Concept for regulations to improve overtaking

[Vyssion]

Most F1 cars aren't struggling for downforce at 300kph+, quite opposite in fact, they want to shed downforce/induced drag at that speed, as they have more than enough downforce to navigate turns at those speeds save for at most three turns on any given track. Where F1 cars struggle at, the biggest performance difference in terms of aero comes in the low and mid speed corners. The speed range of 120-260kph is where good aero makes a difference for the vast majority of tracks, and conditions. Given the same engine, improving downforce in this speed range will make a bigger difference than downforce above it.

Aside from Copse in Silverstone, turn 11 in Hungary, Pouhon in Spa, turns 3 & 9 in Barcelona, Turn 11 & 12 in Australia, Turn 7 in China, turn 1 in Japan, and turns 5, 6 & 12 in Sepang there are no real corners in the 260kph+ speed range.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I picked 300km/hr as just a filler for the statement I was trying to make - which was that the flow conditions are a momentum dominated one rather than a pressure one. Even at 150km/hr, I'm not sure whether it will give a large enough downforce to out-do the current set up. And yeah you are right that at 300+ km/hr, they are trying to minimize drag (which energizing the boundary layer with a fan may do), but since at those sorts of speeds it's the boundary layer that needs to be helped and not the bulk flow, I don't know how much good it will do. You'd have to turn the fan into a jet most likely

[godlameroso]

Most F1 cars aren't struggling for downforce at 300kph+, quite opposite in fact, they want to shed downforce/induced drag at that speed, as they have more than enough downforce to navigate turns at those speeds save for at most three turns on any given track. Where F1 cars struggle at, the biggest performance difference in terms of aero comes in the low and mid speed corners. The speed range of 120-260kph is where good aero makes a difference for the vast majority of tracks, and conditions. Given the same engine, improving downforce in this speed range will make a bigger difference than downforce above it.

Aside from Copse in Silverstone, turn 11 in Hungary, Pouhon in Spa, turns 3 & 9 in Barcelona, Turn 11 & 12 in Australia, Turn 7 in China, turn 1 in Japan, and turns 5, 6 & 12 in Sepang there are no real corners in the 260kph+ speed range.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I picked 300km/hr as just a filler for the statement I was trying to make - which was that the flow conditions are a momentum dominated one rather than a pressure one. Even at 150km/hr, I'm not sure whether it will give a large enough downforce to out-do the current set up. And yeah you are right that at 300+ km/hr, they are trying to minimize drag (which energizing the boundary layer with a fan may do), but since at those sorts of speeds it's the boundary layer that needs to be helped and not the bulk flow, I don't know how much good it will do. You'd have to turn the fan into a jet most likely

Well the fan, plasma actuator, whatever, can help the momentum of airflow, particularly in instances where it's prone to detachment or instability. There have been a few experiments with model airplanes that have no moving flaps, and roll, pitch, and yaw with strictly active flow control.

[gshevlin]

IMHO the current regulations, from the perspective of facilitating overtaking, are the worst possible set of regulations we could have. The FIA went ahead with the regulation changes despite leading drivers (notably Lewis Hamilton) warning them that the changes would make overtaking more difficult.
F1 aero observers such as former Jordan TD Gary Anderson have been pointing out for years that the #1 issue is that the front wing determines and shapes much of the airflow over, under and around the cars, and the front wing is always negatively impacted by running in turbulent air behind other cars.
So my take on this is that the only regulation change set which makes any sense comprises the following:
1. Allow underbody downforce to be generated from venturi tunnels (yes, its ground effect).
2. Severely restrict the size, shape, number of elements and maximum angle of incidence of the front wing.
3. Tighten the regulations once more to disallow the peripheral sprouting of devices such as T wings and monkey seats and bargeboards. The regulations did stop those devices, but somewhere along the way in the current iteration of the regulations, loopholes were found to exist

Remember that in the 1982 season, a lot of F1 cars, in the ground effect era, ran without front wings on medium and high speed circuits, with small front wings acting as trim tabs on other circuits.

Another area of the regulations that should be reviewed is braking equipment. Current F1 cars are around 5 meters long. This means that a clean clear overtaking attempt into a corner requires a following driver to be able to gain 10 meters under braking. With the incredibly short braking distances obtainable by modern brakes in F1, that is next to impossible at many corners. This problem, like the aero interference, is getting worse as the cornering speed of the cars increases, since the increase in cornering speeds effectively eliminates some corners entirely, and results in other corners being reduced merely to kinks or bends in the track.
Drivers and teams clearly like the increased speed of the current-specification cars, however front wing and aero management has reached a level of development where continuing to allow it will always leave F1 with an overtaking problem.

