Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

[FW17]

Well as a fan I feel cheated when the cars are not at their limit every lap of the race and that is why I hate Pirelli.

I dont think it is right to artificially fiddle with tyres just for the entertainment factor.

But if regulations call for 1 set of tyres to be used for the whole season, I would welcome it.

[WaikeCU]

Well as a fan I feel cheated when the cars are not at their limit every lap of the race and that is why I hate Pirelli.

I dont think it is right to artificially fiddle with tyres just for the entertainment factor.

But if regulations call for 1 set of tyres to be used for the whole season, I would welcome it.

It's not even F1 anymore imo. Just the open wheel form of endurance racing. Save tires, save fuel, save engine, etc.

By 2018 they are looking for 3 PU's for each driver for the whole season. That's 7-8 races a PU.

[mrluke]

It would be interesting / valuable to start amending this graph with the key regulation changes at each point in time to try to begin to see some possible correlation and to clearly rule out others.

Ask, and ye shall receive!

Looking at this, the first reaction is to say that refueling has killed overtaking, however that would not explain the consistent decline during the early 90s.

What does stand out is that in the 80s we had 5 different power unit layouts and as the number of layouts decreased so to does the amount of overtaking.

So the point I am going to major on here is that fundamentally overtaking comes from 2 cars having different performance characteristics. The classic scenario being a very powerful but very heavy car vs a low powered but very light car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cawBXWWgqCI

Chevrolet vs ford escort classic battle. I defy anybody to watch it and claim boredom.

What makes this battle great is that one car is more powerful while the other is much better under braking / in corners. Overall their lap times are pretty similar.

Now Pirelli / DRS got it halfway right. They know that overtaking comes from two cars having different performance over a lap. This is achieved by the sharp drop off of the Pirelli tyres and the lap time difference between the different compounds. It means that over a stint length a mid field car can start at lap record pace and finish as the slowest car on track.

While this allows lots of overtaking, what the fans really want to see is spectacular on track battles. This is only going to happen when two competing cars achieve a very similar lap time but have different strengths over the course of the lap.

And i'm sorry to say but spec racing just gets us further and further from this ideal. Spec racing gets us back to 2004 where all the cars have a performance so similar that it is difficult to overtake. So the next band-aid you would apply would be some sort of regulation change so that the cars design intrinsically favors a following driver, i.e. a car will be slower when it is on its own in open air.

Clearly the teams are going to spend all their time and money fighting this meaning you are into a regulatory wack a mole.

The sporting regulations are now so narrow and so limited that all of the cars make their laptime the same way, some are just more successful. There is no opportunity for somebody to have an NA V12 vs a turbo 6 or for any other worthwhile noticeable difference between the different teams.

We can talk all we want about fan cars, active aero, drum brakes, wooden tyres, impossible to drive cars etc etc. But ultimately if you want close battles you need cars hitting the same laptime but in different ways.

[strad]

Looking at this, the first reaction is to say that refueling has killed overtaking

Many of those lost passes were done under the refueling pit stop.

[bhall II]

Yes, but it's very important to note that there's no correlation between refueling and a decline in overtaking. Something else caused it, and refueling was coincidental to the result.

I think mrluke's post hits the nail on the head.

With a variety of engines, each with its own strengths and weaknesses and requisite fuel loads, the balance of power throughout a race was constantly in flux, as cars entered their respective optimum performance windows at different points, with drivers doing their best to just hang on the rest of the time. That's what facilitated the kind of overtaking everyone wants to see again.

Sadly, we can't get it back, because even if the rules didn't require it, convergence of design through development toward the optimum is inevitable. In fact, it happens these days faster than ever before.

Well as a fan I feel cheated when the cars are not at their limit every lap of the race and that is why I hate Pirelli.

I dont think it is right to artificially fiddle with tyres just for the entertainment factor.

I agree with you 1,000%. I'm just trying to show how conventional wisdom doesn't always mesh with reality. Some things are accepted as fact simply because they've been repeated for years without scrutiny. It's inadvertent propaganda.

[hollus]

So, in between all the bickering about tone and certainty you guys managed to put on the table many interesting ideas. (It is difficult for Spaniards to hit the exact tone and assertiveness of words in English, I should know).

I am leaning towards bhall being dead right that only differences in performance can bring overtaking without external help. The current DRS is one such help, and Andres' idea of increasing downforce instead under similar conditions sounds like a more exciting and interesting alternative. It is still an externally imposed band-aid, but I think we are agreeing that some sort of band-aid might be needed.
Bhall's point is very valid, though: increasing the downforce of a car that has been designed at the very edge of the downforce it can make is not so easy. And the cars will be designed for the edge of what is possible in free air (under those regulations), because free air is where they run on saturdays and most of the time on sundays.

