F1 cars inability to follow: Accidental or Deliberate?

[kekekeke]

Is the current situation regarding the F1 cars inability to follow other cars closely an unfortunate by-product of advanced aerodynamics or the do the teams perform active research oh how to make the air left behind as dirty as possible to hinder competing cars?

[WhiteBlue]

accidental. the objective is being faster. almost allways that involves finding more downforce. downforce unfortunately aways comes with drag. but if they can get the same down force with better aero efficiency (less drag) they would always go that way because it would be even faster. it shows that turbulence, drag or dirty air isn't something teams would deliberately produce.

[bhall]

I'm not saying anything, but I'm just saying...

[Ogami musashi]

That's a bit more complicated.

There're two problems in F1 todays that are opposed. There's not enough slipstream and you loose downforce.

This situation is paradoxal.

To gain Slipstream you need recirculation behind the car, this creates a low pressure area where the following car can accelerate faster.

But low pressure means also that you loose downforce.

So in an ideal condition, you always loose some downforce.

Here come the first problem, the team pursuing drag reduction goals have decreased the slipstream zone.

So you can't accelerate faster tha much.

One would then except to have more downforce then, but another problem comes. The geometry and type flows created by F1 cars create vortices and some rather unstable freestream velocity vectors.

Not only those vortices decrease downforce by a far larger manner than a slipstream would (well in fact they combine)but also the vortices impacting the following car wing increase the induced drag on the surfaces. Thus just by the effect you loose downforce AND you drag more.

Added to the fact the slipstream is not big, you then have the worst of the two, you can't get close to the guy and you can't follow him.

A real design to actually produce a car that would prevent everyone to overtake would have taken too much time, as considering the regulations, finding tenths is already a huge task. Also the effects on turbulence on the following cars depend on those cars themselves and their geometry.

But i've heard some teams studied a bit the thing and it is notorious some cars are easier to follow than some others but nothing proves it is intentional.


In anyway the responsible for this mess are the regulations. Dimensions would be not that constrained, aggressive profiles and vortex lift would not have been employed that much.

The loss of downforce is a question to be resolved. The slipstream will be better next year, but on the longer term the question for this latter is posed and drag reduction is a goal.

In this case, moveable aerodynamics will be of some use, just like KERS.

[Belatti]

Today I was reading this Gilles quote in another thread in his honour:

"I love motor racing. To me it's a sport, not a technical exercise. My deal Formula One car would be something like a McLaren M23 with a big normally aspirated engine, 800 hp, 21 inch rear tyres. A lot of people say we
should have narrower tires, but I don't agree because you need big tyres to slow you down when you spin. And you need a lot of horsepower to unstick big tyres, to make the cars slide. That would be a bloody fantastic spectacle, I can tell you. We would take corners one gear lower than we do now, and get the cars sideways. You know, people still rave about Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 72, and I understand that. I agree with them.
That's the kind of entertainment I want to give the crowds. Smoke the tyres ! Yeah ! I [care about the fans], because I used to be one of them ! I believe the crowd is really losing out at the moment, and that's
bad."

I really love him! Watch his videos and you´ll understand how to make the cars to achieve close followings!

[WhiteBlue]

the genie of aerodynamics had already been freed from his bottle at the time of Villeneuve. we can't make that undone. aero is essential to certain performance ranges. the real trick is to keep it to a reasonable level. F1 did a lousy job there for a long time. the best solution in my view would still be setting a ceiling that the cars are not allowed to exceed and direct all aero research towards reduction of drag.

[Belatti]

I would reduce wings dimentions, forbid the 10.000 aero devices that plague nowadays cars and increase diffuser, together with bigger slicks. Thats all.

Then aero genies would still have to work to reduce drag, but car grip will mainly depend on mechanical grip and diffuser

[flynfrog]

IMO only two things need to be done to imporve overtaking

let them put the front wing down the the ground and give the car more power

way more more than the tires can hope to handle

[Scotracer]

IMO only two things need to be done to imporve overtaking

let them put the front wing down the the ground and give the car more power

way more more than the tires can hope to handle

I like your thinking

Who thinks we should lobby to make the 2.4 V8s Twin Turbos? I'll write up the draft proposal to the FIA in a bit

I think they should limit the front wing width to 200mm less than current levels but lower it to only a 20mm above the reference plane but also allow it to be much deeper than current levels (i.e. going beyond the suspension components allowing much, much more ground effect. Whilst doing this, reduce the maximum allowable rear wing angle of attack (easy way to make it still efficient is to move it rearward to 2004 levels) and increase the efficiency of the diffuser.

