Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

[Andres125sx]

To claim something is certain means you should be able to point to hard data that supports your conclusion. So, let's have it.

For that matter...

...IMHO we know more than enough to solve this part of the problem, as easy as implementing active aero to increase DF potential when in dirty air

To claim something is possible, let alone "easy," means you should be able to explain the science behind it. So, let's have that, too.

Yes, we've once again reached the portion of the program where it's incumbent upon you to put forth more than a thesis statement. You have to explain the specifics of your ideas.

So you think I should explain the reason active aero intended to increase DF would increase DF?

Do I need to prove a wing generate DF?

Do I need to prove a fan car generate DF without wings?

Do I need to prove ride height is a very important parameter for GEs?

As said previously, I´m not inventing anything, I´m only proposing active aero to increase DF. Since I´m not aeronautical engineer, I´m not proposing any specific solution because I don´t know what will be better, but I think I don´t need to be AE to know active aero can increase DF as dramatically as the rule permit it, because there are a million restrictions in the aero department, so if we want to increase DF it is as easy as removing some restriction/s

BTW, the easy part is modifying the rules to increase DF, not modifying the cars

Just to sorta move things along: it's not clear how a fan car can maintain aero balance when running in another car's wake; it's not clear how active aero/suspension can increase downforce when running in another car's wake; and it's not clear how anything that doesn't standardize a significant chunk of the car will have any effect at all.

To me more precise, it´s not clear how much increase in DF would cause active aero, but you can´t seriously say we don´t know if active aero will increase DF.

I agree we don´t know how much improvement that will cause, but there will be improvement anycase. Thinking otherwise would be like thinking a car without wings will be equally fast when in dirty air to a wing car

Basically you´re negating aero use when in dirty air, like if dirty air would be the space where aero becomes irrelevant. We all know in dirty air aero efficiency go down dramatically, but it still works, not as planned, but still better than a car without aero, so if you increase aero, DF will increase too

[Andres125sx]

That opens the possibility of having different pace in the same car in different parts of the race. I think that is really obvious in the STR cars for instance, they offset their strategies and the car on the softer tyre in a particular point of the race has no problem overtaking the other.

Specially when the driver in front is asked to let him pass, and that driver is not as childish as Verstappen and obey the TOs

It wasn´t shown on TV, but on spanish TV I think it was Villadelprat (or DelaRosa, not sure) who said one of his contacts did inform him about SRT asking Carlos to (once again) let pass Max

[turbof1]

To me more precise, it´s not clear how much increase in DF would cause active aero, but you can´t seriously say we don´t know if active aero will increase DF.

I think it's important to read the subtle wording: he is not denying it would increase downforce in turbulent wake. He is merely asking how big the amount would be. I think you'd need to test it out before making conclusions if it's a viable way to improve downforce.

[Andres125sx]

If that´s the case, I agree

Give me a F1 car, a F1 factory with employees, some engineeers, and I´ll test myself what´d be the best technology to increase DF when in dirty air

[turbof1]

If that´s the case, I agree

Give me a F1 car, a F1 factory with employees, some engineeers, and I´ll test myself what´d be the best technology to increase DF when in dirty air

Just in case: when I said "you", I meant it in a general way, not just pointed to the person .

[Andres125sx]

Shame. I was expecting you to lend me a F1 team

[bhall II]

So you think I should explain the reason active aero intended to increase DF would increase DF?

Yes! A million times, yes!

You need to show how a wing designed to operate at peak efficiency with angle of attack X will not stall when running in another car's turbulent wake and adjusted to angle of attack X+1, because that's far from clear.

You need to show how a floor/diffuser designed to operate at peak efficiency with ride height X and angle of incidence Y will not stall when running in another car's turbulent wake and adjusted to ride height X-1 and angle of incidence Y (whatever you think it should be), because that, too, is far from clear.

(Barring that, you need to show how any engineer in his right mind can be convinced to design something that doesn't operate at peak efficiency the vast majority of the time.)

You need to show how a fan car will maintain aero balance when running in another car's turbulent wake, despite active downforce generation that has minimal impact on the front wheels, because that's also far from clear.



I'm not asking these things to trip you up. I just assume that anyone who's so absolutely certain about the righteousness of his ideas has already contemplated these issues and has a plethora of solutions ready for dissemination, and I wanna be enlightened.

[Andres125sx]

So you think I should explain the reason active aero intended to increase DF would increase DF?

Yes! A million times, yes!

You need to show how a wing designed to operate at peak efficiency with angle of attack X will not stall when running in another car's turbulent wake and adjusted to angle of attack X+1, because that's far from clear.