One good thing which does appear to be happening, is for Liberty to have an independent team to develop the regulations. The original Working Group was a complete waste of time and money, nothing at all useful emerged from its analysis and deliberations. The group was the equivalent of putting the foxes in charge of the chicken house and expecting them to become vegetarians.

[jjn9128]

Yours is a long post so I'm going to answer bit-by-bit.

IMHO the current regulations, from the perspective of facilitating overtaking, are the worst possible set of regulations we could have. The FIA went ahead with the regulation changes despite leading drivers (notably Lewis Hamilton) warning them that the changes would make overtaking more difficult.
F1 aero observers such as former Jordan TD Gary Anderson have been pointing out for years that the #1 issue is that the front wing determines and shapes much of the airflow over, under and around the cars, and the front wing is always negatively impacted by running in turbulent air behind other cars.
So my take on this is that the only regulation change set which makes any sense comprises the following:
1. Allow underbody downforce to be generated from venturi tunnels (yes, its ground effect).
2. Severely restrict the size, shape, number of elements and maximum angle of incidence of the front wing.
3. Tighten the regulations once more to disallow the peripheral sprouting of devices such as T wings and monkey seats and bargeboards. The regulations did stop those devices, but somewhere along the way in the current iteration of the regulations, loopholes were found to exist

Remember that in the 1982 season, a lot of F1 cars, in the ground effect era, ran without front wings on medium and high speed circuits, with small front wings acting as trim tabs on other circuits.

Going all the way back to the original post it is the whole car not just the front wing which is affected by a wake. The effect of the redirected front wing wake is a part of the cause of downforce loss down the car, but is secondary to the direct influence of the wake on the car.

I did suggest a Venturi tunnel underbody, the current iteration of my design is much closer to the indycar/cart floors of the mid-2000s than a modern F1 floor. The main reason I proposed it is for the dowforce to be produced by a single negative pressure region - therefore preventing the balance change in a wake. What I disagree about is using the floor to product 'most' of the downforce as having a high downforce, low aspect ratio rear wing has been shown in my research to aid the introduction of 'high energy' air flow for a following car. As soon as the rules were announced (even when the original idea for the rules was being discussed) I said in discussions with teams that it would have a negative effect on the wheel-to-wheel racing, nobody seemed to care though. The main thing I cited though was the effect the bigger wheels and diffuser would have on the wake.

I wasn't around for the 82 season but Frank Dernie said it best when he suggested that the 'ground effect' formula isn't necessarily the cure all solution. As the ban on Venturis didn't cause an immediate dearth of overtaking from 1983.

Another area of the regulations that should be reviewed is braking equipment. Current F1 cars are around 5 meters long. This means that a clean clear overtaking attempt into a corner requires a following driver to be able to gain 10 meters under braking. With the incredibly short braking distances obtainable by modern brakes in F1, that is next to impossible at many corners. This problem, like the aero interference, is getting worse as the cornering speed of the cars increases, since the increase in cornering speeds effectively eliminates some corners entirely, and results in other corners being reduced merely to kinks or bends in the track.

Agreed. Not only brakes though. Driver etiquette is another a big obstacle affecting nose-to-tail racing. If when the attacking driver gets alongside all he does is drive his opponent off the track there's no chance for a proper battle. Best racing is often between team-mates for the reason then rarely are so cut-throat. In the past with proper kerbs and grass lining the track such a move would probably put the attacking driver out too. To solve both these though the aerodynamics need to be addressed so the cars can get close enough in the first place.

Track design is something which is rarely discussed, why is it some tracks produce great racing, while others less so. THIS is something which needs to be studied - preferably funded by Tilke in penance for some of the tedious circuits he's s**t out.

Drivers and teams clearly like the increased speed of the current-specification cars, however front wing and aero management has reached a level of development where continuing to allow it will always leave F1 with an overtaking problem.

One good thing which does appear to be happening, is for Liberty to have an independent team to develop the regulations. The original Working Group was a complete waste of time and money, nothing at all useful emerged from its analysis and deliberations. The group was the equivalent of putting the foxes in charge of the chicken house and expecting them to become vegetarians.

