50% Less Downforce in 2009

[dave kumar]

i really dont like the idea of push to pass or MAD(movable aero device) because it seems to lose the true meaning of racing. with those devices its more like formula one is about who presses the button more intelligently will win. not whos the best driver. its just not racing anymore....

"True racing" is such a word that means everything and nothing at the same time.

But as i see what you mean, don't you find it "no true racing" to be slowed down because you follow someone?

The push to pass is another thing, and here i agree with you.

I have to agree with you Ogami. Push to pass (made possible by KERS, right?) still seems a bit gimicky but I have come round to the idea of MAD (movable aero device) after reading some recent discussions. I think that ultimately adaptive aerodynamics will be the only viable solution to providing a good spectacle in F1 again, it will not be as simple as bringing back slicks. I say this because as Ogami has pointed out on many occassions, there is no simple relationship between aero 'grip' and mechanical grip. For instance if we remove the high dependence on downforce then we may actually see less overtaking because of the off line marbles that are generated by the tyres. If the cars lose most of their grip when they stray off line then you may be able to race closer together but be very hesitant about moving off line to try an overtaking manoever.

My idea of a good spectacle in F1 is to see close racing, so allow cars to follow each other closely with minimal performance penalty (immediate and long term, no dramatically increased tyre wear). But I also want to see many overtaking attempts, whether successful or not. I know there is no such thing as one racing line around a circuit. Each car/driver combination has slight variations but as rubber is laid down, one line emerges. So again we want the penalty for straying off this line minimised.

As far as I can see, we cannot get these two qualities back in to F1 by purely reverting back to wide slicks. In fact I think it probably means that downforce will have to remain a major contributor to overall grip. The 2009 regs will hopefully be the first big step in the right direction. Especially important in my view is the banning of winglets and popups. These aero elements make the car very sensitive to the turbulance of another car and may even be responsible for generating some of that turbulance in the first place.

Once we have cleaner bodywork, adaptive aerodynamics should allow cars to race closer together, as a car approaching the turbulent air generated by another could adapt its aerodynamics to recover the lost downforce. Is this simply a case of dialling in more wing? And if you do will you also pay a penalty in increased drag? These are questions for somebody with some real knowledge of aerodynamics. But I'm sure it would be a big improvement on the current situation. All this and we shouldn't compromise the car's ability to move off line. Aero grip will still be dominant and the off line marbles should be less significant than if mechanical grip were the dominant force.

So I'm optimistic for 2009 and hopeful that true adaptive aerodynamics will be allowed in the future

[Ogami musashi]

Remember that every time downforce (or mechanical grip) is reduced to lower laptimes they (the FIA) state figures like "2 seconds slower". Yet every time they teams get that speed back somehow.

Yes the first time they test they might be "2 seconds slower", but at the first race they are only just behind, or even with the previous year, and at the end of the season the FIA are again saying "the cars will be 2 seconds slower next year due to these reasons... *insert regulations here*.

So they dont actually "slow the cars" they usually manage to maintain the laptimes.

Also if GP2 did start to become too close to the speeds of F1, then the FIA would step in and slow them down more.

Of course they make for the loss, but don't expect 2009 cars to be as fast as now, IF the reduction of 50% is there, the cars will be slower.


senna-toleman:

Wake structures are a bit complicated, the means of MAD are primarily to make up for the loss of camber due to flow separation (i explain it in the autosport post), but also it will help to make up for the loss of total forces.

It is important to remember that slipstream means less drag, but also less downforce. you can't have one without the other.

However today the wake structures are complicated by the vortices present.

In F1 nowadays we have a very paradox situation were you don't have much slipstream but you don't have downforce either.

A balance is necessary between the levels of downforce and the nature of them, and between downforce in general, and tyres (and the way they work).

[Belatti]

I agree with a 50% less downforce, only if we have got 50% more mechanical grip. With this we effectively will see quicker cars in Monza and Monaco, but slower in Bercelona or Malaysia.
But overtaking will be easier.

2m wide cars will make them look nice and weight transfer to external tires will increase.

[Conceptual]

Just pop the lid, and let the teams ABILITY sort it out. Now there is a novel concept. Who would have ever thought that maybe the limitations of nature should determine what is allowed, instead of subjective rules that are arbitrarily enforced for political reasons corrupting the purity of the competition in F1.

Man may find creative ways to circumvent the rules of man, but man can only circumvent the rules of nature to a limit before they destroy him.

Open the formula, and let God sort them out!

Chris

[freedom_honda]

just wondering.
would bringing back ground effect helps overtaking?

[dave kumar]

Just pop the lid, and let the teams ABILITY sort it out....

tempting as it is to let this go without comment....

...If bad rules got us into this mess, better ones - which go with rather than against the grain of humanity, community and the physical realities of the planet - can get us out again. Capitalism is too important to leave to the capitalists. So bring it on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... s.economy1

OK, so this is a quote regarding the current 'credit crunch' affecting the USA and UK. Bear with me because it highlights two different views of the world. One is a kind of free market fundamentalism where the market is left to its own devices to sort the wheat from the chaff. This is fine as long as you don't concern yourself with the fallout for the populace that are at the mercy of such fickle economic winds. The otherside of the argument is to try and formulate a structure in which the market can innovate but have its energy directed in a way that goes with the grain of the communities it is porported to serve.

Riveting I know but does it have any relevance to F1. Well I suppose it depends whether you agree that F1 is here to serve the spectators or purely to serve itself. If it is purely a self serving enterprise with no regard to spectacle then there is no need for any restrictions - just let them innovate and we can admire the technical prowess. But, just may be we can have this innovation channelled in a way that provides an entertaining spectacle on the track. We won't all agree on what this is, some will argue for pure speed, I and may be one or two others would like to see some 'good racing'.