So here is an idea around that design problem:
Condition A, you are in clean air, your car runs as it is.
Condition B, you are 1 second behind another car, we allow you to lower the floor or to raise the angle of attack. The latest is mechanically as easy as the current DRS and could be applied to both wings to keep balance.

Now, to avoid condition B taking the car outside its design envelope, where it would not help, an option would be to make condition B (extra downforce) freely available for qualifying. Now the designers have to take that into account, you want to design the car to be fast on Saturday. So the car automatically would be a bit off its peak performance in condition A thus allowing for the improvement in condition B. It would be very fast on Saturday, with extra downforce in the corners but not in the straights, hello lap records! Also, tires only need to hold the extra load for a lap here and a lap there and then not at the highest speeds in the straights. Longer lasting race tires become almost a given then. Also, we then naturally create cars that behave differently on Saturday and on Sunday, meaning that the differences in performance happen a bit by themselves and that the fastest car on Sunday is likely to start behind the first row.

It might be an option?
Note, I intentionally did not use the word "could", which is the natural translation of the Spanish "podría", because "could" sounds a hell of a lot more certain and cocky in English than "podría" does in Spanish.

[turbof1]

I was thinking about the issue of optimized aero and it stalling due being pushed outside the optimal zone by active aero. I was also thinking about aviation.

My question would be: would it infact be possible to have the aero transform in such a way it also creates a different, new optimal zone to function in?


So instead of just looking at merely changing the angle of attack of a wing, you could framework a ruleset where you have a single element aerofoil allowed to be split in 2 and with the upper part moved higher up to get effectively a 2 element wing when activated. Obviously the shapes of the elements would not be entirely optimized, but the new situation should give more downforce due bigger overall camber, while also changing the optimized zone (going from a single to a double element will prevent stalling).

Well, that's atleast the reasoning on a very basic element. This is used in aviation as well, where in one position the splittable parts of the wing are optimized for maximum lift, and the other for minimal drag.

[bhall II]

...lower the floor or to raise the angle of attack. The latest is mechanically as easy as the current DRS and could be applied to both wings to keep balance.

Now, to avoid condition B taking the car outside its design envelope, where it would not help, an option would be to make condition B (extra downforce) freely available for qualifying.

That's a novel idea. Even so, what indicates that lowering the floor and/or increasing AoA will have a positive effect on a car passing through air that's largely been sapped of its potential energy?

What if the baseline configuration maxes out the relevant settings by default?



And what about this guy?


Just pretend DRS isn't engaged on the Lotus/Caterham/whatever and that all three are cornering

He'd be running in both the normal wake of the lead car and the "superwake" of the car behind it.

My question would be: would it infact be possible to have the aero transform in such a way it also creates a different, new optimal zone to function in?

Also a novel idea. How can it be done without adversely affecting elements/interactions downstream?



One of the reasons why DRS works is that it's easier to alter a component's settings on-the-fly if there's no need to guard against losing efficiency elsewhere.

That said, you're both princes for actually sharing ideas. =D>

[turbof1]

Also a novel idea. How can it be done without adversely affecting elements/interactions downstream?

Very important question. On the fly I can think of 2 potential solutions:
-Either you have multiple of these transforming aero devices around the car, working in conjunction. You'd be effectively transforming from airflow structure A to superior structure B.
-Or, you factor in the downforce loss from messing up the airflow structures by having the transformed state of the aero devices produce more then enough downforce.

Option 1 is much more difficult and complex to achieve. It would also require an almosy complete standarization. Regulatory wise a nightmare and it would add considerable weight as well.

Option 2 might be much more viable, but also requires research (just like option 1) to how big the offset would have to be for compensating for the broken aero structures.

And of course: this idea is not a guarantee it could in reality work. It is just an idea.

[Big Mangalhit]

Instead of addressing DF could we look at brake potential? If the following car had more brake potential we could have the fight in the corner has everybody wants.

I can see two ways of potentially doing this. Using movable aero (in the following car) that would greatly increase drag under braking, almost like a parachute or an inverse DRS.
Or design brakes in a way that every time you would put them on max stress they would be momentarily less effective while overheated so the defending car or the attacker would compromise the next corner by overbraking in the last one. So they could either attack to get track position or bluff an attack so they cook the brakes of the guy in front and attack on the next one.

Ok second idea is me going on a limb, but at least the first one seems to me an easier way of giving advantage to the following car on a corner instead of a straight.

[Andres125sx]

So, in between all the bickering about tone and certainty you guys managed to put on the table many interesting ideas. (It is difficult for Spaniards to hit the exact tone and assertiveness of words in English, I should know).
.
.
.

