effects, but the current trend is to put emphasis on predictable and stable aero platforms rather then all out peak downforce which makes the car undriveable due aero platforms stalling too much. If that really was the case, we would see cars be more "snappy" and perhaps more spins, drive-offs, crashes even, etc. while running in turbulent airflow of the car in front. That's not the case (it could have been, and I definitely get why people get to that reasoning), but teams already look at keeping the aero platforms stable to cover a larger range of condition like bumps in the road, wind changes, etc.

I think this is also why the statements from Paddy Lowe are interesting. Not running a rear wing for instance makes the issue worse, which will go against a lot of people their intuition. There's a lot we do not understand or atleast have not puzzled together. For instance the ban of the beam wing was probably a cause for the drop in overtakes going from 2013 to 2014. The beam wing was a vital part of helping the airflow coming out of the diffuser to upwash and link up with the upwash of the rear wing:


With less upwash, the airflow from the diffuser and the hot air exiting the engine cover outlets will trail further and lower behind the car, sending it in the path of the front wing of the car behind.

Incidently, the term "making the diffuser bigger then is" is a concepts that might make the situation worse by outwashing the airflow:

My thoughts on this that by expanding the airflow outwards, you'll cover a bigger surface area of the front wing behind with turbulent airflow. But that is a wild guess, on which I could be totally wrong. Just in case I am right, then solution like slats on the rear of the endplate are an example of solutions by development which make following cars more difficult.

Next year the rear wing will be closer to the diffuser (lower rear wing, higher diffuser):

Contrary to popular believe, overtaking (and better following cars closely), might actually be affected positively. I do not know if the beam wing gets back, but I think it would help. It'll depend how well you can make that upwash to clear out the turbulent airflow and let the airflow behind become laminar again. The diffuser's gain in width is a source for worry though.