Whatever the aim, this alternative vision is to provide a structure in which the teams compete to produce the best cars but those cars can then be exploited best by the best drivers and that the cars can run close together without a massive performance penalty.

Free innovation in F1 aerodynamics has produced some exotic looking machines. I have grown to appreciate the subtleties of all the flip ups and winglets. But at what cost? These cars are fantastic in clean air but are more sensitive to turbulance than their cleaner shaped forebears. This problem is compounded because these flip ups tend to increase the amount of turbulent air trailing behind a car.

We won't agree on how it is to be acheived but do we at least agree that regulation can be good for the sport?

Oh and I too am also interested in ground effect and its impact on close racing and overtaking - any takers on this one?

[freedom_honda]

F1 banned sculpted undersides in a bid to lower cornering speeds for 1983. In an effort to create better passing opportunities, the new spec Champ Car chassis being introduced in 2007 will generate nearly 50% of the total downforce of the car with sculpted underside tunnels versus the front and rear wings. This will reduce turbulent air behind the cars, enabling easier overtaking.

just found this from wiki.
maybe F1 should re-introduce ground effects then?

[Carlos]

A little more ground effects would be welcome, isn't that sort of what the central, rear diffuser is? The Lotus 78 introduced side pod diffusers and was regarded as the first evolutionary step towards a ground effects car, airfoil profiles, basically on each side underneath the floor, the rear diffuser is related, just a step away, an adaptation to contemporary rules. We will pro baby see changes to the aero rules of 2009 as the cars start to race, it will all sort out. I admire with whimsy and amusement the multiplication of flips and flaps, wings, strakes. a barged boards and vortex generators, just as those ancient experimental planes from the 1910's >1920's are amusing, not just biplanes but up to seven wings in a stack, I prefer a streamline envelope, the Lotus 88 was a simple envelope body compared to the cars of the era. It seems when a cluster of aero devices create such sensitivity that handling suffers in yaw, maybe molding a dozen aero devices to a car is approaching a conclusion. Probably as the 2009 rules evolve we will see the dimensions of the diffuser changed to offer more down force in the future. Or something else

[checkered]

Riveting I know but does it have any relevance to F1.

It has a massive

relevance to Formula One. Thus far, the regulations have been necessitated by safety (first by rudimentary measures, then by moral imperative relative to the evolution of applicable design and manufacturing techniques) and economics (ensuring that the framework is viable and attracting income by essentially trying to enforce close racing). The degrees of success have been varied, as in any human activity. The sport is late - very late - in recognising the ecological aspect; they're partly redeemed by some accidental synergies in relevant innovations but very far from adhering to standards where mere sustainability is the very minimum requirement.

Industries beginning to move beyond a zero sum game into contributing to the environment will cast a very unfavourable light upon contemporary Formula One indeed. This has everything to do with the moral imperative of safety and viable economics. Perhaps the elementary connection hasn't been universally recognised yet since much of the latest regulation (and planning thereof) absolutely refuses to allocate resources (human, collaborative and financial) to activities central in evolving these kinds of advances. I'm really worried that the ethos behind the rule making isn't altruistic and enabling enough, people just aren't accustomed to such things being profitable. Rather, the sport appears scared, condescending and restrictive - something that I've not come to associate with such a bold and upbeat endeavour yet.

This is also reflected to the general climate and quality of racing in Formula One. With such small technological margins we get such unseemly phenomena as great resources devoted to examining competitors' ideas (passively or otherwise) and incessant bickering about "creative interpretations of the rules" amounting to measurements sometimes smaller than can be readily perceived. The FIA has been reduced to reaction with regard to teams and general advances alike, rather than being proactive. I have to wonder whether this isn't because the popularity of the sport is fundamentally undervalued and misjudged? In times of such Global interactivity and synergies, 99% of people who willingly participate in F1 are reduced to answering multiple choice questionnaires about overtaking and occasionally flipping on the telly.

No, I feel Formula one is escaping its potential through its rules and regulations rather than living up to it. It's also physically escaping from environments where relevant and concurrent considerations threaten those of its structures and practices that have outlived their purpose. Borrowed time, that's what we're living on. It's very symptomatic that the Concorde agreement hasn't gotten a replacement yet. As an investor, I'd take a dim view of Formula One's prospects until such a time that there's again a clear belief that there's a future to it. The best embodiment of that would preferrably amount to a clear set of rules truly worthy of that future. Good racing begins with optimism about one's prospects of success.

I'll withhold my opinions about diffusers/ground effects until such a time that the OWG finally officially presents its findings.

[NickT]

Here here checkered, a thoughtful and interesting post. Thank you

[Mazz]

Why don't they just suck the cars to the ground with fans and the ground effect and cars won't lose any downforce when following another car.

[Rob W]

Why don't they just suck the cars to the ground with fans and the ground effect and cars won't lose any downforce when following another car.

Because when you hit a big bump or bottom out you lose all of that downforce and it can make for a very dangerous mix.

R

[wesley123]

Why don't they just suck the cars to the ground with fans and the ground effect and cars won't lose any downforce when following another car.

Because when you hit a big bump or bottom out you lose all of that downforce and it can make for a very dangerous mix.

R

If they allow groundeffect again then the cars will produce more downforce and the cars will be sucked on the road and to prevent that the bottom will hit the ground the cars will use really hard springs like they did in the eighties and the drivers will get hurt on tracks like monza were you have alot of bumps

[johny]

To bring the topic back to usefull discussion, what are the (exact) rules about lenghts of both front/rear wings? and moreover, do you think with kers and less aero car shape will change a lot? if yes, how will cars look like next year?

[Ogami musashi]

you have it all in the link i gave!

front wing 180cm wide, 7,5cm above the ground.

rear wing 80cm wide, 95 cm above the ground.