Who said anything about using current wings operated at differents AoA?

You need to show how a floor/diffuser designed to operate at peak efficiency with ride height X and angle of incidence Y will not stall when running in another car's turbulent wake and adjusted to ride height X-1 and angle of incidence Y (whatever you think it should be), because that, too, is far from clear.

Who said antying about using current floor as it is?

You need to show how a fan car will maintain aero balance when running in another car's turbulent wake, despite active downforce generation that has minimal impact on the front wheels, because that's also far from clear.

Who said anything about using a fan like that?

I'm not asking these things to trip you up. I just assume that anyone who's so absolutely certain about the righteousness of his ideas has already contemplated these issues and has a plethora of solutions ready for dissemination, and I wanna be enlightened.

Not first time you talk about the absolutely certain about the righteousness of my ideas, when I´m only making a proposal for discussion. I didn´t even proposed any specific solution as I´m not an expert on the matter, so that´s the absolutely certain I´m showing

And no, you´re not asking these things to trip me up, you´re asking these things because you´re making too many assumptions. I never said "this solution will work if implemented this way", in that case I would understand your questions, but that is not the case. I only asked "what if active aero is used to increase DF?". That´s all. I was expecting people with more knownledge like you to make some proposal, but you only brought down proposals nobody did.


Maybe I´m stupid because of thinking active aero could improve DF, but don´t think so


Anycase neither of us have the resources to test it, so even if we have the idea of the century it will be useless. Probably a useless thread then...

[miqi23]

Andres125sx, you should have realised by now that forums are filled with armchair experts. I am not referring to anyone here so I do not want people firing back at me and accusing me of insulting them or something along those lines.

It would be better if anyone commenting on a topic talk about their background, experience, etc as well so readers can establish how credible their comments are. At the moment it is so difficult to get into a decent discussion because it ends up in an argument because one side is not willing to listen and understand what the other guy is trying to say. It feels as if the comments are ego driven and this feeling of I am better than you.

[bhall II]

Who said anything about using current wings operated at differents AoA?

Who said antying about using current floor as it is?

Who said anything about using a fan like that?

No one, because you never explain your ideas.

If you can't at least discuss the conceptual rationale behind your thoughts and present conceptual responses to criticism, then you're not really saying anything at all; you're just dreaming. (It's also incredibly irritating to talk to someone who expects his ideas to be taken at face value but will nonetheless not accept rebuttals at face value.)

"Purple frogs will win the Fédération Système Solaire d'Automobiles Formula One Mars Championship," is no more or less valid as a statement than any ideas you cannot explain.

[Vyssion]

Do you know what? After reading Paddy Lowe's comments, I have now changed my opinion that F1 should be limitless to the exact 180°... I had never even considered some of his points he made before within the race car aerodynamics field - and I work in racing aerodynamics (albeit fresh from uni)!! I suppose that is the difference between optimizing aero performance of a project car vs. actually needing to pull it out and race it; it's a completely different ball game.

From most of the comments in this thread, the main issue seems to be centered around general downforce levels needing to either be lowered via regulation changes so that wake effects are reduced, or that if downforce levels are going to be increased then there needs to be a subsequent shift in the regulations governing tyres and suspension setups which allow for the coping of more mechanical grip and the increased loads. From the 2017 aerodynamics regulation changes, it almost seems as though, as Lowe describes it, that amateurish aerodynamicists have just gone and done a Jeremy Clarkson and screamed "DOWNFORRRRRRRCCCEEEEEEEE!!!" instead of "POWEERRRRRRRR".

My own personal feelings now are along the lines of reducing the downforce levels to less than they are whilst increasing mechanical grip (perhaps beam wing - or similar device - unlimited designing could be used to promote diffuser flow to be pulled upwards and over the following car?). Wheel to wheel racing is what we all crave - if it is easier to get behind someone due to the smaller wake influence, and you have confidence in your car that it will hold up mechanically in the straights, then what else could promote wheel to wheel action more? Even though our current F1 sees many more overtakes than before, a sizable proportion of them are DRS aided on the straights. Yes I know that you often will get some immediate wheel to wheel action based on the apex location and defensive move/evasion which the drivers execute, but we all know that its the overtakes around the outside of corners or constantly trading places through the slower sections of the track which we all start to jump up and down on our couches in joy as we watch (or perhaps that's just me.....? )

Active aero has been proposed here also and whilst I am sure that anyone would agree that the nature of it being something which is variable and thus can be adjusted to "the conditions" can be used to some sort of an advantage. I picture Pagani Huayra like panels when I think of active aero more so than a fan. At the same time though, if F1 is going to continue down the path of increasing downforce levels, then it will be incredibly difficult for teams who perhaps aren't front runners to have to tell their engineers to begin to design lower performing parts simply because they will be running in the wake of other cars more often.