This would counteract the under-steer effect that ground-effect cars have because it would be more balanced. Well, in theory it would

[flynfrog]

and give them Ti skidplates and let them scrape

[Conceptual]

and give them Ti skidplates and let them scrape

I may be off, but wouldnt Tungsten be better?

Higher melting temp, great hardness, and a bit heavier (lower CoG?)

Chris

[flynfrog]

and give them Ti skidplates and let them scrape

I may be off, but wouldnt Tungsten be better?

Higher melting temp, great hardness, and a bit heavier (lower CoG?)

Chris

not as good as Depleted Uranium

[Ogami musashi]

I don't agree that grip should come from tyres only.

Aerodynamical grip has the property to increase with speed, while tyre grip is relatively constant.

Driving wise the aero grip then have a much liked feature by many drivers, the fact that to get into some corners you have to go faster.
This was the case in istanbul both for turn 7 and 8 (that's why they were on medium downforce settings for wings, because they need to go fast to take the turn, so low drag is necessary).

I think also comments by gilles villeneuve are not very valid because he drove at a period were ground effects cars were ridiculous driving wise because the type of tracks and the cars made that at some point, there were no high speed corners challenge at all, all you needed was to smash the throttle to gain considerably more grip than what was needed to get through the turn.

many drivers were completly fed up with that and took the 1983 season as long waited one with flat bottoms.

I understand that some people like to see cars sliding, but i don't.

I think what is needed is a good balance between downforce, tyre grip and suspension/chassis dynamics.

the subject of dimensions of aerodynamic devices is complicated.

My ideas are:

-lot's of power (as suggested more than the tyre can handle): driving challenge
-high grip, through a balance of tyre and downforce and suspension: high speed cornering, ability to overtake even in turns
-low drag for high straight line speed: forcing cars to have heavy brakings while retaining short braking zones for slower corners (balanced with the time spent into the corner)
-no driver aids: driving challenge
-interesting tracks: driving challenge/overtaking possibilities
-sporting regulations adapted


I think next year we shall have something like this but there's room for much improvement, it remains to be seen if downforce reduction will not affect too much the high speed corners and if drag will not goes up.

[WhiteBlue]

principally I agree with ogami musashi. for performance a race car needs tyre/suspension grip in slow corners, reasonable aero downforce for fast corners, obviously power and good brakes. it is the right mixture that makes for interesting racing. a good indication for speed in fast corners are the lateral G-forces they reach. I think that the 5 g that we see nowadays are excessive. high speed in fast corners necessitates wider and wider run offs that remove the spectators from the track and more sophisticated barriers that are also costly to the circuit owners that generally do not have excess cash (due to Bernie). So time should be added at fast corners cutting max G-force to 2.5 and more time saved in slow corners by adding mechanical grip. This should be done without creating further aerodynamical drag. so going back to wide tracks and increasing the wheel while keeping the tyres to the same diameter would be good. By using low profile tyres the engineers could come up with much better suspension and the brake leverage would be much better.

[Ogami musashi]

principally I agree with ogami musashi. for performance a race car needs tyre/suspension grip in slow corners, reasonable aero downforce for fast corners, obviously power and good brakes. it is the right mixture that makes for interesting racing. a good indication for speed in fast corners are the lateral G-forces they reach. I think that the 5 g that we see nowadays are excessive. high speed in fast corners necessitates wider and wider run offs that remove the spectators from the track and more sophisticated barriers that are also costly to the circuit owners that generally do not have excess cash (due to Bernie). So time should be added at fast corners cutting max G-force to 2.5 and more time saved in slow corners by adding mechanical grip. This should be done without creating further aerodynamical drag. so going back to wide tracks and increasing the wheel while keeping the tyres to the same diameter would be good. By using low profile tyres the engineers could come up with much better suspension and the brake leverage would be much better.

What you suggest is contradictory, 2,5G is not a fast corner, if you give the cars high tyre grip.

A current F1 car can already pull that figure into 80km/h corners, so making the cars going through high speed corners at that rate would simply means, either you don't go faster, either you're not turning as much so that brings down the challenge.

5G's is fine. We talking about F1 cars, high speed is a challenge every driver wants to get.

Current F1 cars don't even go to 5g's anymore ,2006 cars were frequently above, but since the sole tyre supplier it is more like 4,5g.

In 2006, turn 8 was taken at 5,5G's, this year the max was 4,7G.

The run off areas are not a big deal to me, as at the entry of turns and exit you can be pretty close.