How would a "no downforce" modern F1 car perform?

[JordanMugen]

Team bosses also want a big surface to stick logos on

Some folks advocate for Formula One to be wingless (and diffuser-less) like Formula Ford. These folks call surfacing for downforce "aerocrap" and are strongly opposed to racing cars utilising the "free" grip (albeit with a large drag penalty and small weight penalty) offered by downforce.

The Formula Ford follows a "no downforce" philosophy and the regulations say clearly:

4.1 Any device designed to augment
aerodynamically the downthrust on the vehicle
is prohibited, as are aerofoils, nose fins or
spoilers of any type.

http://brsccff1600.co.uk/files/2018__FF ... 20Copy.pdf

The first part precludes downforce generation, while the second precludes any wings or airfoils that may be claimed by crafty competitors as being aero neutral or producing lift.



Do you think that such Formula Ford aero regulations would ever be possible in F1?

I'm guessing cornering accelerations would drop to around 2g (???) and lap times would increase by at least 30 seconds per lap.

I take it, there is no appetite among F1 teams for such a "no downforce" approach...?

Formula Fords only have about 160hp and have small 170mm wide rear tyres. I would be very curious how a similarly aerodynamically regulated F1 car with a 1000hp power unit and 400mm wide tyres would perform!

While the slipstream in Formula Ford and Vee is already powerful (with it sometimes being advantageous to give up the lead and then retake it on the last lap), would the slipstream be even more powerful again in F1?

[Tommy Cookers]

aerodynamic downforce doesn't produce free grip
unless we have open wheels

whether or not ADF benefits track performance depends on the track and the engine power
if we cut F1 fuel to 10 kg the cars might lap eg Monza faster without ADF

compared with nil ADF present ADF is less helpful to following cars but more helpful to wingsuited car-surfers

[Jolle]

1000 HP with no downforce and therefore reduced grip.... probably makes terrible racing because it will be all about not smoking the tires. Driving on egg shells, like having a wet track on slick tires, etc etc.

[JordanMugen]

aerodynamic downforce doesn't produce free grip

You are quite right! I had amended that imprecise language, thanks.

[Tim.Wright]

Willem Toet did an article on this a little while back:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/formula- ... illem-toet
The difference is indeed about 20s around Barcelona. Top speed is way higher though.

[Edax]

Formula Fords only have about 160hp and have small 170mm wide rear tyres. I would be very curious how a similarly aerodynamically regulated F1 car with a 1000hp power unit and 400mm wide tyres would perform!

While the slipstream in Formula Ford and Vee is already powerful (with it sometimes being advantageous to give up the lead and then retake it on the last lap), would the slipstream be even more powerful again in F1?

A superkart would do about the same laptimes with 100 hp less.

There should be the ideal combination of power/weight/wheelbase/wheel size to make an optimal race car, based on grip alone. Although I am not at all into racecar design I suspect it is not out there and I don’t think F1 or Formula ford are close.

But I do think that such a car would be a good basis for a racecar that is less dependent on airo.

I always have had a special fondness for the Brabham Bt50 ever since it took to the track. If you look at the philosophy that these people had when making this car, It would not surprise me if an aero minimal car would be closer to their design than a current F1 car. Short frame (1 meter shorter wheelbase than f1 current), small low sitting I4 engine, 590 kg dry weight, complemented with ground effect aero. It was a bit like the mini’s racing ford falcons and the likes.

Unfortunately F1 regulators adopted a bit of a ricer mentality to speed at the time. A fast car must have as many cylinders as you can fit under the hood, large wheels, big wings (because wings make you go fast) and foremost must be loud (because noise is equivalent to speed). But I never have stopped wondering how this design would have evolved if they hadn’t stopped it.

[Greg Locock]

How did OP get to 2g? F1 tires are around 1.5 mu.

[Just_a_fan]

The simple answer to the idea of a Formula Ford style F1 car is: it'd be slower than a Formula Ford car.

It would be all but undriveable as it would be much too powerful for the tyres. You'd have to apply power so gently to accelerate - every straight would be like an F1 start but without increasing grip as speed increased - and forget about applying power in a turn of any sort, as the car would be sideways in an instant.

It'd be funny to watch for 10 minutes, I suppose. But then we'd all go and do something else.

[Tommy Cookers]

... It would be all but undriveable as it would be much too powerful for the tyres....
It'd be funny to watch for 10 minutes, I suppose. ...

the 1937 etc GP cars had about the same ICE power and weight (and less than half the tyre grip)
when M-Bs GP-intended V12 engine (too heavy to make the weight limit) was looking towards 800 hp
as was the V16 BRM and the Novi

[JordanMugen]

How did OP get to 2g? F1 tires are around 1.5 mu.

Just a guess

So what would it be, Mr. Locock? Does 1.5 mu mean it would be 1.5g, or much more than 2g?

I just assumed that since a very sporty road car can already make 1.2g or so, that an F1 car on very big, sticky slicks would make much more than that.

the 1937 etc GP cars had about the same ICE power and weight (and less than half the tyre grip)

Agreed, I don't think it would be undrivable.

[Greg Locock]

Your friction circle would be 1.5g. How much of that you spend cornering, accelerating and braking would be up to the driver. Finding the mu values for tires is hard, and with less downforce they could make the tires stickier for a given life.

[Just_a_fan]

... It would be all but undriveable as it would be much too powerful for the tyres....
It'd be funny to watch for 10 minutes, I suppose. ...

the 1937 etc GP cars had about the same ICE power and weight (and less than half the tyre grip)
when M-Bs GP-intended V12 engine (too heavy to make the weight limit) was looking towards 800 hp
as was the V16 BRM and the Novi

W125 had 600bhp on a good day, not 1000bhp. Agreed the tyres were not great.

[FW17]

I think it will be totally drivable with a 1000 hp

An EV has 800 hp and 1300 nm of torque and has no wheel spin as it has been tuned by software to have no wheel spin, and this is with road tyres

A track car can be made with 1000 hp with almost no wheel spin with all the modern engine maps they use and a backdoor traction control

But why 1000 hp, isnt about 600 -700 hp adequate to test the limits of the drivers?

[vorticism]

Finding the mu values for tires is hard, and with less downforce they could make the tires stickier for a given life.

Is there a term in the tyre world for the limit of compound pliability? If too soft, it would peel off the carcass without providing grip.

[Greg Locock]

Dunno. Getting tire people to explain anything requires thumbscrews and the rack (in 32 years I have been inside a tire factory twice, and once in the design office). At work we have to reverse engineer the tires to understand them, there's a lady in Detroit who spends her whole life cutting up tires and telling us about them. That's proprietary though.

So you are talking about getting the tread layer to stick to the inner layer over the plies, which judging by the things I see at the side of the freeways is a challenge for truck tires, presumably retreads.

This article has some details that might be worth chasing down https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/tire- ... lity-19113