I think I am beginning to ramble now, so will end it here for now, but I will be keen to see what conversation ensues from this.

[turbof1]

My own personal feelings now are along the lines of reducing the downforce levels to less than they are whilst increasing mechanical grip (perhaps beam wing - or similar device - unlimited designing could be used to promote diffuser flow to be pulled upwards and over the following car?). Wheel to wheel racing is what we all crave - if it is easier to get behind someone due to the smaller wake influence, and you have confidence in your car that it will hold up mechanically in the straights, then what else could promote wheel to wheel action more? Even though our current F1 sees many more overtakes than before, a sizable proportion of them are DRS aided on the straights. Yes I know that you often will get some immediate wheel to wheel action based on the apex location and defensive move/evasion which the drivers execute, but we all know that its the overtakes around the outside of corners or constantly trading places through the slower sections of the track which we all start to jump up and down on our couches in joy as we watch (or perhaps that's just me.....? )

Ah another person who does not really care about the amount of overtaking, but gets down to the heart of it: close racing! Welcome to the club of fine tastes.

In theory making the cars more aero neutral and rely on mechanical grip is a good way to promote closer racing. 2 things though:
1. You cannot infinitely exchange aero grip for mechanical grip. There is some room at the moment, but ultimately you'll arrive at a point where downforce level cannot go lower, no matter what you do to increase grip levels for the slightest bit, without making the car slower over a lap. Downforce will always have a multiplier applied on the grip it provides, compared to mechanical grip. But again: there is still room at the moment to do this.

2. Reducing downforce has to be done right. We saw in previous aero reduction moments during the last 15 years, that the problem got worse. It's why the issue of turbulent airflow and even its correlation towards close racing has to be studied better.

Lastly, these cars are too easy to handle, which makes errors from the drivers less frequent. My proposal would be to remove power steering.

[bhall II]

...I will be keen to see what conversation ensues from this.

Even modest descriptions of the relevant concepts would be extremely helpful here; they don't even have to be valid. But, this conversation cannot progress if misconceptions aren't identified and corrected.

[Vyssion]

Ah another person who does not really care about the amount of overtaking, but gets down to the heart of it: close racing! Welcome to the club of fine tastes.

In theory making the cars more aero neutral and rely on mechanical grip is a good way to promote closer racing. 2 things though:
1. You cannot infinitely exchange aero grip for mechanical grip. There is some room at the moment, but ultimately you'll arrive at a point where downforce level cannot go lower, no matter what you do to increase grip levels for the slightest bit, without making the car slower over a lap. Downforce will always have a multiplier applied on the grip it provides, compared to mechanical grip. But again: there is still room at the moment to do this.

2. Reducing downforce has to be done right. We saw in previous aero reduction moments during the last 15 years, that the problem got worse. It's why the issue of turbulent airflow and even its correlation towards close racing has to be studied better.

Lastly, these cars are too easy to handle, which makes errors from the drivers less frequent. My proposal would be to remove power steering.

Oh of course - to both points, totally agree. A vehicle's "specific downforce" will always have a positive effect on grip and by extension (simplified albeit) corner speeds etc. I suppose the new initiative needs to begin with small changes to dimensions of allowed components or some other less drastic moves to not repeat history; with that in mind, initially there will be some direct correlation with less loads allowing lower tyre pressures etc etc, but from there, finding the balance between mechanical and aerodynamic grip becomes the focus of the engineering challenge that is F1.

[bhall II]

Questions that don't necessarily have intuitive answers...

1. Given the very strong correlation between increased overtaking and fragile tires for which degradation - systematic loss of grip - greatly outpaces wear, and given the widespread appeal of wet races in which cars spend significantly more time in traction-limited conditions, why is it desirable to increase mechanical grip?

2. Given the inexorable reality that aerodynamic development increases sensitivity to wake turbulence, why is it desirable to pursue strategies that most likely can't be anything more than temporary?

3. Given the tendency for development to homogenize the grid due to convergence, and given the fact that the era in which the gap between P1 and PLast was smallest is also the era in which overtaking was at its lowest, why is it desirable to hasten convergence through standardization schemes of any kind?

4. Given the inversely proportional relationship between downforce and lap times, why is it desirable to reduce downforce in favor of unproven solutions in deference to unproven hypotheses?