It might be an option?
Note, I intentionally did not use the word "could", which is the natural translation of the Spanish "podría", because "could" sounds a hell of a lot more certain and cocky in English than "podría" does in Spanish.

Oh thank you Hollus!!, now I understand the reason Bhall was repeating constantly I´m too certain about this. No I´m not, I was using "could" as we use it in spanish, a conditional wich shows uncertainty. Didn´t realice in english it´s used for more certain situations.

Thank you!

Now, to avoid condition B taking the car outside its design envelope, where it would not help, an option would be to make condition B (extra downforce) freely available for qualifying. Now the designers have to take that into account, you want to design the car to be fast on Saturday.

That´s an idea! =D>

This would solve it, it´s up to the teams to optimize the wing for saturdays or sundays... it will obviously be for sundays, but they can´t ignore the "extended wing" need to work on saturdays too

I really like the idea

[Andres125sx]

...lower the floor or to raise the angle of attack. The latest is mechanically as easy as the current DRS and could be applied to both wings to keep balance.

Now, to avoid condition B taking the car outside its design envelope, where it would not help, an option would be to make condition B (extra downforce) freely available for qualifying.

That's a novel idea. Even so, what indicates that lowering the floor and/or increasing AoA will have a positive effect on a car passing through air that's largely been sapped of its potential energy?

The fact that is it still passing through air, even if it is turbulent

Dirty air only reduces efficiency, but aerodynamics are still aplicable

[mrluke]

The problem with these ideas is that they make the following car faster.

The following car is already quicker, that's why it has caught up, you are giving it an even bigger laptime advantage to be able to overtake.

Due to this benefit the following car is going to overtake pretty quickly.

There's a pretty good chance that in most situations the originally following car is going to pull a gap quite quickly and proceed to pull away.

Effectively what we are doing here is creating a DRS system that works on corners.

This is great except it gives us simple overtakes rather than extended battles.


They say that you need to be about a second a lap faster to overtake in F1.

Assuming both cars are 99% the same, and the track has 20 corners that means you will gain ~0.050s per corner. With these kind of incremental gains you need to string together a lot of laps to be in a position to have a go at overtaking.

Now say the following car is only 0.5s quicker per lap. But for arguments sake they make 0.25s in every corner and lose the rest of the time on the straights. Given a close enough series of 3 or 4 bends the follower is going to get past pretty quick but once you get to a long straight they are going to lose the position again unless they can make a big enough gap in the corners.

Now the margins may be exaggerated but the variability is what is required for exciting track battles. Not a bunch of identical cars no matter how clever their aerodynamics are.

[turbof1]

The problem with these ideas is that they make the following car faster.

Every solution towards the goal of close racing will do that; that or making the leading car slower.

Effectively what we are doing here is creating a DRS system that works on corners.

This is great except it gives us simple overtakes rather than extended battles.

I disagree. DRS is a solution that does not target the issue: being able to get closer into corners. At straights you already have the benefit of a faster car and slipstream, and have nothing working against you.

Furthermore, overtaking in a straightline is fairly simple. It's not when cornering:
1) The cars can be positioned much more strategically to block overtaking. You only have to look at the youtube video of the fight between the slow-cornering chevrolet and the nimble ford escort (which you posted and yes that's one truly awesome close racing!) to see even with a huge cornering speed difference, you can still block overtaking.
2) going from the ideal race line leads to grip loss (the surface is not rubbered in outside the racing line)
3) You are countering an existing problem where cars are hampered to get right up close to the leading car, meaning the overall speed difference will be small.

[bhall II]

The fact that is it still passing through air, even if it is turbulent

Dirty air only reduces efficiency, but aerodynamics are still aplicable

Obviously. But, to what degree is efficiency compromised, and can it be overcome?

Like total pressure, total energy is constant. So, an increase in kinetic energy results in a decrease in potential energy. Ultimately, that means wake turbulence doesn't have a whole lot to offer, regardless of any aerodynamic elements deployed to harness it.

In other words, it's difficult to make a lot of one thing from a little of something else.

In other other words, it can't be taken for granted that any type of active aero is fundamentally effective.

As proposed in broad terms in the regulatory framework, the idea for variable ride height stems from a testing workaround...

...electronically controlled variable height platforms that can lower or raise the height of the car at the front and the rear. Many teams use something similar to this today for runway aerodynamic testing to scan through ride heights and pitch settings.

However, it's merely assumed the same idea can work in traffic.

And of course: this idea is not a guarantee it could in reality work. It is just an idea.

Frankly, I've not yet seen anything that suggests variable geometry solutions are viable when it comes to combating "dirty air."