Should we care what the drivers think? Drivers don't know anything really other than driving fast. Their feedback to teams is predominantly a circuit map where they draw smiley or frowney faces on each corner. You could replicate a lot of the feeling of liveliness created by the downforce this year by reducing the car weight significantly. The drivers who were around at the time enjoyed driving the grooved tyre cars of the mid-2000s more than the 2014-16 cars, because the last group of cars were bloated and flabby, as well as the fuel management issue.

I don't know if the original working group's solutions were all that bad. Teams are large and full of clever people and CFD led them down a development path which recovered more downforce than they had in 2008. What we also got in 2009 was the double diffuser, i.e. more downforce from the floor than desired by the regs. If the DDD had been banned straight away maybe the season and subsequent years would have panned out differently - maybe we wouldn't have got Pirelli tyres or the DRS.

[strad]

Track design is something which is rarely discussed, why is it some tracks produce great racing, while others less so. THIS is something which needs to be studied - preferably funded by Tilke in penance for some of the tedious circuits he's s**t out.

A giant +1 for that. However you answered that problem in the last paragraph before that.
Enough with a ¼mile paved runoff. Enough of not staying within the track limits without reason to leave except to gain an advantage.
Technically running a line that takes you off track un-forced is cheating.

[Powerslide]

had an interesting discussion on facebook on this. i was thinking that, if a track has a section that demands downforce then designed with a long straight, what can happen is when team set their cars for high downforce to get a quick lap, a larger stream of dirty air is left behind for a car behind, which is also set up for high downforce, to benefit even more from it as high downforce settings with high drag will not be so effected by drag under dirty air. so a long straight may give time for a car behind to catch

Track design is something which is rarely discussed, why is it some tracks produce great racing, while others less so. THIS is something which needs to be studied - preferably funded by Tilke in penance for some of the tedious circuits he's s**t out.

[jjn9128]

had an interesting discussion on facebook on this. i was thinking that, if a track has a section that demands downforce then designed with a long straight, what can happen is when team set their cars for high downforce to get a quick lap, a larger stream of dirty air is left behind for a car behind, which is also set up for high downforce, to benefit even more from it as high downforce settings with high drag will not be so effected by drag under dirty air. so a long straight may give time for a car behind to catch

I think what happens more often is they compromise the cornering performance for better straight line speed. China, Malaysia, Spa, Azerbaijan, Mexico all mostly require higher downforce, but with one sector with a massive straight(s). With the exception of Mexico (high altitude) the teams tend to run with a medium downforce package. Plus, if you get ahead on the fast stuff it's easier to hold up the other guy in the twisty bits not the other way around.

A giant +1 for that. However you answered that problem in the last paragraph before that.
Enough with a ¼mile paved runoff. Enough of not staying within the track limits without reason to leave except to gain an advantage.
Technically running a line that takes you off track un-forced is cheating.

Agreed. I always thought a strip of grass (preferably watered before every session) or a low friction paint which doesn't take rubber at the immediate limits of the circuit may solve this while still having the necessary run off for cases of proper accidents. Or just zero tolerance policing, after a few penalties the drivers would soon catch on. Though I think TOCA tried this in BTCC and there were a lot of complaints.

[strad]

Let them complain.
For some time now the tracks and sanctioning bodies have allowed themselves to be at the mercy of the constructors instead of the other way around.
And yes I agree that if they would just stick to their guns, then

after a few penalties the drivers would soon catch on.

.

[jjn9128]

Let them complain.

Hahaha. If it's not that I'm sure they'd find something else to complain about

[Ogami musashi]

Following this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z97xX- ... =hootsuite

It also implies that wake is predominantly a DP deficit as well as the fact rear wing wake is not detrimental hence the OWG conclusions in 2009 seem sound.

Notice that Willem Toet speaks about the cornering wake which i as supposed is not equivalent to the straight line one as there is an inertial drift of the wake.

Interesting video i find.

[jjn9128]

Following this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z97xX- ... =hootsuite

It also implies that wake is predominantly a DP deficit as well as the fact rear wing wake is not detrimental hence the OWG conclusions in 2009 seem sound.

Notice that Willem Toet speaks about the cornering wake which i as supposed is not equivalent to the straight line one as there is an inertial drift of the wake.

Interesting video i find.

Yes I saw this. I'm not sure if I like these videos or not. I find the animations so oversimplified that they are actually almost misleading.

[Ogami musashi]

Following this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z97xX- ... =hootsuite

It also implies that wake is predominantly a DP deficit as well as the fact rear wing wake is not detrimental hence the OWG conclusions in 2009 seem sound.

Notice that Willem Toet speaks about the cornering wake which i as supposed is not equivalent to the straight line one as there is an inertial drift of the wake.

Interesting video i find.

Yes I saw this. I'm not sure if I like these videos or not. I find the animations so oversimplified that they are actually almost misleading.

I was pointing at willem toet's comments; obviously the 3D animations are simplified but he was adding comments that were obviously from his own experience.

[KeiKo403]

When asked about splitting race strategies between their cars, I remember hearing a TP say once (I think it was Horner) that it only guarantees you're wrong 50% of the time.

Now with that same logic, designing and building 2 cars to win a race can only mean you're also guaranteed to be wrong at least 50% of the time. Therefore, is it possible within the regulations to build a car which is capable of racing and running competitively in dirty air?

[jjn9128]

When asked about splitting race strategies between their cars, I remember hearing a TP say once (I think it was Horner) that it only guarantees you're wrong 50% of the time.

Now with that same logic, designing and building 2 cars to win a race can only mean you're also guaranteed to be wrong at least 50% of the time. Therefore, is it possible within the regulations to build a car which is capable of racing and running competitively in dirty air?

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know

TBH it depends on a number of factors. It should be possible, but there are a lot of conflicting opinions/desires/motivations. The main issues are drag and how downforce is generated, both from the point of view of how that affects another car and how the following car is affected.

There are issues which could be simply solved, I think covering the wheels would reduce the loss causing parts of the wake, but there would be complaints that goes against the 'DNA' of F1, whatever that is.

Team principals want the cars to have a lot of body surface area with not much 'clutter' so their sponsors logos show up - it's the reason McLaren vetoed talk of keeping the shark fin - because it half covers the rear wing from some angles. They want rid of the VGs at the front of the sidepods and 'clean' front wings with only 1 or 2 elements so they can put nice big stickers on. But if you wanted to get rid of the front/rear wings to make following easier, they'd object because that's tens of thousands of dollars per race gone.

Fans want the sport to be the 'pinnacle', again whatever that means, I don't recall F1 ever being the zenith of what is possible in engineering. But this unspecifiable desire is why the 2017 cars are so much harder to pass. They increased drag and downforce from the last few years to make the cars 'faster' (still slower over a race distance than 15 years ago) without consideration to the implications. The massive wheels are contributing to the difficulty in following and were only brought in for nostalgia, i.e. to make the cars look like they did in 1993, not looking forward or being 'the pinnacle'.

IMHO the FE car is close to being the ultimate solution for a car which can follow, as it has about 1/2 the drag of an F1 car (0.8CxS vs 1.5CxS) as it only has 1/4 of the power (200kW vs 745kW), BUT it only has 1/3 the downforce (1.7CzS vs 5.0CzS). You could increase the downforce, for a small increase of drag and power and have a very good race car.

I was thinking about this the other day and my new idea would look something like a cross between the Brabham BT52, a Formula E and the deltawing. Low drag, low weight, high power-to-weight, F1 doesn't need the most power or the biggest wheels or the most complex solutions to be the fastest/best/most competitive race series. Because arguably at the moment it fails on at least two of those.

[Just_a_fan]

As always, it comes down to what is "good racing"? In Brazil this weekend, Hamilton and Ricciardo overtook lots of cars and scythed through the field. Was it exciting? Not especially. The only bit of Hamilton's race that was interesting was the few laps he was behind Kimi. The "will he, won't he" was what made it interesting.

The exciting bits were the likes of Alonso and Massa fighting lap after lap. There we had mismatched cars (and drivers, to be honest) with one being good in the twisties, the other on the straights. The lack of overtaking didn't make that dull, it made it watchable.

It seems to me that the desire for lots of overtaking is as a result of a lack of understanding of what F1 is. It's like trying to make all cricket matches in to T20 games. Test matches are a very different to T20, and no less enjoyable to those who love the game.

Overtaking should be possible, yes, but it shouldn't be easy. Trying to create lots of overtaking just risks removing the race craft and skill that a racing driver should, by definition, have.